Childcare providers and families who receive childcare licensing investigation reports are often confused about what a complaint investigation report is actually saying, and what the report is supposed to mean for the children in care. This article explains how childcare providers and families can interpret a complaint investigation report.
Background – childcare licensing complaints
As initial background for those completely new to all this, most* childcare providers in California must obtain a license to operate from the state’s childcare licensing agency (Community Care Licensing Division, or CCLD). (*There are specific exceptions for situations such as if an individual is in their own home caring only for their own child and the children of one other family, or if care is provided for less than four hours a day one day a week, etc.)
CCLD has a complaint process whereby anyone can submit a complaint about a licensed childcare facility (or if they believe illegal unlicensed childcare is being provided). Importantly, there is no barrier or screening for these complaints. Literally anybody can submit a complaint, and complaints can be submitted completely anonymously (the person does not even have to identify themselves to CCLD). CCLD then has the legal obligation to investigate every complaint it receives.
There is a good principle behind how this system is set-up. There should be accountability for any instance of child abuse or neglect, and nobody should “get away with it” simply because it was too difficult or intimidating for a witness to submit a report. In practice, however, this system is frequently abused. Many individuals (e.g., a laid-off staff member, a parent upset their child did not get a spot, the revengeful ex-spouse of a preschool owner, etc.) have used the complaint reporting system to simply retaliate against or harm childcare providers by filing false complaints with CCLD. Again, CCLD has the legal obligation to investigate every complaint, regardless of where it comes from or the motive of the complainant.
The complaint investigation process
I have gone into greater detail on the complaint investigation process elsewhere, so the high-level overview is:
- CCLD receives a complaint about a facility.
- A Licensing Program Analyst (“LPA”) with CCLD contacts the reporting party, if the reporting party identified themselves in the complaint.
- Within 10 days, the LPA will visit the facility to inform the facility that a complaint investigation has been initiated. Importantly (and often frustratingly, the LPA is only required to inform the facility that they are there to investigate a complaint, and the LPA does not have to provide any detail about what the specific allegations are.)
- The LPA will “investigate,” which can include requesting and reviewing documents from the facility; speaking with staff, parents/guardians, and even children; etc.
- At the conclusion of the investigation, the LPA will provide the facility with a “Complaint Investigation Report,” which will explain the allegation, the LPA’s findings, and the LPA’s determination (discussed in more detail below).
- If the LPA determines that the allegation is proven, the Complaint Investigation Report may contain a citation for a “licensing deficiency.”
- If the facility disagrees with the issuance of the licensing deficiency, the facility can appeal within 15 business days.
- It can take up to 120 business days for CCLD to decide an appeal, during which time the facility is still required to post the citation report and notify families about it (even if the citation is ultimately reversed).
The three possible outcomes & what each means
In the final Complaint Investigation Report, the LPA will use one of the following three words to explain their findings:
“Substantiated”
This means the LPA determined that the allegation did happen. The standard of proof for these complaints is “preponderance of the evidence,” which means there is enough evidence to prove that the allegation “more likely than not” happened. If, for example, the complaint alleges that a child in a daycare center was left alone and unsupervised, the allegation could be “substantiated” if the LPA was given security camera footage showing, without a doubt, that teachers took children inside from the playground but left one child alone outside. The allegation could also be “substantiated” if Teacher A says Teacher B left a child outside, Teacher B denies it, all the other staff and children say they’ve never seen Teacher B leave a child alone outside, but the LPA simply decides that Teacher A’s words should outweigh everyone else’s.
“Unfounded”
This means the LPA determined the allegation was completely false and literally could not have happened (0% chance the allegation could have occurred). This outcome is very rare simply because it is often impossible to prove a negative. In my experience as a preschool owner and attorney representing and advising childcare providers, an “unfounded” finding is only possible when there is some way to prove that the allegation is impossible. For example:
- CCLD investigated a facility based on a complaint that the facility harmed an infant, but the facility did not provide infant care (their license was to care for children 2-5 years old). This complaint likely came from a neighbor just annoyed by the noise, who had never actually been in the facility and maybe saw some parents bringing babies in as they dropped off older siblings.
- CCLD received a complaint about a specific teacher by name (“Miss Jane”), and the facility was able to prove that nobody by that name had ever worked for the facility in its history. (If there was truth to the complaint, the complainant likely just got the facility name wrong and accidentally submitted the complaint about the wrong place.)
- CCLD received a complaint that a facility was using unqualified staff to provide care, but the facility had kept personnel records for every staff member they had ever had and was able to show that every single individual had possessed full qualifications.
“Unsubstantiated”
A finding of “unsubstantiated” means the allegation is NOT proven (and the facility is NOT being cited). This is a good result for the childcare provider and should be reassuring to families enrolled or interested in enrolling. Now, this is the result that causes the most confusion, because the standard wording of the report does imply that there was evidence supporting the allegation:
It is possible, as implied, that there was some evidence of the allegation, just not enough for the LPA to issue a citation. But “unsubstantiated” is also the finding that an LPA will issue if there was no evidence in support of the allegation, but the facility also could not prove the allegation was false. A real example I have seen is that someone complained to CCLD that a teacher at a preschool yelled at children inappropriately. Every staff member told the LPA this was not true (they had never heard the teacher yell); several parents wrote letter saying how much they trust the teacher and believe the teacher would never yell at a teacher; literally no adult or child told the investigating LPA that they had ever witnessed a single instance of the allegation. So the LPA determined that the allegation was “unsubstantiated,” but because it was technically, physically possible that this teacher might have once yelled at a child (though there was zero evidence this ever actually happened), CCLD would not change the finding to “unfounded.”
In other words, someone can send CCLD an anonymous complaint that is completely baseless and false, and unless the facility can prove the allegation was literally impossible, the most likely outcome is that the complaint will be closed as “unsubstantiated.” Again, this is a good outcome, and means the complaint has been closed.
The childcare provider my child attends (or may attend) had a “substantiated” complaint-should I be concerned?
Every complaint and every facility is different. It is a tragic and unfortunate reality that child abuse and neglect do happen. It is a sad truth that there do exist licensed providers across the world who have no business caring for children.
That said, in 13 years of owning preschools, and in my years working as an attorney on behalf of other preschools and family childcare providers, it is also an unfortunate reality that California’s childcare licensing agency is, in general, an incompetent mess with a misguided and toxic culture. I have seen personally that many employees at CCLD have zero experience in Early Childhood Development and so simply do not understand kids. And based on how the laws, regulations, and the agency’s internal hierarchy works, CCLD is not structured like Child Protective Services, where child welfare is the mission. By law, the job of being an LPA is closer to that of parking enforcement–the job is to issue citations.
Based on significant personal experience with multiple LPAs and childcare providers across the state, I genuinely believe that when an LPA is tasked with investigating a complaint, the desired outcome on the part of the LPA and his or her supervisors is for the allegation to be substantiated so the LPA can issue a citation.
Moreover, based on my personal experience as a preschool owner and as a lawyer who has cross-examined LPAs under oath, I can also confidently state that LPAs are not well-trained in conducting investigations. Put bluntly, CCLD is not good at their job. As one glaring example, Teacher A (a real client of mine) was accused of certain misconduct in the classroom. The investigating LPA never interviewed Teacher A’s two co-teachers, who spent eight hours a day working in the same room as Teacher A. When I asked the LPA under oath why, the LPA said those teachers were not pertinent witnesses, because the reporting party did not name them, and their names did not come up when the LPA “randomly sampled” staff at the facility to interview.
It is also important to know that facilities must provide families copies of the report and comply with the “Plan of Correction” even while they are appealing the citation. Some folks don’t feel this is fair (many appeals are granted and “substantiated” complaints changed to “unsubstantiated,” but in the months that takes, the facility must still provide families with a copy of the report and citation). Fair or not, that is the rule.
All this is to say: If you’re reading a Complaint Investigation Report, take it seriously, but do not assume the LPA knew at all what they were doing or that they conducted anything resembling a full investigation. As with so many things in the world of childcare, the best approach for the facility and families is to communicate. I encourage facilities to communicate proactively and to be open and transparent while protecting individual privacy. I encourage families to reach out to their provider when questions or concerns arise and to set up a meeting or phone call to discuss.