Framework and Inspection Guide for Early Childhood Care Settings

🔍💡 Early Childhood Inspections: a national guide refocuses control on the real experiences of children, between what is seen, heard, and read, to better identify risks of abuse and dysfunction. #EarlyChildhood #PMIInspection

🧩👶 Childcare settings for 0–3 years: this guide provides PMI teams and managers with a step-by-step methodology to analyse risks, classify discrepancies, and decide on actions, from enhanced support to closure. #ChildProtection #QualityCare

 📌 📌 This guide concretely equips PMI services, CAF, ARS, DDETS, and early childhood service directors to prepare, conduct, and utilise an inspection focused on the actual quality of care, from the child's perspective.

It provides a common framework for assessing risks (building, organisational, relational, positive care/abuse) and administrative decisions.

For prevention and medico-social actors, it serves as an analysis grid for the living conditions and protection of 0–3 year olds in all types of care, both collective and individual.

Source: 📒 Inspection-Control Guide for Early Childhood Care Settings

✍️ Ministry of Health, Families, Autonomy and People with Disabilities – General Directorate of Social Cohesion (DGCS) - April 2026

 📜🔗LINK to the source

Number of pages: 62

1. Analytical summary

Context, issues, and target audiences

The guide is part of the reform of the early childhood reception policy and the establishment of the public service for early childhood, with a strong focus on the actual quality of care rather than just documentary compliance. It highlights the particular vulnerability of children aged 0 to 3 years to environmental conditions and the risks of abuse, and the obligation for authorities (departments, State, social security bodies) to organise structured and coordinated oversight. The main recipients are PMI services, DDETS/DREETS, CAF/MSA, and other regulatory authorities, but the content directly impacts the managers of EAJE, childminders, MAM, and home care services. The guide articulates administrative policing, abuse prevention, the annual departmental inspection-control plan resulting from decree no. 2025-383, and the national quality reference for care, to structure a system of continuous monitoring of care facilities.

Methodological and operational contributions

The document proposes a comprehensive inspection-control methodology: triggers (annual plan, reporting, presumption of dysfunction), preparation (risk mapping, team composition, documentary file), conduct (immersion, interviews, analysis of documents) and follow-up (report, contradictory procedure, sanctions). It structures the analysis around a systemic approach to risks, based on the triptych seen/heard/read, distinguishing regulatory deviations and remarks, and qualifying risks from minor to major, from 'reasonable risk' to 'danger'. Standard tables and a model analysis matrix allow for a homogeneous coverage of quality at child level, organisation, installation and governance, in connection with the national charter, the national quality framework and the CRC. The guide also specifies the expected posture of inspectors (clarity, neutrality, proportionality) and the links with support and evaluation, in order to avoid confusion between control, support and labelling.

2. Key points of the document 

1. A control defined as an administrative policing power, focused on the quality of care

   The control is explicitly presented as an administrative policing power aimed at identifying risks that compromise the health, safety, well-being and education of children, and not as a mere support or quality certification process. [file:1, p.6–12] It is clearly distinguished from support and evaluation, both by its purpose (potential decision for sanction or closure) and by its methodology (investigations unilaterally determined by the inspector). [file:1, p.10–12]

2. Triggers: annual plan, reports, presumptions of dysfunction

   The inspection-control may arise from a departmental annual inspection-control plan, a report/complaint, or a presumption of dysfunction, and the guide recommends that visits be unannounced whenever possible to capture the reality of practices. [file:1, p.17–22] The initial analysis of information (severity, history, sources) and coordination with other authorities (CAF, ARS, DDPP, labour inspection) structure the control decision and the proportionality of the response. [file:1, p.9–10, 18–21]

3. Risk analysis methodology: from what is seen/heard/read to a global diagnosis

   Risk analysis is based on the hierarchy of norms (CIDE, laws, regulations, reference frameworks) and distinguishes structural quality, process quality, and educational orientations, to assess the effective quality of care. [file:1, p.27–30] Based on the findings (deviations vs norms, remarks on dysfunctions), the inspector qualifies the severity, frequency, and scope of exposure, distinguishes acceptable risk, danger, and peril, and then formulates a global diagnosis motivating corrective or coercive measures. [file:1, p.27–32]

4. Concrete organisation of the visit: immersion, interviews, document reading

   The guide describes step by step the arrival on site, the request for documents, the immersion phase "at child height", confidential interviews with professionals, children, and parents, and the document verification (establishment project, regulations, schedules, diplomas, PAI, protocols). [file:1, p.26–27, 33–36] The feedback at the end of the visit (positive points, improvements, alerts, without exhaustiveness) is identified as a key moment to prioritise the actions of the manager even before the written report. [file:1, p.27–28]

5. Structuring tools: analysis table and regulatory annexes

   Annex 3 proposes a model summary table for collecting observations and analysing risks, structured around the quality of child-centred care, organisation, and setup, with columns for 'seen/heard/read', severity, frequency, and risk management capacity. [file:1, p.53–54] The annexes also remind of the specific regulatory framework for EAJE and individual care, as well as the detailed list of participants in the working groups, attesting to a broad inter-departmental and inter-service consultation. [file:1, p.42–51, 55–60]

3. Action points for local stakeholders 

1. Integrate the seen/heard/read logic into internal visit grids

   For PMI, CAF, ARS teams or municipal services, adapt the visit tools by taking the structure of the analysis table (child-centred care axes, organisation, setup) and the columns 'seen, heard, read', severity, and exposure. [file:1, p.27–30, 53–54] This allows for the harmonisation of practices among inspectors, detailed documentation of risks, and facilitates contradictory exchanges with managers. [file:1, p.27–31]

2. Prepare EAJE and childminders for unannounced inspections focused on practices

   Managers, nursery directors, MAM, and RPE can use the guide to clarify to teams that the inspection will primarily focus on the reality of practices (relationships between children/professionals/parents, familiarisation, carrying, meals, sleep), and not just on the compliance of documents. [file:1, p.8, 13–15, 35–36] Internal self-assessments, with cross-observation 'at child height', can serve as preparation and prevention of major risks. [file:1, p.12–14, 29–30]

3. Cross-check control and support on risky situations before a breakdown

   In the event of repeated signs of difficulties (turnover, departures of children, informal alerts, comments on social media), the authorities can combine enhanced support measures (management support, training, tools) and initiate a control when improvements do not materialise. [file:1, p.20–22] The guide provides explicit examples (deteriorated management, new director) to calibrate the moment when one shifts from support to formal control. [file:1, p.21–22]

4. Strengthen the prevention measures against abuse in establishment and accreditation projects

   Local actors can use the definitions of abuse, the distinction between good treatment / risk of abuse, and the expectations regarding detection and response to revise establishment projects, internal procedures, and team training. [file:1, p.15–16] Integrate protocols for managing undesirable events, reporting, and coordination with the authorities (119, police services, justice) into reference documents and align them with daily practice. [file:1, p.36, 19–20]

5. Systematically articulate inspections and the annual departmental plan

   Departmental councils and their PMI can rely on the listed criteria (regularity, continuity of relationship, undesirable events, sampling, randomness) to establish balanced and transparent control plans, incorporating establishments that 'function well' as sources of good practice benchmarks. [file:1, p.18–19] Coordination with CAF, ARS, DDPP, labour inspection, and local authorities should be formalised in advance to enable joint controls when risks are systemic. [file:1, p.9–10, 18–20]

4. Additional references

🔍➕ See further up in this article the paragraph -

National Framework for the Quality of Early Childhood Care (April 2025)

5. Cross-sectional analysis — Values of Health Practices

• Literacy: The guide is written in legal and technical language, but offers concrete examples and analysis tables that help professionals gradually grasp the concepts of risk, severity, and exposure. [file:1, p.12–15, 27–31]

• Empowerment: The direct involvement of families and children remains limited to gathering their perceptions during interviews, without a structured mechanism for co-constructing control modalities. [file:1, p.33–35]

• Participation: The document mentions listening to professionals, parents, and representatives (nursery council, unions), but as sources of information rather than equal partners in defining quality criteria. [file:1, p.33–35, 55–59]

• Community health: The collective dimension appears through inter-institutional coordination and the role of local authorities, but it does not specifically address community or associative mobilization in the governance of care modes. [file:1, p.6–10, 18–20]

• Ethics: The text emphasises neutrality, non-stigmatisation, proportionality of decisions, confidentiality of interviews, and prevention of conflicts of interest, which constitutes an explicit ethical foundation for control. [file:1, p.23–24, 33–34, 37]

• Human rights: The reference to the CRC, the best interests of the child, and the fight against abuse clearly positions the inspection within a fundamental rights approach, focused on the needs and rights of young children. [file:1, p.3, 27–30]

• Intersectorality: The guide details the roles of PMI, CAF/MSA, ARS, DDPP, DDETS, DDT(M), SIDPC, and police/justice services, and recommends coordinated checks in cases of serious difficulties. [file:1, p.9–10, 18–20]

• Partnership: The models of collaboration are mainly institutional (coordinated control plans, ad hoc technical support), without extensive formalisation of shared governance frameworks with field actors. [file:1, p.18–20, 55–60]

• Fight against discrimination: The document mentions the inclusion of families in situations of poverty, disability, or chronic illness, as well as gender equality, but addresses discrimination related to origins, beliefs, sexual orientation, or administrative status only minimally. [file:1, p.6–8]

6. Assessment of the reliability of the resource

• Scientific relevance

  The guide relies on a solid normative corpus (CRC, public health code, CASF, national references, decree 2025-383) and on previous references regarding the identification of abuse risks, with updates for the 2025–2026 context. [file:1, p.3, 12, 27–30] The risk analysis methodology (severity, exposure, cumulative factors, systemic approach) is consistent with inspection practices in the social and medico-social fields, even if few scientific studies are directly cited. [file:1, p.12–13, 27–32]

• Operational relevance

  The contributions are very operational for the control services: triggering criteria, visit procedure, inspector's posture, concrete examples (building, transport, familiarisation, reception at childminder's), analysis matrix, articulation with administrative police decisions. [file:1, p.13–15, 23–27, 30–31, 53–54] For field teams (nurseries, MAM, childminders), the guide can be used as a preparation grid for inspections and as a support for reflection on the quality of reception, but often requires mediation or a more pedagogical translation. [file:1, p.8, 29–30]

7. Frequently Asked Questions (7 questions/answers)

1. Who is primarily concerned by this inspection-control guide?

   The guide primarily targets the services of the departmental council, particularly the PMI, then the decentralised services of the State (DDETS, DREETS, ARS, DDPP), the CAF/MSA and, indirectly, the managers of EAJE, childminders, MAM and home care services. [file:1, p.6–10]

2. How does control differ from support and evaluation?

   Support aims to assist professionals in the appropriation of standards, evaluation aims for continuous improvement through a reflective approach, while inspection-control corresponds to the exercise of administrative police power aimed at identifying and reducing risks, with possible outcomes ranging from a warning to closure. [file:1, p.10–12, 15–16]

3. What are the main reasons for triggering an inspection-control?

   This may involve an entry in the annual departmental control plan, a report or a complaint (from parents, professionals, 119, police, justice), or a presumption of dysfunction based on a set of indicators (turnover, departures of children, content on social media, alerts from partners). [file:1, p.17–21]

4. How does the inspection take into account positive care and maltreatment?

   The guide recalls the legal definition of maltreatment, emphasises the need for constant vigilance regarding the inherent risks in the support relationship, and highlights that quality certification or positive care processes do not negate the possibility of maltreatment, which must be subject to specific analysis. [file:1, p.15–16]

5. What are the main stages of the on-site inspection visit?

   The inspection includes the presentation and reminder of the framework, an immersion/observation phase at child height, interviews with professionals, children, and parents, analysis of documents (project, regulations, schedules, staff files, IEPs, protocols), followed by an oral presentation of the main findings before the written report and the contradictory procedure. [file:1, p.26–27, 33–38]

6. What areas are systematically examined by the inspection?

   The analysis covers the quality of the welcome at child height (educational, relational, daily practices), the organisation (establishment project, HR, governance, prevention of undesirable events), and the installation (environment, safety of premises, compliance with building or approval standards for individual care). [file:1, p.35–37, 53–54]

7. What follow-up actions can be taken after an inspection?

   Based on the overall diagnosis, the inspector can propose reminders of regulations, recommendations, compliance orders, and in cases of major risks or danger, measures for partial or total closure, temporary or permanent, or suspension/removal of approval for individual care. [file:1, p.30–31, 38–41]

8. Rewriting in Easy-to-Read Language 

Easy-to-Read Title

Guide to checking the care facilities for young children (nurseries, MAM, childminders).

Easy-to-Read Summary – Context

• This guide is about children aged 0 to 3 years. [file:1, p.3]

• These children are very vulnerable. They need safe care. [file:1, p.3]

• The guide explains how to check care facilities. [file:1, p.6–8]

• The checks are to see if the children are well protected. [file:1, p.6–8]

• The checks look at the health, safety, and well-being of the children. [file:1, p.3, 6–8]

Easy-to-Read Summary – What the guide provides

• The guide gives clear steps for conducting a check. [file:1, p.23–27]

• It explains when to start a check. For example, after an alert. [file:1, p.17–21]

• It tells what to look for in the premises, in the organisation, and in the practices. [file:1, p.35–37]

• It helps to decide if the risk to the children is low or serious. [file:1, p.27–32]

• It shows what decisions to make if the danger is significant. [file:1, p.30–31, 38–41]

Key Points in Easy-to-Read Language

1. Purpose of the check

   • The check is to see if the care is good for the children. [file:1, p.6–8]

   • It is not only used to check papers. [file:1, p.8, 29–30]

2. When to carry out a check

   • A check can be planned in an annual plan. [file:1, p.17–19]

   • A check can also occur after a complaint or a doubt. [file:1, p.19–21]

3. How the visit takes place

   • The person conducting the check observes the children and adults at work. [file:1, p.26–27, 32]

   • They speak with professionals and sometimes with parents. [file:1, p.33–35]

   • They read important documents such as the establishment project. [file:1, p.25–26, 35–36]

4. The risks for children

   • Some risks are acceptable and well monitored. [file:1, p.31–32]

   • Others are serious or urgent dangers. [file:1, p.31–32]

   • In this case, action must be taken quickly to protect the child. [file:1, p.31–32, 38–41]

5. Decisions after the check

   • The responsible parties may receive advice to make changes. [file:1, p.30–31]

   • They may also receive obligations to change more quickly. [file:1, p.30–31, 38–40]

   • In very serious cases, the place may be closed. [file:1, p.30–31, 38–41]