Complaint Investigation Report

Staff interviews revealed: Staff unanimously agreed that they did not see any clients interact with C1's property during the alleged time of the incident. With regards to a client member acting as a paid member of staff, according to Staff 1 (S1), Client 2 (C2) is assigned tasks classified as "facility upkeep and chores; delivering the mail, running errands, taking out the trash, handling staff monies." Once outside sources mentioned C2 as a possible suspect of financially abusing C1, S1 and S2 questioned C1 and C2 separately to inquire about what happened. S1 told the LPA, "C1 told me C2 was not involved. I spoke to C2 and they had no clue what I was talking about" with regards to making purchases with C1's credit card. Staff went on to tell the LPA that C2 is not very good at keeping secrets or hiding misdoings and they purported with certainty that in the past when C2 has tried to, C2 has certain signs and behaviors associated with hiding or lying; These behaviors were not present when staff conducted their investigation.

Client interviews revealed: C1 reported that they had no idea or suspicion of who was responsible for the credit card theft nor if it occurred at the day program or outside of it. C1 had recollection of making the police report but did not indicate to the LPA that C2 was responsible for the incident. When C1 was asked about knowing who was responsible, they told the LPA they did not know who took the money and never found out. C2 reported that they are friends with C1 and have no idea what happened to C1's credit card. C1 did not characterize themselves as having friends.

Outside Source Interviews revealed: According to Outside Source 1 (OS1), the unauthorized charges were disputed by C1 and their roommate and the money was refunded. OS1 characterized C1 as forgetful and when OS1 asked C1 if they remembered about their lending their card, someone grabbing it, or someone taking a picture of it, C1 responded "maybe I did" and "no, I didn't". OS1 told the LPA that C1 was advised by the bank to file a police report. When questioned by police, C1 reported remembering that C2 (characterized as a friend) used their card to buy a candy bar.

Based on interviews and direct LPA observations, a preponderance of evidence does not exist to prove that the alleged violation occurred, therefore the allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED. An exit interview was conducted with Program Director Claudia Munoz, to whom a copy of this report and the Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC9058 03/22) were provided.