Question: If the target has admitted having committed abuse in a letter to the CI, does the CI need to continue the investigation? I would assume that normally this would not occur since the CI will usually you interview the target last. In this case the target had been suspending pending the completion of the investigation when she sent the letter.

My initial thought was that we needed to interview at least those persons that were implicated in the initial report from the Point Person/ Incident Report to get additional details that the target may have omitted. I also believe that even though we received the written statement, we still needed to interview the target. Any other suggestions?

Response: Investigators investigate incidents related to the safety of individuals who receive services from the provider. Our mission is always to provide those services in a "caring and hospitable environment." An incident is an event which represents harm or potential harm, precisely the type of situation that would subvert our mission.

When the most serious incidents occur, we conduct investigations. An investigation is an to describe and explain what occurred, by itself an ambitious understanding; however, we only make these efforts in an attempt to create a more caring and hospitable environment. We believe that by having created the most complete understanding of the circumstances resulting in the harm, we are then best able to make intelligent decisions that will prevent such harm in the future.

A very wordy introduction to the issue at hand! The fact that someone writes, "I did it," represents less than everything that might be relevant in improving the environment in which individuals live, work and learn. In fact, if we stopped an investigation every time someone confessed -- either in person or in writing -- we would likely miss much detail that would move well beyond an individual staff person's culpability for the event.

Without know more about the case that generated the question, let's consider the following. A staff person slaps an individual during the dinner hour. The staff person is immediately suspended pending investigation. The next day he sends a letter saying, "Yes, I slapped Fred. I was upset and frankly don't particularly feel I can work comfortably at this place. I therefore resign." In other words, the person appears to have resolved everyone's concerns in only 23 words.

But we don't know why the accused was upset. We don't know anything of the circumstances that led up to the event. Let's consider this possibility. The staff person did slap Fred, who had been very angry all through dinner because, unbeknownst to the accused, a second consumer had been stealing French fries from his plate. Let's assume also that there has developed over the past several months a "laissez faire" attitude on the part of staff helping with dinner that has led to significant and avoidable consumer conflict.

Failure to continue the investigation, including taking the time to actually speak with the accused, would likely result in a less than complete understanding of not just what happened (i.e., "Yes, the accused did slap Fred..." as the answer to the investigatory question), but why it happened.