|
June 7, 2024 Ubah Abdihamid Hassan, Authorized Agent Hope Academy Child Care Center 790 13th Street South Saint Cloud, MN 56301 License Number: 1080852 (Child Care Ctr) Program Location: 605 Franklin Avenue NE, Saint Cloud, MN 56304 Dear Ubah Abdihamid Hassan: The Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS), Division of Licensing, received your request for reconsideration of Citations 2, 4, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, and 15 from the Correction Order issued by DHS on September 22, 2023. You did not request reconsideration of any other citations, therefore, those citations are final and not subject to review. SUMMARY OF CITATIONS AND RECONSIDERATION DETERMINATION: Citation 2. Staff did not supervise the children at all times. Your Response. You challenge this citation, citing Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.02, subdivision 18, paragraph (d), which states that, when a school-age child leaves the classroom but remains within the licensed space to deliver or retrieve items from the child’s personal storage space, supervision occurs when a program staff person has knowledge of the child’s activity and location, and checks on the child at least every five minutes. Applicable Law. Minnesota Rule 9503.0045, subpart 1.A, mandates licensed child care centers to supervise their children at all times. Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.02, subdivision 18, sets forth how adequate supervision is achieved for various age groups. For a school-aged child, a program staff person must be: accountable for the child’s care; able to intervene to protect the child’s health and safety; and within sight and hearing of the child at all times, except under specified circumstances. In situations where the school-aged child is using the restroom in the licensed space, or has left the classroom to deliver or retrieve items from his/her personal storage space, supervision occurs when a staff person has knowledge of the child’s activity and location, and checks on the child at least every five minutes. Reconsideration Determination. The applicable statute allows certain exceptions to the sight/sound supervision requirement for limited situations when a school-aged child needs to use the restroom or his/her storage space. The licensor who conducted the site visit observed a school-aged child alone in his/her classroom, working on a computer while the rest of the class was outside. This is outside of the specified situations addressed by the statute, and therefore the center could not avail itself of the modified supervision requirements for this activity. Citation 2 is affirmed. Citation 4. Equipment and furniture were not in good repair. Books accessible to the children were torn and missing pages. The caterpillar tunnel on the playground was missing the front and back pieces to the tunnel. Your Response. You challenge the citation, asserting that the books with torn or missing pages were in a room that is no longer used as a classroom. You state that the room is only used to serve lunch and dinner. Applicable Law. Under Minnesota Rule 9503.0140, subpart 19, equipment and furniture must be in good repair. Reconsideration Determination. The applicable rule requires a licensed day care center to maintain its equipment for the children in good repair. You do not dispute that the children’s books were in disrepair. You challenge the citation, reasoning that the books were not in a classroom, but where the children are served their meals. The distinction does not change the underlying violation, however, since the children still utilize that space and therefore had access to the books in question. Moreover, you do not dispute that the caterpillar tunnel on the children’s playground was in disrepair at the time of the licensing review. Citation 4 is affirmed. Citation 8. Documentation was not available on site to verify that three staff persons (SP4, SP5, and SP6) had received orientation trainings on the following topics prior to starting their assigned duties: - the risk of abusive head trauma (SP4 ; SP5); - allergy prevention and response (SP4; SP5; SP6); - emergency preparedness (SP4; SP5; SP6); - handling and disposal of bodily fluids (SP4; SP5; SP6); - handling emergencies and accidents (SP4; SP5; SP6); - procedures for maintaining health and safety (SP4; SP5; SP6); - a child’s individual child care program plan (SP4; SP5; SP6); - program’s risk reduction (SP4; SP6); and - sudden unexpected infant death (SP4; SP5). Your Response. You assert that all orientation training records for the specified staff persons were available on site, but were not reviewed by the licensors during the visit. You state that the records would have been made available to the licensors, had they asked to see them. Applicable Law. Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.40, subdivision 1, requires staff persons at a licensed child care center to complete the enumerated orientation trainings before starting their assigned duties. Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.04, subdivision 14, paragraph (b), requires the license holder to provide those trainings and document the provision of those trainings. Minnesota Statutes, section 245C.02, subdivision 11, defines “direct contact” services as “providing face-to-face care, training, supervision, counseling, consultation, or medication assistance” to the children served by the program. Reconsideration Determination. The licensor reviewed the orientation training records for SP4, SP5, and SP6. SP4’s date of first direct contact with the children is noted as February 27, 2023. SP4 completed all required orientation training components by March 3, 2023. SP5’s date of first direct contact is noted as June 9, 2023. SP5 completed all required orientation training components by June 15, 2023. SP6’s date of first direct contact is noted as June 6, 2023. SP6 completed all required orientation training components by June 9, 2023. In sum, the records show that SP4, SP5, and SP6, all began their assigned duties at the center, including providing direct contact care to the children, before fully completing their required orientation trainings. Citation 8 is affirmed. Citation 9. The program did not comply with sudden unexpected infant death training requirements. A staff person (SP4) did not complete training on reducing the risk of sudden unexpected infant death before caring for infants. Your Response. You challenge this citation, stating that SP4’s first date of direct contact is listed as February 27, 2023, because that’s when s/he was first introduced to the children and co-teachers, but s/he did not begin working in the classrooms until after his/her orientation trainings were complete. Applicable Law. Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.40, subdivision 5, paragraph (a), requires staff persons to complete sudden unexpected infant death training before caring for infants. Minnesota Statutes, section 245C.02, subdivision 11, defines “direct contact” services as “providing face-to-face care, training, supervision, counseling, consultation, or medication assistance” to the children served by the program. Reconsideration Determination. According to SP4’s orientation training records, s/he is an aide who works with infants. SP4’s date of first direct contact with the children is shown as February 27, 2023, but his/her completion date for sudden unexpected infant death training is left blank. DHS relies on the license holders to maintain accurate records of personnel information, including when the staff person first provided direct contact services to the children in the program (in accordance with how “direct contact” services is defined under statute), and when they completed their required trainings. The record supports the citation. Citation 15 is affirmed. Citation 10. The program did not comply with abusive head trauma training requirements. A staff person (SP4) did not complete training on abusive head trauma before caring for children under school age. Your Response. You challenge this citation, stating that SP4’s first date of direct contact is listed as February 27, 2023, because that’s when s/he was first introduced to the children and co-teachers, but s/he did not begin working in the classrooms until after his/her orientation trainings were complete. Applicable Law. Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.40, subdivision 5a, requires staff persons to complete training on the risk of abusive head trauma before caring for children under school age. Minnesota Statutes, section 245C.02, subdivision 11, defines “direct contact” services as “providing face-to-face care, training, supervision, counseling, consultation, or medication assistance” to the children served by the program. Reconsideration Determination. According to SP4’s orientation training records, s/he is an aide who works with infants. SP4’s date of first direct contact with the children is shown as February 27, 2023, and his/her completion date for abusive head trauma training is shown as February 28, 2023. DHS relies on the license holders to maintain accurate records of personnel information, including when the staff person first provided direct contact services to the children in the program (in accordance with how “direct contact” services are defined under statute), and when they completed their required trainings. The record supports the citation. Citation 10 is affirmed. Citation 13. The program did not develop an individual child care program plan (“ICCPP”) for a child’s file (C1), who has a known allergy. Your Response. You assert that the plan was developed and included in C1’s file. You also state that C1 was unenrolled from the center on August 31, 2023, and that the licensors were made aware of this fact during the visit. Applicable Law. Under Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.41, subdivision 1, paragraph (a), a center caring for a child with any known allergy must develop an ICCPP. The ICCPP must include but not be limited to: a description of the allergy, specific triggers, avoidance techniques, symptoms of an allergic reaction, and procedures for responding to an allergic reaction. Reconsideration Determination. As discussed during the exit interview, C1’s healthcare summary referenced C1’s allergies, and the center received the summary around the time of the child’s enrollment in February 2023. C1’s ICCPP for his/her allergies is dated August 4, 2023. It is important for a center to develop an ICCPP for a child as soon as it becomes aware of the child’s allergies, because, under the applicable law, the staff persons caring for the child need to be educated on the condition and the proper protocols. Moreover, the child’s allergy information needs to be made available at all times on site, during transportation and community activities, and where the child is served food. Here, the center was delayed for months in developing C1’s ICCPP after receiving the initial information about his/her allergies. Moreover, the fact that C1 is no longer enrolled with the center does not mitigate the violation that occurred during the child’s time at the center. Citation 13 is affirmed. Citation 14. There was not a written individual child care program plan on file for a child (C1) with special needs that is reviewed and followed by all staff who interact with the child. Although there was a written individual child care program on file, based on the staffing patterns provided by the program, not all staff members who interact with this child had reviewed the plan. Your Response. You argue this potential violation was not raised by the licensors during the visit. You further contend that your review of the staffing patterns, which were submitted before the licensing review, did not find that any staff had interacted with C1 before reviewing and signing the child’s plan. Applicable Law. Under Minnesota Rule 9503.0065, subpart 3, when a license holder admits a child with special needs, the license holder must ensure that an ICCPP is developed to meet the child’s individual needs. The ICCPP must be in writing and be reviewed and followed by all staff who interact with the child. Reconsideration Determination. C1 had a special needs ICCPP for his/her asthma, dated August 4, 2023. According to their personnel files, SP7 and SP8’s dates of first direct contact are noted as August 2, 2023, and July 14, 2017, respectively. SP7 and SP8 were not reflected in the staffing pattern forms for the preschool classroom, where C1 attended during his/her enrollment at the center. During the site visit, however, the licensor saw and noted that SP7 and SP8 were working in the preschool classroom. There is no record of SP7 and SP8 having reviewed and acknowledged C1’s special need ICCPP. And lastly, a review of the exit interview showed that the licensor mentioned the requirement for a special needs ICCPP to be reviewed and signed by all staff persons who interact the with the subject child. Citation 14 is affirmed. Citation 15. The relocation site and evacuation route were not posted in a visible place as a part of the written procedures for emergencies and accidents. Your Response. You challenge this citation, arguing that posting the relocation site within the facility would not have much utility, since, in a type of emergency necessitating relocation, the parents and guardians would not be able to enter the building and see the post. Instead, you state that the center keeps the parents and guardians notified of its emergency relocation plan via center-issued handbooks and during contract renewals. Applicable Law. Under Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.41, subdivision 3, paragraphs (a), (e), (f), licensed child care centers must have a written emergency plan that includes, among other details, procedures for an evacuation, relocation, shelter-in-place, or lockdown, and a designated relocation site and evacuation route. The license holder must provide a physical or electronic copy of the emergency plan to the parents or guardians upon their child’s enrollment. The license holder must also post the relocation site and evacuation route “in a visible place.” Reconsideration Determination. The applicable statute requires the center to provide a copy of the relocation and evacuation route information to the parents/guardians at the time of enrollment, and to physically post that information where it would be visible to people. The physical posting requirement ensures that the information is always readily available to the parents/guardians, staff persons, and to other visitors of the center (e.g., emergency service providers) who would not have had prior access to the information. Here, the center did not satisfy the physical posting component of the requirements. Citation 15 is affirmed. Disposition: The Commissioner has reviewed the relevant laws and all of the information you submitted in response to the Correction Order. Citations 2, 4, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, and 15 are affirmed. This is a final agency decision. Previously Ordered Corrective Action: In the Correction Order issued on September 22, 2023, you were ordered to correct the violations cited, and submit documentation of such action to your licensor. A request for reconsideration does not stay any provisions or requirements of the correction order. Minnesota Statutes, 245A.06, subdivision 2, paragraph (a). If you have not done so already, please immediately comply with the previously ordered corrective actions for all uncontested and affirmed violations. 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,
So Yeon Woo-Bockman, Attorney Legal Counsel’s Office Office of Inspector General
|
