complaint·May 29, 2025

provide preferential treatment to one particular group. Cruz stated, "If I had known that anyone else had ever requested transportation to another church, I would have been happy to work something out." Since the time this complaint, the ED has updated the transportation request sheet to state that the facility "can accommodate transportation to places of worship on Sundays." The ED also shared the Town Hall meeting agendas from 03/20/25 and 04/16/25. Both listed "Sunday Transportation to places of worship" as discussion points. The ED also provided Transportation Request Sheets. There were 46 for medical transportation requests from January through May 2025 and 5 non-medical transportation requests. The non-medical transportation requests were to a different house of worship outside of Rancho Cordova. Trips were made in February, March, April and (2) May. The trip in February was on the third and prior to this complaint being initiated. The standard for the preponderance of evidence has not been met and the allegation, "Staff provide preferential treatment to residents based on religion," was UNSUBSTANTIATED. A finding of unsubstantiated means that the allegation may have happened or is valid, but there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation occurred. Regarding the allegation: Licensee does not ensure there is sufficient staff to provide activities. Through interviews this LPA learned that separate activities were organized for independent/assisted living and memory care. Those residents in pre-memory care (known as day spring) would participate with those in assisted living. At the time of this complaint, there was one calendar of activities for the first group and one for the second group. The Life Enrichment Coordinator (LEC) also stated that pre-memory care / day spring could participate with either group depending up their interest level and if there is room. In an interview with staff, (S2), this LPA stated that she had heard blackjack was very popular with the residents. S2 said that it was well attended. LPA asked how many staff assisted with that event. S2 said it was led by a member of the activities staff. This LPA asked if there were other staff on hand to assist any of the residents who might need assistance and S2 said no. This LPA asked if some of the residents got frustrated because of interruptions and questions because some residents might need assistance. S2 said that did happen sometimes. This LPA interviewed the LEC about staffing in their department. They stated that they had a goal of having 3 separate activity calendars: one for independent/assisted living, one for pre-memory/day spring, and one for memory care. The LEC stated that in March, they had just hired someone for the position in pre-memory care but then another staff person quit so they didn't have enough staff to launch the new program at that time. They felt that if each community had their own designated activities calendar that could be tailored to meet the needs and interests of those residents, running the group with 1 activities person would be adequate. This LPA interviewed 2 volunteers (V1 and V2) who have been visiting and assisting residents for more than 2 years. When this LPA asked them if any residents complained about activities being cancelled, they said no. This LPA asked if they had heard of any activities being cancelled, and they said no. V1 and V2 both stated that they felt this was a great place and that they have seen residents participating in activities like crafts or card games. V2 said that they witnessed 2 staff assisting with a well attended black jack game. LPA interviewed 5 residents, R1-R5. Each stated that they thought the facility offered a variety of activities. 4 out of 5 said they didn't think that any activities were cancelled with any frequency. 1 out of 5 said they didn't pay close enough attention to the activity schedule to notice if something was cancelled. 4 out of 5 stated that they thought there was adequate staffing for activities. 1 out of the 5 (R4) stated that they thought back in March that it might have been helpful to have more staff to help some of the residents if they needed it. LPA asked if R4 knew of anyone who needed help that did not get it, R4 said, "Not that they could recall, but it sounded like a good idea." The standard for the preponderance of evidence has not been met. The Department finds the allegation, "Licensee does not ensure there is sufficient staff to provide activities." to be UNSUBSTANTIATED. A finding of unsubstantiated means that the allegation may have happened or is valid, but there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation occurred. According to the California Code of Regulations, Title 22, no deficiencies were observed or cited during today's visit. A copy of this report was provided along with APPEAL RIGHTS and an exit interview was conducted.