Complaint Investigation Report

Based on interviews conducted, it was learned that Resident 1(R1) waited several times for around an hour for the facility to pick them up. On several occasions the school contacted the facility but was unable to reach a staff member or leave a message. Furthermore, R1 would wait around was unsure of the whereabouts of their transportation would be. It was disclosed that the school was able to get in contact with a staff member, where it was asked when R1 would be picked up and the staff member stated that they were unsure and would have to contact someone else. The school was unable to obtain a secondary phone number by the facility. Based on several interviews, it was learned that the school asked for an emergency phone number from the administrator because they had a hard time reaching the facility on several occasions. It was told by the Administrator that the facility phone is the only phone number that will be shared and will not provide any other phone numbers. Many times, R1 would contact their responsible party to try to reach the facility. It was learned that R1’s responsible party, too, would have a hard time reaching the facility and the administrator. Based on the resident’s admission agreement under (2.)(k) it states, “A 24-hour per day contact person(s) and phone number(s) for emergencies outside the facility”. Based on the information gathered, the facility did not follow the resident’s admission agreement.

Based on observations, review of records and information gathered through interviews, the above allegations were SUBSTANIATED meaning that there was a preponderance of evidence to prove that the allegations occurred as alleged.

Facility staff is retaliating against resident

It was alleged that facility staff is retaliating against resident. Based on interviews conducted it was learned that after several occasion in which R1 attempt to call the facility multiple times for a ride home from school and was unsuccessful in reaching the facility to pick them up. During a period of time, R1 asked the school for assistance to call the facility from his phone. Based on observation it was shown that R1 called the facility but was unable to complete the call because it stated, “Calls to this number are being screened by smart call blocker. The number you are calling is not accepting your calls. Please hang up.” During the beginning of the investigation, it was learned that the facility denied that any calls were blocked from the facility phone. It was later learned through interviews conducted that the facility asked to see the resident’s phone to help unblock R1’s phone number from the facility phone. In addition, the facility did not deny to the resident that the phone was blocked from the facility number. Based on the information gathered, the facility staff retaliated against the resident.