ed took place in 2023, who repeatedly asked managers and practitioners whether consent had been sought for sharing information. Many of these staff were both unable to answer this question and unclear on Bristol City Council’s position around using public task (using relevant legislation, see Appendix 5 for a full list) to justify data sharing. As such, these staff were concerned that by using the TFD they would be falling foul of UK GDPR legislation. As part of our research, we heard from Insight Bristol staff that practitioners from these teams now accept that this was an erroneous assumption. However at the time, this event damaged trust and motivation to use the TFD, which is still in the process of being rebuilt, as outlined by practitioners we spoke to, and demonstrated in Figure 12. “That broke the trust level [of staff with the TFD] and created confusion so that people were unsure what they were allowed to do” (Triage practitioner) Social Finance Limited +44 (0) 20 7770 6836 87 Vauxhall Walk, London SE11 5HJ socialfinance.org.uk 35 Data quality is perceived as an issue for some On the whole, data on the TFD is seen as accurate: 80% of survey respondents said that the TFD data is mostly or quite accurate. In the majority of cases where people do feel TFD is inaccurate, discrepancies in information pertaining to the contact details of practitioners in other organisations or teams are cited. In this instance, it should be said that it is the underlying data which is inaccurate, rather than a fault with the TFD itself. However, we still found some evidence of perceptions of the TFD containing inaccurate data, although for the large majority of those we spoke to, this wasn’t their perception. Others we spoke to point to instances where the TFD has given inaccurate in