5,742 Child Daycare & Preschools in New York

Healthy Kids Extended Day Program receives highly polarized reviews. Positive reviews praise the caring staff, good communication, clean facilities, and flexible scheduling. However, negative reviews cite serious operational issues including poor site management, billing inflexibility, inadequate staffing, lack of communication with partner schools, and insufficient support for children with special needs or behavioral challenges.

Healthy Kids has highly polarized reviews. Positive reviews praise staff quality, communication, cleanliness, and engaging activities across multiple locations. However, negative reviews cite severe operational failures including billing disputes, poor administrative communication, staffing issues, lack of special needs support, and sudden program closures that left families without childcare.

Healthy Kids Extended Day Program receives highly polarized reviews. Most parents praise the caring staff, good communication, clean facilities, and engaging activities, but several parents report serious operational issues including poor management, billing problems, staffing inconsistencies, lack of support for children with special needs, and abrupt program closures.

Healthy Kids Extended Day Program receives highly polarized reviews. Positive reviews praise engaged staff, good communication, clean facilities, and flexible scheduling. However, negative reviews cite serious operational issues including poor communication between management and schools, billing problems, inadequate staffing, lack of proper building access, inability to accommodate children with special needs, and abrupt program closures.

Parents are divided on Healthy Kids Extended Day Program. Multiple locations receive strong praise for caring staff, engaging activities, flexible scheduling, and good communication. However, several recent reviews highlight serious operational issues including poor administrative coordination, billing disputes, inadequate staffing, lack of accessibility, and inability to accommodate children with behavioral or special needs.

Healthy Kids Extended Day Program receives highly polarized reviews. Positive reviews praise excellent staff communication, clean facilities, engaging activities, and flexible scheduling. Negative reviews cite serious operational issues including poor management, billing disputes, inadequate staffing, lack of special needs support, and program closures.

Healthy Kids Extended Day Program receives highly polarized reviews. Positive reviews praise engaged staff, good communication, clean facilities, and flexible scheduling. However, negative reviews cite serious operational failures including poor management communication, billing disputes, staff shortages, inadequate bathroom access, lack of special needs support, and abrupt program closures.

Healthy Kids receives highly polarized reviews with strong praise from satisfied families and serious complaints from dissatisfied ones. Positive reviewers highlight engaged staff, good communication, clean facilities, and flexible scheduling. Negative reviewers report administrative failures, billing issues, poor communication between management and schools, inadequate staffing, and lack of support for children with behavioral or special needs.

NIA Community Services Network receives mixed reviews with significant concerns about safety and staff qualifications alongside praise for programming variety. Parents report conflicting experiences regarding activity offerings and classroom management, with some praising enrichment opportunities like dance, cooking, and chess while others describe limited activities. Management practices and billing policies are also points of contention.

Healthy Kids Extended Day Program receives highly polarized reviews. Multiple parents praise the caring staff, clear communication, engaging activities, and flexible scheduling. However, several parents report serious operational failures including poor site management, billing disputes, lack of staff access to facilities, inadequate staffing ratios, and insufficient support for children with behavioral or special needs.

Healthy Kids Extended Day Program receives highly polarized reviews. The majority of reviews (5/5 stars) praise the staff's care, communication, cleanliness, and flexible scheduling. However, several recent 1-3 star reviews report serious operational issues including poor communication between management and schools, billing disputes, staff access problems, low enrollment leading to program closures, and inadequate support for children with behavioral or special needs.

NIA Community Service Network has highly polarized reviews. Some parents praise the teaching quality and diverse activities like dance, cooking, gym, and chess, while others express serious concerns about staff qualifications, safety, management conduct, and billing practices.

Healthy Kids Extended Day Program receives highly polarized reviews. Positive reviews praise engaged staff, good communication, clean facilities, and flexible scheduling. Negative reviews cite serious operational issues including poor communication between site management and schools, billing disputes with inflexible policies, inadequate staffing, inability to support children with behavioral or special needs, and program closures with minimal notice.

Healthy Kids receives mixed reviews with strong praise from satisfied parents about staff quality, communication, and engaging activities, but serious concerns from others regarding billing practices, administrative communication failures, inadequate staffing, and poor support for children with behavioral or special needs.

Healthy Kids receives highly polarized reviews with five 5-star ratings praising staff communication, cleanliness, and child engagement, but three 1-star ratings citing serious administrative failures including billing disputes, lack of communication with partner schools, staffing issues, and program closures. One 3-star review highlighted excellent on-site teachers but problematic billing department practices.

One parent describes a smaller daycare environment where staff built strong, lasting relationships with children, noting that students continued to ask about their teachers months after leaving. The reviewer highlights that consistent main teachers were assigned throughout their year of attendance, which fostered a sense of care and led them to consider returning.

One parent highlights the program as great for children, while another criticizes the experience as boring. Feedback is currently limited to these two distinct perspectives.

One parent describes the center as a safe and great place to start, while another reports a negative experience involving management issues and staff treatment. The latter review highlights concerns about unfair disciplinary actions, two-faced communication, and delayed facility improvements. Overall, the feedback presents a split view between a positive environment and significant operational conflicts.

One parent praises the friendly staff and quick adaptation, while others report serious issues including rude office personnel, lack of handicap accessibility, and refusal to accommodate disabled visitors. Additional complaints cite incompetent and verbally abusive staff, physical mishandling of children, poor facility maintenance, and inadequate communication with parents.

One parent reports a highly positive experience with the facility, stating they were more than pleased with what their grandchildren experienced. In contrast, a separate review highlights a severely negative interaction with a specific doctor, citing rude behavior, lack of active listening, and dismissive conduct that led to the parent seeking a new provider.

One parent reports that the center sends persistent phone calls despite being geographically distant, noting that the program does not accept refusal to engage. The reviewer indicates they have not actually visited the facility.

One parent reports a serious safety incident involving their son being hit with a rock on the playground, alleging inadequate supervision and a lack of incident reporting by staff. The review highlights concerns regarding teacher responsiveness and adherence to student-to-teacher ratios during outdoor time.

One parent describes the center as helpful and supportive, emphasizing that kindness and gratitude lead to positive interactions and access to resources. In contrast, a separate review highlights severe administrative failures, including unreturned calls, rude staffing, and unresponsiveness.

MY KIDS CHILD CARE CENTER receives highly polarized reviews. Positive reviewers praise the facility's cleanliness, educational approach, and experienced staff (particularly Mrs. Sanders), noting seamless transitions and family-like care. Negative reviewers report concerns about management's disrespect toward parents and staff, alleged inappropriate treatment of children, dietary accommodation issues, and high fees.

One parent highlights the engaging and dedicated Upper School faculty, noting it as a significant improvement over previous public school experiences. Conversely, another reviewer describes the environment as having bad company and rude staff.

One parent describes their experience as absolutely great and notes that the center is very trustworthy. This single review highlights positive sentiments without mentioning any drawbacks.

One parent whose child attended the center at age four recalls a positive experience, noting that their daughter remembers having fun. The feedback highlights long-term fondness for the program among former attendees.

One parent describes the staff as invaluable professionals providing outstanding care, while another reviewer dismissively labels the government-funded facility as garbage. The positive feedback highlights the value of the resource to the community, whereas the negative feedback focuses solely on the funding source.

One parent strongly defends the program, praising the staff's invaluable service and outstanding care for county children, while another reviewer dismissively labels the government-funded facility as garbage.