Complaint Investigation Report

Allegation: Staff did not adequately supervise clients resulting in inappropriate interactions between clients. It is alleged that on October 12, 2023, clients went to volunteer to the LA Food Bank as a day program community outing activity. While at the food bank it is alleged that client (C2) made fun of client (C1) and called him inappropriate sexual names and then proceeded to touch C1's genitalia private area. The incident occurred during a restroom break. A total of five (5) clients were interviewed. Two (2) out of the five (5) clients interviewed stated that client (C2) has inappropriately touched them. Client (C1) stated the incident occurred outside the restroom, as client (C2) was walking out. Client (C1) told C2 "No, stop it" and C2 laughed and proceeded to touch C1 a second time. Client (C1) did not notify the two staff (S1 & S2) that were responsible for supervision of the two groups (total of 6 clients). The client/staff ratio is 3 to 1. Client (C2) was interviewed and revealed that they did touch C1 in their private part and staff did not see the incident. Client (C2) stated that it was done in a playful manner and proceeded to say that they play around with other clients too. Client (C2) confirmed the incident happened outside the restroom. Client (C2) stated that when staff asked about the incident they were not truthful because they do not want to be in trouble. Client (C3) stated that during a community outing to the park last week, C2 touched C3's back in a sexual inappropriate way. C3 stated that C2 "sexually harassed me." Client (C3's) initial reaction was to hit C2, but they did not. Client (C3) did not report the incident to staff and feels there is enough staff supervision.

A total of four (4) staff were interviewed. Staff (S1) and staff (S2) went to the food bank with the clients the day the incident occurred. Both staff (S1 & S2) stated they did not have any knowledge of the alleged incident. However, both S1 & S2 stated that client (C2) is known to say inappropriate comments out loud. On the day of the incident, male staff (S1) escorted the four (4) clients to the restroom during their break. The female staff (S2) stayed with the female clients in the table distribution area. According to all staff, they have not observed C2 inappropriately touch any clients, nor have any clients reported inappropriate touching and/or sexual harassment done by C2. Staff were notified of the incident the following day when C1's mother called to complain. Administrator stated that the clients were separated into different groups and are no longer going out on outings together. In addition, the day program notified C1 and C2's parents of the incident, and have requested an interdisciplinary meeting with the Regional Center and responsible parties.

Staff interviews revealed that client (C2) says vulgar things. Per record review, C1 has history of story fabrication, and client (C2's) documents do not indicate history of sexual misconduct. However, client (C2) admitted they touched C1 inappropriately. Therefore, there is sufficient evidence to corroborate the allegation.

Based on interviews conducted, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met, therefore the above allegation is found to be SUBSTANTIATED . Deficiency is being cited according to California Code of Regulations, Title 22. See LIC 9099D.

An exit interview was conducted with Administrator Ellisset Ramirez. A copy of the report and appeal rights were issued.