# THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OFTEXAS AURTIN. **-hGXAS** 78711
April 29, 1974
The Honorable Dolph Briscoe Governor of Texas State Capitol Austin, Texas 78711 Opinion No. H- 287 Re: Validity of interagency index ofwelfare recipients. Dear Governor Briscoe: Your~opinion request concerns aproposal by the interagency Health’ apd Human Resources Council, appointed by you pursuant to’Art. 4413 (32a) V. T. C.S., to develop a computerized interagency welfare.reci-~. pient index ofwelfare recipients which would contain:

“(1) Data sufficient for accurate identification of individual recipients, e.g., name, social security number, sex, race, date ofbirth; (2) agency program(s) under which aperson receives services; land(3) date(s) of application, eligibility certification, medical examination, and closure where applicable. ” You have advis,ed us that potential but not definitely committed participants inthe index would be:

(1)Texas Rehabilitation Commission (2) Commission on Alcoholism (3) Commission for the Blind (4) Department of Public Welfare (5) Department ofHealth (6) Department ofMental Health and Mental Retardation (7) Texas Central Education Agency (8) Texas Employment Commission (TEC) (9) University of Texas System (10) Coordinating Board of Texas Colleges and University System

p* 1337The Honorable Dolph Briscoe page 2 (H-287)

You advise that an index such as that proposed will benefit recipients inthat: “Under present conditions, the individual person

who is served by more than one agency must complete multiple application forms, answer duplicative questions, and often submit to several medical examinations and/or financial eligibility studies, i.e. , he must be routed through a separate application and case processing procedure within each agency. ” You further advise that the index will benefit state agencies because at the present:

“there is currently no satisfactory mechanism to inform an agency serving aparticular person that this same person is being served or has been served by one or more other State agencies. ” Moreover, the index will enable services to be provided “more quickly and efficiently. ” Despite these benefits you are “concerned about the issue ofprivacy inthe exchange ofpersonal data amorg State agencies utilizing this index. ” You advise that privacy safeguards will be provided as follows:

(1)A person must give his consent to the exchange ofthis information inthe form of a signed agreement or the information can not be placed on the computer ” index. Failure to consent will impose no penalty on a recipient. (2) There will be ameans whereby an individual can find outwhat information about him i,s in the record and towhich agencies the information has been released. (3) An individual will be entitled to correct or amend a record about him and to expunge incorrect information.

ps 1338The Honorable Dolph Briscoe page 3 (H-287)

(4) Agencies with authority to use the information will be prohibited from disclosing itto persons or organizations that lack such authority. You have asked us to comment upon the adequacy ofthe safeguards. We believe that they would be sufficient. However, although we would not discourage your use ofwaivers, you should understand that awaiver would be effective only if given with full knowledge and understanding and completely without coercion of any kind or character. Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514(1972); Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67 (1972). Your,primary question is:

“whether maintenance ofthis inter-agency Recipient Index would be in violation of any State or Federal statutory or constitutional provision. ” We have discussed and analyzed the right ofprivacy inprior opinions.

‘See Attorney General H-90 (1973) andH-242 (1974). As to the basis for the right ofprivacy inTexas see Billings v. Atkinson, 489 S.W. 2d 858 (Tex. 1973). We do notbelieve that your proposal violates the common law or constitutional right ofprivacy ofwelfare recipients. We base this op,inion primarily upon two factor~a; first, the limited nature ofthe information tobe supplied the computer and second, the fact that the information is confined to State agencies and is not released to the public generally. InAttorney General Opinion H-242 (1974) we observed:

“Our office has previously recognized the need to maintain an unrestricted flow of information between state agencies. See Attorney General Opinion M-713 (1970). The Open Records Act, Article 6252-17a, V.T. C.S, does not undercut that policy. Information which is not required to be disclosed to the public under the Act can still be transferred between State agencies without

p* 1339The Honorable Dolph Briscoe page 4 (H-287)

violating its confidentiality or destroying its confidential character. ” We have examined many ofthe statutes relative to the records ofthe agencies in question. See, for example, Texas Education Code, $30. 47; 45 C.F. R. $401. 39 (Texas Rehabilitation Commission); Art. 5561c, V. T. C.S.; $333 (Commission on Alcoholism); Art. 3207~ 511, 42 U.S.C. $120;! (Commission for the Blind); Art. 695~ $33, V. T. C.S., Art. 695j-1, $10, V. T. C.S., 42 U.S.C. $ 1396a (Department of Public Welfare); Art. 4447d, V. T. C.S. and Art. 4445~ 54, V. T. C.S. (Department of Health); Art. 5547 $87, V. T. C.S. (Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation). Many ofthese statutes make information concerning welfare recipients “confidential, ”but we do not believe that interagency exchange ofthe basic information contemplated by your index violates confidentiality. On many occasions the Legislature has expressed apolicy favoring interagency cooperation ofthis kind and we donot believe that the Legislature intended tolimit such cooperation by an unduly restrictive interpretation ofthe word “confidential. ” See Art. 4413 (32a), V. T. C.S. ; Vernon’s Texas Education Code $30.42; Art. 695c, $$4 (5) (8), V. T. C.S. To the same effect see 45 C.F. R. $51.4 (d) dealing with Social Security Actrelated State program requirements. ,. We are concerned about situations inwhich the mere identity of an individual would necessarily reveal confidential facts, an example, mentioned inyour opinion request being, the venereal disease records ofthe Texas State Health Department. Art. 4445c, Sec. 4, V. T. C.S., indicates that such information “shall notbe opened for inspection by any.one except authorized public health personnel, ‘Iand appears to confine fatits regarding these patients to such personnel. Accordingly we do not believe that the identity of recipients ofthis particular program ofthe State Health Department treatment should be included inthe index. Where their mere identity would not reveal confidential j_ facts concerning their health, recipients of other treatments by the State Health Department could be included inthe index.

p. 1340The Honorable Dolph Briscoe page 5 (H-287)

Undoubtedly, among the various agencies proposed as participants, there are other records which, for reasons ofprivacy and confidentiality, ought not be included inthe index. Each agency will have to examine its basic statutes and the records itmaintains inthe light ofthe privacy laws as they may exist from time to time to determine what persons may not be included inthe index lest their mere inclusion disclose facts made private and confidential. SUMMARY

Under most circumstances submission by State Welfare agencies ofbasic information concerning the identity of recipients to a centralized computer index does not violate any Federal or State common law statutory or constitutional right ofprivilege. Very truly yours, P,

// Attorney General of Texas APPROVED:



# o,Jp DAVID M. KENDALL, Chaiiman Opinion Committee

p0 1341