Inspector’s narrative
What the inspector wrote
Page 2
During the investigation LPA Odom interviewed complaining party, director, 4 staff members, conducted a facility inspection and took pictures and reviewed the children’s roster, personnel report, and facility sketch. LPA did not interview children or parents due to allegation being physical plant.
During the investigation, Director (S1) was interviewed on 03/18/22. S1 stated, in the last year they have changed out the carpet in the entire facility, they repainted the inside of the facility, they shampoo the carpet every 6 months. S1 stated, the staff is responsible to clean their classroom daily by disinfecting the toys, table and chairs. The janitor comes to the facility once a week to conduct a deep cleaning of the carpet, restrooms, classrooms, doorknobs and windows. S1 stated, the staff will inspect the outdoor playground for any broken items or animal feces in the morning. S1 stated the 2-year old’s are not allowed to utilize the large wooden play structure, they have a small plastic play structure appropriate for their age.
During the investigation, 4 staff members were interviewed on 03/18/22. All of the staff disclosed they are responsible for cleaning and disinfecting their classroom daily, a janitor comes once a week to deep clean of the facility, and they feel that the childcare center is safe and clean for the children in care. All of the staff also disclosed the 2-year-old children are not allowed to utilize the large play structure, they only use the small plastic play structure. Staff #5 (S5) stated, the sand gets rototill in the playground and the wooden is sanded on the play structure for splinter every year.
During the facility inspection LPA Odom observed the carpets, walls, bathrooms, toys, tables, chairs, fridge, sleeping mats, children’s cubbies were clean and organized. The windows and sliding glass door had tinted film that had scratches from wear and tear. The outdoor playground was clean, outdoor toys had sun wear, wooden playground structure was sturdy, and the walking bridge had wooden handrail. LPA did not see splinters, nails or broken pieces of wood on the wood play structure.
Continue to page 3.
Page 3
Based on LPA’s facility inspection, observations, interviews conducted with complainant party, director, 4 staff, and records reviewed it was determined there was insufficient evidence that facility is not maintained clean and sanitary and facility does not provide safe play equipment. Although the allegations may have happened or are valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violations did or did not occur, therefore the allegations are Unsubstantiated.
Exit interview was conducted with Director Patricia Groton. Notice of Site Visit was posted during the visit. Director was informed that the notice of site visit must be posted for 30 consecutive days. Failure to post will result in civil penalties of $100. Director was provided a copy of their appeal rights (LIC 9058 01/16) and their signature on this form acknowledges receipt of these rights. First level appeals should be sent to the regional manager to the address listed above.
Page 2
During the investigation LPA Odom interviewed complaining party, director, 4 staff members, conducted a facility inspection and took pictures and reviewed the children’s roster, personnel report, and facility sketch. LPA did not interview children or parents due to allegation being physical plant.
During the investigation, Director (S1) was interviewed on 03/18/22. S1 stated, in the last year they have changed out the carpet in the entire facility, they repainted the inside of the facility, they shampoo the carpet every 6 months, and anything that is broken is replaced or changed out right away. S1 stated, they are constantly keeping up with the maintenance of the facility for the safety of the children.
During the investigation, 4 staff members were interviewed on 03/18/22. All of the staff disclosed that the facility has renewed the carpet, repainted the walls in the classrooms, and S1 immediately repairs anything that is broken in the facility. Staff #2 (S2) and Staff #4 (S4) stated that the bulb from the bathroom light was recently replaced and it was not working for about 1 day before it was replaced.
During the facility inspection LPA Odom observed that the lights from the restroom had been replaced and in working condition. Staff reported they had a plan in place (providing the children a flashlight) while the restroom light was waiting to be replaced. LPA Odom inspected the step located outside the sliding doors, the drop from the inside to the outside wooden step is 5 inches drop and not a 5 foot drop, but LPA observed that the step is slightly leaning downward on the right corner making it unstable when staff and children are using it.
Based on LPA’s facility inspection, observations, interviews conducted with complainant party, director, 4 staff members, pictures taken, and records reviewed, it has been determined that the facility steps and restroom light were in disrepair. Therefore, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met, therefore the above allegation is found to be Substantiated. California Code of Regulations, Title 22, 101238(a) Buildings and Grounds is being cited on the attached LIC 9099D.
Exit interview was conducted with Director Patricia Groton. Notice of Site Visit was posted during the visit. Director was informed that the notice of site visit must be posted for 30 consecutive days. Failure to post will result in civil penalties of $100. Director was provided a copy of their appeal rights (LIC 9058 01/16) and their signature on this form acknowledges receipt of these rights. First level appeals should be sent to the regional manager to the address listed above.
