complaint·June 13, 2024

All staff interviewed confirmed that some staff\342\200\231s children do at times come to the facility after school. The name\342\200\231s of the staff\342\200\231s children, all identified as school age, included C1 \342\200\223 C4. Most of the staff interviewed stated that they believed that child (C1) was enrolled at the facility and eligible to attend. LPA\342\200\231s review of the facility roster proved that child C1 was not listed on the roster. During an additional interview with D1 on 06/11/24, D1 told LPA Strother that C1 was disenrolled from the program when C1 entered kindergarten in August of 2023, but thought that C1 was still eligible to be present within the terms of the license. Staff\342\200\231s accounts of C2-C4\342\200\231s presence at the facility varied, however more than one staff admitted that they have observed C2 and C4 on the playground interacting with the enrolled children on multiple occasions. Two of the three adults interviewed stated that they have witnessed C1 or a staff\342\200\231s child that appears to be 6 years old in attendance on more than one occasion. One adult interviewed stated that she has observed children C1, C2 and C4 playing on the playground with the enrolled children. Based on record review and interviews with staff and adults it has been corroborated that the facility has operated outside the terms of the license. All staff interviewed denied the allegation that the facility has operated out of ratio, giving examples of always counting and knowing how many children they have and how many staff are needed. Some staff interviewed stated that they will bring children inside with them as a means of remaining in ratio outside, stating the following example: \342\200\234If we have 30 children outside with three teachers and one teacher needs to go inside, that teacher will bring 6 children inside with them.\342\200\235 The adults interviewed were not aware of the specific ratio requirements but stated that they did not have concerns about the supervision and feel that there has always been enough staff present with the children. Two of the three adults interviewed stated that they have witnessed staff counting the children or marking a board with the number of children, and changing the number when a child goes home. Although none of the interviews conducted corroborated the allegation that the facility operated out of ratio, based on LPA\342\200\231s observation the facility was out of ratio during nap time on 03/20/24. When LPA arrived at the facility at 1:50pm it was nap time. S1 was observed in the Butterflies classroom with 23 children present and S2 and S3 were in the Busy Bee classroom with 13 children. At 2:05pm LPA witnessed a parent arrive to pick up their child from the Butterflies. S1 told the parent, \342\200\234He didn\342\200\231t sleep today.\342\200\235 At 2:35pm LPA witnessed several children now awake on their nap mats. LPA asked S1 if there was a qualified staff available to come into the classroom to meet the ratio requirements. S1 stated that she thought that if the children were on their mats she was within ratio. LPA explained that the children must be sleeping for the ratio of 24 to 1 teacher to apply, with a qualified staff on site and available to step in when a child wakes. Continue on LIC809-C S1 stated that Director (D1) was out on their lunch break, S4 had gone home as scheduled at 2:00pm and that S5 could come in from the kitchen, but does not have the qualifications of a teacher. Based on LPA's observation and interview with S1, the facility did not meet the ratio requirements during nap time on 03/20/24. Based on LPA observations, records reviewed and interviews conducted, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met; therefore, the above allegations were found to be SUBSTANTIATED. California Code of Regulations, Title 22 is cited on the attached LIC9099-D. A notice of site visit was given and must remain posted for 30 days. Failure to comply with posting requirements shall result in an immediate civil penalty of $100. Appeal Rights were provided and this report reviewed with facility representative, Heather Peters.