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
- What is the law/regulation regarding residency for homeless adults?
- What is required by the college to determine the residency status of a self-reported homeless adult?
- Does the college need to confirm that the self-reported homeless adult has been in CA for 2 years?
- If not, what is required?
- If yes, it's possible that we could identify their residency based on the existing application questions. Please consider what is truly needed by the college (or the CO) when a student self-identifies as "homeless".
- 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
| 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
| 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
| 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,
| 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>
| 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.
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
| 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.
| Aug 21, 2019, 1:38 PM |
| Reply to all |
|
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,
| Aug 21, 2019, 4:39 PM |
| Reply to all |
|
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>
| 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
| 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!
| Aug 24, 2019, 5:27 PM |
| Reply |
|
Thanks Debbie. Talk to you soon.
Patty
| Aug 26, 2019, 8:04 AM |
| Reply to all |
|
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.
| Sep 5, 2019, 1:48 PM |
| Reply to all |
|
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
| Sep 5, 2019, 3:31 PM |
| Reply to all |
|
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
-
| Sep 6, 2019, 8:14 AM |
| Reply to all |
|
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
| Oct 7, 2019, 10:04 AM |
| Reply to all |
|
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
| Oct 7, 2019, 2:34 PM |
| Reply |
|
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
| Oct 7, 2019, 2:35 PM |
| Reply |
|
FYI
| Oct 7, 2019, 3:02 PM |
| Reply |
|
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!
| Oct 9, 2019, 4:34 PM (13 days ago) |
| Reply |
|
Perfect. Thank you so much, Elena. And...happy trails!!
Patty
| 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.
| 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
| 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?
| 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>
| 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
- What is the law/regulation regarding residency for homeless adults?
- What is required by the college to determine the residency status of a self-reported homeless adult?
- Does the college need to confirm that the self-reported homeless adult has been in CA for 2 years?
- If not, what is required?
- If yes, it's possible that we could identify their residency based on the existing application questions. Please consider what is truly needed by the college (or the CO) when a student self-identifies as "homeless".
- 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