Skip to main content

DCH-03: Sensitive / Regulated Data Governance

DCH 9 — Critical Govern

Mechanisms exist to facilitate data governance so that sensitive and/or regulated data is effectively managed and maintained in accordance with applicable statutory, regulatory and contractual obligations.

Renumbered: Formerly GOV-10 in SCF 2025.4.

Code reused: In SCF 2025.4 and earlier, DCH-03 was Media Access. That control is now DCH-07.1.

Control Question: Does the organization facilitate data governance to oversee its policies, standards and procedures so that sensitive and/or regulated data is effectively managed and maintained in accordance with applicable statutory, regulatory and contractual obligations?

General (15)
US (2)
EMEA (2)
Framework Mapping Values
EMEA CHE FINMA Circular 2023/1 IV.D-72 IV.D-74
EMEA Spain CCN-STIC 825 mp.info.2
APAC (2)
Framework Mapping Values
APAC India RBI PA 2025 Annex 1.1.7.3
APAC New Zealand NZISM 3.9 20.2.16.C.03
Americas (1)
Framework Mapping Values
Americas Bermuda BMACCC 2020 5.3-BP2

Capability Maturity Model

Level 0 — Not Performed

Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.

Level 1 — Performed Informally

Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include: ▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with GOV domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation. ▪ Governance-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices. ▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists. GRC roles are assigned to existing IT/cybersecurity personnel. ▪ Cybersecurity and data protection governance is informally assigned as an additional duty to existing IT/cybersecurity personnel. ▪ Administrative processes require all employees and contractors to apply cybersecurity and data protection principles in their daily work (e.g., policies & standards). ▪ Cybersecurity and data privacy governance practices are informally assigned as an additional duty to existing IT/cybersecurity personnel. ▪ IT /cyber engineering governance is decentralized, with the responsibility for implementing and testing cybersecurity and data protection controls being assigned to the business process owner(s), including the definition and enforcement of roles and responsibilities.

Level 2 — Planned & Tracked

Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Policies and standards associated with GOV domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with GOV domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with GOV domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Governance-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists. GRC roles are assigned to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.

Level 3 — Well Defined

Data Classification & Handling (DCH) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Policies and standards associated with DCH domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with DCH domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain DCH domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of data classification and handling operations (e.g., GRC platform). ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with DCH domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls). ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to facilitate data governance to oversee the organization's policies, standards and procedures so that sensitive/regulated data is effectively managed and maintained in accordance with applicable statutory, regulatory and contractual obligations.

Level 4 — Quantitatively Controlled

Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) capabilities, in addition to being standardized across the entity and centrally managed to ensure consistency across Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD), efforts are metrics driven to provide sufficient insight for decision makers to predict optimal performance, ensure continued operations and/or identify areas for improvement. Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Applicable SCR-CMM Level 3 (Well Defined) capabilities are implemented and operational. ▪ Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). ▪ Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Risk Indicators (KRIs). ▪ Scope of metrics, KPIs and KRIs covers organization-wide cybersecurity and data protection controls, including functions performed by third-parties. ▪ Organizational leadership maintains a formal process to objectively review and respond to metrics, KPIs and KRIs (e.g., monthly or quarterly review). ▪ Based on metrics analysis, process improvement recommendations are submitted for review and are handled in accordance with change control processes. ▪ Business and technical stakeholders are involved in reviewing and approving proposed changes to evolve capabilities.

Level 5 — Continuously Improving

Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions: ▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control. ▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies. ▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.

Assessment Objectives

  1. DCH-03_A01 a data integrity board/function is established.
  2. DCH-03_A02 the data integrity board/function reviews proposals to conduct or participate in a matching program.
  3. DCH-03_A03 the data integrity board/function conducts an annual review of all matching programs in which the organization has participated.
  4. DCH-03_A04 the roles of the organization's data governance body are defined.
  5. DCH-03_A05 the responsibilities of the organization's data governance body are defined.
  6. DCH-03_A06 the organization's data governance body has defined roles with established responsibilities.

Evidence Requirements

E-GOV-13 Charter - Data Management Board (DMB)

Documented evidence of the organization's Data Management Board (DMB) charter and mission.

Security, Compliance & Resilience Governance

Technology Recommendations

Micro/Small

  • Basic data inventory (spreadsheet)
  • Designated data owner / data custodian role
  • Informal data classification policy

Small

  • Data governance policy and data classification standard
  • Designated data owner(s) by data type
  • Basic data inventory with sensitivity classification

Medium

  • Formal data governance program with data classification scheme
  • Data steward and data owner roles defined
  • Data catalog tool (e.g., Microsoft Purview free tier, OpenMetadata)

Large

  • Chief Data Officer (CDO) or equivalent role
  • Formal data governance committee
  • Enterprise data catalog and classification tool (e.g., Microsoft Purview, Collibra)
  • Data quality and lineage management program

Enterprise

  • Chief Data Officer (CDO) with executive authority
  • Enterprise Data Governance Council
  • Enterprise data catalog, classification, and lineage platform (e.g., Collibra, Alation, Informatica)
  • Data governance integrated with privacy, compliance, and risk programs

The Secure Controls Framework (SCF) is maintained by SCF Council. Use of SCF content is subject to the SCF Terms & Conditions.

Manage this control in SCF Connect

Track implementation status, collect evidence, and map controls to your compliance frameworks automatically.