complaint·January 14, 2025

Staff did not provide food to the children in the quantity necessary Interviews were conducted with parents. Parent interviews revealed all parents have knowledge towards the food menu and the amount of snacks and meals their child receive. When asked by LPA, if their children would come home stating they did not eat at the center, all parents interviewed stated, their children have never said anything similar to that. Also every parent interviewed stated they would recommend the center. As mentioned LPA Negrete conducted four facility inspection during the investigation. During the inspections LPA observed food being prepared for the children in the Facility’s kitchen. Also one of the inspections pertained to a annual inspection and LPA observed a operable refrigerator in the kitchen. If required, the refrigerator is used for food. Also director stated , facility provides snacks to children three times a day and lunch is provided to children in care at this facility. LPA observed the food menu posted in a public area in all four inspections. Additionally Director stated the facility provides snack twice a day, one snack at around 8:30AM and another 3:15PM. Also multiple staff stated they utilize a ladel in order to make sure children receive a full scoop weather that includes crackers, carrots or cereal or other itmes(see LIC812). Furthermore the parent handbook on page 20 provides details on the quantity of the snacks the children will receive. On page 20 of the parent handbook, there are details to a "GrowFit" program. The aforementioned program states, children in care will receive more than one healthy offering. Although the above allegation may have occurred or have some validity, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove that the alleged violations did or did not occur. Therefore, the allegation is Unsubstantiated. Report was read to director Notice of site visit was provided. Notice of site visit needs to be posted for 30 days. Allegation #2: Staff did not provide supervision to meet the children's needs Interviews were conducted with parents. Parents that were interviewed stated they are satisfied with the care and supervision their children received. Most parents interviewed stated they had no issues with the facility. However, one parent, whose child attends the facility, expressed concern about the staff turnover. The parent stated they are surprised and unsure why the room their child attends lacks a consistent teacher. The parent continued to express that the frequent staff changes prevent consistency in meeting the needs of the children. As mentioned, LPA conducted a 21-month review of unusual incidents. LPA discovered two unusual incidents related to care and supervision. The first UIR occurred on 10/18/2024. During outside time in the two’s classroom, S#7 brought a group of children inside the classroom for a potty break. When the teacher returned the children to the play yard, C1 was still inside the classroom unsupervised. The second incident occurred on 04/21/2023. The director stated that children in care were transitioning from the play yard to the classroom. S#5 counted every child as they entered the classroom. S#5 believed all the children were inside the classroom. However, S#5 stepped outside into the play yard and observed C#2 hiding behind the door. S#5 estimated the child had been outside for approximately 2 to 3 minutes. Staff interviews revealed, staff schedules change frequently due to staff calling out. Staff may unexpectedly need to open the facility with only a 24-hour notice from management. Witness #5(staff) stated, how at times witness#5 feels stressed and this facility and it affects the job performance(See LIC812-C). Also witness#8 stated, this past year (2024) witness#8 felt stressed at this facility and it has also effected job performance(see LIC812). Both witnesses stated this is partially due to the change of schedules and Leadership from management. Continued on LIC9099-C Based on LPAs interviews, and documents collected during the investigation, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met. Therefore, Allegation #2 is SUBSTANTIATED . California Code of Regulations, Title 22, is being cited on the attached LIC 9099D. The report was read to director. Appeals rights were provided to director. Notice of site visit was provided and must remain posted for 30 days.