# Comprehensive Child Welfare Information System > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2016-12509 ## Record - **Collection:** Federal Register - **Document type:** Rule - **Published:** June 2, 2016 - **Citation:** 81 FR 35450 ## Text DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Office of the Secretary 45 CFR Part 95 Administration for Children and Families 45 CFR Chapter XIII and Parts 1355 and 1356 RIN 0970-AC59 Comprehensive Child Welfare Information System AGENCY: Administration on Children, Youth and Families (ACYF), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This final rule replaces the Statewide and Tribal Automated Child Welfare Information Systems (S/TACWIS) rule with the Comprehensive Child Welfare Information System (CCWIS) rule. The rule also makes conforming amendments in rules in related requirements. This rule will assist title IV-E agencies in developing information management systems that leverage new innovations and technology in order to better serve children and families. More specifically, this final rule supports the use of cost-effective, innovative technologies to automate the collection of high-quality case management data and to promote its analysis, distribution, and use by workers, supervisors, administrators, researchers, and policy makers. DATES: This final rule is effective: August 1, 2016. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Terry Watt, Director, Division of State Systems, Children's Bureau, Administration on Children, Youth, and Families, (202) 690-8177 (not a toll-free call) or by email at Terry.Watt@acf.hhs.gov. Deaf and hearing-impaired individuals may call the Federal Dual Party Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Eastern Time. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Background II. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking III. Overview of Final Rule IV. Section-by-Section Discussion of Comments and Regulatory Provisions V. Impact Analyses A. Executive Order 12866 and 13563 B. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act D. Paperwork Reduction Act E. Congressional Review F. Assessment on the Impact on Family Well-Being G. Executive Order 13132 H. Tribal Consultation Statement I. Background Statutory Authority The statute at 42 U.S.C. 674(a)(3)(C) and (D) provides the authority for title IV-E agencies to access funding authorized under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act (title IV-E) for the planning, design, development, installation, and operation of a data collection and information retrieval system. The statute at 42 U.S.C. 674(c) includes the requirements a title IV-E agency must meet to receive federal financial participation (FFP) and further specifies the expenditures eligible for FFP. Regulatory History ACF published the existing rule at 45 CFR 1355.50 through 1355.57 in December 1993. In January 2012, ACF amended the SACWIS rule in response to passage of the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-351) (Fostering Connections). Among many other provisions, Fostering Connections amended title IV-E of the Social Security Act (the Act) to include federally-recognized Indian tribes, tribal organizations and tribal consortia operating an approved title IV-E program. Through these amendments, the Tribal Automated Child Welfare Information System (TACWIS) became the designation for tribal systems meeting the requirements of §§ 1355.50 through 1355.57. In the years since the SACWIS rule was published in 1993, child welfare practice changed considerably. It is challenging for state and tribal title IV-E agencies (as defined at § 1355.20) to support practices that may vary within a jurisdiction with a single comprehensive information system. Additionally, information technology (IT) has advanced. The advancements in IT provide state and tribal title IV-E agencies with tools to rapidly share data among systems supporting multiple health and human service programs with increased efficiency. To address these practice challenges and IT changes, and allow agencies to improve their systems, this rule no longer requires agencies to use a single comprehensive system and instead, supports the use of improved technology to better support current child welfare practice. With this flexibility, state and tribal title IV-E agencies, as defined in § 1355.20, can build less expensive modular systems that more closely mirror their practice models while supporting quality data. Furthermore, IT tools now can be effectively scaled to support smaller jurisdictions such as federally-recognized Indian tribes, tribal organizations, and tribal consortia (tribes) at a reasonable cost. II. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking In developing the rule we engaged in an extensive consultation process. Starting in 2009, the Children's Bureau (CB) initiated a detailed analysis of the S/TACWIS rule to assess if there was a need to change it to better utilize newer technology and support the changing child welfare program. We examined approaches to encourage the implementation of information systems consistent with ACF's technology strategy of promoting program interoperability through data sharing; rapid, modular system development at lower costs; and greater efficiency through the adoption of industry standards. Our analysis also considered whether modifications were necessary to address changing business practice models, including the expanded use of private case managers, and approaches to provide flexibility to state and tribal title IV-E agencies in implementing child welfare systems. We solicited ideas from the public through a Federal Register notice on July 23, 2010 (75 FR 43188) and conducted a series of conference calls with interested stakeholder groups. We again solicited feedback through a Federal Register notice on April 5, 2011 and held a series of conference calls with interested stakeholder groups. Public comments in response to the 2010 and 2011 FR Notices are available for review at: http://www.regulations.gov. We issued a Federal Register notice on January 5, 2012 to announce that two tribal consultations concerning the S/TACWIS rule would be held on February 15 and 16, 2012. A full summary of the tribal consultation on child welfare automation can be found at: https://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/resource/tribal-consultation-on-title-iv-e-information-systems-regulations. After gathering the information from consultation and conducting further internal deliberations, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on August 11, 2015 (80 FR 48200-748229) outlining our CCWIS proposal. We publicized the NPRM through CB's Web site and announcements distributed to tribes, states, vendors, advocacy groups, and other associations. We conducted three conference calls to provide these interested parties with an overview of the NPRM and encouraged them to submit comments. We received 40 substantive and unduplicated submissions containing approximately 309 comments and questions on the proposal. The commenters included representatives from 20 state child welfare agencies and 9 national child welfare organizations, other organizations, associations and advocacy groups, among others. We did not receive any comments from federally recognized Indian tribes, tribal consortia or tribal organizations. The public comments conveyed support for many of the general CCWIS concepts, particularly increased flexibility in the design and configuration of systems to support different child welfare practices, the emphasis on data and data quality instead of specific functions, and support for modular, standardized designs. The most prevalent comments we received were requests for more specific guidance on what data elements must be maintained in CCWIS and exchanged with other agencies; additional details regarding the data quality standards and the scope, burden, and cost of data quality reviews; and requests for increased flexibility for required data exchanges. We address all substantive comments in the section IV, Section-by-Section Discussion of Comments and Regulatory Provisions. III. Overview of Final Rule We did not significantly change the rule from the proposal in most areas. Although many of the thoughtful comments led us to reconsider aspects of the proposed CCWIS rule, we found compelling reasons to retain key elements of the proposed CCWIS rule. An overview of this final CCWIS rule, the changes made in response to comments and implementation timeframes follows. A more detailed discussion of the public comments and resulting changes is in section IV of the preamble. A. Overview of the Rule and Changes Made in Response to Comments This rule sets forth the requirements for an optional CCWIS. The major provisions of this rule include: (1) Providing title IV-E agencies with flexibility to determine the size, scope, and functionality of their information system; (2) allowing the agency to build a CCWIS to obtain required data from external information systems so that a copy of that data is then stored and managed in the CCWIS; (3) emphasizing data quality and requiring a new data quality plan; (4) requiring new bi-directional data exchanges and use of electronic data exchange standards that strengthen program integrity; and (5) promoting more efficient and less expensive development of reliable systems that follow industry design standards including development of independent, reusable modules. This rule also includes other provisions that provide title IV-E agencies with flexibility. Compliance with the provisions in this rule are determined through ACF review and approval of a state's or tribe's Advance Planning Documents (APD) or a Notice of Intent, where applicable, and through the use of federal monitoring. First, this rule provides title IV-E agencies with flexibility to build systems that align more closely to their business needs and practices by allowing each title IV-E agency to determine the size, scope, and functionality of their information system. The new CCWIS may: Contain all the functions required to collect and maintain CCWIS data (similar to a current S/TACWIS), be little more than a data repository that collects and exchanges data captured in other systems, or fall somewhere in between these two extremes. As discussed in section IV, these provisions of the rule remain unchanged from the NPRM. Second, data may be obtained from external information systems so that a copy of that data is then stored and managed in CCWIS. Although this rule requires CCWIS to maintain (store and manage) the required data, it allows CCWIS to obtain required data that is captured in external information systems. The rule also requires that CCWIS be the source of data for federally required and other agency reports. The most prevalent comments we received regarding these provisions were requests for more specific guidance on what data elements must be maintained in CCWIS and exchanged with other agencies. However, as discussed in section VI, these provisions of the rule remain unchanged from the NPRM. Third, this rule requires title IV-E agencies to develop and maintain a comprehensive data quality plan to monitor the title IV-E agency, and if applicable, child welfare contributing agency (CWCA) system(s) and processes to support complete, timely, accurate, and consistent data. The IV-E agency must also actively monitor, manage, and enhance data quality. This rule also includes new requirements to ensure that a CCWIS supports data quality by requiring agency reviews of automated and manual data collection processes, and by requiring the title IV-E agency to provide continuous data quality improvement, based on its review findings. As a result of comments we received, we clarified the regulatory language in § 1355.52(d)(1)(i) of this rule that if two or more data quality standards apply to the same data (such as a federal standard and a state or tribal standard), ACF will expect the system to measure the more rigorous standard. In addition, to further clarify what data the title IV-E agency requests from CWCAs, in § 1355.52(d)(2)(iii), we specify in the regulatory language that the title IV-E agency request “current and historical CCWIS data” rather than “current and historical data.” A number of commenters expressed concern about the burden associated with annual data quality reviews. Although we do not agree that requiring annual data quality reviews imposes any substantial burden, we changed § 1355.52(d)(3) to instead require biennial title IV-E agency data quality reviews to provide title IV-E agencies with flexibility to maintain their current processes for such reviews, to the extent possible. We discuss these changes in detail in section IV. Fourth, this rule requires a CCWIS to include new bi-directional data exchanges and use of electronic data exchange standards that strengthen program integrity. This rule also requires title IV-E agencies to use an electronic data exchange standard to improve efficiency, reduce duplicate data collection, and promote a common understanding of data elements. The most frequent comments we received requested increased flexibility for required data exchanges. As a result of comments we received, we changed the regulatory language in § 1355.52(e)(1) permitting only a single data exchange with each of the systems specified, to instead allow multiple data exchanges. In addition, to provide increased flexibility, we removed the requirement in § 1355.52(f)(2), which proposed to require that the data exchange standard must apply to internal data exchanges between CCWIS automated functions where at least one of the automated functions meets the requirements of § 1355.53(a). Finally, to correct an inconsistency between two paragraphs we made clarifying changes to § 1355.57(a)(2)(ii) and (b)(2)(ii). We discuss these changes in detail in section IV. Fifth, the rule prioritizes more efficient and less expensive development of reliable systems that follow industry design standards. This rule requires CCWIS automated functions to be built as independent modules that may be reused in other systems or be replaced by newer modules with more capabilities. The title IV-E agency must follow industry standards when designing and building the automated modules. As discussed in section IV, these provisions of the rule remain unchanged from the NPRM. This rule also includes other provisions that provide title IV-E agencies with flexibility, such as a waiver process for title IV-E agencies to propose new approaches to designing IT systems and a transition period of 24 months. As discussed in section IV, these provisions of the rule remains unchanged from the NPRM. Finally, compliance with provisions in this rule are determined through ACF review and approval of a state's or tribe's APD or a Notice of Intent, where applicable, and through the use of federal monitoring. As a result of comments we received, § 1355.58(a) further clarifies our intent that for development of a CCWIS only, ACF may suspend title IV-B and IV-E funding approved in the APD if ACF determines that the title IV-E agency fails to comply with the APD requirements. Some commenters were also concerned that the Notice of Intent required for projects under the $5 million threshold was excessively burdensome. To clarify that we don't intend the Notice of Intent as requiring extensive planning, we revised § 1355.52(i)(1)(i) to clarify that an agency only needs to provide a narrative outlining the agency's approach instead of a detailed project plan including tasks, schedules, and resources. We discuss these changes in detail in section IV. This rule will assist title IV-E agencies in developing systems that further contribute to improving outcomes for children and families with more flexible, modernized systems that support the efficient, economical, and effective administration of the plans approved under titles IV-B and IV-E of the Act. B. Implementation Timeframe This rule provides a transition period of 24 months from the effective date of the rule, which ends on August 1, 2018. During the transition period, the title IV-E agency with a S/TACWIS or non-S/TACWIS project must indicate whether it will: (1) Transition the S/TACWIS or non-S/TACWIS to a CCWIS; (2) become a non-CCWIS; or (3) build a new CCWIS. The title IV-E agency does not need to finish the transition within the 24 months to be a CCWIS. A new CCWIS may be built at any time. The requirements that title IV-E agencies must comply with during the transition period are set forth in § 1355.56. As discussed in section IV, the transition period set forth in the rule remains unchanged from the NPRM. IV. Section-by-Section Discussion of Comments and Regulatory Provisions We did not significantly change the CCWIS final rule from the NPRM. Although many of the thoughtful comments led us to reconsider aspects of our proposal and make several technical revisions, we found compelling reasons to retain our proposal's provisions of the CCWIS proposed rule. Public comments and our responses are discussed below, with general comments first followed by comments organized by the section of the rule that they address. General Comments Comment: One commenter asked that we specify the scope of flexibility provided title IV-E agencies to tailor CCWIS to meet their administrative, programmatic, and technical environments. Response: We would like to clarify that we cannot specify the scope of flexibility as each title IV-E agency's decisions and requirements determine the flexibility provided to a specific project. We provide more detail in our responses in the following sections concerning the flexibility provided by this rule. We note that we will review and respond to agency plans submitted with the documentation required per § 1355.52(i)(1) on a case-by-case basis. Comment: One commenter noted that it may be difficult in states where different counties have different capabilities to implement a CCWIS all at once. The commenter recommended the rule permit states to build CCWIS in stages. Response: We would like to clarify that the APD rules permit title IV-E agencies to build CCWIS in stages. Comment: One commenter noted that they were unable to identify a reduction in system development effort between SACWIS and CCWIS. Response: We would like to clarify that S/TACWIS required title IV-E agencies to build a system with automated functions to support all child welfare business practices. This rule permits title IV-E agencies to use automated functions in other existing systems to provide CCWIS data rather than building automated functions to collect the data. Purpose. (§ 1355.50) We specify in § 1355.50 that the purpose of §§ 1355.50 through 1355.59 is to set forth the requirements for receiving FFP as authorized under section 474(a)(3)(C) and (D) and 474(c) of the Act for the planning, design, development, installation, operation, and maintenance of a CCWIS. Comment: One commenter requested that we require all title IV-E agencies to implement a CCWIS. Response: We did not make changes to this provision in response to this comment because the enabling statute at section 474(a)(3)(C) and (D) and 474(c) of the Act does not provide authority to require title IV-E agencies to implement a data collection and information retrieval system. Definitions Applicable to Comprehensive Child Welfare Information Systems (CCWIS). (§ 1355.51) We specify in § 1355.51 definitions applicable to §§ 1355.50 through 1355.59. Case Management Comment: A number of commenters requested we define the term “case management” because CCWIS requires case management data and information on case management activities. One commenter recommended we limit the definition to the development and oversight of case plans for children and families. Another commenter noted that that state's law mandated that only state or county employees could provide case management services. Response: We did not make any changes to address these comments. ACF has not defined the term “case management” because states and tribes define “case management” differently due to varying laws, policies, and practices. The rule continues this flexibility. Although title IV-E agencies have their own definitions and describe case management activities in a cost allocation plan (CAP) or cost allocation methodology (CAM), in the NPRM we identified activities considered “case management” to include information such as child and family histories, assessments, contact notes, calendars, services recommended and delivered, eligibility for programs and services, and client outcomes. In addition, commenters may look to other examples of case management activities provided in ACF guidance, including: • The S/TACWIS rule published in 1993 described case management to include: Determining eligibility and supporting the caseworker's determination of whether continued service is warranted, the authorization and issuance of appropriate payments, the preparation of service plans, determining whether the agency can provide services, authorizing services and managing the delivery of services. (80 FR 26832) • Section 106 of CAPTA provides examples of “case management” including “ongoing case monitoring, and the delivery of services and treatment provided to children and their families.” • The title IV-E quarterly financial reporting form (the CB-496), provides examples of case management activities including referral to services, preparation for and participation in judicial proceedings and placement of the child, and accessing the Federal Parent Locator Service to search for relatives. Child Welfare Contributing Agency We define “child welfare contributing agency” as a public or private entity that, by contract or agreement with the title IV-E agency, provides child abuse and neglect investigations, placements, or child welfare case management (or any combination of these) to children and families. Comment: A few commenters requested changes in the definition of child welfare contributing agency (CWCA). Some suggested narrower definitions, such as a definition to exclude foster family agencies that provide for the daily care and supervision of foster children as well as provide supportive services because some of these foster family agencies may not have the capacity to collect child welfare service data and this may result in greater costs to agencies. Response: We did not make any changes to the definition of CWCA to exclude foster family agencies from the definition to the extent they provide child abuse and neglect investigations, placements, and child welfare case management. This is because the data related to these activities conducted by a foster family agency is CCWIS data (as required by § 1355.52(b)) needed for the efficient, economical, and effective administration of the title IV-B and title IV-E programs. We understand that, in addition to child welfare services, some CWCAs may provide other supportive services such as substance abuse treatment and parent training. Title IV-E agencies are not required to maintain in a CCWIS supportive service data from CWCAs. We also note that title IV-E agencies may support CWCA data collection capacity with CCWIS rather than requiring CWCAs to develop a separate system at additional cost. Comment: Some commenters want an expanded definition of CWCA to include agencies providing services other than child abuse and neglect investigations, placements, or child welfare case management. One commenter suggested we expand the definition of CWCA to include agencies providing services such as substance abuse treatment and parenting classes. Other commenters suggested the definition accommodate adding, at the title IV-E agency's discretion, other programs and systems. Response: We did not expand the definition in response to these comments. While many title IV-E agencies work with agencies providing other services such as substance abuse treatment and parenting classes, expanding the definition to include agencies providing services other than child abuse and neglect investigations, placements, or child welfare case management would increase the burden on title IV-E agencies by requiring them to collect this data electronically from an expanded array of service providers. However, title IV-E agencies may, at their discretion, collect other data electronically from CWCAs or other entities and include it in CCWIS per our rule authorizing title IV-E agencies to implement optional data exchanges (§ 1355.54). Comment: One commenter requested that the rule clarify how the definition of child welfare contributing agency applies to county administered states in which county public entities (County Children and Youth Agencies) provide child abuse and neglect investigations, placements, or child welfare case management services or may contract with private agencies for these services. Response: We would like to clarify that counties are political subdivisions of the state and that the single state title IV-E agency designated in the state's title IV-B and IV-E plan supervises the administration of county administered IV-B and IV-E programs. Therefore, counties in county administered states are not considered CWCAs. Section 471(a)(2) of the Act and 45 CFR 205.100 provides the authority and parameters by which a single state title IV-E agency may delegate the administration of the title IV-E program to the state's political subdivisions and local agencies or offices. We recognize that political subdivisions and organizational structures within states and tribes vary, and we will provide further technical assistance on a case-by-case basis. We received no comments on other definitions in § 1355.51and do not make any changes to the definitions in the final rule. CCWIS Project Requirements (§ 1355.52) In paragraph (a), we specify that the system must support the efficient, economical, and effective administration of the title IV-B and IV-E plans. Comment: Several commenters recommended supplementing this requirement with language indicating that CCWIS should support outcomes for families and children, improved practice, and meeting agency needs. Response: We did not make a change to this paragraph because this requirement reiterates statutory language. However, we agree with the commenter that CCWIS should support outcomes for families and children, improved practice and meeting agency needs, and thus the rule supports this requirement. For example, see the requirements under § 1355.52(b), (c) and (e) which require that data, reporting, and data exchanges support these goals by collecting, reporting, and exchanging data to support child safety, permanency, and well-being. Comment: One commenter noted we used the terms “efficient,” “reasonable” and “appropriate” in the NPRM and asked how we will measure these qualities. Response: We would like to clarify that we determine “efficient,” “reasonable” and “appropriate” as described in each title IV-E agency's APD. In paragraph (a)(1), we specify that the system must improve program management and administration by maintaining all program data required by federal, state, or tribal law or policy. Comment: We received one comment requesting clarification on the phrase “maintaining all program data required by federal, state or tribal law or policy.” Response: We consolidated this clarification with related questions about CCWIS data. Please see our responses in paragraph (b). In paragraph (a)(2), we proposed that the system must appropriately apply computer technology. Comment: One commenter recommended revising our proposed language in the NPRM to remove the term “computer” from this paragraph and elsewhere in the rule, as the term does not accurately reflect the technologies available or anticipated for the future. Response: We agree that the preferable terminology to the term “computer” is “information” and have made the change in this paragraph. This is the only revision we find necessary as the term does not appear elsewhere in §§ 1355.50 through 1355.59. It appears once in 45 CFR 95.625, however, we are not changing the term here to preserve consistency with the other references to “computer” in Part 95. In paragraph (a)(3), we specify that the project must not require duplicative application system development or software maintenance. We received no comments on this paragraph and are not making changes in the rule. In paragraph (a)(4), we specify that project costs must be reasonable, appropriate, and beneficial. We received no comments on this paragraph and are not making changes in the rule. In paragraph (b), we specify the data the title IV-E agency's CCWIS must maintain. Comment: Several commenters recommended modifying the requirement to permit the use of a centralized data warehouse (in addition to a CCWIS production database) that is part of the overall CCWIS design. Response: We would like to clarify that the title IV-E agency may maintain CCWIS data in a CCWIS production database (which is a database processing CCWIS transactions) and a data warehouse (which is a database used for reporting and data analysis) provided all CCWIS automated functions seamlessly access data from both the database and data warehouse. For example, when generating a report or completing a task that requires data from both the database and data warehouse, CCWIS must be able to immediately access needed data. Comment: Some commenters noted it was burdensome to store all CCWIS data in the CCWIS and recommended allowing CCWIS data to be stored in other systems, such as CWCA systems. Response: Storing data within CCWIS ensures the title IV-E agency controls and safeguards the data. We are not making a change in response to this comment because CCWIS data that only resides in CWCA systems could be lost under a variety of circumstances, such as if the CWCA goes out of business, or the contract with the title IV-E agency ends abruptly. Data maintained in other systems could also be lost if the system is upgraded or replaced. Also, storing data in the CCWIS instead of in other systems facilitates continuity of care because CCWIS can share the CCWIS data collected by one CWCA with others as children and families move between jurisdictions and providers. This requirement is less burdensome than the S/TACWIS rules, which required all CWCAs to use the S/TACWIS, because it provides title IV-E agencies the option to allow CWCAs to use systems other than CCWIS. Comment: Commenters expressed concerns about the increased data collection burden due to the amount of data the title IV-E agency's CCWIS must maintain. For example, some commenters cited the challenges in collecting required consistent and uniform data from CWCAs. Response: We are not making a change in response to this comment. The requirement for a CCWIS to maintain the specific data described in the paragraph is unchanged from the data captured by the S/TACWIS required functions. We believe burden is reduced because, unlike S/TACWIS, CCWIS is not required to directly capture all CCWIS data. Title IV-E agencies may either include the data capturing functions in CCWIS or permit other systems to capture the data and provide it to CCWIS via data exchanges per § 1355.52(e). We will provide technical guidance to assist agencies with implementing the new flexibility to capture required consistent and uniform data from CWCAs. We would like to clarify that the paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (iv) and paragraphs (b)(2) through (4) define categories of data that may overlap, and are not mutually exclusive lists of data. For example, some of the federally required Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS) and National Youth in Transition Database (NYTD) data (such as client demographic data) may be required by states and tribes to meet agency-specific needs. This reuse of data across multiple requirements reduces burden. Comment: A number of commenters requested clarification on how a CCWIS is required to “maintain” data. Response: In the NPRM preamble, we explained that maintaining CCWIS data (which is data needed for federal or agency purposes, as defined in this paragraph) includes storing and sharing data while monitoring data quality. Storing data within CCWIS ensures the title IV-E agency controls and safeguards the data. CCWIS storage may include a data warehouse. CCWIS must share the stored data, if permissible, with other systems as needed. Sharing CCWIS data helps other programs and providers coordinate services to children and families. CCWIS must monitor the quality of stored data as described in paragraph (d)(2). High quality data supports the delivery of effective, economical, and effective services, which support improved outcomes for clients. In paragraph (b)(1) we specify that the CCWIS maintain all federal data required to support the efficient, effective, and economical administration of the programs under titles IV-B and IV-E of the Act. In paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (iv), we specify that CCWIS must maintain data required for: Ongoing federal child welfare reports, title IV-E eligibility determinations, authorizations of services and other expenditures that may be claimed for reimbursement under titles IV-B and IV-E; supporting federal child welfare laws, regulations, and policies; supporting federal audits, reviews, and other monitoring activities. Comment: A few commenters were concerned that CCWIS data and the rules associated with the data may not be consistent with federal reporting requirements. Response: We would like to clarify that CCWIS data needed for federal reporting must comply with, and thereby be consistent with, federal reporting requirements. Comment: Many commenters requested we specify the federal data that CCWIS must maintain in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (iv). Some commenters suggested we work with agencies to establish a set of required data and provide agencies with the flexibility to determine what additional data to collect. Response: We are not making any changes in response to these comments because the federal data that title IV-E agencies must maintain in CCWIS is already defined in federal child welfare laws, regulations, and policies. The data requirements list categories of data rather than specifying a comprehensive set of federal data because we determined that such specificity would require CCWIS regulatory amendments each time there is a change in federal law and policy. This paragraph already provides title IV-E agencies with the flexibility to design CCWIS to meet specific state and tribal needs by collecting data, in addition to the required federal data, the agency requires to fulfill its mission and efficiently, economically, and effectively administer its child welfare programs. Although we are not making any changes in response to these comments, we would like to clarify the types of data included in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (iv). In paragraph (b)(1)(i), we specify that CCWIS maintain data required for ongoing federal child welfare reports. However, the federal report data CCWIS must maintain varies depending on the requirements for the federal report as shown in the following three examples: (1) All AFCARS data must be maintained in CCWIS per section 474(a)(3)(C)(i) of the Act; (2) NYTD outcomes information may be maintained in external systems as described in Program Instruction ACYF-CB-PI-10-04, although CCWIS must maintain NYTD case management data; (3) Financial information for the CB-496, such as training costs, demonstration project costs, and administrative costs, may be maintained in a separate financial system that exchanges data with CCWIS per paragraph (e)(1)(i). Other data, such as the average monthly number of children receiving title IV-E Foster Care maintenance assistance payments, may be derived from CCWIS case management and placement records. In paragraph (b)(1)(ii), we specify that CCWIS maintain data for title IV-E eligibility determinations, authorizations of services, and expenditures under title IV-B and IV-E. We would like to clarify that data necessary for title IV-E eligibility determinations includes data such as the factors used to demonstrate the child would qualify for AFDC under the 1996 plan, placement licensing and background check information, and court findings. Data required for authorizations of services and other expenditures under titles IV-B and IV-E includes data such as documentation of services authorized, records that the services were delivered, payments processed, and payment status, including whether the payment will be allocated to one or more federal, state, or tribal programs for reimbursement, and the payment amount allocated. As noted in our response to paragraph (b)(1)(i), financial information may be maintained in a financial system exchanging data with CCWIS. In paragraph (b)(1)(iii), which requires CCWIS to maintain data documenting interactions with and on behalf of clients that the title IV-E agency determines is needed to support federal child welfare laws, regulations, and policies, we would like to clarify that this includes data such as case management information, recommended services, placement data, and licensing information on foster care providers. We are not requiring CCWIS to maintain policy documents, program assessments, and program-wide reports such as title IV-E plans. However, we encourage title IV-E agencies to supplement such reports with CCWIS data as needed. For example, agencies may incorporate demographic profiles of the child welfare population into the Child and Family Service Plan or use data on delivered services in the Annual Progress and Services Report. In paragraph (b)(1)(iv), which specifies case management data, we would like to clarify that this includes data such as case management data collected in the course of case work with clients (such as abuse and neglect reports, case plans, and placement histories) that may be needed for a Child and Family Services Review (CFSR). However, CCWIS is not required to maintain the supplemental information reviewers use such as client surveys, focus group results, pilot data manually collected, and interview narratives. Finally, we would like to clarify that a federal review may lead to requirements to collect new data elements. For example, if a CFSR review finds that the title IV-E agency must collect certain child welfare data to effectively monitor cases, this would become required data for that agency's CCWIS. We will use the federal laws, regulations, and polices effective at the time of a CCWIS review to determine compliance with paragraph (b) and paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (iv). We will provide technical assistance as federal data requirements change. In paragraph (b)(2), we specify that the CCWIS maintain the data to support state or tribal laws, regulations, policies, practices, reporting requirements, audits, program evaluations, and reviews. Comment: Commenters expressed concern with the burden associated with the requirements for the CCWIS to maintain specific state and tribal data identified in the paragraph. Response: We do not agree that the burden will necessarily increase under this rule. Although this rule permits title IV-E agencies to maintain additional data in the CCWIS that the state or tribe feels is needed to administer its child welfare programs, the requirements under this rule do not exceed the burden currently required in a S/TACWIS. We encourage title IV-E agencies to reduce the data burden by verifying that all data maintained in the CCWIS is required to support a clearly defined federal, state, or tribal purpose. Comment: Several comments asked how we would determine compliance with this requirement. Response: We will determine compliance with this requirement by reviewing state and tribal laws, regulations, policies, and practices in consultation with title IV-E agency representatives. For example, to determine if CCWIS maintains the data necessary to support state or tribal practices, we will consider the information needs of CWCAs and other title IV-E systems external to CCWIS, as described in paragraph (e)(1)(iv). If we document a pattern of CWCAs re-entering information clients provided to other CWCAs, that may suggest that the data should be in CCWIS and shared with CWCAs to prevent the duplicate entry of needed data. In such circumstances, we will work with the title IV-E agency to determine if the data should be classified as CCWIS data and exchanged with the IV-E agency's CCWIS. Comment: Some commenters recommended specific data that we should require title IV-E agencies to maintain in the CCWIS, including data concerning treatment for substance abuse, mental health, other forms of treatment, and treatment outcomes. Response: We are not making changes as a result of these comments. We would like to clarify that title IV-E agencies may maintain treatment data in its CCWIS as long as it supports a state or tribal agency need. However, we are not requiring all title IV-E agencies to maintain this data to preserve agency flexibility to implement a CCWIS tailored to their needs. Comment: Some commenters requested that the CCWIS rule state that we support the continuous improvement and evolution of child welfare practice with flexible child welfare systems. Response: We agree that this paragraph's requirement that CCWIS support state and tribal laws, regulations, polices, and practices promotes the continuous improvement and evolution of child welfare practice. In paragraph (b)(3), we specify that, for states, the CCWIS maintain data to support specific measures taken to comply with the requirements in section 422(b)(9) of the Act regarding the Indian Child Welfare Act. Comment: One commenter recommended that states use electronic data exchanges with tribes to improve Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) compliance. Response: ACF is committed to offering technical assistance to states regarding the implementation of ICWA. We agree that electronic data exchanges between states and tribes are beneficial. However, we are not making a change to this paragraph because we want to maintain flexibility to permit states and tribes to determine the data sharing approach appropriate for different circumstances. However, we note that optional electronic data exchanges between CCWIS and tribal systems are permitted per § 1355.54. Comment: One commenter recommended we define specific data elements to address ICWA protections for children served by tribal child welfare systems and strengthen data related to ICWA eligibility. Response: On April 7, 2016, ACF published a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) focused on the collection and reporting of additional ICWA-related data elements in AFCARS (81 FR 20283). Based on this separate rulemaking process that has yet to be finalized, we are not making changes to this paragraph. However, it is important to emphasize that CCWIS must maintain data to support specific measures taken to comply with the requirements in section 422(b)(9) of the Act regarding the Indian Child Welfare Act and AFCARS regulations. As AFCARS regulations are updated to include ICWA-related data elements or other changes, the CCWIS regulations require title IV-E agencies to update their data collection systems to meet new standards, per section 474(a)(3)(C)(i) of the Act. In paragraph (b)(4), we specify that the CCWIS maintain, for each state, data for the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS). We received no comments on this paragraph and made no changes in the rule. In paragraph (c), we specify requirements for using the CCWIS data in paragraph (b) for required reports. Comment: Several commenters asked if the reporting requirements limited CCWIS to a single production database. They recommended that we modify the requirement to permit the use of a data warehouse to support data analysis and reporting functions. Response: We did not change this requirement because this rule does not prohibit maintaining CCWIS data in a data warehouse. In paragraph (c)(1), we specify that the system generate, or contribute to, title IV-B and IV-E federal reports according to applicable formatting and submission requirements using data maintained in the CCWIS. Comment: One commenter requested we incorporate key elements from AFCARS into this rule because it would help match up AFCARS requirements with CCWIS requirements. Response: We did not make a change in response to this comment because paragraph (c) already requires CCWIS to support federal reports that support programs and services described in title IV-B and title IV-E of the Act, including AFCARS. This approach allows for AFCARS rules to change, without also requiring the CCWIS rules to change. On February 9, 2015, ACF published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to amend the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS) regulations to modify the requirements for title IV-E agencies to collect and report data to ACF on children in out-of-home care and who were adopted or in a legal guardianship with a title IV-E subsidized adoption or guardianship agreement. On April 7, 2016, ACF published a Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that proposed to require that state title IV-E agencies collect and report additional data elements related to the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) in the AFCARS. In paragraph (c)(2), we specify that the system generate or contribute to reports that support programs and services described in title IV-B and title IV-E of the Act and are needed to support state or tribal child welfare laws, regulations, policies, practices, reporting requirements, audits, and reviews using data maintained in CCWIS. Comment: Some commenters interpreted this paragraph as requiring CCWIS to produce reports that are not needed for child welfare case management, such as title IV-B reports and title IV-E quarterly financial reporting and expenditures. Commenters expressed concern that the reporting requirements were too expansive. Response: We did not change the reporting requirements to address this comment. We would like to clarify that while we require CCWIS to provide CCWIS data as needed for reports specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2), CCWIS is not required to produce every agency report. If CCWIS maintains a subset of a required report's data, CCWIS is not required to generate the complete report, but must provide the data maintained in the CCWIS for incorporation into the report. Agencies may decide how to provide the data. For example: • CCWIS may transmit available NYTD data to a system that collects NYTD survey data and generates the federal report. • CCWIS may support financial audits by providing data on authorized placements and services to a data warehouse where it is merged with data on related expenditures to create audit trails. • CCWIS may provide a hardcopy summary of demographic and placement statistics that staff add to a narrative report demonstrating progress on CFSR goals. • Data analysts may use a spreadsheet of CCWIS data to develop reports on trends in child welfare. If CCWIS maintains all the data required for a report, the report must be generated entirely from that data. For example, even if CWCAs collect AFCARS data, the AFCARS report must be generated from the data provided by CWCAs and maintained in CCWIS. In paragraph (d), we describe the data quality requirements for CCWIS. In paragraph (d)(1) we specify the CCWIS data quality and confidentiality requirements applicable to CCWIS data described in § 1355.52(b). Comment: We received a general comment requesting that we specify the data quality standards so that title IV-E agencies can estimate the effort to meet the data quality standards. Response: We did not make any changes as a result of this comment. We discuss data quality standards in our responses below. However, we agree that title IV-E agencies should evaluate the effort needed to develop a fully complaint CCWIS. To provide sufficient time for this evaluation, we allow a 2-year transition period as described in § 1355.56. We also intend to provide technical assistance and guidance regarding data quality to assist title IV-E agencies. Comment: A few commenters asked that we clarify the expectations for managing the quality of data received via a bi-directional data exchange. Response: We did not make any changes as a result of this comment. Title IV-E agencies may take into account data sources when establishing data quality standards and how data should be verified and used. Different standards may be appropriate for different sources. For example, title IV-E agencies can establish data quality standards applicable to CWCAs in contracts or agreements and require CWCAs to conform to the standard. IV-E agencies should follow their state or tribal governance procedures for defining expectations for data quality standards between CCWIS and other agencies such as title IV-D, title IV-A, education, and the courts. While we encourage programs to collaborate to improve data quality, we do not have the authority to require other programs to comply with title IV-E agency data quality standards and defer to the state or tribe's governance structures to address issues with the quality of data received via a bi-directional data exchange. We intend to offer technical assistance related to bi-directional data exchanges to assist program interoperability. Comment: One commenter recommended that the rule specify data security requirements. A few commenters asked if CCWIS, like S/TACWIS, established archiving and purging requirements. Response: We did not make any changes to paragraph (d) because the data security, archiving, and purging requirements are addressed in the APD rule at 45 CFR 95.621(f) and the program rule at 45 CFR 92.42. The rule at § 1355.30 applies the requirements at 45 CFR 92.42 amd 95.621(f) to programs funded under titles IV-B and IV-E of the Act. In paragraph (d)(1)(i), we proposed that CCWIS data meet the applicable federal, and state or tribal standards for completeness, timeliness and accuracy. Comment: A number of commenters requested that ACF define the data quality standards for CCWIS data elements. Some recommended that ACF partner with title IV-E agencies and other stakeholders to define the standards. Response: We did not make changes to the rule as a result of these comments. We would like to clarify that the federal data quality standards are defined in federal laws, regulations, and policies including, but not limited to, the AFCARS rule at § 1355.40 and the NYTD rule at § 1356.80. These national standards apply to all title IV-E agencies. We will not define the data quality standards for state or tribal data as those standards are determined by each state's or tribe's laws, regulations, policies, and practices. Imposing national data quality standards for state and tribal data would prevent a title IV-E agency from implementing a CCWIS tailored to its needs. Comment: A number of commenters requested additional information on how ACF will evaluate and measure data quality. One commenter noted that without this information it would be difficult to define expectations for the program staff. Response: We made a change to the rule to address this comment by inserting the phrase “the most rigorous of” after “meet” so the paragraph reads that the CCWIS data described in paragraph (b) of this section must: “Meet the most rigorous of the applicable federal, and state or tribal standards for completeness, timeliness, and accuracy.” This means if two or more standards apply to the same data (such as a federal standard and a state or tribal standard), ACF will expect the system to measure the more rigorous standard. For example, if one timeliness standard required updating certain CCWIS data in seven days and a second standard sets a two-day limit, ACF will expect that the system apply the two-day standard when evaluating the quality of the required data. Designing the CCWIS to measure or support a more rigorous standard will allow the IV-E agency to build systems to support their need without affecting federal reviews that focus on a less rigorous standard. Concerning the standards we will apply, we would like to clarify that we will use the more rigorous standards upon which the system was designed. We will provide technical assistance as needed to clarify these data quality standards. Title IV-E agencies must submit their proposed data quality standards in the data quality plan required in paragraph (d)(5). ACF will approve the standards or note needed changes. Comment: A commenter asked if we were continuing the SACWIS requirements concerning auditability and data freezing. Response: We would like to clarify that freezing data to preserve data at a specific point in time for later audits (such as freezing child abuse and neglect reports that may be subject to internal or judicial review) is an example of maintaining complete and accurate data that is covered by this requirement. Comment: One commenter asked for clarification on how data quality standards would apply in circumstances where data is missing or unknown, such as when a reporter of a child abuse or neglect incident does not know certain information. Response: We would like to clarify that the title IV-E agency may specify conditions where data is not required or to indicate data is unknown in the data quality standard. In paragraph (d)(1)(ii), we specify that data be consistently and uniformly collected by CCWIS and, if applicable, child welfare contributing agency systems. In paragraph (d)(1)(iii), we specify that the title IV-E agency must exchange and maintain CCWIS data in accordance with the confidentiality requirements of applicable federal and state or tribal laws. In paragraph (d)(1)(iv), we specify that the CCWIS data described in revised § 1355.52(b) must support child welfare policies, goals, and practices. We did not make any changes to paragraphs (d)(1)(ii) through (iv) in the rule. We received no comments other than comments requesting we specify the data supporting child welfare policies and practice, which we responded to in our responses to paragraph (b). In paragraph (d)(1)(v), we specify that the CCWIS data described in revised § 1355.52(b) must not be created by default or inappropriately assigned. Comment: One commenter requested we modify this requirement to permit default data that is accurate in all cases. The commenter gave examples of pre-filling: (1) The state name with the state in which the case worker resides; (2) pre-populating a worker's supervisor's name; and (3) pre-filling other fields based on previously entered data. Response: We are not making a change based on this comment because all examples demonstrate the automatic calculation of data based on information previously known to the system, which is allowable, rather than an automatic creation of the same default data in all circumstances, which is prohibited. In paragraph (d)(2), we specify that the title IV-E agency implement and maintain automated functions in CCWIS to maintain data quality. Comment: One commenter noted that the required automation support for data quality contradicted the rule's goals of requiring outcomes but not requiring functionality. Response: We would like to clarify that while the rule emphasizes outcomes, paragraph (d) and the following sub-paragraphs require certain automated functionality, including automated functions to support data quality. Supporting data quality is critical to improved outcomes for children and families. Comment: A few commenters noted that the rule should not mandate specific automated functions but permit title IV-E agencies to implement automated functions that most efficiently and effectively meet data quality goals. Response: We are not making changes in response to this comment because the requirements in paragraphs (d)(2)(i) through (v) do not mandate specific automated functions but provide flexibility by allowing agencies to determine the most efficient and effective methods to support data quality. In paragraph (d)(2)(i), we specify that CCWIS regularly monitor CCWIS data quality through automated functions. Comment: Several commenters requested we specify the metrics and standards we will use when auditing title IV-E agency compliance with this requirement and if those metrics and standards go beyond what is included in the agency's state plan. Commenters recommended audits focus on the most critical data elements. Response: We would like to clarify that we will use the title IV-E agency's data quality plan as the basis for the metrics and standards when determining agency compliance with the data quality requirements, including this requirement. We encourage agencies to propose efficient, economical, effective strategies in their plans, such as targeting critical data elements for greater data quality efforts. ACF will assess the effectiveness of the agency's data quality plan in a variety of ways including review of the data quality status reports described in paragraph (d)(5)(ii) and on-site reviews described in § 1355.55. Comment: One commenter asked us to clarify the anticipated impact of the requirement to actively monitor data. Response: We anticipate that active automated data quality monitoring will increase the efficiency of the data quality reviews and reduce the need for manual monitoring by staff. Information technology efficiently supports data quality by performing routine tasks quicker and more consistently than staff. CCWIS can proactively review all data and flag potential data quality problems requiring further investigation. This increases worker effectiveness by enabling workers to focus on solving data quality problems rather than sifting through data to identify errors. The improved data quality will support more accurate reporting and help agencies better assess and serve children and families. In paragraph (d)(2)(ii), we specify that the CCWIS supports data quality with automated functions to alert staff to collect, update, correct, and enter CCWIS data. Comment: Several commenters recommended we delete the specific requirements for title IV-E agencies to develop “alerts, reports, and other appropriate tools” and replace it with language that supports state discretion and flexibility. Response: We did not make any changes as a result of these comments because paragraph (d)(2)(ii) requires only that the agency use automated functions to alert staff for certain actions. The NPRM preamble language commenters quoted serves merely as examples of how agencies may choose to implement the requirement. Title IV-E agencies may use other methods to alert staff. In paragraph (d)(2)(iii), we require that the IV-E agency's CCWIS includes automated functions to send electronic requests to child welfare contributing agency systems to submit current and historical CCWIS data to the CCWIS. Comment: Commenters requested we specify the data the title IV-E agency requests from CWCAs. Some commenters suggested this data focus on NCANDS, AFCARS, and NYTD data related to safety, permanency, and well-being. Response: We made a change to the rule to address this comment and specify that the title IV-E agency request “current and historical CCWIS data” rather than “current and historical data.” We define CCWIS data in paragraph (b). Comment: One commenter noted that some CWCA systems may not have the capacity to receive an automated notification of missing data. Response: We recognize that some CWCA systems may not have the capacity to receive automated notifications from CCWIS as required by this paragraph. As such, we would like to clarify that the title IV-E agency may require CWCAs to use CCWIS if a CWCA system does not have the capacity to receive automated notifications from CCWIS as required by this paragraph. In paragraph (d)(2)(iv), we specify that a title IV-E agency implement and maintain automated functions in the CCWIS that prevent, to the extent practical, the need to re-enter data already captured or exchanged with the CCWIS. Comment: One commenter requested a definition of duplicate data entry. Response: We would like to clarify that duplicate data entry is the manual reentry of data already captured by either the CCWIS or another system required to provide the data to CCWIS. We note that this is the same definition used during S/TACWIS reviews. In paragraph (d)(2)(v), we specify that CCWIS must generate reports of continuing or unresolved CCWIS data quality problems. Comment: One commenter recommended removing this paragraph and replacing it with language supporting agency discretion and flexibility to support data quality. Response: We are not making any changes to this requirement in response to the comment because automated CCWIS reports are an efficient method to monitor and improve data quality. We also note that this requirement already provides sufficient latitude for title IV-E agencies to decide how best to identify continuing or unresolved CCWIS data quality problems. As an example, the agency may determine report formats, frequency, distribution or other specifications that support reporting mechanisms tailored to their needs. In paragraph (d)(3), we proposed annual title IV-E agency data quality reviews and what the reviews would entail. Comment: In the context of the CCWIS data quality reviews, a commenter asked if there would be other reviews and if so, what would be the frequency of those reviews. Response: This is the only required CCWIS data quality review. Comment: A number of commenters asked if the data quality reviews are conducted by ACF, the title IV-E agency, or another party. Response: We would like to clarify that the title IV-E agency conducts the data quality review. Comment: A number of commenters asked for clarification on what activities and processes are required to be part of the data quality review. Response: We would like to clarify that the title IV-E agency defines the review scope, activities, and processes in the data quality plan submitted to ACF for approval per paragraph (d)(5). The activities and processes for the data quality review established by the title IV-E agency and approved by ACF must meet the requirements of paragraph (d)(3). The data quality review may include activities such as reviewing a sample of case records, interviews with select state and child welfare contributing agency staff, an evaluation of automated edit checks, and a review of data quality reports. Some data quality activities, such as automated processes, may be continuous while other activities may occur one time during the biennial review period. Comment: Some commenters asked if ACF assumptions about child welfare practices, such as the scope of child welfare case management, determine the data quality and data quality review requirements. Response: We would like to clarify that we avoid making general assumptions about child welfare practices because those practices vary among title IV-E agencies. We agree that child welfare practices determine the data requirements, which is why the rule requires that the title IV-E agency define CCWIS data and data quality standards and activities to support child welfare practices within the title IV-E agency's jurisdiction. Comment: Many commenters asked how the data quality reviews are related to other federal child welfare reviews. Response: We would like to clarify that the reviews complement and support one another. The CCWIS data quality reviews examine the systems and processes that collect, process, and report the data and manage data quality. The system focused data quality reviews complement other federal child welfare program reviews that evaluate program practice and outcomes. For example, while a CFSR review may examine the effectiveness of family team meetings, a data quality review determines if a CCWIS maintains complete, timely, and accurate data about the family team meetings. Another example is that we encourage agencies to develop an efficient review process by incorporating their existing AFCARS and NYTD data quality activities into their CCWIS data quality plan. Comment: One commenter recommended requiring data conversion and migration (DCM) activities to improve data quality. Response: While we agree with the commenter that DCM activities improve data quality, we are not adding this specific requirement to this rule. A data quality review will identify factors contributing to poor data quality including, if applicable, DCM. However, as noted above, we are providing title IV-E agencies with the flexibility to select the review processes most suitable for their circumstances. We intend to provide technical assistance to title IV-E agencies on this topic, as needed. Comment: A number of commenters asked for clarification on funding available for the data quality reviews, including staff time. Response: We would like to clarify that the data quality review is an approved activity as defined at § 1355.51 and may qualify for CCWIS cost allocation per § 1355.57(c). Comment: Some commenters requested we provide a higher FFP rate to support data quality review activities. Response: We are not making a change to the rule because ACF does not have statutory authority to provide a higher FFP rate. Comment: Some commenters were concerned that there may not be adequate federal resources to support title IV-E agency needs for technical support for the data quality reviews. Response: We would like to clarify that title IV-E agencies submit their approach for data quality reviews with the data quality plan in an annual or operational APD per paragraph (d)(5). ACF will respond to APDs (and the associated data quality plan) within 60 days. Comment: Several commenters were concerned with the burden associated with an annual data quality review. One commenter requested we conduct a cost/benefit analysis to evaluate the burden of the data quality review on the state agency. Some commenters, while agreeing the rule should include a data quality component, expressed concern that a prescriptive and extensive data quality review was burdensome. One commenter suggested reducing burden by classifying state and tribal data quality standards as optional. A number of commenters expressed concern that conducting data quality reviews as frequently as annually would be burdensome. Response: We are making one change to the data quality reviews as a result of public comments and have revised the rule to require agencies to conduct biennial rather than annual reviews. In general, we believe that the requirements for data quality reviews in this rule are consistent with current title IV-E agency practices that reflect the importance of high quality data. All title IV-E agencies, recognizing that high quality data is essential for the administration of child welfare programs, have integrated data quality review processes into on-going system operations. Agencies also use data quality reviews to determine if systems are producing the expected data, identify weaknesses, and to guide the continuous quality improvement of their systems. We have observed that all title IV-E agencies with operational S/TACWIS projects (34 states) have data quality reviews that will likely meet the rule's data quality requirements. We note that title IV-E agencies without a S/TACWIS must minimally meet the required federal data quality standards for reports such as AFCARS and NYTD. In addition, we understand that agencies with non-S/TACWIS systems do institute processes to monitor non-federal data required by the agency. We have observed that even title IV-E agencies with limited resources have established procedures for extensive monitoring of data quality. Successful strategies of these agencies include using automated data quality reports and audits of sample cases to review all data and then targeting identified problematic data for improvement. We did not prescribe specific review activities, as we expect agencies to largely continue or improve upon their current data quality activities. We therefore determined that the burden to title IV-E agencies will be minimal. However, because existing data quality review practices vary, we changed the proposed requirement in paragraph (d)(3) for annual data quality reviews to instead require biennial title IV-E agency data quality reviews to provide title IV-E agencies with flexibility to maintain their current processes for such reviews, to the extent possible. However, we encourage title IV-E agencies that currently conduct annual data quality reviews to continue this practice. Comment: Some commenters are concerned that the data quality reviews and the correction of findings as required by paragraph (d)(4) will divert staff resources away from other program activities. One commenter suggested the costs will increase exponentially as agencies try to achieve increasingly higher data quality goals. Response: We did not make any changes in response to these comments because we believe that complete, timely, and accurate data supports the goals of child safety, wellbeing, and permanency. High quality data informs actions and guides decisions at all levels of the agency. Workers use data to manage cases, monitor services, and assess client progress while supervisors and administrators use it to monitor and direct work, manage resources, evaluate program effectiveness, control costs, and estimate funding needs. Data quality reviews support the collection, management, and dissemination of high quality data. The requirement in paragraph (d)(4) to address review findings with corrective action establishes a repeatable cycle of continuous quality improvement. Each successive review measures the impact of past corrective actions. This enables title IV-E agencies to determine the effectiveness of those actions and make adjustments leading to further improvements and enhance CCWIS's ability to support the efficient, economical, and effective administration of the child welfare program. Title IV-E agencies with S/TACWIS projects have established data quality review processes and staff assigned to these tasks. We encourage title IV-E agencies to manage data quality staffing needs with automation supporting data quality per paragraph (d)(2). We disagree that data quality review costs will increase exponentially. We would like to clarify that data quality reviews will require fewer resources in successive years. The rule provides title IV-E agencies with the flexibility to incrementally improve data quality over time. We expect many agencies to continue their practice of prioritizing data quality efforts by focusing first on correcting the most critical data elements and build on their progress so that with each review fewer problems remain. We would also like to clarify that data quality enhancements are an established and necessary system maintenance practice. Without regular data quality monitoring, systems decline in reliability and usefulness and may require replacement at costs significantly higher than ongoing maintenance activities. We have also observed that as systems age they accumulate data that is no longer needed to support improved practices. By aligning data needs to current program practice, as required by this rule, agencies will identify and purge systems of irrelevant screens and fields thereby simplifying the system and increasing worker efficiency. In paragraph (d)(3)(i), we specify that the data quality reviews determine if the title IV-E agency and, if applicable, child welfare contributing agencies, meet the new requirements of § 1355.52(b), (d)(1), and (2). In paragraph (d)(3)(ii), we specify that the title IV-E agency's data quality reviews determine whether bi-directional data exchanges meet applicable requirements. Comment: A number of commenters expressed concern that requiring the review of child welfare contributing agency systems and data collection activities was burdensome. Response: We did not make changes based on these comments because these requirements for data quality reviews do not prescribe the procedures title IV-E agencies must follow when reviewing CWCAs. We encourage agencies to consider approaches to review CWCAs and their data efficiently, economically, and effectively. Approaches may include a mix of review techniques, including: • Randomly sampling CWCA data to review. • Automatically evaluating CWCA data quality, alerting CWCAs to data quality failures, and establishing timeframes for corrective action. • Contractually obligating CWCAs to regularly review their data quality and correct errors. • Establishing a schedule of on-site reviews for a subset of CWCAs during each biennial review. • Tailoring review procedures for specific CWCAs. Experienced CWCAs with a history of submitting high quality data may be reviewed through an examination of data quality reports. Reviews of new CWCAs with uneven data quality may be more intensive and include interviews with staff, observation of data collection training, and analysis of the CWCA's automated system. We also note that data quality reviews will vary depending on the flexibility title IV-E agencies grant CWCAs. For example, if a title IV-E agency requires CWCAs to use CCWIS, no CWCA systems are reviewed. In any case, the reviews must consider the CWCA data collection processes and training that affect data quality. In paragraph (d)(4), we specify that the title IV-E agency must enhance CCWIS or the electronic bi-directional data exchanges, or both, to correct findings from the data quality reviews described at paragraph (d)(3). Comment: A few commenters asked what the title IV-E agency must do with the results of the data quality reviews and whether title IV-E agencies were required to correct the system, the data or both. Response: We would like to clarify that title IV-E agencies must correct the factors contributing to poor quality data, such as data collection procedures and training, CCWIS errors, or problems with bi-directional data exchanges. Agencies may propose how they will address findings in their data quality plans. In the case of numerous findings, we encourage title IV-E agencies to prioritize the issues and address critical findings first. We do not require that agencies address all findings within a specified timeframe. For example, an agency may decide to focus on enhancements to automated edit checks as a first step, and then if necessary make improvements to staff training as a second step if data quality does not improve. ACF expects successive reviews to demonstrate the effectiveness of actions taken per this paragraph to improve data quality. We do not expect that all data meet all standards all the time, but instead that the status reports submitted per paragraph (d)(5)(ii) demonstrate continuous improvement in data quality. This rule permits, but does not require, agencies to correct previously collected data, thereby minimizing any burden on title IV-E agencies. Comment: Several commenters asked if there were established timeframes for correcting findings. Response: We would like to clarify that the title IV-E agency will propose timeframes for ACF approval as part of the data quality plan or APD. As is the practice with S/TACWIS compliance issues, complex enhancements may require a longer timeframe to correct. Comment: One commenter recommended that the rule provide title IV-E agencies the ability to obtain waivers for failing to meet data quality standards due to extraordinary circumstances. Response: We are not making changes to this paragraph in response to this comment because the flexibility we provide makes a formal waiver process unnecessary. We will continue the practice we have refined over 20 years of S/TACWIS implementations to encourage title IV-E agencies to report extraordinary circumstances to us so that we can address the issue on a case-by-case basis for resolution. We also note title IV-E agencies may report schedule changes in an APD Update per 45 CFR 95.610(c). In paragraph (d)(5), we specify that the title IV-E agency must develop, implement, and maintain a CCWIS data quality plan in a manner prescribed by ACF and include it as part of the Annual or Operational APD as required in 45 CFR 95.610. Comment: A few commenters asked how title IV-E agencies will know that their data quality plans are adequate. Response: We would like to clarify that ACF will review the data quality plan provided with the APD and either approve it or continue to work with the title IV-E agency to address concerns so that ACF can approve the plan. Comment: One commenter recommended that we integrate the data quality plan into the title IV-E agency's continuous quality improvement protocols. Response: We are not making a change to require title IV-E agencies integrate their data quality plans into integrated continuous quality improvement plans because requiring this integration would limit agency flexibility to develop and implement both plans to best meet their needs. However, we agree that reliable data provided by data quality efforts is necessary to measure program quality improvements and encourage this integration, at the agency's option. Comment: Some commenters recommended we provide more guidance on the required components of a data quality plan. A few requested we provide a data quality plan template for agencies to complete. Response: We would like to clarify that we will provide additional guidance on data quality plan components after publication of this rule. Comment: One commenter asked how the data quality plan would affect an existing AFCARS program improvement plan. Response: We would like to clarify that the AFCARS rule governs the AFCARS program improvement plan. However, as noted in our previous response, we encourage agencies to incorporate existing data quality activities into the CCWIS data quality plan. Comment: Several commenters asked if states that do not implement a CCWIS are required to develop a data quality plan. Response: We would like to clarify that, except for the rule at § 1355.56(d) and (e), this rule does not apply to non-CCWIS systems. In paragraph (d)(5)(i), we specify that the data quality plan describes the comprehensive strategy to promote quality data including the steps to meet the requirements at § 1355.52(d)(1) through (3). In paragraph (d)(5)(ii), we specify that the data quality plan must report the status of compliance with paragraph (d)(1). We received no comments concerning these paragraphs and made no changes. In paragraph (e), we specify requirements for mandatory bi-directional data exchanges. Comment: Several commenters requested that ACF provide an enhanced FFP rate (such as the 90 percent rate provided by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) for systems supporting title XIX eligibility determinations) for title IV-E agencies and partner agencies to develop and maintain the required bi-directional data exchanges. Response: We are not making a change to this paragraph because ACF does not have statutory authority to provide an enhanced FFP rate. We note that CMS corrected an obsolete reference to an enhanced FFP rate in a rule issued on December 4, 2015 (80 FR 75843). Therefore, we did not make a technical revision to § 95.611(a)(2) in this rule. Comment: A commenter noted that CCWIS planning should be part of enterprise-wide systems planning to achieve the interoperability envisioned in the NPRM. Response: We are not making a change to this paragraph because requiring title IV-E agencies to include CCWIS planning as part of an enterprise-wide system would limit agencies' flexibility to develop systems meeting their needs. However, we agree that programs should coordinate system development efforts for greater interoperability and encourage health and human service programs to work together to develop data exchanges meeting the needs of all partners. Comment: A few commenters asked if there are limits to the number of bi-directional data exchanges. One commenter expressed concern that the mandatory bi-directional data exchanges precluded the development of uni-directional data exchanges. Response: We would like to clarify that there are no limits on the number of bi-directional data exchanges. While paragraph (e) defines eleven mandatory bi-directional data exchanges, title IV-E agencies may propose additional optional data exchanges, including uni-directional data exchanges, per § 1355.54. Optional data exchanges are discussed in greater detail in § 1355.54. Comment: One commenter recommended we require title IV-E agencies to track the source of data provided by data exchanges as this would help improve data quality and resolve instances of different systems reporting conflicting data. Response: We are not making a change to this paragraph because we want to retain state and tribal flexibility to define relevant data for the data exchanges. However, we agree with the commenter that tracking data sources is a best practice for improving data quality and resolving data conflicts. Comment: One commenter asked if we would designate a CCWIS as noncompliant with the data exchange requirements if other priorities prevented the timely creation of a data exchange. Response: We would like to clarify that we will follow the process used under current APD rules. The APD process allows title IV-E agencies to identify the reasons for schedule slippages in the APD and propose revised schedules in an APD Update. We will review the APD and either approve the revised schedule or work with the agency to correct barriers to timely completion. Comment: One commenter asked if current data exchanges between existing systems can be retained if they conform to CCWIS requirements. Response: We would like to clarify that title IV-E agencies may need to enhance exchanges between CCWIS and both CWCA and external title IV-E systems as described in paragraphs (e)(1)(ii) and (iv) of this section. However, the title IV-E agencies may continue to use existing data exchange methods established between a transitioning title IV-E system and its other current exchange partners. As is the case with all data exchanges, title IV-E agencies may need to change what data is exchanged to meet changing needs. Comment: One commenter recommended that it would be helpful to states if we provided guidance on data exchange mechanisms, include preferred security standards and transmission protocols. Response: We are not making a change to this paragraph to specify data exchange mechanisms because we want to preserve title IV-E agency flexibility to implement approaches best suited to their circumstances. Requiring certain technologies may also preclude agencies from using newer, better, and unanticipated technologies. However, we intend to provide technical assistance on all data exchanges. Comment: One commenter requested that, to support the data exchanges and interoperability, ACF add models of CCWIS data exchanges to the National Information Exchange Model (NIEM). Response: We agree with the commenter that NIEM promotes data exchanges and interoperability. We would like to clarify that ACF is actively working to expand NIEM resources for human service agencies with our involvement in the NIEM Human Service Domain. In paragraph (e)(1), we proposed that CCWIS must support one bi-directional data exchange to exchange relevant data with each of the systems in paragraphs (e)(1)(i) through (iv), if CCWIS data is generated by a system outside of CCWIS. Comment: A number of commenters requested we change the requirement to permit multiple data exchanges. Some commenters noted that technological advances may eliminate the value of a single data exchange. Other commenters noted it would be difficult to accommodate a wide range of agencies with one bi-directional data exchange. Response: We made a change to the rule to address this comment and specify that the CCWIS must support efficient, economical, and effective bi-directional data exchanges rather than one bi-directional data exchange. This change offers title IV-E agencies greater flexibility to build data exchanges to accommodate different circumstances and systems, provided the agency's approach is efficient, economical, and effective. In reference to data exchanges, “efficient, economical, and effective” means that title IV-E agencies should consider meeting data exchange requirements with (preferably) one or a limited number of data exchanges that address common business needs. Such an approach results in well-defined data exchanges. For example, if a title IV-E agency exchanges data with twenty CWCAs conducting child abuse and neglect investigations and thirty CWCAs providing placement and case management services, the agency may build two data exchanges—one supporting investigations and the other supporting placement and case management services. These two exchanges would be less expensive for the title IV-E agency to maintain and quicker to update than separate data exchanges with all fifty CWCAs. The two exchanges also provide the specific data to support different business needs whereas combining the two into one data exchange means each of the CWCA groups would have to build larger and more costly data exchanges to process data irrelevant to their business needs. This rule also supports agency requirements to exchange different data with the same CWCA at different times to support business needs. For example, the title IV-E agency and CWCAs may need to first establish new cases, then request client services, follow-up with data corrections, and finally, request and provide AFCARS data. We consider these four separate communications to be part of a single data exchange supporting a common business need, provided the two agencies exchange all data using the same communication protocols. Comment: One commenter asked if data obtained from a data warehouse could satisfy one or more of the data exchange requirements. Response: We would like to clarify that data obtained from a data warehouse may satisfy a data exchange requirement provided that the data warehouse provides the relevant data to CCWIS and the program defined in the requirement. Comment: Some commenters requested we explain the rationale for changing the S/TACWIS term “interface” to “exchange.” They noted that some agencies have used “look-up” capabilities via an interface to view data in other systems rather than exchange data and asked if this capability would meet data exchange requirements. Response: We would like to clarify that we replaced “interface” with “data exchange” for three reasons: 1. To clarify that we do not require CCWIS to have real-time direct access to other systems to collect data, although that is permitted. CCWIS (and the partner system in a data exchange) may create and transmit data files. The processing of, and response to a data file is not required to be done in real time. 2. To be consistent with the increased use of the phrase “data exchange” in recent federal statutes applicable to programs such as foster care and adoption assistance under title IV-E, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and programs operated by the Department of Labor. 3. To convey that CWCAs must provide copies of relevant data to CCWIS. CCWIS must have data copies in case there is a need to share the data with other systems as well as to preserve historical records if data sharing between CCWIS and the other agency ends. A look-up capability is not sufficient because the data would be lost if the provider went out of business. Please see our response below clarifying the phrase “to the extent practicable” for more information on whether a look-up capability meets the data exchange requirements described in paragraph (e)(2). Comment: Some commenters proposed we conduct a cost/benefit analysis on the burden to states and data exchange partners for paragraphs (e)(1)(i) through (iv). Commenters cited the need to make significant changes to data exchange partner systems without significant financial assistance from ACF and the title IV-E agency. Response: We are not conducting a cost/benefit analysis because the requirements in paragraphs (e)(1)(i) through (iv) do not create additional burden on title IV-E agencies. First, exchange partners are not required to change their existing systems to accommodate the data exchange. As we noted in the proposal, it was a common misunderstanding that title IV-E agencies were required to modify S/TACWIS to accommodate data provided to or received from other systems. We agree it would be inefficient to modify, and difficult to maintain CCWIS (and other systems) to accommodate the data definitions, formats, values, and other specifications of every data exchange. Instead, we strongly encourage partners to map, wherever possible, their existing data to the data exchange specifications rather than modifying their systems to match the specifications. Second, paragraphs (e)(1)(i) and (iii) do not impose additional burden because they are not new. In paragraph (e)(1)(i), we specify that CCWIS exchange data with systems generating financial payments and claims for title IV-B and IV-E, per paragraph (b)(1)(ii). This requirement incorporates the S/TACWIS rule at § 1355.53(b)(7) and policy in Action Transmittal ACF-OISM-001. In paragraph (e)(1)(iii), we specify that CCWIS must have a bi-directional data exchange with each system used to calculate one or more components of title IV-E eligibility determinations per paragraph (b)(1)(ii), if applicable. This requirement is consistent with the S/TACWIS rule at § 1355.53(b)(5) and policy in Action Transmittal ACF-OSS-005. Finally, we note that data exchanges with CWCAs (paragraph (e)(1)(ii)) and with external systems used by agency staff to collect CCWIS data (paragraph (e)(1)(iv)) are only required “if applicable.” Similar to the requirements under the S/TACWIS rule, if the title IV-E agency continues to require all CWCAs to use CCWIS and does not permit external systems to supplement CCWIS, data exchanges are not needed. CCWIS provides the option to use data exchanges to provide title IV-E agencies with the flexibility to determine the most efficient, economical, and effective approaches for collecting CCWIS data. Comment: One commenter asked if systems that currently exchange data with S/TACWIS must be modernized to accommodate enhancements made to transition a S/TACWIS to CCWIS. Response: We would like to clarify that we are not requiring other agencies to modernize their systems. Comment: One commenter asked if the purpose of the bi-directional data exchanges was to send data to and receive data from multiple systems so that CCWIS can manage reporting. Response: We would like to clarify that sending and receiving data from multiple systems so that CCWIS can manage reporting is one of the purposes of the bi-directional data exchanges. Comment: Some commenters requested that we define the “relevant data” for each data exchange. Response: We would like to clarify that by “relevant data,” we mean data collected in an information system that, in compliance with applicable confidentiality requirements, may be shared with a program that considers the data useful for meeting goals or objectives. Relevant data may be different for different data exchanges or for different title IV-E agencies. We did not require specific data in order to provide title IV-E agencies with flexibility to determine, in consultation with their data exchange partners, the data each partner has that is useful and can be shared. The NPRM provided examples of relevant data for several of the data exchanges on pages 48213 and 48214. Action Transmittal ACF-OSS-05 provides additional examples. We plan to issue additional guidance on the bi-directional data exchanges. Comment: A number of commenters cited the cost of making changes as an impediment to meeting this requirement. Response: We would like to clarify that CCWIS is an option and we encourage title IV-E agencies to evaluate if CCWIS is appropriate for their circumstances. We encourage title IV-E agencies to implement a CCWIS only if it is a cost-effective approach to meeting agency business needs. Comment: One commenter recommended incentives to make it compelling for exchange partners, such as the CWCA and non-child welfare agencies to participate in data exchanges. Response: We would like to clarify that we do not have statutory authority to provide incentives beyond the CCWIS cost allocation described in § 1355.57. However, we have observed that title IV-E agencies will often fund CWCA's costs through contracts or agreements. Additionally, as is the case under S/TACWIS, states or tribes may require providers to use the CCWIS. Comment: One commenter asked how the mandatory bi-directional data exchanges affect developmental and operational funding. Response: We would like to clarify that the bi-directional data exchange requirements do not affect the CCWIS funding requirements at § 1355.57. We note that the funding for CCWIS data exchanges is unchanged from the funding for S/TACWIS interfaces. Comment: A commenter recommended ACF encourage title IV-E agencies use master-person indexes to assist with matching individuals across programs and systems linked by bi-directional data exchanges to support improved data quality and client outcomes. Response: We are not making a change to address this comment. Although we agree master-person indexes may support improved data quality and client outcomes, we are not requiring master-person indexes so that title IV-E agencies may develop solutions appropriate for their child welfare business practices and information technology environment. In paragraph (e)(1)(i), we specify that CCWIS exchange data with systems generating financial payments and claims data for titles IV-B and IV-E, per § 1355.52(b)(1)(ii), if applicable. We received no comments on this paragraph and made no changes. In paragraph (e)(1)(ii), we specify that the CCWIS must have a bi-directional data exchange with systems operated by child welfare contributing agencies that are collecting or using data described in § 1355.52(b), if applicable. Comment: One commenter asked if this requirement and any related funding applies equally to private vs. public CWCAs. Response: We would like to clarify that the bi-directional data exchange requirement applies equally to private and public CWCAs. However, funding under this rule applies to the title IV-E agency for the CCWIS and its costs. Costs related to the CWCA's side of an exchange may be eligible as an administrative cost to the IV-E agency. Comment: One commenter recommended we permit bi-directional data feeds between existing SACWIS and CWCA systems. Response: We note that as of the effective date of this rule the S/TACWIS rule is no longer in effect. Bi-directional data exchanges between CCWIS and CWCAs are required, if applicable. Bi-directional data exchanges between non-CCWIS and CWCAs are allowed. Comment: A number of commenters noted it would be burdensome for all CWCAs to have an electronic data exchange with CCWIS and asked for additional flexibility, such as a waiver of this requirement. Response: A CWCA must have a bi-directional data exchange with CCWIS only if, as noted in the NPRM, a CWCA is using a system or module other than CCWIS to collect or generate CCWIS data. However, a data exchange is not required if the agency uses CCWIS to collect or generate CCWIS data. Under S/TACWIS rules, child welfare contributing agencies were required to use S/TACWIS. This provision is different from S/TACWIS in that it permits CWCAs to use CCWIS as an option, but provides the data exchange as an alternative if a title IV-E agency permits CWCAs to use a system other than CCWIS. Comment: One commenter suggested that the rule's prohibition on duplicate application development and software maintenance prevents county administered states relying on CWCAs using other systems from complying with this rule. Response: We would like to clarify that while the rule does not prohibit duplicate application development and software maintenance, it does not allow CCWIS funding for it. Components of the CCWIS that are duplicated in other CWCA or title IV-E agency systems may qualify for non-CCWIS cost allocation. Comment: A few commenters were concerned that it may be difficult for some CWCAs to develop data exchanges with the title IV-E agency if they are not eligible for funding to enhance their systems and participate in the data exchange. Response: We did not make any changes to this paragraph in response to the comments. We would like to clarify that we have observed that title IV-E agencies address CWCA administrative costs, including system costs, through their contracts with CWCAs. Additionally, the title IV-E agency may require a CWCA that is unable to exchange data to use the CCWIS. Comment: One commenter asked if CWCA databases must be viewable by the title IV-E agency in real-time. Response: We would like to clarify that via a bi-directional data exchange CWCAs must provide a copy of the CCWIS data for the title IV-E agency to maintain in the CCWIS. This rule does not require that CCWIS have the capability to view CWCA databases in real-time. Comment: One commenter asked how ACF would govern the quality of CWCA data. Response: We would like to clarify that the title IV-E agency is responsible for governing data quality in compliance with the requirements described in paragraph (d). Comment: A few commenters requested we clarify if the “to the extent practicable” language applies to this paragraph and paragraph (e)(1)(iv), which are the external systems used by title IV-E agency staff to collect CCWIS data. Response: We would like to clarify that the “to the extent practicable” language does not apply to these two paragraphs. Both requirements are “if applicable.” This means, for paragraph (e)(1)(ii), that CCWIS must have a data exchange with a CWCA if that CWCA uses a system other than CCWIS for child abuse and neglect investigations, placements, or child welfare case management. It is not applicable if a CWCA is using CCWIS. For paragraph (e)(1)(iv), “if applicable” means that CCWIS must have a data exchange with any external system used by agency staff to collect CCWIS data, however, it is not applicable if there are no such external systems. We emphasize that it is a state or tribal decision to build external systems or permit CWCAs to use systems other than CCWIS. Comment: One commenter proposed that ACF provide a clearinghouse of information on CCWIS interoperability for CWCAs. Response: We would like to clarify that we will continue to provide technical assistance to promote interoperability, although we have not determined if we will use clearinghouses as a means of distributing technical assistance. In paragraph (e)(1)(iii), we specify that the CCWIS must have a bi-directional exchange with each system used to calculate one or more components of title IV-E eligibility determinations per § 1355.52(b)(1)(ii), if applicable. We received no comments on this paragraph and made no changes. In paragraph (e)(1)(iv), we specify that CCWIS must have a bi-directional data exchange with each system external to CCWIS used by title IV-E agency staff to collect CCWIS data, if applicable. Comment: A commenter asked for guidance on identifying these other systems and determining if a data exchange with CWCAs meets this requirement. Response: We would like to clarify that title IV-E agencies identify, per the requirement, systems other than CCWIS used by title IV-E agency staff to collect CCWIS data. Examples include county child welfare systems and specialized applications such as databases used to track case management tasks, conduct assessments, or perform home studies. As with all data exchanges described in paragraph (e), the data exchange must exchange relevant data to meet the requirement. In paragraph (e)(2), we specify that, to the extent practicable, the IV-E agency must support one bi-directional data exchange to exchange relevant data with specified state or tribal systems. These are exchanges with the systems used by titles IV-D and IV-A programs, title XIX mechanized claims processing and information retrieval systems (including the eligibility determination components of such systems), and systems used by courts, education, and the child abuse and neglect programs. Comment: Some commenters requested we encourage other federal agencies to allow other entities, such as educational agencies and courts, to use FFP to build their portion of the bi-directional data exchanges. Commenters noted the since data exchanges provide benefits to all partners those partners should receive FFP. One commenter specifically mentioned that it would be challenging for the Medicaid program, courts, and education programs to obtain funding for the data exchanges. Response: We would like to clarify that we will continue to encourage other federal agencies to provide FFP, however, we only have statutory authority to provide FFP for systems supporting the administration of the title IV-B, title IV-E and CAPTA programs. We agree the data exchanges provide benefits to all partners and that increasing awareness of these benefits may encourage other partners to participate. For example, because child welfare program eligibility information is necessary for proper determination of some types of Medicaid eligibility, and can facilitate rapid enrollment into Medicaid, we anticipate working with CMS to provide technical assistance on data exchanges. Comment: A number of commenters asked for clarification on the meaning of “to the extent practicable.” Commenters wanted to know the reasons ACF would accept for a data exchange being impracticable and if ACF requires a cost/benefit analysis to demonstrate a data exchange is impracticable. Several commenters wanted an estimate of conducting such a cost/benefit analysis. One commenter wanted to know if we used the terms “practicable” and “practical” interchangeably in the NPRM. Response: We would like to clarify that the terminology “to the extent practicable” was specified in the original legislation authorizing these types of systems and is not new. We are continuing the requirement that these data exchanges be implemented “to the extent practicable” from the S/TACWIS rules that have been in effect since 1993. Consistent with the S/TACWIS rule, this rule allows title IV-E agencies to present a business case in an APD describing the circumstances rendering a data exchange impracticable. These circumstances are not limited to the examples given in the NPRM, which are: (1) The other system is not capable of conducting an exchange; and (2) the exchange is not feasible due to cost constraints. Title IV-E agencies may cite any circumstances they deem relevant for ACF's consideration. The APD rule includes burden estimates for providing a business case for any purpose, including explaining why a data exchange is impracticable. ACF does not require a cost/benefit analysis to demonstrate a data exchange is impracticable. We also would like to clarify that title IV-E agencies may explain that a partial data exchange is “to the extent practicable.” For example, if some courts participated in the data exchange while others did not, ACF would consider a business case explaining that the partial exchange met the “to the extent practicable” requirement. If a state or tribal agency's rules forbid transferring data to CCWIS but permitted CCWIS users to view the data, ACF would consider a business case that a data view was the only practicable solution. Finally, we would like to clarify that we reviewed the NPRM and made changes to eliminate inconsistencies in the use of the terms “practicable” and “practical.” Comment: One commenter asked if the data exchange must be bi-directional if the other program, such as the MMIS, does not need any CCWIS data. Response: We would like to clarify that this is another example where the bi-directional data exchange may not be practicable. The title IV-E agency would describe such situations in the applicable APD. However, we believe all bi-directional data exchanges benefit both partners and intend to provide guidance on the mutual benefits. Comment: One commenter recommended we execute memoranda of understanding or interagency agreements with other entities, including courts, the Department of Education and the Office of Child Support Enforcement establishing the data exchange expectations for state or tribal counterparts. Response: We would like to clarify that we have issued joint guidance with other federal partners. One example is our joint issuance to states with the Office of Child Support Enforcement, Information Memorandum ACYF-CB-IM-12-06, providing guidelines on data sharing. We intend to continue this practice of working with federal entities to promote collaboration between state, tribal, and local agencies. If title IV-E agencies have any challenges, we encourage states and tribes to reach out to ACF. In paragraph (e)(2)(i), we specify that CCWIS must have one bi-directional data exchange with the child abuse and neglect system(s), to the extent practicable. In paragraph (e)(2)(ii), we specify that CCWIS must have one bi-directional data exchange with the system(s) operating under title IV-A of the Act, to the extent practicable. We received no comments on these paragraphs and made no changes. In paragraph (e)(2)(iii), we specify that CCWIS must have bi-directional data exchanges with Medicaid systems operated under title XIX of the Act, to the extent practicable. Comment: One commenter asked if we consulted with CMS on these requirements. The commenter noted that guidance from CMS to state agencies encouraging data exchanges with title IV-E agencies would be helpful. Response: We would like to clarify that we worked collaboratively with CMS to develop this CCWIS final rule, as well as on the final rule for Mechanized Claims Processing and Information Retrieval Systems published by CMS in the Federal Register on December 4, 2015 (80 FR 75817). According to CMS, the Mechanized Claims Processing and Information Retrieval Systems final rule at 42 CFR 433.112(b)(16) requires that any state Medicaid system funded with an enhanced federal match must allow for interoperability with various entities, including human service agencies. With our history of working with CMS on regulations and other tasks such as zONE (an initiative to facilitate the sharing of state project documents), providing technical assistance to states on the OMB Circular A-87 cost allocation waiver, encouraging enterprise development projects, and development of statewide health passports for children in foster care, we will work with CMS to develop joint guidance, as needed. In paragraph (e)(2)(iii)(A), we specify that CCWIS must have one bi-directional data exchange with systems used to determine Medicaid eligibility, to the extent practicable. Comment: One commenter recommended we encourage states to avail themselves of the 90 percent FFP match under what is commonly called the “A-87 exception” to pay for the building of this bi-directional data exchange. Response: We would like to clarify that the OMB Circular A-87 cost allocation waiver was extended through December 2018 and allows states to access the 90 percent Medicaid FFP match to the extent appropriate for developing shared eligibility services and making systems integration investments. We are available to provide technical assistance to states as needed. In paragraph (e)(2)(iii)(B), we specify that CCWIS must have a bi-directional data exchange with the MMIS as defined at 42 CFR 433.111(b), to the extent practicable. Comment: Several commenters requested clarification on the data expected from the data exchange with the MMIS. Several commenters noted that MMIS typically does not contain a client's complete Medicaid history. One commenter asked if CCWIS is required to maintain a foster child's entire medical record. Response: We would like to clarify that this paragraph requires title IV-E agencies to maintain in CCWIS the available medical record information received from the MMIS (which would include the Medicaid claims history or, for those enrolled in managed care, provider encounter data), however we do not require CCWIS to maintain a foster child's entire medical history. We do encourage title IV-E agencies to collect health information as needed from other sources, including an available Health Information Exchange. We note that title IV-E agencies may propose optional data exchanges to other health systems that may qualify for CCWIS funding per § 1355.54. Comment: Some commenters requested that we assure title IV-E agencies that, where applicable, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) rules do not preclude state agencies from sharing data. One commenter was concerned that the costs to bring CCWIS into compliance with HIPAA rules might prevent their state from implementing this required data exchange and hence complying with CCWIS requirements. Response: We would like to clarify that in § 1355.52(d)(1)(iii), we require that the title IV-E agency exchange and maintain CCWIS data in accordance with the confidentiality requirements of applicable federal and state or tribal laws. This is not an entirely new requirement as data maintained under a SACWIS are subject to federal, state, and tribal confidentiality requirements, and current S/TACWIS are required to interface with systems used by the Medicaid program to determine eligibility. The requirement that the title IV-E agency support one bi-directional data exchange with the eligibility and enrollment system used to determine Medicaid eligibility, and one bi-directional data exchange with the MMIS used to process Medicaid claims and perform other management functions (as those systems are described in 42 CFR 433.111(b)(2)(ii)), to the extent practicable, does not mean that any and all information is exchanged—only information that each agency is permitted to exchange in accordance with applicable confidentiality rules. Finally, we note that a number of states have already implemented such exchanges to the benefit of the children in foster care. ACF will consider, as noted above, cost constraints as a reason that a data exchange in paragraph (e)(2) is not practicable. Comment: One commenter noted that much of the health data may be new and unfamiliar to workers and recommended we provide guidance on the data's most effective uses. Response: We would like to clarify that the effective use of the data is determined by each agency, but we intend to provide technical assistance on all the required data exchanges. Comment: One commenter recommended that the rule include and encourage Affordable Care Act related provisions that impact foster care. Response: We are not making a change in response to this comment because this paragraph already supports the Affordable Care Act related provisions that affect foster care. We also note that ACF issued guidance on the provisions of the Affordable Care Act that affect foster care in Program Instruction ACYF-CB-PI-10-10. Comment: One commenter noted that states should not be held accountable for the quality of MMIS claims data since the agencies have no control over its collection. Response: We would like to clarify that, as noted in our response to paragraph (d)(1) that title IV-E agencies may take into account data sources when establishing data quality standards. Comment: One commenter recommended we establish a Technical Advisory Group of experienced states to assist other agencies in implementing data exchanges as required by this paragraph. Response: We would like to clarify that we currently support a Technical Working Group, monthly webinars, and national conference calls on various topics and will continue this technical assistance. We have supported peer-to-peer networks to promote sharing of best practices and intend to continue promoting state-to-state networking. We also intend to work with the Capacity Building Center for Tribes to identify tribal concerns. In paragraph (e)(2)(iv), we specify that CCWIS must have one bi-directional data exchange with systems operated under title IV-D of the Act, to the extent practicable. In paragraph (e)(2)(v), we specify that CCWIS must have one bi-directional data exchange with systems operated by the court(s) of competent jurisdiction of the title IV-E foster care, adoption, and guardianship programs, to the extent practicable. We received no comments on these paragraphs and made no changes. In paragraph (e)(2)(vi), we specify that CCWIS must have one bi-directional data exchange with the systems operated by the state or tribal education agency, or school districts, or both, to the extent practicable. Comment: One commenter asked if we consulted with the Department of Education on this requirement. The commenter noted that guidance from the Department of Education to state agencies encouraging data exchanges with title IV-E agencies would be helpful. Response: We would like to clarify that we consulted with the Department of Education and have developed technical assistance materials in collaboration with the Department of Education. For example, we jointly issued a letter to Chief State School Officers and Child Welfare Directors on Implementing the Fostering Connections Act, which is available here: https://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/resource/fostering- connections-letter. We also provide materials related to data sharing with education here: http://www.nrcpfc.org/is/education-and-child-welfare.html#data. We intend to continue developing technical assistance materials with the Department of Education. In paragraph (f), we specify that title IV-E agencies use a single data exchange standard for CCWIS data exchanges described in § 1355.52(f)(1) and (2) upon implementing a CCWIS. Comment: Some commenters noted that the variety of systems, partners, and technological platforms makes it difficult to have a single data exchange standard applicable in all cases. One noted that requiring a single data exchange standard for CWCAs, internal data exchanges within CCWIS, and all the electronic systems external to CCWIS used by title IV-E staff to collect data limited title IV-E agency flexibility, imposed undue burdens on agencies, and impeded agencies from developing economical and workable child welfare systems. Response: We made a change in response to this comment by removing proposed paragraph (f)(2), in which we proposed to require that the data exchange standard must apply to internal data exchanges between CCWIS automated functions where at least one of the automated functions meets the requirements of § 1355.53(a). We agree that a data exchange standard applicable to the data exchanges described in the rest of paragraph (f) may not be appropriate for CCWIS modules. However, we disagree that the requirement to use a single data exchange standard for CCWIS electronic bi-directional data exchanges limits agency flexibility and imposes undue burdens on agencies. We note that the S/TACWIS rule required CWCAs to use S/TACWIS and did not allow external systems. Although the CCWIS rule permits CWCAs to use their systems and exchange data with CCWIS, title IV-E agencies may still require CWCAs to use CCWIS. Likewise, CCWIS rules permit workers to use external systems that exchange data with CCWIS, but the agency may require workers to use CCWIS. If the title IV-E agency requires these entities to use CCWIS, then data exchanges (and the supporting data exchange standard) are not needed. We also disagree that a data exchange standard prevents the development of workable, economical child welfare systems. We agree that it may be challenging to implement a single data exchange standard. However, once implemented, a single standard is easier to maintain than multiple standards, facilitates a common understanding of the data among all partners, simplifies data exchanges, and supports consistent and improved service delivery to children and families. We also note that the rule does not require system modifications to support the standard. Instead, we encourage developers to reduce costs by mapping their system's data to the agreed-upon standard so that data is transformed when using the data exchange. We intend to provide additional guidance on data exchange standards. Comment: One commenter noted that other state agencies may be unwilling to conform to the data exchange standard. Response: We would like to clarify that the data exchange standard requirement only applies to the data exchanges described in paragraphs (f)(1) and (2), which are respectively CWCA systems described in paragraph (e)(1)(ii) and external systems described in paragraph (e)(1)(iv). Although we encourage the use of a standard in data exchanges with other agencies, this rule does not require it. Comment: Several commenters asked if the data exchange standard applies to data exchanges implemented before the rule's effective date, such as data exchanges already in place due to state statutory requirements. Response: Yes, upon implementation of a CCWIS, the title IV-E agency must use a single data exchange standard with CWCAs and external systems as described in this paragraph, including exchanges that were implemented before the rule's effective date. Comment: One commenter suggested that software module reuse, as encouraged by the CCWIS design requirements at § 1355.54, may be hampered by the flexibility this paragraph provides title IV-E agencies to select the data exchange standard applicable to their CCWIS project. The commenter noted that modules designed to one data exchange standard's specifications may not be reusable by a project with a different data exchange standard. This problem may be resolved by establishing a national data exchange standard for all title IV-E agencies. Response: We are not making a change in response to this comment. We agree that a national data exchange standard would facilitate software reuse by different title IV-E agencies. However, we have observed that a number of title IV-E agencies must follow standards established by the state or tribe. Specifying a national data exchange standard for CCWIS may prevent agencies with a different standard from implementing a CCWIS. At the same time, ACF intends to provide guidance and technical assistance on data standards that may help promote reuse. Comment: Several comments asked for clarity on the definition of “one data exchange standard.” One commenter asked if the data exchange standard must specify a single communication protocol or multiple protocols. Another commenter asked us to confirm that this definition did not include the technology to transfer the data. Response: We are not making a change in response to this comment because, although paragraph (f) specifies that the standard describe the data, definitions a [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2016-12509. Public record. Not legal advice.