2013 MIS Conference 1

MEMORANDA OF UNDERSTANDING (MOUS):

INTERSTATE AND INTRASTATE AGREEMENTS

Jan Kiehne, Connecticut State Colleges and Universities (ConnSCU)

Connie Brooks, Iowa Department of EducationBaron Rodriguez, AEM Corporation

Wednesday, February 13, 2013

2013 MIS Conference 2

CONNECTICUT

2013 MIS Conference 3

Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to enable Perkins reporting• Goal

o Create MOA specifically for Perkins reporting

• Challengeso Lack of in-house counselo No existing agreement to build upono Running out of time for analysis

BACKGROUND

2013 MIS Conference 4

MOA FOR PERKINS

Connecticut Department of Labor (DOL)

Connecticut Board of Regents

for Higher Education (BOR)

Community Colleges & State

Universities

Data Disclosed by BOR Data Returned by DOL

First Name First Name

Last Name Last Name

PIDM PIDM

SSN SSN

Employed: Y/N flag

2013 MIS Conference 5

• Gathered information on Perkins reporting

requirements

• Reviewed relevant FERPA sections – again

• Utilized the PTAC document Guidance for

Reasonable Methods & Written Agreements

• Drafted MOA

• Contacted PTAC

• PTAC read and provided feedback via conference

call

• Reviewed by in-house counsel

• Circulated for signatures

PROCESS FOR PERKINS MOA

2013 MIS Conference 6

MOA to enable data linkages for P–20W system• Goal:

o Create a solid template for participating agency attorneys to modify

• Challenges:o Agency attorneys’ lack of familiarity with new

FERPA guidelineso Wary State Assistant Attorney Generalso Lack of in-house counsel

BACKGROUND

2013 MIS Conference 7

MOA FOR P–20W SYSTEM

UCHC* data matching process & software located on Main Server at

BEST**

SDE BOR (ConnSCU***)

UConnDOL

* UCHC: University of Connecticut Health Center ** BEST: Bureau of Enterprise Systems and Technology (DOIT)****Connecticut Conference of Independent Colleges (CCIC)

ED166

CEDaR

Other

Remote Server Remote Server Remote Server

CC IRDB

CSU Repository

PKIS COSC

CCIC****

Remote Server

UCHC* data matching process & software located on Main Server at

BEST**

Early Childhood

data source

State Department of Education

(K-12)

Board of Regents

(Community Colleges &

State Universities)

unit level data without key identifiersfor audit/evaluation of

educational programs

UConn

Department of Labor

(DOL)Early

Childhood data source

Remote Server Remote Server Remote Server

CCIC***

Remote Server

2013 MIS Conference 8

• Read relevant FERPA sections

• Utilized the PTAC document Guidance for Reasonable Methods & Written Agreements

• Gathered example MOUs through Grads360

• Created a draft

• Asked SST contact for review and was referred to PTAC

• PTAC read and provided feedback through conference call

• Made adjustments

• Circulated to participating agency attorneys

• Scheduled meeting to review/adjust … finalize …

PROCESS FOR P–20W SYSTEM MOA – PHASE 1

2013 MIS Conference 9

• Agency attorneys reviewed and developed own versions

• UCHC Assistant Attorney General got involved and raised larger issues regarding impact of FOIA

• Discussions revealed that our model was not entirely accurate in its representation of where PII would flow

• More questions to PTAC

• More revisions to data sharing agreements

• Communicated changes among agency attorneys and Data Governing Board members

• Bundled documents for review by State Attorney Generals Office

• Status now ….

PROCESS FOR P–20W SYSTEM MOA – PHASE 2

2013 MIS Conference

Main Memorandum of Agreements (MOAs): - One MOA for each participating agency - Each MOA includes the participating agency, UCHC and BEST- Enables the participating agency to participate in the system

and share PII only for the purpose of conducting a data match based upon approved data queries

- Meets written requirements under FERPA for “Audit/Evaluation” exception

Query Management Document/Agreement (QMD):- One QMD for each data request/query- Each QMD will meet the written requirements under FERPA for

data sharing agreements that use the “Audit or Evaluation” exception

- Identifies the “Authorized Representative” to conduct evaluation using the matched data

- Each agency whose data would be included must sign that they approve before the request can be fulfilled

P20 WIN DATA SHARING AGREEMENTS

10

2013 MIS Conference

Which MOA would you like to see?

REVIEW OF MOA

11

2013 MIS Conference

Jan R. Kiehne, P20 WIN Program ManagerConnecticut Board of Regents for Higher Education39 Woodland Street, Hartford, CT 06105860-493-0236; kiehnej@ct.eduwww.ctregents.org

FEEL FREE TO CONTACT ME

12

2013 MIS Conference 13

IOWA

2013 MIS Conference

2012 Grant creates a collaborative team

• K–12 (part of IDE)

• Community Colleges (part of IDE)

• Regents Universities – MOU needed

• Workforce – MOU needed

Each area has a team member and a Steering Committee member

IOWA IN CONTEXT

14

2013 MIS Conference

• Written Agreement

• Designate “authorized representative”

• Specifyo Purpose (audit and eval. exception to

consent)o PIIo Destruction dates and procedures

• Policies and procedures to ensure privacy provisions of all state and federal laws will be followed

FERPA REQUIREMENTS

15

2013 MIS Conference

• The *magic* template that only requires search/replace didn’t exist

• Identify parties and legal provisions for the different parties

o IDE and Regents = FERPA to FERPA

o IDE and Workforce = FERPA to State Laws

• Start with “their” template for the “other” verbiage, e.g., severability, termination, etc.

PROCESS HINTS

16

2013 MIS Conference

• Paranoia and Paranoia?

• Iowa Exceptionality: State law REQUIRES postsecondary institutions to STORE state-generated educational IDs ()

REGENTS AND IDE: FERPA AND FERPA

17

2013 MIS Conference

This Agreement is entered into to exchange data needed for Iowa’s Statewide Longitudinal Data System (SLDS) in order to comply with the:

• America Competes Act (ACA) of 2007 (P.L. 110-69);

• American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 (P.L. 111-5 and 11-8); and

• State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF) programs of 2009 and 2011 (34 CFR Subtitle B, Chapter II).

These initiatives require the IDE to include Regent universities’ data “in the evaluation of K-12 education policy and practice in order to better align state academic content standards and curricula with the demands of postsecondary education, the 21st century workforce, and the Armed Forces.”

PURPOSE AND AUTHORITY

18

2013 MIS Conference

1. The number of students enrolled in postsecondary institutions within 16 months after high school graduation (ARRA/SFSF indicator C11) and

2. The number of those enrolled students who complete at least one year’s worth of college credit within 24 months of enrollment (ARRA/SFSF indicator C12)

3. The IDE also plans to analyze and report findings related to remedial coursework, graduation rates, and transfers between community colleges and Regent universities (ACA).

SPECIFY PII DATA ELEMENTS

19

2013 MIS Conference

One-time reports (e.g., remediation, C11, C12)

Process: Replace one-time data with new

Original longitudinal storage (enrollment, transfers, awards)

Destruction Date = Contract Termination Date

Revised longitudinal storage: Replace each year and request full set each year

DATA DESTRUCTION

20

2013 MIS Conference

• Original expectations are limited to legally mandated data elements

• Preliminary discussions for High School Feedback Reports

• Do not currently support long-term storage

• 30 days to provide acceptance or rejection of any additional data needed for reporting, or for any new data required for new or different reports

REGENTS POSTSCRIPTS

21

2013 MIS Conference

• Different agency, different laws, different needs, different tone

• Started with recently signed MOU for skeleton

• Asked for governing laws = state specific

• IDE FERPA side:

o Authorized Representative may store our educational State IDs

o Audit and Evaluation purpose

WORKFORCE

22

2013 MIS Conference

1. Shared ownership of linked datasets

2. May be stored for duration of contract (three years) and then destroyed unless new contract

3. Reports aggregate–level data only or de-identified for other parties

4. Veto power: 30 days to accept or reject reports before release

5. Interpretative caveats with any released reports and data sets

WORKFORCE MOU SPECIFICS

23

2013 MIS Conference

• Fully executed within a few weeks once specifics agreed to; 11 months total

• Process:o IDE provides name, DOB, and education

IDo Workforce matches to DMV/DOT data

for SSNo Workforce stores education ID with their

SSN• Workforce has not asked for any specific

education indicators (ITBS, ACT, Grad Status)

• New attorney revisiting

WORKFORCE POSTSCRIPTS

24

2013 MIS Conference

• Purpose is to find dropouts across state lines

• State-level users only to start with

• Some interest in opening up for district-level users

• State would notify district when found so transcripts could be sent

• Iowa + Nebraska + Kansas + Missouri

• All eScholar customers

INTERSTATE MOU

25

A

ESCHOLAR INTERSTATE ID EXCHANGE

DeXs Server Cert

DeXs Cert

NE Server Cert

IA Server Cert

KS Server

Cert

MO Server Cert

NE Cert

KS Cert

IA Cert

MO Cert

eScholar Data eXchange Service

Server (DeXs)

Server Certificate

IA UID

MO UID

NE UID

KS UID

Internet Access

Search Result

Search RequestDeXs

Database

SSL

SSL

SSL

SSL

DeXs Cert

DeXs Cert

DeXs Cert

Security

2013 MIS Conference 27

This exchange of information between authorized representatives of state educational authorities intended for the enforcement of or compliance with Federal legal requirements that relate to Federal or state supported education programs, specifically the accurate calculation of a party’s graduation rate under 34 CFR 200.19(b) and state reporting requirements under 34 CFR 76.720.

PURPOSE

2013 MIS Conference 28

• PII – Data List Attached

• Destruction – Absent extenuating circumstances, this will be within ________ of the receipt of the information. The method of destruction shall be ________.

• Wrangling over ability to re-release to districts – may require specific verbiage, may not be necessary 

DETAILS

2013 MIS Conference 29

• Attorneys have approved final details

• Not yet signed, but in the process

• All working from the same FERPA law

• Relatively straight-forward

INTERSTATE POSTSCRIPT

2013 MIS Conference 30

• Just jump in

• Key components are the same for “our” FERPA side

• Accommodate non-FERPA partners’ legal requirements

• Start with partner’s template if possible

• Work out the data and exchange details

• Have each lawyer oversee his/her piece

• Interstate, have a facilitator if possible (eScholar)

CONCLUSIONS

2013 MIS Conference

Contact information:Jan R. Kiehne, kiehnej@ct.edu

Connie Brooks, Connie.Brooks@iowa.gov

Baron Rodriguez, Baron.Rodriguez@aemcorp.com

For more information on MOUs:Resource 1: Guidance for Reasonable Methods and Written Agreements (Nov 2011)

Resource 2: Checklist: Data Sharing Agreement (Apr 2012)

CONTACTS AND ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

31