News, Views and Careers for All of Higher Education
June 14, 2007
A federal report on the Virginia Tech shootings considers the misunderstanding of federal and state privacy laws to be a “substantial obstacle” to the information sharing needed to protect students.
“Throughout our meetings and in every breakout session, we heard differing interpretations and confusion about legal restrictions on the ability to share information about a person who may be a threat to self or to others,” states the Report to the President on Issues Raised by the Virginia Tech Tragedy, released Wednesday and compiled by the U.S. Departments of Education, Health and Human Services and Justice. Fears of violating state privacy laws, statutes designed to prevent discrimination of people with mental illness — and, of course, the federal Health Insurance Portability Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy Rule and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) — can serve to “chill legitimate information sharing,” the report reads.
“It was almost universally observed that these fears and misunderstandings likely limit the transfer of information in more significant ways than is required by law,” the report says.
“Amen,” Sheldon E. Steinbach, a lawyer in the higher education practice at the Washington firm Dow Lohnes, said Wednesday. “That may actually be an understatement. Excessive paranoia about compliance with FERPA and HIPAA greatly impedes essential communications on campus that would provide for greater safety for students, employees and the entire college community.”
“There was an immediate hue and cry after Virginia Tech to change the privacy laws,” added Jennifer Mathis, deputy legal director for the Judge David L. Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law. “I think that there was a lack of understanding of the [emergency] exceptions that already exist.”
The perceived constraints on information sharing have been major points of concern since the April 16 shootings, with a Virginia panel appointed by Gov. Tim Kaine fixating on the tension between privacy and protection at a day-long meeting at George Mason University Monday.
The federal study, based on feedback from meetings between federal delegations and state, local, mental health, education and law enforcement leaders from across the nation, finds that while participants in the meetings were aware of both HIPAA and FERPA, “there was significant misunderstanding.” For instance, in some discussions, “participants reported circumstances in which they incorrectly believed that they were subject to liability or foreclosed from sharing information under federal law.”
In response, the report recommends that federal agencies develop and widely disseminate additional guidance clarifying how information can legally be shared — including with parents — under HIPAA and FERPA. “In addition, the U.S. Departments of Education and Health and Human Services should consider whether further actions are needed to balance more appropriately the interests of safety, privacy, and treatment implicated by FERPA and HIPAA,” the report states.
The report also summarizes findings in four other areas, stressing for instance the need for states to provide information about relevant mental health history to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (right now, only 23 states provide information on individuals disqualified from possessing firearms under federal law for mental health reasons). The report subsequently describes a need to improve awareness and communication efforts on campuses; to deal with capacity issues in the mental health system and integrate mental health with primary care to ensure that the people who need help find it; and to ensure emergency preparedness in part by planning, practicing and enhancing the professionalism of campus police forces through joint training with federal, state and local law enforcement.
“We agree with virtually everything that was said in this report,” said Mathis of the Bazelon Center, which advocates for individuals with mental disabilities. In particular, she said the report’s focus on a community-based, coordinated integration of the mental health system — as opposed to, for instance, a focus on involuntary commitment laws — was a meaningful and appropriate response to the lack of coordination displayed in Virginia (as evidenced by a state report released Monday).
“We welcome this report and hope that its recommendations will be adequately funded, especially with regard to making mental health services available, and implemented with the best interests of all stakeholders in mind,” the American Psychiatric Association’s president, Carolyn Robinowitz, and the association’s medical director/CEO James H. Scully Jr., said in a statement.
“We know that most of the adolescents and young adults who have carried out violent attacks in school settings have had long histories of emotional and behavioral problems,” the American Psychiatric Association statement continues. “And we know that many of these troubled youths were not receiving adequate care — and some were not receiving any mental health care — at the time of their violent acts. It is imperative that mental health services be available and accessible to all who need them.”
Want it on paper? Print this page.
Know someone who’d be interested? Forward this story.
Want to stay informed? Sign up for free daily news e-mail.
Advertisement
Obviously Ms. Steinbach is correct. FERPA is used as an excuse for far too many things.
Which is all the more reason that students that think they have mental problems need to do their very best to seek treatment off-campus, with people that have no incentive to rat on them. Since schools are going to be doing the very best to “protect” students from each other (but not students from professors, who are not subject to the same kind of scrutiny), students need to understand what kind access to health care they have on-campus. So, folks, one call to an administrator can ruin a student’s educational “career” and job prospects.
Larry, at 8:10 am EDT on June 14, 2007
Finally! His topic arrives! There is a God!
Bart, EVP at “Unapologically Tedious” Fan Club, at 9:20 am EDT on June 14, 2007
There are large exceptions to FERPA that I don’t think the relevant parties are aware of. As to Larry’s comment, 34 CFR 99.3 specifically states that mental health records are not considered education records protected by FERPA. As a result, they can be disclosed to third parties.
Chris, at 10:15 am EDT on June 14, 2007
Good coverage of the very important issue of confusion over the laws. No doubt there will be many more calls to weaken the laws based on false impressions.
I found it interesting, though, to contrast US coverage of the report, including IHE’s, with the French News story “Bush Report on Shooting Omits Gun Control Option,” which included the fact that someone had actually asked the adminsitration why this didn’t come up anywhere in the report. “At the White House, spokesman Tony Snow said that there was no mention of expanding gun-control laws because the officials had decided at the outset to exclude such considerations."Perhaps if we want to increase the law’s surveillance of potentially dangerous students we could keep some kind of record about who’s stocking up on handguns and rifles.
H Lune, at 10:30 am EDT on June 14, 2007
My post comment from earlier this week on the “Privacy and Protection” article is still relevant:
...we’d all be well served by reading the pertinent sections (99.31 and 99.36) of the federal legislation at http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/reg/ferpa/index.html. Herewith:
� 99.31 Under what conditions is prior consent not required to disclose information? (a) An educational agency or institution may disclose personally identifiable information from an education record of a student without the consent required by
� 99.30 if the disclosure meets one or more of the following conditions:...(10) The disclosure is in connection with a health or safety emergency, under the conditions described in � 99.36.
� 99.36 What conditions apply to disclosure of information in health and safety emergencies? (a) An educational agency or institution may disclose personally identifiable information from an education record to appropriate parties in connection with an emergency if knowledge of the information is necessary to protect the health or safety of the student or other individuals. (b) Nothing in the Act or this part shall prevent an educational agency or institution from- (1) Including in the education records of a student appropriate information concerning disciplinary action taken against the student for conduct that posed a significant risk to the safety or well-being of that student, other students, or other members of the school community; (2) Disclosing appropriate information maintained under paragraph (b)(1) of this section to teachers and school officials within the agency or institution who the agency or institution has determined have legitimate educational interests in the behavior of the student; or (3) Disclosing appropriate information maintained under paragraph (b)(1) of this section to teachers and school officials in other schools who have been determined to have legitimate educational interests in the behavior of the student. Paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section will be strictly construed.
To be sure, each institution’s information custodians and student services administrators need to review this provision with their corporate counsel to translate the guidelines into compliant action plans. Beyond this federal legislation, public institutions need to factor in relevant state privacy regulations and HIPAA, and, with legal counsel, determine how they intersect and, when they don’t, which may trump the other in developing action plans.
Philoctetes, at 10:30 am EDT on June 14, 2007
High school special education records are sealed. Cho’s problems began long before his tenure as a student at VT. I have come to know many seriously troubled students as an elementary and secondary school educator.
It is a clear and present danger not to disclose a student’s mental and educational health status as they transition to college, for their sakes and for the sakes of others. Doing an ostrich imitation is neither responsible nor helpful. Cho needed help. Perhaps, if the full extent of his mental illness was known and if he was properly treated this terrible tragedy could have been averted.
Concerned, Educational Therapist, at 3:05 pm EDT on June 14, 2007
Just a note on legal analysis, it is probably better to look to the statutory exclusions (i.e. the ones in the USC) first, and in case in ambiguity, look the regulations (i.e. what is in the CFR). So, Chris, the CFR, simply implements an exclusion in the statute, which I described in a previous post: http://insidehighered.com/news/2007/06/12/vt
As to the policy matters, I am too tired to go into them today.
Larry, at 3:40 pm EDT on June 14, 2007
Larry,
I’m no expert on the ethics of therapists, but I can’t imagine that an off-campus psychologist would ~not~ be obligated to report a student to the authorities who expressed the desire to murder a particular person or group of people. On a somewhat related note, I know a little about Catholicism, and I’m fairly sure that priests too can break confessional silence to warn someone of the potential for bodily harm.
In sum, a student who goes off campus wouldn’t be free of the scrutiny being advocated for on-campus psychological problems. The whole problem is that FERPA is being interpreted too conservatively, not inline with mainstream ethics.
- TL
Tim Lacy, at 3:40 pm EDT on June 14, 2007
Mr. Lacy, I see where you are coming from. Two points:
FERPA is generally interpreted haphazardly. Most of the aggressive interpretations of it, I have seen, are simply a way to avoid scrutiny of professors and administrators. All and all, don’t think it has helped students too much, and Congress should just repeal it. Any privacy interests that students have in their grades can be ably taken care of by state legislatures.
Secondly, an off-campus health-care provider would be better positioned to evaluate, on their own, whether, a student’s confidential disclosures showed that he would – in the future – commit some violent crime. Any decision would not be made in light of whether the school could fire him or kick him off campus. Instead, s/he would be bound only by their professional ethics (and perhaps the chance that they might lose a client.). As it stands not, I think that any counselor employed by the school has an inherent conflict of interest.
Larry, at 4:40 pm EDT on June 14, 2007
I’m glad H Lune has pointed to the elephant in the room — i.e. American gun control laws. Even if Mr. Cho had been expelled, there was nothing stopping him from buying guns and shooting up the campus.
Heather Munro Prescott, Professor of History at Central CT State University, at 10:40 am EDT on June 18, 2007
Advertisement
or search for jobs directly.
FGCU, a member of the State University System of Florida, is a comprehensive university created to address the educational ... see job
The University of Minnesota is a premier employer and a talent magnet attracting leading faculty and staff from around the ... see job
The University of Minnesota is a premier employer and a talent magnet attracting leading faculty and staff from around the ... see job
Located just north of Houston, Texas, our five campuses serve 1,400 square miles. Our student enrollment is nearly 50,000 in ... see job
Williams College invites nominations and applications for the position of Vice President for Alumni Relations and ... see job
Position Number: FY 08-122 Reports to: Chairperson of Computer and Information Sciences Department Scope: The Assistant ... see job
The Assistant Director for Grants Development is responsible for developing and implementing strategies that will increase ... see job
A career at Johnson County Community College is more than a job. We believe it’s important to invest in our employees and ... see job
Openings are anticipated throughout the year in the Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences at the University of California, ... see job
Located just north of Houston, Texas, our five campuses serve 1,400 square miles. Our student enrollment is nearly 50,000 in ... see job
It is a shame such a tragedy would highlight the medical professions desire to drive decision making and common sense to protect their privacy act requirements. Administrators must lead with an informed big picture knowing specific issues and possible threats. One technique is to have a weekly medical professional overview with specific cases that seem a concern or may deem a threat to the larger student population. The closed meeting would begin and end with a confidentiality caveat to ensure the information does not continue to be discussed outside this weekly discussion. Again, I appreciate the medical profession and Privacy Act but it cannot drive leadership and informed decision making. May the students not have died in vain to resolve something like this.
VRL, at 7:10 am EDT on June 14, 2007