Skip to main content

Inspection visit

complaint

Clean visit · 0 citations

Inspector’s narrative

What the inspector wrote

Based on interviews conducted via telephonically with parents, five (5) parents informed LPA they have no issues regarding ratio. Two (2) parents stated there is a good amount of staffing available. Parent #3 (P3) informed LPA Sanchez has observed only one staff being present with the children and has once observed about 18 or 19 children with the (1) teachers. P4 informed LPA that they feel that facility has had issues with facility being short staffed but as of recent P4 has seen (3) teachers present in a classroom which is nice. During staff interview three (3) staff members stated they use Child Care Careers to assist with staffing and ratio. Interview with Iterm Site Supervisor Edith Flores stated has not observed ratio of 1 teacher with 14-16 children and facility are always within ratio. Four (4) staff stated they facility is operating in ratio and denied the above allegation. Staff 2 (S2) informed LPA during interview that children classrooms are sometimes combined to stay within ratio due to not having enough staff in certain classrooms and children will separate until coverage is found. During interviews with Children, C1 &C5 informed LPA that teachers are always present. C2 informed LPA that teachers are nice but they always have different teachers and there is always 2-3 teachers in their classroom. C3 stated teachers come and go therefore doesn’t know names of teachers and there are about 3 teachers with them in the classroom and play yard. C4 informed LPA during interview teachers are always on vacation. Based on today’s observations, and visit dates 5/21/24, 6/7/24 and 7/10/24, LPA observed facility was found to be in ratio during visit dates. Regarding allegation: Facility staff mishandle children in care. During interviews with children, four (4) children informed LPAs teachers are nice and/or stated are nice to everyone. Three (3) children stated teachers don’t grab them and/or any children. C4 doesn’t know if teachers are nice or mean. Interm Site Supervisor Ms.Flores during interview stated has not witnessed any staff mishandling children in care. Ms.Flores informed LPA there was an individual who reported to the office that they did not like how a staff was holding a child in care. (Continuation 9099-C...) Program Supervisor Ms.Ortiz informed LPA there was a complaint made of a child being mishandled and facility conducted interviews with staff who were in child’s classroom. Both staff stories coincides stating staff was helping the child during drop off time, child was held by the hand and child would drop (fall) themselves to the floor and teacher was assisting my holding the child’s hand and witness was not happy on how child was assisted. LPA was informed by Director of Education Edwina Shivers, Interm SIte Supervisor Edith Flores and Program Supervisor Rossmary Ortiz that the facility corporate office is conducting an internal investigation. LPA Calderon via telephonically interviewed Quality Assurance (Q.A) Lacharlette Oglesby and stated the Investigation is ongoing at this time. Q.A informed LPA there are some staff who haven’t returned to the facility due to being substitute teachers with Child Care Careers Agency that need to be interviewed and currently no findings to confirm if child was mishandled by a staff at this time. LPA reviewed an Unusual Incident Report self reported by the facility Director Edwina Shivers to licensing regarding above allegation, report stated Ms.Shivers asked the staff member about incident and staff stated they held the child by the hand and not the wrist. Four (4) staff stated they haven’t witnessed staff using inappropriate behavior towards the children in care. S2 stated has not observe a child being mishandled by a staff but overheard a parent upset, when asking the teachers what occurred teachers told S2 that a parent said they saw something (no details given), and parent mentioned to S2 they will not have staff mishandle their child and child was taken home and did not return to the school. Based on interviews with parents conducted via telephonically five (5) parents stated they have haven’t witnessed any staff mishandling the children in care and are unaware any incident regarding children being mishandled. Based on today’s observations, and visit dates 5/21/24, 6/7/24 and 7/10/24, LPA(s), observed facility treating children with respect, care and dignity and were not mishandling children in care. Based on the information obtained, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove that personal rights were violated. The allegation may have happened or is valid, but there is not a preponderance of the evidence to prove that the alleged violation occurred.A Notice of Site Visit (LIC 9213) was given and must remain posted for 30 days. Exit interview was conducted and report was reviewed with Director Edwina Shivers. (End of Report)

Citations

1 citation recorded*CCLD

What does Type A vs Type B mean?

Type A. Serious citation. Imminent or substantial risk to children. The regulator requires corrective action immediately and may impose a civil penalty.

Type B. Lower-severity citation. Corrective action required, no imminent risk. The regulator monitors compliance on the next visit.

  • 101238(a)Type A

    BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS

    Building & Grounds: (a)The child care center shall be clean, safe, sanitary and in good repair at all times to ensure the safety and well-being of children, employees and visitors.This requirement is not met as evidence by: Staff reporting and Staff #1 fell on the todder play yard due to floor having a dip (sunken in turf) and being uneven. LPA Calderon and LPA Sanchez observed unleveled floor, dips and holes in preschool side. Preschool side had holes in dirt area near fence, grass was unlevel near cement block and turf area.

FAQ · About this visit

Common questions about this visit

What happened during the August 7, 2024 inspection of IMMANUEL DREW CHILD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION?

This was a complaint inspection of IMMANUEL DREW CHILD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION on August 7, 2024. The inspection found no deficiencies and no citations were issued.

Were any citations issued to IMMANUEL DREW CHILD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION on August 7, 2024?

No citations were issued during this inspection. The facility was found to be in compliance with all applicable regulations.

What type of inspection was this?

This was a complaint inspection. Complaint inspections are triggered when someone reports a concern about the facility to CCLD.

Share this reportEmail

Next steps

If this is your facility,claim this pageand add your response to the public record. Free.

Spotted an inaccuracy on this visit?Request a reviewand we will check it against the public record.

Researching this visit professionally?Book a 20-minute calland we will walk through what we have on file.

Data from CCLD public records. Last updated . If you believe any information is inaccurate, report it here.