Attachment_E.docx

Attachment E: Minnesota’s Child Welfare Ecosystem This document is for informational purposes only.

Attachment E: Minnesota’s Child Welfare Ecosystem provides an overview of Minnesota’s child welfare practice ecosystem, including who delivers services, how practice is organized, and the interested parties who shape the policy, operations, and data requirements the Comprehensive Child Welfare Information System (CCWIS) should support.

Minnesota operates a state supervised, locally administered child welfare system. The Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF) establishes statewide policy, practice standards, funding parameters, and oversight requirements, with counties and Tribal Nations holding primary responsibility for intake, investigation/assessment, ongoing case management, placement, licensing, permanency, and prevention services. This structure fundamentally influences how child welfare work is performed across the state and creates important implications for system configuration, governance, data sharing, and user experience.

This attachment describes:

· How child welfare services are organized and delivered across the State, counties, and Tribal Nations

· The diversity of agencies, partners, and interested parties that interact with child welfare information

· Key policy, practice, and operational factors that drive system requirements and implementation complexity The content in this attachment is informational only and is not intended to introduce new requirements beyond those defined in the Requirements Traceability Matrices (RTMs) and other RFP attachments. Responders should use this information to inform a proposed approach to system architecture, configuration strategies, data governance, interoperability, security, accessibility, training, and phased rollout planning.

Responders are expected to consider this context when estimating scope, cost, schedule, and resource requirements, and when designing a solution capable of operating effectively across a diverse, statewide child welfare environment. Detailed specifications, acceptance criteria, and response instructions are provided in the applicable RTMs and attachments included with this solicitation.

Section 1: Overview of Minnesota’s Child Welfare Practice Model Minnesota’s child welfare system operates under a state supervised, locally administered model. This structure defines how authority, responsibility, and accountability are distributed across State, county, and Tribal entities and is a primary driver of CCWIS design and implementation complexity.

At the State level, the Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF) establishes statewide child welfare policy, practice standards, funding parameters, and oversight expectations. DCYF is responsible for interpreting and implementing federal and state law, administering funding programs, monitoring compliance, performing statewide reporting and analysis, and providing guidance and technical assistance to local agencies. State program and oversight staff rely on child welfare information to support licensing, quality assurance, fiscal oversight, program monitoring, and continuous improvement activities.

Primary service delivery responsibility rests with Minnesota’s 87 counties and federally recognized Tribal Nations. Local jurisdictions are responsible for intake and screening of reports, investigations and assessments, ongoing case management, placement and permanency activities, licensing, prevention services, and coordination with courts and service providers. Organizational structures vary significantly based on agency size, geography, and resources. Larger agencies may employ specialized staff aligned to specific functions or stages of work, while smaller agencies often rely on generalist roles that span multiple program areas.

Minnesota has 11 Tribal Nations, three (3) of which operate child welfare programs under Title IV E agreements with the State as American Indian Child Welfare Initiative Tribes (AICWIT). These Tribal Nations administer services consistent with Tribal law, governance, and cultural practice while coordinating with State and county partners where jurisdiction, funding, or service responsibilities intersect. Tribal sovereignty is a foundational principle of Minnesota’s child welfare system and has direct implications for CCWIS data ownership, access controls, configuration, and data sharing approaches.

Because Minnesota is locally administered, child welfare practice is not uniform statewide. Workflows, documentation practices, staffing models, and local partnerships vary across jurisdictions. Counties may also participate in multi county collaboratives or consortiums to share staff, infrastructure, or specialized services. At the same time, Minnesota seeks to increase statewide consistency where feasible by aligning policy, reporting, data standards, and oversight expectations across all jurisdictions.

The CCWIS solution must therefore support:

· Consistent statewide policy implementation, reporting, and oversight

· Configurable workflows, roles, and forms to reflect local and Tribal practice variation

· Secure data sharing and access controls that respect Tribal sovereignty and jurisdictional boundaries

· Collaboration among State agencies, counties, Tribal Nations, courts, service providers, and community partners Responders should use this operating model context to inform their proposed approach to solution configuration, governance, interoperability, access management, and phased implementation, recognizing the balance Minnesota seeks between statewide standardization and locally administered service delivery.

Section 2: Key Agencies, Organizations, and Practice Partners Numerous entities shape, deliver, support, or oversee child welfare practice in Minnesota. The subsections below distinguish State Agencies and local jurisdictions, providing insight to Responders regarding who sets policy, who delivers services, and who influences workforce and system needs across the state.

Local and State agencies are further supported by a variety of organizations and advocacy groups, as well as organizations which represent specific interested parties. The content below outlines the various partners and interested parties (aka “stakeholder,” a term intentionally not used within Minnesota) involved in some way in the child welfare system, or Minnesota social services more generally.

State-Level Oversight, Policy, and Enterprise Partners The Department of Human Services (DHS) split into three state agencies beginning in June of 2024, representing a significant change for the oversight of combined social services in Minnesota. DCYF was established through the split and received staff from DHS, Minnesota Department of Education (MDE), Minnesota Department of Health (MDH), and Minnesota Department of Public Safety (DPS) in waves through July 2025.

The Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF) is the lead State agency for child welfare and serves as the primary owner of statewide policy, practice standards, funding frameworks, and oversight requirements that CCWIS must support. DCYF is responsible for interpreting and implementing federal and state law, administering Title IV‑E and other funding programs, monitoring compliance, and overseeing statewide performance, quality assurance, and reporting. State staff rely on child welfare information to conduct licensing and investigations, perform fiscal oversight and claiming validation, support federal reporting, and monitor outcomes across all local jurisdictions.

In addition to DCYF, several State agencies operate programs that intersect with child welfare populations and services and therefore depend on accurate, timely, and governed child welfare data. These include the Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS), Minnesota Department of Health (MDH), Minnesota Department of Education (MDE), and Minnesota Department of Public Safety (DPS). While program authority may reside outside DCYF, these agencies may rely on CCWIS data for regulatory functions, eligibility determination, reporting, or coordination of services. Some intersecting programs continue to actively use SSIS today, creating dependencies that must be considered in transition planning, data migration, integration design, and cutover sequencing.

Minnesota IT Services (MNIT) provides oversight into enterprise technology, shared services, and statewide standards that apply to CCWIS. MNIT establishes requirements related to security, identity and access management, cloud hosting, integration patterns, monitoring, and compliance with statewide technology policies. MNIT-DCYF supports DCYF systems directly. CCWIS solutions are expected to align with MNIT enterprise architecture principles and leverage approved tools, platforms, and services to the extent feasible.

Together, these State‑level organizations shape the governance environment within which CCWIS is implemented and operated. Their roles introduce additional considerations for solution architecture, security controls, data governance, interoperability, approval processes, and ongoing operations. Responders should account for State‑level oversight, enterprise standards, and dependencies when proposing their solution architecture, implementation approach, staffing model, schedule, and overall cost.

County and Tribal Child Welfare Agencies Minnesota’s 87 counties deliver the majority of child welfare services, including intake, investigation and assessment, ongoing case management, placement and permanency activities, licensing, and prevention services. County organizational structures vary widely based on size and resources. Some counties employ highly specialized roles, while others rely on generalist staff who perform multiple functions across program areas. Several counties participate in multi county collaboratives or consortia to share staff, infrastructure, or specialized services.

Minnesota’s Tribal Nations are essential governmental partners in the child welfare system. Three Tribal Nations operate child welfare programs under Title IV E agreements with the State as American Indian Child Welfare Initiative Tribes (AICWIT). These Tribal Nations administer services under Tribal law and governance while coordinating with State and county partners where responsibilities intersect. Tribal sovereignty has direct implications for CCWIS data ownership, access, configuration, and data sharing models. The CCWIS solution must support configurable approaches to integration and access that respect Tribal authority and negotiated agreements.

Comprised of 11 regions, the map below is the standard composition of counties, with insight into the geographic location of the three AICWIT tribes. The composition of this map into regions is a production of the Minnesota Association of County Social Services Administrators (MACSSA).

Supporting Organizations, Associations, and Collaboratives County and statewide associations Several organizations support local agencies and serve to build partnerships across agencies, advocate for meaningful system improvement, and influence policy and legislation as a statewide voice. These include the Minnesota Association of County Social Service Administrators (MACSSA), Association of Minnesota Counties (AMC), and Minnesota County Health and Human Services Accountants (MCHHSA). MACSSA represents county social services leadership and provides a forum for shared planning and feedback on statewide initiatives that affect local practice and systems. AMC represents county commissioners and supports county perspectives on policy and funding. MCHHSA group supports fiscal collaboration and technical discussions related to program claiming and financial operations.

Judicial, legal, and multidisciplinary partners The Minnesota Children’s Justice Initiative promotes collaboration among courts, county attorneys, and child welfare professionals to improve outcomes. Additional partners include Guardian ad Litem and court appointed special advocate roles, legal counsel, and law enforcement agencies involved in investigations and court processes. Coordination with these partners often requires secure information sharing that supports statutory requirements and due process.

Advocacy, advisory, and oversight bodies Minnesota maintains advisory, review, and oversight entities that contribute to system improvement. Examples include the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) Council, Minnesota Citizen Review Panels, the Offices of Ombudsperson for Families and Foster Youth, and statewide task forces on child protection and human trafficking. These bodies provide input on policy, practice, and outcomes that inform program design, workforce training, and system change efforts.

Community based prevention and contracted providers Prevention providers and Community/Family Resource Centers deliver family strengthening supports and other prevention services focused on meeting families’ needs at the earliest point possible. These upstream prevention services are aligned with the Family First Prevention Services Act (FFPSA). Many of these organizations do not currently use a statewide case management system. They rely on referral, coordination, and data sharing workflows with counties, Tribal agencies, and state partners. Private or nonprofit placement agencies and placement providers also interact with county and Tribal agencies to support licensing, placement, and permanency goals.

Training, Workforce Development, and Evaluation Partners Statewide training, workforce development, and evaluation partners support consistent practice and system adoption across jurisdictions. These partners contribute to workforce readiness, training development, and evaluation activities and may require governed access to training environments, documentation, or de‑identified data to fulfill their roles This constellation of state agencies, county and Tribal agencies, and supporting organizations defines Minnesota’s practice ecosystem and sets expectations for how CCWIS should support policy implementation, frontline practice, partner coordination, and workforce development across the state.

Section 3: Interested Parties and Access Patterns A wide range of individuals and organizations use, influence, or depend on child welfare information in Minnesota. These interested parties interact with CCWIS in different ways based on their roles, authority, and statutory responsibilities. Understanding these interaction patterns is critical for designing appropriate role‑based access, portal strategies, data exchanges, reporting, and governance controls.

Primary Interested Party Groups Child welfare information supports both direct service delivery and oversight, coordination, and accountability functions. Interested parties fall into the following broad categories:

· Children, youth, and families receive prevention, child protection, foster care, adoption, or transition supports and may require access to personal records, notices, or documents as permitted by law.

· Frontline workers and supervisors in county and Tribal agencies who perform intake, investigations, case management, placement, licensing, prevention, and youth transition activities.

· County and Tribal leadership responsible for operational oversight, workload management, compliance, and resource allocation.

· State program and oversight staff who support licensing, fiscal oversight, reporting, quality assurance, monitoring, and federal compliance activities.

· Courts and legal partners, including State, county, and Tribal courts and attorneys, guardians ad litem, and other court‑appointed roles who require timely access to case information, affidavits, orders, and hearing documentation.

· Service providers and prevention partners, including Community and Family Resource Centers, placement providers, and contracted organizations that coordinate with child welfare agencies but may not use a statewide case management system.

· Training, research, and evaluation partners who support workforce development, implementation readiness, and evaluation activities and may require governed access to training environments or de‑identified data.

· Advisory, review, and oversight bodies, such as ombudsperson offices and citizen review panels, that require access to specific case information or aggregate reporting consistent with statutory authority.

· Policymakers and the public, who rely on aggregate and de‑identified information for transparency, accountability, and policy decision making.

Typical Interaction with CCWIS The table below summarizes how interested parties generally interact with CCWIS and the primary access modes envisioned. This information is intended to guide solution design and access strategies rather than prescribe specific technical implementations.

Access, Privacy, and Governance Considerations Access to child welfare information must align with federal and state law, court rules, and agency policy. CCWIS must support least privilege principles, role based authorization, auditability, and configurable access controls. Special attention is required to support Tribal sovereignty, including configurable data sharing, segregation where required, and adherence to negotiated agreements.

Responders should use these interaction patterns to inform assumptions regarding role configuration, portal design, interoperability, reporting, security controls, and implementation sequencing when proposing their CCWIS solution and approach.

This section provides insight to the people and organizations that use, influence, or depend on child welfare information across Minnesota. It groups interested parties into clear categories and describes how each may engage with CCWIS.

Section 4: Practice and Policy Initiatives Shaping Minnesota Child Welfare Practice Minnesota’s child welfare practice is shaped by an interconnected set of federal requirements, state statutes, and Minnesota‑specific initiatives that influence how work is performed, how decisions are documented, and how outcomes are evaluated. These initiatives collectively inform expectations for data capture, reporting, coordination, and oversight that the CCWIS solution must support.

Federal Programs and Reporting Context Minnesota participates in all core federal child welfare programs and reporting requirements, including Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS), National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS), National Youth in Transition Database (NYTD), Child and Family Service Review (CFSR), Social Security Act Title IV-E and Title IV-B programs, Family First Prevention Report (FFPSA), and National Electronic Interstate Compact Enterprise (NEICE). These programs establish baseline expectations related to documentation, eligibility, service tracking, and outcomes reporting. Responders are expected to be familiar with these federal requirements. Comment by Shypulski, Cynthia L (DCYF): my suggestion would be to add the federal Prevention Services report and remove FFPSA for uniformity in listing the key federal reports and not all of the program requirements Comment by Lipton, Hilari: changed Minnesota Statutory and Policy Drivers A variety of Minnesota specific practices, policies, and programs are explained in more detail across the DHS and DCYF public websites, specific to child protection, child welfare, foster care and foster youth transitions, adoption and kinship, and American Indian well-being. These policies introduce requirements for data tracking, eligibility determination, reporting, and workflow configuration that should be supported by the system. Several Minnesota specific policies and legislative mandates with relevance to the CCWIS project are listed below.

Minnesota African America Family Preservation and Child Welfare Disproportionality Act (MAAFPCWDA) addresses long-standing disparities in child welfare and promote family preservation. The Act requires social service agencies to provide active efforts to prevent out-of-home placement and reunify families for all children for whom the act applies, among other requirements for eligible children.

Minnesota Indian Family Preservation Act (MIFPA) strengthens and expands key provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act and applies to children with Tribal lineage. It affirms that Tribes are best positioned to provide direction regarding the best interests of Tribal children, emphasizes the importance of preserving Tribal identity and promotes state and Tribal collaboration to ensure the best interests of Indian children are prioritized in child welfare services.

American Indian Child Welfare Initiative (AICWI) is a collaborative effort that has transferred child welfare services from county to Tribal child welfare delivery systems on the Leech Lake, White Earth, and Red Lake reservations. This program empowers Tribes to deliver essential services such as child protection, foster care and adoption/kinship, enhancing cultural competency and service delivery.

Minnesota Parent Support Outreach Program (PSOP) is a voluntary, early intervention program that focuses on a family’s strengths and needs and aims to help children and parents thrive. The program aims to enhance the well-being of children and families, ensure and maintain safety for children and support families so they can meet the needs of their children by themselves and through support systems. Families can refer themselves or be referred to by community or social service agencies.

Northstar Care for Children is a fiscal program designed to ensure that children in foster care, kinship care, or adoption receive uniform, consistent benefits.

Minnesota Assessment of Parenting for Children and Youth (MAPCY) is an assessment tool used to identify the caregiving behaviors provided by kin or foster parents based on the needs of a particular child/youth and determines benefits for Northstar Care for Children.

Successful Transition to Adulthood for Youth (STAY) provides independent living services to eligible youth who are currently or were formerly in foster care and are still working with a county or Tribal case manager. Its goal is to help young people achieve self-sufficiency while preparing for the transition from adolescence to adulthood.

Minnesota Safe Harbor Law ensures that sexually exploited youth are treated as victims and survivors, not criminals. The law includes the No Wrong Door model, which provides a network of victim-centered, trauma-informed services and safe housing for youth. The law protects youth from being charged with crimes related to their conduct and mandates that all reports of suspected child-trafficking be screened into the child protection system as a form of sexual abuse, regardless of the youth’s relationship to the alleged offender.

Targeted Case Management Claiming (TCM) requires meeting specific eligibility and administrative requirements. Individuals under age 21 who qualify for Medical Assistance and have been assessed by a county or Tribal social services agency are eligible to receive services. Providers should be certified by the Minnesota DHS to obtain Medical Assistance reimbursement. Case managers are responsible for developing an individualized service plan that coordinates and connects clients with necessary community resources. To receive payment, certified providers should submit claims for services delivered in accordance with state policy guidelines established by the Minnesota DHS. Claiming for TCM is currently facilitated by functionality in SSIS.

Section 5: Minnesota Child Welfare Practice Framework Minnesota’s Child Welfare Framework is guided by a shared, statewide practice that establishes consistent goals and values while allowing flexibility in how those principles are applied across counties and Tribal Nations. This framework shapes policy, workforce expectations, performance measurement, and system design and provides essential context for how CCWIS must support child welfare practice across diverse jurisdictions.

Practice Outcomes and Core Principles Minnesota’s child welfare practice framework emphasizes outcomes related to child safety, permanency, well‑being, equity, and family engagement. The framework seeks to ensure that children are cared for in safe, stable, and nurturing environments; that families are engaged as partners in planning and decision making; and that outcomes are equitable across communities, including American Indian children and families.

Core principles that influence system design and use include:

· Safety and risk assessment, with timely identification and documentation of safety concerns

· Timely permanency, including reunification, kinship care, guardianship, and adoption

· Family‑centered practice, emphasizing engagement with parents, caregivers, and extended family

· Cultural responsiveness and Tribal partnership, recognizing Tribal sovereignty and community values

· Equity and continuous improvement, supported through data, reporting, and quality oversight

· Collaboration across systems, including courts, service providers, and community partners These principles inform how work is documented, reviewed, and evaluated across child welfare programs and must be supported consistently in CCWIS workflows, data structures, and reporting.

Practice Models and Local Application While statewide guidance establishes shared expectations, counties and Tribal Nations operationalize practice through locally selected models, tools, and procedures that align with their workforce structures and community needs. These may include structured decision‑making tools, family group decision‑making approaches, motivational interviewing techniques, prevention‑focused practice models, and Tribal‑specific frameworks grounded in Tribal law and culture.

This localized application results in variation in how assessments are completed, case plans are documented, services are coordinated, and outcomes are monitored. CCWIS must therefore support configurable workflows, forms, and documentation practices while maintaining statewide policy alignment, reporting consistency, and data integrity.

The Whole Family Approach Minnesota is implementing a Whole Family Approach, which emphasizes addressing the needs of children and caregivers together and coordinating services across programs and systems. This approach reflects a shift toward prevention, early intervention, and cross‑system collaboration and has implications for referrals, service tracking, information sharing, and data visibility across child welfare and related programs.

Implications for CCWIS Design and Implementation The Minnesota Child Welfare Practice Framework establishes clear expectations for CCWIS to:

· Support consistent statewide policy, reporting, and oversight

· Enable flexible, configurable workflows that reflect diverse practice models

· Facilitate collaboration with families, Tribes, courts, and service providers

· Provide data structures and reporting that support equity analysis and continuous improvement

· Accommodate prevention‑focused and cross‑program coordination Responders should use this practice framework context to inform solution design, configuration strategies, reporting approaches, and implementation planning in a manner that supports effective, equitable child welfare practice statewide.

Section 6: Workforce Training, Support, and Change Enablement Minnesota’s child welfare workforce is central to the successful implementation and sustained use of CCWIS. The workforce spans State agencies, counties, county collaboratives, and Tribal Nations and includes a wide range of functional roles that interact with child welfare information in different ways. Effective training, support, and change enablement are critical to ensuring that CCWIS adoption strengthens practice and does not disrupt essential services.

Workforce Composition and Variation The composition of the child welfare workforce varies significantly across jurisdictions. Larger agencies may employ specialized roles aligned to specific functions or stages of work, while smaller counties and many Tribal agencies rely on generalist staff who perform multiple functions across program areas. State staff perform oversight, licensing, fiscal management, quality assurance, reporting, and evaluation functions and rely on CCWIS data to fulfill statutory and operational responsibilities.

These differences influence how staff interact with the system, the types of workflows they support, and the training and onboarding approaches required. Vendors should assume the CCWIS user base includes both highly specialized users and generalists, as well as State staff whose work emphasizes oversight and reporting rather than direct service delivery.

Training and Support Environment Minnesota maintains established statewide training and support structures that will be leveraged during CCWIS implementation and transition. Training is expected to be role‑appropriate, accessible, and aligned with phased implementation and regional rollout activities. Training activities must support initial deployment, reinforcement over time, and onboarding of new staff following Go‑Live.

In addition to end‑user training, technical and operational staff require targeted training related to system administration, configuration promotion, monitoring, reporting, and support workflows. Vendors should anticipate close collaboration with State partners to align training content, timing, and delivery mechanisms with implementation milestones and readiness activities.

Change Enablement and Adoption Considerations CCWIS implementation represents a significant change for Minnesota’s child welfare workforce. Successful adoption depends on proactive change enablement that recognizes existing workloads, variation in readiness across jurisdictions, and the critical nature of child welfare operations. Engagement of frontline staff, supervisors, local leadership, and State program staff throughout design, configuration validation, testing, and rollout is essential.

Change enablement activities should emphasize clear communication, predictable release patterns, opportunities for feedback, and alignment between system changes and training delivery. Coordination with existing mentoring and support networks is expected to reinforce learning, support early adoption, and identify areas requiring additional refinement following deployment.

Responders should use this context to inform their proposed approach to training development, delivery, support planning, and phased rollout, and to estimate the level of effort required to support effective adoption across a diverse statewide workforce.

Section 7: Child Welfare Practice and Policy Implications for CCWIS Minnesota’s child welfare ecosystem is characterized by a state‑supervised, locally administered delivery model; diverse county and Tribal service environments; strong State oversight and governance; and evolving practice and policy expectations. Together, these factors establish a complex operating environment that the CCWIS solution must support consistently and sustainably.

The CCWIS solution must enable statewide policy implementation, reporting, and oversight, while allowing configurable flexibility to accommodate variation in local and Tribal practice, workforce structure, and service delivery models. It must support secure, governed information sharing across State agencies, counties, Tribal Nations, courts, service providers, and community‑based prevention partners, with role‑appropriate access and strong auditability.

Minnesota’s practice framework—including its emphasis on safety, permanency, well‑being, equity, family engagement, and the Whole Family Approach—requires a system that supports collaborative, family‑centered practice and cross‑program coordination. Prevention‑focused services, fiscal and program oversight, and statutory responsibilities introduce additional considerations for data structure, reporting, interoperability, and workflow design.

Implementation of CCWIS must also recognize the scale and diversity of Minnesota’s workforce. Training, rollout, and change enablement approaches must support specialized and generalist users, State oversight staff, and multiple jurisdictional contexts. Phased implementation, structured governance, and alignment with existing training and support environments are critical to minimizing disruption and supporting sustained adoption.

Responders should use the context provided in this attachment to inform solution architecture, configuration strategies, interoperability approaches, training and rollout planning, governance models, and estimates of scope, cost, schedule, and resource needs. The CCWIS solution must be capable of operating effectively within Minnesota’s complex child welfare ecosystem while supporting durable modernization, continuous improvement, and equitable outcomes for children, youth, and families statewide.

Policy Template 1

CCWIS RFP: Attachment E 1 image4.png image5.svg image6.png image7.png image2.png image3.svg