Complaint Investigation Report
The investigation revealed the following: Allegation- Staff withheld residents cash resources.
On 03/02/23 LPA interviewed administrator, Pearl Lamb about the allegation. LPA asked if the staff were withholding the residents cash resources. The administrator denied the allegation. LPA Scott and the administrator went through each resident’s (R1-R4) cash resources (cash box, bank statements, receipts) and verified that all monies were accounted for. The administrator counted each resident’s cash box in front of the LPA, and everything was in order. LPA further verified that no one other than the administrator and the Program Supervisor, Vanessa Vazquez (S4) has access to the resident’s money.
On 03/02/23 LPA Scott verified that the cash resources box for R1 contained $77.60 bank statement of $69.91, R2 contained $28.97 bank statement of $258.45, R3 contained $81.37 bank statement of $3.49, and R4 contained $226.12 bank statement of $20.37.
On 03/02/23 LPA interviewed R1 about the allegation that the staff was withholding cash resources from the residents, and R1 stated that there was not a problem with any of R1s cash resources and was able to use the money when required. R1 is independent and has access to a debit card. LPA was not able to interview R2-R4 because they are non-verbal; but verified their cash resources and they were in order. Based on the interview the facility is not withholding any money from the resident. And R1 states that R1 is happy with the facility and the treatment, care, and supervision given.
On 03/02/23, LPA interviewed S2-S4 and verified that S2-S3 did not have access to the resident’s money but S4 does. However, when the residents go out on outings, they have money to spend on a debit card given to the staff by the administrator (S1) or the Program Supervisor (S4), that they use to spend on whatever items they want or require such as: snacks, clothes, t-shirts, etc.
Based on interviews, available evidence, observation, information received, and records reviewed there was not enough sufficient evidence to support the allegation. Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur, therefore the allegation is deemed unsubstantiated.
An exit interview was conducted with Pearl Lamb, administrator and a hard copy of the report was provided.
Source: California Department of Social Services, Community Care Licensing. Methodology · Report a correction