A Hopeful Approach to Child Care Program Integrity

Child care program integrity requires system review, not suspicion

In the world of early childhood education, the word “fraud” often lands like a heavy stone in a quiet pond. When state agencies receive inquiries about child care subsidy payments under the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG), the instinct is to assume provider wrongdoing rather than examining the systems that shape their work.  

If we want to strengthen program integrity and accountability, we have to start by acknowledging that our providers are educators, not accountants. By shifting our focus from policing to partnership through technology, we can build systems that don’t just catch errors but prevent them from happening in the first place. 

Fraud vs. human error

Intentional fraud does occur. In one documented case, a child care provider admitted to submitting falsified attendance records to receive higher subsidy payments, resulting in nearly $650,000 in court-ordered restitution. However, after years of helping states leverage technology to modernize these systems, I’ve seen a different reality: Many incidents flagged as fraud aren’t the work of malicious actors. They’re the byproduct of administrative exhaustion.  

Research across public sector data systems consistently shows that many data quality issues originate at the point of entry. Manual entry is inherently error-prone, with studies reporting nontrivial error rates. In public programs, agencies explicitly track data entry error as a driver of improper payments.  

Oregon’s recent data shows that out of 3,999 overpayment referrals, only 17 were referred for suspected provider fraud. This suggests that over 99 percent of incidents flagged as potential fraud were handled as non-fraudulent administrative issues. 

In child care, those data errors can surface as “ghost” attendance, mismatched enrollments, or discrepancies that automatically trigger fraud alerts. Similar dynamics were identified in the USDA’s Erroneous Payments in Childcare Centers Study, which found that aggregation and math errors, rather than intentional misreporting, were among the most common causes of incorrect reimbursement amounts. 

Connect existing systems to strengthen program integrity

Government documentation requirements can feel like they’re being generated in a vacuum, disconnected from the daily realities of classrooms. But here’s the hopeful truth: Many states already have the data they need, and we don’t need to rebuild systems from scratch. We’re seeing a powerful shift toward interoperability that enables state systems to communicate with the software providers already use. 

Iowa’s Child Care Connect (C3) stands as a gold standard of interoperability, eliminating multiple manual workflows for providers and automating attendance record submission. Data is pulled directly from the providers’ existing Child Care Management Systems (CCMSs), virtually eliminating unintended data errors caused by manual entry. 

By meeting providers where they are, Iowa has turned a high-stress compliance task into a seamless background process, lowering the compliance tax on our child care workforce. It’s a great example of connecting systems to get data right the first time automatically, relieving the burden on overworked providers.  

Interoperability improves data accuracy

Prioritizing interoperability with the goal of streamlining and simplifying data system interactions and reporting compliance will strengthen program integrity. We don’t need more data or documentation; we need better data orchestration both in and out of the classroom.  

Washington’s 2025 Child Care Subsidy Overpayment Report highlights that many “overpayments” are simply due to a provider failing to submit attendance records on time, a clerical omission often corrected during the appeal process once the paperwork is produced. 

When we understand how to extract and verify the data already living in our existing systems, we can satisfy federal inquiries without requiring more manual effort or burying providers under new layers of paperwork.

Conclusion: A hopeful approach

As states look to the future of CCDBG administration, the path forward should be paved with empathy and innovation. We can choose to view inquiries as an opportunity to refine our tech stacks rather than a reason to increase surveillance. 

By investing in automated interfaces and integrated data stores, we protect public funds, preserve provider time, and reduce overall administrative burden. When we reduce the friction of the system, we allow providers to do what they do best: Focus on the children. 

Start a conversation and learn more about our work in Early Childhood Education.