What official findings have Minnesota investigators released about the daycare centers named in Nick Shirley’s video?
Executive summary
Minnesota investigators—primarily the state Department of Children, Youth and Families (DCYF)—conducted on-site compliance checks at nine child care centers named in Nick Shirley’s viral video and reported that children were present at all but one site, that the locations were “operating as expected,” and that investigators had opened or had “ongoing investigations” into four of the facilities; DCYF and other state reporting say there are no formal findings of CCAP fraud from those visits to date [1] [2] [3]. Federal authorities have also increased scrutiny: the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI were reported to have launched investigations after the video circulated widely, and the federal government temporarily froze child-care payments to Minnesota while reviews proceeded [4] [5].
1. State compliance checks found children on-site and no immediate fraud determinations
DCYF said its Office of Inspector General investigators performed unannounced, on-site compliance checks at nine centers referenced in Shirley’s video and that “children were present at all sites except for one,” which was closed to families on the day of the visit; the agency characterized the sites as operating as expected following those checks and did not assert that the checks produced definitive findings of CCAP fraud [1] [2] [3]. Multiple local outlets reported the same: prior unannounced visits had shown numbers of children consistent with expectations, and past regulatory inspections had not produced conclusive evidence of the type of mass fraud Shirley alleged [5] [3].
2. Ongoing state reviews and a small number of active investigations, unspecified in scope
DCYF disclosed that it had “ongoing investigations” at four of the centers named in the video, but the agency did not publicly clarify whether those investigations were targeting possible CCAP fraud, licensing violations, or other compliance issues, and state officials emphasized that prior inspections had not yielded findings of fraud at those sites [1] [3]. Reporting by Snopes and other outlets reiterated the limitation: the state’s statements confirmed visits and follow-up reviews but stopped short of alleging or substantiating that the payments were stolen or that widespread fraud occurred [1].
3. Payment figures and program context—numbers reported, not rulings of theft
DCYF released CCAP payment amounts for the fiscal year referenced in Shirley’s video—listing individual-center totals such as Super Kids Daycare Center ($471,787) and Future Leaders Early Learning Center ($3.68 million)—but those published payment figures reflect state subsidy disbursements and are not themselves findings of criminality; Snopes noted that the DCYF figures broadly matched Shirley’s totals but underscored that the agency did not assert the money was fraudulently stolen [2] [1]. KARE11 reporting added that several centers had also received Feeding Our Future pandemic-era meal program funds historically tied to a separate multimillion-dollar fraud prosecution, but again those payment histories are descriptive rather than proof of ongoing wrongdoing by the centers named [6].
4. Federal actions and political fallout amid contested narratives
Following the viral video, federal authorities moved to increase scrutiny: DHS and the FBI were reported to have surged investigative resources to Minnesota, and a federal freeze on child-care payments to the state was publicly announced—actions that reflect federal concern but are not the same as prosecutorial findings against the individual centers [4] [5]. The rapid federal response and political amplification—particularly from conservative media and some Republican lawmakers—have shaped public perception and prompted additional state-level reviews, even as Minnesota regulators say their checks have not produced formal fraud findings tied to the Shirley-named centers [7] [8] [3].
5. Limits of the official record and alternative perspectives
Public, official statements and reporting make clear key constraints: DCYF’s public updates confirm site visits, presence of children at most sites, ongoing reviews at several centers, and published payment totals, but they do not substantiate Shirley’s central claim of a coordinated, multimillion-dollar theft by those centers; independent fact-checkers and local news outlets emphasize that while Minnesota has a documented history of social-services fraud uncovered in previous years, the specific allegations in the viral video remain unproven by the state’s announced findings [9] [1] [6]. Critics of Shirley note political motives and instances of harassment toward Somali providers after the video, while supporters point to the released payment figures and federal probes as validation of broader concerns—both positions are reflected in the reporting [10] [11] [12].