Within the Crime and Disorder Act of 1998, criteria for the permissible exchange of relevant data within crime and disorder partnerships are found. In 2003, a researcher by the name of Brookes wrote a paper on data-sharing which described and advocated an initiative to realize optimal data-sharing within crime reduction partnerships. However, partnerships have experienced difficulties in agreements on data-sharing. This paper offers a different perspective on data-sharing issues. These should be considered when the problem remains intractable and the advantages which attend the alternative approach are deemed important enough to be pursued in their own right. This new perspective or approach would retain some intrinsic virtues in focusing attention on the communication of crime risk and the case-by-case allocation of responsibility for its reduction. It is contended that information which should be available across agencies is essentially information about research-estimated risk to individual people, households, and locations, but not the components of that risk. Crime reduction and blind trusts are defined in that the principles of the blind trust could inform data-sharing. Each local agency would be assigned a set of factors about which that agency was best-placed to be informed. These factors would be assessed at individual or household level as appropriate. The factors would be combined and elements deleted with a resulting risk assessment displayed. The partners would be informed about the high risk without any personal information. Refinements to the approach are allowed. If the approach advocated in this paper exudes interest, the next step would be to present existing data as a risk assessment tool based on data combination procedures which are transparent to users. Notes, references