Logic for Step 3.4.4, in the sample code, was changed from:
min(case when dv.DomesticViolenceSurvivor = 1 and dv.CurrentlyFleeing = 1 then 1
when dv.DomesticViolenceSurvivor = 1 and dv.CurrentlyFleeing = 0 then 2
when dv.DomesticViolenceSurvivor = 1 then 3
when dv.DomesticViolenceSurvivor = 0 then 10
when dv.DomesticViolenceSurvivor in (8,9) then 98
else null end)
To:
min(case when dv.DomesticViolenceSurvivor = 1 and dv.CurrentlyFleeing = 1 then 1
when dv.DomesticViolenceSurvivor = 1 and dv.CurrentlyFleeing = 0 then 2
when dv.DomesticViolenceSurvivor = 1 then 3
when dv.DomesticViolenceSurvivor = 0 then 10
else 98 end)
By this logic, it appears that the following two individuals should have a DVStatus value of 98, rather than Null in tlsa_Enrollment: PersonalIDs 687373 and 708167. This would lead to them having a DVStatus value of 98, rather than 99, in tlsa_Person. The sample output for tlsa_Enrollment has them with a value of Null and tlsa_Person has them with a value of 99.
Logic for Step 3.4.4, in the sample code, was changed from:
To:
By this logic, it appears that the following two individuals should have a DVStatus value of 98, rather than Null in tlsa_Enrollment: PersonalIDs 687373 and 708167. This would lead to them having a DVStatus value of 98, rather than 99, in tlsa_Person. The sample output for tlsa_Enrollment has them with a value of Null and tlsa_Person has them with a value of 99.