 understanding of needs across the student population, which meant that such a tool was less needed. In the words of one Headteacher from a SEND school: “They know if something’s up the second the kids are in the building, so I'm really confident that they're all around it.” Indeed, excluding primary and SEND schools, usage of the NEET model does increase to 55%. However, this still points to an issue of usage within schools. Some interview respondents conceded that poor usage was due to time and resource constraints, in terms of not having the capacity “to get them up and running”. Survey responses also indicate some concern over the model’s accuracy and that a lack of awareness and understanding of how the NEET model is used may account for low usage. Addressing this could well increase the impact of this model. A lack of information about the models may also have affected their usage Some practitioners said they lack an understanding of what risk scores mean across the different models. In some instances, they reported that, as they didn’t know why a young person, for example, had been flagged as potentially vulnerable, it was difficult to think about what support would be needed. As two different practitioners make clear in reference to the CCE and CSE models: We're getting young people that are being flagged and we are not really understanding why even with that little description, which often is not very helpful” (Early Intervention Practitioner) "Personally, I feel uncomfortable using it to guide our work because of the lack of transparency on where the numbers come from and how it was developed." (Early Intervention Practitioner) For some practitioners this lack of information was enough to discourage their use of the risk models entirely: "'Does that mean it's 