Skys the Limit Learning Center Program · 801 Arch Street, Pittsburgh
Skys the Limit Learning Center Program is a certified child care center in Pittsburgh, PA. It holds a Keystone STAR 4 rating. Since August 2021, Pennsylvania certification staff have inspected it 6 times. The state cited 76 violations, 6 of them core-safety (supervision, staff ratios, discipline, background checks, child protection or safe sleep), most often for records & paperwork (38 of 76). 10 citations came in the last 12 months, including 1 on a core-safety topic. Measured by topic-weighted citations per inspection, it is tied for #181 of 251 centers in Pittsburgh and has more citations per inspection than 92% of Pennsylvania certified centers.
Inspection record
Every state visit
What inspectors cited most
Citations, newest first
The file of staff #2 contained documentation of an FBI clearance dated 12/6/2025, after their start date at the facility (see LIS code sheet). When staff #2 provided a receipt to verify submission, it was also dated after their start date at the facility (12/4/2025). The disclosure statement of staff #2 was dated 12/5/2025, after their start date at the facility (see LIS code sheet).
The file of staff #2 did not have documentation of initial emergency plan training within 90 days of their start date at the facility.
The emergency plan did not include the evacuation route to the location away from the facility in the event of an emergency.
Documentation of the written agreement between the school and facility which states the trash is removed from the facility at least once per day and from the facility grounds at least once per week was not presented at the renewal inspection.
The financial agreement of child #1, #2, #3, #4, and #5 were not signed by the operator.
The financial agreement of child #1, #2, #3, #4, and #5 did not specify the date of the child's admission date to the program.
The emergency contact information of child #3 did not include the name or telephone number of the child's physician.
The emergency contact form of child #5 did not include the name of the child's health insurance coverage.
The emergency contact information of child #3 did not include the addresses of the persons designated by the parent to whom the child may be released.
The file of staff #2, identified as an assistant group supervisor, did not contain full documentation they qualify for the position as they were missing 2500 hours of documented experience with children.
Show 66 older citations
Staff person #2 was observed to be caring for children unsupervised. Staff person #2 has not completed the following pre-service training required prior to caring for children unsupervised: pediatric first aid and pediatric CPR in an acceptable curriculum.
Documentation of completed disclosure statements were not provided for staff #1 and #2 on the day of the inspection.
Children were observed to be placing the trash from their snack into a trash can which did not have a cover. Some of the trash did contain human secretions such as the spout of the milk carton.
The facility did not have documentation the emergency plan had been reviewed and/or update in the past 12 months at the time of the inspection.
The emergency plan was not posted in a conspicuous location used by parents.
The file provided for child #2, enrolled more than 60 days (see LIS code sheet), did not have documentation of their immunization status or acceptable documentation of an exemption.
The health assessment of staff #1 was signed by a FNP and not a physician, physician's assistant or CRNP as required under the regulation.
Pick-up and drop-off procedures were not posted at a conspicuous location in the child care facility.
The names of the facility staff that participated in the fire drills were not included on the fire drill logs.
The facility did not have documentation the emergency plan was submitted to the local municipality and county emergency management agency at the time of the inspection.
The file provided for child #1, who based on the dates of the signed paperwork has been enrolled for more than 60 days (see LIS code sheet), did not have an initial health assessment on file. The file provided for child #2, enrolled for more than 60 days (see LIS code sheet), did not contain documentation of an initial health assessment.
The facility did not have documentation local traffic safety authorities were notified in writing of the location of the facility and the program's use of pedestrian and vehicular routes around the childcare facility.
The facility did not have documentation their trash is removed from the facility at least once per day. and from the facility grounds at least once per week.
The facility did not have documentation of current liability insurance on file at the facility.
The certification representative was not provided the staff and complete child files on the day of the inspection.
Documentation of the most recent fire safety training of staff #1 was dated 1/25/2023, taken more than 12 months ago.
Staff person #2 has not completed the following required pre-service training within 90 days of their date of hire (see LIS code sheet): pediatric first aid and pediatric CPR in an acceptable curriculum and PQAS instructor.
The written plan of daily activities was not posted in the group space.
The financial agreement of child #1 was not signed by the operator.
The financial agreement of child #1, #4 and #5 did not contain the admission date of the child.
The emergency contact form of child #1 did not include the telephone number of the child's physician and the emergency contact form of child #4 did not inlcude the address of the child's physician.
The emergency contact form of child #1, #4 and #5 did not include the enrolling parents work address or work telephone number.
The emergency contact form of child #1 did not inlcude the addresses of the individuals designated by the parent to whom the child may be released.
A written plan identifying the means of transporting a child to emergency care and staffing provisions in the event of an emergency was not posted in the childcare space.
The file provided for child #1 did not contain consent for minor first aid procedures by staff.
Documentation of a current health assessment dated 8/17/2024 for staff #1 was provided, however, the previous health assessment for staff #1 was not provided at the time of the inspection.
Documentation of 2 written non-family references for staff #1 were not provided at the time of the inspection.
A valid photo identification of the director was not provided on the day of the inspection.
The current certificate of compliance was not posted in a conspicuous location used by parents. The facility did not have documentation of providing each of the parents of enrolled children with information on how to access the regulations electronically and instructions for contacting the appropriate regional childcare office.
2nd Citation (first from 12/13/2023): Multiple areas of the walls in the cafeteria were not in good repair as plaster dust was evident on the floor below the damaged plaster. These areas included the wall on the left side upon entering the facility, the wall of the exit door (including the window area). When the areas of the walls are touched, the plaster dust fell to the floor and residue remained on the fingers.
2nd Citation (first from 12/13/2023): The emergency contact form of child #2 did not contain the addresses of the persons designated by the parent to whom the child may be released.
2nd Citation (first from 12/13/2023): The file of child #1 did not contain signed parental consent for emergency medical care for the child. Written consent is required prior to admission.
2nd Citation (first from 12/13/2023): The file of child #1 did not contain signed parental consent for administration of minor first-aid procedures by facility staff. Written consent is required prior to admission.
Based on information provided prior to the inspection on the provider survey, the aftercare program begins at 3:00 pm. Upon arrival at approximately 3:12 pm, facility person #1 was alone in the cafeteria with child #4. Between approximately 3:14 pm and 3:23 pm 7 additional children arrived in the cafeteria for care. Facility person #2 arrived at approximately 3:28 pm. Facility person #1 was alone and caring for more than one child for 10 minutes before facility person #2 arrived.
While inspecting the boy's restroom, facility person #2 called out facility person #1, who was in the lobby, to inquire about the posting of the handwashing signs. Facility person #1 left the lobby and came into the restroom leaving child #5 unsupervised in the lobby of the school for a brief period of time.
A first aid kit was not present in the gym while children were receiving care.
The first aid kit did not contain soap.
Multiple areas of the walls in the cafeteria were not in good repair as plaster dust was evident on the floor below the damaged plaster. These areas included the wall on the left side upon entering the facility, the wall of the exit door (including the window area). When the areas of the walls are touched, the plaster dust fell to the floor and residue remained on the fingers.
The 3 urinals, 1 toilet and 2 sinks in the boy's restroom did not contain handwashing signs.
The health assessment of child #5 did not contain documentation of a review of the child's health history.
The health report of child #5 did not address if the child had any allergies.
The fire drill logs did not include the evacuation time or the names of the participating staff for each drill.
The facility was able to provide documentation from the school the fire detection system was tested in December and was operational at that time. However, the facility was unable to activate the fire detection system during the inspection for the certification representative. An annual fire detection inspection report was also unavailable at the time of the inspection. The facility did not have proof of purchase of the fire detection system.
The financial agreement of child #1, #3, #4, and #5 did not contain the child's admission date.
The file of child #5 contained the original financial agreement.
The emergency contact form of child #5 did not contain the health insurance policy number of the child.
The emergency contact form of child #4 did not contain the addresses of the persons designated by the parent to whom the child may be released.
The file of child #2 contained a financial agreement which contained documentation of a review and/or update exceeding 6 months (11/6/2022 and 11/6/2023) and the emergency contact form of child #2 was dated 11/6/2022 lacking documentation of a review and/or update within 6 months.
The file of child #1 did not contain signed parental consent for emergency medical care for the child. Written consent is required prior to admission.
The file of child #1 did not contain signed parental consent for administration of minor first-aid procedures by facility staff. Written consent is required prior to admission.
The emergency plan did not contain plan for the continuity of services or a contingency plan/fund in the event of an emergency or disaster.
At approximately 4:05 pm, facility person #1 took the aftercare children to get their snack, but their hands were not washed prior to eating.
The health assessment of facility person #1 was dated 12/22/2022 which was after their start date at the facility (see coded LIS sheet).
The tuberculosis screening of facility person #1 was dated 12/22/2022 which was after their start date at the facility (see coded LIS sheet).
The emergency plan did not contain evacuation routes or directions to the predetermined accommodations away from the facility in the event of an emergency.
The facility did not have documentation of the emergency plan being sent to the local municipality.
The "Get Started with Center-Based Care: Building Blocks for Quality" training of facility person #2 was taken prior to 10/4/2022, but facility person #2 did not complete the required one-hour additional training, "Pennsylvania Health and Safety Update 2022," by 12/30/2022.
The financial agreement of child #1, 2, and 3 did not contain the persons designated by the parent to whom the child may be released.
The emergency contact information of child #1 did not contain the address of the child's physician or source of medical care.
The emergency contact information of child #1 did not contain the home address, #4 did not contain the work address and #5 did not contain the work address and work telephone number of the enrolling parents.
The emergency contact information of child #4 and 5 did not contain information on the child's special needs, as specified by the child's parent, physician, physician's assistant or CRNP, which is needed in an emergency situation or documentation this is not applicable to the child.
The emergency contact information of child #1, 2 and 3 did not contain the health insurance policy number and child #5 did not contain the health insurance coverage or policy number for the child under a family policy or Medical Assistance benefits.
The emergency contact information of child #1 was missing a telephone number and child #1, 2 and 5 did not have the addresses of the individuals designated by the parent to whom the child may be released.
The certificate of compliance was not available to parents in a conspicuous location nor were the parents of each enrolled child provided with information on how to access the regulations electronically.
Based on the review of and documentation in facility person #1's file, it was determined they resided outside of the state of Pennsylvania in the past 5 years but did not have documentation of the required out of state clearances or documentation of submission.
Identified as an assistant group supervisor, facility person #1 had verification of a high school diploma but did not have acceptable documentation of 2 years experience with children.
“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.
Daily rates
| Age group | Full time, per day | Part time, per day |
|---|---|---|
| Young School-Age (K-3rd gr.) | $60.00 | $37.00 |
| Older School-Age (4th gr.-15 yrs.) | $60.00 | $37.00 |
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 Skys the Limit Learning Center Program had any serious violations?
Pennsylvania cited 6 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 Dec 18, 2025 (background checks): “The file of staff #2 contained documentation of an FBI clearance dated 12/6/2025, after their start date at the facility (see LIS code sheet). When staff #2 provided a receipt to verify submission, it was also dated…” Pennsylvania’s records don’t grade violations by severity; each citation is listed in full above.
Have there been complaints about Skys the Limit Learning Center Program?
Pennsylvania lists no complaint investigation that found a violation at Skys the Limit Learning Center Program since 2021. Its search shows these “verified complaints” but not what a complaint alleged, or whether every violation relates to it.
What is Skys the Limit Learning Center Program’s Keystone STARS rating?
STAR 4, effective May 19, 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 Skys the Limit Learning Center Program compare with other daycares in Pittsburgh?
It is tied for #181 of 251 centers in Pittsburgh by topic-weighted citations per inspection, and has more citations per inspection than 92% of Pennsylvania certified centers with enough inspection history to compare.
When was Skys the Limit Learning Center Program last inspected?
Dec 18, 2025 (renewal). The state cited at least one violation during that visit.
How much does Skys the Limit Learning Center Program cost?
It reported full-time daily rates of $60.00 for young school-age, $60.00 for older school-age in Pennsylvania’s COMPASS search. Rates can change; confirm with the center.
Who runs Skys the Limit Learning Center Program?
The legal entity on its Pennsylvania certificate is Skys The Limit Learning Center Program.
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.