October 12, Attention: 0970-AC59. Re: Comprehensive Child Welfare Information System

Transcription

1 October 12, 2015 Terry Watt Director, Division of State Systems, Children s Bureau Administration on Children, Youth and Families Administration for Children and Families U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 1250 Maryland Avenue, SW, 8 th Floor Washington, DC Attention: 0970-AC59 Re: Comprehensive Child Welfare Information System The American Public Human Services Administration (APHSA) respectfully submits comments on the proposed rule 0970-AC59 that would remove the requirement for a single comprehensive system and allow title IV-E agencies to implement systems supporting current child welfare practice. It also proposes to establish requirements associated with design, data quality and data exchange standards in order to align with current practice. APHSA is a bipartisan, nonprofit organization representing governor-appointed state health and human service commissioners, their top level management, including chief information officers, other IT professionals and child welfare directors, and hundreds of county-level directors of health and human services throughout the nation. Changes to existing requirements to State/Tribal Automated Child Welfare Information Systems (S/TACWIS) that have been in place in states for decades are long overdue. APHSA has commented in the past about the need for a data-driven, modern approach to the development and maintenance of a S/TACWIS that can enable states to evolve child welfare practice and achieve effective and efficient child and family outcomes. General Comments APHSA appreciates the inclusion of principles we and others have long advocated: 1

2 Elimination of the existing single comprehensive system requirement thereby resulting in systems specifically tailored to various state/tribal administration, programmatic and technical environments; Permit the use of modular solutions through the use of Commercial-Off-The-Shelf (COTS) products in recognition of the reduced costs and reuse potential among states/tribes; Utilization of modern technological industry standards that align the most successful solutions across public and private sectors (including other federal agencies); Emphasize the role of real-time data collection, quality improvement and information sharing to support data-driven decision-making. We support ACF s intent in this NPRM to enable modern, data-driven system modernization efforts for child welfare agencies. Having a modern and flexible system will advance the field in in ways we may not even envision at this time. As with any opportunity to provide input on an NPRM, APHSA has gathered feedback from our members by examining in detail each proposed component. The following comments represent a high level view of the NPRM to be followed by more detailed comments, section by section. Our members believe it is of paramount importance that all system-related decisions must be driven by the need to improve outcomes. While it is clear this is the Agency s intent with the proposed rule and outlined in the (d)(2) and (d)(3), we believe reiterating this objective repeatedly throughout the NPRM would be of significant help in supporting the transformation within child welfare. Although ACF representatives have emphasized that the primary purpose of the NPRM is to enable flexibility by allowing states/tribes to design systems according to their own needs, a number of the new requirements (e.g., project, design, data exchange standards, etc.) run contrary to this intention and impose many new requirements that are unclear and could wind up hampering future CCWIS innovation, which undermines the very purpose of the proposed changes. Our detailed response that follows identifies these concerns specifically and recommends how we believe they can be addressed to meet both ACF s needs and those of our members. Our comments are meant to result in as clear as guidance as possible without contradicting the intent of the rule for maximizing flexibility of systems in states. Lastly, the NPRM significantly underestimates the administrative burden placed on states and their (trading) partners both in terms of state taxpayer costs as well as the workload placed on state staff as a direct result of a number of the new requirements within the 2

3 NPRM. One example is the provision associated with the continuous federal review of the design, development, maintenance and operation of either modified T/SACWIS or newly created CCWIS with many of the review criteria unclear within this proposed rule or said to be determined at a future date. We provide additional examples throughout our detailed response. At a high level, APHSA recommends the following steps to address these concerns: 1. The final rule should clearly state the Children s Bureau s vision for state systems (e.g., high-level guiding principles, intentions to bring about better outcomes for children and families) by allowing for the evolution of outcomes-focused child welfare practice and state flexibility to define specific needs, while requiring truly minimum standards for states when building their systems. 2. The final rule should clearly state whether the CCWIS is a single system in which all the federally required data, NCANDS, AFCARS, NYTD, etc. is to be reported from or if other system arrangements are permissible. 3. The final rule should include a data quality component, yet not one that is so prescriptive nor includes a requirement for an extensive annual review. 4. Clarification is needed in the final rule for the following: a. The extent to which the requirements proposed in this NPRM for the CCWIS are the same as, or different from: a) the requirements for States that elect to maintain their existing T/SACWIS with no changes, and b) those that choose upgrade their current T/SACWIS. b. The specific review criteria that federal reviewers will use in their review of new and revised systems should be published and made available to the states prior to any review being conducted so that the states and federal staff can have a clear understanding of what is required and what level of system performance is satisfactory to merit Federal Financial support. Without clarity for the review criteria, inevitable delays and costly change orders that run contrary to the best interests of the federal government, states, taxpayers and program participants may occur. c. Whether states need to adopt/comply with the CCWIS requirements regardless of whether or not they elect to build a new CCWIS, but choose to modify an existing T/SACWIS; 3

4 Provisions of NPRM: d. A data quality standard, as well as the management of data used in reporting and alerts is mentioned repeatedly and needs further clarification. Is ACF making assumptions about the scope of child welfare case management and therefore the quality and management of the data collection process to be put in place? If so, please specify what those assumptions in order for states to understand the basis on which their systems will be evaluated Definitions Applicable to CCWIS This section proposes a host of new definitions not previously found in the S/TACWIS regulations that apply to through APHSA agrees with most of the definitions yet recommend the following: The term case management is used through-out the NPRM. APHSA recommends that ACF clearly define what is meant by case management and provide the appropriate citations for such definitions. Further, we recommend ACF to define what activities constitute case management and cite where that definition currently is provided in statute, regulation or other sub-regulatory guidance. The term is used often in the NPRM, specifically within (e)(1)(i) and (e)(1)(ii), where data is required to be collected and exchanged on case management activities if states are building one bi-directional data exchange with child abuse and neglect systems and TANF systems, respectively CCWIS Project Requirements ACF proposes to revise this section to include requirements for all CCWIS projects. APHSA commends ACF on their intent to encourage flexibility, emphasize the role of quality data in practice, and promote modularity and other industry standards, and provide the following recommendations for consideration: (a) Efficient, economical, and effective requirement. APHSA recommends the final rule should include language on goals of supporting outcomes for families and children, improved practice, and meeting state needs, along with the efficient, economical, and effective administration of its systems. To do so, we recommend ACF to use language that: -Includes this broader interpretation of the goals of the CCWIS; -Emphasize the combination of services integration and data integration; 4

5 -Pull from language found in the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services 90/10 NPRM and the U.S. Digital Services Playbook that offer examples of how a focus on outcomes is built into introductory language; -Use similar language found in the bi-directional data flows at (e) later in the CCWIS NPRM: This proposed requirement will support improved outcomes for children by This focus on outcomes should be promoted earlier and through-out the NPRM. (a)(2) (term) Computer APHSA recommends to remove the word computer from this section (and all following sections when used) as the word does not accurately reflect all of the types of technology in the current and future marketplace. (b), (c) CCWIS Data Requirement and Reporting Requirements (respectively) We recommend ACF to clarify the definition of the word maintain to confirm that it does not require a single operational (transactional) database for CCWIS. (d) Data quality requirements. Further definition is needed on how ACF will evaluate and measure data quality. APHSA recommends ACF, in collaboration with cross-representation from state IV-E agencies, to determine the metrics and measures that will be used to evaluate and monitor data quality efforts for implementation of each states CCWIS. Without clearly mandated mechanisms, agencies may find it challenging to define expectations for program staff who are leading the effort. For example, is the data required to be reported/exchanged the same data required for the different federal reporting requirements (e.g., NCANDS, AFCARS, and NYTD)? Defining it clearly would make it easier for all states to comply. (d)(2)-maintain specific automated functions in CCWIS. (i) Monitoring data being exchanged upon receipt in the CCWIS APHSA recommends ACF to determine what metrics and standards the IV-E agency will be audited against and if those metrics and standards go beyond what is included within each agencies state plan. 5

6 (ii) Through an automated function, the CCWIS supports data quality by alerting staff to collect, update, correct and enter CCWIS data.the CCWIS must provide automated alerts, reports, and other appropriate tools. APHSA recommends ACF to delete the specificity related to alerts, reports, and other appropriate tools, and replace it with language that supports state discretion and flexibility to figure out how they will support data quality through automated functions that best meets their needs. (iii) Send electronic requests to CW contributing agency systems to submit current and historical data to the CCWIS. ACF should specify what data is expected to be reported or exchanged from child welfare contributing agency systems to the IV-E agency. We propose that one solution be for the data to be exchanged align with data collected on safety, permanency and well-being currently measured in NCANDS, AFCARS, and NYTD. Additionally, we propose for any elements of the data quality plan to be defined by ACF and in collaboration with the states. (d)(3) Annual data quality reviews It is unclear if the annual data quality reviews are reviews to be conducted by the states or if they are federal reviews. It is also unclear how these annual reviews differ from the AFCARS, NCANDS and other reviews of data for required federal reporting. Therefore, APHSA proposes ACF to clarify in written guidance, either within the Final Rule or sub-regulatory guidance, which entity is required to perform these annual data quality reviews. Further and in order for data quality reviews to be conducted annually, adequate financing and staffing must be dedicated and/or employed to enable timely compliance no matter the entity being required to conduct the review. Additionally and to the extent that ACF is proposing to provide technical assistance to states to develop/implement (state) annual data quality reviews, we are concerned that there are not enough federal staff available to meet the anticipated need of states relative to coming into compliance with and maintenance of this requirement. As such, APHSA provides the following recommendations for consideration: 6

7 ACF to undergo a cost/benefit analysis to evaluate the anticipated cost and burden of an annual data quality review plan on a state IV-E agency; ACF to provide a higher Federal Financial Participation (FFP) match rate to incentivize IV-E agencies to develop, maintain and continuously update annual data quality review plans, separate from existing data quality review plans satisfying other federal reporting requirements. (d)(4) & (5) IV-E agency must enhance CCWIS or the electronic bi-directional data exchanges or both to correct any findings from annual data quality reviews; and must, to that affect, include the data quality compliance plan as a part of Annual or Operational Advance Planning Documents (APDs), respectively. Each existing federal reporting requirement for IV-E agencies (e.g., CFSR, AFCARS), require annual plans and also performance improvement plans (PIPs) when non-compliance is shown. To the extent possible, it would be of great assistance to states to reduce the burden of reporting by blending and/or streamlining some of these requirements through the following recommendations: ACF to implement one PIP for all federal reporting requirements versus multiple PIPs, whereas the IV-E agency submits an annual plan and then a PIP that provides two-three years to come into compliance. If no additional funding is provided for the proposed annual data quality plans and therefore no additional staff is able to be hired, significant existing resources will need to be redistributed within existing IV-E dollars to cover the expense of these reports and coming into compliance with any data- or system-related issues; ACF, with the input from state IV-E agencies, should collectively identify ways in which existing PIPs can work together across the different systems that are already in place. APHSA also recommends ACF to hold sessions with states about what the base levels are that need to be met. Additional clarification is needed by ACF to identify exactly what finding the system or the data- the IV- E agency is being asked to fix pending the results of a data quality review. 7

8 (e) Bi-directional Data Exchanges APHSA recommends ACF to clarify the requirement of one bi-directional exchange. Is the requirement for data to be exchanged between two singular state data systems? For example, would there be an interface between a state s CCWIS and a single education database, even if the state has pertinent education data in more than one database? If this is the correct interpretation, then this requirement contradicts the overall direction of allowing states greater flexibility in creating systems that meet the needs of the state. Additionally, and if this is the correct interpretation, this requirement may dissuade states from building a CCWIS due to placing an undue burden on other state agencies that might need to make significant changes to existing systems to meet the one bidirectional data exchange requirement. We are concerned that this prescriptive language could create an unintended problem should the future state of technology and/or state functions evolve in a way that eliminates the value of a single interface. We suggest an approach for ACF to identify the systems that the CCWIS should interface with but without the rigid requirement of one bi-directional exchange. The NPRM could state that one bi-directional exchange is preferred but states may build multiple interfaces to achieve the goal of gathering comprehensive data on client histories, needs, and services. The final rule should clarify if a) a CCWIS would need to build one bi-directional data exchange that supports all relevant data for each information system or b) if there can be more than one data exchange with an information system depending on factors related to the data (e.g., type and frequency). The final rule should clarify which scenario reflects the correct interpretation of this requirement. A diagram further clarifying what is acceptable versus not acceptable data exchange configuration would be very beneficial to the states as well. ACF is also proposing to replace the technical term interface used in current regulations to data exchange so that the purpose of sharing information is fully conveyed in the last paragraph of this section. We request ACF to explain the rationale and impact for changing terminology from interface to exchange. Some states have limitations on data that can be exchanged and thus stored between systems, but have resolved this issue by allowing agencies to have look-in capabilities in other systems. Would this capability meet the NPRM requirement or must data elements actually be stored in the two systems? Additionally, we propose ACF to keep the term interface in order to remain consistent with other agencies involved in system design, development, testing and installation for shared services across health and human service programs. For 8

9 example, the Tri-Agency letter issued in January, , providing the allowable shared services to be leveraged by human service programs if being built by state Medicaid agencies for Eligibility and Enrollment (E&E) System modernization or replacement, uses the term interface to define the technical service that can enable bi-directional data exchange through different systems. In keeping consistent with a term that ACF has already agreed upon and that states are using in their current APDs for E&E DDI, we encourage ACF to maintain the existing term. (e)(1): If data is generated outside of a CCWIS, the CCWIS must support one bidirectional data exchange to exchange relevant data with each of the following systems mentioned at (e)(1)(i)-(e)(1)(iv). Similar to the aforementioned comments relative to the requirement for one bidirectional data exchanges to be established between two or more systems, this requirement could place an undue burden on systems identified at (e)(1)(i)- (e)(1)(iv). We are concerned that any one of these systems will need to make significant changes to their own existing systems, if they have one, to meet this requirement and without significant financial assistance from ACF and the IV-E agency, will not have the means to do so. As such, we propose ACF to conduct a cost/benefit analysis to further understand the burden on not only the state IV-E agency but the other, in many times, multiple and separate systems, of those required at (e)(1)(i)-(e)(1)(iv). (e)(2):to the extent practicable, CCWIS must support one bi-directional data exchange with each of the following systems: child abuse & neglect; Title IV-A (TANF); Title XIX- (Medicaid E&E and MMIS); Title IV-D (Child Support); Courts; and State/Tribal Edu Agency and/or school districts. Some of the interfaces are appropriate to be mandated (e.g., IV-E eligibility determinations) and to further encourage flexibility as it relates to supporting bidirectional data exchanges with the other proposed programmatic systems to meet the needs of states, we recommend for ACF to highly encourage other federal agencies to allow for FFP to be used across multiple programs to build those interfaces. The priority here should be on why these bi-directional exchanges between multiple systems benefit from the achievement of shared outcomes across programs and the direction of states toward that end

10 Additionally, ACF proposes that states must make the business case in an APD about why a bi-directional data exchange for a given system or multiple systems cannot be built to the extent practicable -which is defined as when the other system is not capable of an exchange or if the bi-directional data exchange is not feasible due to cost constraints. What standards will ACF use to evaluate what defines another agency as incapable of an exchange? Furthermore, who is going to undertake the cost/benefit analyses to disprove the feasibility of the bi-directional exchange? We recommend ACF provide additional clarity on these definitions as well as engage in dialogue with their federal partners as to allowable and alternative financing mechanisms to achieve these well-intentioned but ambitious proposed requirements. (e)(2)(i): Child abuse and neglect system Pending the concerns outlined in the general comments to this section, we support this proposed requirement. We reiterate here the recommendation for ACF to clearly define case management. (e)(2)(ii): Title IV-A (TANF) systems Pending the concerns outlined in the general comments to this section, we support this proposed requirement. We reiterate the recommendation for ACF to clearly define case management. (e)(2)(iii): Medicaid ACF proposes that the title IV E agency must support one bi-directional data exchange with systems operated under title XIX of the Act, to the extent practicable. (e)(2)(iii)(a) Medicaid Eligibility & Enrollment Systems APHSA appreciates the value of the data to be collected under this proposed subsection and recognizes that it is already a requirement under existing Section (b)(2)(iii) and expanded upon under Action Transmittal (ACF-OSS-05). Because the data will be used to support Medicaid eligibility determination and tracking for children in foster care, we believe states are eligible to avail themselves of the 90% FFP match under the A-87 Exception to pay for the building of this bi-directional data exchange, and ACF should encourage them to do so. (e)(2)(iii)(b)- MMIS While APHSA fully supports the intent of this new requirement, we wish to express our concern that, if the intent of this provision is to 10

11 ensure the CCWIS maintains complete and current medical records of children in foster care as stated in the NPRM, this should be written in terms of the desired outputs sought; i.e., capturing relevant medical histories of children with Medicaid coverage in foster care, including their immunization histories, where practicable, from whatever sources may be available within the state, rather than specifying the MMIS as the source. The reason is that a client s Medicaid medical history is typically not captured by, nor housed within, the state s MMIS. The MMIS is essentially a claims processing system for fee-forservice (FFS) care, as well as a provider payment system involving the use of monthly, capitated payments to managed care providers based on negotiated fees rather than client utilization. Because the majority of Medicaid children receive their care through managed care arrangements, their medical histories are not in the MMIS but within hundreds of provider care organizations across the country, each with its own software and IT platform. The FFS claim history data that does reside within the MMIS is a payment history file cross-walked to a diagnosis code but in no way is an accurate portrayal of the child s medical history. In addition, the data contained within the typical MMIS is often incomplete and considerably out-of-date. Claim history data is based on when the claim for payment is settled, not when the claim was originally submitted. If this proposed requirement were to stand, states want to know who would be held accountable for inaccurate data that had been transmitted from the Medicaid program since they have no means by which to validate information. APHSA recommends that ACF speak directly with CMCS/CMS IT staff and state representatives to develop the most appropriate way to obtain the medical information desired other than building bidirectional data exchanges with the MMIS. Additionally and if the Medicaid eligibility and claims processing and information retrieval systems are integrated, ACF proposes that these requirements may be met with one bi-directional data exchange to the single system. However, because these are substantially different bidirectional data exchanges, title IV E agencies may build one bidirectional data exchange to meet the requirements of new (e)(2)(iii)(A) and a second bidirectional data exchange to meet the requirements of new (e)(2)(iii)(B) even if one Medicaid 11

12 system performs all these functions. ACF notes that a number of states have already implemented such exchanges to the benefit of the children in care. With regard to a number of states that have already implemented such exchanges, APHSA recommends that ACF establish a Technical Advisory Group (TAG) of these states to assist those who seek to understand the data obtained, its utility, federal funding support and the approaches those states took to build the required bi-directional exchanges. (e)(2)(iv): Child Support (IV-D) IV-E agencies current systems have interfaces with IV-D systems yet contact information for non-custodial parent and relatives is not data currently collected/received/transferred. Obtaining this information will be difficult and timely. APHSA recommends ACF to speak with IV-D directors to assist with understanding what data is available and thus the applicability of this type of data to be defined as relevant data in this section. (e)(2)(v): courts of competent jurisdiction over IV-E foster care, adoption, and guardianship programs Bi-directional (interfaces) exchanges typically require a system to store/maintain the data being exchanged. There are certain systems or several systems per specific areas (e.g., courts) where state law prevents, in this case, child welfare systems, to store data. For example, some state IV-E agencies currently have an interface with the (juvenile) court and during that process developed a MOU to not store the data in the IV-E system. In part V of the preamble of this NPRM, ACF proposes that data may be obtained from external information systems so that a copy of that data is then stored and managed in CCWIS. We recommend for ACF to clarify in writing that this is an option and that the CCWIS is not being required to store data obtained from external information systems. (e)(2)(vi): state or tribal education agency or school district or both While APHSA supports the intent of this proposed requirement, we are concerned about the feasibility of this requirement especially as it relates to school districts. States are comprised of multiple school districts which are then comprised of multiple systems of which will need to make 12

13 significant changes to their own existing systems to meet this requirement. States also place children across jurisdictions and thus must enroll them into school districts outside of the originating jurisdiction. Requiring other jurisdictions to make significant changes to their (educational) systems based on the jurisdiction placing the child will be a significant challenge. Additionally and because each jurisdiction may decide to use a different bidirectional exchange, the receiving agency or school district may then be required to build a system with several different bi-directional exchanges to accommodate cross-jurisdiction systems. Without significant financial assistance from ACF and the state IV-E agency, it is unclear how these bidirectional exchanges will be built and maintained (f) Data Exchange Standards This is a new requirement that IV-E agencies must use a single data exchange standard for CCWIS bidirectional data exchanges upon implementation. While ACF does not propose to mandate the specific standard with the intent to provide flexibility to states to implement a standard that meets their needs, it does limit states flexibility by requiring the use of one data exchange standard by the IV-E agency with each child welfare contributing agency, internal data exchanges within the IV-E agency, and all of the electronic systems external to CCWIS used by IV-E staff to collect data. For example, one of the suggested data exchange standards is the National Information Exchange Model (NIEM).. Yet, it is unclear how the conversation will be expanded from the federal side to persuade IV-E agency community partners who are accustomed to developed information exchanges. In many cases these community partners have already agreed to a common set of data elements and definitions that will move them towards NIEM. They have been difficult to bring to the table initially and now they may be asked to move to yet another data exchange, which could be costly and prohibitive for these community partners. Does the state insist partners and stakeholders use NIEM or it is a no go data exchange? Further, how are the demands of state statutes met when some partners are mandated by state law to have a data exchange with existing child welfare case management systems? In this situation and if a state is grandfathering their SACWIS to a CCWIS, does that single data exchange standard apply? We recommend for ACF to clarify if NIEM is the preferred data exchange standard. Additionally, to further the intent of flexibility within this proposed rule and acknowledge the variety of data exchange standards currently in use or in development by IV-E agencies and their partners, APHSA proposes for ACF to remove the requirement that only one data exchange standard may be used (g) Automated eligibility requirements 13

14 APHSA supports this proposed requirement and the intent to streamline automated eligibility functions within the IV-E agency (h) Software provision requirement While APHSA supports the principles of reuse and the alignment to other federal policy as indicated in (h), it is unclear how states can share specific components of modules to ACF for other entities to reuse especially in cases where a state is modernizing a SACWIS or SACWIS-compliant system. Further, the NPRM permits title IV-E agencies to use commercial-off-the-shelf software (COTS) as CCWIS modules (VII. Impact Analysis, page 48223) while section (h) states, The title IV-E agency must provide a copy of agency-owned software that is designed, developed, or installed with FFP Please clarify that COTS solutions are excluded and if not excluded, why they are not, from the (h) requirement (i) Submission Requirements and (j) Other applicable requirements While we appreciate ACF s interest in having states submit documentation through the prior approval process under Part 95, we believe its failure to distinguish between large and small projects at under the $5 million threshold is excessively burdensome on states. There appears to be no substantive distinction between the information required in an APD for projects far in excess of $5 million, and that are required for a Notice of Intent. The NPRM indicates ACF will be coming out with what the Notice requirements will be in the future while, at the same time, making no distinction in this NPRM as to what requirements will not be required since the proposed language repeats in every instance that the requirements elements listed above are to be submitted whether for an APD or a Notice of Intent. The administrative burden associated with these requirements has been seriously underestimated in the NPRM at only 8-10 hours at $43.26/hour per submittal, or less than $440. We recommend that ACF revise this entire section to lift the burden for projects under $5 million as is the intent of drawing such a distinction in the first place and to re-calculate its entire cost/benefit analysis to reflect a more realistic set of administrative cost burden on the States. APHSA and the states would welcome the opportunity to assist in this revision CCWIS Design Requirements ACF is proposing new design requirements for CCWIS automated functions to ensure investments being made in IT projects are efficient, economical, and effective in supporting programs. APHSA commends ACF on the alignment with the design requirements of other federal agencies as well as the intent of several of these requirements to ensure systems are being built to maximize investments being made, 14

15 We reiterate, however, our concern that if further definitions of requirements found at (e) are not provided and if the IV-E agency is responsible for (poor) data quality in other systems, that compliance with requirements at will be difficult. We also reiterate the need for ACF to clarify if all states need to adopt the CCWIS requirements whether or not they elect to build a new CCWIS or not. As such, APHSA provides the following recommendations for consideration: (a)(1) Modular ACF is proposing to define modular as a software development approach that breaks down complex program functions into separate manageable components with well-defined methods of communicating other components. While APHSA supports this definition, additional research must be conducted by ACF to ascertain if the industry can support this new definition as it relates to child welfare systems. APHSA also requests ACF to evaluate the burden, as well as provide additional clarity and guidance to states currently operating a SACWIS and want to become a CCWIS about the process they will need to undertake to separate out the business rules and core programming within their current systems. (a)(2) Functions must be documented in plain language While we support the intent for agencies to document their automated functions so that it s clear for multiple staff with different roles within the organization, we need to be mindful of the costs associated with this documentation for training purposes as we shift toward more data-centric and automated operations. We recommend for ACF to incorporate the time and cost associated with this translation and the subsequent training of staff of the automated functions into the impact analysis. Some states have decided to conduct system design, development and installation internally and for those states, this will take time, staffing and resources unaccounted for in the impact analysis. To that effect, we recommend for the documentation to be concise and effective so as not to be something that takes significant time, effort and cost. Additionally, APHSA recommends ACF to clarify if this will be a retroactive requirement once the Final Rule is published and/or the transition period is over. (a)(3) Automated functions must adhere to state/tribal/industry standards The IV-E agency will use this development standard consistently for DDTI and maintenance. The agency can select the standard or it can be one that s already in use. APHSA recommends ACF to provide clarification on whether or not this means a state has to use one standard for all functions or can use different standards for different functions. If it is the former, this does 15

16 limit the intended flexibility for the state. To mitigate any unintended inflexibility or confusion, we propose ACF incorporate language allowing states to use broader standards and acceptable formats versus constricting states to one standard. It also results in shifting the burden of proof to the states if they may require an exception, which is not reflected in the impact analysis. We therefore recommend ACF to study the costs associated with states having to prove they may be eligible for an exemption. (a)(4) Automated functions must be capable of being shared, leveraged, and reused as a separate component Similar to comments previously made at (h), it is unclear how states can share specific components of modules with ACF for other entities to reuse especially in cases where a state is modernizing a SACWIS or SACWIS-compliant system. We recommend ACF clarify the process by which states would be able to share these component artifacts within all the relevant scenarios state systems find themselves in relative to modernization, as well as replacement. 53(b) Exemptions of automated functions from design requirements While APHSA appreciates the acknowledgement by ACF that states may require exemptions from different components of the design requirements and for a variety of reasons, we are concerned that the federal government is neither adequately staffed nor budgeted to undertake a review process of this magnitude. APHSA recommends that the Final Rule clearly distinguish for states the extent and scope of ACF s review process of all of these new requirements in a timely manner. Additionally, we recommend for ACF to clarify in the final rule the criteria or sufficient evidence and the burden of proof that will be used to grant the design exemptions listed in this section. For example, if a state has a tiered system, they may already be meeting some of these requirements yet it will present a timely and costly challenge to provide this information when different technology approaches are being used for different automated functions Review and Assessment of CCWIS Projects ACF proposes to review, assess, and inspect the planning, design, development, installation, operation and maintenance of each CCWIS project on a continuing basis in accordance with 45 CFR part 95, subpart F in a manner consistent with current S/TACWIS regulations as laid out in the APD or Notice of Intent. APHSA recommends that the Final Rule clearly distinguish between the extent and scope of ACF s review process for an APD, and that which will be applied to a Notice of Intent for projects costing less 16

17 than $5 million. In both instances, ACF should identify the criteria in the Final Rule that will be used in evaluating both types of projects in order that States understand how best to prepare for the reviews. Because the NPRM uses the term continuing basis. APHSA members believes this implies there will be multiple and frequent assessments of the projects. Please confirm in the Final Rule whether this interpretation is correct. If it is, please provide an explanation as to how ACF will have adequate staff to implement such reviews, and also state where in Section VII Impact Analysis of the NPRM the burden hours that adequately reflect the work associated with such reviews as we do not believe they are included in the proposed rule. We do not believe the federal government, nor the states, are adequately staffed or budgeted at the present time to undertake, or participate in, such a review process. Because the many new requirements discussed in the proposed rule are not yet defined, or defined inadequately at the present time, states are at a loss to know the criteria against which their systems will be reviewed. To remedy this situation, APHSA recommends that the explicit, written review criteria that will be used by ACF system reviewers be published in the form of a checklist and made available to the states prior to any review. Other federal agencies within HHS follow this practice, and we urge ACF to consider doing so as well. We believe that by doing so, the states and the Federal government will reduce the variation in the quality of the views from one state to the next, assure consistency in focusing the limited resources of both the states and the Federal government on the areas of highest priority, and further the ultimate goal of meeting all of the requirements of the Final Rule through the reduction of confusion and needless misunderstandings on everyone s part Requirements for S/TACWIS and non-s/tacwis projects during and after the transition period ACF is proposing new transition requirements that will apply to existing SACWIS projects, some that apply only during the transition period (defined at as 24 months of effective date of final rule), and some that apply during and after the transition. ACF also intends for IV-E agencies to use the transition period to determine if they will use their legacy applications as the foundation of a CCWIS. 56(d) New requirements for states electing to not transition a SACWIS to a CCWIS &56(e) If the state elects to not transition their SACWIS to a CCWIS, they must comply with (d). APHSA recommends subsections (d) and (e) be clarified. It is not clear how an APD or NOI can be used to communicate the information ACF is seeking in the NPRM. What language is ACF desirous to have from a state that does not intend to transition a SACWIS to a CCWIS? Would not a letter from the state be sufficient? If not, what details need to be included? 17

18 Failure to comply resulting in recoupment of funds needs to be based on a very clear statement of what, specifically, would bring this action. Failure to comply with aforementioned requirements is too broad a statement to be of much assistance to states interested in meeting all requirements but not interested in transitioning to a new CCWIS when their current SACWIS is fully compliant with their previously submitted APD Cost allocation for CCWIS projects While in general APHSA does not have any comments on most of the sections within this section, we do have a couple of comments on (a)(2)(ii) and (b)(2)(ii) whereby ACF proposes that a criteria for approval of cost allocation for projects transitioning to a CCWIS and for new CCWIS projects is that the automated function is, (ii) not duplicated within either the CCWIS or other systems supporting child welfare contributing agencies and is consistently used by all child welfare users responsible for the area supported by the automated function. APHSA appreciates the intent of ACF to not provide federal funding for the same function multiple times. However, the reference to precluding federal funding for any other systems supporting child welfare contributing agencies is overly broad. It could be interpreted as precluding a state from receiving federal support for any automated function that might have previously been developed by one or more child welfare contributing agencies in their own data base systems or by other entities in a system that is involved in a data exchange to CCWIS even if the function is not part of data that is being exchanged. APHSA also is concerned with the limit to a function that is consistently used by all child welfare users responsible for the supported area. It is unclear how ACF would define consistently used. Also, the reference to all users is too high a standard as a state cannot guarantee the actions of all users. APHSA recommends that provisions be revised to provide flexibility to the states, especially those that are state supervised and locally administered, and to their child welfare contributing agencies, by permitting federal participation for those functions that may be used by the vast majority of the users but not all of the users. There are certain functions that may be needed by those localities or child welfare agencies that serve a large number of children and families but may not be needed by those that serve only a small number of children and families, such as bed vacancy control. It is recommend that that the requirement be changed to a function that the state requires a large proportion of child welfare users to use and that is used at a particular threshold that ACF and the states agree is practicable given the nature of the work associated with the function and generally recognized levels of non-compliance. 18

19 Conclusion APHSA agrees with the intent of what ACF is proposing in this rule for Comprehensive Child Welfare Information Systems. We believe the NPRM has the potential to enhance modernization efforts of Child Welfare information systems, impart the need for systems to increase their use of data-driven decisionmaking, and encourage IV-E agencies to leverage modern technology to further connect with all partners touching the Child Welfare system. We reiterate our concerns, however, that several provisions restrict states from achieving this desired end based on their specific states needs and direction. We also reiterate our concern that additional clarity is needed on what states will be held accountable for and how they will finance and staff these proposed requirements with little to no additional resources. Finally, we strongly recommend that ACF provide further clarification prior to the Final Rule being promulgated. If the intent is for ACF to provide additional clarification in sub-regulatory guidance rather than the Final Rule, then the twenty-four month transition period should not start until the guidance has been issued because it may be the information a state needs to make a decision on their CCWIS. APHSA appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on provisions of this proposed rule. The modernization of Child Welfare supporting information technology systems serving children and families toward the achievement of improved outcomes for this population and, in the most efficient way, are extremely important to our members. We look forward to working with ACF on these and other issues and appreciate your time and consideration of these comments. Please contact Megan Lape with any questions at (202) , x265 or mlape@aphsa.org. Sincerely, Tracy Wareing Evans Executive Director, APHSA 19