ous scenarios to address uncertainty in our estimation of time saved. We present the base scenario here and include additional scenarios in Appendix 9. Caveats There are a number of constraints on our analysis, which we advise are kept in mind when considering our findings. Firstly, how we derived our understanding of hours saved is limited by the current staff members’ understanding of what work life was like prior to the TFD being implemented. As was intimated by the Insight Bristol team, developing any external data about a child or family was an almost completely manual process. Current perceptions, therefore, may have significantly underestimated actual time spent. In addition, we applied time saved figures based on perceptions in 2023 to historical usage data, which may be unreliable since perceptions in the past of time saved may well differ to the current day. However, in the absence of baseline information, it was the most robust dataset we were able to develop to inform our analysis. Also, our approach only focusses on value in terms of the time that the TFD saves practitioners and managers, and the TFE saves school staff. As noted earlier, we chose not to focus on potentially valuable benefits resulting from data provided by the TFD enabling positive outcomes for children and families. However, we did hear evidence of this. For example, an Insight Bristol member described how the TFD could evidence reduced police involvement with children in care, due to the matching of Police and Social Care data. The result of this insight meant the Reunification team (as part of Social Care) could move children back to the familial home from care placements earlier than they would have been able to without this information. We assume there are other instances of similar lo