To amend sections 5104.015 and 5104.04 and to enact sections 5104.044, 5104.303, 5104.304, and 5104.361 of the Revised Code to require video surveillance of child care centers, to establish an online portal for tracking child care center attendance, to require investigations of waste, fraud, and abuse allegations relating to providers of publicly funded child care, and to name this act the Child Care Fraud Prevention Act.
HB649, titled the Child Care Fraud Prevention Act, would add several new oversight and anti-fraud requirements for Ohio child care centers, especially those participating in publicly funded child care. The bill would require child care centers to install and maintain video surveillance at entrances, exits, and in general child care areas, with recordings kept for 60 days and made available to the Department of Children and Youth for inspections and audits. It also directs the department to develop a system to view live and stored video and to use that footage for attendance audits, health and safety monitoring, and other administrative purposes.
The bill also creates an online attendance portal tied to the state’s automated child care system. Under that portal, a child’s caretaker parent—not the center—would record daily entry and exit attendance using software provided by the department, with anti-backdating controls, QR code or PIN options, location-data collection for QR use, and a required parent photo on each submission. Attendance records from the portal would be used to calculate publicly funded child care payments. In addition, the bill establishes a process for the department to investigate suspected waste, fraud, and abuse, including false attendance reporting, and to refer substantiated cases to the Auditor of State and, ultimately, the Attorney General for possible legal action or prosecution.
The bill would significantly expand state oversight of child care licensing and payment integrity by amending existing child care center rules and adding new statutory duties for the Department of Children and Youth. It would authorize immediate payment suspension when inspections or audits indicate probable fraud or material misrepresentation, and it would allow termination of publicly funded child care contracts for noncompliance with the surveillance requirements. The bill also makes investigative records and surveillance video confidential and not subject to public records disclosure.
Overall sentiment in the available materials appears supportive of stronger fraud prevention and accountability measures, as reflected by the bill’s broad set of cosponsors and its framing as a child care fraud prevention measure. Because the bill was only introduced and no committee transcript or vote record is available, there is no recorded floor or committee debate to show formal opposition or support beyond the bill’s sponsorship.
The main points of contention likely center on privacy, operational burden, and feasibility. The surveillance mandate raises concerns for child care providers and parents about constant video monitoring, data storage, and access by the state, while the attendance portal’s photo, location, and parent-only recording requirements may be viewed as administratively burdensome or intrusive. Providers may also object to the risk of payment suspension or contract termination based on preliminary fraud findings before a full investigation is completed.
HB649 would amend Ohio’s child care licensing and oversight statutes in Chapter 5104 by adding mandatory surveillance, attendance-tracking, and fraud-investigation provisions for child care centers. It would create new duties for the Department of Children and Youth, the Auditor of State, and the Attorney General, while also affecting publicly funded child care payment administration under section 5104.32. Child care centers would face new compliance obligations, and parents of enrolled children would take on a direct role in recording attendance through a state portal.
The available context suggests the bill is generally framed as a child protection and anti-fraud measure, with substantial sponsor support and no recorded vote or hearing testimony indicating organized opposition in the provided materials. Because there are no committee transcripts or votes, the public record here does not show a developed debate, but the bill’s structure indicates a policy emphasis on accountability, verification, and enforcement.
The most likely areas of disagreement are privacy, surveillance, and administrative burden. Child care centers may object to required cameras in child-facing areas, live state access to video, and the retention of footage, while parents may have concerns about photo capture and location-data collection in the attendance portal. Providers could also contest the bill’s enforcement approach, including immediate payment suspension, contract termination, and fraud referrals based on preliminary findings before a full adjudication.