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 | During the staff interviews, Staff 1 (S1) stated, the ants were addressed to S1 in August, by another staff who brought it to attention. S1 said S1 called Orkin to do treatments to in both preschool classrooms. S1 presented LPA an invoice from Orkin when they came out 0n 8/16/23 to treat the facility. Staff 2 (S2) stated S2 was not aware of any ant problems at the facility. Staff 3 (S3) said S3 does not really go into the classrooms so S3 is not aware of any ant problem. Staff 4 (S4) stated S4 saw ants in the Pre-k room but also saw Orkin come and treat the school for ants. Staff 5 (S5) disclosed there was ants in the Pre-k room, but it was only for two days and the Director took care of it right away. Staff 6 (S6) said there was only a few ants here and there but the on the 2nd day the administration called the Orkin people so the day after staff spoke up about, they had them come out. Staff 7 (S7) In August there was some ants for 2 days, one of the staff had an interaction with a parent where the parent saw the ants in the entrance. A parent emailed with the concern of the ant problem and the email was immediately forwarded the administration. The next day they came to look at the classroom with the Orkin company on 8/29/23.Staff 8 (S8) said there was some ants by the trash bin, so S8 told the administration and Orkin came 1-2 days later.
During the course of the investigation, LPA obtained Exterminator service invoices for ant treatments. 2 out of 7 children were qualified. Child 2 (C2) stated, there have been ants in C2’s classroom, about 10 ants but there was not ants anymore. C2 said the ants were by the trash can and C2’s teacher cleaned them up.
LPA visited the facility 3 separate times and LPA did not observer any ants in Pre-k and Preschool classrooms, the classrooms were clean and tidy.
3 of 5 parents were interviewed, parents had no issues or concerns with the daycare.
Although the allegations may have happened or are valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation 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 signatures on this form acknowledges receipt of these rights. First level appeal is to Regional Manager, address is above on the report.
Page 2 of 2. |