Complaint Investigation Report

An interview conducted with an outside source revealed that incidents were observed regarding damage to a fence located between the facility and another residence; however they are unsure if staff were present and stated that staff are usually present when clients are outside in the backyard.

Interview conducted with a witness revealed that clients have been observed in the front area of the facility wandering down the street alone displaying disruptive behavior, appearing agitated and using profanity. The witness stated that staff have been observed coming outside to assist the clients, however the exact time frame of the staffs’ arrival to assist the client that is outside of the facility is unknown. The same witness revealed that they observed a client outside of the facility earlier in the day prior to LPA’s visit on 10/10/22, alone with no staff present. The exact time was unknown. Staff present at the facility on 10/10/22, denied anyone leaving the facility alone and unsupervised.

An interview with Licensee Erwin Engay and Administrator Don Longalong acknowledged that clients do become aggressive sometimes and have loud outburst and hit things. The clients like to come outside in the backyard of the facility; however, they are always supervised whether they are inside or outside of the facility. Per Licensee and Administrator, staff are in close contact with the clients while they are outside in the backyard of the facility. Per Licensee Erwin Engay, an incident occurred involving Client 1 (C1) provoking Client 2 (C2) causing them to become upset and hitting the neighbor’s fence with their hands and elbow, pushing out one of the panels. Licensee revealed that they observed the incident and were present outside in the backyard when the incident occurred; however, they were unable to stop the incident before it happened. Licensee and Administrator revealed that the fence was repaired and will be replaced with a taller fence.

An interview with C1 did not disclose any information regarding the incident involving them and C2 or anything relating to damage to the fence; however they indicated that they don’t like to be outdoors much. C1 stated that when they are outside in the backyard, staff are present and follow them if they try to leave the facility alone. C2 and Client 3 (C3) declined to be interviewed.

The investigation concluded that interviews conducted revealed that property damage to a neighbor’s fence was caused by clients from the facility. Incidents involved the panels of the fence being knocked down on a few occasions. Although there was damage to the neighbors’ fence, there is no collaborating evidence to determine there was a lack of care and supervision provided to the clients during the time the incident occurred.