Kiddie Academy of North Pittsburgh
Kiddie Academy of North Pittsburgh is a certified child care center in Pittsburgh, PA, with capacity for 181 children. It holds a Keystone STAR 4 (accredited) rating. Since August 2021, Pennsylvania certification staff have inspected it 9 times and confirmed violations in 3 complaint investigations. The state cited 84 violations, 17 of them core-safety (supervision, staff ratios, discipline, background checks, child protection or safe sleep), most often for health & medication (23 of 84). 1 citation came in the last 12 months, including 1 on a core-safety topic. Measured by topic-weighted citations per inspection, it is tied for #175 of 251 centers in Pittsburgh and has more citations per inspection than 91% of Pennsylvania certified centers.
Inspection record
Every state visit
What inspectors cited most
Citations, newest first
On April 23, 2026, at 11:08 a.m., Staff #1 placed Child #1 in a booster seat with the safety strap secured for approximately 10 minutes. According to Staff #1, this action was taken in response to the following observed behaviors: taking toys belonging to other children, invading the personal space of peers in a face-to-face manner, and not following directions during learning center activities. Staff #1 indicated the restraint was used as a safety measure.
The file for Staff #1 contained a disclosure statement that lacked a witness.
Located in Room 119 was a spray bottle that did not specify the contents. Staff identified the bottle as a cleaning material.
The Health Report for Child #3 lacked a statement indicating the child is able to participate in childcare and appears to be free from contagious or communicable diseases
The file for Child #2, enrolled for more than 6 months, lacked a child service form that provides information to the family about the child's growth and development in the context of the services being provided.
The Emergency Contact Form for Child #3 lacked the address of the child's physician. The Emergency Contact Form for Child #4 lacked the address of the name, address, and telephone number for the child's physician.
The Emergency Contact Form for Child #1 and Child #3 lacked the enrolling parents work address and telephone number.
The Emergency Contact Form in the file for Child #4 lacked written consent signed by a parent for emergency medical care.
The Emergency Contact Form for Child #4 lacked the health insurance coverage and policy number for the child.
The Emergency Contact Form for Child #2 lacked the address of the individual designated by the parent to whom the child may be released.
Show 74 older citations
The Emergency Contact form for Child #4 lacked signed parental consent for administration of minor first-aid procedures by facility staff.
The file for Staff #1 contained a degree and foreign transcripts and therefore their credentials could not be determined.
The files for Staff #1 and #2 contained a disclosure statement that lacked a witness. Although the file for Staff #3 contained a National Sex Offender Registry (NSOR) Certificate it was observed that Staff #3 obtained their NSOR certificate after their first day caring for children.
At approximately 10:15 AM Cert Rep observed 8 children including 1 Older Toddler and 7 Young Toddlers wading in the Infant/Toddler Play space. At this time during swim ratio there were two staff present: therefore, ratio was 1:4. At approximately 10:15 AM Cert Rep observed 28 children including; 26 Older Toddlers and 2 Preschool Aged Children Preschool wading in the Preschool Play space. At this time during swim ratio there were five staff present: 2 staff identified their children in ratio as 1:5 older toddlers, 2 staff identified their children in ratio as 1:6 older toddlers, and 1 staff identified their children in ratio as 1:6 including 2 preschool aged children and 4 older toddlers.
In the Bunnies Room, a red colored foam mat was observed to be ripping along the seam leaving foam exposed and accessible to the children in care who are still placing objects in their mouths.
The two trash cans in the diapering area in the Starfish Room were observed to have broken foot pedals, resulting in the cans no longer beings hands-free.
The file for Staff #2, a director, lacked verification of 1 year of experience with children.
The outside walkways were covered with snow around the exterior of the building, including exits from the classrooms on the first floor.
In Room 205 and Room 209, there was a toxic plant in each room on a ledge by the door to the classroom.
In Room 211, there were a couple of areas of peeling paint on the right wall near the back of the room.
On the side of the building, there was a table turned upside down in front of the gate that obstructed the fire exit from the facility.
In Room 117, there was a cracked clear bin containing toys that created a pinching hazard to the children in care.
In Room 111 and Room 119 children were observed playing with small pieces of various kinds of papers that had a diameter of less than 1 inch. These classrooms had children in care who are still placing objects in their mouths. In Room 118, an Infant Classroom, the foam rug on the floor had a peeling material that was flaking off and creating a choking hazard to the children in care who are still placing objects in their mouths.
The file for Child #3, a Young Toddler, contained Health Reports that were updated in an interval greater than 6 months.
The files for Child #1 and Child #2, both Preschoolers, contained Health Reports that had been updated in an interval greater than 12 months.
The trash can in the diapering area in Room 114 was observed to have a broken foot pedal, resulting in the can no longer being hands-free.
The file for Staff #1 contained a Health Assessment that stated they had a communicable disease. There was no accompanying documentation stating the condition and the risk it might pose to others exposed to this individual.
The last two Fire Safety trainings in the file for Staff #1 were dated more than 12 months apart.
During a complaint investigation conducted on 6/4/24, according to staff statements, it was determined that while transitioning from the classroom to the outdoor play space an older toddler was left behind in the classroom for approximately two minutes without any staff present resulting in the staff:child ratio being 0:1.
During a complaint investigation conducted on 6/4/24, according to staff statements, it was determined that while transitioning from the classroom to the outdoor play space an older toddler was left behind in the classroom for approximately two minutes without being supervised by any staff person.
***During a complaint investigation conducted on 6/4/24, according to staff statements, it was determined that while transitioning from the classroom to the outdoor play space an older toddler was left behind in the classroom for approximately two minutes. No staff person was physically present with the child.
*During a complaint investigation conducted on 6/4/24, according to staff statements, it was determined that while transitioning from the classroom to the outdoor play space an older toddler was left behind in the classroom for approximately two minutes. No staff person was physically present with the child.
**During a complaint investigation conducted on 6/4/24, according to staff statements, it was determined that while transitioning from the classroom to the outdoor play space an older toddler was left behind in the classroom for approximately two minutes. No staff person was physically present with the child.
During a complaint investigation conducted on 6/4/24, according to staff statements, it was determined that a staff person was observed to have picked up an infant too rough and placed them forcefully into a crib.
During a complaint investigation conducted on 6/4/24, it was disclosed that the directors allowed parents the opportunity to backdate and/ or provide inaccurate dates on their children's signed periodic reviews in order to reflect compliance.
During a complaint investigation conducted on 6/4/24, it was disclosed that the directors allowed parents the opportunity to backdate and/ or provide inaccurate dates on their children's signed periodic reviews in order to reflect compliance.
The file for Staff #2, employed for more than 45 days contained only the State Police Clearance request and therefore was incorrectly provisionally hired.
In the bathroom connected to Room 205 there was Aquaphor, labeled "keep out of reach of children" on a low shelf accessible to the children in care.
The first aid kit located in Room 205 lacked nonporous gloves and tape. The first aid kit located in Room 206 lacked tweezers.
The face plate on the electrical outlet in the back right corner of Room 211 was cracked, therefore allowing access to the electrical wires.
In Room 118 behind the crib next to the refrigerator was peeling paint. In Room 121 on the half wall in front of the changing table there was peeling paint.
In Room 115 there were multiple cardboard building blocks that were ripped and in disrepair.
In Room 201 there were two empty plastic bags and a deflated helium balloon that posed a choking hazard to the children.
In Room 111, there was a broken thermometer in the refrigerator.
The file for Child #7, enrolled for more that 60 days at the facility, did not contain documentation of a 4th dose of the DTAP vaccination as required based on the child's age as per the ACIP recommended schedule. The file for Child #9, enrolled for more that 60 days at the facility, did not contain documentation of a 4th dose of the DTAP vaccination or a Hep A vaccination as required based on the child's age as per the ACIP recommended schedule.
In Room 117 there was a staff purse on the ground that was accessible to the children that contained ibuprofen.
Although the file for Staff #1 contained a Health Assessment at the time of Renewal Inspection, it was observed that Staff #1 did not obtain the Health Assessment prior to providing initial service in a childcare setting. The file for Staff #3 contained a Health Assessment that had a future date listed as the date of the exam. Therefore, it could not be determined when the physical examination for Staff #3 took place.
Although the file for Staff #1 contained tuberculosis screening at the time of Renewal Inspection, it was observed that Staff #1 did not obtain tuberculosis screening prior to providing initial service in a childcare setting.
Based on conversations with the operator, the operator did not send a copy of the emergency plan to the local municipality.
The file for Child #7 contained Health Reports and Immunization Records at the time of inspection, it was observed they did not have a Health Report and Immunization Record within 60 days of enrollment
Staff #4, acting as an assistant group supervisor, lacked documentation of the qualifications required.
The files for Child #1, #2, #4, #5, #6, #7 and #8 lacked child service forms that provide information to the family about the child's growth and development in the context of the services being provided.
The files for Child #1 and #2 contained financial agreement forms that were not updated within 6 months of the previous update.
The file for Staff #5, lacked two written, nonfamily references from individuals attesting to the suitability to serve as a facility person.
Staff person #1 was observed to be caring for children unsupervised. Staff person #1 has not completed the following pre-service trainings required prior to caring for children unsupervised: Health and Safety Training in the topics of 3270.31(f)(1-9), Pediatric first-aid/CPR training.
The file for Staff person #2 was observed not to contain a valid NSOR within 45 days of hire (See IS CODE SHEET). Staff person #2's NSOR on file is dated 5/26/23.
In Room 206/Tigers, the restroom on the right was observed to lack a lidded waste receptacle.
In Room 115/Zebras, one cot used by an older toddler at naptime was observed to not be labeled with the child's name. In Room 211/Goldfish, eight cots used by preschool age children in care at naptime were observed to not be labeled with the child's name; the cots were individually numbered however the corresponding chart did not contain the names of the children next to those numbers.
The child file for Child #1, who is a young toddler, was observed to lack an updated health report; the most recent health report on file is dated 9/27/22.
The child file for Child #5, who is a preschool age child, was observed to lack an updated health report; a health report on file is dated 3/30/22 which is more than 12 months old.
The child file for Child #1 was observed to lack the 4th dose of DTaP vaccine.
The child file for Child #4, who is a preschool age child, was observed to contain a current health report dated 5/18/23 that indicated the required age-appropriate screenings recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics had not been conducted since the previous health report.
The staff file for Staff person #1, Staff person #3, Staff person #6, and Staff person #7 was observed to contain a tuberculosis screening test results dated more than 12 months prior to providing initial service in a childcare setting (See IS CODE SHEET).
The staff file for Staff person #7 contained a current health assessment dated 5/18/23 that had 'Yes' checked off to having a communicable disease and additional information describing the condition and the risk it might pose was not provided.
Upon review of the facility's 30-day fire testing documentation, the following tests were observed to have been conducted more than 30 days apart: 8/16/22 - 9/16/22 (31 Days), 10/11/22 - 11/28/22 (48 Days), 12/14/22 - 1/18/23 (35 Days), 1/18/23 - 2/22/23 (35 Days).
The child file for Child #3, was observed to not contain documentation of an initial health report within 60 days of enrollment (See IS CODE SHEET). An initial health report dated 3/28/22 is on file.
Staff person #5 had not completed the following required pre-service training within 90 days of their date of hire (see LIS code sheet): Health and Safety Training. Staff person #5 completed Health and Safety Training on 10/12/22.
The staff file for Staff person #4 lacked an annual staff evaluation for 2022; the two most recent evaluations were dated 11/16/21 and 1/13/23.
The child file for Child #2 was observed to contain an emergency contact form that was observed to lack the address(s) for the designated release person(s) listed.
*During a complaint investigation conducted on 3/2/23, the operator offered video footage of a child who was injured in an incident that occurred on 2/24/23 at approximately 10:00am in the gross motor room. In the video, Child #1 was observed jumping up and down on a blue soft foam block, losing their footing, and falling face-first onto the floor. The fall resulted in Child #1 sustaining an injury to their nose and right arm. During the video, Staff person #1, who was responsible for supervising Child #1, was observed on the opposite side of the room, engaged in conversation with Staff person #2, with their head turned away from the play area before, during and immediately after the fall. Therefore, Staff person #1 did not see, hear, nor direct the child at the time of the fall and approximately thirteen seconds had gone by after Child #1 fell before Staff person #1 noticed and went over to assess the needs of the child. Staff person #2 and Staff person #3, who were also present and facing in the direction where Child #1 was playing, did not notice the fall.
***During a complaint investigation conducted on 3/2/23, the operator offered video footage of a child who was injured in an incident that occurred on 2/24/23 at approximately 10:00am in the gross motor room. In the video, Child #1 was observed jumping up and down on a blue soft foam block, loses their footing, and falls face-first onto the floor. The fall resulted in Child #1 sustaining an injury to their nose and right arm. During the video, Staff person #1, who was responsible for supervising Child #1, was observed on the opposite side of the room, engaged in conversation with Staff person #2, with their head turned away from the play area before, during and immediately after the fall. Therefore, Staff person #1 did not see, hear, nor direct the child at the time of the fall and approximately thirteen seconds had gone by after Child #1 fell before Staff person #1 noticed and went over to assess the needs of the child. Staff person #2 and Staff person #3, who were also present and facing in the direction where Child #1 was playing, did not notice the fall.
**During a complaint investigation conducted on 3/2/23, the operator offered video footage of a child who was injured in an incident that occurred on 2/24/23 at approximately 10:00am in the gross motor room. In the video, Child #1 was observed jumping up and down on a blue soft foam block, loses their footing, and falls face-first onto the floor. The fall resulted in Child #1 sustaining an injury to their nose and right arm. During the video, Staff person #1, who was responsible for supervising Child #1, was observed on the opposite side of the room, engaged in conversation with Staff person #2, with their head turned away from the play area before, during and immediately after the fall. Therefore, Staff person #1 did not see, hear, nor direct the child at the time of the fall and approximately thirteen seconds had gone by after Child #1 fell before Staff person #1 noticed and went over to assess the needs of the child. Staff person #2 and Staff person #3, who were also present and facing in the direction where Child #1 was playing, did not notice the fall.
At approximately 10:13am outside on the 2-year-old playground, during the outset of supervision and ratio, 5 staff and 18 older toddlers were observed. Staff person #1 identified and named responsibility for 5 older toddlers, Staff person #2 identified and named responsibility for 4 older toddlers, Staff person #3 identified and named responsibility for 4 older toddlers, and Staff person #4 identified and named responsibility for 3 older toddlers, thus leaving the 2 remaining older toddlers unaccounted for. None of the staff who were physically present on the playground were assigned or claimed responsibility for those two remaining older toddlers. The two remaining older toddlers were responsibility of Staff person #5 who had left the playground area to accompany two other older toddlers inside to the restroom.
During a complaint investigation conducted on 3/2/23, upon watching the video footage of the incident that occurred on 2/24/23 at approximately 10:00am in the gross motor room, Child #1 had fallen off a blue soft foam block and sustained an injury to their nose and right arm. When asked, Staff person #1, who was responsible for supervising Child #1, disclosed that an incident report was not written up and provided to the parents until the following business day on 2/27/23.
In Room 114 / Two year olds, numerous lanyards used to identify the designated play areas throughout the room were observed attached to the wall via Velcro at a height that allowed the string of the lanyards to hang one foot off the ground causing a potential strangulation hazard.
A bookbag containing the first-aid kit was observed on the ground accessible to the children who were playing outside on the toddler playground.
Room 209, 211, and the bathroom shared between Room 205 and 203 and between Room 121 and 119 were observed to lack a handwashing sign above each toilet.
The child file for Child #2 lacked flu shot for 2021.
The staff file for Staff person #4, contained a current health assessment dated 10/14/21 which was conducted more than 24 months from the previously dated 9/13/19 health assessment on file. A health assessment dated 12/14/20 was on file but it is considered an invalid health assessment as it was not competed on our approved DHS staff health assessment form.
The staff file for Staff person #3 contained a health assessment dated 6/2/21 which was observed to contain a signature that lacked the individual's professional title with that signature.
The staff file for Staff person #1 contained a tuberculosis screening test and results that where more than 12 months old from the date of hire (See IS CODE SHEET).
The director self reported that they had not been testing the smoke detection system every 30 days as required by Act 62.
The staff file for Staff person #2, who is functioning as an assistant group supervisor, contained a foreign degree that lacked additional documentation to show that the degree had been evaluated to determine it's validity and whether or not it meets qualifications for the position.
The child file for Child #1 contained a financial agreement and an emergency contact information form that were not reviewed and updated by the parent at least once in a 6-month period; the dates of the most recent reviews were 9/2/21 and 4/11/22 for the financial agreement and 9/2/21 and 4/2/22 for the emergency contact information form.
“Core safety” marks citations about supervision and staff ratios, discipline and caregiver conduct, background checks, child protection and safe sleep, the topics our score weights most. Pennsylvania’s records don’t grade violations by severity. “Follow-up” marks a violation re-cited at a follow-up visit, counted once. How scores work.
Complaint investigations and reported incidents
Pennsylvania’s search lists complaint investigations in which the state found at least one violation (“verified complaints”). It does not say what a complaint alleged, or whether every violation relates to it. Incident investigations look into something that happened at the center; self-reported violations are ones the center reported to the state itself.
Daily rates
| Age group | Full time, per day | Part time, per day |
|---|---|---|
| Infant (6 Weeks-12 mos.) | $94.40 | — |
| Young Toddler (13-24 mos.) | $90.40 | $68.00 |
| Older Toddler (25-36 mos.) | $85.60 | $65.20 |
| Preschool (37 mos.- Entering K) | $77.00 | $57.40 |
| Young School-Age (K-3rd gr.) | $77.00 | $65.00 |
| Older School-Age (4th gr.-15 yrs.) | $77.00 | $65.00 |
The daily price the center lists in Pennsylvania’s COMPASS search for families paying privately. The state notes that rates are subject to change and programs don’t have to share them, so confirm with the center. See what daycare costs in Pennsylvania.
About this center
Common questions
Has Kiddie Academy of North Pittsburgh had any serious violations?
Pennsylvania cited 17 violations since 2021 on the topics Daycare Record treats as core safety (supervision, staff ratios, discipline, background checks, child protection or safe sleep). The most recent, on May 8, 2026 (caregiver conduct): “On April 23, 2026, at 11:08 a.m., Staff #1 placed Child #1 in a booster seat with the safety strap secured for approximately 10 minutes. According to Staff #1, this action was taken in response to the following observed…” Pennsylvania’s records don’t grade violations by severity; each citation is listed in full above.
Have there been complaints about Kiddie Academy of North Pittsburgh?
Pennsylvania lists 3 complaint investigations since 2021 in which it found at least one violation; the violations are listed above. Its search shows these “verified complaints” but not what a complaint alleged, or whether every violation relates to it.
What is Kiddie Academy of North Pittsburgh’s Keystone STARS rating?
STAR 4 (accredited), effective May 18, 2026. Keystone STARS is Pennsylvania’s quality rating program for child care, from STAR 1 to STAR 4. It measures program quality, not inspection results, so read both.
How does Kiddie Academy of North Pittsburgh compare with other daycares in Pittsburgh?
It is tied for #175 of 251 centers in Pittsburgh by topic-weighted citations per inspection, and has more citations per inspection than 91% of Pennsylvania certified centers with enough inspection history to compare.
When was Kiddie Academy of North Pittsburgh last inspected?
Oct 1, 2025 (renewal). The state cited at least one violation during that visit.
How much does Kiddie Academy of North Pittsburgh cost?
It reported full-time daily rates of $94.40 for infant, $90.40 for young toddler, $85.60 for older toddler, $77.00 for preschool in Pennsylvania’s COMPASS search. Rates can change; confirm with the center.
Who runs Kiddie Academy of North Pittsburgh?
The legal entity on its Pennsylvania certificate is ECE Management LLC.
Certified centers nearby
156 Peony Ave, Pittsburgh · 0.7 mi away About typical Magical Years Development Center
28 Pittsburgh St, Pittsburgh · 1.4 mi away · 44 spots More citations than most Mount Nazareth Learning Center
250 Nazareth Way, Pittsburgh · 1.5 mi away · 326 spots More citations than most 202 Hometown Childcare Center
939 California Ave, Pittsburgh · 1.5 mi away · 131 spots About typical Lil Tykes Daycare
617 Lincoln Ave, Bellevue · 1.7 mi away · 127 spots About typical Hiland Child Care Center
845 Perry Hwy, Pittsburgh · 1.8 mi away · 92 spots About typical
Citations are quoted from Pennsylvania Department of Human Services inspection records (Office of Child Development and Early Learning, Bureau of Certification Services), including each finding and the center’s plan of correction. Rule numbers refer mostly to 55 Pa. Code Chapter 3270, the rules for child care centers; a few cite Chapter 20, which covers every certified facility. Pennsylvania’s records don’t grade violations by severity; the “core safety” label and the score are Daycare Record’s.
To check the state’s own record, search the center’s name on COMPASS Child Care Provider Search and open its inspection history. Data refreshed Oct 16, 2026.
Comparing centers? See how to choose a daycare: 30 questions to ask and a printable checklist.
Concerned about this center? See how to report a daycare: which state line to call, what to write down and what happens next.