directly from source, rather than processed data, the scope of our review didn’t extend to understanding the accuracy of underlying data sources in detail. However, we did review practitioner perceptions of data accuracy (noted in Section 5.2.5), since this may impact usage and attendant benefits. In the main, users felt that the factual data that the TFD and TFE contains was accurate. This is the case for the TFD as well as the TFE. 80% felt that data contained in the TFD was accurate and 75% said data in the TFE was ‘mostly accurate’ or ‘quite accurate.’. Whilst only 3% of those said that perceived inaccuracies are enough to stop them using the TFD altogether, 34% said they were enough to treat data from the TFD with caution. However, we suspect that this may also be the case in terms of perception of data quality from source systems. We did surface some concerns around the accuracy of data that is processed that can be considered part of the TFD approach, specifically around the quality of outputs displayed via the targeted risk models. Many of those we spoke to highlighted accuracy issues in respect of the outputs of the CCE and CSE models, which in turn impacts usage: “There are times where it's not accurate, it can be a bit misleading. I wouldn't go into a meeting saying I've seen this on TFD because I wouldn't be confident that that is accurate enough.” (Early Intervention Practitioner) As noted above, these models have been discontinued, but they do offer cautionary lessons in terms of how these types of risk models are developed to ensure an accurate output. A former staff member who was closely involved in the development of these models noted that they don’t use enough datasets that are of sufficient quality to guarantee accurate risk scoring: “I never though