Request No.	2018-13
Date of Request	3.02.18
Requester	Michael Q.
Application(s)	CCCApply Noncredit Promise Grant
Section / Page	Account Information & Mailing / Residency Logic
Steering Hearing Date	August 2019
Steering Approval	Pending
Proposed Change to Download File	TBD
Proposed Change to Residency Logic	Yes / Proposed change to Area B / Res status

Problem / Business Need

The current implementation for identifying homeless students in OpenCCCApply has some flaws that have created barriers for homeless students who are otherwise California residents.

This change proposal pertains to all homeless - regardless of age - and there are no changes being made to the "Homeless Youth" question, logic, or data field.

Currently in CCCApply, applicants who indicate they are homeless (regardless of age) and have no permanent address, and/or current mailing address, are being flagged as "possible residents, documentation required" in the residency algorithm (residency status = 2) - regardless of whether they are legitimately California residents or not. The flag is being set in Area B of the logic which looks at the student's addresses and if the permanent address state is not California, and/or the current mailing address state is not California, then a Class B2 status is set, integrity flags are triggered, and ultimately the applicant's residency status requires proof of California residency for the tuition purposes.

Ultimately, this added burden of providing additional proof of California residency (to determine tuition purposes) is creating a barrier for homeless students who are already dealing with challenges. Removing this barrier supports the student success and streamlines the application and matriculation process for homeless students.

Proposed Solution

According to a legal opinion provided by Mr. Peter Khang of the Office of General Counsel, CCCCO, residency cannot be based on address alone, and should not be the determining indicator for residency determination if the applicant has indicated they are currently homeless.

Therefore, the most straight-forward solution to this issue includes adding a change to Steps 8 & 9 of the Area B logic - to ensure the student is not homeless when their address "State" is NOT California. This additional IF statement will continue to flag students who are not California residents, who are not homeless.

Update: 1.22.20 -Re-prioritizing the development of the Integrity flag in 6.7.0
~~In addition, a new integrity flag will be added to the Table F. Integrity Flags that will alert the Admissions Office that the student is currently homeless.~~

Click here to see email from Mr. Khang, 8.20.19....

Tuesday, August 20, 2019
Ms. Donohue,

Elena Alcala indicated that you had a question on whether permanent residence was required to establish residency. The answer is no.

California Education Code section 68062 does not require a “permanent residence”. Residency only requires an act and intent to remain in California. Further, the section contemplates that someone can return to a place of residency (e.g. a California resident going to school in Oregon never loses status as a California residence even though his/her address may change for school purposes). Thus, a student could change his/her “permanent residence” throughout the year and still be a California resident, so long as the student stays in California the entire time.

I hope this helps. Please contact me if you have any other questions or concerns.

Peter V. Khang
Deputy Counsel
Office of General Counsel

O (916) 445-8508

pkhang@cccco.edu

California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office

1102 Q Street, Sacramento, California 95811

www.cccco.edu

Homeless students who are NOT California residents will still be flagged for residency based on the other residency questions that will determine their residency status for tuition purposes.
Homeless youth - students who are 25 years old or younger at the time of application will continue to see the "Homeless Youth" question, will not be affected by the proposed changes, and will continue to be eligible for priority registration based on whether they have been homeless any time within the last 24 months

Note: 11.05.19: Patty met with Colleen Ganley, CCCCO, and Debbie Raucher, John Burton Foundation to discuss and approve following solution:

Change Requirements

Story: As an applicant who is currently homeless, completing the CCCApply application, I need my residency determination status - for the purpose of determining my tuition - to NOT be based on my physical address or my mailing address because I am currently homeless so that I am not burdened with providing additional documentation proof of my California residency.

Revise Step 8 of the Area B residency logic to ensure homeless applicants (regardless of age) are not flagged if they have no current mailing address because they are currently homeless:
1. Revise the Evaluation Statement language in Step 8 from: "Is the applicant’s current address outside of California?"
  TO: “Is the applicant’s current mailing address blank or outside of California and she/he is NOT homeless?”
2. Revise the Data Elements & Logic statement in Step 8 from: ‘Mailing address – state’ != CA
  TO:
  'Mailing address - state DOES NOT EQUAL California AND <no_current_mailing_homeless> is EMPTY.
  1. Keep existing "If Yes" statement: "If Yes = Set Class B2, and trigger Integrity (flag 01) and go to Step 9"
  2. Keep existing "If No" statement: "If No = Go to step 9"
Revise Step 9 of the Area B residency logic to ensure homeless applicants (regardless of age) are not flagged if they have no permanent address because they are currently homeless:
1. Revise the Evaluation Statement in Step 9 of Area B to read:
  ”Is the applicant’s permanent address outside of California and he or she is NOT homeless?”
2. Revise the Data Elements & Logic statement in Step 9 from: ‘Permanent address – state’ != CA
  TO:
  'Permanent address - state DOES NOT EQUAL = California AND <no_perm_address_homeless> is EMPTY
  1. Keep existing "IF Yes" statement: = "If Yes = Then, Set Class B2, and trigger integrity (flag 02), and go to step 10"
  2. Keep existing "If No" statement: "If No" = Go to step 10

Acceptance Criteria:

Applicants that have <no_current_mailing_homeless> = True should not be flagged with Integrity Flag 01

Applicants that have <no_perm_address_homeless> = True should not be flagged with Integrity Flag 02

Current Residency Logic Specification

Table B. Outline of Area B (Stay and Intent)

#	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 B2 (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
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 (flag 59) go to step 5	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 go to step 5 (flag 70)	Class B0 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 (flag 61) 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 (flag 62) 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 (flag 58) go to step 8	Go to step 8
8	Is the applicant’s current address outside of California?	‘Mailing address – state’ != CA	Class B2 (flag 01) go to step 9	Go to step 9
9	Is the applicant’s permanent address outside of California?	‘Permanent address – state’ != CA	Class B2 (flag 02) 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 (flag 03) 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: If state != CA AND to_date is greater than the term start date minus 1 year.	Class B2 (flag 04) go to step 12	Go to step 12
12	Has Class B0 been set?	Class B0 has been set	Class B0 end logic	Go to step 13
13	Has Class B2 been set?	Class B2 has been set	Class B2	Class B1

Highlighted Changes to Residency Logic: Area B

Table B. Outline of Area B (Stay and Intent

#	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 B2 (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
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 (flag 59) go to step 5	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 go to step 5 (flag 70)	Class B0 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 (flag 61) 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 (flag 62) 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 (flag 58) go to step 8	Go to step 8
8	Is the applicant’s current address outside of California and she/he is not homeless?	‘Mailing address – state’ != CA AND <no_current_mailing_homeless> is EMPTY	Class B2 (flag 01) go to step 9	Go to step 9
9	Is the applicant’s permanent address outside of California and he/she is not homeless?	‘Permanent address – state’ != CA AND <no_perm_address_homeless> is EMPTY	Class B2 (flag 02) 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 (flag 03) 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: If state != CA AND to_date is greater than the term start date minus 1 year.	Class B2 (flag 04) go to step 12	Go to step 12
12	Has Class B0 been set?	Class B0 has been set	Class B0 end logic	Go to step 13
13	Has Class B2 been set?	Class B2 has been set	Class B2	Class B1

Supporting Documentation

AB 806 Law

(Defines priority registration and other eligibilities for homeless youth and foster youth under age 25.

Question still remains about 'who is residency determined if the homeless student doesn't have an address?"

Click here to expand...

Assembly Bill No. 806

CHAPTER 163

An act to amend Sections 66025.9, 67003.5, 69514.5, 69561, and 76300 of the Education Code, relating to postsecondary education.

[ Approved by Governor July 31, 2019. Filed with Secretary of State July 31, 2019. ]

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

AB 806, Bloom. Postsecondary education: homeless and former homeless youth.

(1) Existing law requires the California State University and each community college district, and requests the University of California, with respect to each campus in their respective jurisdictions that administers a priority enrollment system, to grant priority for registration for enrollment to homeless youth, as defined. Existing law repeals this requirement on January 1, 2020.

This bill would add former homeless youth to the students to be granted, or requested to be granted, priority enrollment. This bill would extend the operation of this provision indefinitely. By extending the operation of requirements relating to student eligibility for priority registration at community college districts, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(2) Existing law requires qualifying institutions, other than the University of California, which it requests, to designate a staff member who is employed within the financial aid office, or another appropriate office or department, of the institution to serve as a Homeless and Foster Student Liaison and to inform current and prospective students of the institution about student financial aid and other assistance available to homeless youth and current and former foster youth, as specified.

This bill would add former homeless youth to the students with whom a Homeless and Foster Student Liaison works. To the extent that this provision would impose new duties on community college districts, it would constitute a state-mandated local program.

(3) Existing law establishes the Student Aid Commission and assigns to it numerous duties with respect to student financial aid programs, including the Community College Student Financial Aid Outreach Program and the Student Opportunity and Access Program. Both of these programs serve youth from low-income households.

This bill would add former homeless youth, as defined, to those served by these programs.

(4) Existing law requires the governing board of each community college district to charge an enrollment fee of $46 per unit per semester, but requires the waiver of this fee for students meeting specified requirements.

This bill would add persons who are, at the time of enrollment, former homeless youth, as defined, to those eligible for this fee waiver. To the extent that this provision would impose new duties on community college districts, it would constitute a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

DIGEST KEY

Vote: majority Appropriation: no Fiscal Committee: yes Local Program: yes

BILL TEXT

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1.

Section 66025.9 of the Education Code is amended to read:

66025.9. (a) The California State University and each community college district shall, and the University of California is requested to, with respect to each campus in their respective jurisdictions that administers a priority enrollment system, grant priority in that system for registration for enrollment to a foster youth, former foster youth, homeless youth, or former homeless youth.

(b) For purposes of this section:

(1) “Foster youth and former foster youth” means a person in California whose dependency was established or continued by the court on or after the youth’s 16th birthday and who is no older than 25 years of age at the commencement of the academic year.

(2) “Homeless youth and former homeless youth” means a student under 25 years of age, who has been verified, in the case of a former homeless youth, at any time during the 24 months immediately preceding the receipt of the youth’s application for admission by a postsecondary educational institution that is a qualifying institution pursuant to Section 69432.7, as a homeless child or youth, as defined in subsection (2) of Section 725 of the federal McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 11434a(2)), by at least one of the following:

(i) A homeless services provider, as that term is defined in paragraph (3) of subdivision (d) of Section 103577 of the Health and Safety Code.

(ii) The director of a federal TRIO program or Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs program, or a designee of that director.

(iii) A financial aid administrator for an institution of higher education.

(iv) A homeless and foster student liaison designated pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 67003.5.

(c) For purposes of this section, a student who is verified as a homeless youth as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) shall retain that status for a period of six years from the date of admission to the postsecondary educational institution.

SEC. 2.

Section 67003.5 of the Education Code is amended to read:

67003.5. (a) A postsecondary educational institution that is a “qualifying institution,” as defined in Section 69432.7, shall do both of the following:

(1) Designate a staff member who is employed within the financial aid office, or another appropriate office or department, of the institution to serve as the Homeless and Foster Student Liaison. The Homeless and Foster Student Liaison shall be responsible for understanding the provisions of the federal Higher Education Act pertaining to financial aid eligibility of current and former foster youth, homeless youth, and former homeless youth, including unaccompanied homeless youth, and for identifying services available and appropriate for enrolled students who fall under one or more of these categories. The liaison shall assist these students in applying for and receiving federal and state financial aid and available services.

(2) Inform current and prospective students of the institution about student financial aid and other assistance available to homeless youth, former homeless youth, and current and former foster youth, including their eligibility as independent students under Section 1087vv of the federal Higher Education Act, as that section read on December 31, 2015.

(b) The Regents of the University of California are requested to adopt policies that are, to the extent that is feasible, equivalent to the provisions of subdivision (a).

(c) The definitions of foster youth, former foster youth, homeless youth, and former homeless youth in subdivision (b) of Section 66025.9 shall apply to this section.

SEC. 3. Section 69514.5 of the Education Code is amended to read:

69514.5. (a) The Community College Student Financial Aid Outreach Program is hereby established. The commission shall, in consultation with the office of the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges, develop and administer this program for the purpose of providing financial aid training to high school and community college counselors and advisers who work with students planning to attend or attending a community college. This training shall also address the specific needs of all of the following:

(1) Community college students intending to transfer to a four-year institution of higher education.

(2) Foster youth and former foster youth, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 66025.9.

(3) Homeless youth and former homeless youth, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 66025.9.

(4) Students with disabilities.

(b) The program shall provide specialized information on financial aid opportunities available to community college students, with a particular focus on students who plan to transfer to a four-year college or university. The commission shall work in collaboration with the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges and other segments of higher education to develop and distribute this specialized information to assist community college students who are planning to transfer to a four-year college or university. Each year, the program shall offer financial aid workshops for high school and community college counselors, targeted for students planning to attend a community college or to transfer from a community college to a four-year institution of higher education. The program shall assist community college counselors in conducting student and family workshops that provide general information about financial aid and technical assistance in completing financial aid forms.

(c) The program shall concentrate its efforts on high schools and community colleges that are located in geographic areas that have a high percentage of low-income families.

SEC. 4. Section 69561 of the Education Code is amended to read:

69561. (a) The Student Opportunity and Access Program is administered by the Student Aid Commission.

(b) The Student Aid Commission may apportion funds on a progress payment schedule for the support of projects designed to increase the accessibility of postsecondary educational opportunities for any of the following elementary and secondary school pupils:

(1) Pupils who are from low-income families.

(2) Pupils who would be the first in their families to attend college.

(3) Pupils who are from schools or geographic regions with documented low-eligibility or college participation rates.

(4) Pupils who are homeless youth and former homeless youth, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 66025.9.

(c) These projects shall primarily do all of the following:

(1) Increase the availability of information for these pupils on the existence of postsecondary schooling and work opportunities.

(2) Raise the achievement levels of these pupils so as to increase the number of high school graduates eligible to pursue postsecondary learning opportunities.

(d) Projects may assist community college students in transferring to four-year institutions, to the extent that project resources are available.

(e) Projects may provide assistance to low-income fifth and sixth grade pupils and their parents in order to implement outreach efforts designed to use the future availability of financial assistance as a means of motivating pupils to stay in school and complete college preparatory courses.

(f) Projects may provide assistance to low-income middle and high school pupils and their parents in order to implement outreach efforts designed to use the future availability of financial assistance as a means of motivating pupils to stay in school by promoting career technical education public awareness. Projects shall promote the value of career technical education, available career programs in public schools and postsecondary segments with sequenced courses beginning in high school and continuing into postsecondary education, and the resulting career opportunities.

(g) Each project shall be proposed and operated through a consortium that involves at least one secondary school district office, at least one four-year college or university, at least one community college, and at least one of the following agencies:

(1) A nonprofit educational, counseling, or community agency.

(2) A private vocational or technical school accredited by a national, state, or regional accrediting association recognized by the United States Department of Education.

(h) The commission, in awarding initial project grants, shall give priority to proposals developed by more than three eligible agencies. Projects shall be located throughout the state in order to provide access to program services in rural, urban, and suburban areas.

(i) The governing board of each project, comprising at least one representative from each entity in the consortium, shall establish management policy, provide direction to the project director, set priorities for budgetary decisions that reflect the specific needs of the project, and assume responsibility for maintaining the required level of matching funds, including solicitations from the private sector and corporate sources.

(j) Prior to receiving a project grant, each consortium shall conduct a planning process and submit a comprehensive project proposal to include, but not be limited to, the following information:

(1) The agencies participating in the project.

(2) The pupils to be served by the project.

(3) The ways in which the project will reduce duplication and related costs.

(4) The methods for assessing the project’s impact.

(k) Each project shall include the direct involvement of secondary school staff in the daily operations of the project, with preference in funding to those projects that effectively integrate the objectives of the Student Opportunity and Access Program with those of the school district in providing services that are essential to preparing pupils for postsecondary education.

(l) Each project shall maintain within the project headquarters a comprehensive pupil-specific information system on pupils receiving services through the program in grades 11 and 12 at secondary schools within the participating districts. This information shall be maintained in a manner consistent with the law relating to pupil records.

(m) At least 30 percent or the equivalent of each project grant shall be allocated for stipends to peer advisers and tutors who meet all of the following criteria:

(1) Work with secondary school pupils.

(2) Are currently enrolled in a college or other postsecondary school as an undergraduate or graduate student.

(3) Have demonstrated financial need for the stipend.

(n) Each project should work cooperatively with other projects in the program and with the commission to establish viable student services and sound administrative procedures and to ensure coordination of the activities of the project with existing educational opportunity programs. The Student Aid Commission may develop additional regulations regarding the awarding of project grants and criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of the individual projects.

SEC. 5. Section 76300 of the Education Code is amended to read:

76300. (a) The governing board of each community college district shall charge each student a fee pursuant to this section.

(b) (1) The fee prescribed by this section shall be forty-six dollars ($46) per unit per semester, effective with the summer term of the 2012 calendar year.

(2) The board of governors shall proportionately adjust the amount of the fee for term lengths based upon a quarter system, and also shall proportionately adjust the amount of the fee for summer sessions, intersessions, and other short-term courses. In making these adjustments, the board of governors may round the per unit fee and the per term or per session fee to the nearest dollar.

(c) For the purposes of computing apportionments to community college districts pursuant to Section 84750.4 or 84750.5, as applicable, the board of governors shall subtract, from the total revenue owed to each district, 98 percent of the revenues received by districts from charging a fee pursuant to this section.

(d) The board of governors shall reduce apportionments by up to 10 percent to any district that does not collect the fees prescribed by this section.

(e) The fee requirement does not apply to any of the following:

(1) Students enrolled in the noncredit courses designated by Section 84757.

(2) California State University or University of California students enrolled in remedial classes provided by a community college district on a campus of the University of California or a campus of the California State University, for whom the district claims an attendance apportionment pursuant to an agreement between the district and the California State University or the University of California.

(3) Students enrolled in credit contract education courses pursuant to Section 78021, if the entire cost of the course, including administrative costs, is paid by the public or private agency, corporation, or association with which the district is contracting and if these students are not included in the calculation of the full-time equivalent students (FTES) of that district.

(f) The governing board of a community college district may exempt special part-time students admitted pursuant to Section 76001 from the fee requirement.

(g) (1) The fee requirements of this section shall be waived for any student who meets all of the following requirements:

(A) Meets minimum academic and progress standards adopted by the board of governors, which fulfill the requirements outlined in this paragraph and paragraphs (2) to (5), inclusive. Any minimum academic and progress standards adopted pursuant to this section shall be uniform across all community college districts and campuses. These standards shall not include a maximum unit cap, and community college districts and colleges shall not impose requirements for fee waiver eligibility other than the minimum academic and progress standards adopted by the board of governors and the requirements of subparagraph (B).

(B) Meets one of the following criteria:

(i) At the time of enrollment, is a recipient of benefits under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, the Supplemental Security Income/State Supplementary Payment Program, or a general assistance program.

(ii) Demonstrates eligibility according to income standards established by regulations of the board of governors.

(iii) Demonstrates financial need in accordance with the methodology set forth in federal law or regulation for determining the expected family contribution of students seeking financial aid.

(iv) At the time of enrollment, is a homeless youth or a former homeless youth as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 66025.9.

(2) (A) The board of governors, in consultation with students, faculty, and other key stakeholders, shall consider all of the following in the development and adoption of minimum academic and progress standards pursuant to subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1):

(i) Minimum uniform academic and progress standards that do not unfairly disadvantage financially needy students in pursuing their education.

(ii) Criteria for reviewing extenuating circumstances and granting appeals that, at a minimum, take into account and do not penalize a student for circumstances outside the student’s control, such as reductions in student support services or changes to the economic situation of the student.

(iii) A process for reestablishing fee waiver eligibility that provides a student with a reasonable opportunity to continue or resume the student’s enrollment at a community college.

(B) To ensure that students are not unfairly impacted by the requirements of subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1), the board of governors shall establish a reasonable implementation period that commences no sooner than one year from adoption of the minimum academic and progress standards, or any subsequent changes to these standards, pursuant to subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) and that is phased in to provide students adequate notification of this requirement and information about available support resources.

(3) It is the intent of the Legislature that minimum academic and progress standards adopted pursuant to subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) be implemented only as campuses develop and implement the student support services and interventions necessary to ensure no disproportionate impact to students based on ethnicity, gender, disability, or socioeconomic status. The board of governors shall consider the ability of community college districts to meet the requirements of this paragraph before adopting minimum academic and progress standards, or any subsequent changes to these standards, pursuant to subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1).

(4) It is the intent of the Legislature to ensure that a student shall not lose fee waiver eligibility without a community college campus first demonstrating a reasonable effort to provide a student with adequate notification and assistance in maintaining the student’s fee waiver eligibility. The board of governors shall adopt regulations to implement this paragraph that ensure all of the following:

(A) Students are provided information about the available student support services to assist them in maintaining fee waiver eligibility.

(B) Community college district policies and course catalogs reflect the minimum academic and progress standards adopted pursuant to subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) and that appropriate notice is provided to students before the policies are put into effect.

(C) A student does not lose fee waiver eligibility unless the student has not met minimum academic and progress standards adopted pursuant to subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) for a period of no less than two consecutive academic terms.

(5) The board of governors shall provide notification of a proposed action to adopt regulations pursuant to this subdivision to the appropriate policy and fiscal committees of the Legislature in accordance with the requirements of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 70901.5. This notification shall include, but not be limited to, all of the following:

(A) The proposed minimum academic and progress standards and information detailing how the requirements of paragraphs (1) to (4), inclusive, have been or will be satisfied.

(B) How many students may lose fee waiver eligibility by ethnicity, gender, disability, and, to the extent relevant data is available, by socioeconomic status.

(C) The criteria for reviewing extenuating circumstances, granting appeals, and reestablishing fee waiver eligibility pursuant to paragraph (2).

(h) The fee requirements of this section shall be waived for any student who, at the time of enrollment, is a dependent or surviving spouse who has not remarried, of any member of the California National Guard who, in the line of duty and while in the active service of the state, was killed, died of a disability resulting from an event that occurred while in the active service of the state, or is permanently disabled as a result of an event that occurred while in the active service of the state. “Active service of the state,” for the purposes of this subdivision, refers to a member of the California National Guard activated pursuant to Section 146 of the Military and Veterans Code.

(i) The fee requirements of this section shall be waived for any student who is the surviving spouse or the child, natural or adopted, of a deceased person who met all of the requirements of Section 68120.

(j) The fee requirements of this section shall be waived for any student in an undergraduate program, including a student who has previously graduated from another undergraduate or graduate program, who is the dependent of any individual killed in the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or the crash of United Airlines Flight 93 in southwestern Pennsylvania, if that dependent meets the financial need requirements set forth in Section 69432.7 for the Cal Grant A Program and either of the following applies:

(1) The dependent was a resident of California on September 11, 2001.

(2) The individual killed in the attacks was a resident of California on September 11, 2001.

(k) A determination of whether a person is a resident of California on September 11, 2001, for purposes of subdivision (j) shall be based on the criteria set forth in Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 68000) of Part 41 of Division 5 for determining nonresident and resident tuition.

(l) (1) “Dependent,” for purposes of subdivision (j), is a person who, because of the person’s relationship to an individual killed as a result of injuries sustained during the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, qualifies for compensation under the federal September 11th Victim Compensation Fund of 2001 (Title IV (commencing with Section 401) of Public Law 107-42).

(2) A dependent who is the surviving spouse of an individual killed in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, is entitled to the waivers provided in this section until January 1, 2013.

(3) A dependent who is the surviving child, natural or adopted, of an individual killed in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, is entitled to the waivers under subdivision (j) until that person attains 30 years of age.

(4) A dependent of an individual killed in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, who is determined to be eligible by the California Victim Compensation Board, is also entitled to the waivers provided in this section until January 1, 2013.

(m) (1) It is the intent of the Legislature that sufficient funds be provided to support the provision of a fee waiver for every student who demonstrates eligibility pursuant to subdivisions (g) to (j), inclusive.

(2) From funds provided in the annual Budget Act, the board of governors shall allocate to community college districts, pursuant to this subdivision, an amount equal to 2 percent of the fees waived pursuant to subdivisions (g) to (j), inclusive. From funds provided in the annual Budget Act, the board of governors shall allocate to community college districts, pursuant to this subdivision, an amount equal to ninety-one cents ($0.91) per credit unit waived pursuant to subdivisions (g) to (j), inclusive. It is the intent of the Legislature that funds provided pursuant to this subdivision be used to support the determination of financial need and delivery of student financial aid services, on the basis of the number of students for whom fees are waived. It also is the intent of the Legislature that the funds provided pursuant to this subdivision directly offset mandated costs claimed by community college districts pursuant to Commission on State Mandates consolidated Test Claims 99-TC-13 (Enrollment Fee Collection) and 00-TC-15 (Enrollment Fee Waivers). Funds allocated to a community college district for determination of financial need and delivery of student financial aid services shall supplement, and shall not supplant, the level of funds allocated for the administration of student financial aid programs during the 1992–93 fiscal year.

(n) The board of governors shall adopt regulations implementing this section.

SEC. 6. If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.

Click here to expand...

EMAIL THREAD - New Project Team Reviewing This Issue

Last email exchange 10.21.19

To reiterate some critical notes in planning for this meeting:

The OpenCCC redesign - which in underway now - is highly dependent on the requirements we identify for this change. Is there any way we can start mapping out these requirements in writing prior to the meeting - in case the OpenCCC development team needs them sooner than November 5?
Is the primary driver behind this change request to eliminate a barrier that exists for homeless students, or is there new or different residency requirements for homeless students that need to be fulfilled?

The reason I am pressing this point is because, from a development perspective, eliminating a barrier that exists is easier than adding new requirements based on some new law or data collection requirement. Making a change to existing data field structure creates more downstream work and risks for other users than simply removing the connection to the residency algorithm Changing an existing data field
1. What is the law/regulation regarding residency for homeless adults?
2. Is the law different for homeless youth?

Regarding residency - what is the legal opinion or mandate regarding determining the residency status of a homeless student (adult and youth)?
Eliminating Barrier - can be done in several ways, less intrusive and less risky to changes to the colleges' downloads and/or SuperGlue implementations. There are a number of options for this that we can talk through when we meet. But knowing this is the reason behind this change will help us greatly moving forward.

Homeless students and CCCApply residency problem

001 - Change Requests

x

Alcala, Elena <ealcala@cccco.edu>

Aug 20, 2019, 2:51 PM

Reply to all

to me, Debbie, Jennifer, John, Colleen, Mia, Peter, Natalie

Hi All,

We have a resolution!! I apologize in advance for the for long email, I need to capture it all.

I have the approval from both Legal, Colleen Ganley (housing specialist) and Dean Keeley.

The Chancellor’s Office wants to move forward and make the change we discussed in our call last week. I have done a recap below for everyone.

Issues:

Homeless students currently get flagged as possible non-residents due to the lack of current and permanent address. The self-certification form that was once a possible solution to this issue is not something the Chancellor’s Office wants to pursue.

Resolution:

Two questions that currently exist in the application within the residency section will be changed. One asks the student for a current address, the other asks the student for a permanent address. Given the a homeless student may not have either to provide, the solution is to add more to this question. We will add a “bubble” that reads, “I do not have an address because I am currently homeless”. When that is clicked by the student is should prompt a further entry field that asks the student what city and state they reside in. The same will be done for the permanent address question.

Additionally, I discussed with everyone the possibility of a “pop up window” function to pop up when the student selects that they are homeless in the above two questions. The window should notify the student that they will still be required to verify their homeless status to both A&R and Financial Aid (this is in law, no workaround on that). The window will give the student the legal options available for verification. I will be drafting that language with Colleen and I will send that to Patty directly. The self-certification form that was discussed previously also has the intent of expediting the process of matriculation for homeless students. This is my idea to do the same without that form. I think it will help students know that there will be a step they need to complete in order to finish the matriculation process, gain priority enrollment, get their BOG approved, and eventually enroll in their classes. The less delay between the submission of their application and the enrollment of classes, the better!

I know there was a concern about permanent address being a requirement for residency purposes to prove physical presence. That is not true! I mentioned it a few times but to make sure, I spoke to legal about it and they also agreed. Patty, you should have received an email from Peter Khang clarifying this issue. Physical presence is required to be proven through objective evidence, permanent address is not the only objective evidence available to prove physical presence.

Pending question:

During our call last week there was the question of why the system only catches homeless students under 25 in an earlier question on CCCApply asking the student if they are homeless. This question is there because of the benefits provided by AB801. The law specifically says that the benefits are only available to students under 25. So, that will need to stay as is.

Congratulations, you made it through the email!!!!

Patty, we may need to schedule a follow up meeting to review the changes.

Have a great Tuesday and thank you for everyone’s collaboration on this.

Elena Alcala, MPA

Admissions & Records Analyst/ Region B Programmatic Support

Educational Services

O (916) 327-0752 | M (916) 445-8752

ealcala@cccco.edu

California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office

1102 Q Street, Sacramento, California 95811

www.cccco.edu

Wagner, Natalie <nwagner@cccco.edu>

Aug 20, 2019, 3:03 PM

Reply to all

to Elena, me, Debbie, Jennifer, John, Colleen, Mia, Peter

Awesome Job, Elena!!!! This sounds like a good solution to me.

Natalie

Natalie Wagner

Specialist, Finance and Facilities Planning Division

California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office

1102 Q Street, Sacramento, CA 95811

(916) 327-1554

nwagner@cccco.edu

Debbie Raucher <debbie@jbay.org>

Aug 20, 2019, 3:31 PM

Reply to all

to Elena, me, Jennifer, John, Colleen, Mia, Peter, Natalie

Hi Elena,

Thank you for this information and the quick resolution. For the pop-up language, just to be clear, it would say that verification is required for A&R for the purposes of priority registration only, correct? I just want to confirm that verification wouldn’t be required just for admissions more generally outside of priority registration. I like this idea also because it has the added benefit of informing the student that they may be eligible for those benefits if they weren’t aware of them.

I would be happy to take a look at the language you draft and give feedback if that would be helpful.

Debbie

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Debbie Raucher

John Burton Advocates for Youth

(510) 593-8382

Facebook I Website I Twitter

From: "Alcala, Elena" <ealcala@CCCCO.edu>
Date: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 2:51 PM
To: Patty Donohue <pdonohue@ccctechcenter.org>, Debbie Raucher <debbie@jbay.org>
Cc: Jennifer Coleman <jcoleman@ccctechcenter.org>, John Sills <jsills@ccctechcenter.org>, "cganley@CCCCO.edu" <cganley@CCCCO.edu>, "Keeley, Mia" <mkeeley@CCCCO.edu>, "Khang, Peter" <pkhang@CCCCO.edu>, "Wagner, Natalie" <nwagner@CCCCO.edu>
Subject: Homeless students and CCCApply residency problem

Hi All,

Alcala, Elena <ealcala@cccco.edu>

Aug 21, 2019, 8:14 AM

Reply to all

to Debbie, me, Jennifer, John, Colleen, Mia, Peter, Natalie

Hi Debby,

That is correct, for A&R purposes it would be for priority registration and for Financial aid for BOG purposes.

I will copy you in my draft language.

Elena Alcala, MPA

Admissions & Records Analyst/ Regional Programmatic Support Region B

Educational Services

O (916) 327-0752 | M (916) 445-8752

ealcala@cccco.edu

California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office

1102 Q Street, Sacramento, California 95811

www.cccco.edu

From: Debbie Raucher <debbie@jbay.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 3:31 PM
To: Alcala, Elena <ealcala@CCCCO.edu>; Patty Donohue <pdonohue@ccctechcenter.org>
Cc: Jennifer Coleman <jcoleman@ccctechcenter.org>; John Sills <jsills@ccctechcenter.org>; Ganley, Colleen <cganley@CCCCO.edu>; Keeley, Mia <mkeeley@CCCCO.edu>; Khang, Peter <pkhang@CCCCO.edu>; Wagner, Natalie <nwagner@CCCCO.edu>

Patty Donohue <pdonohue@ccctechcenter.org>

Aug 21, 2019, 10:59 AM

Reply to all

to Amanda, Elena, Debbie, Jennifer, John, Colleen, Mia, Peter, Natalie

Hi Elena,

Thanks for writing back, and I think we are getting closer.

Please see questions and comments in-line below in red (so they stand out).

Thanks so much,

Patty

On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 2:51 PM Alcala, Elena <ealcala@cccco.edu> wrote:

Hi All,

We have a resolution!! I apologize in advance for the for long email, I need to capture it all.

I have the approval from both Legal, Colleen Ganley (housing specialist) and Dean Keeley.

The Chancellor’s Office wants to move forward and make the change we discussed in our call last week. I have done a recap below for everyone.

Issues:

Homeless students currently get flagged as possible non-residents due to the lack of current and permanent address. The self-certification form that was once a possible solution to this issue is not something the Chancellor’s Office wants to pursue.

To clarify - there are two points in the residency algorithm that takes the students address into consideration:

1) IF "permanent address state is NOT California" - THEN set the flag as "possible resident. proof required".
2) IF "current mailing address state is NOT California" THEN set the flag as "possible resident. proof required."

These are part of the Area B residency logic now.

(Reminder - one of the suggestions I made during our discussion was to just amend these two logic steps to add "...AND the homeless checkbox is empty" - for each one (permanent and current mailing address) which would then only trigger the "possible resident" flag IF the student actually had an out-of-state address. This would remove the residency flag barriers.)

Resolution:

Two questions that currently exist in the application within the residency section will be changed. One asks the student for a current address, the other asks the student for a permanent address. (Breakdown shown above)

Given the a homeless student may not have either to provide, the solution is to add more to this question. We will add a “bubble” that reads, “I do not have an address because I am currently homeless”. This already exists now. See below.

When that is clicked by the student is should prompt a further entry field that asks the student what city and state they reside in. The same will be done for the permanent address question.

This already exists now. If the student doesn't have a permanent or mailing address to enter because they are homeless, we give them the option to check a box stating they are currently homeless.

In the Permanent Address section and the Current Mailing Address sections, the student is presented with two options: 1) add your address in the input fields, OR 2) check the box if you have no Permanent or Current Mailing addresses because you are currently homeless.

If the student checks the box indicating they have no address(es) due to being homeless (#2), the field validation is bypassed and they are allowed to continue creating their OpenCCC Account (this is where the Permanent Address question resides) and/or to continue through the application (the Current Mailing Address section/page is in the CCCApply application).

Before we added those additional checkboxes in 2016, homeless students were blocked from continuing with Account Creation and/or submitting their application.

Additionally, I discussed with everyone the possibility of a “pop up window” function to pop up when the student selects that they are homeless in the above two questions. The window should notify the student that they will still be required to verify their homeless status to both A&R and Financial Aid (this is in law, no workaround on that). The window will give the student the legal options available for verification. I will be drafting that language with Colleen and I will send that to Patty directly. The self-certification form that was discussed previously also has the intent of expediting the process of matriculation for homeless students. This is my idea to do the same without that form. I think it will help students know that there will be a step they need to complete in order to finish the matriculation process, gain priority enrollment, get their BOG approved, and eventually enroll in their classes. The less delay between the submission of their application and the enrollment of classes, the better!

So, if I understand this correctly - it would work something like this (below) and we would make the following changes:

During Account Creation - or when the student is asked for their permanent address, they are presented with the address input fields and the "I have no permanent address because I am currently homeless" checkbox - as they do today. No change.
If they check the box indicating they have no permanent address, the validation pop-up/drawer will appear asking them to confirm (Yes or No) that they are currentlyhomeless(this is what happens today - no change).

If they confirm Yes, then they will be presented with additional information that details the legal process for verification as ahomelessapplicant. They would then be returned back to the address input fields, which would only display and require the City and State fields (no zip code, I assume?).

If they select No, they are not currently homeless, and need to cancel out of the homeless confirmation pop-up, and return back to the standard address input fields.

So, implementing this change to only collect the City and State information for applicants who confirm they are homeless, the two steps in the residency algorithm looking at permanent and mailing address State would not flag them incorrectly unless they provide a state other than California

and the issue of residency would be based on legitimate residency questions, and not determined solely because of physical addresses alone. Is that correct?

Let me know if you want to discuss this further. I will ensure it's clear in the change specifications.

A few other notes:

Our advice regarding adding any new, onscreen language or text - including help text, pop-up text, or validation text: Unless mandated by state or federal law - try to keep onscreen text to a minimum. This is recommended for several reasons, but the main reasons are: 1) accessibility compliance (assistive technologies - i.e., screen readers must read every word to the sight-impaired - and we've been docked on this before); and 2) formatting on mobile devices stretch out all blocks of text in a very long, narrow column, which tends to dominate the screen, and students don't read.

This is just a suggestion, and I can share some examples of how large blocks of text appear on screen, so you can see what the student will see on their phones. Just something to keep in mind.

The other thing I would suggest is IF the student selects either of the homeless checkboxes, we might want to add and trigger an additional Integrity flag to the Admission office, alerting them to the student's homeless status. I just looked through the DED, and this does not happen today. The only flag we trigger is related to the AB 801 priority registration status if the student is under 25 and homeless.

1.23.20: Development of the new Integrity Flag 41 is out-of-scope for 6.7.0 release

I know there was a concern about permanent address being a requirement for residency purposes to prove physical presence. That is not true! I mentioned it a few times but to make sure, I spoke to legal about it and they also agreed. Patty, you should have received an email from Peter Khang clarifying this issue. Physical presence is required to be proven through objective evidence, permanent address is not the only objective evidence available to prove physical presence.

Yes, I totally understand this. I didn't mean to infer that physical address was required to prove residency, only that it is one of the steps in the current residency determination logic that sets the flag of "possible resident'. For students who aren't homeless, and have an out-of-state address, this is a necessary step in the logic process. I just wanted to make sure we didn't remove or change these steps in the logic while we figure out the best solution to this situation.

I welcome the email from Mr. Khang, however, because any confirmation about the complex world of residency is always appreciated by me.

Pending question:

During our call last week there was the question of why the system only catches homeless students under 25 in an earlier question on CCCApply asking the student if they are homeless. This question is there because of the benefits provided by AB801. The law specifically says that the benefits are only available to students under 25. So, that will need to stay as is.

OK, no problem here.

Congratulations, you made it through the email!!!!

Excellent. Thank you so much, Elena. I will await hearing back from you with the language you want to use.

Meanwhile, I will start working on the change management doc on this.

Until then, take care.

Patty

Alcala, Elena <ealcala@cccco.edu>

Aug 21, 2019, 11:36 AM

Reply to all

to me, Debbie, Jennifer, John, Colleen, Amanda

See my responses below in blue.

Sorry everyone for the length of these emails.

Elena Alcala, MPA

Admissions & Records Analyst/ Regional Programmatic Support Region B

Educational Services

O (916) 327-0752 | M (916) 445-8752

ealcala@cccco.edu

California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office

1102 Q Street, Sacramento, California 95811

www.cccco.edu

From: Patty Donohue <pdonohue@ccctechcenter.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2019 10:59 AM
To: Alcala, Elena <ealcala@CCCCO.edu>
Cc: Debbie Raucher <debbie@jbay.org>; Jennifer Coleman <jcoleman@ccctechcenter.org>; John Sills <jsills@ccctechcenter.org>; Ganley, Colleen <cganley@CCCCO.edu>; Keeley, Mia <mkeeley@CCCCO.edu>; Khang, Peter <pkhang@CCCCO.edu>; Wagner, Natalie <nwagner@CCCCO.edu>; Amanda Mason <amason@unicon.net>
Subject: Re: Homeless students and CCCApply residency problem

Hi Elena,

Thanks for writing back, and I think we are getting closer.

Please see questions and comments in-line below in red (so they stand out).

Thanks so much,

Patty

On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 2:51 PM Alcala, Elena <ealcala@cccco.edu> wrote:

Hi All,

We have a resolution!! I apologize in advance for the for long email, I need to capture it all.

I have the approval from both Legal, Colleen Ganley (housing specialist) and Dean Keeley.

The Chancellor’s Office wants to move forward and make the change we discussed in our call last week. I have done a recap below for everyone.

Issues:

Homeless students currently get flagged as possible non-residents due to the lack of current and permanent address. The self-certification form that was once a possible solution to this issue is not something the Chancellor’s Office wants to pursue.

To clarify - there are two points in the residency algorithm that takes the students address into consideration:

1) IF "permanent address state is NOT California" - THEN set the flag as "possible resident. proof required".
2) IF "current mailing address state is NOT California" THEN set the flag as "possible resident. proof required."

These are part of the Area B residency logic now.

(Reminder - one of the suggestions I made during our discussion was to just amend these two logic steps to add "...AND the homeless checkbox is empty" - for each one (permanent and current mailing address) which would then only trigger the "possible resident" flag IF the student actually had an out-of-state address. This would remove the residency flag barriers.) Not sure I follow here. Maybe we can discuss further on a call.

Resolution:

Two questions that currently exist in the application within the residency section will be changed. One asks the student for a current address, the other asks the student for a permanent address. (Breakdown shown above)

Given the a homeless student may not have either to provide, the solution is to add more to this question. We will add a “bubble” that reads, “I do not have an address because I am currently homeless”. This already exists now. See below. This only exists in the account creation process not in the residency section of the application which is the section that we are looking to change.

When that is clicked by the student is should prompt a further entry field that asks the student what city and state they reside in. The same will be done for the permanent address question.

This already exists now. If the student doesn't have a permanent or mailing address to enter because they are homeless, we give them the option to check a box stating they are currently homeless.

In the Permanent Address section and the Current Mailing Address sections, the student is presented with two options: 1) add your address in the input fields, OR 2) check the box if you have no Permanent or Current Mailing addresses because you are currently homeless.

If the student checks the box indicating they have no address(es) due to being homeless (#2), the field validation is bypassed and they are allowed to continue creating their OpenCCC Account (this is where the Permanent Address question resides) and/or to continue through the application (the Current Mailing Address section/page is in the CCCApply application).

Before we added those additional checkboxes in 2016, homeless students were blocked from continuing with Account Creation and/or submitting their application.

Again, I think I am just discussing the residency portion of the application, there should be no change to the account creation process.

Additionally, I discussed with everyone the possibility of a “pop up window” function to pop up when the student selects that they are homeless in the above two questions. The window should notify the student that they will still be required to verify their homeless status to both A&R and Financial Aid (this is in law, no workaround on that). The window will give the student the legal options available for verification. I will be drafting that language with Colleen and I will send that to Patty directly. The self-certification form that was discussed previously also has the intent of expediting the process of matriculation for homeless students. This is my idea to do the same without that form. I think it will help students know that there will be a step they need to complete in order to finish the matriculation process, gain priority enrollment, get their BOG approved, and eventually enroll in their classes. The less delay between the submission of their application and the enrollment of classes, the better!

So, if I understand this correctly - it would work something like this (below) and we would make the following changes:

During Account Creation - or when the student is asked for their permanent address, they are presented with the address input fields and the "I have no permanent address because I am currentlyhomeless" checkbox - as they do today. No change.Correct, no change. We did not discuss any changes to the address questions during the account creation. That should all stay as is. The only changes I am requesting are the two address requests in the residency portion of the application, not in the account creation.
If they check the box indicating they have no permanent address, the validation pop-up/drawer will appear asking them to confirm (Yes or No) that they are currentlyhomeless(this is what happens today - no change). Stay as is.

If they confirm Yes, then they will be presented with additional information that details the legal process for verification as ahomelessapplicant. They would then be returned back to the address input fields, which would only display and require the City and State fields (no zip code, I assume?). No, this information should be embedded in the residency portion of the application not in the beginning when the student is creating an account.

If they select No, they are not currently homeless, and need to cancel out of the homeless confirmation pop-up, and return back to the standard address input fields.

So, implementing this change to only collect the City and State information for applicants who confirm they are homeless, the two steps in the residency algorithm looking at permanent and mailing address State would not flag them incorrectly unless they provide a state other than California and the issue of residency would be based on legitimate residency questions, and not determined solely because of physical addresses alone. Is that correct? Correct. If they are determined to be” possible residents, need verification” it should be because of how they answered other questions and not the based solely because of their homeless status.

Let me know if you want to discuss this further. I will ensure it's clear in the change specifications. Maybe we should have a call to confirm we are on the same page.

A few other notes:

Our advice regarding adding any new, onscreen language or text - including help text, pop-up text, or validation text: Unless mandated by state or federal law - try to keep onscreen text to a minimum. This is recommended for several reasons, but the main reasons are: 1) accessibility compliance (assistive technologies - i.e., screen readers must read every word to the sight-impaired - and we've been docked on this before); and 2) formatting on mobile devices stretch out all blocks of text in a very long, narrow column, which tends to dominate the screen, and students don't read.

This is just a suggestion, and I can share some examples of how large blocks of text appear on screen, so you can see what the student will see on their phones. Just something to keep in mind.

The other thing I would suggest is IF the student selects either of the homeless checkboxes, ~~we might want to add and trigger an additional Integrity flag to the Admission office, alerting them to the student's homeless status. I just looked through the DED, and this does not happen today~~. The only flag we trigger is related to the AB 801 priority registration status if the student is under 25 and homeless.

I think this may be something that we will need the steering committee to weigh on. I am afraid it may create more work for them and they always get upset about that. Not sure how they determine a student is homeless currently.

Alcala, Elena <ealcala@cccco.edu>

Aug 21, 2019, 1:38 PM

Reply to all

to me, Debbie

Hi Patty,

I know you gave us your expert opinion regarding adding more language and a pop up window in the application. I spoke to Dean Keeley about this and we agree that this will really benefit students and help expedite the process. Do you think the following language is short enough for the mobile app?

You are required to verify your homeless status by one of the methods:

(i) A homeless services provider

(ii) The director of a federal TRIO program or Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs program, or a designee of that director.

(iii) A financial aid administrator for an institution of higher education.

(iv) A homeless and foster student liaison

Elena Alcala, MPA

Admissions & Records Analyst/ Regional Programmatic Support Region B

Educational Services

O (916) 327-0752 | M (916) 445-8752

ealcala@cccco.edu

California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office

1102 Q Street, Sacramento, California 95811

www.cccco.edu

From: Patty Donohue <pdonohue@ccctechcenter.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2019 10:59 AM
To: Alcala, Elena <ealcala@CCCCO.edu>
Cc: Debbie Raucher <debbie@jbay.org>; Jennifer Coleman <jcoleman@ccctechcenter.org>; John Sills <jsills@ccctechcenter.org>; Ganley, Colleen <cganley@CCCCO.edu>; Keeley, Mia <mkeeley@CCCCO.edu>; Khang, Peter <pkhang@CCCCO.edu>; Wagner, Natalie <nwagner@CCCCO.edu>; Amanda Mason <amason@unicon.net>
Subject: Re: Homeless students and CCCApply residency problem

Hi Elena,

Debbie Raucher <debbie@jbay.org>

Aug 21, 2019, 4:39 PM

Reply to all

to Elena, me

I have a couple thoughts on both the comments and language

Elena - I was a little confused about your comment that the “I do not have an address because I am currently homeless” would be added to the residency section. This seems unnecessary since the question and the “bubble” already exist on the accounts page. The current logic looks at the two fields that are created from the account page to see if the State=”CA.” If the interface on the accounts page could be redesigned so that when someone checks the homeless box they are prompted to input the City and State fields that are already linked to the existing logic, that seems more streamlined and less work. There are no address questions currently on the residency page and so adding them would mean the same questions would be asked on two different pages.

I don’t know what an Integrity flag is. Could you explain what this means and what the impact would be?

Here is my recommendation for pop-up language “Students experiencing homeless may be eligible for additional financial aid benefits and priority registration. Verification of homeless status may be required by your institution to access these benefits.”

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Debbie Raucher

John Burton Advocates for Youth

(510) 593-8382

Facebook I Website I Twitter

From: "Alcala, Elena" <ealcala@CCCCO.edu>
Date: Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 1:38 PM
To: Patty Donohue <pdonohue@ccctechcenter.org>

Patty Donohue <pdonohue@ccctechcenter.org>

Aug 21, 2019, 4:52 PM

Reply to all

to Jennifer, John, Colleen, Amanda, Elena, Debbie

Hi Elena,

I think we need a call to discuss this further and document the specific business requirements. I'm not convinced that adding a set of address fields (City and State) to the residency page is the best way to go but we can talk it out on a call. Remember the Homeless Youth question on the residency page only appears if the student is under 26 (hence my suggestion to make this question display to all applicants). Also adding a pop-up to that question to collect City and State will definitely require changes to the residency logic because the two address steps in the current logic is setting the flag based on the address State.

Either way, to avoid further confusion, let's jump on a call and walk through it all together. I have some time on Friday. Do you?

Thanks for your patience.

Patty

Debbie Raucher <debbie@jbay.org>

Aug 21, 2019, 5:53 PM

Reply to all

to me, Elena, Jennifer, John, Colleen, Amanda

I’m available before 11 or between 11:30 and 1:30.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Debbie Raucher

John Burton Advocates for Youth

(510) 593-8382

Facebook I Website I Twitter

Elena,

Do you want to try to meet at 11:30am tomorrow (Friday 8/23)? I can also meet at 1pm.

If tomorrow doesn't work, we can meet at a later date.

We will likely have to prioritize this change for Q2 release but we'll want to get the change specs written and estimated within the next few weeks.

Thank you and have a nice evening.

Patty

Hi everyone,

I got an auto-response from Elena this morning saying she's out until 8/26.

I myself will be out from 8/26 - 9/2 - and therefore I will work with Elena to schedule a call the week of 9/3 or as schedules permit.

Thank you for your patience and support.

Best,

Patty

Thank you for the update. Enjoy your time off!

Patty Donohue <pdonohue@ccctechcenter.org>

Aug 24, 2019, 5:27 PM

Reply

to Debbie

Thanks Debbie. Talk to you soon.

Patty

Alcala, Elena <ealcala@cccco.edu>

Aug 26, 2019, 8:04 AM

Reply to all

to Debbie, me

Hi Debbie,

Let’s hash this out during our next call Patty plans on scheduling. There are questions in the residency section of the application! I am available all week next week with the exception of Friday afternoon.

Thank you,

Elena Alcala, MPA

Admissions & Records Analyst/ Regional Programmatic Support Region B

Educational Services

O (916) 327-0752 | M (916) 445-8752

ealcala@cccco.edu

California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office

1102 Q Street, Sacramento, California 95811

www.cccco.edu

From: Debbie Raucher <debbie@jbay.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2019 4:39 PM
To: Alcala, Elena <ealcala@CCCCO.edu>; Patty Donohue <pdonohue@ccctechcenter.org>

Sounds good. I am free next week on Wednesday between 11:30 and 2 or Thursday between 9:30 and 12:30 or after 2:00.

All I see in the residency section are a yes/no question about residency, the out-of-state activities check boxes and the special residency categories. As you said, we can hash this out on the phone.

Debbie Raucher <debbie@jbay.org>

Sep 5, 2019, 1:48 PM

Reply to all

to me, Elena

Hi Patty and Elena,

Hope you both enjoyed your time off. Do we want to get a call scheduled for next week some time?

Debbie

Alcala, Elena <ealcala@cccco.edu>

Sep 5, 2019, 3:31 PM

Reply to all

to Debbie, me

Debby, I am available Mon., Tues., and Thurs. afternoon and Wed. morning. I can book the meeting once I receive Patty’s availability.

Elena Alcala, MPA

Admissions & Records Analyst/ Regional Programmatic Support Region B

Educational Services

O (916) 327-0752 | M (916) 445-8752

ealcala@cccco.edu

California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office

1102 Q Street, Sacramento, California 95811

www.cccco.edu

-

Debbie Raucher <debbie@jbay.org>

Sep 6, 2019, 8:14 AM

Reply to all

to Elena, me

Within your availability I’m free Tuesday between 2 and 3:30, Thursday between 2 and 4 or Wednesday after 9:30.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Debbie Raucher

John Burton Advocates for Youth

(510) 593-8382

Facebook I Website I Twitter

From: "Alcala, Elena" <ealcala@CCCCO.edu>
Date: Thursday, September 5, 2019 at 3:31 PM
To: Debbie Raucher <debbie@jbay.org>, Patty Donohue <pdonohue@ccctechcenter.org>

We are just waiting to hear from Patty! I hope all is well patty.

Just following up on this. Patty – are you available for us to talk?

OK, I've finally give up. I cannot figure out why email threads with multiple replies are getting sent deep into the nether lands.

I'm so sorry.

If this ever happens again, please feel free to call me at (530)228-2446.

I've got the IT team on this again.

Do you want to meet next week? I promise I will not miss your response.

Thanks Elena!

Patty

Alcala, Elena

Oct 7, 2019, 10:04 AM

Reply to all

to Debbie, me

Patty, I am actually leaving the Chancellor’s Office, my last day is tomorrow. I will talk with Colleen Ganley about this project and see if she or someone can take over. I am only here until noon tomorrow and may have a morning meeting so today is really the only time I have to work on this.

Elena Alcala, MPA

Admissions & Records Analyst/ Regional Programmatic Support Region B

Patty Donohue <pdonohue@ccctechcenter.org>

Oct 7, 2019, 2:34 PM

Reply

to Elena

Wow, Elena. I'm sorry to see you go. It was a pleasure to work with you.
Looks like I will have to pick this up with your replacement or Mike Q. My schedule changed unexpectedly today as my daughter had an accident and I'm sitting in the ER now. (She's ok, just uncomfortable).

We are committed to fixing the issue(s) in Apply for the Homeless, so we will continue this effort and get barriers removed.

Thanks for all your help and good luck to you in the future.

Sincerely,
Patty

Patty Donohue <pdonohue@ccctechcenter.org>

Oct 7, 2019, 2:35 PM

Reply

to Debbie

FYI

Alcala, Elena

Oct 7, 2019, 3:02 PM

Reply

to me

I am so sorry to hear that Patty, but I am glad she is doing much better.

I will notify Mia Keeley who is the dean over Admissions and Records. She would be the best contact for anything related to CCCApply. I will have her or whoever is assigned to this project email you to pick this project back up. Thank you for your warm wishes and I hope your daughter recovers soon!

Patty Donohue <pdonohue@ccctechcenter.org>

Oct 9, 2019, 4:34 PM (13 days ago)

Reply

to Elena

Perfect. Thank you so much, Elena. And...happy trails!!

Patty

Ganley, Colleen

Oct 14, 2019, 9:27 AM (8 days ago)

Reply to all

to Debbie, Jennifer, John, Amanda, me

Hello Patty,

With Elena’s departure (promotion at another agency) I am picking up the thread on getting the residency issue cleared up for students checking the homeless box.

Just as a recap, we have gotten the go ahead from Dean Mia Keeley to include a pop-up box in the screen where students who have marked the homeless box, can list the city/state of residence. Debbie and I looked at this screen together and there will be no needed changes to the residency logic in order to add this pop-up box.

Can you please let us know a few times that will work for you to see if we can get something on the calendar.

Patty Donohue <pdonohue@ccctechcenter.org>

Oct 14, 2019, 12:14 PM (8 days ago)

Reply to all

to Colleen, Debbie, Jennifer, John, Amanda

Hello Colleen,

It's nice to hear from you.

Sure thing, however I will not be able to meet until the week of October 28 at the earliest. My apologies.

We will also want to coordinate a meeting with John Sills, OpenCCC product manager, as there are three Homeless questions in all across OpenCCC and Apply. The first one is on the Permanent (Home) Address fields which is in OpenCCC account; however that product is undergoing a major redesign as we speak. I believe they are planning to keep some form of the question in the UI, but it may be handled and formatted very differently than it currently is today. I mentioned this to Elena a few months ago, but now its getting close to launch. We'll want to rethink how this works. I am convinced there will be an easier revision but let's get all together and discuss.

Is everyone available on Monday, October 28 at 1pm or 2pm? Let's find out and go from there.

Thank you,

Patty

Ganley, Colleen

Oct 14, 2019, 12:46 PM (8 days ago)

Reply to all

to me, Debbie, Jennifer, John, Amanda

Hi Patty,

Thanks for the quick reply! We have a mega, all-consuming foster youth conference Oct. 28-30. Can you propose dates for the following week?

Debbie Raucher

Oct 18, 2019, 8:13 AM (4 days ago)

Reply to all

to Colleen, me, Jennifer, John, Amanda

Hi Patty,

I’m following up on getting a time to talk on the calendar for the week of November 4. My schedule is fairly open that week at this point.

Debbie

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Debbie Raucher

John Burton Advocates for Youth

(510) 593-8382

Facebook I Website I Twitter

From: "cganley@CCCCO.edu" <cganley@CCCCO.edu>
Date: Monday, October 14, 2019 at 12:46 PM
To: Patty Donohue <pdonohue@ccctechcenter.org>

Patty Donohue <pdonohue@ccctechcenter.org>

Oct 18, 2019, 12:34 PM (4 days ago)

Reply to all

to Debbie, Colleen, Jennifer, John, Amanda

Happy Friday Ladies!

OK, so it sounds like the best week to meet at this point is the week of November 4 at this point. Believe it or not, that week is already booked for me in the mornings.

Would it be inconvenient if we scheduled an afternoon call one day that week?

My calendar (and I peeked at John Sill's calendar, although I can't speak for him on whether this works for him) is open every day that week after 3:30pm. Here are three possible options:

Tues, November 5 - 3:30 - or later

Wed, November 6 - 3:30- - or later
Thurs November 7 - 3:30 - or later

Please provide your availability or choice of the above dates/times to meet.

In addition, I have some suggestions that will help us get Colleen and John and all of us - up to speed on this issue - and I think it will allow us to keep the call to 30 mins.

I will consolidate the issue(s) as I know them and the past discussions up to this point, so that you guys can focus on identifying all the business needs driving this effort.

(I'll try to include everything I know about our development considerations (schedule, mobile first design, how we are approaching on-screen language, help text, all that fun stuff). I will give you as much as I can so you can work on the business requirements and we will do our best to get these changes- into our spring release. .

I hope this makes sense everyone. My goal is to expedite a plan the right way for everyone.

Look for the summary by COB on Monday 10/21.

I appreciate your time, patience and understanding. Have a great weekend.

Patty

Happy Friday to you too! I can do Tues 5th or Wed 6th…Debbie do either of those times work for you?

From: Patty Donohue <pdonohue@ccctechcenter.org>
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2019 12:35 PM
To: Debbie Raucher <debbie@jbay.org>

The 5th at 3:30 would work for me.

Debbie

Thanks so much, Colleen.

Would you please add John Sills and Jennifer Coleman to the invite for this meeting? I just tried to, but it wouldn't let me add them for some reason. Thank you.

To reiterate some critical notes in planning for this meeting:

The OpenCCC redesign - which in underway now - is highly dependent on the requirements we identify for this change. Is there any way we can start mapping out these requirements in writing prior to the meeting - in case the OpenCCC development team needs them sooner than November 5?
Is the primary driver behind this change request to eliminate a barrier that exists for homeless students, or is there new or different residency requirements for homeless students that need to be fulfilled?

The reason I am pressing this point is because, from a development perspective, eliminating a barrier that exists is easier than adding new requirements based on some new law or data collection requirement. Making a change to existing data field structure creates more downstream work and risks for other users than simply removing the connection to the residency algorithm Changing an existing data field
1. What is the law/regulation regarding residency for homeless adults?
2. Is the law different for homeless youth?

Regarding residency - what is the legal opinion or mandate regarding determining the residency status of a homeless student (adult and youth)?
Eliminating Barrier - can be done in several ways, less intrusive and less risky to changes to the colleges' downloads and/or SuperGlue implementations. There are a number of options for this that we can talk through when we meet. But knowing this is the reason behind this change will help us greatly moving forward.

Thanks so much, Colleen and Debbie. Talk to you soon.

Patty

OLD: Discussion about Problems / Solutions

Click here to expand...

OLD: Problem / Issue

Update 05.31.19 - An article appeared in the Pierce College student paper with some inaccurate information (CCCApply classifying all Homeless students as Nonresidents (Untrue!) ) We are taking steps to clarify (Patty has reached out to the college A&R admin, Olivia Alvarado responded - see email attached). This issue continues to come up, and needs to be prioritized. See article: http://theroundupnews.com/2019/05/15/homeless-students-pay-out-of-state-tuition/. Escalating to next CCCApply release 6.6.0 - September 2019)

Despite the past efforts already implemented in CCCApply to identify and classify homeless youth students, as well as the flags and other status fields we've built into the system to notify the college of the student's self-reported homeless status, what other enhancements can we implement that would streamline the process for California students who are currently homeless, or have been homeless anytime within the last 24 months.

Due to the lack of providing a permanent address and/or mailing address, the residency algorithm is calculating an otherwise California resident as a "possible resident" strictly because the Perm & Mailing address fields are used in the residency algorithm.

The CCCApply Residency sub-committee met on March 2, 2018 to discuss these issues and come up with short-term and long-term solutions that can be incorporated into the admission process.

The text change below should be discussed and approved by Steering. This was proposed in March 2018.

Homeless Youth Question Text

At any time in the last 24 months were you determined to be homeless by any of the following?

High school or school district homeless liaison
Emergency shelter or transitional housing program
Director of a runaway or homeless youth basic center or transitional living program

[radio button] Yes [radio button] No

Proposed change to this question:

At any time in the last 24 months were you determined to be homeless in California by any of the following?

California High school or school district homeless liaison
California emergency shelter or transitional housing program
Director of a California-based runaway or homeless youth basic center or transitional living program

UPDATE October 18, 2019 - New team working on the homeless issue:

The history of this issue, and for Colleen's benefit - and the initial complaint and need for changing our current implementation is changing...fast. The way we identify and collect information that triggers the residency algorithm (residency status) involves OpenCCC as well as CCCApply. This is important because the current OpenCCC system is undergoing a complete ground-up redesign and therefore getting the business requirements confirmed may have a bigger impact on their development (and the schedule!)

So , I am proposing that we refocus this effort in the following ways:

Identify the need(s) and business requirements for Homeless applicants. (This is identifying the "WHAT" is needed or required. Let the "why?" drive this and make sure we capture all the needs at once.
1. Are homeless applicants held to any different standard relative to residency determination for tuition purposes? Not just priority registration or other non-residency status consideration? Is the college required to gather documentation proof of California residency?

Are there different needs or requirements for different age groups of homeless? Youth (under 26 vs.26 and over? Is there a difference between Homeless Youth (AB 801) and homeless students /applicants of all ages?)
What policy or statutes are driving the need to identify this population?
What is needed to determine the residency status of this person for tuition purposes (minor vs independent? is that important?)
What data needs to be collected? Why? What and where does the data end up and why?)
Are there other eligibilities or opportunities for this population, and if so, what do you need to determine if they meet the requirements for that need?

Try to resist the urge to design the process of HOW these requirements should be met. We need to let the designers and architect figure out howt his fits into their design specs underway now.
However: Language - onscreen text, additional text, help text, - alll of the language needed can be ALL YOU - and you can determine what is asked and help text. But keep in mind that we are now designing our applications - every decision about design is based on the student experience, the student's feelings, and sense of welcome and making them feel comfortable vs. legalese language that could create a barrier in understanding. We are very focused on the behavorial side of what we are asking and the user experience to ensure all types of students are considered across the board.
Don't try to propose the process for meeting the requirements, that will be determined by our system architects and development engineers based on the current design and other requirements that you, me, everyone are not taking into consideration when we start trying to tell them "how" we want them to implement the "what" (the requirements)
.
The "why" can be definitely owned by the CO, the colleges, or other stakeholders and should drive the business requirements (need) for this issue.

Regarding New Meeting Request 11.05.19 - 3:00PM
Debbie Raucher & College Ganley, Mia Keeley

with Colleen Would you please add John Sills and Jennifer Coleman to the invite for this meeting? I just tried to, but it wouldn't let me add them for some reason. Thank you.

To reiterate some critical notes in planning for this meeting:

The OpenCCC redesign - which in underway now - is highly dependent on the requirements we identify for this change. Is there any way we can start mapping out these requirements in writing prior to the meeting - in case the OpenCCC development team needs them sooner than November 5?
Is the primary driver behind this change request to eliminate a barrier that exists for homeless students, or is there new or different residency requirements for homeless students that need to be fulfilled?

The reason I am pressing this point is because, from a development perspective, eliminating a barrier that exists is easier than adding new requirements based on some new law or data collection requirement. Making a change to existing data field structure creates more downstream work and risks for other users than simply removing the connection to the residency algorithm Changing an existing data field
1. What is the law/regulation regarding residency for homeless adults?
2. Is the law different for homeless youth?

Regarding residency - what is the legal opinion or mandate regarding determining the residency status of a homeless student (adult and youth)?
Eliminating Barrier - can be done in several ways, less intrusive and less risky to changes to the colleges' downloads and/or SuperGlue implementations. There are a number of options for this that we can talk through when we meet. But knowing this is the reason behind this change will help us greatly moving forward.

Thanks so much, Colleen and Debbie. Talk to you soon.

Patty

OLD Discussion About Possible Solutions

Update 5.31.19: Proposed changes (discussed in the CCCApply Redesign Workgroup meeting with Omid P. and Tim Calhoon:
Find out what the Steering committee suggests; what legal regulations are governing Homeless in the SAAM and/or other requirements.
Patty to investigate other requirements (Is AB 801 strictly for priority registration?) what else? AB 806
Change the Area B logic to add:
If no perm or mailing address is provided - is the "no_perm_address_homeless" or "no_mailing_address_homeless" checked? If yes, set a flag or see if other logic exists. Were any other Class 2 flags set? Is all other CA intent true? Attend CA high school? Living in CA for 2 years?"

Everything below this point pertains to the discussions about supporting homeless from March 2018. These points are still valid and should be discussed and considered by Steering, but we need to expedite something in the March 2020 release. Some of these changes may take longer to implement.

Several solutions were discussed - some that would support the college in determining/verifying the student's "homeless" status and some that are more long-term - looking at ways the application can be modified to better identify and verify the homeless status and streamline the process. The following solutions were discussed (see below), which need further investigation (and a development estimate) for approval:

The CCCCO should develop and approve a "Self-Certification Affidavit" form - similar to what is used for AB540 - and allow the colleges to use that to approve a student who doesn't meet the residency requirements because they are homeless.
NOTE: Per Michael Q email of 3/8/18 - the Chancellor's Office approved a "self-certification" form. He will begin drafting that document.
IF the form is approved and it doesn't include additional questions (data gathering) above and beyond what we already collect, then:
1. Make it available as a PDF that colleges can attach and send via Email Rules
2. implement an additional text section/paragraph on the "Certification" page of the application that only displays if the app determines the user is under 25, homeless in California - basically eliminating the need for the printed affidavit form, as this page is secured by Electronic Signature technology (thus, under penalty of perjury, we have legal ground to stand on).
3. Mitch believes this should display on a separate page, additional to the Certification process but that will require more development resources and may not be efficient.
Modify the language in the current "Homeless Youth" question text on the Residency page to include the word "California" - basically asking the student whether they are or have been homeless in California - and could that serve as a form of self certification. If they say "No" are we missing out on identifying a specific audience? According to Michael and the group, the system really only cares about California residents that are homeless (under 25).
Implement additional validation in the No Permanent Address Homeless section and the No Current Mailing Address Homeless section - that would ask the student to enter their last known address - so the college has something to use to verify residency
Implement an Error Message pop-up later in the application process that notifies the student that they meet criteria for Homeless Youth eligibility but must contact the Admissions Office to complete the "Self-Certification" form - or other message;

Michael will work with colleagues at CCCCO on the self-certification form approval to ensure that a self-certification affidavit is approved (blessed) and get a memo out to all colleges. This needs to be approved at this level first before anything related can be implemented in CCCApply.

We also discussed adding logic to the Area B residency logic which would sit just above all the address steps (step 8 and 9) and if student meets eligibility requirements in all other way, set Class B1 as "resident" at this time. To be discussed further.

OLD: Proposed Solutions

The text change below should be discussed and approved by Steering. This was proposed in March 2018.

Homeless Youth Question Text

At any time in the last 24 months were you determined to be homeless by any of the following?

High school or school district homeless liaison
Emergency shelter or transitional housing program
Director of a runaway or homeless youth basic center or transitional living program

[radio button] Yes [radio button] No

Proposed change to this question:

At any time in the last 24 months were you determined to be homeless in California by any of the following?

California High school or school district homeless liaison
California emergency shelter or transitional housing program
Director of a California-based runaway or homeless youth basic center or transitional living program

Browser not supported