complaint·April 27, 2023

Interviews with the Director, staff members (including Staff#1), and children in the school age program did not produce any evidence that supported or went against the allegations. Staff#1 denied the allegations and made no disclosure. LPA Lee was not able to get in contact with the reporting party in order to obtain further information regarding the allegations. The allegations does mention a name in the details, but the name did not match with any of the children in the school age program or staff members. The complaint mentioned that the several complaints was made to the Director regarding Staff#1. The Director denied this allegation and made no disclosure. Based on the details provided by the reporting party, the alleged interaction between Staff#1 and the child in care happened while transportation was being provided either in the morning or afternoon. This would mean that no other adult was present during the time the alleged interaction occurred. It is possible that a staff member did yell and threaten a child in care while providing them with transportation. However, it is also possible that alleged interaction did not happen since the reporting party did not specify certain details in the allegation and was not available for an interview to provide more context about the initial complaint details. Therefore, based on the evidence collected during the investigation, the allegation Staff yelled and threatened a child in care may be valid. However, there is not enough preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur, therefore at this time the above allegations are found to be unsubstantiated. The notice of site inspection must remain posted for a period of 30 days during hours of operation. Failure to maintain posting will result in a civil penalty of $100.00 dollars. Exit interview conducted with Director Margie Zarate. Appeal rights discussed and explained.