Outcomes spike!

[lippytak]

• Get all new conf #s into spreadsheet
  • [x] Solano
  • Contra Costa (not doing — no updates)
  • [x] Placer
  • [x] Marin
• [x] Ping county contacts in Placer, Solano, and Marin
  • [x] Solano
  • [x] Placer
  • [x] Marin
• [x] Set up SF tracking doc inside workbook for team manual entry
• [x] Process existing, unprocessed outcomes from county tracking into master doc
  • [x] Solano
  • [x] Placer
  • [x] Marin
• [x] Data cleaning (Dave leads, can distribute)
• [x] Clean up input fields in county tracking for consistency (can tell Jake to do)
• [x] Quick research on distribution of ineligible details (what % income, active case, did not clear, etc.)

[daguar]

First step, get all new conf #s into tracking, and then ping the counties to update

[daguar]

Contra Costa :hocho: :panda_face:

[daguar]

Solano already up to date

[daguar]

Placer conf #s migrated

[daguar]

Marin conf #s migrated

[daguar]

Added

• [ ] Ping county contacts in Placer, Solano, and Marin

[daguar]

Added:

• [ ] Process existing, unprocessed outcomes from county tracking into master doc

[daguar]

Solano outcomes processed, a fair number of denials... (2 interview, 3 verification)

[daguar]

Pinged Solano contacts

[daguar]

@lippytak — what's our process for cases whose statuses may change? (Specifically I'm thinking of denials due to verification where the client turns them in later.)

[daguar]

Pinged Placer

[daguar]

Jake pinged Marin (thanks Jake!)

[lippytak]

The main questions to answer in the interest of the Flight to Quality:

• Why are people getting denied?
• Are there important differences by county?
• Are we making the right call re investing in income screening?

[daguar]

Master doc has Placer and Marin (auto-updating) along with Solano — pulls in from county tracking data

[daguar]

Have set up a SF tracking tab for us to do outcome lookup on — note: we fill out the YELLOW columns:

[daguar]

I have also assigned people in the San Francisco tab for our group outcomes pass today:

[lippytak]

fyi @daguar I added one last thing above before closing out this issue: 'Quick research on distribution of ineligible details (what % income, active case, did not clear, etc.)'

[daguar]

One more SF outcomes pass today 230-330, cal invite sent

[daguar]

It does look like it goes:

• Verifications
• Interviews/eligibility

as the big denial reasons

[daguar]

@lippytak To your question of the "ineligible breakdown", here's what I've calculated (manual count):

26 — over income 7 — not eligible during first 2 months (or “ineligible in the first and second month”) — these are all Solano County 3 — immigration/not citizen/LPR (note: these were mostly early cases) 3 — student ineligibility 2 — active on other case 1 — SSI/SSP 1 — “Not a separate household”

(Note: these include both denials and withdrawals)

[daguar]

Added 'composite details' column which shows (a) county detailed denial explanation, or (b) our own denial details we've input.

[daguar]

Finished with the useful data cleaning (it's how I consolidated Level 1 denial reasons above)

[daguar]

I have cleaned up the validation fields to be consistent across the various tracking columns

[daguar]

Crosstabbing denial reasons with counties, here's what we find:

• Placer: verifications dominate (~55%)
• Marin: interviews are biggest (~45%)
• SF: pretty even split interview/verifications/eligibility
• Solano: eligibility (~37%)

[daguar]

That said, The Big 3™ really are what we have to solve, and roughly in equal portions — let's get to it.