KinderCare - Sandy
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.5 / 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.5 / 5
- 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 5 out of 5 stars overall. Process quality reflects a Child Care Quality System rating of Default Foundation of Quality and NAEYC accreditation. 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.
Quality Recognitions & Accreditations
- State Quality Rating
- Child Care Quality System Default Foundation of Quality Learn more →
- Accreditations
- National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC)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
- Daycare
- 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 4 inspections since 2024, the issues cited most often were Staff Qualifications & Background Checks (4) and Medication Administration (1). None of the 5 findings were critical.
See All 4 Inspection Visits
Sep 12, 20251 Finding1 Important
- The Provider Was Out of Compliance with Rule R381-100-11(1)(g) by Not Ensuring That Caregivers Provide and Maintain…R381-100-11(1)(a)-(g)
The provider was out of compliance with rule R381-100-11(1)(g) by not ensuring that caregivers provide and maintain active supervision by remaining aware of the entire group of children. In the outdoor area, the caregiver was not remaining aware of the entire group of children.
Apr 30, 20251 Finding1 Important
- The Licensee Was Out of Compliance with R381-100-12(5)(a) by Failing to Ensure That Interactions with the Children Do…R381-100-12(5)(a)-(f)
The licensee was out of compliance with R381-100-12(5)(a) by failing to ensure that interactions with the children do not include any action that produces physical pain or discomfort. During an inspection, the licensor identified that a caregiver had an inappropriate interaction with one child by ho
Apr 23, 20251 Finding1 Important
- The Provider Was Out of Compliance with Rule R381-100-7(9)(c) by Not Ensuring That Caregivers Complete the Preservice…R381-100-7(9)(a)-(g)
The provider was out of compliance with rule R381-100-7(9)(c) by not ensuring that caregivers complete the preservice training offered by the department before caring for children. At the time of the inspection, there was a caregiver who had not completed preservice training and had been caring for
Oct 1, 20242 Findings2 Important
- The Provider Was Out of Compliance with This Rule by Not Ensuring That Guests Do Not Have Unsupervised Contact with Any…R381-100-11(4)
The provider was out of compliance with this rule by not ensuring that guests do not have unsupervised contact with any child in care. At the facility, there was a guest who had unsupervised contact with children in care.
- The Provider Was Out of Compliance with This Rule by Not Ensuring a Prescription Medication Was Stored in the Original…R381-100-17(3)(a)-(d)
The provider was out of compliance with this rule by not ensuring a prescription medication was stored in the original pharmacy container. In the facility, there was an epi pen with no original pharmacy container. This was a repeat rule noncompliance.