complaint·October 31, 2023

LPA was able to interview 2 out of 7 children. 5 out of 7 did not qualify. Child 2 (C2) disclosed they did not see poop in the garden area but saw it by the bicycles near the grass. C2 said their friends saw it near the garden area. During the staff interviews, Staff 1 (S1) said that S1 has not been told by any staff of animal feces on the facility grounds. Staff 2 (S2) stated S2 has never seen any animal feces. Staff 3 (S3), disclosed, seeing some animal excrements last week in the little garden, and cleaned it up right away. Since S3 has been hired, S3 has seen it twice. Staff 4 (S4) stated, S4 saw it (animal feces) happen last week. It happens all the time in garden area. Sometimes S4 has cleaned it up. S4 told the former Head of School and they said someone was going to come out, but did not know if they did. Staff 5 (S5) said S5 had not seen any feces otherwise S5 would have reported it to the admin. Staff 6 (S6) said S6 has not seen feces outside in the yard. Staff 7 (S7) denied any seeing any animal feces. Staff 8 (S8) denied seeing any animal feces but did see see a cat around. Staff 9 (S9) stated S9 has not seen feces. 3 of 5 parents were interviewed, 3 of 3 parents interviewed 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 101238 Buildings and Grounds, Type B 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 1 of 2. During the staff interviews, Staff 1 (S1) stated, the ants were addressed to S1 in August, by another staff who brought it to attention. S1 said S1 called Orkin to do treatments to in both preschool classrooms. S1 presented LPA an invoice from Orkin when they came out 0n 8/16/23 to treat the facility. Staff 2 (S2) stated S2 was not aware of any ant problems at the facility. Staff 3 (S3) said S3 does not really go into the classrooms so S3 is not aware of any ant problem. Staff 4 (S4) stated S4 saw ants in the Pre-k room but also saw Orkin come and treat the school for ants. Staff 5 (S5) disclosed there was ants in the Pre-k room, but it was only for two days and the Director took care of it right away. Staff 6 (S6) said there was only a few ants here and there but the on the 2nd day the administration called the Orkin people so the day after staff spoke up about, they had them come out. Staff 7 (S7) In August there was some ants for 2 days, one of the staff had an interaction with a parent where the parent saw the ants in the entrance. A parent emailed with the concern of the ant problem and the email was immediately forwarded the administration. The next day they came to look at the classroom with the Orkin company on 8/29/23.Staff 8 (S8) said there was some ants by the trash bin, so S8 told the administration and Orkin came 1-2 days later. During the course of the investigation, LPA obtained Exterminator service invoices for ant treatments. 2 out of 7 children were qualified. Child 2 (C2) stated, there have been ants in C2’s classroom, about 10 ants but there was not ants anymore. C2 said the ants were by the trash can and C2’s teacher cleaned them up. LPA visited the facility 3 separate times and LPA did not observer any ants in Pre-k and Preschool classrooms, the classrooms were clean and tidy. 3 of 5 parents were interviewed, parents had no issues or concerns with the daycare. Although the allegations may have happened or are valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur; therefore, the allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED. Exit interview was conducted, and report was reviewed and discussed. Notice of Site Visit was posted during the visit. The facility representative 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 per day. The facility was provided a copy of their appeal rights (LIC 9058 12/15) 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.