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 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-residents = B0" at this point) and a new Integrity Flag (30) should be added to alert Admissions of their OOS response.
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:
- 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 | Change the logic in Step 1 of Area B logic for applicants who decliare "out-of-state" indicator(s) from "Set B0 - go to step 2" TO: "Set 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 a new Integrity Flag 30 to Table F: Integrity Flags which will be triggered in Step 1 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".
Add New Integrity Flag 3030
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 OR
ca_outside_voted = 1 OR
ca_outside_college = 1 OR
ca_outside_lawsuit = 1
- 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).
- REVISE the "If NO" column of Step 4 to include (add) "Go to Step 12" to the existing logic, like this: "Is the user a current or former foster youth, under age 20, living in California?" "IF NO, then set Class B0 (non-resident) 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).
- ADD NEW STEP between current step 11 and 12 as a safety net to ensure that users set as "B0=Non-residents" stay that way, or they move on to Step 13 to get final B2 or B1 classification. Change as follows:
Step | Evaluation Statement | Data & Logic | If Yes | If No |
---|---|---|---|---|
12 | "Has class B0 been set?" | Class B0 | Set Class B0 (Non-resident) | Go to Step 13 |
13 | "Has class B2 been set?" | Class B2 | Set Class B2 (Possible Resident) | Set Class B1 (Resident) |
Table of Logic Changes
*** 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 |
| 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 |
| Set Class B0 AND (go to step 12) |
No changes to Steps 5 through 11 | |||||
NEW STEP 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 | Move this step down one step (from 12 to 13) |
Use Case Test Matrix
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.
|
Area B Logic Specifications
Current Area B Logic
Table B. Outline of Area B (Stay and Intent) Criteria in Residency Algorithm
The table below shows the existing Area B logic (columns 1 - 5) AND Proposed New Logic in Column 6. Use column 6 to test use cases with new logic.
Step | Evaluation Statement | Data Elements & Logic | If Yes | If No | Proposed New Logic for "If NO" Column |
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 | 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 | Go to step 4 | 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 | 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 | Go to step 6 | Go to step 6 |
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 | Go to step 7 |
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 | Go to step 8 |
8 | Is the applicant’s current address outside of California? | ‘Mailing address – state’ != CA | Class B2 | Go to step 9 | Go to step 9 |
9 | Is the applicant’s permanent address outside of California? | ‘Permanent address– state’ != CA | Class B2 | Go to step 10 | Go to step 10 |
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 | Go to step 11 |
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 | Go to step 12 |
12 | Has B0 been set? | Class "B0" | Set Class B0 | If go to step 13 | New Go to step 13 |
13 | Has Class “B2” been set? | Class “B2” | Set Class B2 | Set Class B1 | Set Class B1 |
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