How have media outlets verified the allegations in Nick Shirley’s Minnesota daycare videos?
Executive summary
Mainstream newsrooms and local reporting have tested Nick Shirley’s claims by cross-checking public payment records, visiting the day-care sites Shirley filmed, requesting state inspection and licensing records, and obtaining counter-evidence such as security-camera footage and state agency statements — and those checks have repeatedly found that while some centers received large federal payments, there were no formal findings of fraud tied to Shirley’s footage as of the reporting [1][2][3].
1. Public payment data: the raw numbers Shirley used, and how reporters treated them
Shirley’s video leaned heavily on state and federal payment records showing millions in Child Care Assistance Program (CCAP) and Feeding Our Future payments to the centers he visited; outlets including KARE‑11 and Snopes confirmed those payment totals or close approximations, noting DCYF data that the same centers received large sums across recent fiscal years [1][3]. Reporters treated the figures as a starting point: they verified that the payments existed but emphasized that payments alone do not prove fraud — a distinction agencies and local journalists repeatedly highlighted [1][2].
2. On‑the‑ground checks: reporters went to the same locations Shirley filmed
Multiple news organizations followed Shirley’s lead and visited the day‑care addresses; the Star Tribune and KARE‑11 reported that some centers invited reporters in and showed children present, and state inspectors said they had visited many of the same facilities within months and found children in attendance during their inspections [4][2]. Those visits undermined Shirley’s implication that the centers were universally “empty,” showing that timing of visits and context matter when interpreting a short investigative clip [4][2].
3. State agency inspections and official statements as verification tools
Minnesota’s Department of Children, Youth and Families (DCYF) responded by saying there were ongoing investigations at some centers but that prior inspections had not uncovered findings of fraud; the commissioner noted inspectors had been to the facilities and found children present during some recent visits [2][1]. Outlets relied on those official statements to counter the more sweeping conclusions in Shirley’s video, and reporters asked agencies for licensing histories and inspection reports to establish whether formal allegations existed — they largely found none tied directly to Shirley’s on‑camera allegations [1][2].
4. Security footage, witness interviews and counter‑evidence
At least one day care supplied security‑camera footage of children arriving on days that Shirley’s crew suggested were empty, and witnesses cited in hearings and local coverage reported that professional journalists and oversight practitioners had obtained material countering Shirley’s assertions [5]. Newsrooms presented those materials to show that Shirley’s selective footage and timing could create misleading impressions even when payments and records raised legitimate questions [5][4].
5. Source vetting and motive scrutiny: who led Shirley’s reporting and how outlets assessed that
Reporters dug into Shirley’s on‑camera guide, a man identified as David Hoch, revealing he was a lobbyist with prior political activity and that some leads originated from Republican House staffers; outlets like The Intercept and the Star Tribune flagged the connection and questioned the independence of Shirley’s sourcing [6][4]. Media outlets used that background to explain potential partisan steering and to justify extra verification steps before accepting Shirley’s broader claims of systemic fraud [6][7].
6. Verdicts, limits and competing narratives in coverage
Fact‑checks by CBS and reporting by outlets such as KARE‑11 and Snopes concluded Shirley’s specific scenes did not prove a widespread sham operation and that many claims went beyond what documentation supported; at the same time, those outlets did not deny that large payments existed or that some investigations into pandemic-era Feeding Our Future payments uncovered criminal activity unrelated to Shirley’s specific footage [8][1][3]. Reporting thus split between validating the factual basis for payment totals and disputing Shirley’s causal leap to massive, proven fraud at the locations he filmed [1][8].
Conclusion: What verification accomplished and what remained unresolved
Media verification established that Shirley correctly cited payment data and highlighted real state scrutiny, but independent reporting and agency records undercut his central claim that the featured Somali‑run day cares were definitively operating as sham sites; outlets therefore framed the story as one of disputed inference — payments and questions exist, but the evidentiary standard for declaring systemic fraud at those specific sites had not been met in the public reporting [1][2][3]. Several outlets also flagged partisan sourcing and subsequent harassment of Somali providers as consequences of amplifying an under‑verified narrative, underscoring why traditional verification mattered in this case [6][9].