For years, concerns about fraud in publicly funded social programs have followed a familiar pattern: whistleblowers raise alarms, independent investigators ask uncomfortable questions, and only then do authorities begin to acknowledge that something may be wrong. That cycle appears to be repeating once again—this time in Washington state—after a new round of independent reporting raised fresh concerns about the integrity of taxpayer-funded childcare programs.
The latest revelations did not come from a major newsroom, a government audit, or a televised investigation. Instead, they emerged from the work of independent journalist Cam Higby, who has been documenting what he describes as irregularities in state-funded daycare operations tied to a network of providers linked through shared addresses, overlapping ownership, and unusually high public reimbursements.
The reporting follows a broader pattern seen recently in other states, where independent journalists—not legacy media outlets—have brought attention to alleged fraud in daycare and social-service programs. While the facts in Washington are still unfolding, the situation raises important questions about oversight, transparency, and the appropriate role of journalism in holding public institutions accountable.
What Triggered the Investigation
Higby’s reporting focused on several home-based childcare providers that collectively received hundreds of thousands of dollars in public funding through state and federal childcare assistance programs. One operation in particular—Dhagash Childcare—stood out after records showed it received close to a quarter of a million dollars in taxpayer funds in a single year.
On its own, receiving public funding is not evidence of wrongdoing. Childcare assistance programs are designed to subsidize providers serving low-income families, and many legitimate operations rely on these funds to stay afloat. What raised eyebrows, according to Higby’s reporting, were discrepancies between reported enrollment numbers and the physical realities observed on site.
In multiple visits documented on video, Higby showed facilities that appeared inactive during hours when they were supposedly operating at or near capacity. In some cases, locations listed as childcare centers showed no visible signage, no children present, and no clear indication of licensed activity.
Why Independent Journalism Matters Here
The significance of this reporting lies not just in the allegations themselves, but in who is bringing them forward. Independent journalists operate without the institutional constraints of large news organizations, which often rely on access to government officials and advertising relationships that can discourage aggressive investigative work.
By contrast, independent reporters like Higby and others who have investigated similar cases in different states rely primarily on public records, direct observation, and first-hand documentation. This approach is slower, more labor-intensive, and often invites legal or reputational risk—but it can also surface issues that might otherwise go unnoticed.
Importantly, Higby’s work does not claim guilt. Rather, it raises questions that would ordinarily prompt regulators or auditors to take a closer look.
The State’s Response: Focus on Rhetoric, Not Records
Washington Attorney General Nick Brown responded publicly after the reporting gained traction online. His statement did not directly address the funding discrepancies or enrollment claims raised by Higby. Instead, it focused on concerns raised by members of the Somali community who said daycare providers were being unfairly targeted or harassed.
Brown stated that his office was coordinating with the Department of Children, Youth, and Families to review the situation and warned that individuals making accusations without sufficient evidence could face legal consequences.
From a governance perspective, the response highlights a recurring tension: how to balance protecting communities from harassment while still taking allegations of fraud seriously.
Critics argue that focusing primarily on the motivations or tone of those raising concerns—rather than on the substance of the claims—risks creating a chilling effect on investigative journalism. Supporters of the attorney general counter that unverified online allegations can unfairly stigmatize entire communities.
Both concerns can be valid at the same time.
Oversight Gaps in Childcare Assistance Programs
Public childcare funding programs are especially vulnerable to abuse for several reasons:
- Decentralized administration: Funds often flow through multiple agencies before reaching providers.
- Self-reported data: Enrollment numbers and attendance records may rely heavily on provider reporting.
- High demand, limited staff: Oversight agencies are often understaffed and overburdened.
- Emergency-era expansions: Pandemic-era funding dramatically increased the amount of money moving through these systems, sometimes without proportional increases in auditing capacity.
These vulnerabilities do not point to wrongdoing by any specific group, but they do create opportunities for exploitation when safeguards are weak.
Avoiding Collective Blame
One of the most sensitive aspects of this story is the risk of collective blame. Fraud, when it occurs, is committed by individuals—not communities. Highlighting the ethnicity or immigration background of alleged offenders can obscure that reality and inflame social tensions.
At the same time, acknowledging patterns is not inherently discriminatory if handled carefully and grounded in evidence. If multiple cases involve overlapping networks or shared characteristics, that may warrant further scrutiny by regulators—provided the investigation remains focused on conduct, not identity.
Responsible journalism must walk this line carefully: asking hard questions without painting with a broad brush.
Where Are the Audits?
Perhaps the most pressing question raised by the Washington reporting is why these concerns were not identified earlier by state oversight mechanisms.
Public funding on this scale should trigger routine audits, random site inspections, and enrollment verification. If independent journalists can identify discrepancies through publicly available data and brief site visits, it raises doubts about the robustness of existing controls.
Audits should not be reactive—launched only after public exposure—but proactive and routine.
Journalism vs. Intimidation
The attorney general’s warning about potential legal repercussions has sparked debate over whether it could discourage legitimate investigative work. While laws against harassment and defamation are necessary, they must not be used to suppress good-faith reporting based on observable facts and public records.
Journalists do not need government permission to ask questions, visit publicly listed locations, or publish documented observations. Attempts to blur the line between investigation and harassment risk undermining public trust in institutions meant to enforce the law impartially.
What Happens Next
As of now, no formal charges have been announced in Washington related to Higby’s findings. That does not mean wrongdoing occurred—but it also does not mean the questions raised have been answered.
The appropriate next steps are straightforward:
- Independent audits of the providers identified
- Verification of enrollment and attendance records
- Clear public communication from oversight agencies
- Equal application of standards, regardless of politics or identity
If the programs are operating properly, audits will confirm it and restore confidence. If not, corrective action should follow swiftly.
A Broader Pattern, or Isolated Incidents?
With similar concerns surfacing in multiple states, policymakers may need to reassess how childcare assistance programs are monitored nationwide. Large-scale funding without equally large-scale accountability is a recipe for abuse—no matter who is in charge.
Independent journalists are not substitutes for auditors, inspectors general, or prosecutors. But when they repeatedly uncover issues that officials missed or ignored, it signals a deeper systemic problem.
Conclusion
The Washington daycare reporting underscores a fundamental truth: transparency is not optional in public spending. Taxpayer-funded programs depend on public trust, and that trust is earned through accountability—not through dismissing questions as inconvenient or politically motivated.
Independent journalism plays a critical role in that process. Whether Cam Higby’s findings ultimately lead to enforcement actions or exoneration, the questions raised deserve clear, evidence-based answers.
And if the system works as intended, those answers should come from audits and facts—not from warnings, deflections, or silence.
