Page Comparison

Problem / Issue

Colleges are reporting multiple problems wth the Area B logic regarding students who report out-of-state activities but are still being classifed as "Residents" in the Area B logic and the overall Residency Status calculation. 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 reaching Step 4 with the correct classification, which is the poiint in the logic that separates the residents from the "possible residents" and the "non-residents". . 

Proposed Solution

To ensure applicants who have lived in California for one or two years but have answered yes to one or more "out-of-state" activities are identified correctly at the critical steps in the Area B logic, they should be classified as "B2 - Possible Residents" right away in Step 1, instead of "Non-resident = B0" at this point, and a new Integrity Flag (30) should be added to alert Admissions of their OOS response. When the user gets to Step 4, they will be determined if they are foster youth, which would set class B2, or not, which would set class B0. The existing logic ends here at step 4, but the new proposal adds one more safety net for non-residents, and adds "Go to new step 12" to the "If No" column of Step 4.

In addition, another step between 11 and 12 (the final area calculations) should be added to ensure that true "Non-residents" edge cases that could possibly slip through with that status will keep that status or advanced to the final Step 13 to be finalized as "B2 - Possible Residents", or finish with a  "B1 = Resident", correctly.  

By changing Step 1 (as specified below) and adding the extra step between 11 and 12,, we believe students will be calculated correctly depending on their true status, and:

The solution is to change Step 1 from: "Set Class B0 - Non-resident > Go to Step 4"  to  "Set Class B2 > Set flag (30 > Go to Step 2" which is the point where California residency for 2years is identified. If the answer is "No" at step 2, the "B0" classification is then set, and the logic advances to step 3 and 4. At step 4, unless the student with the "B0" classification is determined to be a current or former Foster Youth, they keep the "B0" classification and skip to the end for final B0 classification. If the user is a Foster Youth, the class is set back to "B2", a flag is set, and they advance through the rest of the logic with that classification.  

Extensive testing will be has been documented in a table of use cases and edge cases to ensure that these the changes do not "break" any other steps of in the logic.  

Requirements Summary

Proposed Technical Specifications

NOTE: All of the proposed changes to the Area B logic pertain to the "If NO" column only. There are no changes to the "If Yes" columns, other than the addition of the new Step 12 (which is a completely new step with all new columns).

Step 1: 

30

Applicant has reported one or more "out-of-state" indicators: 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 AND/OR

ca_outside_voted = 1 AND/OR

ca_outside_college = 1 AND/OR

ca_outside_lawsuit = 1

Table of Logic Changes 

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) 

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

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
(flag 59)
go to step 5

Go to step 4

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
(flag 70)
go to step 5

Class B0 end

Use Case Test Matrix

Test Use Case #1: Residents (B1)

Objective: Ensure Residents are Classified Correctly (B1)
Expected Results: B1
Actual Results:  

Do out-of-state indicators support intent?

Proposed Technical Specifications

NOTE: All of the proposed changes to the Area B logic pertain to the "If NO" column only. There are no changes to the "If Yes" columns, other than the addition of the new Step 12 (which is a completely new step with all new columns).

1. 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). 
   
   

   1. Change the logic in the "IF NO" column of Step 1 of the Area B logic from::
      
      Step 1:

      1. Change the logic in the "IF NO" column of Step 1 of the Area B logic from:
         
         "Set B0 - go to step 2"
         to
         "Set Class B2 and set flag 30 and go to step 2" , 
         IF
         the applicant reports one or more of the four "out-of-state" indicator(s) in the application.
         
         NOTE: The out-of-state indicators include: paid taxes, or registered to vote, or attended college, or filed a lawsuit, outside of California within the last 2 years.
   2. Ensure the logic also advances the "If NO" column in Step 1 to Step 2  (which is critical to determine if the user has lived in CA for 2 yrs or not).
      
      

2. Create and add a new data downloadable field for new Integrity Flag 30 to the residency table in the submitted application database: integrity_fg_30. 
   
   a. Add "integrity_fg_30" to the download client for the standard application only.
   b. Add "integrity_fg_30" to the submitted application "Rules" area in the Administrator (a separate JIRA has been created for this task.)
   c. Add "integrity_fg_30" to the Education section of the Submitted Application data domain in the Report Center. 

   NOTE:  Integrity flags are two‐digit numeric codes, as defined in Table E. They are stored and downloaded in data element ‘residency: res_int_flags’, a string that can contain up to 26 flags. Refer to the CCCApply Standard Application Data Dictionary v.2016.1 for more information about this data element.

   
   Add New Integrity Flag 30

   30

   Applicant has reported one or more "out-of-state" indicators: 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 AND/OR ca_outside_voted = 1 AND/OR ca_outside_college = 1 AND/OR ca_outside_lawsuit = 1

   
   

   
   

3. Revise the "IF NO" column in Step 4 to include "go to step 12". The logic in the "If NO" column would read: "Set Class B0 and go to step 12"
   
   (B0 = Non-Resident for Area B).
   
   NOTE: Step 4 is the point in the logic that determines if a user is a Non-Resident. Prior to step 4, the user would either have a Class B2 set, or no class set at all.  Step 4 is the point in the logic that asks if the user "is a current or former foster youth and residing in California and under age 20."
    
   "IF Yes then "Set Class B2 and set flag 70 (foster youth) and go to step 5";
   OR
   "If NO, then "Set Class B0 and go to step 12"  
   
   NOTE: There is no change to the "If yes" column in Step 4 (set Class B2, set flag 70, and go to step 5).
   
    

4. ADD NEW STEP 12 to the Area B logic - which would serve as an additional final "Non-Resident, Class B0" classification point, just in case an edge case slips past step 4 (and  the user isn't reclassified with B2 along the way). By adding this new step between step 11 and 12, we have a safety net in place for Non-Residents.
   
   The new step 12 would read:
   
   "Has Class B0 been set?"  
   If Yes, then "Set Class B0 and END the logic calculation"
   OR
   If No, then, "Go to step 13"
   
   New Step 12 and 13 looks like this: 

Table of Logic Changes 

Has the applicant completed HS outside CA in last 2 years?

Is the applicant in military with non CA home of record?

Is the applicant under the care and control of a guardian, under 19 and unmarried?

Is the applicant’s current address outside of California?

Is the applicant’s permanent address outside of California?

Is the applicant under 19 as of RDD with last high school out-of-state?

Was the applicant enrolled in an out-of-state college with a ‘To Date’ within the year previous to the term start date?

Has Class “B2” been set?
If Yes, set class B2
If No, set class B1 

Test Use Case #2: Possible Residents (B2)

Objective: Ensure Possible Residents are Classified Correctly (B2)

Use Case Test Matrix

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
title Use Case #1: Problems with CA Res 2Yrs but Paid Taxes Outside of CA
Use Case 1: California Resident for 2 years, but Paid Taxes Outside of California Expected Results:  B2 - Possible Resident Current Logic Results:  B1 - Resident      Step AREA B Step Logic Response Class Set? Flag set? Next Action? Change in Class? Notes 1 Do out-of-state indicators support intent? NO B0 No go to step 2   IF: ca_outside_tax = 1 OR ca_outside_voted = 1 OR ca_outside_college = 1 OR ca_outside_lawsuit = 1 2 Has the applicant lived in California for two years prior to RDD? YES B0 No go to step 5 No With our current logic, the user still has B0 at this point. THIS IS WHERE THE PROBLEM IS: STEP 1 & 2 ARE INCONSISTENT. This is the point where this student is incorrectly classifed (or not classified). If the student has been here for 2 years, they should be classified as a B2 at this point (inconsistencies indicate "further proof is required". 3 Has the applicant been resident in CA for over a year prior to RDD?             4 Is the applicant a current or former foster youth, under age 20, and now residing in California?           California? 5 Has the applicant completed HS outside CA in last 2 years? NO B0 No go to step 6 No   6 Is the applicant in military with non CA home of record? NO B0 No go to step 7 No   7 Is the applicant under the care and control of a guardian, under 19 and unmarried? NO B0 No go to step 8 No  8 Is the applicant’s current address outside of California? NO B0 No go to step 9 No  9 Is the applicant’s permanent address outside of California? NO B0 No go to step 10 No  10 Is the applicant under 19 as of RDD with last high school out-of-state? NO B0 No go to step 11 No   11 Was the applicant enrolled in an out-of-state college with a ‘To Date’ within the year previous to the term start date? NO B0 No go to step 12 No Still has a B0 at this point - herein lies problem #1. All other indicators point to CA so there is no point along the way where the class is changed to B2 12 Has Class “B2” been set? If Yes, set class B2 If No, set class B1  NO B1 NO Set class B1 as a RESIDENT   PROBLEM!!! Here's what's happening with this Use case. The B0 user is making it to the end with B0, which should not happen. B0 status should END in step 4. With our user in this scenario, the applicant should clearly be a "B2 - Possible Resident".

Expand
title Use Case #2: California Res 1 Year with OOS Indicator
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) Step AREA B Step Logic Response Class Set? Flag set? Next Action? Change in Class? Notes 1 Do out-of-state indicators support intent? NO B2 Yes 30 go to step 2  IF: ca_outside_tax = 1 OR ca_outside_voted = 1 OR ca_outside_college = 1 OR ca_outside_lawsuit = 1 2 Has the applicant lived in California for two years prior to RDD? NO B0 No go to step 3 No With our current logic, the user still has B0 at this point. THIS IS WHERE THE PROBLEM IS: STEP 1 & 2 ARE INCONSISTENT. This is the point where this student is incorrectly classifed (or not classified). If the student has been here for 2 years, they should be classified as a B2 at this point (inconsistencies indicate "further proof is required". 3 Has the applicant been resident in CA for over a year prior to RDD?  YES  B2   Yes (flag 59)   go to step 4  YES Yes, user is now change to B2 with Flag 59 which will alert A&R to collect proof of residency 1 year. 4 Is the applicant a current or former foster youth, under age 20, and now residing in California? Yes  B2  Yes (flag 70)  go to step 5  No  User still have B2, but now two flags have been triggered; 59, 70  5 Has the applicant completed HS outside CA in last 2 years? YES B2 Yes go to step 6 NO new flag is added  6 Is the applicant in military with non CA home of record? NO B0 No go to step 7 No  7 Is the applicant under the care and control of a guardian, under 19 and unmarried? NO B0 No go to step 8 No   8 Is the applicant’s current address outside of California? NO B0 No go to step 9 No   9 Is the applicant’s permanent address outside of California? NO B0 No go to step 10 No   10 Is the applicant under 19 as of RDD with last high school out-of-state? NO B0 No go to step 11 No   11 Was the applicant enrolled in an out-of-state college with a ‘To Date’ within the year previous to the term start date? NO B0 No go to step 12 No Still has a B0 at this point - herein lies problem #1. All other indicators point to CA so there is no point along the way where the class is changed to B2 12 Has Class “B2” been set? If Yes, set class B2 If No, set class B1  Yes B2 Yes Set class B2 - Possible Resident".   This works. The flag indicates that A&R needs to follow up to collect appropriate paperwork.

Expand
title Use Case #3: Non-Resident Foster Youth
Problem #3: Foster Youth who moved to California recently, and indicated one or more OOS indicators. Expected results:  B2 - Possible Resident. Actual rsults:  B2 - Possible Resident)     Step AREA B Step Logic Response Class Set? Flag set? Next Action? Change in Class? Notes 1 Do out-of-state indicators support intent? NO B0 No go to step 2  IF: ca_outside_tax = 1 AND/OR ca_outside_voted = 1 AND/OR ca_outside_college = 1 AND/OR ca_outside_lawsuit = 1 2 Has the applicant lived in California for two years prior to RDD? NO B0 No go to step 3 No With our current logic, the user still has B0 at this point. 3 Has the applicant been resident in CA for over a year prior to RDD? NO B0 Yes (flag ?)  go to step 4 No   4 Is the applicant a current or former foster youth, under age 20, and now residing in California? Yes B2  Yes (Flag 70)  go to step 5   Yes B2 with flag 70 -   5 Has the applicant completed HS outside CA in last 2 years? Yes B2 No go to step 6 No  new flag set 6 Is the applicant in military with non CA home of record? NO B2 No go to step 7 No 7 Is the applicant under the care and control of a guardian, under 19 and unmarried? Yes B2 flg go to step 8 No  new flag set 8 Is the applicant’s current address outside of California? NO B2 No go to step 9 No 9 Is the applicant’s permanent address outside of California? NO B2 No go to step 10 No 10 Is the applicant under 19 as of RDD with last high school out-of-state? No B2 No go to step 11 No   11 Was the applicant enrolled in an out-of-state college with a ‘To Date’ within the year previous to the term start date? Yes B2 No go to step 12 No flag set 12 Has Class “B2” been set? If Yes, set class B2 If No, set class B1  Yes B2 Yes Set class B2 - Possible Resident".   This works. The flag indicates that A&R needs to follow up to collect appropriate paperwork.

Anchor

Logic-Changes Logic-Changes

Area B Logic Change Specifications

Current Area B Logic

Table B. Outline of Area B (Stay and Intent) Criteria in Residency Algorithm

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 and proposed adding a new step to the logic (between 11 and 12) to validate non-resident status before the final calculation. 

7-19-16: However, after reviewing the proposed logic with the developer, additional requirements were identified (revising the If No column in Step 1 and adding a flag).  The proposed requirements and change specs above reflect the final proposed logic changes. 

For testing, use the Current Area B Logic Table, which includes a new "If No" column.

Supporting Documentation