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 of welfare recipients. 

Dear Governor Briscoe: 

Your~opinion request concerns a proposal 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 of welfare recipients which would contain: 

“(1) Data sufficient for accurate identification of 

individual recipients, e. g., name, social security 

number, sex, race, date of birth; (2) agency program(s) 

under which a person 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 in the index would be: 

(1) Texas Rehabilitation Commission 

(2) Commission on Alcoholism 

(3) Commission for the Blind 

(4) Department of Public Welfare 

(5) Department of Health 

(6) Department of Mental 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* 1337 
The Honorable Dolph Briscoe page 2 (H-287) 

You advise that an index such as that proposed will benefit recipients 

in that: 

“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 a particular 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 of privacy 

in the exchange of personal 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 

of this information in the 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 a means whereby an individual 

can find out what information about him i,s in the 

record and to which 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 1338 
The Honorable Dolph Briscoe page 3 (H-287) 

(4) Agencies with authority to use the information 

will be prohibited from disclosing it to persons or 

organizations that lack such authority. 

You have asked us to comment upon the adequacy of the safeguards. 

We believe that they would be sufficient. However, although we would 

not discourage your use of waivers, you should understand that a waiver 

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 of this inter-agency 

Recipient Index would be in violation of any State 

or Federal statutory or constitutional provision. ” 

We have discussed and analyzed the right of privacy in prior opinions. 

‘See Attorney General H-90 (1973) and H-242 (1974). As to the basis for the 

right of privacy in Texas see Billings v. Atkinson, 489 S. W. 2d 858 (Tex. 

1973). 

We do not believe that your proposal violates the common law or 

constitutional right of privacy of welfare recipients. We base this op,inion 

primarily upon two factor~a; first, the limited nature of the information 

to be supplied the computer and second, the fact that the information is 

confined to State agencies and is not released to the public generally. 

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

violating its confidentiality or destroying its 

confidential character. ” 

We have examined many of the statutes relative to the records 

of the 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~ 5 11, 

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~ 5 4, V. T. C. S. (Department of Health); Art. 5547 $ 87, V. T. C. S. (Department of Mental 

Health and Mental Retardation). 

Many of these statutes make information concerning welfare recipients “confidential, ” but we do not believe that interagency exchange 

of the basic information contemplated by your index violates confidentiality. 

On many occasions the Legislature has expressed a policy favoring interagency cooperation of this kind and we do not believe that the Legislature 

intended to limit such cooperation by an unduly restrictive interpretation 

of the 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 in which the mere identity of 

an individual would necessarily reveal confidential facts, an example, 

mentioned in your opinion request being, the venereal disease records 

of the 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, ‘I and appears to 

confine fatits regarding these patients to such personnel. Accordingly 

we do not believe that the identity of recipients of this particular 

program of the State Health Department treatment should be included 

in the 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 in the index. 

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

Undoubtedly, among the various agencies proposed as participants, 

there are other records which, for reasons of privacy and confidentiality, 

ought not be included in the index. Each agency will have to examine its 

basic statutes and the records it maintains in the light of the privacy laws 

as they may exist from time to time to determine what persons may not 

be included in the index lest their mere inclusion disclose facts made 

private and confidential. 

SUMMARY 

Under most circumstances submission by State 

Welfare agencies of basic information concerning 

the identity of recipients to a centralized computer 

index does not violate any Federal or State common 

law statutory or constitutional right of privilege. 

Very truly yours, 

P, 

// Attorney General of Texas 

APPROVED: 

o,Jp 

DAVID M. KENDALL, Chaiiman 

Opinion Committee 

p0 1341