t as though they had access to some data that went beyond the scope of their roles, for example, data from risk models which was developed only for certain Early Intervention teams, or other more sensitive data (see section 5.2.4.). However, it should be noted that this issue is not unique to the TFD and is an issue across different case management systems. The Insight Bristol Team outlined how their process for agreeing and granting access to different datasets involves seeking approval from data owners, as well as from team managers, to ensure operational relevance. However, we felt there may be scope to be more specific around the purposes of use cases on a team by team basis, which may represent a more prudent interpretation and application of purpose limitation and data minimisation principles. For clarity, we are not suggesting that Bristol Council is failing to apply these principles or that non-application is leading to negative consequences. Nevertheless, more specificity around team use cases may provide a greater level of assurance that practitioners are only accessing data that is relevant for tasks they need to perform as part of their roles. Storage Limitation The TFD mostly shows data from the last 12 months, which, compared to approaches adopted by other local authorities, is eminently prudent in terms of storage limitation. Social Care practitioners made it clear that data covering a wider timescale, for example 3 years, would be more useful in developing a more nuanced understanding of vulnerability. It is unclear whether this forms part of the new Children and Families View product developed in Bristol, but may be worth considering if it is not, as well as possibly revisiting the use cases of Triage and Early Intervention teams with this in mind. Inte