We have contacted Megan Campbell, Policy Supervisor for the Policy, Data, and Planning Division of the Office of Childcare from the US Department of Health and Human Services regarding document citation 89 FR 15366 Document Number 2024-04139 on May 12th. We discussed the confusion and misinterpretation about what Lead Agencies must post on consumer education websites.  We asked the following questions:

Are complaints and self-reported "complaint" investigations considered inspections and/or monitoring reports? 

Should unsubstantiated complaints be posted publicly to consumer websites after an investigation deems the basis of a complaint unfounded?

Should incoming child care program complaints be vetted and open for the general, unassociated public, or for enrolled families/parents as described?

Is there a definition or example of "plain language" or a standard used to determine whether the reports are "easily understood" by parents and consumers?

Since some regulations describe a variety of potential situations, would "plain language summary" be defined as context regarding the specific situation observed that resulted in a violation?

We provided evidence and documentation with our reasoning and justification as to why we believe the current information posted on the OCFS regarding compliance history is unnecessarily damaging and does not accurately reflect the quality of child care programs and what we believe makes more sense for prospective parents trying to use the OCFS consumer education website as a tool to select quality child care.

Megan responded to acknowledge receipt of the message on 5/14, we followed up on 5/29 and she responded again on 5/29 to state they are thoroughly investigating our question and basis for our concerns and that the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) is working on a formal response.