Complaint Investigation Report

Facility did not ensure the safety of resident:

In regards to the allegation, it was reported that female clients are subject to sexual harassment. The facility, which is a short term crisis residential treatment program, is located next to another facility, which is a substance abuse treatment center. There were times when both programs would participate in group activities, lunches and outings together exposing the clients from both programs. During the investigation, LPA was not able to identify any clients or witnesses that were subject to sexual harassment. Clients that were interviewed denied ever being harassed. Staff interviews could no confirm the allegation. Based on the information obtained, there was insufficient evidence to corroborate the allegation. Therefore, the findings are Unsubstantiated at this time.

In regards to the allegation, it was reported that because the facility is understaffed, all group activities are done together. It was also reported that there is usually only one staff at night. This staff would sometimes fall asleep, leaving clients feeling unsafe and unprotected. Interviews with clients reveal that staffing is always sufficient. There were no concerns made of facility being under staff. Review of staff schedule also indicate that facility has sufficient staffing. Facility retains anywhere between two to three staff scheduled to work the morning, night and afternoon shift. The program director is also always present in the afternoon. LPA also conducted a physical plant inspection and observed enough staff. Based on the information obtained, there was insufficient evidence to corroborate the allegation. Therefore, the findings are Unsubstantiated at this time.

In regards to the allegation, it was reported that Staff 1 (S1) has a criminal history and does not have fingerprint clearance. The reporting party identified this staff by their first name, but no last name or additional description given. During the initial visit to the complaint investigation, LPA was able to identify staff with the same first name, but could not confirm if this was the staff related to this allegation. Interviews with clients and additional staff made also could not confirm this alleged staff (S1). Based on the information obtained, there was insufficient evidence to corroborate the allegation. Therefore, the findings are Unsubstantiated at this time.