Residency Review Committee
Area B Residency Logic
Table of Contents |
---|
Problem / Issue
Colleges are reporting multiple instances of problems with the residency calculation <residency status> when students respond “yes” to the “Out-of-state Taxes” question on the Residency page. According to the Area B logic, all four of the “out-of-state-indicator” questions must be “No” (or =0) in step 1 to prevent being classified as a non-resident (= “B0”).
Proposed Solution
Revise Step One in the Area B residency logic to ensure that California residents who indicate an out-of-state activity are Classified as B2 and trigger a new Integrity Flag (30) to alert Admissions of this response. This will ensure that these students end up as "B2 - Possible Residents" or "B0 - Non-Residents" depending on how they answer the next 4 questions.
On the current Area B step-by-step logic table, Step 1 is identifiying the user as a "B0Non-Resident if they have indicated any out-of-state activities within the past 2 years. However, there are a number of studetns who are California residents, but have paid taxes outside of California or filed a lawsuit, etc.These student do not have any other non-California responses and therefore shoudl not be set as B0 all the way through.
By changing Step 1 as shown in the Proposed Technical requirements below:
Extensive testing and documenting tests in a table of use cases and edge cases will ensure that this change does not "break" any other step of the logic.
Requirements Summary
Revise Step 1 in the Area B residency logic for applicants who have out-of-state indicator(s) from "B0 - go to step 2" to "B2, set flag 30, go to step 2".
NOTE: This is a new, different solution than the one that was originally proposed via the Residency Review Committee from 7-12-16. Problems were identified with that solution. This one is being submitted for approval 7-18-16.
- Revise Table B:Residency Area B (Stay and Intent) in Appendix A: Submission Calculation Service of the CCCApply Standard Appliication Data Dictionary per approved technical speciifcations..
Proposed Technical Specifications
Update Step 1 of the Area B of the residency algorithm to change the action in Step 1 if the user indicates Yes to any of the four "out-of-state" indicator questions (as indicated in the Data Elements & Logic Statement in Step 1).Revise logic in the "If No" column of Step 1 as follows:
Step 1:
Evaluation Statement: NO CHANGE
Data Elements & Logic: NO CHANGE
"If Yes" Column: NO CHANGE
Step
Evaluation Statement
Data Elements & Logic
If Yes
If No
1
Do out-of-state indicators support intent?
ca_outside_tax = 0 AND
ca_outside_voted = 0 AND
ca_outside_college = 0 AND
ca_outside_lawsuit = 0
Go to step 2
Class B0
(go to step 2)
Class B2
(set flag 30)
(go to step 2)
Request No. | 2016-15 |
---|---|
Date of Request | 7.14.16 |
Requester | Fullerton College Residency Review Committee |
Application(s) | Standard Application |
Section / Page | Area B Residency Logic |
Steering Approval Status | Pending Approval |
Steering Hearing Date | 7.14.16 |
Proposed Change to Download File | TBD |
Proposed Change to Residency Logic | YES |
JIRA Ticket | OPENAPPLY-3192 |
Table of Contents |
---|
Problem / Issue
Colleges are reporting multiple instances of problems with the residency calculation <residency status> when students respond “yes” to the “Out-of-state Taxes” question on the Residency page. The Area B residency logic in CCCApply is lacking a logic in the process that identifies "possible residents = B2" vs. "non-residents = B0" when an applicant has one or more 'out-of-state' indicators but also has clear support for "Stay and Intent".
On the current Area B step-by-step logic table, Step 1 is identifiying the user as a "B0 = Non-Resident" if they have indicated any out-of-state activities within the past 2 years. However, there are a number of studetns who are otherwise California residents, but have paid taxes outside of California or filed a lawsuit, etc. Using the current area logic, these students are not getting classified correctly because the B0 class set in Step 1 is not getting changed correctly when they get to Step 2. This critical oversight allows this type of student to reach the bottom of the logic table with an incorrect classification which, based on the current logic, ends up setting their final calculation to "Resident" incorrectly.
Colleges are requesting that the logic be revised in Step 1 to classify these applicants as B2 (and set a flag) to ensure they are end with the correct classification at Step 4 and Step 12 - which is being skipped in the current logic.
Proposed Solution
Revise Step 1 of the Area B logic to ensure that California residents who indicate one or more "out-of-state" activities are Classified as B2 and add a new Integrity Flag (30) to alert Admissions of this response. In addition, add another step between 11 and 12 (the final area calculations) to ensure that valid "Non-resident = B0" are verified in the final calculation or advanced to the final Step 13 to determine whether they stay with "B2 - Possible Residents" or change to "B1 = Resident" correctly.
By changing Step 1 as shown in the Proposed Technical requirements below:
- Valid California residents will not be affected by this change. They will continue to be classified correctly based on how they answer questions 2 and 3.
- Possible Residents (B2) will be set right away in Step 1 and then will either maintain that classification correctly as they step through the logic, OR they will be updated to "Non-Resident" in Step 4 if they don't meet the requirements of Steps 2 and 3;
- Non-residents who are Foster Youths from another state, but moved to California and are under 20 years old, will be classified as B2 (possible residents) when they reach Step 4.
- Non-Residents are determined in Step 4 - if they are truly Non-Residents. (Non-Residents will answer NO to step 2, 3, and 4; thus, they will be accurately classified in Step 4).
- NEW Requirement (added 7-19-16): Add an additional step to the logic for the final calculation of "Non-Residents = B0". Add step between current step 11 and 12 to catch any possible edge-case that might allow a "non-resident" to maintain their "B0" status by the end of the logic. To do this, also add logic in Step 4 as follows: "Set Class B0 and go (skip) to Step 12"
- Step 12 will read as follows: "Has B0 been set?" If yes, then set B0. If No, then go to step 13.
- Step 13 will is the former step 12: "Has B2 been set?" If yes, then set B2. If not, then set B1 = Resident"
Extensive testing and documenting tests in a table of use cases and edge cases will ensure that this change does not "break" any other step of the logic.
Requirements Summary
# | Description | Notes |
---|---|---|
1 | Revise Step 1 in the Area B residency logic for applicants who have out-of-state indicator(s) from "B0 - go to step 2" TO: "Class B2, set flag 30, go to step 2". NOTE: This is a new proposed solution determined during 7-19-16 meeting with colleges and the Residency Review Committee. | |
2 | Add new Integrity Flag 30 to the Table F: Integrity Flags which will be added to Step 1 (Area B) IF the user has any 'out-of-state' indicators (i.e., paid taxes, registered to vote; attended college; or filed a lawsuit - outside CA within last 2 years". If any of these four indicators = 1 (true) then set class B2 and trigger this new flag 30 in Step 1. (after this class and flag is set in Step 1, advance user to step 2 in the logic.) | |
3 | Add new step 12 to the logic - to serve as an additional "Non-Resident, Class B0" confirmation - just in case an edge case slips past step 4 (and isn't reclassified B2 along the way). By adding this new step between step 11 and 12, we have a safety net in place for Non-Residents. | |
4 | Run tests to ensure the revision to Step 1 and the new Step 12 does not negatively impact any other steps in the Area B logic. Create a test case matrix to record test results from a variety of use case scenarios, including edge cases. Post the Test Case Matrix as part of the Release Notes in Public Documentation for colleges to use as reference. | |
5 | Update documentation:
| |
4 | Update the Area B Flowchart in Appendix A: Submission Calculation Service of the the CCCApply Standard Application Data Dictionary to reflect revised Step 1. |
Proposed Technical Specifications
- REVISE Step 1 of the Area B of the residency algorithm to change the action if the user indicates Yes to any of the four "out-of-state" indicator questions (as indicated in the Data Elements & Logic Statement in Step 1).
Revise logic in the "If No" column of Step 1 as follows:
Step 1:
Evaluation Statement: NO CHANGE
Data Elements & Logic: NO CHANGE
"If Yes" Column: NO CHANGE
- "If No" - Change the action to: Set Class B2, (set flag 30) and (go to step 2).
ADD new Integrity Flag 30 and trigger if Step 1 is "If NO, then Set Class B2, set flag 30, AND go to step 2".
- Ensure "If NO" column in Step 1 also advances the user to go to Step 2.
Use Case Test Matrix
The goal of the Use Case Test Matrix is to ensure that all possible scenarios are tested and PASSED logic before changing/updating the Area B residency logic. These tests are used against the proposed changes to the B Logic.
*** CURRENT LOGIC *** | PROPOSED CHANGE | ||||
Step | Evaluation Statement | Data Elements & Logic | If Yes | If No | IF NO |
1 | Do out-of-state indicators support intent? | ca_outside_tax = 0 AND ca_outside_voted = 0 AND ca_outside_college = 0 AND ca_outside_lawsuit = 0 | Go to step 2 | Class B0 (go to step 2) | Set Class B2 (set new flag 30) (go to step 2) |
2 | Has the applicant lived in California for two years prior to RDD? | ca_res_2_years = 1 | Go to step 5 | Go to step 3 | NO CHANGE |
3 | Has the applicant been resident in CA for over a year prior to RDD? | ca_date_current ! = null AND ca_date_current < RDD minus 1 year | Class B2 | Go to step 4 | NO CHANGE |
4 | Is the applicant a current or former foster youth, under age 20, and now residing in California? | foster_youth_status is != 0 AND RDD minus Birthdate < 20 years | Class B2 | Class B0 end | Set Class B0 AND (go to step 12) |
NEW 12 | "Has Class B0 been set?" | Class B0 | Set Class B0 | Go to Step 13 | ADD NEW STEP 12 |
13 | "Has Class B2 been set?" | Class B2 | Set Class B2 | Set Class B1 | Only change: Move this step down one step (from 12 to 13) |
Add new Integrity Flag #30, which will trigger if answer to Step 1 is "No":
30 | Applicant has 1) filed taxes; 2) registered to vote; 3) attended college; or 4) filed a lawsuit - outside of California within the last 2 years. | ca_outside_tax = 1 OR ca_outside_voted = 1 OR ca_outside_college = 1 OR ca_outside_ |
Use Case Test Matrix
The goal of the Use Case Test Matrix is to ensure that all possible scenarios are tested and PASSED logic before changing/updating the Area B residency logic. These tests are used against the proposed changes to the B Logic.lawsuit = 1 |
Expand | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Test Use Case #1: Residents (B1)Objective: Ensure Residents are Classified Correctly (B1)
|
Expand | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Test Use Case #2: Possible Residents (B2)Objective: Ensure Possible Residents are Classified Correctly (B2)
|
Expand | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Test Use Case #3: Non-Residents (B0)Objective: Ensure Non-Residents are Classified Correctly (B0)
|
BUG Case Matrix
The table below demonstrates the problem we are having with the Area B logic with this specific Use Case (California Resident for 2 Yrs who has OOS Indicator)
Identifying Issues with Current Logic
Expand | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Use Case 1: California Resident for 2 years, but Paid Taxes Outside of California
|
Expand | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Problem #2 with Current Logic: OOS Indicators are YES, but Has Been in CA for 1 Year. (Expected results: B2 - Possible Resident. Actual rsults: B2 - Possible Resident)
|
Expand | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Problem #3: Foster Youth who moved to California recently, and indicated one or more OOS indicators.
|
Current Logic Specifications
Current Area B Logic
Table B. Outline of Area B (Stay and Intent) Criteria in Residency Algorithm
Step | Evaluation Statement | Data Elements & Logic | If Yes | If No | Proposed New Logic | ||
1 | Do out-of-state indicators support intent? | ca_outside_tax = 0 AND ca_outside_voted = 0 AND ca_outside_college = 0 AND ca_outside_lawsuit = 0 | Go to step 2 | Class B2 set flag 30 go to step 2 | B2 set flag 30 go to step 2 | ||
2 | Has the applicant lived in California for two years prior to RDD? | ca_res_2_years = 1 | Go to step 5 | Go to step 3 | NO CHANGE | ||
3 | Has the applicant been resident in CA for over a year prior to RDD? | ca_date_current ! = null AND ca_date_current < RDD minus 1 year | Class B2 | Go to step 4 | NO CHANGE | ||
4 | Is the applicant a current or former foster youth, under age 20, and now residing in California? | foster_youth_status is != 0 AND RDD minus Birthdate < 20 years | Class B2 | Class B0 end | Set Class B0 AND ( | skip go to step 12) | |
5 | Has the applicant completed HS outside CA in last 2 years? | education: hs_state’ ! = CA AND education: hs_comp_date RDD minus 2 years | Class B2 | Go to step 6 | NO CHANGE | ||
6 | Is the applicant in military with non CA home of record? | Military_status = 2 AND (military_home_state != CA OR Military_legal_residence = CA) | Class B2 | Go to step 7 | NO CHANGE | ||
7 | Is the applicant under the care and control of a guardian, under 19 and unmarried? | ‘over19OrMarried’= 0 AND ‘guardianOrParentRelation= G | Class B2 | Go to step 8 | NO CHANGE | ||
8 | Is the applicant’s current address outside of California? | ‘Mailing address – state’ != CA | Class B2 | Go to step 9 | NO CHANGE | ||
9 | Is the applicant’s permanent address outside of California? | ‘Permanent address– state’ != CA | Class B2 | Go to step 10 | NO CHANGE | ||
10 | Is the applicant under 19 as of RDD with last high school out-of-state? | RDD minus19 years > personal_info: birthdate AND education: hs_state != CA | Class B2 | Go to step 11 | NO CHANGE | ||
11 | Was the applicant enrolled in an out-of-state college with a ‘To Date’ within the year previous to the term start date? | In any row of colleges_attended table: | Class B2 | Go to step 12 | NO CHANGE | ||
12 | Has B0 been set? | Class "B0" | Set Class B0 | If go to step 13 | ADD new step 12 here: if NO, go to step 13 | ||
13 | Has Class “B2” been set? | Class “B2” | Set Class B2 | Set Class B1 | NO CHANGE other than changing Step 12 to Step 13 |
Notes
This issue was reviewed by the CCCApply Residency Review Sub-Committee on 7-14-16. A committee of residency experts, including Michael Quaioit from the Chancellor's Office, reviewed several examples whether the logic was incorrectly calculating the final area B calculation and proposed the solution recommendation listed above.
UPDATE: Though the sub-committee identified the issue, it was not the most efficient proposed resolution to the issue. Patty met with Tyler to talk through a more appropriate (and accurate) fix to this issue which is to address the problem where it occurs...in Step 1. Instead of setting Class B0 if the user does have OOS indicator(s), set Class B2 here and set a new flag (30) to indicate to the college that the user has one or more OOS indicators. The B2 class will then follow the user through to step 2, 3, and 4. If the student should be a NON-RESIDENT (B0), then this will be caught in Step 4 IF the user is not a foster youth. See Test Case Matrix (not to be confused with the BUG Case Matrix).
Supporting Documentation