Skip to main content
Official State of Iowa Website Here is how you know
Decision Number
Termination from CACFP
Karrie Feekin
West Central Development Corp
Full Text

Appellant runs a child daycare home from her rural residence in Pottawattie County. She has participated in the CACFP for the past 8 years. Her sponsoring organization is West Central Development Corp. Appellant operates a Department of Human Services licensed daycare home and provides daycare 7 days a week for a total of 19 children. The alleged discrepancies involved 7 of the 19 children. The sponsor provided Appellant with a Notice of Seriously Deficient Pract on or about June 7, 2005. It listed 2 seriously deficient practices: 1)failure to daily record required records, and 2)claiming meals not served.The corrective action plan addressed only the second allegation.

Two required corrections were issued. They required Appellant to acquire notarized statements from the parents regarding the date, time and meals served to their children and that Appellant contact the sponsor's representative at least 2 hours prior to the approved scheduled meal time when a meal would not be prepared. The statements from the parents agreed with the records completed by Appellant. On July 22, 2005, a representative arrived for an unannounced supper review. Two children were present and had already eaten supper at home. One child who was scheduled to be present was a "no-show." Appellant had not heard from the parent and was not preparing supper for him.

On August 2, 2005, the sponsor gave Appellant Notice of Intent to Terminate her participation in CACFP for failure to permanently and completely correct the deficient practices. Regulations mandate the procedure used if the sponsor determines a home provider has committed one or more serious deficiencies. Offering an opportunity to take corrective action is mandated.

Because the corrective action plan offerred to Appellant failed to address "failure to daily record required records," Appellant cannot be terminated based on this deficiency. The sponsor asserted that Appellant was claiming fewer meals for the children than what was served. No proof was presented by the sponsor to refute the affidavits signed by the parents. Appellant complied with the corrective action plan by submitting statements from the parents and the sponsor did not sustain its burden of showing that the parents' written statements were not true. The second issue in the corrective action plan is not supported by the regulations that goven the CACFP. The law provides no authority for requiring prior notice that a meal will not be prepared.

That the proposed termination of Appellant from the CACFP is hereby dismissed.