Complaint Investigation Report

In an interview with a staff (S2) and review of staff statements, it was explained that R1 had been evaluated during this trial period and had exhibited concerning behaviors, including bullying behavior and the showing of inappropriate (racist) contents to staff members, which raised concerns for the staff. These concerns were shared with R1 and their planning team, and a plan to address them was put in place, with continued discussions regarding potential additional days for R1 to attend the program.

Through interviews with staff members, emphasized that they do not engage in discriminatory practices, stating that their goal is to ensure all clients are treated fairly and are given the support they need. The Arc program is also reported to be at full capacity on certain days, which can complicate scheduling, especially when additional days are requested by clients.

Regarding the concerns raised about R1 being "targeted" or pushed out of the program, there is no preponderance of evidence that these actions were motivated by discrimination. The interviews conducted with staff indicated that R1’s trial period was being actively monitored. Staff interviews revealed that no staff member had suggested that R1 be removed from the program, and they expressed their willingness to work with R1 and support team to resolve any concerns and potentially offer more days at attend the program as appropriate.

Additionally, the behavior issues identified, including R1’s previous job loss due to behavioral challenges, were considered as part of R1’s overall assessment, noting that admitting potential participant to the program is a case-by-case basis. Interview and record reviews revealed that R1 missed 7-8 days during R1’s trial period from mid-January 2025 to March 2025, considering R1 was attending 2 times a week during that trial.

Interview with 3 day program clients revealed that, collectively, have not experience discrimination by day program staff; and expressed satisfaction with the program and no concerns regarding staff or the services provided.

Finally, the documentation reviewed, including signed agreements and individual program plan (IPP), supports that R1 was aware of and agreed to the behavioral expectations and terms of participation. Record reviews also revealed that R1 has history of behaviors that were considered during R1's admission assessment to the day program.

In conclusion, while R1’s behavior and requests for increased attendance were scrutinized, there is no preponderance of evidence to claim that staff members engaged in discriminatory behavior towards R1. Therefore, this allegation was UNSUBSTANTIATED. A finding of unsubstantiated means that although the allegation may have happened the preponderance of evidence does not prove it.

Exit interview was conducted with Karyn Gregorious and a copy of this report and appeal rights were provided.