|
MALTREATMENT INVESTIGATION MEMORANDUM Minnesota Statutes, section 626.557, subdivision 1 states, “The legislature declares that the public policy of this state is to protect adults who, because of physical or mental disability or dependency on institutional services, are particularly vulnerable to maltreatment.”
License Number and Program Type: 1071972-H_CRS (Home and Community-Based Services-Community Residential Setting) Investigator(s): Thomas Nixon/Beth Virden Thomas.C.Nixon@state.mn.us Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported that four vulnerable adults (VA1-VA4) were missing varying amounts of cash. Date of Incident(s): February and March 2025
Nature of Alleged Maltreatment Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 626.557, subdivision 9c, paragraph (b), and Minnesota Statutes, section 626.5572, subdivision 15, and subdivision 9, paragraph (b), clause (1): In the absence of legal authority a person willfully uses, withholds, or disposes of funds or property of a vulnerable adult. Summary of Findings: Pertinent information for this investigation was obtained remotely, including documentation from the facility; and through 13 interviews conducted with VA1’s-VA4’s respective guardians (G1-G4), facility staff persons (P1-P5), a facility accounting staff person (P6), and supervisory staff persons (the SP, P7, and P8). The DHS investigator met VA1-VA4 but did not interview them due to their limited communication skills and limited knowledge of the allegations and their finances. VA1’s-VA4’s support plans, including Risk Assessment Details, stated the following: · VA1-VA4 lived together at the facility, which was a single-family home. VA1-VA3 were each diagnosed with a traumatic brain injury and VA4 was diagnosed with intellectual disabilities. The facility provided at least one staff person 24-hours a day for VA1’s-VA4’s care and supervision, medication management, transportation, meal preparation, etc. · VA1-VA4 each had limited communication skills and limited understanding of financial matters, and they were each susceptible to financial exploitation by others. VA1’s-VA4’s respective guardians and/or representative payees handled larger purchases, room and board payments, etc. The facility handled VA1’s-VA4’s respective petty cash for outings, like the movie theater; and when in the community, staff carried VA1’s-VA4’s cash and completed transactions on VA1’s-VA4’s behalf. P1-P8 and facility documentation provided the following information: · P1-P8 provided consistent information that VA1’s-VA4’s debit cards, checkbooks, and/or petty cash were stored in their respective binders in the SP’s office to which the SP and P7 each had keys. When a housemate had a planned outing or expense, the SP put the needed amount of cash in an envelope with that housemate’s name marked and then staff took the envelope with them on the outing. Upon return, staff slid the envelope with receipts and remaining cash under the SP’s office door. If a receipt was not obtained, staff let the SP know and the SP completed a receipt voucher to record the transaction. The SP then recorded the transactions on ledgers and audited everything weekly. P7 audited the petty cash binders monthly and P6 audited every six months. · P7 said that at the end of February 2025, s/he audited the housemates’ binders with few or no concerns. However, when s/he began auditing at the end of March 2025, s/he immediately saw that things were not adding up, so s/he contacted P6. · P6 and P7 each said that on March 27, 2025, they audited the housemates’ finances and noticed “questionable transactions” between mid-February and mid-March 2025. There were “a lot” of handwritten receipts for the movie theater and the bowling alley, which both establishments historically provided printed receipts. Some of the receipts were written for days when the housemates did not go to the movie theater or the bowling alley, which was determined by reviewing the archived daily- and van-logs for the dates in question. · In addition to the questionable receipts, the housemates’ ledgers were incomplete or inaccurate. As of March 27, 2025: o VA1 should have $504.31 in his/her petty cash but at that time only had $27.08. o VA2 should have $289.38 in his/her petty cash but at that time only had $12.24. o VA3 should have $216.54 in his/her petty cash but at that time only had $25.54. o VA4 should have $255.04 in his/her petty cash but at that time only had $31.81. · P1, P2, and P3 each said that they did not have access to the housemates’ debit cards or petty cash and only received money for shopping from cash envelopes prepared by the SP. P1, P2, and P4 each said that they always had receipts and never filled out a receipt voucher for a missing receipt; they did not know why the SP had filled out receipt vouchers for outings that they were sure they had received a receipt. P5 said that s/he never took the housemates shopping and never handled their cash or knew where their cash was stored. · P4 said that s/he brought the housemates through the bank drive-through to withdraw cash. · P8 said that every staff person would have access to the housemates’ debit cards and PINs. · P6 said that the facility’s supervisory staff person (e.g., the SP) decided who had access to the housemates’ money and if access was granted, staff had access to cash, debit cards, and PINs. · P6 said that in March or April 2025, VA4’s debit card declined more than once due to inadequate funds in his/her checking account, which was withdrawn for petty cash. This occurred when the SP was working and continued after the SP no longer worked at the facility. · P2 said that the SP took VA1’s clothing more than once. At least twice, the SP put on one of VA1’s shirts when his/her own shirt was dirty and P2 never saw the SP return the shirts to VA1. The shirts were brand name, like NIKE or Reebok. · P7 said that in April 2025, G2 called stating that VA2 missed an escorted group trip to Texas, which s/he had previously prepaid through a travel company. P7 contacted the company and learned that they mailed the VA information about his/her upcoming trip and then attempted to contact the facility two days prior to the departure date but no one answered or responded. VA2 then did not show up at the airport and missed the trip. The company was not able to issue a refund and so the facility reimbursed VA2 $2,495, the cost of the trip. P7 learned that the travel company mailed the trip information directly to VA2, who then got the mail from the facility’s mailbox and did not tell staff. The company called the facility’s landline and P7, but no one answered in time for VA2 to make the trip. Following this incident, the facility made changes so that staff always got the mail from the mailbox. The SP said that “all staff” had access to the housemates’ finances. Before the SP started as a supervisory staff person, the facility was without a supervisor and during that time, all staff were handling the housemates’ finances. When the SP took over in October 2024, the finances were “a mess.” The SP asked P7 for help more than once but P7 never helped. The SP tried to create new forms to track petty cash but was told by an administrator that s/he could not create new forms and so the SP stopped doing so. The housemates’ petty cash and bank cards were stored in the SP’s office, which was locked, but there was an office key on the facility’s key ring, which was accessible to all staff. P2 and P4 helped withdraw cash from the housemates’ checking accounts to replenish the respective housemates’ petty cash. The SP filled out a receipt voucher when staff did not turn in a receipt. Staff did not always record outings in the daily- or van-logs and so reviewing those records to determine if an outing occurred would not give a definitive answer. The SP said that s/he did not use a housemates’ money for his/her own benefit, and s/he did not take a housemate’s clothing for his/her own use. G1-G4 each said that VA1-VA4, respectively, did not understand finances and would not be able to provide information about their finances. G1-G4 each had some concerns with the facility’s care and supervision, including that money was not always accounted for. G1-G4 did not have information specific to the allegations. Facility documentation stated that the SP and P1-P8 received training on the Reporting of Maltreatment of Vulnerable Adults Act. The SP, P1-P5, and P7 received training on VA1-VA4’s support plans, including Risk Assessment Details; P6 and P8 were not required to receive this training. Conclusion: It was reported that varying amounts of cash was missing from VA1’s-VA4’s petty cash binders. The SP was the supervisory staff person during that timeframe. However, more than one staff person had access to the petty cash binders, and it was unclear if cash was intentionally taken or misused or if transactions were always recorded accurately. Therefore, there was not a preponderance of the evidence whether VA1’s-VA4’s petty cash was willfully used, withheld, or disposed of by a staff person without the legal authority to do so. It was not determined whether financial exploitation occurred (in the absence of legal authority a person willfully uses, withholds, or disposes of funds or property of a vulnerable adult). Action Taken by Facility: The facility completed an internal review and determined that policies and procedures were adequate but not followed. The facility reimbursed VA1-VA4 for their missing funds. The SP no longer worked at the facility. Action Taken by Department of Human Services, Office of Inspector General: No further action taken.
|
