1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32 | Pg 2
concern regarding the staff. Staff members also denied the allegation and expressed they have not observed any inappropriate interaction between the staff and a child.
A second allegation was received alleging that staff did not abide by the admission agreement. On February 20, 2026, at around 5:00 p.m., an incident happened where child (C1) hit a staff member in the eye inside the Innovation room. A few days following the incident, a meeting between concerned parties was conducted on February 26, 2026, to discuss the behavioral intervention plan for the child. The behavioral plan was signed by both parties. However, on March 10, 2026, at around 3:00 p.m., there was another incident that occurred where C1 hit two other children in the Village room. On March 11, 2026, the child (C1) was disenrolled from the program. C1 was on a behavior plan prior to the disenrollment. During the behavior plan meeting, staff informed C1 parent that if C1 behavior continues, it will result in the disenrollment from the after-school program. LPA review of the parent handbook revealed the following statement “We really hate to do it, but sometimes we have to disenroll a child if they pose a risk to the health or safety of other kids or staff, or if their needs just can’t be met by our program.”
A third allegation was received alleging the staff threatened a daycare child. Parent interviews revealed that none of the staff were reported to have threatened a daycare child. One of the parents stated that the parent felt like the staff was more aggressive when handling certain situations with the child. However, the parent did not provide evidence to prove the allegation.
Based on interviews, record review, and observation, there is not enough evidence regarding the following allegations: staff mishandled a daycare child while in care, staff did not abide by the admission agreement, and staff threatened a daycare child. Therefore, the allegations are deemed unsubstantiated at this time. Although the allegations 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 given and must remain posted for 30 days. An exit interview was conducted, and a copy of this report and appeal rights were reviewed with facility director Jodi Castruita.
|