Page Comparison

Problem / Issue

 Per Jason Ralphs, Los Rios CCD - there are inconsistencies between our documented Residency Flags in the DED and what is actually happening in the submission process.  After review of Flags 11, 50,and 80, we identified problems that are either documentation-specific, or our code is not doing what we say it should be doing.

Hi Patricia,

I have a few follow up questions for you on integrity flags –

For flags not directly associated with areas A-D of the algorithm, it appears there is only one that prevents a residency status of 1 – flag 30.  Why is flag 30 not associated with area A or B?

What was the intent of flag 11?  Is it meant as extended info to AB 540 eligibility or does it pertain to physical presence?  If pertaining to physical presence, why is it not built like flag 4 relative to term start date?

It would appear in addition to flags 55, 56, 57, and 71, flags 47 and 49 do not necessarily indicate an issue needing to be resolved for residency, correct?

If 47 OR 49 = True & status = 2 OR 3, then residency may be derived from parent or self-support exception due to age if student is deemed eligible for admission

I am working on a report documenting current residency practices within our district and identifying areas for improvement; I am hoping to use integrity flags as a means to better communicate ‘burden of proof’ messaging to students identified as 2’s. 

Thank you,

Jason

Jason D. Ralphs, MBA

Admissions & Records Supervisor

American River College

(916) 484-8530

Proposed Solution

Image Modified

---

Hi Patty,

I appreciate your follow-up; to keep Stephanie, Michelle and Mitch in the loop, we are seeing the same issue with flags 50 and 80.

I’m on the residency sub-committee, so I’ll be there if we need to look at anything new J

Thanks,

Jason

---

<< Patty's proposal to discussion - Residency Sub-Committee Review Meeting - April 3, 2018 3pm (tentative) - Below are the objectives of proposal:

"I know that not all the flags are directly related to residency logic.  Some are just "alerts" based on specific responses or combinations of responses. 

But this is one of the reasons I wanted that sub-committee to get ramped up.  The majority of these flags and the residency tables in general - were put in place before my time on this product.  I only have intimate understanding of the handful of flags that have been added since I came on board in 2012, and the algorithm - overall - needs a thorough review. 

I know we are all collectively holding our breath to see how AB3101 shakes out.  I think this is the right time to break down and analyze the residency algorithm with the following objectives:

1. Review the current residency logic and compare to the existing/current (and published) documentation - 
1. Does the code do what we say it does?
2. Does the current logic comply with all state and system residency requirements?
2. Review the validity and necessity of the integrity flags.  
1. Does the logic associated with these flags align to the documentation?  
2. Are all of these flags still needed? 
3. Are we missing any critical flags?
3. Identify any bugs in the logic reviews (above), then gather & groom requirements for development fix. 
1. Prioritize all identified fixes.
4. Compare our current logic to the state residency requirements in the Ed Code, Title 5, and SAAM. This is a bigger goal than #1. 
1. Are we collecting more than we need to?  
2. Are we missing anything?
5. Based on "current and existing" residency requirements at the state and system level - can we identify any ways to streamline the logic?  Can we identify any ways to streamline the questions & response options being asked?

Given the amount of political scrutiny that CCCApply is under right now, I think this project is critical and would send a good message to the system that we are doing everything we can to ensure we are compliant, bug-free, and as streamline as possible.

What do you think?  

Thanks,

Patty

Image Modified

---

<< From Jason, 3.24.18 - Last Email in Thread >>

To guide my suggestions to our district on improvements to residency, I am analyzing applications to Los Rios resulting in a residency status of 2 or 3 accepted by our SIS over the past 3 years.

The first test I ran was the average number of integrity flags per student, the distribution of integrity flags per student, and the frequency for each integrity flag.  I ran each test separately for 2s and 3s both globally (i.e. all 2s) and for those who went through reclassification (i.e. 2s who were coded as 1s in the same term due to reclassification).  In all cases, my analysis is limited to residency status in the application term because T5 requirements are expressly different for reclassification following a non-resident term.

The flags identified in the help ticket had 0 counts (low hanging fruit).  Most students identified as 2s have only 1 integrity flag set.  But I have seen as many as 7 set for 2s.  The average for 3s is less than 1.  I will be expanding my testing in the coming weeks.  For example, with flag 1, I tested how many of our 2s with flag 1 set and who had also been reclassified had listed a California address in UM, this turned out to be around 50%.  I have not yet performed this test on the larger population (irrespective of reclassification status), but I expect it will be high.  I'm not sure if we have a pop-up for this like we do for the homeless component, but it might be something to consider if we don't.

The integrity flag questions I asked were mostly pointed at eliminating them from my analysis where possible.  For example, if I am measuring factors contributing to possible resident status in terms of integrity flag counts per possible resident student, flag 71 should be discounted as it does not contribute to the possible resident determination.  I think it would be helpful to note which non A-D flags affect residency vs  messaging, and add a remedy (per Ed Code, T5, or SAAM) column for those affecting residency.  I am currently working on this mapping.

Mitch - I appreciate you sharing my message with your residency specialist; their response also spoke to the other reason I was asking, the disparity between our data and our documentation.

I'm spending any spare time researching everything residency.  Needless to say, I support the project and look forward to everything Patty mentioned in her long email.  If we could not find a more seasoned person interested in chairing the subcommittee, I would be willing.

Thanks!

Notes

After speaking with Michelle Pena and Mitch Leahy, we've determined that a special meeting of the Residency sub-committee (and the full STeering committee) need to begin the algorithm review against T5, Ed Code and SAAM to ensure we are meeting requirements, exceeding requirements, or if our documentation is up-to-date against these requirements.

<< from Mitch Leahy, in response to Jason's questions>>

Greetings,

Here are some notes from our residency specialist:

For flags not directly associated with areas A-D of the algorithm, it appears there is only one that prevents a residency status of 1 – flag 30.  Why is flag 30 not associated with area A or B?

 Flag 30 is associated with area B. The questions are asked in Step 1 of Area B.

What was the intent of flag 11?  Is it meant as extended info to AB 540 eligibility or does it pertain to physical presence?  If pertaining to physical presence, why is it not built like flag 4 relative to term start date?

 Flag 11 only has to do with AB 540 eligibility. We don’t use it in our download program. I don’t know if Open still sets that flag but it would be rare to find one. We check a student’s application for anything that conflicts with AB 540 when the student submits the AB 540 form.

It would appear in addition to flags 55, 56, 57, and 71, flags 47 and 49 do not necessarily indicate an issue needing to be resolved for residency, correct?

Integrity flags 55, 56, and 57, gives us an indication that if the student is considered to be a nonresident and any of these flags are flagged then the student will get a message in their Welcome Letter letting them know that any of these could possible give them a special exemption from nonresident fees. These flags can only help the student.

Integrity flag 71 only has to do with Foster Youth getting Priority Registration.

Integrity flags 47 and 49 have to do with admissions requirements only. If a student is under 18 we check a few other things like age to see if the student is under 16, then we ask for a copy of their high school transcript, etc. These flags have nothing to do with residency.

If 47 OR 49 = True & status = 2 OR 3, then residency may be derived from parent or self-support exception due to age if student is deemed eligible for admission

 If a student is under 19 before the first day of the semester then the residency questions on the Open CCC application are answered about the parent, not the student.

I am working on a report documenting current residency practices within our district and identifying areas for improvement; I am hoping to use integrity flags as a means to better communicate ‘burden of proof’ messaging to students identified as 2’s. 

Mitchell Leahy

Coordinator, Admissions and Records

Admissions, Records & Enrollment Development

Santa Rosa Junior College

Phone: 707-527-4510

Latest news and information on how to enroll visit: admissions.santarosa.edu

Supporting Documentation