Wisconsin Department of Children and Families - Division of Early Care and Education
Bureau of Early Care Regulation
Child Care Certification Policy Manual
Sometimes the certification worker will be unable to observe compliance with a specific rule. For example, if the visit was conducted during a time period when no meals or snacks were served the certification worker may not be able to observe compliance with rules that pertain to feeding practices/nutrition. Consideration of the applicant/operator’s response to open-ended questions along with certification worker observations related to food/nutrition practices will help determine whether or not the applicant/operator is in compliance. The certification worker may, for example, ask/inquire:
When were children last provided a meal or snack? Does the response meet the requirements outlined in DCF 202 regarding schedules for meals/snacks?
What was served for meal or snack prior to his/her arrival? Does the response meet the required components outlined in DCF 202?
Where are meals and snacks prepared and served? Are these areas clean, sanitary, in good working condition?
Using his or her professional judgement, the certification worker may determine that certain rules must be observed before s/he will mark them as met or unmet, and that other rules can be marked as met or unmet based on a discussion of the rule with the applicant/operator.
Adding a comment to the form regarding review/discussion of the rule, even if not observed, is appropriate. If asking open-ended questions does not provide enough insight into the operator’s understanding of or compliance with the rules, the certification worker may wish to return for a second monitoring visit during a snack/meal, for example to ensure compliance.
When the certification workers is not able to monitor an administrative rule on the day of the visit, the certification worker must determine next steps and may consider any of the following options:
Return to the home at another time to review the rule(s) that could not be observed at the visit. The certification worker may announce to the operator when the return visit will be made to ensure that it will be possible to observe the rule at the subsequent visit.
Question the operator/applicant to determine his/her understanding and compliance with the rule. Based on this discussion the certification worker may document that the rule is met. This is permissible because the certification worker did not observe the operator/applicant to be out of compliance at the time of the visit and the discussion with the applicant/operator confirms that she/he understand and are applying the rule as required.
Document that the rule is unmet because the discussion with the applicant/operator or documentation demonstrates to the certification worker that the applicant/operator does not understand and is not applying the rule as required in the administrative code. The certification worker may provide technical assistance on meeting the rule, the rule is marked unmet and described on the Noncompliance Statement and Correction Plan (if the visit is not an initial or relocation visit).
The certification worker may determine it is not necessary to document a rule as unmet in the after discussing a violation and providing technical assistance to the operator. Making a decision to mark the rule as met following provision of technical assistance does not mean that the violation goes unacknowledged or uncorrected. It simply means that recording it as unmet seems unnecessary, usually because the technical assistance provided will ensure the rule is met, the certification worker was able to observe correction of the violation and/or it is a relatively minor violation.
If desired, certification worker may document in the Internal Comments field that the rule was discussed and who was present for the discussion. Provision of technical assistance can also be documented in the Internal Comments field, especially if that is the basis for not marking the rule unmet.
For example, while making a routine unannounced visit to a family child care provider, certification worker notices that a single outlet protector is missing from an outlet. The certification worker notes that all other outlet protectors are in place. The provider explains that she had removed the outlet protector during the evening, when children were not present and had neglected to replace it the following morning before children arrived. When the certification worker observes that the protector is missing, the operator immediately reinserts the plug protector. In this situation, the certification worker decides that citing the violation is unnecessary and verbally reminds the provider to check the outlet covers each morning before children arrive to ensure that the violation will not reoccur.
Before deciding that a violation will not be documented on the CFS-294, the certification worker may consider the following:
Was the violation promptly and easily corrected by the operator when it was pointed out by the certification worker? Is there any reason to expect that the violation is likely to reoccur?
Has the violation been observed in more than one area of the home? If yes, this may be an indication that the problem is systemic and needs to be documented on the CFS-294 and reviewed and verified at a follow up visit.
Was the violation cited at a previous visit? If yes, this may mean that the violation is part of an ongoing pattern, suggesting chronic and repeat noncompliance with this particular rule.
Was the violation a result of an unusual or one-time only occurrence that is not expected to be repeated? Are there unique circumstances impacting the operator/home on the particular day of the visit that the certification worker would not expect to reoccur?
Does the operator understand why the violation needed to be corrected and prevented in the future? If not, would requiring that the operator to develop a correction plan help the operator think through a plan to prevent the violation in the future?
Does the public benefit by being made aware of the violation? Would it shape or alter one’s opinion regarding the safety of the certified family child care home, such that parents and other members of the public should be made aware of the violation?
Would another fair-minded professional agree that citing the violation is necessary?
Would the supervisor agree that it is acceptable to not cite the violation?
Reviewing the rules on the Standards and Checklist form, as well as asking open ended questions will help
Certification workers determine the applicant/operator’s understanding of the rules
Determine whether or not s/he is in compliance with the rules
To facilitate discussion regarding the intent of the rule and offer opportunities to provide technical assistance (TA)
For example, a certification worker may ask, “What kinds of materials or activities do you provide that support children’s language and literacy development?” Is the certification worker able to verify the applicant/operator’s response by observing materials in the home that support language/literacy development? Is the certification worker prepared to offer resources or refer the applicant/operator to resources for literacy/language development?
Certification workers then document their observations and notes using the Standards and Checklist form. A Noncompliance Statement and Correction Plan or Compliance Statement must be issued at each monitoring visit unless the visit is solely for the purpose of:
Providing technical assistance
Initial certification visit
Relocation visit
Verifying correction of a previously identified violations / noncompliance(s)
Investigating a complaint or incident / accident report (during which no other monitoring occurred) that does not result in a noncompliance
See Sections 10 and 12 for more guidance regarding documentation of compliance / noncompliance.
This page last updated 03/2022.