1 / 19

CA Error Checking

This technical review delves into the intricacies of TRACS error checking, including fatal errors, discrepancy levels, and data storage. It also addresses current practices, challenges, and proposed changes for improved accuracy.

chapmanl
Download Presentation

CA Error Checking

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. CA Error Checking October, 2004 Jed Graef IPM-Software

  2. Review of TRACS Error Checking • Two-Pass Model • MAT checks • Formatting and similar issues • TRACS checks • Business rules

  3. Fatal Errors • MAT • Record level • File level • Fatal

  4. Non-Fatal Errors • Discrepancy • Level-1 (Correct in 30-45 days) • Level-2 (Correct on the next certification) • Level-3 (Informational) • Level-4 (For field office use) • Informational • Status (Voucher)

  5. Which Records are Stored? • Records with MAT errors or Fatal errors are not stored • Records without errors and with non-fatal errors are stored • The TRACS calculated values are stored

  6. Why Level-1 Discrepancies are not Fatals • By the time TRACS checks for the level-1 and other errors the record has already been stored. • TRACS is looking into the feasibility of storing records with fatal errors

  7. Is TRACS Error Checking Complete? • Not at all • There are many handbook rules that TRACS does not or can not audit • Rent • Utility Allowance • Income Limits

  8. Is TRACS Error Checking Accurate? • Generally, yes • However the certification model used for error checks can introduce errors if the cert is not completely accurate and compliant

  9. CA Requirements • CAs are required to review data submitted and send correct data on to TRACS • This means messages and instructions must be sent to sites concerning data fixes

  10. Current Practice • CA Software may or may not do a full MAT check • CA Software probably checks some but not all TRACS errors • CA Software probably does at least some checking that TRACS does not do • Each vendor decides how and with what format to communicate errors • Vendors or CAs might modify the severity level associated with a given data condition

  11. Problems • If the same message code (CE123) is used by the CA and TRACS it can be difficult for a site or the Helpdesk to determine who generated it • Just because a CA uses a TRACS message code, there is no assurance that the same edits have been performed • There is no central repository of non-TRACS messages and edits

  12. Bob Wilson's Suggested Changes • Add a two- or three-character identifier to CA message codes • CA-CE123 or • CE123-CA • Consider adding a section to the MAT Guide for vendor messages

  13. Bob’s Suggestions-2 • Each vendor message should have a unique identifier that should: • Not duplicate one used by TRACS • Not be in the same range as the numbers used by TRACS • Use numbers 800 or greater if using a TRACS prefix (CE, F, etc) • Return CA messages in the same format as is used by TRACS. Do not send unformatted reports.

  14. Bob’s Suggestions-3 • If a TRACS message code is used, return the same message as does TRACS • Optionally add a CA addendum

  15. Proposed Error Format • @*@ TRACM11111TRACM22222 2.0.1.B • OA Defined Data : 1234567890 • OA Software Vendor : Fly-Bi-Nite Software • OA Software Release/Version : 0.00.1 • CA Software Vendor : Sorta-Good Software • CA Software Release/Version : 1.97.3 • Agency Defined Data : Whatever • Project Name : BIG HOUSE INC. • Project No. : • Contract No. : DC44H111111 • Unit No. : 7 • SSN : 888888888 • Name : TENANT, FIRST • Tenant No. : 10000 • Effective Date 2004-07-01 • Informational : UA005-CA • NO UNIT ADDRESS FOUND IN TRACS FOR THE MAT10 SUBMITTED • CA Message: Why would you ever want to do something like this?

  16. Getting Creative Or How a CA Can Sneak In a Report

  17. @*@ TRACM11111TRACM22222 2.0.1.B • OA Defined Data : 1234567890 • OA Software Vendor : Fly-Bi-Nite Software • OA Software Release/Version : 0.00.1 • CA Software Vendor : Sorta Good Software • CA Software Release/Version : 1.97.3 • Agency Defined Data : Whatever • Project Name : BIG HOUSE INC. • Project No. : • Contract No. : DC44H111111 • Unit No. : • SSN : • Name : • Tenant No. : • Effective Date 2004-07-01 • Informational : CE800-CA • CA PROCESSING REPORT • CA Message: Thanks for your submission • You sent 23 Annuals. We rejected 3 of them. • You sent 4 Gross Rent certs. We liked them all. • Etc., etc., etc.

  18. Unresolved Issues • TRACS review of level 1 errors • Possible project to make some level-1 errors fatals • Authority for CAs to deviate from the MAT Guide • Changing error levels • Adding new errors • Process for CA error review, if any • Revamping the TRACS error checks--Post-BPR

  19. CaTRAC’r Error Checking • See handout

More Related