St John'S Lutheran Preschool
Inspection history
Source: Ohio Department of Children and YouthRecords held from Sep 12, 2023 onward. Earlier visits may exist in the agency’s own files.
Ohio publishes its inspection findings only as scanned report images. The findings shown here were transcribed from those scans; the archived original report linked on each visit is the authoritative record. Findings the inspector handled as technical assistance are not violations and are not listed.
| Date | Kind | Outcome as recorded | Violations | Official record |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 30, 2026 | Annual | Partially Compliant · Non-Compliance - Not Addressed | 1 | Official report · PDF |
| Oct 7, 2025 | Annual | Fully Compliant | 0 | Official report · PDF |
| Oct 16, 2024 | Annual | Partially Compliant · Non-Compliance - Fully Addressed | 2 | Official report · PDF |
| Sep 20, 2023 | Annual | Fully Compliant | 0 | Official report · PDF |
Violations
Text reproduced verbatim · Ohio Department of Children and YouthNearly every licensed provider accumulates some. A missing signature and an unlocked medicine cabinet are both “violations”, and they are not the same thing. Look at the class, the pattern over time and how quickly it was corrected — not the count alone.
Class is our grouping of the state’s own weights, reviewed per state. The agency’s own label is always shown beside it.
Ohio Department of Children and Youth publishes these findings only as a scanned report. The text below was transcribed from that scan — the archived original is authoritative.
“During the inspection, it was determined that the method for tracking children in each group did not meet the requirements of the rule. The following was observed: the method was not updated when a child arrived. Submit the program's corrective action plan to the Department to verify compliance with the requirements of this rule.”
Ohio Department of Children and Youth publishes these findings only as a scanned report. The text below was transcribed from that scan — the archived original is authoritative.
“During the inspection, a potentially hazardous substance, which was determined to not present a serious risk to a child, was not used or stored properly as noted in number(s)12 below: 1. Cosmetics were accessible to children in the [ ] area. 2. Disinfecting wipes were accessible to children in the [ ] area. 3. Fish food was accessible to children in the [ ] area. 4. Hand lotion was accessible to children in the [ ] area. 5. Hand sanitizer (for children under 24 months) was accessible to children in the [ ] area. 6. Laundry detergent was accessible to children in the [ ] area. 7. Powder dish washing soap was accessible to children in the [ ] area. 8. Paint cans were accessible to children in the [ ] area. 9. White out was accessible to children in the [ ] area. 10. Potting Soil was accessible to children in the [ ] area. 11. Other potentially hazardous substance [ ] was accessible to children in the [ ] area. 12. Cleaning/sanitizing supplies had not been clearly labeled. 13. School-age children were using cleaning supplies, agents and/or equipment without adult supervision. 14. Aspray aerosol was used in the [ _] group while children were in attendance. 15. Other: [ ]. Provide staff training. Submit the program’s corrective action plan to the Department to verify compliance with the requirements of this rule.”
“During the inspection, it was determined that medication, medical foods and/or topical products did not meet the requirement(s) for administering medication, medical foods, and/or medical products as noted in number(s) 2 below: 1. The medication, medical food, or topical product was no longer needed and had not been removed from the program. 2. The medication, medical food, or topical product had expired and had not been removed from the program. 3. The prescription label had expired. Submit the program's corrective action plan to the Department to verify compliance with the requirements of this rule.”