ase the chances of positive outcomes for children and families, though this wasn’t a focus of this evaluation. By bringing different information together into one place, the TFD also saves practitioners time by reducing the retrieval burden of gathering such information and linking practitioners together faster who are working with the same family. In turn, the time practitioners save enables them to perform additional tasks, further enhancing the effectiveness of their support to children and families. However, these benefits are not uniformly experienced by all teams, or by different practitioners in the same team. Different levels of awareness of the TFD, skills and knowledge of how to use it, and preferences for other source systems may be factors to explain why the impact of the TFD is not greater. We also found that whilst the TFD visualises a comprehensive range of data, in some instances this may go beyond the scope of some teams’ requirements. Whilst there were some standout examples of aggregated and anonymised TFD data driving more effective commissioning decisions, we found this an area of lesser impact. This is due partly to the nature of strategic decision making needing a far more detailed picture than a standalone self-service tool can provide. In this sense, the strategic use case is less easily satisfied by a digital product such as the TFD. A similar range of positive outcomes were evident among users of the Think Family Education (TFE) product. By offering a more complete picture of a child, the TFE helps school staff offer more appropriate and timely support. As with the TFD, the TFE is effective in identifying children, often with limited initial information, and linking different professionals working with a family. Both of which enable school sta