Page Comparison

Request No.2016-15Date of Request7.14.16RequesterFullerton College
Residency Review Committee Application(s)Standard ApplicationSection / Page

Area B Residency Logic

Steering Approval StatusPending ApprovalSteering Hearing Date7.14.16Proposed Change to Download FileTBDProposed Change to Residency LogicYESJIRA TicketOPENAPPLY-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. 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:

Residents will not be affected and they will continue to be classified correctly, based on how they answer questions 2 and 3.

Possible Residents will be set 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 recently, will be classified as B2 (possible residents) when they reach Step 4.

Non-Residents will be correctly classified 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 and then the logic ENDS there for them. There is no additional opportunity for them to be re-classified later in the logic.)

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

#DescriptionNotes1

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.

2Create and add a new Integrity Flag #30 and set the flag if the user falls under "If NO" in Step 1. 2Run tests to ensure the revision to Step 1 does not negatively affect 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. 3Update documentation:

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..

4Update 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

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

"If No" Column: Change the action from setting Class B0 (go to step 2) to Set Class B2, (set flag 30) and (go to step 2).

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)~~

Proposed change:
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: 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..
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).
1. Revise logic in the "If No" column of Step 1 as follows:
  1. Step 1:
    1. Evaluation Statement: NO CHANGE
    2. Data Elements & Logic: NO CHANGE
    3. "If Yes" Column: NO CHANGE
    4. "If No" - Change the action to: Set Class B2, (set flag 30) and (go to step 2).
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".
3. 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 (flag 59) go to step 5	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 (flag 70) go to step 5	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_

lawsuit = 1

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

title	Test Use Case #1: Residents

Test Use Case #1: Residents (B1)

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

Step	AREA B Step Logic	Response	Class Set?	Flag set?	Next Action?	Change in Class?	Notes
1	Do out-of-state indicators support intent?	Yes	No		go to step 2		IF: ca_outside_tax = 0 AND ca_outside_voted = 0 AND ca_outside_college = 0 AND ca_outside_lawsuit = 0
2	Has the applicant lived in California for two years prior to RDD?	YES		No	go to step 5	No
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?
5	Has the applicant completed HS outside CA in last 2 years?	NO		No	go to step 6	No
6	Is the applicant in military with non CA home of record?	NO		No	go to step 7	No
7	Is the applicant under the care and control of a guardian, under 19 and unmarried?	NO		No	go to step 8	No
8	Is the applicant’s current address outside of California?	NO		No	go to step 9	No
9	Is the applicant’s permanent address outside of California?	NO		No	go to step 10	No
10	Is the applicant under 19 as of RDD with last high school out-of-state?	NO		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		No	go to step 12	No
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

Expand

title	Test Use Case #2: Possible Residents (B2)

Test Use Case #2: Possible Residents (B2)

Objective: Ensure Possible Residents are Classified Correctly (B2)

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	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	B2	No	go to step 5	No
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?
5	Has the applicant completed HS outside CA in last 2 years?	NO	B2	No	go to step 6	No
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?	NO	B2	No	go to step 8	No
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?	NO	B2	No	go to step 12	No	Still has a B2
12	Has Class “B2” been set? If Yes, set class B2 If No, set class B1	Yes	B2	NO	Set class B2		User ends with B2 and flag 30 set (indicator an OOS indicator that the college should follow up on)

Expand

Test Use Case #3: Non-Residents (B0)

Objective: Ensure Non-Residents are Classified Correctly (B0)

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	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	B2	No	go to step 3	No
3	Has the applicant been resident in CA for over a year prior to RDD?	No	B2	No	go to step 4	No
4	Is the applicant a current or former foster youth, under age 20, and now residing in California?	No	B0	No	Set B0 and end logic	Yes	This step will identify the user as a NON-RESIDENT. If they are not a foster youth, their status will change from B2 (from Step 1) to B0 here and end the logic for them here.
5	Has the applicant completed HS outside CA in last 2 years?	NO	B0	No	go to step 6	No	Should not make it this far in the logic since the class was set to B0 in Step 4 and should have ended there.
6	Is the applicant in military with non CA home of record?	NO	B0	No	go to step 7	No	Should not make it this far in the logic since the class was set to B0 in Step 4 and should have ended there.
7	Is the applicant under the care and control of a guardian, under 19 and unmarried?	NO	B0	No	go to step 8	No	Should not make it this far in the logic since the class was set to B0 in Step 4 and should have ended there.
8	Is the applicant’s current address outside of California?	NO	B0	No	go to step 9	No	Should not make it this far in the logic since the class was set to B0 in Step 4 and should have ended there.
9	Is the applicant’s permanent address outside of California?	NO	B0	No	go to step 10	No	Should not make it this far in the logic since the class was set to B0 in Step 4 and should have ended there.
10	Is the applicant under 19 as of RDD with last high school out-of-state?	NO	B0	No	go to step 11	No	Should not make it this far in the logic since the class was set to B0 in Step 4 and should have ended there.
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	Should not make it this far in the logic since the class was set to B0 in Step 4 and should have ended there.
12	Has Class “B2” been set? If Yes, set class B2 If No, set class B1	NO	B0	NO			Should not make it this far in the logic since the class was set to B0 in Step 4 and should have ended there.

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?
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 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.
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.

Current Logic Specifications

Current Area B Logic

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

skip

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 (flag 59) go to step 5	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 (flag 70) go to step 5	Class B0 end	Set Class B0 AND (	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 (flag 61) go to step 6	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 (flag 62) go to step 7	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 (flag 58) go to step 8	Go to step 8	NO CHANGE
8	Is the applicant’s current address outside of California?	‘Mailing address – state’ != CA	Class B2 (flag 01) go to step 9	Go to step 9	NO CHANGE
9	Is the applicant’s permanent address outside of California?	‘Permanent address– state’ != CA	Class B2 (flag 02) go to step 10	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 (flag 03) go to step 11	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: If state != CA AND to_date is greater than the term start date minus 1 year.	Class B2 (flag 04) go to step 12	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).

Versions Compared

Old Version 14

New Version 15

Key

Problem / Issue

Proposed Solution

Requirements Summary

Proposed Technical Specifications

Problem / Issue

Proposed Solution

Requirements Summary

Proposed Technical Specifications

Use Case Test Matrix

Use Case Test Matrix

Test Use Case #1: Residents (B1)

Test Use Case #2: Possible Residents (B2)

Test Use Case #3: Non-Residents (B0)

BUG Case Matrix

Identifying Issues with Current Logic

Current Logic Specifications

Current Area B Logic

Notes

Supporting Documentation