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 |
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
Add missing step to the Area B residency logic for the final calculation of the Class B0 status.
On the current Area B step-by-step logic table, the final step in the process is to determine if the applicant's Area B status is B1 (Resident) or B2 (Possible Resident) or B0 (Non-Resident).
On Step 12, the logic says, "Has Class B2 been set (anywhere in the stepped logic)?" IF Yes, set Class B2; If NO, then set Class B1 (Resident). The logic fails to identify if the applicant has been classified as "B0" anywhere along the way. By adding this step in as the second to the last step, any applicant who had be classified with "B0" in Step 1 will be classified as B0 in the final area calculation.
Extensive testing and a table of use cases and edge case results will be created and documented to ensure that this addition does not "break" any other step of the logic pertaining to "B1 - Residents" and/or "B2 - Possible Residents".
Requirements Summary
# | Description | Notes |
---|---|---|
ALERT !! TYLER - Lets discuss this before I add any further rquirements or specifications. I know we have identified the correct issue, but I want to get your recommendation for where the missing step should be added. It may need to be added to Step 2 or 5, instead of at the end (Step 12). Talk to Patty before starting this work. | ||
1 | Add a new step 12 to the Area B residency logic (between steps 11 and 12) to identify students who had "Class B0" set in Step 1 of the logic and maintained that classification all the way through the remaining steps of the logic. Move the current Step 12 down one step to 13, and add in the new step 12 immediately above it. (See example in Proposed Technical Requirements table below). There are no other proposed changes to any other steps. The new Step 12 will read as follows: NEW STEP 12: "Has Class B0 been set?" IF Yes, set Class B0; If NO, go to step 13. NOTE: After adding in new Step 12, the old step 12 is now Step 13. There is no change to that step, which reads: "Has Class B2 been set?" If Yes, set Class B2; If NO, set B1. : | |
2 | Run tests to ensure new Step 12 does not negatively affect any other step within the Area B: Stay and Intent 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. | |
3 | Update documentation:
| |
4 | Update the Area B Flowchart in Appendix A: Submission Calculation Service of the the CCCApply Standard Application Data Dictionary to reflect new step if necessary. |
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
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 | 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. 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 ?) | go to step 4 | YES | Yes, user is now change to B2 with Flag ? which will alert A&R to collect proof of residency status |
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? | Yes | B2 | Yes | Set class B2 - Possible Resident". | This works. The flag indicates that A&R needs to follow up to collect appropriate paperwork. |
Proposed Technical Specifications
- Update 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 81)
(go to step 2)
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
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 |
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 | 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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
8 | Is the applicant’s current address outside of California? | ‘Mailing address – state’ != CA | Class B2 | Go to step 9 |
9 | Is the applicant’s permanent address outside of California? | ‘Permanent address– state’ != CA | Class B2 | 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 |
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 |
12 | Has Class “B2” been set? | Class “B2” | Set Class B2 | 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 whether the logic was incorrectly calculating the final area B calculation and proposed the solution recommendation listed above.
Supporting Documentation