Chavez, Maria Del Carmen dba MaryCarmen's Daycare
Data last updated · May 2026
Quality Indicators
See Methodology →- Overall QualityCombines daily care quality (interactions, learning, environment) with structural features like staff-to-child ratios and teacher qualifications.4 / 5
- Process QualityThe quality of daily care — caregiver-child interactions, learning activities, and the emotional climate. Drawn from the state QRIS rating, accreditations, and Head Start CLASS observations.Not Available
- Structural QualityMeasurable features like staff-to-child ratios, group sizes, license status, and teacher qualifications. Provider-level data when available; otherwise the state regulatory baseline.4 / 5
Why this rating
This daycare earned 4 out of 5 stars overall. Structural quality reflects Utah's licensing baseline. Utah caps infant ratios at 1:4, toddler ratios at 1:5, and preschool ratios at 1:15. Lead-teacher education isn't regulated. Teachers must complete 20 hours of annual training. No objective process measures (e.g., state quality rating or national accreditation) are available for this daycare. The overall rating reflects structural features only.
Quality Recognitions & Accreditations
- State Quality Rating
- Child Care Quality System Certified High Quality Learn more →
- Accreditations
- National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC)Not Accredited
- National Accreditation Commission (NAC)Not Accredited
- National Early Childhood Program Accreditation (NECPA)Not Accredited
- National Association for Family Child Care (NAFCC)Not Accredited
Facility Info
- Facility type
- Family Child Care Home
- Age groups served
- Infants, Toddlers, School-Age
- Licensed capacity
- Not Available
- Teacher-child ratios & group sizesState Minimum Displayed
Age Max ratio Max group Infants 1:4 8 Toddlers 1:5 10
Teacher Credentials
- Lead teacher credentialState Minimum Displayed
- Not Regulated
Inspection History
Across 3 inspections since 2024, the issues cited most often were Building & Premises Safety (2), Children's Records & Files (2), and Emergency Preparedness & Drills (1). None of the 5 findings were critical.
See All 3 Inspection Visits
Feb 27, 20261 Finding1 Important
- The Licensee Was Out of Compliance with R430-90-13(8) by Having Standing Water That Measured Two Inches or Deeper And…R430-90-13(8)
The Licensee was out of compliance with R430-90-13(8) by having standing water that measured two inches or deeper and five by five inches or greater in diameter accessible to children. In the bathroom, there was a bucket of mop water in the bathtub/shower. This was a repeat rule noncompliance as not
Mar 5, 20251 Finding1 Important
- The Licensee Was Out of Compliance with R430-90-6(9) by Not Ensuring That a Parent Completes the Required Paperwork…R430-90-6(9)
The Licensee was out of compliance with R430-90-6(9) by not ensuring that a parent completes the required paperwork before admitting a child into the program. At the time of inspection, one child in care did not have an admission form or health assessment. This was a repeat rule noncompliance as no
Sep 17, 20243 Findings3 Important
- The Provider Was Out of Compliance with This Rule by Not Documenting Fire DrillsR430-90-14(5)(a)-(e)
The provider was out of compliance with this rule by not documenting fire drills. At the time of inspection, the last fire drill documented was done in February 2024. This was a repeat rule noncompliance.
- The Provider Was Out of Compliance with This Rule by Having Strangulation Hazards on Stationary Play EquipmentR430-90-19(13)
The provider was out of compliance with this rule by having strangulation hazards on stationary play equipment. In the outdoor play area, the "S" hooks on the lower part of 2 swings had openings greater than .04 inches. This was a repeat rule noncompliance.
- The Provider Was Out of Compliance with This Rule by Not Ensuring That the Admission Form and Health Assessment Forms…R430-90-6(11)(a)-(b)
The provider was out of compliance with this rule by not ensuring that the admission form and health assessment forms for each child in care had the required annual update and signature. At the time of inspection, paperwork for one child did not have the annual update and signature. This was a repea