'It all started WITH A TIP…': Bombshell testimony REVEALS how Minnesota daycare fraud got caught

Key Concepts

• CCAP (Child Care Assistance Program): A government program providing financial assistance to low-income families for childcare.
• Fraudulent Billing: The practice of submitting claims for childcare services that were never rendered.
• Surveillance Methodology: The use of physical and electronic monitoring to verify attendance records against actual center activity.
• Institutional Obstruction: The alleged systematic effort by DHS leadership to impede fraud investigations to protect the agency's reputation.
• Continuous Improvement Program: A management initiative cited as a tool for workplace harassment and the undermining of investigative autonomy.

---

1. Nature of Fraudulent Activity

Jace Swanson, a former manager of recipient and childcare provider investigations at the Department of Human Services (DHS), detailed the mechanics of fraud within the CCAP system. Fraudulent providers frequently billed for 50 to 70 children on days when the facility was entirely closed, had no staff present, or had zero children in attendance. In other instances, providers engaged in "token attendance," where children were signed in for as little as 15 minutes before leaving, allowing the center to bill for a full day of care.

2. Investigative Methodology

Swanson emphasized that the compliance process is inherently straightforward: providers are required to log the arrival and departure times of children. When investigations were initiated, the process followed a specific framework:

• Trigger: Investigations were typically launched based on tips, leads, or complaints.
• Surveillance: Investigators utilized plainclothes officers and unmarked vehicles to conduct physical surveillance.
• Verification: Electronic surveillance was used to cross-reference actual center activity with the attendance and billing records submitted to the state.
• Assessment: Investigators could determine the validity of a center’s claims relatively quickly by comparing observed foot traffic against reported billing data.

3. Institutional Obstruction and Internal Conflict

Swanson provided testimony regarding a shift in DHS culture starting in mid-2017, characterized by "pushback" against investigative efforts. Key points of contention included:

• The OLA (Office of the Legislative Auditor) Review: In 2018, Swanson refused to alter a document intended for the OLA that detailed investigative findings. Leadership allegedly pressured him to change the report to avoid making the agency "look bad."
• Discrediting Tactics: Swanson alleged that DHS spent $90,000 on a consultant specifically to discredit the allegations of fraud raised by his team.
• Administrative Sabotage: The agency implemented a "continuous improvement program" which Swanson described as a mechanism for bullying and harassing investigators.
• Loss of Autonomy: The authority to select centers for investigation was stripped from experienced investigators (who possessed 70 years of combined criminal investigative experience) and transferred to a committee of three, two of whom lacked any background in financial fraud or public benefit crimes.

4. Conclusion and Takeaways

The testimony highlights a significant disconnect between the simplicity of the CCAP compliance requirements and the scale of the fraud that went unchecked. Swanson’s account suggests that the failure to address this fraud was not due to a lack of investigative capability, but rather a deliberate administrative effort to suppress findings. The transition of the investigative unit to the "Children, Youth and Family" department in 2023 marks the end of the era Swanson described, but his testimony serves as a critical record of how internal bureaucratic priorities can effectively dismantle public oversight and enable systemic financial abuse.