{"Short_Answer__76":"DV_Kelly AFC-SLC-2020-11","Date__77":"11\/24\/2020","Multiple_Choice__78":"David Vukelich","Short_Answer__80":"Kelly Adult Foster Care","Short_Answer__81":"Kelly Postudensek","Short_Answer__82":"kellypost.987@gmail.com","Short_Answer__83":"218-780-0445","Multiple_Choice__84":"245D Service Termination\/Suspension","Multiple_Choice__85":"St. Louis","Multiple_Choice__96":"1","Short_Answer__91":"Individual was issued a 60 day termination notice.","True_or_False__94":"Yes","Date__97":"01\/12\/2021","Free_Text__98":"Prior to the termination the individual was residing with this AFC provider for 15 months.  The setting was a family foster home with owner\/operator on-site and no other residents.   The provider was newly licensed for 2 residents and this was the first individual that was placed in her home.   The individual was in his grandparents\u2019 care prior to this AFC.  The individual is his own guardian.  \r\nPrior to the placement the provider had communicated with the individual\u2019s grandparents and CADI case manager.  The provider was told that the individual was in special education in school and A few weeks after the placement the provider was given a file with additional information on the individual.  The file included police reports indicating the individual had been in physical fights.  After the placement the provider also learned that the individual had a history of stealing money, cigarettes and specifically an incident when he stole credit cards from his grandparents.   The provider also learned that he was expelled from Cloquet High School due to his behaviors and transferred to the Merit Creek Academy.  The provider stated that in conversations with the individual\u2019s grandparents they stated that he was easily influenced by his friends.  \r\nThe provider stated while the individual was residing with her he would swear at her and try to physically intimidate her.  The provider noted that the individual never physically assaulted her.  The provider noted that the individual spent much of his time in his bedroom playing video games.  He ate the majority of this meals in his room alone.   Prior to COVID19, the individual was in therapy twice a week for depression and anger issues.  This moved to telehealth and soon ended all together.  The individual was also with Choice Unlimited for employment after he graduated school, but did not want to continue to work on employment.\r\nDue to the individual constantly isolating himself and physically intimidating behaviors the provider decided to issue a 60 day termination notice. The case manager was aware of the concerns and supported the individual moving.  The individual was not initially supportive of the move, but was excited to move once he toured the new facility.","Free_Text__100":"The person\u2019s services being terminated by the provider were influenced by the person\u2019s behaviors and the overall \u201cmatch\u201d between the person and the provider. The person demonstrated physical intimidating behaviors to staff.  This would often occur when staff asked questions about concerns for the person\u2019s decisions.  The staff was prompted to ask these questions because belongings in the home were missing.\r\n\r\nThe provider determining there wasn\u2019t a good overall \u201cmatch\u201d was influenced by the following.  The adult foster care (AFC) home was a single staff person owner\/operator.  This did not allow for staffing changes to adjust to the individual\u2019s behaviors or staff exhaustion.  The majority of the time the individual chose to stay in their room and play video games; possibly to the level of an addiction\/obsession.   Staff felt the individual would benefit from participating in social and recreational activities besides video games.  Staff exhausted attempts and techniques to redirect the individual to engage in other activities besides playing video games.  The provider reached out to the case manager for support services when they were struggling to redirect the person\/address behaviors.  Due to COVID19, support services were not able to be offered.  The individual made a choice to discontinue therapy as well as employment, which led to more time in his room playing video games.  These decisions are supported by 245D (informed choice).\r\n\r\nAnother influence to the person not being a good match and services being terminated was this was the first person the provider had served since being licensed.  The provider was unfamiliar with the system and best practices for potential people to support.  Both influenced the match between the individual and provider.  \r\nAnother influence to the \u201cmatch\u201d and services being terminated was that the provider was unaware of the individual\u2019s history\/previous concerns with behaviors.  This was influenced by this being the first AFC the individual had resided and the case manager was unaware of the person\u2019s history so unable to share it with provider.  The case manager did not have a clear picture of the history because they just began working the individual and the person chose not to participate in the person-centered planning process.  The case manager and team reached out to the local high school in an attempt to learn more about the person. The teacher most familiar with the individual was unavailable to speak with the case manager or provider as it was the summer (school closed).  This influenced the lack of history and ability to determine the appropriateness of the match between the individual."}