entifying children, often with limited initial information, and linking different professionals working with a family. Both of which enable school staff to save time that can be usefully invested elsewhere. Users also described the TFE giving them a “whole school picture”. and as such it was more likely to be used for planning and monitoring activities that have a strategic purpose, which wasn’t as much in evidence with managers using the TFD. We found the weakest element of the TFD was the targeted risk models. These included models for assessing risk of not being in education, employment or training (NEET); child criminal exploitation (CCE); and child sexual exploitation (CSE). Although these have been or are about to be decommissioned, they formed part of the TFD and (NEET model only) the TFE during our research. Overall, the CCE and CSE models were regarded as inaccurate in terms of identifying vulnerable young people and didn’t provide clarity around what risk scoring means, although in the past this wasn’t the case. As such, they were often not seen as meaningful or instructive, leading teams to stop using them. Having said this, our research highlighted the challenge of providing certain types of information to professionals that have no other means of accessing this, for example, insight around victims of crime and exploitation. As such, we note the innovation and aspiration of models such as the CCE and CSE, whilst acknowledging more development may be needed going forward. The NEET model was regarded as more accurate by practitioners, and we found evidence of it being used to identify at risk students who might otherwise “go under the radar”. However, we found that lack of awareness of the model, time to implement its outputs and some concerns are barriers to 