nd DfE colleagues which indicated broad approval of our work, both in how we ran the project and in our project outputs. We note below a selection of comments from our project’s final open “show- and-tell” meeting, attended by steering group members, project team officers, DfE stakeholders and colleagues from other LAs: “This is really valuable work, and it has been really useful to have worked in such an open and collaborative way.” “It feels like a great cross-LA project to benefit LAs.” “Really well delivered.” “Thank you to the team at D2I for making this all happen – and to our LA partners, without whom it wouldn't have been possible.” This feedback, and other instances much like it through the longer history of the project, aligns with our own experiences. We have seen colleagues in LAs, in the core project team, and in the supporting DfE teams, working well together, and effectively contributing their effort and expertise. 8.4. Future work and associated potential impact measures As noted above, the most obvious performance questions for the SSD are “how many LAs are using it?” and “what good is it doing?” Should a future project phase emerge to support these products, we would add to these: • Partnership engagement measures, to ensure LAs are represented in future work • Local data burdens measures, to understand where we are enabling better practice • Local data impact measures, to understand which data practices best support safeguarding However, we know that the throughline from data practice to service improvement is difficult to measure quantitively. Too many confounding factors make it difficult to quantify the impact which improved data practice might have had on any individual LA’s safeguarding performance. As such, we would recommend taking the above as