Request No. | 2018-14 |
---|---|
Date of Request | March 23, 2018 |
Requester | Jason Ralphs, Los Rios CCD |
Application(s) | Standard |
Section / Page | Residency Logic, Integrity Flags |
Steering Hearing Date | April 3, 2018 |
Approval Status | APPROVED - DEFERRED - CCCApply 3.0 |
Proposed Change to Download File | TBD |
Proposed Change to Residency Logic | TBD |
On July 25, 2018 the CCCApply Residency Review sub-committee met to review the current CCCApply residency algorithm, including the four individual logic areas (A-D), the integrity flags, and the derivative residency status calculated in the post-submission Submission Calculation Service. Many of the bugs and approved change enhancements were documented in the minutes from that sub-committee meeting. Unfortunately, the scope of the development work was not able to be included in the FY2019 work plan and budget. To review the meeting minutes and discussion, click here to listen to the Zoom recording: CCCApply Steering Meeting - Residency Questions Review - July 25, 2018 |
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
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
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