these models prior to them being discontinued recently. Such evidence is quite damning in terms of the ability of these models to support practitioners to better identify risk and target support accordingly: "I don’t feel it’s fit for purpose until we’ve sorted out all those bits” (Early Intervention Manager) It was acknowledged that they were more accurate in the past. As a Senior Manager in Children Services explains, one of the benefits of the CCE and CSE models was that they provided a means by which to understand new or emerging problems, that weren’t properly understood: “They were helpful at the beginning when stepping into neglected areas or identifying a type of harm that hasn't been recognised. They can be used for a time-limited period to define and identify the initial cohort… I think it's super helpful cause it gives you a starting point to do that defensible analysis." However, it was made clear that subsequent changes to how these models were built, including their exclusive use of Police data and not data that relates to other risk factors, has led to inaccuracies. Prior to this point, there was recognition that the risk models were accurate and used meaningfully by Early Intervention teams. The Insight Bristol team acknowledge that changes to the CCE and CSE models have led to their outputs being unusable and discontinuing them was their only option: “We just couldn’t give our [Early Intervention teams] a list of people that they were confident in” In this sense, although much of the feedback we received alluded to how problematic these models had become, earlier success suggests that there may be an opportunity for models like CCE and CSE to support practice. However, this is highly dependent on accuracy of their outputs and the extent to which practit