Kinderhoeve Escharen

Shortcomings

• Staff must respond more sensitively and responsively to babies' signals
• A clear division of tasks and group routine must be established
• Nap times and checks must be systematically recorded
• Arrangements for supervising sleeping children must be workable and unambiguous
• The pedagogical policy must be better translated into concrete action in the group
• Staff must offer children more developmentally appropriate activities and positive attention

Violations

• The daycare center does not act in accordance with the pedagogical policy plan (Article 1.49(1) and (2) and 1.50(1) and (2) of the Childcare Act; Article 3(1) of the Childcare Quality Decree)
• Children are not treated with sufficient sensitivity and responsiveness, as a result of which they do not feel emotionally safe and secure (Article 1.49(1) and (2) and 1.50(1) and (2) of the Childcare Act; Article 2(a) of the Childcare Quality Decree)
• Children are not sufficiently challenged in their development through play (Article 1.49(1) and (2) and 1.50(1) and (2) of the Childcare Act; Article 2(b) of the Childcare Quality Decree)
• Children are not sufficiently guided in their interactions and social skills (Article 1.49(1) and (2) and 1.50(1) and (2) of the Childcare Act; Article 2(c) of the Childcare Quality Decree)
• Children are not sufficiently encouraged to become acquainted with generally accepted values and norms (Article 1.49(1) and (2) and 1.50(1) and (2) of the Childcare Act; Article 2(d) of the Childcare Quality Decree)

Summary

The Municipal Health Service (GGD) inspection report dated 11 August 2026 for daycare center (kinderdagverblijf/KDV) Kinderhoeve Escharen reveals serious shortcomings in pedagogical practice. During an unannounced inspection at the De Knorrende Biggetjes core group (0-2 years), a restless atmosphere was observed with crying babies who were left without attention for extended periods. Staff were primarily occupied with household tasks and care routines, and did not respond sensitively to children's signals. There was a lack of clarity regarding task division, sleep registration was absent, and arrangements for supervision were unworkable. The pedagogical policy was also not being followed. Given the seriousness of the situation, no recovery offer was made. The GGD advises enforcement action.