FundSvcs Community

My hands-on FERPA experience is now almost a decade old, but the basics of FERPA haven't changed--though, like John, I'd urge a careful look at data points related to race and ethnicity, which might be subject to considerations entirely separate from FERPA.

 The basic FERPA provision that applies to advancement governs the disclosure of information from the educational record to school officials with a legitimate educational interest in that information.  As with several FERPA provisions, each educational institution has to publish its own definitions of certain key terms, including, in this context, "school official" and "legitimate education interest."  The U.S. Department of Education has published model policies, and, if your institution follows those models, "school official" includes anyone employed in certain roles, including administrative, which would include Advancement.  A school official has a "legitimate education interest" in information in education records if they need that information to fulfil their professional responsibilities.  (If your institution doesn't follow the model policies, you would have to evaluate in the context of your institution's published definitions.  It's also worth noting that this only applies to disclosure to school officials, and that separate provisions apply to disclosure to other/broader audiences.)

 So, it your institution follows the model disclosures, the operative question is whether advancement staff need certain information to fulfil their professional responsibilities.  So, for example, if you have staff members whose professional responsibilities include running a parents program, they would have a legitimate education interest in information about parents.

 Most of the data that you identify have generally been identified as information in which advancement staff have a legitimate education interest by many/most institutions.  The one that's on the cusp is whether a student qualified for need-based financial aid; many institutions have determined that such a flag is OK but not anything about the amount of aid that the student qualified for, for example (which would in any case be restricted by regulations affecting Financial Aid, separate from FERPA).  Other institutions---a smaller group, back in the day--have decided that qualification for need-based aid does not fall under this provision and should not be available to advancement.

 (The observation that some of the data might have been collected prior to matriculation is probably misleading.  True, FERPA does not apply until a student matriculates, but FERPA defines as education records any information maintained by the institution that is directly related to a student who is or has been in attendance, so once a student is in attendance, that information falls under FERPA, regardless of when it might have been collected.  Once the student is in attendance, *any* information maintained by the institution that is directly related to the student while attending *does* fall under FERPA.)

 My US$0.02 worth; the usual disclaimers apply.

 Good luck!

Alan

Alan S. Hejnal (he/him)

Data Quality Manager

Aimee,

While I certainly cannot give as detailed a response as Alan, at UNC Chapel Hill, our CRM is used by development and the alumni office, so we have multiple business needs for the information. Our perspective on FERPA is generally geared toward the flag we call the "nuclear" option where we cannot share the student's information outside of the University or acknowledge that the student is attending. The University has a public campus directory available on its website, where anyone can search for faculty/staff/students, so unless the student has an active nuclear FERPA flag, they are searchable to the public there, and their name and campus contact info is available. Allowing this kind of access to the public and barring the development office from having it wouldn't make much sense.

Regarding the other data points, including parent information, those are all pieces that an advancement office would have a business need for, and can also assist in preventing duplicate records in your database.

My only other thought is if your advancement office is an independent foundation from your university, you may be considered an outside entity, so the reticence to share information with an "external" organization would be understandable, but I would imagine not impossible to negotiate, considering your mission to support the university.

Kelli Crispin

Business Analyst/Quality Assurance Specialist

she/they

The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 

Office of University Development

E  kelli.crispin@unc.edu

GIVE.UNC.EDU

My hands-on FERPA experience is now almost a decade old, but the basics of FERPA haven't changed--though, like John, I'd urge a careful look at data points related to race and ethnicity, which might be subject to considerations entirely separate from FERPA.

 The basic FERPA provision that applies to advancement governs the disclosure of information from the educational record to school officials with a legitimate educational interest in that information.  As with several FERPA provisions, each educational institution has to publish its own definitions of certain key terms, including, in this context, "school official" and "legitimate education interest."  The U.S. Department of Education has published model policies, and, if your institution follows those models, "school official" includes anyone employed in certain roles, including administrative, which would include Advancement.  A school official has a "legitimate education interest" in information in education records if they need that information to fulfil their professional responsibilities.  (If your institution doesn't follow the model policies, you would have to evaluate in the context of your institution's published definitions.  It's also worth noting that this only applies to disclosure to school officials, and that separate provisions apply to disclosure to other/broader audiences.)

 So, it your institution follows the model disclosures, the operative question is whether advancement staff need certain information to fulfil their professional responsibilities.  So, for example, if you have staff members whose professional responsibilities include running a parents program, they would have a legitimate education interest in information about parents.

 Most of the data that you identify have generally been identified as information in which advancement staff have a legitimate education interest by many/most institutions.  The one that's on the cusp is whether a student qualified for need-based financial aid; many institutions have determined that such a flag is OK but not anything about the amount of aid that the student qualified for, for example (which would in any case be restricted by regulations affecting Financial Aid, separate from FERPA).  Other institutions---a smaller group, back in the day--have decided that qualification for need-based aid does not fall under this provision and should not be available to advancement.

 (The observation that some of the data might have been collected prior to matriculation is probably misleading.  True, FERPA does not apply until a student matriculates, but FERPA defines as education records any information maintained by the institution that is directly related to a student who is or has been in attendance, so once a student is in attendance, that information falls under FERPA, regardless of when it might have been collected.  Once the student is in attendance, *any* information maintained by the institution that is directly related to the student while attending *does* fall under FERPA.)

 My US$0.02 worth; the usual disclaimers apply.

 Good luck!

Alan

Alan S. Hejnal (he/him)

Data Quality Manager

My hands-on FERPA experience is now almost a decade old, but the basics of FERPA haven't changed--though, like John, I'd urge a careful look at data points related to race and ethnicity, which might be subject to considerations entirely separate from FERPA.

 The basic FERPA provision that applies to advancement governs the disclosure of information from the educational record to school officials with a legitimate educational interest in that information.  As with several FERPA provisions, each educational institution has to publish its own definitions of certain key terms, including, in this context, "school official" and "legitimate education interest."  The U.S. Department of Education has published model policies, and, if your institution follows those models, "school official" includes anyone employed in certain roles, including administrative, which would include Advancement.  A school official has a "legitimate education interest" in information in education records if they need that information to fulfil their professional responsibilities.  (If your institution doesn't follow the model policies, you would have to evaluate in the context of your institution's published definitions.  It's also worth noting that this only applies to disclosure to school officials, and that separate provisions apply to disclosure to other/broader audiences.)

 So, it your institution follows the model disclosures, the operative question is whether advancement staff need certain information to fulfil their professional responsibilities.  So, for example, if you have staff members whose professional responsibilities include running a parents program, they would have a legitimate education interest in information about parents.

 Most of the data that you identify have generally been identified as information in which advancement staff have a legitimate education interest by many/most institutions.  The one that's on the cusp is whether a student qualified for need-based financial aid; many institutions have determined that such a flag is OK but not anything about the amount of aid that the student qualified for, for example (which would in any case be restricted by regulations affecting Financial Aid, separate from FERPA).  Other institutions---a smaller group, back in the day--have decided that qualification for need-based aid does not fall under this provision and should not be available to advancement.

 (The observation that some of the data might have been collected prior to matriculation is probably misleading.  True, FERPA does not apply until a student matriculates, but FERPA defines as education records any information maintained by the institution that is directly related to a student who is or has been in attendance, so once a student is in attendance, that information falls under FERPA, regardless of when it might have been collected.  Once the student is in attendance, *any* information maintained by the institution that is directly related to the student while attending *does* fall under FERPA.)

 My US$0.02 worth; the usual disclaimers apply.

 Good luck!

Alan

Alan S. Hejnal (he/him)

Data Quality Manager

Thanks Alan – I've read the BP document and many of the existing threads on this! 

We have what I think might be non-standard definitions – curious about your take on this.  See below – highlighted are the provisions I think I can make the argument for – in addition to the reassurance that " everyone else is doing it" so the Federal government isn't going to crack down on us.  (Part of this conservativeness stems from the fairly recent history of scandal we've worked through, both related to foundation spending and athletics fundraising – neither of which were/are part of Advancement). 

https://louisville.edu/counsel/ferpa-1/guidelines-to-protect-the-privacy-of-student-records

Although a person may be regarded as a "university official," he or she does not have inherent rights to any and all education record information. The university official must demonstrate a legitimate educational interest to the records custodian as opposed to a personal or private interest and such determination must be made on a case-by-case basis. When necessary, this determination is made by the FERPA Compliance Officer, who shall use the following criteria: a) is the person performing appropriate tasks that are specified in his or her position description or by a contract agreement; b) performing a task related to a student's education; c) performing a task related to the discipline of a student; d) providing a service or benefit relating to the student or student's family, such as health care, counseling, job placement, or financial aid. Disclosure to a university official having a legitimate educational interest does not constitute authorization to share that information with a third party without the student's written permission. Furthermore, such information, when it has fulfilled its originally specified purposes, should be properly destroyed or returned to the originating office for appropriate disposition. 

My hands-on FERPA experience is now almost a decade old, but the basics of FERPA haven't changed--though, like John, I'd urge a careful look at data points related to race and ethnicity, which might be subject to considerations entirely separate from FERPA.

 The basic FERPA provision that applies to advancement governs the disclosure of information from the educational record to school officials with a legitimate educational interest in that information.  As with several FERPA provisions, each educational institution has to publish its own definitions of certain key terms, including, in this context, "school official" and "legitimate education interest."  The U.S. Department of Education has published model policies, and, if your institution follows those models, "school official" includes anyone employed in certain roles, including administrative, which would include Advancement.  A school official has a "legitimate education interest" in information in education records if they need that information to fulfil their professional responsibilities.  (If your institution doesn't follow the model policies, you would have to evaluate in the context of your institution's published definitions.  It's also worth noting that this only applies to disclosure to school officials, and that separate provisions apply to disclosure to other/broader audiences.)

 So, it your institution follows the model disclosures, the operative question is whether advancement staff need certain information to fulfil their professional responsibilities.  So, for example, if you have staff members whose professional responsibilities include running a parents program, they would have a legitimate education interest in information about parents.

 Most of the data that you identify have generally been identified as information in which advancement staff have a legitimate education interest by many/most institutions.  The one that's on the cusp is whether a student qualified for need-based financial aid; many institutions have determined that such a flag is OK but not anything about the amount of aid that the student qualified for, for example (which would in any case be restricted by regulations affecting Financial Aid, separate from FERPA).  Other institutions---a smaller group, back in the day--have decided that qualification for need-based aid does not fall under this provision and should not be available to advancement.

 (The observation that some of the data might have been collected prior to matriculation is probably misleading.  True, FERPA does not apply until a student matriculates, but FERPA defines as education records any information maintained by the institution that is directly related to a student who is or has been in attendance, so once a student is in attendance, that information falls under FERPA, regardless of when it might have been collected.  Once the student is in attendance, *any* information maintained by the institution that is directly related to the student while attending *does* fall under FERPA.)

 My US$0.02 worth; the usual disclaimers apply.

 Good luck!

Alan

Alan S. Hejnal (he/him)

Data Quality Manager

Thanks Alan – I've read the BP document and many of the existing threads on this! 

We have what I think might be non-standard definitions – curious about your take on this.  See below – highlighted are the provisions I think I can make the argument for – in addition to the reassurance that " everyone else is doing it" so the Federal government isn't going to crack down on us.  (Part of this conservativeness stems from the fairly recent history of scandal we've worked through, both related to foundation spending and athletics fundraising – neither of which were/are part of Advancement). 

https://louisville.edu/counsel/ferpa-1/guidelines-to-protect-the-privacy-of-student-records

Although a person may be regarded as a "university official," he or she does not have inherent rights to any and all education record information. The university official must demonstrate a legitimate educational interest to the records custodian as opposed to a personal or private interest and such determination must be made on a case-by-case basis. When necessary, this determination is made by the FERPA Compliance Officer, who shall use the following criteria: a) is the person performing appropriate tasks that are specified in his or her position description or by a contract agreement; b) performing a task related to a student's education; c) performing a task related to the discipline of a student; d) providing a service or benefit relating to the student or student's family, such as health care, counseling, job placement, or financial aid. Disclosure to a university official having a legitimate educational interest does not constitute authorization to share that information with a third party without the student's written permission. Furthermore, such information, when it has fulfilled its originally specified purposes, should be properly destroyed or returned to the originating office for appropriate disposition. 

My hands-on FERPA experience is now almost a decade old, but the basics of FERPA haven't changed--though, like John, I'd urge a careful look at data points related to race and ethnicity, which might be subject to considerations entirely separate from FERPA.

 The basic FERPA provision that applies to advancement governs the disclosure of information from the educational record to school officials with a legitimate educational interest in that information.  As with several FERPA provisions, each educational institution has to publish its own definitions of certain key terms, including, in this context, "school official" and "legitimate education interest."  The U.S. Department of Education has published model policies, and, if your institution follows those models, "school official" includes anyone employed in certain roles, including administrative, which would include Advancement.  A school official has a "legitimate education interest" in information in education records if they need that information to fulfil their professional responsibilities.  (If your institution doesn't follow the model policies, you would have to evaluate in the context of your institution's published definitions.  It's also worth noting that this only applies to disclosure to school officials, and that separate provisions apply to disclosure to other/broader audiences.)

 So, it your institution follows the model disclosures, the operative question is whether advancement staff need certain information to fulfil their professional responsibilities.  So, for example, if you have staff members whose professional responsibilities include running a parents program, they would have a legitimate education interest in information about parents.

 Most of the data that you identify have generally been identified as information in which advancement staff have a legitimate education interest by many/most institutions.  The one that's on the cusp is whether a student qualified for need-based financial aid; many institutions have determined that such a flag is OK but not anything about the amount of aid that the student qualified for, for example (which would in any case be restricted by regulations affecting Financial Aid, separate from FERPA).  Other institutions---a smaller group, back in the day--have decided that qualification for need-based aid does not fall under this provision and should not be available to advancement.

 (The observation that some of the data might have been collected prior to matriculation is probably misleading.  True, FERPA does not apply until a student matriculates, but FERPA defines as education records any information maintained by the institution that is directly related to a student who is or has been in attendance, so once a student is in attendance, that information falls under FERPA, regardless of when it might have been collected.  Once the student is in attendance, *any* information maintained by the institution that is directly related to the student while attending *does* fall under FERPA.)

 My US$0.02 worth; the usual disclaimers apply.

 Good luck!

Alan

Alan S. Hejnal (he/him)

Data Quality Manager

Interesting.

What does that mean, exactly?

Thanks Alan – I've read the BP document and many of the existing threads on this! 

We have what I think might be non-standard definitions – curious about your take on this.  See below – highlighted are the provisions I think I can make the argument for – in addition to the reassurance that " everyone else is doing it" so the Federal government isn't going to crack down on us.  (Part of this conservativeness stems from the fairly recent history of scandal we've worked through, both related to foundation spending and athletics fundraising – neither of which were/are part of Advancement). 

https://louisville.edu/counsel/ferpa-1/guidelines-to-protect-the-privacy-of-student-records

Although a person may be regarded as a "university official," he or she does not have inherent rights to any and all education record information. The university official must demonstrate a legitimate educational interest to the records custodian as opposed to a personal or private interest and such determination must be made on a case-by-case basis. When necessary, this determination is made by the FERPA Compliance Officer, who shall use the following criteria: a) is the person performing appropriate tasks that are specified in his or her position description or by a contract agreement; b) performing a task related to a student's education; c) performing a task related to the discipline of a student; d) providing a service or benefit relating to the student or student's family, such as health care, counseling, job placement, or financial aid. Disclosure to a university official having a legitimate educational interest does not constitute authorization to share that information with a third party without the student's written permission. Furthermore, such information, when it has fulfilled its originally specified purposes, should be properly destroyed or returned to the originating office for appropriate disposition. 

My hands-on FERPA experience is now almost a decade old, but the basics of FERPA haven't changed--though, like John, I'd urge a careful look at data points related to race and ethnicity, which might be subject to considerations entirely separate from FERPA.

 The basic FERPA provision that applies to advancement governs the disclosure of information from the educational record to school officials with a legitimate educational interest in that information.  As with several FERPA provisions, each educational institution has to publish its own definitions of certain key terms, including, in this context, "school official" and "legitimate education interest."  The U.S. Department of Education has published model policies, and, if your institution follows those models, "school official" includes anyone employed in certain roles, including administrative, which would include Advancement.  A school official has a "legitimate education interest" in information in education records if they need that information to fulfil their professional responsibilities.  (If your institution doesn't follow the model policies, you would have to evaluate in the context of your institution's published definitions.  It's also worth noting that this only applies to disclosure to school officials, and that separate provisions apply to disclosure to other/broader audiences.)

 So, it your institution follows the model disclosures, the operative question is whether advancement staff need certain information to fulfil their professional responsibilities.  So, for example, if you have staff members whose professional responsibilities include running a parents program, they would have a legitimate education interest in information about parents.

 Most of the data that you identify have generally been identified as information in which advancement staff have a legitimate education interest by many/most institutions.  The one that's on the cusp is whether a student qualified for need-based financial aid; many institutions have determined that such a flag is OK but not anything about the amount of aid that the student qualified for, for example (which would in any case be restricted by regulations affecting Financial Aid, separate from FERPA).  Other institutions---a smaller group, back in the day--have decided that qualification for need-based aid does not fall under this provision and should not be available to advancement.

 (The observation that some of the data might have been collected prior to matriculation is probably misleading.  True, FERPA does not apply until a student matriculates, but FERPA defines as education records any information maintained by the institution that is directly related to a student who is or has been in attendance, so once a student is in attendance, that information falls under FERPA, regardless of when it might have been collected.  Once the student is in attendance, *any* information maintained by the institution that is directly related to the student while attending *does* fall under FERPA.)

 My US$0.02 worth; the usual disclaimers apply.

 Good luck!

Alan

Alan S. Hejnal (he/him)

Data Quality Manager

Thanks Alan – I've read the BP document and many of the existing threads on this! 

We have what I think might be non-standard definitions – curious about your take on this.  See below – highlighted are the provisions I think I can make the argument for – in addition to the reassurance that " everyone else is doing it" so the Federal government isn't going to crack down on us.  (Part of this conservativeness stems from the fairly recent history of scandal we've worked through, both related to foundation spending and athletics fundraising – neither of which were/are part of Advancement). 

https://louisville.edu/counsel/ferpa-1/guidelines-to-protect-the-privacy-of-student-records

Although a person may be regarded as a "university official," he or she does not have inherent rights to any and all education record information. The university official must demonstrate a legitimate educational interest to the records custodian as opposed to a personal or private interest and such determination must be made on a case-by-case basis. When necessary, this determination is made by the FERPA Compliance Officer, who shall use the following criteria: a) is the person performing appropriate tasks that are specified in his or her position description or by a contract agreement; b) performing a task related to a student's education; c) performing a task related to the discipline of a student; d) providing a service or benefit relating to the student or student's family, such as health care, counseling, job placement, or financial aid. Disclosure to a university official having a legitimate educational interest does not constitute authorization to share that information with a third party without the student's written permission. Furthermore, such information, when it has fulfilled its originally specified purposes, should be properly destroyed or returned to the originating office for appropriate disposition. 

My hands-on FERPA experience is now almost a decade old, but the basics of FERPA haven't changed--though, like John, I'd urge a careful look at data points related to race and ethnicity, which might be subject to considerations entirely separate from FERPA.

 The basic FERPA provision that applies to advancement governs the disclosure of information from the educational record to school officials with a legitimate educational interest in that information.  As with several FERPA provisions, each educational institution has to publish its own definitions of certain key terms, including, in this context, "school official" and "legitimate education interest."  The U.S. Department of Education has published model policies, and, if your institution follows those models, "school official" includes anyone employed in certain roles, including administrative, which would include Advancement.  A school official has a "legitimate education interest" in information in education records if they need that information to fulfil their professional responsibilities.  (If your institution doesn't follow the model policies, you would have to evaluate in the context of your institution's published definitions.  It's also worth noting that this only applies to disclosure to school officials, and that separate provisions apply to disclosure to other/broader audiences.)

 So, it your institution follows the model disclosures, the operative question is whether advancement staff need certain information to fulfil their professional responsibilities.  So, for example, if you have staff members whose professional responsibilities include running a parents program, they would have a legitimate education interest in information about parents.

 Most of the data that you identify have generally been identified as information in which advancement staff have a legitimate education interest by many/most institutions.  The one that's on the cusp is whether a student qualified for need-based financial aid; many institutions have determined that such a flag is OK but not anything about the amount of aid that the student qualified for, for example (which would in any case be restricted by regulations affecting Financial Aid, separate from FERPA).  Other institutions---a smaller group, back in the day--have decided that qualification for need-based aid does not fall under this provision and should not be available to advancement.

 (The observation that some of the data might have been collected prior to matriculation is probably misleading.  True, FERPA does not apply until a student matriculates, but FERPA defines as education records any information maintained by the institution that is directly related to a student who is or has been in attendance, so once a student is in attendance, that information falls under FERPA, regardless of when it might have been collected.  Once the student is in attendance, *any* information maintained by the institution that is directly related to the student while attending *does* fall under FERPA.)

 My US$0.02 worth; the usual disclaimers apply.

 Good luck!

Alan

Alan S. Hejnal (he/him)

Data Quality Manager

Thanks Alan – I've read the BP document and many of the existing threads on this! 

We have what I think might be non-standard definitions – curious about your take on this.  See below – highlighted are the provisions I think I can make the argument for – in addition to the reassurance that " everyone else is doing it" so the Federal government isn't going to crack down on us.  (Part of this conservativeness stems from the fairly recent history of scandal we've worked through, both related to foundation spending and athletics fundraising – neither of which were/are part of Advancement). 

https://louisville.edu/counsel/ferpa-1/guidelines-to-protect-the-privacy-of-student-records

Although a person may be regarded as a "university official," he or she does not have inherent rights to any and all education record information. The university official must demonstrate a legitimate educational interest to the records custodian as opposed to a personal or private interest and such determination must be made on a case-by-case basis. When necessary, this determination is made by the FERPA Compliance Officer, who shall use the following criteria: a) is the person performing appropriate tasks that are specified in his or her position description or by a contract agreement; b) performing a task related to a student's education; c) performing a task related to the discipline of a student; d) providing a service or benefit relating to the student or student's family, such as health care, counseling, job placement, or financial aid. Disclosure to a university official having a legitimate educational interest does not constitute authorization to share that information with a third party without the student's written permission. Furthermore, such information, when it has fulfilled its originally specified purposes, should be properly destroyed or returned to the originating office for appropriate disposition. 

My hands-on FERPA experience is now almost a decade old, but the basics of FERPA haven't changed--though, like John, I'd urge a careful look at data points related to race and ethnicity, which might be subject to considerations entirely separate from FERPA.

 The basic FERPA provision that applies to advancement governs the disclosure of information from the educational record to school officials with a legitimate educational interest in that information.  As with several FERPA provisions, each educational institution has to publish its own definitions of certain key terms, including, in this context, "school official" and "legitimate education interest."  The U.S. Department of Education has published model policies, and, if your institution follows those models, "school official" includes anyone employed in certain roles, including administrative, which would include Advancement.  A school official has a "legitimate education interest" in information in education records if they need that information to fulfil their professional responsibilities.  (If your institution doesn't follow the model policies, you would have to evaluate in the context of your institution's published definitions.  It's also worth noting that this only applies to disclosure to school officials, and that separate provisions apply to disclosure to other/broader audiences.)

 So, it your institution follows the model disclosures, the operative question is whether advancement staff need certain information to fulfil their professional responsibilities.  So, for example, if you have staff members whose professional responsibilities include running a parents program, they would have a legitimate education interest in information about parents.

 Most of the data that you identify have generally been identified as information in which advancement staff have a legitimate education interest by many/most institutions.  The one that's on the cusp is whether a student qualified for need-based financial aid; many institutions have determined that such a flag is OK but not anything about the amount of aid that the student qualified for, for example (which would in any case be restricted by regulations affecting Financial Aid, separate from FERPA).  Other institutions---a smaller group, back in the day--have decided that qualification for need-based aid does not fall under this provision and should not be available to advancement.

 (The observation that some of the data might have been collected prior to matriculation is probably misleading.  True, FERPA does not apply until a student matriculates, but FERPA defines as education records any information maintained by the institution that is directly related to a student who is or has been in attendance, so once a student is in attendance, that information falls under FERPA, regardless of when it might have been collected.  Once the student is in attendance, *any* information maintained by the institution that is directly related to the student while attending *does* fall under FERPA.)

 My US$0.02 worth; the usual disclaimers apply.

 Good luck!

Alan

Alan S. Hejnal (he/him)

Data Quality Manager