complaint·December 18, 2024

Page 2 of 2 on 11/26/2024 and one picture sent on 11/27/2024. The pictures showing the sheets are on each napping mat stacking on each other located on the shelf in the classroom. During the course of investigation, LPA interviewed 8 staff who worked in preschool and infant programs. LPA contacted 2 other staff over the phone since they were not present on the initial inspection day. LPA also contacted 10 preschool parents randomly. Staff who were interviewed stated the beddings are stored separately and the mats are stacked on each other. Staff did not acknowledge storing the beddings somehow to touch each other. However, two pictures have been sent to show the beddings are touching each other and are not stored separately. Based on the interviews with 10 staff, viewing pictures sent, and contact with 10 parents of whom 4 parents responded with no concerns regarding the above allegation, it was determined the preponderance of evidence standard has been met, the allegation of " the beddings on the napping mats are stacked on each other and not separated” is found to be SUBSTANTIATED. California Title 22 Regulations Section 101239.1(c)(2) under Napping Equipment is cited on LIC 9099D next page. . The director, Shelina Suravarapu was informed that the “Notice of Site Visit” must be posted for 30 consecutive days. Notice of Site Visit must be posted on or adjacent to the door. Failure to post will result in Civil Penalty of $100.00. The director, Shelina Suravarapu was provided with a copy of their appeal rights (LIC 9058) and their signature on this form acknowledges receipt of these rights. All appeals must be in writing and received by the Regional Office within 15 business days. The exit interview was conducted with director, Shelina Suravarapu . End of report Page 2 of 3 one staff was with 14 awake preschool children in the Rainbow Room on 11/26/2024 between 12:30 to 3:00 pm. The report stated the director is not at the facility full time. The director’s time is from 9 am to 2 pm and the staff don’t have anybody to go to if they have issues. On the inspection day of 12/2/2024, LPA observed there were 12 preschool children with one staff in one room and 27 napping preschool children with 3 staff in another room. The director was not present. However, the staff in charge was available. During the course of investigation, LPA interviewed 8 staff who worked in preschool and infant programs. LPA contacted 2 other staff over the phone since they were not present on the initial inspection day. LPA also contacted 10 preschool parents randomly. Children were not interviewed as children are unable to accurately provide time related information regarding the above allegations. Regarding the allegation of teacher child ratio, LPA interviewed the staff who have worked in preschool program. LPA also interviewed the staff from infant program for additional information. Staff # 1, 2, 3, and 5 stated they pass by the preschool classrooms every day and do not pay attention to the number of preschool children. However, they have observed one or two staff in preschool rooms. According to staff # 6 and staff # 8 they move around the children to keep the teacher to child ratio at all times. The rest of the staff did not acknowledge the facility being out of ratio. LPA was informed substitute agency was called to recruit staff when needed to. LPA reviewed the timecards of staff randomly for the dates of Monday November 25, 2024, Tuesday November 26, 2024, and Wednesday November 27, 2024. LPA reviewed the sign in out sheet for students for those dates as well. LPA calculated the number of staff and number of children for before 9:00 am for those dates. LPA realized there were enough staff present at the facility to cover the number of children. However, it was unknown how many children and how many staff were in each classroom or on the playground at any time of the day. There was no detailed documentation to show this recording accurately. Based on the interviews with 10 staff, 10 random parents of whom 3 expressed no concerns regarding the teacher to child ratio, one advised the LPA to remain attentive to the teacher to child ratio, and LPA’s observation on 12/2/2024 and today, there is not enough proof or evidence to support the allegation of “the facility is out of ratio” occurred or did not occur. Continued on page 3 Page 3 of 3 Regarding the allegation of “The director is not at the facility full time”, LPA interviewed the preschool staff. LPA also interviewed the staff from infant program for additional information. Staff # 1 (S1) stated director is not at school every day. S2 stated director was out few days. However, she works before 9:00 am to 3:30 pm every day. S3 stated director is at school majority of time between 8:30 am to 5:30 pm. S4 stated the director works every day before 9:00 am until 5:00 pm. S5 stated not sure about director’s hours. S6 stated the director’s hours are 8:30 am to 4:00 pm. S7 stated director’s hours is from 9:00 am to 3:00 pm. S8 stated director’s hours are from 8:30 am until 4:00 pm or 5 or 6:00 pm. S10 stated the director has an 8-hour shift. The director stated her hours are from 8:30 am to 5:30 pm and is present at school every day. Sometimes she comes early and leaves late. LPA reviewed the timecard for the director for the random dates of 11/25, 11/26, and 11/27. LPA observed the director’s hours were recorded 7:40 am to 5:30 pm on 11/25/2024, 7:45 am to 3:40 pm on 11/26/2024, and 8:15 am to 2:10 pm on 11/27/2024. However, all the staff stated that there is one designated staff to go to when the director is not available. Based on the interviews with 10 staff, 10 random parents of whom 4 expressed no concerns regarding the allegation of “director is not at the facility full time”, and LPA’s observation on 12/2/2024 and today, there is not enough proof or evidence to support the allegation of “The director is not at the facility full time” occurred or did not occur. This agency has investigated the complaint alleging “1) The facility is out of ratio, 2) The director is not at the facility full time”, although the allegation 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. Notice of Site Visit was posted. The notice of site visit must be posted for 30 consecutive days. Failure to post will result in civil penalties of $100. In the areas which were investigated, no deficiency was cited today. The director, Shelina Suravarapu was provided a copy of their appeal rights (LIC 9058 1/16) and their signature on this form acknowledges receipt of these rights. Exit interview was conducted with director, Shelina Suravarapu . This report ends here.