A newly filed Washington state bill is drawing scrutiny as journalists and federal authorities examine alleged misuse of taxpayer-funded child care subsidies, raising questions about public oversight, transparency and the reach of public records laws.
Senate Bill 5926, introduced Dec. 22 by Democratic state Sen. Lisa Wellman, would expand exemptions under Washington’s Public Records Act to cover nearly all licensed or certified child care providers, not just home-based daycare operators.
Legislative summaries say the measure is intended to shield personal information that could expose providers to harassment or threats.
Currently, most confidentiality protections apply only to family home providers because they operate inside private residences.
SB 5926 would extend similar safeguards statewide, covering providers in all settings.
Exempted information would include names, addresses, phone numbers, emails, birth dates, driver’s license numbers and other personally identifying data.
Supporters argue the legislation is necessary to protect child care workers from intimidation, doxxing and other safety risks.
Critics warn the bill could hinder independent verification of daycare operations.
Watchdogs note that journalists often rely on licensing and ownership records, as well as address information, to confirm whether taxpayer-funded child care programs are active and compliant.
Limiting access to this information may make it harder to uncover discrepancies or confirm allegations of fraud, The Post Millennial reports.
The bill comes amid a wave of investigations into child care subsidy programs across the country.
National attention surged after reporting in Minnesota alleged that a Somali-run daycare received $1.9 million in public funds despite having no children enrolled.
Similar scrutiny has extended to other states, including Washington.
Washington Attorney General Nick Brown told The Seattle Times that his office received complaints from community members about online investigations into local childcare centers.
Brown cautioned that aggressive tactics, including showing up at residences or filming children, could be unsafe, and said his office is coordinating with the Department of Children, Youth, and Families to assess both fraud allegations and reports of harassment.
Concerns about oversight have intensified as journalists report mismatches between state records and real-world observations. Investigators said some subsidized daycare addresses are listed as licensed and funded even when residents deny any operations took place.
In one instance, a daycare reportedly received over $210,000 in 2025 alone and was cited for multiple safety violations during inspections.
Investigative journalist Carleen Johnson reported visiting multiple subsidized daycare homes in Federal Way, finding no children or clear evidence of active operations.
She said she was threatened with police involvement when asking questions. Observers note that incomplete or inconsistent government records make independent verification especially challenging.
At the federal level, Deputy Health and Human Services Secretary Jim O’Neill announced a freeze on certain Minnesota daycare payments amid fraud allegations.
New safeguards now require providers to submit receipts or photo documentation before receiving funds, a measure officials say is meant to prevent further misuse of taxpayer dollars, according to KOMO News, per The Daily Caller.
Washington Republican Party Chairman Jim Walsh praised federal oversight but stressed that all claims should be fully investigated before drawing conclusions.
“We need to investigate this and make sure the money is being spent on daycare, on child care, on kids,” Walsh said, noting that fraud has not yet been proven. Sen. Wellman did not respond to requests for comment.
As scrutiny intensifies, SB 5926 raises a central debate over balancing the safety of child care providers with public accountability for taxpayer funds.
Critics argue that shielding personal information could make detecting fraud more difficult, while supporters insist the protections are essential to prevent harassment and threats.
