yond the short online video that is mandatory. Furthermore, 94% of those who feel they have received adequate training report the TFE having a positive impact on their work. Whereas, this figure drops to 68% among those who don’t feel as though they’ve received adequate training. This reflects a similar issue to that found with the TFD; whilst many find it easy to use, others who are less digitally capable may struggle. This suggests a training need to ensure more widespread and effective use of the tool. This training need could be met, at least in part, by bringing school practitioners together as part of communities of practice to offer mutual support, which would be welcome based on the feedback from one headteacher we spoke to: It would be great to hear from other schools… how they are using the data” (Primary) 5.4 Targeted Risk Models As mentioned earlier in this report, since we started this evaluation, the CCE / CSE models have been discontinued, owing to judgements around their accuracy. The Bristol Insight team have also received news of new funding to rebuild the existing NEET model. In this sense, our evaluation focuses on products that are either no longer live or will change significantly in the near future. In spite of this, our evaluation still has value in terms of surfacing lessons about how risk models can be developed in the outcome areas we have defined. This may be especially useful for Bristol, who have regarded these models as “experiments” to be learned from. Our findings around the targeted risk models below, suggest they were perhaps the weakest element of the TFD in terms of enhancing services and driving outcomes for children and families. However, we think it is important to note that they were conceived and developed to address an informat