University Records Manager, Brandeis University
(The content in this blog reflects the opinions of the author, and not of Brandeis University.)
Shortly after joining Brandeis to establish a records program, and being new to RIM as it applies to academia, I realized that it might be a good idea to review retention schedules from other colleges and universities (CUs) as part of my research. Higher Ed is an industry that generally encourages sharing of open information, in this case providing a view of retention schedules in the aggregate. Searching the Web with different browsers for published CU schedules, I built a document linking to over 40 CU schedules from various institutions. This document provides a novel, if small, glimpse into CU retention schedule trends and will hopefully be useful to other CU records managers and their colleagues who are establishing or reviewing schedules of their own (the Brandeis retention schedule is in its infancy). Each institutional schedule has its unique merits. If your CU retention schedule is published online and missing from this list, please send me a current link (email@example.com), and I will be happy add it to, and improve, our document.
Granted, this sample is bound by my non-exhaustive search engine results, and it excludes schedules from some well known CUs that elect not to share such information online. Hence, “snapshot.” Some CUs have a records launch page with no schedule posted or linked. There’s also a preponderance of state CUs in our collection with regulations that would not apply to a private university like Brandeis. I don’t imply that you can just pick retention policy off the trees and plug it into your institution. Yet, while a schedule for college X would not necessarily apply to Brandeis, getting a broad profile of retention practice across many Higher Ed institutions is proving valuable for framing our own schedule, subject to internal iterations and final review. For example, we found that no CU retained applications from prospective students who never attended (“non-matrics”) for more than 7 years. Unless Brandeis had some exotic arrangement that would require us to retain these longer – something that would be verified by our own research and standard, final authorization with our legal counsel – it’s a good bet that our retention period needn’t exceed standard practice and the reasonable needs of our admissions departments. Each institution is unto itself. Yet, our findings show that while record category coverage varies among institutions, there is a general consistency among retention policies across most of the institutions, despite a few outlier practices.
One observation relates to the inclusion or exclusion of certain CU record categories. Coverage of different categories is rather varied in the schedules. Differing nomenclature could lead to a scarcity of hits on certain categories, so we tried to mitigate this factor in our searches by bundling various and synonymous names for certain categories in our survey (e.g., Copyright AND Intellectual Property; Advancement AND Development, etc.). We also performed keyword searches for specific document types (e.g., grade rosters) that might appear within certain categories, to mine applicable data.
While some of the schedules surveyed may currently be under expansion, coverage of core categories was less than expected. None of the schedules that we include are fledgling or skimpy as a whole in their category coverage, so the underrepresentation is unexplained. (Since this piece was first published, it was pointed out to me that some institutions mask certain departmental schedules while publishing a general schedule, so this may account for some of the category absences.) Athletics records are covered in only 35% of the schedules. Ironically, both library/info services categories and records management records/retention schedule are absent from 72% of the schedules surveyed, indicating that some of us info pros are not “eating our own dog food.” While safety and security record categories appeared underrepresented for such combustible record types (missing from 42% of the schedules), HR/personnel records are covered more consistently in 88% of the schedules. One might wonder how the other 12% would not have included this sensitive category in their schedules. Continuing/Adult education explicitly appears on only 21% of the schedules. However, some CUs may embed this category within the broader “student records” category, which is covered in all of the schedules in one way or another (thank goodness). In some cases, a lack of perfect one-to-one terminology mapping may have slightly skewed our results.
The following chart depicts coverage (inclusion) and exclusion percentages of selected CU record retention schedule categories from our survey collection:
While schedule category inclusion varies considerably among institutions, record retention periods are generally more uniform across most organizations. One contributing factor may have been consistent regulatory interpretations among state CUs. Federal and other codes (e.g., IRS: 7 years) also reach every institution, so this would account for some uniformity. Standard valuation and requirements for specific record types also drive consistency of practice. The following types, for example, tend to warrant permanent or very long preservation almost across the board: accreditation records, class lists, transcripts, alumni/donor files, and intellectual property and copyright records. Overlapping archival influence warrants permanent preservation of historical record groups, or portions of them. One key and common division among student records is that between records of students who enroll and prospective students who do not. Obviously, the latter category needs much shorter retention, as indicated above.
My Record Category descriptions are rolled up (generalized) to encompass various naming conventions for document families among the CUs. The following table shows retention ranges.
As with the record categories, certain metadata fields may or may not be employed among the CUs. Some go the length of stating the regulatory authority that warrants the retention policy. Others only state record type and retention period, which is understandable for employees and units who are stretched out with their workloads – better something than nothing, and less to maintain. There were surprisingly not many instances of Big Bucket corralling in the schedules that we reviewed. In fact, some institutions are granular in their schedules, employing document type level division. There’s a propensity among a few to hold certain administrative records permanently – perhaps driven by paranoid (“just in case”) offices of record.
This is only a snapshot of a data sample, but it shows areas of consistency and variance among CU retention schedules. Along with our retention schedules listing, it is at the least a wonderfully nerdy way for a records manager to spend his or her time. At best, it can be used as a reference tool and baseline for retention schedule creation and maintenance in Higher Education – subject to local tailoring. Future batch retention schedule assessments can provide a basis for more detailed and broader studies, as well as improved professional discussion and understanding of policy trends in our trade.
My special thanks to Liana Shatova for compiling some of the data referenced in this posting.