|
March 26, 2026 Amy Frey, Authorized Agent Minneapolis Kids @Armatage 1250 W Broadway Minneapolis, MN 55411 License Number: 1089397 (Cert CCC) Program Location: 2501 W 56th St, Minneapolis, MN 55410-2553 Dear Amy Frey On July 16, 2025, the Minnesota Department of Children Youth and Families (DCYF), Division of Licensing, received your request for reconsideration regarding Citation 1 in the Correction Order (enclosed) issued to you on June 27, 2025. You did not request review for Citations 2 through 4, and therefore, Citations 2 through 4 are not under the scope of review. Reconsideration Determination Citation 1 Violation. 2 of 5 (SP4 and SP5) individuals (director, staff persons, substitutes, or unsupervised volunteers), were working in the program before the program received a notice from the commissioner stating that the individual was not disqualified or that the background study needed more time to be completed. Applicable Law. The subject of a background study may not perform any activity requiring a background study until the commissioner has issued a notice of the study results that the individual is not disqualified; or more time is needed to complete the study but the individual is not required to be removed from direct contact or access to people receiving services prior to completion of the study as provided under section 245C.17, subdivision 1, paragraph (b) or (c). Minnesota Statutes, section 245C.13, subdivision 2. Your Response. You stated that there was a data entry error in the Hub regarding SP4’s and SP5’s first date of direct contact. You also stated that SP4’s first date of direct contact was February 26, 2025, and SP5’s first date of direct contact was March 9, 2025. Finally, you provided SP4’s and SP5’s orientation training forms. Reconsideration Determination. The licensor noted that SP4’s first day of contact with children at the program was February 18, 2025, according to the Hub. The supervision notice was issued on February 26, 2025. SP4 had contact with the children eight days before the supervision notice was issued. SP4 could not have contact with the children before the commissioner issued notice of the study that SP4 was not disqualified, or more time was needed to complete the study. The licensor informed the site lead on June 25, 2025, during the site visit and the center operator on June 27, 2025, of SP4’s background study violation. You did not provide any additional documentation to show that SP4’s first day of contact was not March 14, 2025, at the time. On reconsideration, you stated that the date listed of February 18, 2025, as SP4’s first day of contact, was a data entry mistake. However, this is the date that you entered into the Hub as SP4’s first day of contact. You also stated that February 26, 2025, was SP4’s correct first day of contact and offered SP4’s orientation training form. However, SP4’s form is not signed, SP4 did not sign, attest nor certify that the information on the training form is true and accurate. You did not offer any additional information. There is sufficient evidence to show that SP4’s first day of contact was February 18, 2025, which was eight days before the commissioner issued notice on February 26, 2025, in violation of the cited background study requirement. Citation 1 is affirmed regarding SP4. Regarding SP5, the licensor noted that SP5’s first day of contact with children at the program was March 5, 2025, according to the Hub. The supervision notice was issued on March 9, 2025. SP5 had contact with the children four days before the supervision notice was issued. SP5 could not have contact with the children before the commissioner issued notice of the study that SP5 was not disqualified, or more time was needed to complete the study. The licensor informed the site lead on June 25, 2025, during the site visit and the center operator on June 27, 2025, of SP5’s background study violation. You did not provide any additional documentation to show that SP5’s first day of contact was not March 5, 2025, at the time. On reconsideration, you stated that the date listed of March 5, 2025, as SP5’s first day of contact, was a data entry mistake. However, this is the date that you entered into the Hub as SP5’s first day of contact. You also stated that March 9, 2025, was SP5’s correct first day of contact and offered SP5’s orientation training form. However, SP5’s form is not signed, SP5 did not sign, attest nor certify that the information on the training form is true and accurate. You did not offer any additional information. There is sufficient evidence to show that SP5’s first day of contact was March 5, 2025, which was four days before the commissioner issued notice on March 9, 2025, in violation of the cited background study requirement. Citation 1 is affirmed regarding SP5. Disposition The Commissioner has reviewed the relevant laws and all the information you submitted in response to the Correction Order. Citation 1 is affirmed. You did not request review for Citations 2 through 4, therefore Citations 2 through 4 are not under the scope of review. This is a final agency decision. Previously Ordered Corrective Action. In the original Correction Order issued to you on June 27, 2025, you were ordered to correct the violation(s) 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, 142B.16, 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,
Hlee Vang, Attorney Legal Counsel’s Office Office of Inspector General
|
