Skip to content

Clarity Human Services

Thanks for taking the time to suggest improvements to Clarity Human Services! 

If you don't see a category for your idea or don't know what category to choose, you can leave the category blank. We'll sort it out!

View our full feature request policy here.

Clarity Human Services

Categories

  • Hot ideas
  • Top ideas
  • New ideas
  • My feedback

9 results found

  1. It would be useful to have the following updated and pushed to "Data Analysis" section in the Help Center of the Bitfocus website, every time Looker or SQL Access has been updated:

    • A "Clarity to Looker Data Dictionary" showing all the fields available in all of the Looker models
    • A diagram of how the tables relate in Looker
    • SQL Access fields list showing all the fields available
    • A diagram of how the tables relate in SQL Access

    It would also be helpful to include field descriptions, HMIS metadata, table name, and name.

    42 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    Planned  ·  7 comments  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  2. Currently, multi-select fields are only available to be set up by BitFocus. Instead, system admins need to use multiple checkbox fields for each option. Typically, select-all-that-apply questions have many, many choices (even when those questions are designed well and thoughtfully). This quickly eats into custom field limits and custom field publishing to data analysis (both of which are very bad design elements themselves). Please improve this.

    28 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    1 comment  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Planned  ·  Danielle Robadey responded

    Thank you for your feedback. We are in the planning phase of a feature or update related to this item.

  3. Personal ID (as opposed to Unique ID) is included in the data extracts for Federal HMIS Partner submissions. Errors in those submissions will identify offending records by Personal ID, however, there's no easy way to search for a record.

    Allowing search by Personal ID would be a huge help to the users who are troubleshooting the Federal HMIS Partner uploads.

    24 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    Planned  ·  0 comments  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  4. Users have expressed scenarios when automations will not prompt the removal of a client from the outreach map when appropriate. Allowing users this ability will account for the scenarios in which automations are applicable.

    22 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    9 comments  ·  Outreach  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Planned  ·  Danielle Robadey responded

    Thank you for your feedback. We are in the planning phase of a feature or update related to this item.

  5. When reviewing and reporting on data for projects that serve more than one CoC, currently primary site needs to be inferred when the CoC != the Selected CoC as there can only be one primary site in the Clarity UI. This impacts the LSA, HIC, and CSV Export.
    The Data Dictionary states that "There must be a one-to-one relationship to 2.02 Project Information if the project only serves one CoC (most common). … It must be possible to associate a project with the CoC code for every geographic area in which the project operates and for which it will be…

    13 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    Planned  ·  0 comments  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  6. Here are some of the things we would like to see in an audit log:

    Audit log similar to client audit log (full history) for user accounts (last edits, values changed, additional agency access added/removed, email changed, photo changed, etc)
    Agency audit log for changes to address, active status, creation date.

    Program audit log in the same vein with history (who changed what and when on a program - the name, the funding, the beds, basically every PDDE change/edit/creation)

    Service audit logs (who created them, edited them, changed available dates, active/inactive, etc.)

    Sharing settings - audit history on sharing settings.…

    11 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Planned  ·  Danielle Robadey responded

    Thank you for your feedback. We are in the planning phase of a feature or update related to this item.

  7. For "Enterprise" users, we can choose exactly what permissions our users have for each tab in the client profile and enrollment pages. For the Agency Manager's "Manage" module, you get it all with no limits. Two examples: 1) We would like to be able to assign an Agency Manager that is not allowed to edit programs. 2) We would like an Agency Manager that can add/edit Services and add/edit Accounts, but nothing else.

    8 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    1 comment  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Planned  ·  Danielle Robadey responded

    Thank you for your feedback. We are in the planning phase of a feature or update related to this item.

  8. HUD's new EVA data quality tool, provides a powerful resource for identifying data quality issues. However, EVA flags clients with errors and identifies them using the Personal ID. I assume this is because the Unique ID is not available in the export. I'm curious why this is. Is it possible to make the Personal ID searchable in Clarity or to replace it in the export with the Unique ID? I'm trying to find an easy way for our partner agencies to use EVA to find and correct errors, but as of now, it is not easy for them to navigate…

    5 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    Planned  ·  0 comments  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  9. With the requirement to upload ROIs for every client, it would be extremely helpful to be able to run a report and see which clients in a given program are due for a renewal or need an initial ROI uploaded. Checking each client individually is a huge waste of staff time when you have thousands of people to check.

    3 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  • Don't see your idea?