During the course of investigation, LPA interviewed 6 staff members, and 1 of 5 parents called were interviewed. Parent disclosed dissatisfaction with unfriendly staff. Children were not interviewed due to being non-verbal.

During the staff interviews, Staff 1 (S1), disclosed two previous staff that left and at one point S5 violated children’s personal rights. S1 redirected S5 as soon as it was called to S1’s attention. S1 has heard kids say S5 is mean. In October of 2023, in room 103, Adult #1 (A1) was a co-teacher. A1 observed that S5 was pretty rough. S5 would sit children down roughly, pull their shoulder, kind of try waking up the children from nap. S5 was written up on Oct. 6, 2023. S5 did not deny it but did not seem to think it was as a big deal. S5’ working hours were also being reduced, S5 was being monitored and was not being left alone supervising the children.

Staff 2 (S2) disclosed observing when a child was crying, S5 always tells the kids that “I’m not going to hurt you” which was weird, but S2 saw S5 pull children’s arms harshly. S2 said S2 has not seen teachers speak inappropriately to children but worries about S5 when no one is around. S2 has seen S5 was being rough with the children. Sometimes S2 doesn’t even want to go on S2’s breaks because S2 doesn’t want to leave S5 alone with the kids. S2 does not feel children are safe with S5. Staff 3 (S3) stated S3 has not seen any staff speak inappropriately or treat children in a rough manner. Although S3 stated about 2 years ago, a child in S5’s class complained to S3 that S5 pulled the child’s arm. S3 talked to the director about it. The director just made excuses for S5 and did not really address the issue.

Staff 4 (S4) said S4 reported to the Director that S5 was speaking inappropriately to children. Then Director removed S5 from the classroom and reduced S5’s hours. S5 was no longer being left alone with kids.Page 2 of 3

2 of 5 parents were interviewed, 1 of 2 parents interviewed disclosed dissatisfaction with the facility.

During the staff interviews, Staff 1 (S1) denied discouraging staff from reporting to Licensing but rather implemented that if staff see something they should say something. S1 wanted staff to feel like they can hold each other accountable but also keep S1 in the loop so S1 can follow up. S1 denied threatening staff to write them up if the staff don’t report to S1 first. S1 does want staff to speak to S1 about any incidents. Staff 2 (S2) disclosed that S1 said S1 would write staff up if staff did not tell S1 first before reporting to Licensing. Staff 3 (S3) stated S1, in the last (licensing) report S1 talked to the staff, and S1 asked staff if staff see anything that staff should address it with that person. S4 denied S1 ever discouraged staff from reporting to licensing. S5 said S5 is not aware of S1 ever discouraging or threaten staff from reporting to licensing. Staff 6 (S6) did not make any disclosures.

2 of 5 parents were interviewed, 1 of 2 parents interviewed had concerns with the daycare.

Based on LPA’s interviews and record review, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged Staff discourage other staff from reporting incidents involving day care children in care violations 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 signature on this form acknowledges receipt of these rights.

Page 2 of 2.