Update Foster Youth Data Fields & Logic Per State Legislation AB12

Problem Statement or Business Need

For documentation and history purposes, this section will outline the reasons for this change request.

Petitioned by the CCCCO (MIS) and the John Burton Foundation, citing new state legislation for current and former foster youth (AB12), the CCCApply Steering Committee has approved revisions to the Foster Youth question in the CCCApply standard application, including the Foster Youth Status data field values, data field logic (one or more related Foster Youth data fields), a new Integrity Flag (71), and corresponding changes to the Area B (Stay & Intent) residency logic.  

Overview

The Chancellor’s Office (representing the colleges) and JBF feel our current question is too complex because it’s trying to determine the status of three different things simultaneously:

• Whether a student was ever in foster care in any state

• Whether the student qualifies for priority registration

• Whether a student qualifies for an exception to residency status

There are a number of problems with the current question:

• The language is confusing which leads to incorrect responses.

• The language does not reflect the current foster care structure since the extension of foster care up to age 20 (for AB669) and up to 25 (AB194) and provides an incorrect explanation of the term ‘emancipated’ as used in the context of child welfare.

• The residency classification process does not coincide with the actual law in statute.

Proposed Solution

Problem Statements:

Note: These problems were submitted by Debbie Raucher at the John Burton Foundation. Several Steering members disagree with her anectdotal reasoning and research data. However, below are the primary factors contributing to the approved change specifications itemized herein. 

1. The current configuration of the question is complicated and confusing.

This results in some foster youth checking ‘no’ to the foster youth question because they cannot decipher which of the five sub-responses they should choose. When this occurs, these students may miss out on essential benefits available to foster youth that will help them stay in school. In addition, these students are then missing from data collection efforts that are used to inform equity planning and ensure that an adequate level of support is being provided to students with experience in foster care.

Steering Feedback - Steering does not fully agree with this anecdotal theory.  hey have no data to back up this claim - which Steering has requested.  We disagree that the initial question is confusing to the point that the student gives up trying to self-identify. However, we do agree that the question is too complicated overall.

2. The language does not reflect the current foster care structure and provides an incorrect explanation of the term ‘emancipated.’ 

Prior to the extension of foster care in 2012, youth emancipated from the foster care system at the age of 18. In 2012 the availability of foster care was extended until age 20. With this change the language in CCCApply was rendered obsolete, but it has not been updated. 

Steering Feedback - Steering takes issue with this statement as the residency requirements for foster youth are different than the legislature that extends benefits beyond age 18. Our logic changes will reflect what we need and some of our logic will not change. Details will be specified below in the requirement changes.

Debbie Raucher at the John Burton Foundation also stated that in addition, the definition of ‘emancipated’ used in CCCApply is incorrect. In the context of foster care this does not refer to “emancipated minors” but rather is synonymous with the concept of ‘aging out’ on or after one’s 18th birthday.

3. The residency classification language does not coincide with the actual law in statute.

The statute provides that a student who currently resides in California and is 18 years of age or under at the time of enrollment, who is currently a dependent through California’s child welfare system, or aged out after age 18 may be entitled to resident classification until he or she has resided in the state the minimum time necessary to become a resident. This is designed to allow a youth who is a dependent through California’s child welfare system (i.e. California retained jurisdiction over the case) who does not otherwise qualify for residency because the youth was placed out of state, or because the biological parents reside out of state, to attend college as a California resident.

Steering Feedback - Again, Steering doesn't completely agree with this statement and the solution below will include residency logic based on the California residency requirements and MIS reporting. They are less concerned with incorporating any logic or changes for priority registration. The flag 71 is being introduced to identify this determination.

4.  The current Foster Youth Status field is trying to determine California residency in addition to foster youth status.

The current question asks about whether the youth was in foster care ‘in California’ which is an ambiguous question. It will be interpreted by most as whether the youth resided in California as opposed to a jurisdictional determination of which state had responsibility for the case. To determine which state had jurisdiction over a student’s foster care case is complicated and is not realistic to determine through CCCApply. As these students must be flagged for a follow up residency determination regardless of which foster care subcategory they select, it is unnecessary to include this level of detail in the CCCApply question.  

Steering Feedback - Steering agrees with this problem and our solution is designed to simplify the question, responses and logic all around.

Requirements Summary

The solution to the above issues requires several modifications, including

• Modifying the option choices in the Foster Youth Status field <foster_youth_status>
• Updating the hyperlinked Help “pop-up” language
• “Translating” the answer choices to match the current data field logic 
• Adding one additional flag option. No new fields are proposed.

Change Specifications

Revise the Foster Youth Status  <foster_youth_status> data field as specified below in the table:                

Requirement 2

Add new Integrity Flag #71 for Foster Youth Priority Registration (AB194) eligibility.

a. Add new Integrity Flag #71 to the current Integrity Flags table.

b. Update spec with new Flag 71 language. No development effort apply here.

c.  Development Efforts - Revise Foster Youth Priority <foster_youth_priority> data field logic as follows:

After the NEW Foster Youth Status field has been set, set Flag 71 if the applicant's foster_youth_status field is =1, OR =2, OR =3, OR =4, OR =6) AND the applicant is UNDER 25 years of age (RDD minus Birthdate < 25 years), then SET NEW

Additional Notes for Development:

• • The purpose of this new integrity flag is to alert Admissions Office staff that the applicant is possibly eligible for Priority Registration based on their Foster Youth Status and their Date of Birth.  

  • The logic that determines this eligibility and triggers the flag 71 is contained within the Foster Youth Priority data field <foster_youth_priority> only.

  • This flag does not affect the residency logic.

  • This flag will have a corresponding database field for downloads <integrity_fg_71>
  • This flag field needs to be added to the Report Center database for reporting (Pilot & Prod) REPORT-61
  • This flag field needs to be added to the Full Application Report and all Application Look-Up Reports in the Report Center (Pilot & Prod) CTRLCENTER-153

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Requirement 3

Update the other Foster Youth-related data field based on the new Foster Youth Status changes specified in Requirement 1 above. 

The foster youth data fields that determine foster youth priority registration, MIS, and California residency are based on the Foster Youth Status <foster_youth_status> data field. Specific changes are outlined below.

1. Foster Youth in California 

2. Foster Youth Priority
3. Foster Youth MIS
   
   
   
   

• Data Element: residency: ca_foster_youth
• Description: Determines if an applicant who may not otherwise qualify as a resident should be flagged (flag 70) as potentially qualifying for CA residency based on foster care status. A “1” value indicates the applicant may be a current foster youth or a youth who was in foster care at age 18 and was under 20 years of age at RDD. A "0" value indicates that the applicant is either over age 19 (20 or over), or has indicated they were never in foster care.
  
• Values: The calculation for how to set this field based on the foster_youth_status field. This field is used in the Residency Algorithm.

AB669 Eligibility = Yes  IF (foster_youth_status=1 OR =2 OR = 6) AND (RDD* minus Birthdate < 20 years)

AB669 Eligibility = No IF  (foster_youth_status=0 OR =3 OR =4 OR =5) OR (RDD* minus Birthdate is ≥ to 20 years)

Example 1: Birthdate on the day of RDD minus 20 yrs

RDD = 2015-01-04
Birthday (RDD-20yrs) = 1995-01-04

• • • If this user clicks the radio button for "1 = I am currently in foster care (including extended foster care after age 18).", or "2 = I aged out/emancipated from foster care or exited voluntarily on or after my 18th birthday," or "6 = I am not sure at what age I exited foster care." and RDD is 1/4/2015 then NO, the user is NOT eligible for AB669.

Example 2: Birthdate before RDD minus 20 yrs

RDD = 2015-01-04
Birthday (RDD-20yrs) = 1995-01-02

• • • If this user clicks the radio button for "1 = I am currently in foster care (including extended foster care after age 18).", or "2 = I aged out/emancipated from foster care or exited voluntarily on or after my 18th birthday," or "6 = I am not sure at what age I exited foster care." and RDD is 1/4/2015 then NO, the user is NOT eligible for AB669.

Example 3: Birthdate after RDD minus 20 yrs

RDD = 2015-01-04
Birthday (RDD-20yrs) = 1995-01-05

• • • If this user clicks the radio button for "1 = "I am currently in foster care (including extended foster care after age 18).", "2 = I aged out/emancipated from foster care or exited voluntarily on or after my 18th birthday," or "6 = "I am not sure at what age I exited foster care." and RDD is 1/4/2015 then YES, the user is eligible for AB669.
      
      
      

Example 4: User Chose No Radio Button

RDD = 2015-01-04
Birthday = 1999-01-04

• • • If this user clicks the No radio button for "Have you ever been in court-ordered foster care?" then NO, the user is NOT eligible for AB669.
      
       

Example 5: User chose value 5 "I exited the foster care system before my 18th birthday." 

RDD = 2015-01-04
Birthday = 1999-01-04 

• • • If this user clicks the radio button for "5 = I exited the foster care system before my 18th birthday." and RDD is 1/4/2015 then NO, the user is NOT eligible for AB669.
      
      

Example 6: User chose value 6 I am not sure at what age I exited foster care. 

2) Foster Youth Priority  (Changes to values & logic appear in RED below.)

• Data Element: foster_youth_priority
• Description: Calculated result for AB194 (priority registration) eligibility. Eligibility is defined as being a current foster youth or former foster youth who was in foster care as of the applicant’s 18th birthday and under age 25.

• Values: AFTER the foster_youth_status field has been set, set the value of foster_youth_priority as follows:

AB194 Eligibility = No  IF (foster_youth_status=0 OR =5) OR (RDD* minus Birthdate ≥ 25 years)

AB194 Eligibility = Yes  IF (foster_youth_status=1 OR =2 OR =3 OR =4 OR =6 ) AND (RDD* minus Birthdate < 25 years) THEN Set Flag 71

Example 1 Birthdate on the day of RDD minus 25 yrs

RDD = 2015-01-04
Birthday (RDD-25yrs) = 1990-01-04

• If this user clicks the radio button for "I am currently in foster care (including extended foster care after age 18).", I aged out/emancipated from foster care or exited voluntarily on or after my 18th birthday," or "I am not sure at what age I exited foster care." then NO, the user is NOT eligible for AB194.

Example 2: Birthdate before RDD minus 25 yrs
RDD = 2015-01-04
Birthday (RDD-25yrs) = 1990-01-02

• If a user clicks the radio button for "I am currently in foster care (including extended foster care after age 18).", I aged out/emancipated from foster care or exited voluntarily on or after my 18th birthday," or "I am not sure at what age I exited foster care." and RDD is 1/4/2015 then NO, the user is NOT eligible for AB194.

Example 3: Birthdate after RDD minus 25 yrs
RDD = 2015-01-04
Birthday (RDD-25yrs) = 1990-01-05

• If a user clicks the radio button for "I am currently in foster care (including extended foster care after age 18).", I aged out/emancipated from foster care or exited voluntarily on or after my 18th birthday," or "I am not sure at what age I exited foster care." and RDD is 1/4/2015 then YES, the user is eligible for AB194 and the system needs to set Flag 71 in the DB.

Example 4: User Chose No Radio Button

RDD = 2015-01-04
Birthday (RDD-25yrs) = 1990-01-04

• If this user clicks on the No radio button for Have you ever been in court ordered Foster Care? then NO, the user is NOT eligible for AB194.

Example 5: User chose value 5 "I exited the foster care system before my 18th birthday."
RDD = 2015-01-04
Birthday = 1999-01-04

• If this user clicks the radio button for value 5 "I exited the foster care system before my 18th birthday." then NO, the user is NOT eligible for AB194.

Example 6: User chose value 6 I am not sure at what age I exited foster care.
RDD = 2015-01-04
Birthday = 1999-01-04

• If this user clicks the radio button for value 6 " I am not sure at what age I exited foster care." and RDD is 1/4/2015 then YES, the user is eligible for AB194 and the system needs to set Flag 71 in the DB.

Example 7: Edge Case 1 - User who is less than 25 chose disabled foster youth statuses 3 , "I am currently in Foster Care in a system outside California" or 4, I was previously in Foster Care in a system outside California, and aged out or emancipated from the system prior to code push.

• Before the changes are pushed to the CI environment, the QA team will need to set up a scenario where a user chose value 3 or 4 and then hit save. After the new code gets pushed to CI, the user will be forced to choose a new available option since values 3 and 4 are no longer available.

Example 8: Edge Case 2 - User who is less than 25 chose disabled foster youth statuses 3 , "I am currently in Foster Care in a system outside California" or 4, I was previously in Foster Care in a system outside California, and aged out or emancipated from the system after they already validated the page.

• Before the changes are pushed to the CI environment, the QA team will need to set up another scenario where a user starts an Apply application, fills out the Residency page and selected either option 3 or 4 for the Have you ever been in Court Ordered Foster Care?  The user will need to navigate through the application until they reach the review page. The user will then need to Log out. After the new code gets pushed to CI, the user will need to resume the application. The user should start on the review page (be sure to NOT go back to the page where you select that foster youth status) and then submit the application.  The expected results is the system will store the original chosen 3 or 4 value AND that their AB194 Eligibility = Yes and flag 71 should be set in the DB.

3) Foster Youth MIS  (Changes to values & logic appear in RED below.)

• Data Element: foster_youth_mis
• Description: Derived field based on foster_youth_status. Any foster youth option THAT IS NOT  = 0,  sets the value to “yes.” (In other words, foster youth status = 1, =2, =3, =4, =5, =6 , equals YES).  NOTE:  Even though = 3 and =4 are no longer used, we can keep them in the logic for assurance that in case the values should appear, they will be considered eligible.)
  
  
• Values: AFTER the foster_youth_status field has been set, set the value of foster_youth_mis as follows:

1 MIS SG03 = 1 foster_youth_status=1 OR =2 OR =3 OR =4 OR =5 OR =6 

0 MIS SG03 = 0 foster_youth_status=0

Example 1 - User chose 0, so foster_youth_mis is set to false in the DB

Example 2 - User chose either 1,2,5,6, so foster_youth_mis is set to true in the DB

Example 3 - Edge case 1: User chose disabled foster youth statuses 3 , "I am currently in Foster Care in a system outside California" or 4, I was previously in Foster Care in a system outside California, and aged out or emancipated from the system prior to code push, 

• Before the changes are pushed to the CI environment, the QA team will need to set up a scenario where a user chose value 3 or 4 and then hit save. After the new code gets pushed to CI, the foster_youth_mis would be set to true in the DB.

Example 4 - Edge Case 2 - User chose disabled foster youth statuses 3 , "I am currently in Foster Care in a system outside California" or 4, I was previously in Foster Care in a system outside California, and aged out or emancipated from the system after they already validated the page. 

• The user will need to navigate through the application until they reach the review page. The user will then need to Log out. After the new code gets pushed to CI, the user will need to resume the application. The user should start on the review page (be sure to NOT go back to the page where you select that foster youth status) and then submit the application.  The expected results is foster_youth_mis would be set to true in the DB.

Requirement 4

Revise Step 4 of the Residency Area B logic to determine Foster Youth residency eligibility. 

a) Spec Change Only - no development efforts here - Revise the "Evaluation Statement" in Step 4 of Area B logic from "Is the applicant a current or former Foster Youth, under age 20, and now residing in California?"  TO "Is the applicant a current or former Foster Youth,under age 20, and now residing in California?  

b) Revise the "Data Element & Logic" action FROM "ca_foster_youth = Yes"   TO   "foster_youth_status is NOT = 0 AND RDD* minusBirthdate < 20 years"

c) No change to the IF YES  and IF NO statements. 

NOTE to Developers:  If the student has a Foster Youth Status that is NOT "=0" and they are under 20 (19 years or younger) - they should be classified as CLASS B2 and set FLAG 70.  This is what the existing logic prescribes.  The only changes to Area B are:  1)We are extending the eligibility age from 19 or younger  to 20 years old or younger; and 2) the logic is now based on the Foster Youth Status field plus the applicant's DOB, instead of the <ca_foster_youth> field only. This is outlined in the Area B table below. Per 1/25/2016 meeting with Debbie Raucher, John Burton Foundation, the age for AB669 (residency) is 19 years or younger / UNDER 20 (NOT 21) for all residency DOB calculations. All the rest of the changes (changes to the Foster Youth status values) is CORRECT.

The first three steps of the Area B logic do not change. 

If the logic takes the student to Step 4 - the revisions described above will either classify the student as B2/Flag 70, or they will be classified as B0 and the logic will end there.

Top

Changes to Data Download File

Changes to Logic

Top

Supporting Documentation 

Below is additional documentation (i.e., CCCCO legal opinions, residency and/or education code citations, legislation citations, supplemental information, etc.) to be referenced in support of this change request.