[sims] Urgent Capita SIMS Data Issue - Issued by childrens services

[PotNoodleTech]

Yeah particularly given they're supposed to be governed by the GDPR's minimum terms now; one of which is...

 

This is exactly what I was thinking.

 

Surely they have broken their contract by not contacting each school?

 

@GrumbleDook @maturelady any thoughts?

[Koldov]

Sorry for the question (never done this before), but we have applied the patches (24068 & 24157).

 

When we go into SIMS>Tools>System Diagnostics>Database Diagnostics.... then what?

 

Everything on that page is blank.... is there supposed to be a '99 checks' option we can choose and run?

[StevieM]

Just ignore it, the script simply checks to see if everything looks okay, as far as I am aware there are no flags. we had an issue where it saw an "incorrect" address, and the proposed address was the exact same as the "incorrect one"

 

If that is the case, is it not possible (or even likely) that it may identify incorrect addresses as correct addresses?

[DODICT]

If that is the case, is it not possible (or even likely) that it may identify incorrect addresses as correct addresses?

 

just see the script as a giving you a list to check - they may or may not be incorrect. Due to the nature of the issue they can only flag records that may have been affected and in some cases they will be genuine matches so even though they only matched on name it is a correct match. Just use what other sources of info you have to verify the details and the associations flagged.

[TheSysAdminLife]

Is patch 24068 a server only patch or do the clients get updated too?

 

EDIT: Found the answer just after posting - it's server only.

[hiphopamus]

Sorry for the question (never done this before), but we have applied the patches (24068 & 24157).

 

When we go into SIMS>Tools>System Diagnostics>Database Diagnostics.... then what?

 

Everything on that page is blank.... is there supposed to be a '99 checks' option we can choose and run?

 

You have to click on "Run", this can take a long time and can have an impact on the performance of SIMS in school.

[pete]

This is exactly what I was thinking.

 

Surely they have broken their contract by not contacting each school?

 

@GrumbleDook @maturelady any thoughts?

 

*cough*

 

Dear Colleague

 

Have you taken the options process online yet?

 

In November 2017, Dr Challoner’s High School took its options process fully online with a dedicated solution, the online SIMS Options, which manages the entire process via a secure, web-based portal. Attached is a case study in which the school's Data and Student Experience Manager, Karen Cross, explains how the school has adapted to the new system and the benefits it has brought since replacing the previous process.

 

For further information, and to access a wealth of resources, visit the Options Online section in the documentation centre here.

 

CTF Contact Address Problem

 

Unfortunately, there is a problem with our contact matching that means that in some cases the importing of a CTF to an admission group will have replaced the address for an existing contact with an incorrect address and incorrectly link the pupil to that contact. Please accept our apologies for this mistake. To solve this issue, patch 23971 can be applied. It is available to download from SOLUS 3. For Capita Hosted schools, this patch has already been applied for you.

 

Optionally, you could make use of a routine, which we expect to be able to provide in the near future, to detect if any of a school's contact data has been affected by this bug. We expect to be able to make patch 24040 available in the near future to restore the original address for the contacts and to link the imported pupils to the correct contact. However, it is important to note that this restoration will only be possible where the school has not already attempted to resolve the issue for a contact.

 

To stay up to date with the progress in resolving this issue, please see the CTF Newsfeed in MyAccount here. Don’t forget to select “watch” the notification to receive email notification when updates to this newsfeed are posted.

[pete]

^ That should have gone to whoever is/are nominated SIMS contacts at your school. We got that on 14-06-18. I'm the one who gets the annual bill/pupil count query letter, so if you can't find it ask whoever that person is at your school.

 

Now they didn't really highlight the scale of the problem nor the Data Protection / Safeguarding implications and sandwiching a rooster-up in between other "good" news is pretty poor.

[localzuk]

I am the nominated contact for all 6 of our schools and did not receive anything until we received info from our SIMS support provider (the LEA). So, would this only have gone direct to those who get support direct from them? I never get emails from Capita, other than the annual billing thing and adverts...

[jenatddm]

I am the nominated contact for all 6 of our schools and did not receive anything until we received info from our SIMS support provider (the LEA). So, would this only have gone direct to those who get support direct from them? I never get emails from Capita, other than the annual billing thing and adverts...

 

According to Capita Services Director this afternoon, they have contacted those with whom they have contracts. It was then left to those LAs for example, to onwardly notify the individual schools. (I suggested this process needs further clarification). There is little new information on offer at the moment beyond what you have all collated here, and in your comments. They plan to provide an online FAQ tomorrow addressing many of them.

 

---

 

I have a question: please can someone confirm to me how the UPRN interacts with address data changes since it is "automatically populated". I want to rule out that any new (incorrect) address updates would have generated a new UPRN, without need for verification / active validation. And whether these may have been indirectly affected.

 

"From the 2016 to 2017 school census, the UPRN will be added as a voluntary data item to be returned alongside the full address (in either BS7666 or address line structure). The collection of UPRN should be relatively ‘invisible’ to data providers with the burden managed by the way addresses are processed within school systems. Schools are not expected to collect, or look up, the UPRN and instead this would be automatically populated within your school system when entering addresses if the OS AddressBase database is used as a reference. For schools and / or systems not using AddressBase there will be no change and they will continue to use either BS7666 or Address Line formats for submitting addresses."

[vikpaw]

I don't know if this helps anyone (and if you spot problems with my logic, do let me know), but in order to check what dbDiagnose reported, I ran a SIMS report showing all contacts of all students on roll to Excel. I then checked when I installed the Autumn release of SIMS (10th Dec 2017 for me). I then looked in SIMS to find the next admission number that was admitted after this date, call it 10,000. Going back to Excel, I highlighted all admission numbers higher than 10,000 and then used a countif in excel to look at how many instances there are of every parent name. Cross referencing these higher than 10,000 admission numbers with the number of instances of parent's name gave us 1 result. This was for a family as we had 3 students join at once, so not an issue.

...

The issue might affect those students that still remain in Pre-Admission status, who haven't been admitted for whatever reason, so I think relying on Admission No after that date would work but it could miss some. From what I've read, the issue could affect pupils in all stages, including leavers, due to the way the contacts are linked.

 

The Capita website is useless. Why do they make you keep raising tickets for the simplest of things? I have asked for some documentation on installing Patch 24157 and I assume I will eventually receive it but why isn't it on their website? There must be hundreds if not thousands of schools raising the same tickets asking for the same patches. Why not just have them available to download with a page giving generic installation instructions?

Patches should now be pushed to you via SOLUS 3, there is little need for requesting these days, unless it's a specific diagnosis / site-specific patch, in which case they need to keep a log of who it has been released to. There are very few patches that can be run multiple times, most regular ones usually put an entry into your db so there is a second log there in case it causes any problems.

There used to be a sticky thread which explained how to run patches, but I'm not sure those things transferred over to the new support site (MyAccount). I think you've found it's a bit dire. I'm guessing you're supported directly by Capita, otherwise your support team should be your point of contact. If you are supported by Capita, then it is quite worrying what you and I'm sure countless others are having to go through.

 

Just ignore it, the script simply checks to see if everything looks okay, as far as I am aware there are no flags. we had an issue where it saw an "incorrect" address, and the proposed address was the exact same as the "incorrect one"

If the addresses are stored properly, it could technically be possible for there to exist many entries in the address db which are all identical, but linked to different contacts. So depending on how the diagnosis is done, it is possible for it to detect that an address was changed for a different one, though it looks the same on the surface. Though with the issue, I'm not sure whether the address is being updated, or new entries being made.

 

If that is the case, is it not possible (or even likely) that it may identify incorrect addresses as correct addresses?

Based on the above - not likely, but it depends on the specifics of what it's checking and how the data was stored and updated.

 

I suppose the safest option to tidy this mess up is to run the diagnosis and fix what you can, and then restrict reliance on the data for post / other systems until a full data clean can take place.

I always scheduled a full Contact Information Update annually anyway, because people leave, people join, people move and they don't update their details, so it's a general process that all should be doing anyway. It might just require moving forwards a bit and tighter controls.

 

We used to do it in October after the last minute changes and updates had happened.

 

I had a complex RTF report which ran multiple sub-reports that would generate a form for each mailing point and list all siblings, and linked contacts. This worked for the majority of families unless there was a really complex setup. Twins and Triplets had to be manually sorted. It was a long time ago, and the report definition is in a thread somewhere here, it might still work.

[PrimaryNetMan]

For those that have run Check ID 99 how do you know which records are affected? All I have is error description : ContactID,ContactName,.... but nothing specific. Does this mean no affected records?

[SVM]

For those that have run Check ID 99 how do you know which records are affected? All I have is error description : ContactID,ContactName,.... but nothing specific. Does this mean no affected records?

 

If you only have one line with column names the script has not picked up any issues, if you have issues it would show students name and contacts linked that maybe be incorrect.

[hiphopamus]

"From the 2016 to 2017 school census, the UPRN will be added as a voluntary data item to be returned alongside the full address (in either BS7666 or address line structure). The collection of UPRN should be relatively ‘invisible’ to data providers with the burden managed by the way addresses are processed within school systems. Schools are not expected to collect, or look up, the UPRN and instead this would be automatically populated within your school system when entering addresses if the OS AddressBase database is used as a reference. For schools and / or systems not using AddressBase there will be no change and they will continue to use either BS7666 or Address Line formats for submitting addresses."

 

As far as I am aware the UPRN is only collected on Pupil/Student addresses which aren't affected by this issue.

[GrumbleDook]

This is exactly what I was thinking.

 

Surely they have broken their contract by not contacting each school?

 

@GrumbleDook @maturelady any thoughts?

 

Sorry for not responding sooner on this, but we are chatting to look at the best way of helping customers and members. There have been notifications and that is part of a separate discussion. I'll feed back later today.

[jmak]

We sent a CTF to the school we feed in to. They've imported it and this morning ran the script that's been distributed. It didn't return any errors. However their admin staff picked up an error which sounds like the type this SIMS fault would introduce: an existing contact in their database has an exact name match with one in the imported CTF. This person is now showing as the mother of the wrong child. I've looked in our instance of SIMS and it's correct.

 

Is this a case of the script failing to identify an error, or is it a different failing in SIMS CTF import?

 

And if nothing has been sent out or disclosed to the wrong person, is there a breach to report?

 

Pretty furious that if Capita knew about the issue months ago they didn't issue a warning before schools start sending CTFs for next September's admissions. I would have thought schools could sue for the extra work required, even if they don't have problems with the data protection.

Edited July 19, 2018 by jmak

[enjay]

Is this a case of the script failing to identify an error, or is it a different failing in SIMS CTF import?

 

It could genuinely be the case one of your intake parents has the same name as one of your current parents, so rather than looking for errors, as such, the script has told you something which needs checking manually (this is one of the reasons we keep student information forms for as long as a child is in the school, rather than shredding them after data entry)

 

And if nothing has been sent out or disclosed to the wrong person, is there a breach to report?

 

If you haven't emailed personal information to the wrong parent, there hasn't been a breach. Even if you have emailed information, as long as it is generic, I don't think it would constitute a breach either, just a mistake.

[pete]

So did everyone in-thread get the email yesterday or still just the directly-supported schools?

 

Dear Colleague

 

Further to our emails in June and last week relating to the CTF - Contact Linking & Contact Addresses issue we wanted to provide you with an update.

 

What is the issue?

 

Incorrect matching of applicants and on roll students imported by CTF into your SIMS7 database may have linked new pupil records to an existing contact. Additionally, some data on the existing contact record may have been changed.

 

Will this issue have impacted my school?

 

Not all schools will be impacted.

 

Under what circumstance would my school be impacted?

 

This would happen if a combination of the full name, title, gender and relationship of a pupil’s contact record in the CTF matched the same elements of the contact of another applicant, on roll pupil or leaver already held in your database.

 

An example of this would be:

 

Already on SIMS: Pupil = Joanne Bradshaw, with a Parent = Wendy Bradshaw, Mother, Female (original)

 

New CTF applicant: Pupil = Jamie Bradshaw, with a Parent = Wendy Bradshaw, Mother, Female (new)

 

As in this instance both pupils have a parent called Wendy Bradshaw, identified also as being Female and with a relationship of Mother, the new CTF applicant would be linked to the original Wendy Bradshaw. The original Wendy Bradshaw address, telephone number and email would also be updated with the new Wendy Bradshaw’s details.

 

What is being done to resolve?

 

We have supplied a fix by either applying patch 24068 on the Spring release or upgrading to the Summer release.

 

This issue has the highest priority and we are currently producing a guide to support you in easily identify whether this issue has effected your data and to support you with the checking of your data.

 

What should you do

 

The first step is to fix the bug by either applying patch 24068 on the Spring release or upgrading to the Summer release.

The second step is to apply patch 24157 which will add Check 99 to the Database Diagnostics tool. This tool enables you to identify the potential problems with a school's contacts and contacts addresses that are likely to have been caused by our contacts/address bug. We are currently producing a guide to support you with the checking of your data.

Please note we have applied both patch 24068 and 24157 for HOSTED SIMS customers.

 

We will continue to update My Account Capita SIMS My Account so please do ‘watch’ this notification. If you require further assistance on this matter then please contact the service desk in the usual way.

 

We would like to apologise for the original bug in our software that triggered the potential data problem.

 

[enjay]

I didn't get that, but I did get a different mailshot from Capita yesterday. I didn't get the email a few months back either. I'd love to be on that mailing list though!

[jmak]

It could genuinely be the case one of your intake parents has the same name as one of your current parents, so rather than looking for errors, as such, the script has told you something which needs checking manually

 

This specific case is where a parent of one child is the aunt of another. Both children have older siblings who have been through both schools (so both contacts already exist in both schools' SIMS. In each case, in our records the mothers are also the alternative contact for their nieces/nephews. After the other school has imported our CTF, their instance of SIMS has changed the aunt/alternative contact to the mother with parental responsibility.

 

I've been in to our SIMS and the records are definitely correct.

 

Any thoughts on whether this is the same or a different issue?

 

Obviously not my problem, but they don't have a technician/data manager so I'm trying to help out.

[enjay]

This specific case is where a parent of one child is the aunt of another. Both children have older siblings who have been through both schools (so both contacts already exist in both schools' SIMS. In each case, in our records the mothers are also the alternative contact for their nieces/nephews. After the other school has imported our CTF, their instance of SIMS has changed the aunt/alternative contact to the mother with parental responsibility.

 

Sounds like a different issue to me. My understanding of the CTF import issue is it overwrites contact details for existing parents who share a name with an intake parent, not that it changes the contact priority on existing student records.

 

Amusingly, this "bug" has allowed us to identify a family who have moved house and not told us! They are in SIMS with their old address but on the ATF with their new address!

[Banjo]

This should be interesting!

 

Thank you for registering for "CTF - Contact Linking & Contact Addresses".

This webinar is an opportunity to share information regarding the current CTF- Contact Linking & Contact Addresses issue.

 

This will be facilitated using GoToWebinar by some of the senior management team of Customer Success. Due to the number of expected delegates during the meeting delegates will be muted but will have the opportunity to post questions.

 

It looks like we won't be able to raise our voices at the Capita bods. CAPS LOCK will have to do. Happy to report back back any news.

[MrMat]

So did everyone in-thread get the email yesterday or still just the directly-supported schools?

Hiya Pete. Was this directly from Capita?

 

That contradicts everything we've heard so far. All correspondence has stated that it only checks for Name and Gender. There's never been a mention of relationship.

[Steve21]

Hiya Pete. Was this directly from Capita?

 

That contradicts everything we've heard so far. All correspondence has stated that it only checks for Name and Gender. There's never been a mention of relationship.

 

Yep it was direct from Capita (ESS) Customer Manager style peeps!

 

Steve

[enjay]

Possibly a stupid question, but what do we actually need to do about this? I've run my database diagnostics and have a list of contacts affected - so what next? Do I unlink those contacts from my existing students and then create new contact records using information from previous data collection sheets, or is there a magic button to reverse the changes?