Auto File Review

1. Auto File Review Why should we use it? What is it? How can I get started?

2. Why AFR? Why Now? WVC started using AFR for base file review in 2004. Prior to converting to FAM, we had a two day “ISIR load to check mailed” process on many students. Since converting to FAM, every aspect of our work has slowed down – EXCEPT for the AFR basic file review. After a short period of readjustments, AFR was back on the job and working for us. Having AFR helps eliminate needless review of screens, ISIRs, or paper files we would otherwise have to look at. A great deal of our pre-package work is done through reports. We don’t “pull files” for initial review. There are students who don’t even have a paper file. For many students, we can look at a report, pull up the student in FAM, and insert a package code.

3. Currently, we let AFR tell us about: • Awards in BM1628 - the Sponsorship module • SMS data: • Is a student in SMS – SM2001? • Is a student in SMS for the CURRENT year- SM5017? • Invalid student intent in one or more of the sessions being reviewed • Invalid program enrolled in SMS • Non-citizen or not an eligible alien in SMS • Non-resident Fee pay status in SMS • Student indicated receipt of veteran's benefits in SMS • Student transferred in credits from another college in the transfer database-SD3005 • Student indicated they attended a prior college in SMS – SM2001 • ISIR Data and/or other tracking sessions: • Bachelor’s degree in NEED • Default on a student loan in NEED and/or other tracking sessions • Repayments owed as noted by a track code somewhere in the track history • Student is on financial aid termination (or has other issues in session 0000) • Student wants work-study (will also show wants loans, we don’t use that edit)

4. AFR can also tell us about: • We don’t use all the edits, for various reasons… • SMS data: • Student indicated they attended a prior college in admissions – SD3051 (don’t use the screen, which is basically a duplicate of SM2001) • Bachelor’s degree in SM (this process worked, but our school puts different data in that SM2001 field. We discovered this and stopped using the edit) • Eligibility Code (we don’t use these at our school, so don’t edit for them) • ISIR Data and/or other tracking sessions: • Bachelor’s degree in NEED (ISIR comments do this for us) • Non-citizenship showing in NEED (ISIR comments do this for us) • High School/GED not indicated on ISIR (FAM has option to post track items for this) • Student indicated on ISIR wants loans (we have a separate process for loans) • Estimated Income for Parent (we only verify what we must ;-) • Estimated Income for Student (we only verify what we must ;-) • Student has Probation track codes not received (this edit has a hard coded RQ status. It held up packaging, so we quit using it. Recently thought to use it for other purposes, so plan to implement that.

5. Background… WVC’s approach • We review all files of students with ISIR records. I would like to test AFR to see if we could include students without FAF records, but have not had time. • We no longer use Data Sheets, so many students have no documents to turn in. Only students who turn in documents will get a folder (unless a previous year folder is already present. • We do not usually print ISIRs. All staff, including work-study, have the ability to look up and print an ISIR from EDE, if needed. • We make heavy use of Track Codes.  • Almost all letters generated from our office are automated, using track codes to generate appropriate comments. • All students who have file review completed are assigned a package code and are packaged, even if it appears they won’t be eligible for anything.

6. Background… WVC’s approach • Students who are “packaged” and found to be only loan eligible are sent a letter to that fact. They don’t get an “AW” letter, instead, we must manually put the track code “AX” (loan only letter) on. • Besides AP, we have codes AN and AO - for packaged students with no need, or with need but no eligibility for our various limited pots of money. These are mostly auto-generated (some types won’t post automatically, so we manually add the code). I think this may be fixed, or a fix in on way • To reduce errors, we auto-package initial awards for every student packaged, and many revisions. Downward adjustments to awards are manually done, as are loan awards. • One person in our office reviews the reports at this time. In the beginning, we had more, but over time, it evolved to one person. She does the majority of initial packaging. This will be different in every office of course. • WVC “prints” all AFR reports to electronic file for archiving, whether we review them daily or not. If your school does not have the electronic option, there are some file review reports you will probably not want to print once initial testing is done each year.

7. Special Tip: AFR “completes” a file too quickly? • We use the runtime parameter to have AFR “complete” a “Staff Reviewable” file when all RQs are received. To prevent accidental awarding, we use a “DO” (docs okay) code with an RQ status when simply receiving a document might make it appear all is complete. This code is either auto-tracked or manually entered on Screen – depending on circumstances. • When students turn in documents, instead of going into a folder, they are directed to the appropriate place/person: • Citizenship, Name/SSN issues, anything needing a “documents approved” resolution is directed to the appropriate person’s mailbox. After document is approved, the approver receives the “DO” (docs okay) RQ track and the document is moved to file room, where it will be filed in student’s folder by work-study staff. • Verification items go into a verification drawer for review. Same with Revisions . After verification is complete, they are filed in student file. Nothing is printed from EDE or held onto while waiting for new ISIR. Track codes are used to indicate new ISIR is coming.

8. Understanding the Jobs Understanding Auto File Review (SM9294J) & Staff File Review (SM9142J)

9. What IS Auto File Review? • Who is responsible? • Auto File Review is a SBCTC product designed years ago (most of the guilty parties have long since vacated the system). The product design was based on specific criteria given to CIS by the Financial Aid Council. REGENT does not support AFR, nor does it have a comparable product. When it was originally designed, this was new ground. There is a secondary program, Assign Package Codes. CIS designed the AFR to be used alone or as a pre-curser to the Assign Package Codes program. WVC does not use the Assign Package Codes program. • Why can’t Auto Tracking do the same job? • Auto Tracking is a Regent product and does not have the ability to look in SMS or FMS. There are couple of edits that can be done both with AFR and Auto Tracking (such as “BA in NEED), but AFR goes way beyond those edits.

10. What IS Auto File Review? • Why are there so many “workarounds”? • After AFR was developed, various colleges attempted to use it but only used it for the purposes they envisioned. Some schools decided not to use it at all. To my knowledge, few schools use it in it’s entirety (all edits, all reports). Use in the “real world” brought to light some functionality issues, but there have been few staff resources available for more than really urgent fixes. The more people who use it, the more likely we are to get changes for a better product. • Why doesn’t it look at ALL the data we need? • When it was written, some of the elements we now wish for were not considered. Since few schools have used the full program, enhancements to the program have been rare over the years. Because of Rehosting and FAM, rewriting and enhancing AFR is not a priority. I’m hopeful that as we move forward, we might be able to change that.

11. What Auto File Review WILL Do… • Eliminates the need to manually look at EVERY screen for EVERY student prior to packaging. • Looks at specific data in FAM, NEED, SMS or FMS which might make a student ineligible for aid. • Generates tracking codes to alert staff of possible inconsistencies between the various data screens. • Customizable? Yes and No... We have discovered ways to make AFR work for us that were probably never envisioned. At the same time, there is much more we could wish for…. ;-) • Sample of this: We set the “termination” edit to look for various codes on the 0000 session, not just termination codes. We then trained our staff to know that seeing that edit meant to look at 0000 for important information.

12. What Auto File Review WILL Do… • For the edits that the job performs, we do not have to worry about “forgetting” to look at that one edit – we only check if there is a “flag” (tracking code). Just as (by making use of the comment codes) we do not worry about checking the SAR for a student’s B.A. degree or citizenship, we also eliminate researching many additional screens - confident that we only need to check those screens for students who get a particular edit flag. • Continues to look for inconsistencies after packaging and flags them with track codes that will show on subsequent reports. For each school, how well this works will depend on how you customize each code and how you deal with them once resolved.

13. What Auto File Review Will NOT Do…. • Eliminate the need to look at all screens for all students prior to packaging – it simply means reviewing LESS screens for MORE students. • Eliminate the need to revisit students from time to time as new issues arise. • It does not contain coding to add up credits taken and match them against program requirements, or perform any SAP processes. • There ARE bugs and there ARE things that could be done to make this a superb program. As more people use the job, we will find other things that it can NOT do… currently. However, as it is a SBCTC product, there is the potential for future enhancements. The more people using the product, the more voice we will have for future enhancements.

14. What’s “AUTO”? • The “Auto” part of this process is SM9294J - the Auto File Review (AFR) posting job. This program does much of the previous manual labor of initial file review. In some cases, this may be the only “file review” required - other than assigning a package code. • The review and posting is the thing that makes AFR so great. There are 3 reports generated by this program. Over the years, we’ve found that: • We don’t look at report A, except for the first “test” runs each year. • We don’t look at report B, it’s too big and in dire need of revising. This would be a useful report IF it was revised to eliminate all but one line listing the track code that the edit caused. • Except occasionally during testing, we’ve never had a “C” (batch job error) report. • We’ll do a quick review of these reports and then move on to the next job, which creates the reports we DO use.

15. Reports in Detail: SM9294J -- AFR (Auto File Review) • AFR - SM9294A: Students who qualified for AFR (shows posted AFR codes). • Students who fail an edit & have no awards in status 2 will show on this report. It simply shows what AFR codes were posted to each student. We save this to an electronic file for archive purposes, but after our initial testing each year, we do not review this report. Instead, we use SM9142 A/B/C for pre-package review. • AFR - SM9294B*: Awarded students with new edits. • Students with awards who now get edits, will show on the SM9294B report. Includes students who have scholarships or other aid prior to completing a financial aid application for the year. • This report has the potential to be an incredible help (i.e., student awarded, now has invalid intent, or is now SAP). However, it’s an inefficient report as too much data is reported, and it is hundreds of pages long. I’m hoping we can get this report revamped so we can use it to catch those “after award” issues. Currently, you can create a DX to do this same job, just look for RQ’s not received on students who already have awards. • AFR – SM9294C: Batch job error report • Say "Yes” to printing this one. It only prints if the program bombs, to tell you why. If you get this and can’t figure it out, contact SBCTC. * Reports that I believe have substantial revision needs before we can use them efficiently.

16. What’s NOT “Auto”? • SM9142J is the Staff Review(SFR) job. This program runs reports for files that have AFR track codes posted and divides them based on criteria you set up in your tables, so that designated staff members can perform the needed staff review and packaging. • Our office focuses on the SM9142ABC reports for file review and packaging. Reports in Detail: SM9142J -- SFR (Staff File Review) • SFR – SM9142A: PROFESSIONAL Review • Students who may need a more intense review, such as verification, SAR Comment Codes, etc. Students who have no received date for the Professional Review (ZZ) code will be on this report. • SFR – SM9142B: STAFF Review • Those files that may have need for some review prior to getting a package code. Many edits can be resolved by viewing internal screens. Students who have no received date for the Staff Review (ZY) code will be on this report.

17. Reports in Detail: SM9142J -- SFR (Staff File Review) • SFR – SM9142C*: FILES READY FOR PACKAGING • Those students who qualify for packaging without needing specific review, or who have been reviewed, have moved from the A/B reports, and now need a package code. • This report could be used to set up students to receive auto-assigned package codes, if we used that program. Students with a received date for either the Professional or Staff Review codes (even if other RQ items have no received date), will show on Report C as ready for packaging. • Students who get a PKG CODE (not pkg’d), but still have edits will show on the SM9142C report. • Students packaged, but no eligibility (no need, or not enough need to qualify for our limited funds), so have no award data on screen 2 will continue to show on this report.  This includes students with the AN and AO, as well as the AP code. It makes the report messier to work with than we’d like -- but we DO use it and it works. * Reports that I believe could be vastly improved with a few revisions to make them more efficient.

18. Tips: SM9142J -- SFR (Staff File Review) • At our institution, Review codes are not filled in as received until EVERY item is received and student is ready for packaging. This helps keep the C report manageable. • Many students on reports A & B will not make it to the C report, as the person reviewing the file and filling in the received date assigns the package code, and in FAM, often just does the packaging. If we ever get to the point of assigning package codes automatically, this report would be used by the assign package program to do that. • It’s VERY important to look at the A & B reports to catch those students who might fall through the cracks otherwise. In the beginning, we struggled with getting people to use the reports – probably the hardest thing in this process. We juggled tasks until everyone was comfortable with their part of the process. Eventually, it became one person’s job to review the reports. She has a process and we don’t mess with it ;-) Do others still package, and review? Sure. She just skips those when she encounters them.

19. Things to remember • Students who have awards and THEN get edits, show on the SM9294B report. • Students with a PKG CODE, who still have edits, show on the SM9142C report. • The above 2 reports are ones I have asked CIS to look at revamping, so that AFR can be the “efficiency” program I believe it has the potential to be. • SM9294B is simply unmanageable the way it currently prints – it prints tons of data, so gets bigger and bigger each run (currently about 600 pages for WVC!). The needed data is in there, you just can’t find the needle in the haystack. I’d like to see only the RQ edit codes - no award data, and no NR codes. • I believe SM9142C also needs revamping to give more options to exclude those packaged but no aid, such as no need, or not enough need. We “package” all complete files. Students packaged without awards stay on the report, making it difficult to review. • It is my fervent hope that we can get AFR elevated to a priority for a few fixes that would make this product what I know it has the potential to be. Some main things I’d like to see: • These two reports refined for better efficiency • Changing some hardcoded items to customizable items • Allowing edits such as Intent, Program, and “student in SMS” to look at ONLY the requested session ranges, instead of entire student history

20. It seems like MORE work… • First year implementations of new systems, software and programs ARE often more work at the start, but things should smooth out over time and get better. • At Wenatchee, we started out using EVERY part of the program and ALL reports and worked our way to the point we are today, eliminating or adjusting that which did not prove efficient for us. We use most of the edits, and some of the reports. After an initial period of more work for some staff, while we worked through how to do things, it is now a (mostly) smoothly flowing part of the system. We would be lost without it and the time it saves. • Question: I like the idea of posting the AFR codes, but I don’t want to use the Staff Review job or any of the reports. Can I do that? • YES! You can run just the SM9294J job, ignore all the reports, and continue the rest of your file review as before. Many schools do this 

21. How can I get started? Pre-Setup Work Setting up your tables Job Scheduling

22. Documentation, DataX and Tables First things first. READ the SBCTC documentation. At first, it may seem big and scary, but it’s full of information. It will become your friend. Prior to setting up my tables, I ran several DX’s to find & review track codes. I looked carefully at all our codes, eliminating ones no longer used, changing some to better fit our needs. I decided on a range of track codes to use for Auto File Review. In our case, these are mostly “Z” codes. Why Z? With only a couple of exceptions, these were not in use. The few which were in use were easy for me to switch to something else. Using “Z” codes keeps them at the end of the tracking screens, easily seen, but not in the way. Once I’ve determined the codes I wanted, I went through the documentation setup. Here, I’ve condensed it into the very basics…

23. Step 1: Set up AFR track codes • Application Setup/Validation Config • Table Name: SAF_Track • Click to edit table • Click to add track items • Click Save & Add More until done. Then click Save & Go Back. • Check your table

24. AFR Edit track codes ZJ ZK ZL ZM ZN ZO ZP FINANCIAL AID PROBATION ZQ IN DEFAULT PER TRACKING ZR OWES REPAYMENT PER TRACKING ZS BM1628 AWARD - SPONSORSHIP MODULE ZT FAID TERMINATED PER TRACKING ZU STUDENT WANTS LOAN ZV VET BENEFITS IN SM2001 ZW WANTS WORK STUDY ZX PASSED ALL EDITS ZY STAFF REVIEW ZZ PROF REVIEW - VERIFY OR C CODE Z0 NO RECORD IN NEED DATABASE Z1 SAR CITZ INELIG Z2 SMS CITZ INELIG Z3 SMS HAS BA DEGREE Z4 NEED HAS BA DEGREE Z5 PRIOR COLLEGES-SD5031 ADMISSIONS DB Z6 PRIOR COLLEGES-SM2001 SMS DB Z7 PRIOR COLLEGES-SD3005 TRANSFER DB Z8 NO REC IN SMS Z9 NO REC IN SMS-YR/SESS RANGE ZA INELIG PROGRAM ENROLLED ZB INELIG STUDENT INTENT ZC SCR1 ACADEMIC ELIG FLAG ZD VERIFY HS DIPLOMA/GED ZE ZF NON-RES FEE PAY-SM2001 ZG ZH PARENT'S INCOME ESTIMATED* ZI STUDENT'S INCOME ESTIMATED* *in table, but not using the edit Used or reserved all Z0-ZZ codes. Blanks were left on purpose, in the hopes for future edits  • Edit wish list: • Dependents on ISIR • Students with all $0 on ISIR • Customizable descriptions • Additional Customizable Edit (like term & prob - look at all sessions for any track codes I choose, my description.

25. Step 2: Set up WRV table • Application Setup/Processing Config/Processing Table • System: CIS, Table ID: WRV (if you don’t have, you will need to add) • Click to edit table • Click to add items (or edit items already there) • Click Save & Add More until done. Then click Save & Go Back. • Check your table

26. WRV Table – Sample

31. SM9108J Update Bio from SMS SM9101J AD update Job Group: AG926R SM9294J Auto File Review 0809 SM9142J FAID Staff File Review (ABC Reports) SM9108J updates with SID AD update fills in the AD received date. AFR JOB Group Auto File Review Staff File Review Step 3: Scheduling AFR Tip: Did you know you can set your parameters to default to certain things, so you don’t have to remember what parms or look up the documentation every time? Chose option 8 in job scheduling. MAINTENANCE PROCESSES ------------------------------------- 7 MAINTAIN REPORT FORMATTING DEFAULTS 8 MAINTAIN PARAMETER DEFAULTS 9 MAINTAIN JOB GROUPS DEFINITIONS Suggested nightly schedule order:

32. Scheduling AFR Job Group JM1001-001 JOB GROUP SELECTION SCREEN JOB GROUP NUM : AG926R TITLE : 08-09 FIN AID FILE REVIEW SELECT PRIOR SEQ IND. JOB/GROUP TITLE SEQ 01 X SM9294J FAID AUTOMATIC FILE REVIEW 00 02 X SM9142J FAID FILES READY FOR STAFF R 01 JM1001-003 JOB GROUP SCHEDULING SCREEN GROUP NUM : AG926R TRANS NUM : 740595 RUN DATE : 022709 STATUS : COMPLETED PRIORITY : 0 EXECUTION TIME : P : PROCESS LEVEL : C FREQ : D COLLEGE : P150 SEND TO : LP - LINE PRINT (LOCAL) MF - MICROFICHE PP - PAGE PRINT (CENTRAL) REPORT LP MF PP D REPORT LP MF PP D REPORT LP MF PP D SM9142A 01 00 00 00 Y SM9142B 01 00 00 00 Y SM9142C 01 00 00 00 Y SM9294A 01 00 00 00 Y SM9294B 01 00 00 00 Y SM9294C 01 00 00 00 Y

33. Scheduling AFR - WVC sample parameters

34. Scheduling AFR *College defined track code – customize to fit your needs 

35. Scheduling AFR

36. Scheduling AFR -- Edits

38. Change, Change, Change... Preparation Customizing AFR Other Tips

39. Track Codes: • We made some major track code changes prior to implementing. I created several dataX processes to sort out codes in different ways, then ran and saved the reports for every code (in case something went wrong and we had to replace or fix something later). • We deleted (manually or using SM9135J) many codes not in use, changed others to something more appropriate and added a good deal more. Most of this we did ourselves. In 2004, SBCTC was able to help with changing those that had large quantities of track items – such as the verification code. • Major change for us: We changed from a 50 Verification code to a 08. This puts the code up with the tax items and isn’t lost farther down the page. Again, this was in 2004, and SBCTC had the ability to do this at that time. I don’t know if they can any longer. • We posted a suggestion on the Enhancement wish list page for an enhancement to the SM9135J job, to allow us to change codes and not just delete – thereby removing the burden from SBCTC. Hopefully that will happen someday. I think it’s more a necessity now, if SBCTC can’t easily do this for us. • We chose the Z range for AFR codes, so they fall way at the end, are easier to discern from other items needing resolution (I & K are our ISIR comment codes) and being at the end, they don’t get in the way.

40. Customizing AFR: • We use the 0000 screen for SAP and repayment issues. We set AFR up to look at those codes & post the Termination, Probation & Repayment Edits on Screen 5 so that staff know when they need to look at 0000. • We went further, by using the Termination edit to find other track codes we put in 0000 and now just pretend the edit means “look at 0000”, instead of just termination. • When the Intent code edit (ZB) posts, the file reviewer sends a letter using a different track code (IC). When the required docs are turned in, we fill in the IC and erase the ZB. If the intent code changes to an invalid one later, the ZB edit can post again. • Codes we delete once resolving, so they can pop up again if needed: • Z2 – Ineligible Citizenship in SMS • ZB – Intent Code • ZP – Probation • ZQ - Default • ZR - Repayment • ZT - Termination

41. EDE Track codes (File Review tip): • When doing an EDE correction, we use track codes with an RQ status, so that students won’t get packaged accidentally if all else is received. • We place the transaction number and EFC that we are expecting, and our initials in the comment field. • If this is a correction done AFTER awarding, we also unfreeze Screen 3, and make a note to repkg/refreeze when the new ISIR comes in. • ISIRS coming in with a frozen screen and no track code will be looked at before making a decision to load.

42. EDE Track codes (File Review tip): • WHY is this so important? • Sometimes a student makes a correction at the same time as we do and we need to know which is the appropriate transaction to load. Before we started this process, the person loading ISIRS would often have to research all such ISIRs before unfreezing Screen 3 and loading them, to see which ones were generated by the school, student, or NSLDS. • Now we don’t have to look at the ones that WE asked for, as long as Screen 3 isn’t frozen, they just load automatically and we simply make sure the EFC and transaction number on Screen 3 matches what we asked for. • Besides saving time, these extra track codes are useful in showing the progression of ISIRS.

43. EDE Track codes (File Review tip): • 7/12: Student tells us she has no BA and will fix her SAR. We make a note, so we know to receive the edits when new ISIR comes in. We don’t know if the student will make other changes, so we just “???” the EFC (this ISIR we would look at when loading, to make sure the BA was fixed). • 7/20: After verifying, we put in the V status code, Everything is received now, so we use the EDE codes to both track the new ISIR and prevent packaging. • The student makes her own revision after we package, causing a 04 trans with 0 EFC. No EDE code on our screen. We double check the ISIR to make sure we didn’t accidentally forget to put on the EC code. That done, we don’t load this one. • 8/28: Then the student fills out a Revision Request. Again, a new ISIR. • 9/03:Oops, I accidentally changed the students name! I have to wait for the 05 trans to process, then I go in & fix the name. EFC stays the same. I make notes for the ISIR. TRACKING DUE NOT'D REC'D ST COMMENT 08 VERIFICATION STATUS 07102004 07202004 V FM EFC = 3100 14REVISION REQUEST NR APPR CF NEW EFC=121 7$ REVISION REQUEST APPR08282004 08282004 NR (note, letter generates for stu) EC EDE CORRECTION, NEW ISIR 07122004 07152004 RQ 02/?? Stu fixing BA-rec edits ED EDE CORRECTION, NEW ISIR 07202004 08032004 RQ 03/3100 FM EE EDE CORRECTION, NEW ISIR 08282004 09294004 RQ 05/121 CF -Repkg (error, redo) EF EDE CORRECTION, NEW ISIR 09294004 RQ 06/121 (re-FZ)

44. Caveats or Issues of Note Things We Are Discovering What We Are Doing To Fix What Doesn’t Work Well For Us Hopes For The Future *Disclaimer: Not bashing AFR. I love this program  This is simply to let you know issues to watch for and some possible work-around solutions.

45. Too Much Detail: AD Track Code • We believe the AFR program would be most efficient if it limited the search to the Year and Sessions dictated by the Financial Aid office and the year AFR is run for, rather than detail screens from prior years which have no bearing on current year awarding. Here are a few examples: AD Track Code Issue: Due to limited funds, some schools want to package only those who have shown intent to attend by completing an admissions form. The Admissions edit and AD track code has a few kinks that we must work around. AFR and the Admissions status update job (SM9101J) look in the Admissions database for a student record -any record. A student who attended WVC 15 years ago for an ABE class will have an admissions record and get a received date for the RQ item. • Wish: We would like to see the programs look at the “last updated” date. For students who are not currently enrolled, if the “last updated” date is in the current year, then receive the edit. If it is prior, then do not receive the edit. This might need to be an option, so that schools could give their own time limits (1 year, 1 quarter, etc).

46. AD Track Code • Our Work around: we send ALL students a notice of Admission requirements: All applicants must be admitted to Wenatchee Valley College before we can process and review a financial aid application. Please review the following and comply with the appropriate action. 1) If you are a prospective student, and have not yet applied for admission to the college, you need to do so now. 2) If you are student returning after time away and your absence from WVC has been longer than 1 year, you will need to reapply for admission. 3) If you are a current student, you do not need to reapply. Your Admissions record will be automatically posted to Financial Aid. NOTE: since FAM, we no longer run the SM9101J because we can’t run our letters in between jobs at night. We are currently using the AFR admissions edit. We have not yet developed a workaround to go back to SM9101J, but may simply add a new track code which would send the letter. It doesn’t solve the issue of only looking at current students though.

47. AD Track Code • Admittedly, not every student who has a 15 year old admissions record reapplies. We don’t catch all of those who do fail to do so. We have decided the benefits of not reviewing the Admissions screen for every student far outweigh the issues of awarding a student who hasn’t followed up his FAFSA with an application for admission. • If the student is awarded and never attends, we simply place the award in status 5 and give the money to another student. • Possible issue: Now that we are no longer using the Data Sheet as criteria for packaging, we don’t have that to use as a secondary “intent to enroll”. Giving up on the admissions requirement prior to packaging is something we have become more lax on because of the need to work around the programs inefficiencies. Fixing this would definitely free up wasted time packaging those who haven’t yet applied for admissions. • There are other edits that use similar programming logic and cause a few headaches for us. We continue to work around them but would like to see changes someday.

48. Too Much Detail: Intent Code • Issue: The Intent code edit has similar problems. Currently, AFR looks in the current year, as well as prior years, for intent codes. • A student who attended our school 15 years ago for an ABE class will have an Intent code record for that session that is not financial aid eligible. If the student is not yet enrolled for the year/session intended, he will receive an edit for invalid intent. If a student has never attended, and has not yet registered, the intent code would be blank. This would trigger an edit.

49. Intent Code • Enhancement Wish: We would like to see the program look at the correct corresponding year/session, for the year we are running AFR. • For instance, in Spring quarter, we are awarding for the upcoming year. We would like AFR to look at the UPCOMING year/sessions only and if no Intent is there, we’d like the option to not post the edit (at our school we would rather package and then run reports for checking blank intent prior to disbursing). Workaround: Turn off Intent Code checking until just prior to Fall quarter. • During the year, AFR would be looking at the CURRENT year/sessions. First, at the current session. If Intent is there, use that intent. If not there, a look at the upcoming session. If there, use. If not, again the option to accept the “blank” as okay and move on. The point here is not to use a prior year’s Intent code to hold up a student’s aid for the current or upcoming year.

50. Intent Code Tip – what works for us • Working with Intent code edits: • Students who get the invalid intent code have an IC track code placed on Screen 5. This generates a letter stating they need to update their intent code. • Student fills out a form and bring it to us. • Our staff fills in the received date of the IC code and puts the Intent in the comments (e.g., F:323), and initials the form. • The form is taken next door to the Registration office. • Registration staff enter the new intent codes, initials the form and brings it back to Financial Aid. • ZB edit code is removed from Screen 5 (so it can pop up again at a later time). • The form is filed and packaging continues. • This works quite smoothly now, once we figured out what process worked best and assigned specific people to the tasks, so as not to confuse things or lose forms. If we need it right away, Registration is very good about doing these on the spot for us 