Data Exchange Standards for Improved Interoperability of Multiple Human Service Programs, 55894-55896 [2018-24459]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
55894
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 217 / Thursday, November 8, 2018 / Notices
must submit documentation that
identifies each board member by name
and indicates his/her affiliation or
relationship to at least one of ANA’s
three categories of community
representation, which include: (1)
Members of federally or state-recognized
tribes; (2) persons who are recognized
by members of the eligible Native
American community to be served as
having a cultural relationship with that
community; or (3) persons considered to
be Native American as defined in 45
CFR 1336.10 and Native American
Pacific Islanders as defined in Section
815 of NAPA. ANA wishes to clarify
that the second category of community
representation requires a ‘‘cultural’’
relationship defined as lineage, familial,
marriage, or other traditional or social
connection to the community and not a
business or work relationship, (e.g.
person that owns a business or is
employed by an organization that serves
the Native community). Applicants that
do not include this documentation will
be considered non-responsive, and the
application will not be considered for
competition.
3. Only One Active Award Per CFDA
Number. ANA has a long-standing
policy that organizations can have no
more than one active award per Catalog
of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA)
number for an ANA program at any
given time. SEDS, SEDS–AK, Native
Assets Building Initiative (NABI), and
ILEAD have the same CFDA number
93.612. From FY 2016 to FY 2018, ANA
allowed an exception for organizations
that were applying for the ILEAD FOA
to also have an award for SEDS, SEDS–
AK, or NABI even though they had the
same CFDA number as ILEAD. For FY
2019, this exception will not be
available to any currently funded ILEAD
grantees; therefore, the policy will
remain effective to limit the number of
awards an organization can have under
a single CFDA number. This policy
change will allow other Native
communities without current ANA
funding to receive an award and
therefore increase the impact of funding
in more communities.
4. Evaluation Criteria. In FY 2018,
ANA made substantial revisions to the
application requirements and evaluation
criteria included in our FOAs. The
purpose of these revisions were to shift
from a deficit-based, to strengths-based
approach for application planning and
development, as well as to emphasize a
community-based approach to project
planning and implementation. ANA
stands behind the revisions made in FY
2018 and does not plan to change the
information being requested. However,
during the panel review process, ANA
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Nov 07, 2018
Jkt 247001
received feedback that the revised
evaluation criteria was difficult to
understand and apply. In FY 2019, ANA
will reorder the evaluation criteria and
include sub-criteria with smaller point
allotments. We will also remove
duplications and clarify language. ANA
proposes the following Evaluation
criteria scores for FY 2019:
Expected Outcomes for a maximum of 35
points, to consist of: Long Term Community
Goal (2 points), Current Community
Condition (5 points); Project Goal (4 points);
Objectives (7 points); Outcomes and
Indicators (7 points); Outputs (5 points);
Outcome Tracking Strategy (4 points); and
Outcome Tracker (1 point).
Approach for a maximum of 50 points, to
consist of: Planning, Readiness and
Implementation Strategy (20 points);
Community-Based Strategy (8 points);
Personnel, Partnerships and Organizational
Capacity (12 points); and the Objective Work
Plan (OWP) (10 points).
Budget and Budget Justification for a
maximum of 15 points, to consist of: Line
Item Budget (5 points) and Budget
Justification (10 points).
These changes are meant to reorganize
the information into smaller point
allotments in order to make ANA’s
evaluation criterion more approachable,
and to build consistency in the number
of points being allocated for specific
application information. As a result of
the changes to criteria scoring, ANA
will not use a Scoring Guide in its FY
2019 FOAs.
5. Changes to SEDS–AK FOA. ANA
plans to modify the description of
program purpose for the SEDS–AK FOA
to provide an area of interest for
economic growth. In addition, ANA
wants to provide a competitive
advantage for smaller Alaska Native
villages or organizations that have never
received ANA funding. Therefore, the
FOA will state that reviewers may add
up to 5 bonus points in the scoring
criteria if an eligible entity that has
never received an ANA award. ANA
staff will confirm during the objective
review process whether or not an
applicant organization for SEDS–AK has
received a past ANA award.
Statutory Authority: Section 814 of the
Native American Programs Act of 1974
(NAPA), as amended.
Jean Hovland,
Commissioner, Administration for Native
Americans.
[FR Doc. 2018–24458 Filed 11–7–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4184–34–P
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Administration for Children and
Families
Data Exchange Standards for
Improved Interoperability of Multiple
Human Service Programs
Office of Planning, Research &
Evaluation (OPRE), Administration for
Children and Families (ACF),
Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS).
ACTION: Request for comments.
AGENCY:
A series of statutory changes 1
in recent years require ACF to issue a
regulation to establish standards for data
exchange for the Social Security Act
Title IV programs for child welfare and
foster care (title IV–B and IV–E), child
support (title IV–D), and Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF,
title IV–A). ACF is seeking public
comment on the most effective
approaches and technological tools to
meet the statutory requirements,
support program objectives, and expand
the ability of these programs to use,
share, and analyze data for improved
outcomes.
DATES: Written comments must be
submitted to the office listed in the
ADDRESSES section below on or before
January 7, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons may
submit written comments by any of the
following methods:
• Email: DataRx@acf.hhs.gov. Please
include ‘‘Comments on Data Exchange
Standards Federal Register Notice’’ in
the subject line of the message.
• Mail or Courier Delivery: c/o Chris
Traver, Senior Advisor, Division of Data
& Improvement, Office of Planning,
Research, and Evaluation,
Administration for Children and
Families, 330 C Street SW, Washington,
DC 20201.
Instructions: We urge you to submit
comments electronically to ensure they
are received in a timely manner. All
comments received may be posted
publicly including any personal
information provided. Please be aware
that mail via the U.S. Postal Service may
take an additional 3 to 4 days to process.
If you choose to use an express,
overnight, or other special delivery
method, please ensure first that they are
SUMMARY:
1 Public Law 112–34 for child welfare programs
(SSA Title IV–B); Public Law 112–96 for TANF
programs (SSA Title IV–A); Section 304 of Public
Law 113–183 for child support programs (SSA Title
IV–D); and Public Law 115–123 to amend the prior
TANF (IV–A) language and add language for foster
care programs (SSA Title IV–E).
E:\FR\FM\08NON1.SGM
08NON1
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 217 / Thursday, November 8, 2018 / Notices
able to deliver to the above address
during the normal workweek.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Chris Traver, Senior Advisor, Division
of Data & Improvement, Office of
Planning, Research, and Evaluation,
Administration for Children and
Families, 330 C Street SW, Washington,
DC 20201; (202) 401–4835.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background: Purpose of Data
Exchange Standardization Requirement.
The purpose of the statutory
requirements and corresponding
regulation is to ensure that state human
service programs are able to effectively
share data, both at the state level and
with the federal government. For
instance, states find significant value in
the ability to share or link case level
data from one information system to
another on the same individuals
receiving benefits and/or services in
order to support a holistic, wrap-around
services approach for individuals and
families. To achieve this in an efficient
manner, each agency must agree to
describe the shared data in a common
way. As a simple example, if an agency
records in its information system a
client’s birthdate as 12/11/10, it could
be interpreted by another agency’s
information system as December 11,
2010, and by another agency as
November 12, 2010, or something else
entirely. Those agencies must also agree
on the mechanisms for sharing the data,
such as secure interfaces (including
APIs) 2 or file transfers. Therefore, it is
critical to reach agreement beforehand
regarding the definitions and structures
of data that is shared across programs
and systems. Under the required
regulation, ACF would work with the
states to develop and implement data
exchange standards for certain
categories of information that would
improve the quality and consistency of
human services data sharing
implementation nationwide.
In human services, data sharing is
increasingly relied upon to enable
coordination across programs and
information/system silos, especially for
effective integrated case management
and prevention of improper payments.
For example, if a single mother of two
children is receiving a TANF benefit but
the two children are subsequently
removed and placed into foster care,
data sharing across information systems
would allow the TANF agency to know
that the children are no longer living in
the household and the mother may no
2 Application Programming Interface—https://
www.techopedia.com/definition/24407/applicationprogramming-interface-api.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Nov 07, 2018
Jkt 247001
longer be eligible for the same level of
benefit.
Data sharing also improves the quality
of service delivery. For example, a child
welfare caseworker might be able to
retrieve a family’s current address from
child support data to locate the family
for an in-person visit or locate the
absent parent for possible placement of
the children. Additionally, a data
exchange between a child welfare
agency with care and custody of a child
and a child-placing agency with
physical custody would ensure both
agencies have the most current
information on the child in care.
The importance of data sharing may
be well understood. However, the
preferred implementation method may
vary by agency. The greater the degree
of standardization, the easier it is to
share data across organizations. While
more effective and cost effective in the
long run, this approach requires a
standardized format, structure, and
methods for sharing the data prior to
implementation and may initially
introduce additional considerations that
influence time and cost. Therefore, the
final regulation will seek the
appropriate balance between the
benefits of standardization and ease of
implementation.
Regulation Development
The Office of Planning, Research, and
Evaluation (OPRE) will lead the drafting
of the regulation with subject matter
expertise from the ACF Children’s
Bureau (CB), Office of Child Support
Enforcement (OCSE), and Office of
Family Assistance (OFA). Additionally,
OPRE will consult with other agencies
that may be impacted by the regulation
through existing or future data exchange
relationships, such as the Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)
and the Health Resources and Services
Administration (HRSA).
Definitions (for the Purposes of This
Request for Comment)
Data Exchange should refer to any
sharing of information, whether through
transfer of data, expanded access to
data, or any other mechanism that
increases the utilization of information.
Data exchange could include sharing for
the purposes of case management,
program administration, data reporting,
analytics, etc. It is generally thought to
refer to exchange of data across
program, organizational, or
jurisdictional boundaries, but this is not
strictly necessary to be considered an
exchange of information. In this context,
data exchange typically refers to the
electronic exchange of data via
automated data systems, rather than
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
55895
through more traditional, often paperbased, means.
Standards should refer to any
documented, consistent, and repeatable
method for exchanging data, either
through technical or non-technical
means. There are technical standards for
the electronic exchange of data (such as
through tools including the National
Information Exchange Model (NIEM),3
and there are also standards of practice
in the context of business process.
These are often codified in policies,
interagency agreements, memoranda of
understanding, service-level
agreements, etc.
What We Are Looking for in Public
Comments
ACF is committed to providing state
agencies with flexibility to implement
standards for economical, efficient, and
effective information systems that
support policy and practice. Therefore,
we are soliciting comments from
interested parties on setting standards
for data exchanges that affect the SSA
Title IV programs for child welfare and
foster care (title IV–B and IV–E), child
support (title IV–D), and Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF,
title IV–A). But we are also interested in
receiving input affecting additional
programs. Please comment on any
aspects of the planned Data Exchange
Standards Regulation that you wish.
We are particularly interested in
obtaining responses to the following
questions:
1. The ability to share data is often
impacted by state or federal law,
policies, or other governing frameworks.
Are there individual programs or
agencies that are particularly impacted
by their existence or absence? What are
the key enablers and/or barriers to
automated data exchange in your
program or agency?
2. To what degree, if any, are data
exchange efforts negatively impacted by
a lack of standardization? In other
words, where would greater consistency
of data (definitions, format, and
structure) help improve existing or
planned data exchanges?
3. Have you considered adopting a
standards-based approach to data
exchange? If so, were any existing
standards frameworks (such as the
National Information Exchange Model)
considered, and what influenced the
decision for or against? What are some
of the benefits (planned or achieved) of
adopting a standards-based approach?
4. What factors should be considered
before committing to a standards-based
3 https://www.niem.gov/communities/humanservices.
E:\FR\FM\08NON1.SGM
08NON1
55896
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 217 / Thursday, November 8, 2018 / Notices
approach to data exchange? This might
include timing (procurement, fiscal
year, or legislative cycles), cost,
availability of required expertise,
needed regulatory change, impacts on
current practices, etc.
5. If a more standards-based approach
to data exchange were adopted, what
kinds of technical assistance or training
would you anticipate needing, if any?
ACF appreciates any and all
comments on the above questions, or
related recommendations. Comments
will be considered carefully and used to
inform the development of a planned
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, which
is anticipated to be published in the
spring of 2019.
Dated: October 25, 2018.
Lynn A. Johnson,
Assistant Secretary for Children and Families.
[FR Doc. 2018–24459 Filed 11–7–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4184–79–P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
[Docket No. FDA–2018–N–3442]
Agency Information Collection
Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Web-Based Pilot
Survey To Assess Allergy to
Cosmetics in the United States
AGENCY:
Food and Drug Administration,
HHS.
ACTION:
Notice.
The Food and Drug
Administration (FDA or Agency) is
announcing an opportunity for public
comment on the proposed collection of
certain information by the Agency.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (PRA), Federal Agencies are
required to publish notice in the
Federal Register concerning each
proposed collection of information and
to allow 60 days for public comment in
response to the notice. This notice
solicits comments on a pilot study
entitled ‘‘Web-based Pilot Survey to
Assess Allergy to Cosmetics in the
United States.’’
DATES: Submit either electronic or
written comments on the collection of
information by January 7, 2019.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
as follows. Please note that late,
untimely filed comments will not be
considered. Electronic comments must
be submitted on or before January 7,
2019. The https://www.regulations.gov
electronic filing system will accept
comments until 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Nov 07, 2018
Jkt 247001
at the end of January 7, 2019. Comments
received by mail/hand delivery/courier
(for written/paper submissions) will be
considered timely if they are
postmarked or the delivery service
acceptance receipt is on or before that
date.
Electronic Submissions
Submit electronic comments in the
following way:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
Comments submitted electronically,
including attachments, to https://
www.regulations.gov will be posted to
the docket unchanged. Because your
comment will be made public, you are
solely responsible for ensuring that your
comment does not include any
confidential information that you or a
third party may not wish to be posted,
such as medical information, your or
anyone else’s Social Security number, or
confidential business information, such
as a manufacturing process. Please note
that if you include your name, contact
information, or other information that
identifies you in the body of your
comments, that information will be
posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
• If you want to submit a comment
with confidential information that you
do not wish to be made available to the
public, submit the comment as a
written/paper submission and in the
manner detailed (see ‘‘Written/Paper
Submissions’’ and ‘‘Instructions’’).
Written/Paper Submissions
Submit written/paper submissions as
follows:
• Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for
written/paper submissions): Dockets
Management Staff (HFA–305), Food and
Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers
Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
• For written/paper comments
submitted to the Dockets Management
Staff, FDA will post your comment, as
well as any attachments, except for
information submitted, marked and
identified, as confidential, if submitted
as detailed in ‘‘Instructions.’’
Instructions: All submissions received
must include the Docket No. FDA–
2018–N–3442 for ‘‘Agency Information
Collection Activities; Proposed
Collection; Comment Request; Webbased Pilot Survey to Assess Allergy to
Cosmetics in the United States.’’
Received comments, those filed in a
timely manner (see ADDRESSES), will be
placed in the docket and, except for
those submitted as ‘‘Confidential
Submissions,’’ publicly viewable at
https://www.regulations.gov or at the
Dockets Management Staff between 9
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday.
• Confidential Submissions—To
submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be
made publicly available, submit your
comments only as a written/paper
submission. You should submit two
copies total. One copy will include the
information you claim to be confidential
with a heading or cover note that states
‘‘THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.’’ The
Agency will review this copy, including
the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The
second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information
redacted/blacked out, will be available
for public viewing and posted on
https://www.regulations.gov. Submit
both copies to the Dockets Management
Staff. If you do not wish your name and
contact information to be made publicly
available, you can provide this
information on the cover sheet and not
in the body of your comments and you
must identify this information as
‘‘confidential.’’ Any information marked
as ‘‘confidential’’ will not be disclosed
except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20
and other applicable disclosure law. For
more information about FDA’s posting
of comments to public dockets, see 80
FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access
the information at: https://www.gpo.gov/
fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/201523389.pdf.
Docket: For access to the docket to
read background documents or the
electronic and written/paper comments
received, go to https://
www.regulations.gov and insert the
docket number, found in brackets in the
heading of this document, into the
‘‘Search’’ box and follow the prompts
and/or go to the Dockets Management
Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061,
Rockville, MD 20852.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Domini Bean, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, Three
White Flint North, 10A–12M, 11601
Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD
20852, 301–796–5733, PRAStaff@
fda.hhs.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the
PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), Federal
Agencies must obtain approval from the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for each collection of
information they conduct or sponsor.
‘‘Collection of information’’ is defined
in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR
1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests
or requirements that members of the
public submit reports, keep records, or
provide information to a third party.
E:\FR\FM\08NON1.SGM
08NON1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 217 (Thursday, November 8, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55894-55896]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-24459]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Administration for Children and Families
Data Exchange Standards for Improved Interoperability of Multiple
Human Service Programs
AGENCY: Office of Planning, Research & Evaluation (OPRE),
Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS).
ACTION: Request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: A series of statutory changes \1\ in recent years require ACF
to issue a regulation to establish standards for data exchange for the
Social Security Act Title IV programs for child welfare and foster care
(title IV-B and IV-E), child support (title IV-D), and Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF, title IV-A). ACF is seeking public
comment on the most effective approaches and technological tools to
meet the statutory requirements, support program objectives, and expand
the ability of these programs to use, share, and analyze data for
improved outcomes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Public Law 112-34 for child welfare programs (SSA Title IV-
B); Public Law 112-96 for TANF programs (SSA Title IV-A); Section
304 of Public Law 113-183 for child support programs (SSA Title IV-
D); and Public Law 115-123 to amend the prior TANF (IV-A) language
and add language for foster care programs (SSA Title IV-E).
DATES: Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADDRESSES section below on or before January 7, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons may submit written comments by any of the
following methods:
Email: [email protected]. Please include ``Comments on
Data Exchange Standards Federal Register Notice'' in the subject line
of the message.
Mail or Courier Delivery: c/o Chris Traver, Senior
Advisor, Division of Data & Improvement, Office of Planning, Research,
and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, 330 C Street
SW, Washington, DC 20201.
Instructions: We urge you to submit comments electronically to
ensure they are received in a timely manner. All comments received may
be posted publicly including any personal information provided. Please
be aware that mail via the U.S. Postal Service may take an additional 3
to 4 days to process. If you choose to use an express, overnight, or
other special delivery method, please ensure first that they are
[[Page 55895]]
able to deliver to the above address during the normal workweek.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chris Traver, Senior Advisor, Division
of Data & Improvement, Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation,
Administration for Children and Families, 330 C Street SW, Washington,
DC 20201; (202) 401-4835.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background: Purpose of Data Exchange Standardization Requirement.
The purpose of the statutory requirements and corresponding
regulation is to ensure that state human service programs are able to
effectively share data, both at the state level and with the federal
government. For instance, states find significant value in the ability
to share or link case level data from one information system to another
on the same individuals receiving benefits and/or services in order to
support a holistic, wrap-around services approach for individuals and
families. To achieve this in an efficient manner, each agency must
agree to describe the shared data in a common way. As a simple example,
if an agency records in its information system a client's birthdate as
12/11/10, it could be interpreted by another agency's information
system as December 11, 2010, and by another agency as November 12,
2010, or something else entirely. Those agencies must also agree on the
mechanisms for sharing the data, such as secure interfaces (including
APIs) \2\ or file transfers. Therefore, it is critical to reach
agreement beforehand regarding the definitions and structures of data
that is shared across programs and systems. Under the required
regulation, ACF would work with the states to develop and implement
data exchange standards for certain categories of information that
would improve the quality and consistency of human services data
sharing implementation nationwide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Application Programming Interface--https://www.techopedia.com/definition/24407/application-programming-interface-api.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In human services, data sharing is increasingly relied upon to
enable coordination across programs and information/system silos,
especially for effective integrated case management and prevention of
improper payments. For example, if a single mother of two children is
receiving a TANF benefit but the two children are subsequently removed
and placed into foster care, data sharing across information systems
would allow the TANF agency to know that the children are no longer
living in the household and the mother may no longer be eligible for
the same level of benefit.
Data sharing also improves the quality of service delivery. For
example, a child welfare caseworker might be able to retrieve a
family's current address from child support data to locate the family
for an in-person visit or locate the absent parent for possible
placement of the children. Additionally, a data exchange between a
child welfare agency with care and custody of a child and a child-
placing agency with physical custody would ensure both agencies have
the most current information on the child in care.
The importance of data sharing may be well understood. However, the
preferred implementation method may vary by agency. The greater the
degree of standardization, the easier it is to share data across
organizations. While more effective and cost effective in the long run,
this approach requires a standardized format, structure, and methods
for sharing the data prior to implementation and may initially
introduce additional considerations that influence time and cost.
Therefore, the final regulation will seek the appropriate balance
between the benefits of standardization and ease of implementation.
Regulation Development
The Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (OPRE) will lead
the drafting of the regulation with subject matter expertise from the
ACF Children's Bureau (CB), Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE),
and Office of Family Assistance (OFA). Additionally, OPRE will consult
with other agencies that may be impacted by the regulation through
existing or future data exchange relationships, such as the Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and the Health Resources and
Services Administration (HRSA).
Definitions (for the Purposes of This Request for Comment)
Data Exchange should refer to any sharing of information, whether
through transfer of data, expanded access to data, or any other
mechanism that increases the utilization of information. Data exchange
could include sharing for the purposes of case management, program
administration, data reporting, analytics, etc. It is generally thought
to refer to exchange of data across program, organizational, or
jurisdictional boundaries, but this is not strictly necessary to be
considered an exchange of information. In this context, data exchange
typically refers to the electronic exchange of data via automated data
systems, rather than through more traditional, often paper-based,
means.
Standards should refer to any documented, consistent, and
repeatable method for exchanging data, either through technical or non-
technical means. There are technical standards for the electronic
exchange of data (such as through tools including the National
Information Exchange Model (NIEM),\3\ and there are also standards of
practice in the context of business process. These are often codified
in policies, interagency agreements, memoranda of understanding,
service-level agreements, etc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https://www.niem.gov/communities/human-services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What We Are Looking for in Public Comments
ACF is committed to providing state agencies with flexibility to
implement standards for economical, efficient, and effective
information systems that support policy and practice. Therefore, we are
soliciting comments from interested parties on setting standards for
data exchanges that affect the SSA Title IV programs for child welfare
and foster care (title IV-B and IV-E), child support (title IV-D), and
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF, title IV-A). But we are
also interested in receiving input affecting additional programs.
Please comment on any aspects of the planned Data Exchange Standards
Regulation that you wish.
We are particularly interested in obtaining responses to the
following questions:
1. The ability to share data is often impacted by state or federal
law, policies, or other governing frameworks. Are there individual
programs or agencies that are particularly impacted by their existence
or absence? What are the key enablers and/or barriers to automated data
exchange in your program or agency?
2. To what degree, if any, are data exchange efforts negatively
impacted by a lack of standardization? In other words, where would
greater consistency of data (definitions, format, and structure) help
improve existing or planned data exchanges?
3. Have you considered adopting a standards-based approach to data
exchange? If so, were any existing standards frameworks (such as the
National Information Exchange Model) considered, and what influenced
the decision for or against? What are some of the benefits (planned or
achieved) of adopting a standards-based approach?
4. What factors should be considered before committing to a
standards-based
[[Page 55896]]
approach to data exchange? This might include timing (procurement,
fiscal year, or legislative cycles), cost, availability of required
expertise, needed regulatory change, impacts on current practices, etc.
5. If a more standards-based approach to data exchange were
adopted, what kinds of technical assistance or training would you
anticipate needing, if any?
ACF appreciates any and all comments on the above questions, or
related recommendations. Comments will be considered carefully and used
to inform the development of a planned Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
which is anticipated to be published in the spring of 2019.
Dated: October 25, 2018.
Lynn A. Johnson,
Assistant Secretary for Children and Families.
[FR Doc. 2018-24459 Filed 11-7-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4184-79-P
