h to data sharing used legal bases and as such was trail-blazing given when it was conceived. Many other local authorities and statutory bodies have adopted a similar approach since. Given this level of innovation, we found that Bristol Children’s Services may still have work to do to educate its own practitioners and make its approach to data sharing more transparent, particularly in respect of risk modelling. Also, as noted above in terms of access to datasets across different safeguarding roles, we found that there may be scope to develop more specific use cases on a team by team basis to provide greater assurance around the principle of minimisation. We found that a necessity for innovation meant that formal project governance was not implemented for many years, which, while enabling agility, may have had a number of unforeseen consequences. For example, it was sometimes challenging for important decisions to be taken in a timely way, such as discontinuing the CCE / CSE risk models when it became apparent that they were not accurate. It also meant that the TFD was not integrated fully into the technological ecosystem of Bristol Council, leading to duplication of functionality across other systems. A lack of governance may have created a reliance on individuals to champion the TFD, leaving it vulnerable when these people leave. Importantly, we found that many of the weaknesses described above can be attributed, at least in part, to budgetary constraints. Finite team resource within Insight Bristol necessitated decisions around where to invest time and focus, which often were made in service to developing functionality. Since we worked closely with Bristol City Council through the course of this evaluation, much of the learning has been captured and incorporated as im