Complaint Investigation Report

treated like kids. C1 felt they were mainly punished for trying to speak out for their rights. C1 said the staff would take away their music and phone. They stated they would be told to stay and eat in their rooms for a couple days. When punished C1 stated they would only come out of the room to use the bathroom or leave for work. LPA asked C1 if the facility staff said that they were punished, C1 said they did not say that but to them they felt they were punished. LPA interviewed a witness who knows the former client, C1 told them that a particular staff controls the clients and would threaten them and have the clients stay in their rooms for four days. The clients were not allowed to speak to anyone and could not go anywhere but to work or their day program. The witness said that they could not watch television or listen to music.

LPA interviewed four out of five clients currently at the facility. The clients have mostly lived at the facility for a number of years. Per interviews four out of four current clients without hesitation have all similarly stated that they have never been punished by any of the staff at the facility, nor have they ever witnessed anyone or C1 being punished by the staff. One client stated they go to their room by choice to cool down and to avoid drama and gossip amongst their housemates. The clients feel comfortable at the facility and never felt unhappy being here.

LPA interviewed the DSP staff, Staff 1 (S1) and Administrator (AD) Phil Tran regarding punishment at the facility. Both S1 and AD Tran have stated there is no punishment. Like C1 would argue with another client at the facility, we advise them to walk away and go somewhere private, like a private space to calm down. The clients would get physical, AD Tran felt that it was misconstrued and maybe taken as a punishment to go to your room. S1 said if the clients felt they encountered some sort of punishment they would tell them. No one was ever isolated in their room. S1 stated that C1 would speak up about it if they felt they were punished. S1 said that sometimes C1 would be on the phone with their family and wanting C1 to have more privacy, S1 would redirect them to talk privately in their room. When the clients had problems with each other or argue with C1, S1 mentioned to them that they do not have to be around the person. S1 would tell them to go watch TV or do something else of their choice.

Therefore, based on LPA Tea's observations and interviews conducted and records reviewed the allegation that facility did not ensure client was free from punishment has been determined to be UNSUBSTANTIATED meaning that although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of the evidence to prove that the alleged violation occurred.