complaint·September 22, 2021

next action is to evict R1 for failure to adhere to facility rules. LPA interviewed Staff #2 (S2) and Staff #3 (S3) who both stated that R1's alcohol dependence does cause disruption within the facility; however, the facility staff are addressing R1's alcohol dependence which causes the disruptive behavior. LPA interviewed Resident #2 (R2) and Resident #3 (R3) who stated that they believe the staff is addressing R1's disruptive behavior. LPA interviewed Resident #4 (R4) who stated that R1 "is real forward" but is not disruptive. LPA interviewed Resident #5 (R5) who stated that there are residents in the facility who use drugs and alcohol which makes R5 feel unsafe. R5 stated that they are unaware if the facility is taking steps to prevent the disruptive behavior. S1 and S2 both stated that there are other residents who drink alcohol outside of the facility; however, their behavior is more attributed to their mental condition, not alcohol dependence. In regards to allegation #2, LPA reviewed the facility's rules of resident conduct, which prohibits drugs and alcohol in the facility. LPA interviewed S1 who stated that they have confiscated alcohol and Marijuana pipes from those residents who had them in their possession. In addition, S1 stated that all residents suspected of smoking Marijuana on the premises have been given a letter reinforcing the facility's rules of resident conduct of Marijuana use. S1 stated that the facility has conducted internal investigations of suspected Marijuana use; however, S1 stated that residents deny the use of Marijuana. S1, S2, and S3 stated that the facility staff continue to monitor all residents for drug and alcohol use in the facility. S1 and S2 stated that they continue to work with resident's social workers, conservators, and physicians in order to address residents alcohol/drug use. Based on evidence obtained during today’s visit, LPA has determined that the above allegations are UNSUBSTANTIATED; meaning that although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur. An exit interview was conducted where this report was discussed and a copy was provided to the Administrator via email.