|
MALTREATMENT INVESTIGATION MEMORANDUM Minnesota Statutes, section 260E.01, paragraph (a), “The legislature hereby declares that the public policy of this state is to protect children whose health or welfare may be jeopardized through maltreatment.”
License Number and Program Type: 801668-CCC (Child Care Center) Investigator(s): Lindsay Arth 651-431-6537 Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported that an alleged victim (AV) was unsupervised on the facility playground for approximately six minutes. Date of Incident(s): July 29, 2024 Nature of Alleged Maltreatment Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 260E.03, subdivision 15, paragraph (a), clauses (1) and (2): Failure by a person responsible for a child's care to supply a child with necessary food, clothing, shelter, health, medical, or other care required for the child's physical or mental health when reasonably able to do so. Failure to protect a child from conditions or actions that seriously endanger the child's physical or mental health when reasonably able to do so. Summary of Findings: Pertinent information was obtained during a site visit conducted on August 9, 2024; from documentation at the facility; and through six interviews conducted with a facility supervisory staff person (P1), four staff persons (P2, P3, SP1, and SP2), and the AV’s family member (FM). This investigator met the AV, but the AV did not provide information regarding this investigation. The facility had multiple classrooms including an infant room and three preschool rooms, including preschool 1 and preschool 2. Preschool 1 and 2 were next to one another and were connected via a shared bathroom. The AV was approximately three years old and enrolled in the preschool 1 classroom. The AV enjoyed toy cars and building blocks. The facility was near a freeway, multiple businesses including a gas station, and residences such as apartment buildings. The facility had two playgrounds, including a preschool playground that was surrounded by a six-foot-tall rod iron fence with a gate that exited the playground. The preschool playground had a play structure with a tunnel and slides, an awning with picnic tables, and large blocks for the children to play with. There were two cameras on the playground. The preschool playground had roads on two sides. Both roads were two-lanes; one with a speed limit of 25 miles per hour and the other with a speed limit of 20 miles per hour. The infant classroom had windows and an exterior door that faced the preschool playground. There was also an exterior playground door off the main facility hallway that the preschool classrooms used when going to the playground. According to the Child Care Center Risk Assessment and Risk Reduction Plan, there was a “busy street” near the facility. Children were to be supervised at all times and were to use a walking rope when transitioning from one area to another. The New Horizon Academy Transition Policy said that when doing transitions to and from the playground, walking ropes must be used. The children were to line up on the rope and staff persons were to count the children lined up on the rope via a name to face count. Staff persons were to do a sweep of playground while children were lined up prior to leaving, to ensure all children were accounted for. Staff persons were to also count the children when they returned to the classroom, via a name to face count. The New Horizon Academy Safety and Supervision Policies said that improper supervision could result in a serious accident. Staff persons were to never leave children unattended for any reason and children were to be within sight and sound of staff persons at all times, including while on the playground. Staff persons were to always know the exact number of children they were responsible for. Ratios were to be maintained at all times, including while on the playground. The facility Daily Attendance showed that on July 29, 2024, around 10:45 a.m., there were 19 children, including the AV, in the preschool 1 classroom. P3 provided the following information: · On an unknown date, between 10:45 and 11 a.m., P3 was in the infant classroom getting the children ready to transition outside. P3 looked outside the classroom windows and saw the AV walk past the window. At this time, P3 thought a staff person was outside with the AV. However, a “couple of seconds later,” P3 saw the AV sitting at a table but did not see any staff persons outside. P3 then went outside to the playground and did not see any staff persons with the AV. The AV was not crying but “kind of looked lost.” P3 asked the AV, “What are you doing out here?” and the AV said, “I don’t know.” P3 also asked the AV where his/her “teacher” was, and the AV said that s/he “hid” from his/her teacher. During this, another infant staff person notified P1 who came to the playground door. P3 then “handed” the AV to P1 and P3 returned to his/her classroom. · P3 thought that the AV was unsupervised between two and five minutes because the AV’s classroom “just went inside” prior to P3 seeing the AV unsupervised. · Although the AV was not injured, risks to the AV being unsupervised included that it was “too hot” to be outside “that long.” P3 thought that the temperature outside was 90 degrees Fahrenheit. The AV was also “not old enough to be alone.” The playground gates were locked so no one could enter unless they climbed over the fence. P2 provided the following information: · On an unknown date, P2 worked with a staff person (P4) in the preschool 2 classroom with 11 children. Around 10 a.m., P2 and P4 brought the children from the preschool 2 classroom outside and SP1 and SP2 did the same with the preschool 1 classroom. SP2 wiped off the play equipment because it was wet from rain the night prior and then returned inside. P2 had “no idea” where SP2 was the remainder of the time but said that at times, staff persons went inside to clean. · The children from P2’s classroom had been “complaining they were warm,” so around 10:45 a.m., P2 and P4 brought the preschool 2 children inside earlier than normal. Once the preschool 2 children were inside their classroom, P2 remembered that SP2 was not outside and returned to help SP1 because SP1 had a “lot of kids.” P2 opened the playground door and saw that some of the children were “holding onto” the walking rope. (Note: Video footage showed that P2 grabbed the walking rope when s/he opened the door and that the children were not holding onto it prior. Once the children were inside and seated, P2 closed the door and had the children hold onto the rope while seated.) P2 “did not know” if SP1 had already counted the children so as P2 held the door open to have the children come in, P2 counted them and had them sit in the hall. During this, SP1 was outside getting a “couple” additional children and then SP1 came inside with the additional children. P2 told SP1 the number s/he counted, which P2 thought was 11, and SP1 “nodded” and “agreed.” SP2 then came into the hall, so P2 also told SP2 the “number” and P2 returned to his/her classroom. · At some point after, P2 came out of his/her classroom to get lunch when s/he saw P1 walking inside with the AV through the playground door. P2 was “confused” so asked P1 what happened and P1 told P2 that the AV was “on the playground for the past five to six minutes.” The AV was not crying and “seemed normal,” which was typically “very energetic.” There were no injuries to the AV. However, potential risks to the AV being unsupervised included the AV “somehow” being able to exit the playground. Additionally, the playground gate was locked but someone could have come in if they “tried hard enough.” The AV also could have fallen off the play structure. · Staff persons were trained to line the children up using the walking rope, which was done on the date of the incident. Additionally, staff persons were to count the children prior to going inside. P2 typically counted the children “about seven times” to ensure s/he had the “right number.” P2 did not know if SP1 counted the children on the date of the incident. SP1 provided the following information: · On an unknown date in July 2024, SP1 and SP2 worked in the preschool 1 classroom. SP1 did not recall how many children were in the classroom at the time of the incident but said that typically, there were 15 to 18 children. · Around 10 a.m., SP1 and SP2 took their classroom outside to play on the playground. The preschool 2 classroom also went outside during this time. Shortly after they got outside, SP2 went inside to clean and set up cots. One person typically went inside to clean during this time but returned around 11 a.m. to bring the children in. It was “not a problem” that SP2 was inside until around 10:30 a.m., when the preschool 2 class went inside earlier than normal because it was “really hot outside” which left SP1 outside with the preschool 1 children. SP1 told the preschool 1 children that their classroom would stay outside a “few minutes longer” because it would be “less chaotic” if the two classrooms did not go in at the same time. · Around 10:35 or 10:40 a.m., SP1 opened the exterior playground door, “peaked” inside, and saw P2 returning to assist SP1. P2 got the walking rope and began lining the children up and “pulling them inside.” It was still “earlier” than they normally went in so SP1 told P2 that it was still “early” for his/her class to come in and that s/he just gave the children water to drink so they could continue playing outside. However, some of SP1’s children were already lined up on the rope so P2 sat with those children inside the doorway. P2 watched SP1 from the doorway as SP1 gathered the remaining children who were having “difficulty” coming in. Once SP1 gathered the last two children, P2 said that they had “everyone” and “let’s go.” SP1 then went inside with his/her class and joined SP2 in the hallway. P2 then returned to his/her classroom. · Approximately five minutes later, around 10:55 or 11 a.m., SP1 and SP2 were in the classroom washing children’s hands for lunch when SP1 began counting the children. SP1 realized the count was “off” and was in the process of recounting when P1 came to the classroom with the AV and said that the AV had been left on the playground. There were no injuries to the AV and the AV “laughed” when s/he returned and thought the incident was “funny.” However, risks to the AV being unsupervised included that the AV could have been dehydrated or had heat stroke as it was “super-hot” outside. · It was routine for a staff person to go inside to clean and set up cots while the class was playing outside. Typically, the staff person came back outside to assist when it was time to come in. However, on the date of the incident, the classrooms came inside about 20 minutes earlier than normal due to the heat. SP2 was not aware that the classrooms came in earlier so did not return in time to assist SP1. · SP1 was trained to “always” have “eyes and ears” on the children. When it was time to go inside, the preschool 1 and preschool 2 classrooms typically went inside at the same time. The staff persons “announced” to the children that it was time to line up and one classroom lined up along a wall on the right side of the door and the other classroom lined up along the wall on the left side of the door. Staff persons did “name to face” counts and the children held onto rings on a walking rope. Once the children were accounted for, one classroom went inside first, using the walking rope until they got to their classroom. Each staff person was responsible for bringing their own classrooms in. On the date of the incident, the walking ropes were used but SP1 did not recall if the AV was holding onto it. Additionally, SP1 did not count because the children were “running around.” Only “half” of the children lined up and the other half “ran inside” because P2 had the door propped open and some children sat with P2 in the hallway. SP1 did not do a sweep of the playground prior to going in. SP2 provided the following information: · On an unknown date, SP2 worked in the preschool 1 classroom with SP1. SP2 did not recall how many children were in the room but said that they were in ratio. Between 10 and 10:15 a.m., SP1 and SP2 took the preschool 1 children outside to the play area. The preschool 2 children were also outside with P2 and another staff person whose name SP2 did not recall. Because there were four staff persons and they were within ratio with three, after about 10 or 15 minutes of being outside, SP2 told the staff persons that s/he was going inside to clean the classroom and get the cots ready for nap, which staff persons sometimes did. · After approximately 20 to 30 minutes of being inside, around 10:35 or 10:40 a.m., SP2 got ready to go back outside when s/he saw that some of the children were lined up in the hallway with P2. SP2 saw that P2 had the walking rope and some of the children were sitting on the floor near the playground door with P2 while SP1 brought a child inside. This was earlier than the children normally came in which was around 10:55 or 11 a.m. SP2 had “no idea” why P2 was assisting with the preschool 1 classroom. Once SP2 arrived, P2 returned to his/her classroom. When SP1 was inside, SP1 told SP2 that s/he was a “little frustrated” because P2 brought the children in earlier than normal and SP1 was “not ready” for the children to come in. SP1 and SP2 then returned to the preschool 1 room with their children. · After about five minutes of being in the classroom, SP2 was getting ready for lunch when s/he realized that the AV was not in the classroom because the AV typically asked to help put the spoons and cups out. Then, a “few seconds later,” P1 returned the AV to the classroom and said that an infant staff person found the AV outside on the playgroundSP2 was “shocked.” · The AV was not crying and did not say anything to SP2 when s/he returned. Although the AV was not injured, potential risks to the AV being unsupervised included the AV falling off the playground slide or a “stranger” unlocking the playground gate. · Typically, prior to coming inside, staff persons lined the children up near a wall by the playground door. The preschool 1 class lined up on the left side of the door and the preschool 2 class lined up on the right side. Staff persons were trained to have each child grab onto a ring on the walking rope, count the children, and walk them inside. On the date of the incident, the walking rope was used. However, some things were different than normal including that P2 assisted the children inside and having the children sit inside instead of outside along the wall. SP2 and SP1 were “frustrated and confused with [these things]” and because of that, they “missed counting.” SP2 did not count the children when they returned to the classroom and did not think that SP1 did either. Additionally, SP2 did not count the children at the door to the playground because they were already inside with P2 and SP2 “figured” that SP1 and P2 had already done so. SP2 stated that s/he and SP1 were both responsible for the supervision of the AV. P1 provided the following information: · On July 29, 2024, around 10:50 or 10:55 a.m., P1 was in his/her office when s/he heard a staff person “yell” to P1 that a child was “left on the playground.” P1 then went to the playground door, opened it, and saw P3 with the AV. The AV told P1 that s/he was “hiding” and did not want to go inside. P1 then walked the AV back to his/her classroom, where SP1 and SP2 were assisting the children with washing their hands to get ready for lunch. SP1 and SP2 were “shocked” and “upset” regarding the incident and SP1 began crying. SP1 said that it was “confusing” when bringing the children in because P2 was helping SP1, which was not typical. · There were no injuries to the AV and the AV was “safe and happy.” However, the AV was also a “little upset” because s/he did not want to go inside. Risks to the AV being unsupervised included falling off the play structure. However, P1 reviewed video footage of the incident which showed that the AV was not on the play structure while s/he was unsupervised. The playground gate was also locked so the AV was not able to exit the playground. Additionally, no one from the outside would have been able to open the gate to access the AV due to it being locked. · The video footage also showed the AV walking around the playground “not having a care in the world.” The AV was “not upset and not crying.” The AV was unsupervised for “about eight minutes total.” · Staff persons were trained to use the walking rope and do a “name to face” count, prior to going inside. Additionally, a staff person was to do a “sweep” of the playground, prior to going inside, which was not done at the time of the incident. P1 spoke to staff persons involved in the incident and said that at the time of the incident, “anything that could go wrong went wrong,” and a “couple steps were missed.” P2 helping, which s/he did not typically do “made it worse” so “none of the systems were followed.” Once SP1 thought that “all” the children were inside, s/he took them to the classroom instead of “stopping” to count them. P1 did not know if SP1 or SP2 counted when they returned to the room but staff persons were trained to do so. P1 also said that SP1 and P2 should have stayed outside with their classrooms until SP2 returned to help bring the children in. · When there was more than one staff person working in a classroom, “everyone” was responsible to count the children and ensure they were present. The facility provided this investigator with four video clips that did not have sound or date/time stamps. One showed the facility hallway; two showed different angles of the playground; and the other showed part of the AV’s classroom. However, the classroom video did not have any pertinent footage. Facility video footage showed the following: · The hallway footage showed that at 00:01, P2 walked down the hallway towards the playground door, grabbed the walking rope which was near the playground door, and then opened the door. P2 stood in the doorway, holding it open with his/her hand, as some of the preschool 1 children walked in and sat near the door. As the children walked in, P2 touched each child’s head. Once some of the children were in, P2 closed the door. At this time, SP2 walked down the hall towards P2 and the children. SP1 then opened the playground door from the outside, walked in with another child, and at 01:19, shut the door. P2 then left and walked towards his/her classroom, with one child following. SP2 walked down the hall to get that child while SP1 remained with the children, assisting them to hold onto the walking rope. SP1 and the children then began walking down the hall towards their classroom. SP2 was out of view of the camera with the other child. · At 08:31, a staff person walked out of the infant room towards P1’s office. At 08:55, P1 walked towards the playground door and at 09:00, P1 opened the door and appeared to be talking with P3, who was in the doorway. At 09:10, P1 appeared to grab the AV’s hand, who was outside, shut the hall door, and then walked with the AV towards his/her classroom. · The two videos facing the playground showed that at 00:01, there were multiple children playing on the play structure, some under the awning with SP1, and some running around the open spaces with P2. At 01:05, P2 gathered his/her children (preschool 2) near the right side of the door with the walking rope and appeared to be counting them (P2 touched their heads or near the tops of their heads). SP1 was also seen gathering other children on the left side of the door. The AV was near SP1 and P2 during this but around 2:37, the AV left the group and walked onto the play structure. SP1 initially followed the AV but then returned to the group of children as the AV walked towards the corner of the play area, towards the fence. At 3:20, P2 brought the preschool 2 children inside using the walking rope and was touching the tops of their heads as they walked inside. When P2 went inside, SP1 had some of his/her children near the door while some were still on the play structure. SP1 was the only staff person outside during this. The AV was still standing in the corner near the fence. · At 04:26, P2 opened the playground door and the preschool 1 children began walking inside. The AV was still in the corner of the playground and another child was on the play structure. SP1 went to the child on the play structure and carried the child to the door and inside and at 5:25, SP1 shut the door. The AV was the only person in the play area and the AV began walking around while carrying a large block near the play structure and then the AV stood on the block. At no point was the AV seen crying as the AV walked to the playground door a few times. While the AV was outside unsupervised, multiple cars drove past the fenced in play area. · At 11:23, P3 propped open the infant exterior door, returned inside his/her classroom, and did not appear to see the AV at this time. At 11:51, P3 appeared in the infant exterior doorway, faced the AV, and appeared to be talking to someone in the infant room, while pointing towards the AV. At 12:08, P3 walked onto the playground towards the AV, who was sitting at a picnic table in the awning area. At 13:00, P1 opened the playground door and brought the AV inside. During this, a community person walked past the fence. The FM said that P1 notified him/her of the incident and said that the AV was unsupervised for approximately eight minutes. The FM asked the AV about the incident but the AV “just turned three” and was “nonchalant” and “didn’t really care.” The FM did not have any concerns with the facility. According to www.wunderground.com, on July 29, 2024, at the time of the incident., the temperature outside was 79 degrees Fahrenheit with a heat index of 81 degrees Fahrenheit. Facility documentation showed that SP1, SP2, P1, P2, and P3 were trained on the facility’s policies, including the safety and supervision policy, the transition policy, the facility’s Risk Reduction Plan, and the Reporting of Maltreatment of Minors Act. Relevant Rules and/or Statutes: Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.02, subdivision 18, and Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0045, subpart 1, item A stated that a child must have supervision at all times and that supervision was defined as occurring when a program staff person is within sight and hearing of a child at all times so that the program staff person can intervene to protect the health and safety of the child. Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0040, subpart 1, stated that the minimally acceptable staff-to-child ratio for the preschool age category was one to ten. Conclusion: A. Maltreatment: On July 29, 2024, the AV was left outside within the enclosed preschool play area, unsupervised and without a staff person’s knowledge, for approximately six and a half minutes which was inconsistent with the facility’s Risk Reduction Plan and the Safety and Supervision Policies; and a violation of Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.02, subdivision 18, and Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0045, subpart 1, item A. P3 was about to take his/her class outside when s/he found the AV unsupervised on the play area. The AV was uninjured and was not crying when P3 found him/her within the play area. Although the AV was in a fenced in playground, given that the AV was three years old and that the playground was visible to passersby, the AV had access to potential community dangers, which placed the AV at an increased risk of harm. In addition, it was unlikely that the AV would be able to provide for him/herself in an emergency and staff persons were not aware that the AV was on the playground in the event of an emergency and would not have been able to intervene. Therefore, there was a preponderance of the evidence there was a failure to supply the AV with necessary care and a failure to protect the AV from conditions or actions that seriously endangered the AV’s physical or mental health. It was determined that neglect occurred (failure by a person responsible for a child's care to supply a child with necessary food, clothing, shelter, health, medical, or other care required for the child's physical or mental health when reasonably able to do so; and/or failure to protect a child from conditions or actions that seriously endanger the child's physical or mental health when reasonably able to do so). B. Responsibility pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 260E.30, subdivision 4, paragraph (a), clauses (1) and (2): When determining whether the facility or individual is the responsible party, or whether both the facility and the individual are responsible for determined maltreatment in a facility, the investigating agency shall consider at least the following mitigating factors: (1) whether the actions of the facility or the individual caregivers were according to, and followed the terms of, an erroneous physician order, prescription, individual care plan, or directive; however, this is not a mitigating factor when the facility or caregiver was responsible for the issuance of the erroneous order, prescription, individual care plan, or directive or knew or should have known of the errors and took no reasonable measures to correct the defect before administering care; (2) comparative responsibility between the facility, other caregivers, and requirements placed upon an employee, including the facility’s compliance with related regulatory standards and the adequacy of facility policies and procedures, facility training, an individual’s participation in the training, the caregiver’s supervision, and facility staffing levels and the scope of the individual employee’s authority and discretion; and (3) whether the facility or individual followed professional standards in exercising professional judgment. Facility documentation showed that SP1, SP2, and P2 were trained on the facility’s policies, including the safety and supervision policy, the transition policy, the facility’s Risk Reduction Plan, and the Reporting of Maltreatment of Minors Act. At the time of the incident, SP1 and SP2 worked in the AV’s classroom. However, while they were outside, SP2 returned inside to get ready for lunch/nap. SP2 was inside and not responsible for the supervision of the AV when the AV was left on the playground. Therefore, SP2’s responsibility was mitigated. At this point, SP1, P2, and P4 were on the playground and responsible for the supervision of the children including the AV. When P2 and P4 brought the preschool 2 children inside, SP1 was left on the playground out of ratio which was a violation of Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0040, subpart 1. However, at this point P2 and P4 were no longer responsible for the supervision of the children, including the AV, who remained on the playground. SP1 was out of ratio for approximately one minute as they waited for P2 to return to assist SP1 to bring the preschool 1 children inside. When P2 returned to assist SP1 with bringing the children inside, P2 did not go out onto the playground and remained inside by the door with a group of children, not including the AV, who came inside when P2 opened the door. P2 was not responsible for the supervision of the children on the playground at that point and would not have known that any child was left outside. When P2 went inside with the preschool 2 classroom, P2 never returned outside to the playground and therefore was not responsible for the supervision of the children on the playground, mitigating P2’s responsibility. Although SP1 was out of ratio for approximately one minute, SP1 was responsible for the supervision of the children, including the AV who were on the playground. P2 was inside the doorway, supervising a group of SP1’s children inside as they waited for SP1 to get the remaining children, including the AV, from the playground. Therefore, SP1 was responsible for maltreatment of the AV. C. Recurring and/or Serious Maltreatment: The Office of Inspector General is required to evaluate whether substantiated maltreatment by an individual meets the statutory criteria to be determined as “recurring or serious.” Individuals determined to be responsible for recurring or serious maltreatment are disqualified from providing direct contact services. Minnesota Statutes, section 245C.02, subdivision 16, states: “Recurring maltreatment” means more than one incident of maltreatment for which there is a preponderance of evidence that maltreatment occurred and that the subject was responsible for the maltreatment. Minnesota Statutes, section 245C.02, subdivision 18, states: "Serious maltreatment" means sexual abuse, maltreatment resulting in death, neglect resulting in serious injury which reasonably requires the care of a physician whether or not the care of a physician was sought, or abuse resulting in serious injury. For purposes of this definition, "care of a physician" is treatment received or ordered by a physician, physician assistant, or nurse practitioner, but does not include diagnostic testing, assessment, or observation; the application of, recommendation to use, or prescription solely for a remedy that is available over the counter without a prescription; or a prescription solely for a topical antibiotic to treat burns when there is no follow-up appointment. For purposes of this definition, "abuse resulting in serious injury" means: bruises, bites, skin laceration, or tissue damage; fractures; dislocations; evidence of internal injuries; head injuries with loss of consciousness; extensive second-degree or third-degree burns and other burns for which complications are present; extensive second-degree or third-degree frostbite and other frostbite for which complications are present; irreversible mobility or avulsion of teeth; injuries to the eyes; ingestion of foreign substances and objects that are harmful; near drowning; and heat exhaustion or sunstroke. Serious maltreatment includes neglect when it results in criminal sexual conduct against a child or vulnerable adult. It was determined that the substantiated neglect for which SP1 was responsible did not meet statutory criteria to be determined as recurring or serious. SP1’s actions were a single incident of maltreatment and the AV did not sustain a serious injury which reasonably required the care of a physician. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 260E.35, subdivision 6, paragraph (c) all investigative data maintained in this report will be kept by the Department of Human Services for at least ten years after the date of the final entry in the report. Action Taken by Facility: The facility completed an internal review and determined that their policies and procedures were adequate but not followed. This included that staff persons did not do name to face counting “consistently.” Following the incident, staff persons were retrained on the safety and supervision policies including name to face, counting, and walking ropes. There were no similar prior incidents. Action Taken by Department of Human Services, Office of Inspector General: SP1 was not disqualified from providing direct care services as a result of the maltreatment determination in this report. However, SP1 was notified by the Office of Inspector General that any further substantiated act of maltreatment, whether or not the act meets the criteria for “serious,” will automatically meet the criteria for “recurring” and will result in disqualification. The determination that SP1 was responsible for maltreatment is subject to appeal. On October 30, 2024, the facility was issued a Correction Order for the violations outlined above and for not reporting suspected maltreatment as required. Certification: The information collection procedures followed in this investigation were pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 260E.30, subdivision 6, paragraph (c). All individuals that are subjects of data in this investigation have the right to obtain private data on themselves which was collected, created, or maintained by the Department of Human Services.
|
