|
September 13, 2022 Rachel Jee Crowley, Authorized Agent Tierra Encantada Windom 2700 30th Ave S. Minneapolis, MN 55406-1606 License Number: 1093613 (Child Care Ctr) Program Location: 5750 Wentworth Ave, Minneapolis, MN 55419 Dear Rachel Jee Crowley: The Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS), Division of Licensing, received your request for reconsideration of Citation 3 from the Correction Order issued to you by the Department of Human Services on March 7, 2022. You did not request reconsideration of the remaining citations, and, as a result, those citations are final and not subject to review. SUMMARY OF CITATION AND RECONSIDERATION DETERMINATION: Citation 1. Staff distribution requirements were not maintained. Two aide qualified staff persons were supervising 14 children. A teacher qualified staff person was required. (Toddler C: Toddler classroom) Your Response. You stated that the aide placed in the Toddler C classroom was the aide with an approved variance beginning January 24, 2022, and that you properly maintained staff distributions according to Rule 9503.0040, subpart 2. Applicable Law. The first staff member needed to meet the required staff-to-child ratio must be a teacher. Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0040, subpart 2, item D.
Reconsideration Determination. The citation for staff distributions not being maintain was for the Toddlers C classroom. The staff persons in Toddler C at the time of the licensing visit were both aide qualified. A teacher-qualified staff person was required. While you state that there was a staff person in the Toddlers C classroom with a variance to serve as a teacher, the variance you provided with your request for reconsideration is for the staff person who in the Toddlers A classroom – not the Toddlers C classroom – at the time of the licensing visit. The record supports finding that there was not a teacher-qualified staff person in the Toddlers C classroom at the time of the licensing visit. There is sufficient evidence to support the violation. Citation 1 is affirmed. Citation 2. Food allergy information was not readily available to staff where food is prepared. Food allergy information for four children was not readily available in the kitchen where food is prepared. Your Response. You stated that updated food allergy information was available in both the Allergy Binder in the kitchen as well as the center director’s office at the time of the inspection. Applicable Law. A child's allergy information must be available at all times including on site, when on field trips, or during transportation. A child's food allergy information must be readily available to a staff person in the area where food is prepared and served to the child. Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.41, subdivision 1, paragraph (d).
Reconsideration Determination. At the time of the review there was not an ICCPP in the kitchen for four children. The DHS licensor observed that the four ICCPPs were not included in the allergy binder provided by the cook in the kitchen where food was prepared. In addition, the director stated that the program was in the process of updating ICCPPs and getting new staff signatures and showed the DHS licensor the stack of ICCPPs on their desk that the program was updating. Further, during the exit Interview, neither the director, nor the other administrator present, stated that the ICCPPs were available in the kitchen. As the four ICCPPs were not in the kitchen at the time of the licensing visit, there is sufficient evidence to support the violation. Citation 2 is affirmed. Citation 5. The DHS licensor observed that hazardous objects were accessible to children. A bottle of hand sanitizer and a container of diaper wipes were on a shelf and accessible to children. (Preschool A: Preschool classroom) Diaper wipes were stored on a shelf and accessible to children. (Preschool C: Preschool classroom and PreK B: Preschool classroom) Your Response. You stated that you use diaper wipes that are non-toxic, non-hazardous, and present zero acute, chronic, fire, pressure, or reactive hazards. Applicable Law. Sharp objects, medicines, plastic bags, and poisonous plants and chemicals, including household supplies, must be stored out of reach of children. Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0140, subpart 17. Child care centers licensed under this chapter and Minnesota Rules, chapter 9503, must develop a risk reduction plan that identifies the general risks to children served by the child care center. The license holder must establish procedures to minimize identified risks, train staff on the procedures, and annually review the procedures. The plan shall prohibit the accessibility of hazardous items to children. Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.66, subdivision 2, paragraphs (a), (e).
Reconsideration Determination. The back of the diaper wipes container said “Keep out of the reach of children”, and were stored at a level that made them accessible to children. During the exit interview, the licensor stated that the diaper wipes package stated “keep out of the reach of children”. There is sufficient evidence to support the violation, and Citation 5 is affirmed. Citation 11. The program did not comply with requirements for an allergy-related Individual Child Care Program Plan (ICCPP); Documentation was not available to show that staff persons reviewed an allergy-related ICCPP. There was no documentation available to show that 1 of 3 (SP13) staff persons had reviewed an allergy-related ICCPP for a child. Your Response. You stated that the ICCPP document was available and was signed by SP13, and attached an ICCPP to your reconsideration request. Applicable Law. The license holder must ensure that each staff person who is responsible for carrying out the individual child care program plan review and follow the plan. Documentation of a staff person’s review must be kept on site. Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.41, subdivision 1, paragraph (b).
Reconsideration Determination. The ICCPP provided with your request for reconsideration is not the same as the ICCPP that the licensor observed at the review. The ICCPP produced during the time of the review did not show that SP13 had reviewed the ICCPP. While the newly provided ICCP included in the request for reconsideration has SP13’s signature, upon review, it appears as if a new second page had replaced the original second page of the ICCPP that was reviewed during the licensing visit. The newly provided page was missing (1) the date the ICCP was created, the date the ICCPP was created, the signature of the center representative, the position of the center representative, and the dates staff reviewed and signed the ICCPP. Further, on the newly provided ICCPP, some staff titles and signatures are missing, and the staff names are printed in a different order than in the original ICCPP. All that missing data was on the original ICCPP reviewed by the licensor during the licensing visit. The record supports finding that, at the time of the licensing visit, SP13 had not reviewed the child’s ICCPP. There is sufficient evidence to support the violation, and Citation 11 is affirmed. Disposition: The Commissioner has reviewed the relevant laws and all of the information you submitted in response to the Correction Order. Citations 1, 2, 5, and 11 are supported by the record and affirmed. This is a final agency decision. The Commissioner appreciates your response and encourages you to continue to work cooperatively with your licensor to ensure the safety and well-being of the children you serve. Sincerely,  Afsheen Foroozan, Attorney Legal Counsel’s Office Office of Inspector General
|
