und the lack of evidence and understanding about how predictive models should be used to create positive interventions for children. Therefore, accessing this data could potentially lead to unintended negative consequences for children's outcomes: “I guess one of the concerns is…do people start responding to those children in a different way that makes them more vulnerable to exploitation? That's one of the kind of ethical questions, right? It's like if you say you are a child who's likely to be exploited, do they then have interventions which make it more, make them more vulnerable to exploitation?” (Senior Manager, Children’s Services) In particular, some practitioners working with schools raised concerns about how schools might interpret risk scores: “I worry about where it gets shared more widely. Are they able to see it for what it is or are they going to use that data to further their preconceptions? I think the feedback from schools is they find it helpful. But our practice framework is we’re systemic – multiple hypotheses, exploring, Social Finance Limited +44 (0) 20 7770 6836 87 Vauxhall Walk, London SE11 5HJ socialfinance.org.uk 48 questioning. My experience with schools is they’re not really like that.” (Early Intervention Practitioner) Concerns around sharing predictive data were also highlighted Based on our interviews, we discovered that, although all council staff with access to the TFD also had access to the CCE and CSE predictive risk scores, these were not developed for, or actively used outside, certain Early Intervention teams. This suggests that this information might be shared with individuals who do not necessarily use or (as noted above) understand this information. As one Youth Justice practitioner (‘Other’ team outside of Childrens Services) ou