complaint·July 21, 2023

During the course of investigation, LPA interviewed 7 staff members, and 4 parents. During the staff interview, Staff 1 (S1), Staff 2 (S2), Staff 3 (S3), Staff 4 (S4), and Staff 6 (S6) stated the previous Director’s last day was March 3, 2023. Staff 5 (S5) and staff 7 (S7) stated the previous Director’s last day was sometime in March. S1 disclosed stepping up as director while the administration was looking for a permanent director. From March 3, 2023- May 1, 2023, S1 acted as interim director alongside the administration until S2 returned from leave to assume Director position. LPA Valdez Santana reviewed S1’s qualifications and S1 did not have the qualifications to act as director. All 7 staff did not know if the administration submitted a director packet to Licensing office. 5 of 7 staff stated S1 stepped in as interim director after the previous director left in March 2023 until S2 was hired on as Director but was on leave until May. The school administration failed to have a qualified Director for the preschool program after the director left for more than 30 days. 4 of 6 parents were interviewed, parents had no issues or concerns with the daycare. Based on interviews conducted, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met, therefore the above allegation is found to be SUBSTANTIATED . California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 12, Chapter 1 Section 101215.1(f)(1) Child Care Center Directors Qualifications and Duties is being cited on the attached LIC 9099D. Please refer to attached 9099D for documentation of deficiencies. Exit interview was conducted. The Notice of Site Visit was posted. Appeal Rights was explained. A copy of appeal rights (LIC 9058 1/16) was provided and their signatures on this form acknowledges receipt of these rights. First level appeal is to Regional Manager, address is above on the report. Page 2 of 2.