The Probation Service: Effective Proposal Framework
Source: gov.uk (2025-02-10)

The Effective Proposal Framework (EPF) is a digital tool used by Probation Practitioners at pre-sentence stage and as part of pre-release planning. It is used to identify requirements, licence conditions and interventions for individuals based on their risk and need profile.

Tier 1 Information

Name

The Effective Proposal Framework

Description

The Effective Proposal Framework (EPF) is a digital tool used by Probation Practitioners at two different stages of a person’s sentence.

Firstly, it is used if the Probation Service has been asked to assist the court in their sentencing exercise by producing a Pre-Sentence Report (PSR). This requires the Probation Practitioner to interview a person, assess their offending behaviour, criminogenic needs and the level of risk they present and provide the court with a proposed package of Requirements which will serve the intended purpose of sentence (which could be punishment, crime reduction, reform and rehabilitation, public protection and reparation). For example, they could propose that a person is suitable to discharge an Unpaid Work Requirement for the purposes of punishment and reparation or that they engage in an intervention to address the causes of their offending behaviour, such as an accredited group work programme or treatment for alcohol dependency. Use of the EPF tool will ensure that the PSR author understands all the requirements and interventions a person meets the eligibility criteria for, but the final decision remains the professional judgement of the PSR author in line with their assessment of suitability.

Secondly, if a person receives a custodial sentence, they are usually released subject to a period of licence supervision in the community before their sentence ends. There are seven standard licence conditions, but in every case the Probation Practitioner must consider whether these conditions alone are sufficient to manage risk, rehabilitate, and protect the public. They have the option of including additional licence conditions, if they feel they are necessary and proportionate. The EPF tool is used to identify the additional licence conditions and interventions (such as drug treatment or an accredited programme) that the person meets the eligibility criteria for. However, it remains the professional judgement of the Probation Practitioner which of these they select as being the most suitable.

The EPF tool uses a rule-based algorithm to identify the requirements that could be proposed in a Pre-Sentence Report (PSR) for court, the additional licence conditions to be considered as part of planning for a person’s release from prison and the interventions that will be completed during a person’s supervision by the Probation Service. The eligibility criteria for each requirement, licence condition and intervention are configured in line with policy, legislation, sentencing guidelines and the evidence base for the effective targeting of interventions, meaning that practitioners are supported to make complex decisions with these factors in mind, without the need to consult numerous sources of information manually. As a result, every individual should receive a relevant and proportionate PSR proposal or licence plan.

Website URL

N/A

Contact email

xxx@xxx.xx

Tier 2 - Owner and Responsibility

1.1 - Organisation or department

The Probation Service - Ministry of Justice

1.2 - Team

The Effective Targeting team

1.3 - Senior responsible owner

Head of Effective Targeting and Enforcement

1.4 - External supplier involvement

Yes

1.4.1 - External supplier

Ctrl O

1.4.2 - Companies House Number

xx-xxxx-xxxx

1.4.3 - External supplier role

The supplier (Ctrl O) developed LinkSpace as a customer configurable data management tool. The design of the algorithms and decision-making logic is defined by the customer (The Effective Targeting Team). As with any changes made to the Tool e.g, the algorithm or the way interventions are shortlisted are based on the legislation and policy and Ctrl O support the Effective Targeting Team to configure LinkSpace to meet that requirement. That is, Ctrl O’s role is to take the Effective Targeting Team’s lead and direction in terms of configuration and development.

Ctrl O developed the platform LinkSpace, which hosts the EPF tool as a customer configurable data management tool. This means that whilst Ctrl O, an external provider, hosts the platform, it is the Probation Service who decides how the tool should work in terms of the logic that guides the algorithm. For example, it is the Probation Service who decides under what circumstances an accredited programme requirement shortlists as an eligible option. The Probation Service decides what the eligibility criteria is for the intervention and then Ctrl O’s role is to configure the EPF tool accordingly.

1.4.4 - Procurement procedure type

EPF was procured competitively as a ‘call-off from a framework’ – CCS G-Cloud.

1.4.5 - Data access terms

This is set out in the contract and supplier staff with access to data hold Security Check Clearance. The supplier has access to all data contained within the system which is required as part of the hosting and maintenance arrangements.

Tier 2 - Description and Rationale

2.1 - Detailed description

Probation Practitioners are required to make proposals in Pre-Sentence Reports (PSRs) which support the court in identifying a suitable sentence to be passed. The options available to them under a community-based penalty are found in a menu of Requirements, for which there are differing purposes of sentence, eligibility and targeting criteria. Similarly, when someone has served a custodial sentence, prior to their release, their Probation Practitioner must identify all relevant and proportionate licence conditions which will serve to both rehabilitate them whilst also protecting the public and any identified victims.

The EPF system is a rule-based decision-making support tool and is used to provide Probation Practitioners with access to a shortlist of eligible requirements, licence conditions and interventions, such as accredited programmes or treatment for substance misuse etc. The Interventions list is stored on a Linkspace table of records [one per intervention], much like a spreadsheet, that has a number of fields where the Effective Targeting Team are able to select the criteria based on policy and legislation. The Practitioner, when completing the form for a Licence Plan or PSR Proposal andwhen entering offender/offence characteristics, will be presented with a shortlist based on the interventions matching those field values. The system is also configured to allow the practitioner to override the algorithmically generated shortlist and select from the long list of interventions.

2.2 - Scope

Use of the EPF tool is a mandatory requirement for all Probation Practitioners working in both Sentence Management and Court Teams. The EPF Tool serves a critical function in supporting best practice in targeting interventions in accordance with purpose, evidence of rehabilitation and public protection as well as being a strategic enabler for the management of resources so that they are targeted for the benefit of People on Probation.

The EPF tool supports PSR authors to align their practice with the Probation Service’s Court Strategy. That is, to maximise our influence in court so that the individual receives the right sentence to punish, protect the public and/or rehabilitate; and is given the right start to any community-based penalty. Furthermore, use of the EPF tool can help reduce short term custodial sentences by supporting PSR authors to identify robust alternative community options. The EPF tool must be used in all cases where a Pre-Sentence Report (PSR) is being prepared. This includes all Report types (Standard, Short Format and Oral Delivery Reports). The only exceptions are if the person being assessed is living outside of England or Wales, they are being sentenced under pre-ORA (2015) legislation or an immediate custodial sentence of four years or more is inevitable.

Use of the EPF tool in licence planning ensures that active consideration is given to the breadth of all available conditions and interventions. Similarly, where the imposition of certain licence conditions is mandatory (for example, Electronic Monitoring for Acquisitive Crime in certain Police Force Areas) the Probation Practitioner is alerted to this via completion of the EPF Tool. It also supports Practitioners to ensure that licence condition planning is completed pre-release with sufficient accuracy to reduce the need for licence variations post-sentence. The EPF tool must be used in all cases where pre-release planning is taking place in advance of a Person on Probation’s release from custody. This includes all sentence types where the Person on Probation will be subject to a period of licence supervision by the Probation Service, regardless of length. As such, the only exceptions to the use of the EPF tool are cases who are being released at Sentence End Date (SED) and those who are being released subject to a period of Post-Sentence Supervision (PSS) only. For those who are released ‘time-served’ on the day of sentence at court, use of the EPF is not mandated. However, where time allows, and sufficient information is available, best practice would be for a Probation Practitioner tasked with identifying the need for any additional licence conditions to do so using the EPF tool. This will ensure that the full menu of licence conditions is considered, and that licence planning is in line with policy and legislation.

2.3 - Benefit

Prior to the introduction of the EPF tool, Probation Practitioners were expected to consult numerous policy and guidance documents in order to keep up to date on the eligibility and targeting criteria for interventions delivered both by the Probation Service and our partner agencies (e.g., substance misuse agencies or those who deliver commissioned rehabilitative services). An ‘intervention’ is something which aims to change the thinking, attitudes and/or behaviour which may lead people to offend. This could include participation in a group work programme, work undertaken with a Probation Practitioner on a ‘one to one’ basis, or referral to a partner agency for specialist intervention such as drug rehabilitation or support securing accommodation. The availability of certain interventions can change frequently, as can their targeting criteria (who they are for). This can be a lot of information to keep abreast of and as such, the EPF tool is the means by which Practitioners can be informed of the interventions available which are targeted at the individual they are working with. For example, if the eligibility criteria for an accredited programme changed, then the EPF tool will be updated accordingly, and this intervention would only shortlist in line with the amended criteria. Or, if a new service was being offered by a partner agency, this would be included in the EPF tool so that Probation Practitioners were made aware of its availability in every eligible case, rather than having to remember that it is an option as well as all the targeting criteria (e.g., that it is for males with certain criminogenic needs).

The Policy Leads and Business Owners responsible for each licence condition, requirement or rehabilitative intervention set the eligibility criteria that have to be met before a person on probation could be deemed suitable for them. That is, who is the intervention for and what factors have to be present in order for them to be eligible for the intervention This could be that they must have certain criminogenic needs or present a certain level of risk. Similarly, there may be exclusion criteria that are relevant. For example, an intervention may only be available to women and as such, if the EPF is completed for a male, the intervention will not shortlist as eligible for them. The EPF tool is configured in line with the eligibility and exclusion criteria (if applicable) for each intervention. An Equality Impact Assessment should inform every intervention listed within the EPF and the eligibility and targeting criteria for it. The frequency with which requirements, licence conditions and interventions are updated, means that use of the EPF tool supports Practitioners in making decisions which are always based on current operational guidelines. Furthermore, the EPF tool enables users to understand the availability of interventions across England and Wales and can be configured to reflect where availability or accessibility may necessitate a change to how they are targeted. This will inform practitioners of any gaps in services and planned alternatives for the best available interventions, both within and outside of the local area.

The coordination of evidence-based commissioning and planning of services based on assessment of risk and need and analysis of capacity to deliver can be reflected in the configuration of the EPF tool. As such, when using the tool, Practitioners are making decisions as part of a wider organisational team. They are supported in assessing the best outcomes for an individual by being informed on a range of issues that may not be immediately apparent, but which have a significant bearing on the success of sentence delivery.

2.4 - Previous process

Prior to the introduction of the EPF tool, Probation Practitioners were expected to consult numerous policy and guidance documents in order to keep up to date on the eligibility and targeting criteria for interventions delivered both by the Probation Service and any commissioned services. This meant that the decision-making process was wholly reliant on an assumption that Practitioners were pro-actively consulting numerous different sources of information -, such as policy or guidance documents on each different rehabilitative intervention -, each time they completed a Pre-Sentence Report or planned for a Person on Probation’s release on licence. If a lack of knowledge or understanding of policy or eligibility criteria meant that an in appropriate PSR proposal was made, or a specific condition was not added to a person’s licence, then the Practitioner would be required to apply to the court to vary community-based Orders and/or make a post-release application to vary a Person on Probation’s licence conditions.

2.5 - Alternatives considered

There are no other algorithmic tools which serve the same, or similar, purpose to the EPF tool either at its conception, or since.

The current algorithmic approach is the best available option as it is based solely on the information required in order to identify the eligibility criteria for interventions, as set by the Policy Leads and Business Owners. Failure to use the EPF tool is likely to increase the chance that the full breadth of requirements, licence conditions and interventions are not considered to full effect and the ability to identify people who should be subject to any mandatory licence conditions could be missed.

Tier 2 - Decision making Process

3.1 - Process integration

Once full details of the individual risk and need profile of the Person on Probation have been entered, the EPF tool’s algorithm will match them against all the eligible requirements, licence conditions and interventions and only shortlists those which are met in full. This then provides a list from which the Practitioner can make the selections they think are the most suitable for the person. Professional judgement should always be an important aspect of decision-making when formulating pre-sentence proposals and undertaking licence condition planning. Use of the EPF tool does not replace this, rather it enhances it. Practitioners are not obliged to make selections from the eligible shortlist as there remains the option to apply a professional judgement over-ride. However, in doing so, Practitioners should first ensure that they have checked the eligibility criteria in the intervention record to ensure they have completed the fields in EPF accurately and with sufficient detail. Thereafter, any decision to apply a professional judgement over-ride should be made with the understanding that doing so is contrary to policy and, potentially, legislation.

3.2 - Provided information

The shortlist of eligible licence conditions and interventions is presented in a drop-down list. A prioritisation framework determines in what order the eligible interventions appear by assigning a number and letter, which will ensure that the interventions shortlist in line with the priority they should be given as part of the decision-making process. For example, interventions which are accredited by CSAAP (Correctional Services Advisory and Accreditation Panel) will shortlist above those which are not. However, Practitioners should always consult the shortlist in full to ensure that they have given active consideration to all of the eligible options. Where they require further details about an intervention, its record can be opened within the same screen, so that the information is readily available to inform the decision-making process.

Once submitted, the EPF record remains within the EPF tool and data analysis is undertaken on a national, regional and local level to explore which selections are made from the eligible shortlist and how this relates to the aims and objectives of the organisation in ensuring that decision-making is made in line with policy, legislation and the evidence base for the effective targeting of interventions.

3.3 - Human decisions and review

The EPF Tool is a rule-based, augmented decision-making tool. This means that it has humans at the beginning, making the rules, and humans at its end, making the final decision as to which interventions to select.

The tool does not force a Practitioner to make any particular selections, save for when the imposition of a licence condition is mandatory in legislation if the eligibility criteria is met. An example of this is when people convicted of certain acquisitive crimes in specific police force areas are required to be electronically tagged on licence, if they meet a specific set of eligibility criteria. If this criteria is met, then the EPF tool aligns with legislation and mandates the selection of the relevant licence conditions. Otherwise, Practitioners are not bound by the guidance within the EPF tool and can make selections from a professional judgement over-ride list. This secondary list will include every requirement, licence condition or intervention that is available to people on probation, but which the individual in question did not meet the eligibility criteria for (or which may not be available in their local area). Practitioners can make selections from this list, but doing so requires careful consideration as going against the eligibility criteria could undermine the benefits of effective interventions targeting for People on Probation. As such, they are required to enter a rationale when making any selections from the professional judgement over-ride list. An example of this might be that an individual does not quite meet the eligibility criteria for a particular service, but upon discussion with a manager it is agreed that a place can be offered. The use of professional over-rides are monitored nationally, and the tool provides the mechanism for local oversight in this regard through the use of performance reporting as well as an alert system which notifies a Manager if one of their Practitioners has used the professional judgement over-ride function.

3.4 - Required training

An internal link will take users with an EPF account to all the relevant guidance documents and help videos to support their knowledge and understanding of the EPF tool.

Probation Practitioners should complete training on the MyLearning platform for use of the EPF tool for both PSR proposals and licence condition planning. This training involves watching two pre-recorded briefings which explain why EPF should be used and how. These videos, along with other guidance documents, are also available in the ‘help’ section of the EPF tool itself. As the EPF tool is hosted by an external provider, no training of Probation staff is required in terms of the coding. However, staff within the Effective Targeting Team receive informal training when they join so that they understand how the algorithm works and how to configure the tool so that changes have the desired effect and no unintended consequences. For other users of the tool, e.g. data analysts, Serious Further Offence (SFO) reviewers etc, there are videos which explain how to create views and how to have oversight of how it is used in decision making by Practitioners.

3.5 - Appeals and review

If a person on probation disagrees with a Practitioner’s proposal in a PSR or the additional licence conditions put forward for their release, then there is a formal complaints process they should follow within the Probation Service. The EPF tool itself does not make the final decision in either circumstance, it is always the professional judgement of the Practitioner. As such, any complaint would not be directed at the EPF tool itself. Any appeal against a sentence imposed by the court would need to go via His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) as a legal process.

Tier 2 - Data Specification

4.1 - Method

The EPF is using a linear algorithm. This means that in every case, if the same details are entered, then the same requirements, licence conditions and interventions will shortlist (unless there are any other variables, such as the availability of services differing across probation areas).

4.2 - Frequency and scale of usage

There are approximately 12,144 people with an active EPF account. This will be comprised of Probation Practitioners as well as Managers, SFO reviewers, Performance and Quality staff, Data Analysts etc. As an example, in May 2023 there were 6182 records created in EPF for PSR proposals and 3122 in EPF for licence condition planning. These figures demonstrate how many EPF records were created that month, but people have accounts on an ongoing basis and will use the tool either daily, monthly or less frequently depending on their role.

4.3 - Phase

Production

4.4 - Maintenance

Changes are made to the records within the EPF tool, the configuration of the tool and the algorithm on a regular basis, sometimes as often as daily or weekly. These updates happen in line with changes to policy, procedure, business need and operational demand. The Effective Targeting Team meet with Ctrl O on a fortnightly basis to review the Tools’ functionality and any necessary changes or maintenance. There is regular data analysis which supports maintenance of the algorithm, that is, ensuring that interventions are being selected in line with policy and procedure as expected and/or to inform policy change based on pilots or focus reviews of individual policy areas. Further to this, Ctrl O routinely run system maintenance in accordance with ISMS policies (ISO 270001).

4.5 - Model performance

The EPF tool is rigorously tested with both the developer, Ctrl O, and/or the policy leads responsible for any intervention records within it as and when changes or updates are required. There is a test-site version of the tool, in which any changes to functionality are tested in advance of being made effective for practitioners in the live EPF tool.

4.6 - System architecture

The EPF is rule-based decision-making support tool and is used to provide Probation Practitioners with access to a shortlist of eligible interventions. The Interventions list is stored on a Linkspace table of records [one per intervention], much like a spreadsheet, that has a number of fields where the Effective Targeting Team are able to select the criteria based on policy and legislation. When a Practitioner uses the EPF tool and completes a plan for licence conditions or a proposal for a PSR, they will enter details relevant to the risk and need profile of the person and the tool will then match these with the eligibility criteria of each record the tool holds, shortlisting all those which match. The system is also configured to allow the practitioner to override the algorithmically generated shortlist and select from the long list of interventions. The diagram below depicts the data flows of the EPF system.

EPF System (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/66d04ace299d44ed3590d706/EPF_System_Architecture.png)

4.7 - Source data name

The Interventions Directory

4.8 - Source data description

The following variables are used as part of the look-up, i.e. a summary of the variables that are matched between proposal/plan and the intervention list:
- Case Reference Number (CRN) From National Delius (the Probation Service’s case management system)
- Surname
- Stage of Sentence
- Release Date
- Age
- Sex
- Offence features and factors
- Offender type
- Victim type
- MO
- Needs
- Risk ratings
- Offence specific criteria (based on Offence details selected)
This list of fields are largely drop-down menu selections that are cross referenced with the values on the Interventions List to return a relevant shortlist.

4.9 - Source data URL

The Interventions Directory is only available within the EPF tool, so is not accessible to anyone without an EPF account.

4.10 - Data collection

Data is collected within the EPF tool for the purpose of identifying eligible licence conditions, requirements and interventions. This remains unchanged from the initial purpose of the tool. However, over the past few years additional data has been collected for various projects or pilots e.g. Community Sentence Treatment Requirements, in order to analyse the effectiveness of an approach or to understand Practitioner decision-making in certain circumstances.

4.11 - Data cleaning

In the case of the EPF tool, the data is all pre-defined [in the system], for example, the user will select Offence features from the menu and they correspond 1-for-1 with the intervention.

4.12 - Data completeness and representativeness

This will depend on how up to date and complete the interventions table in EPF is and how up to date the matching is. For example, it could become out of date if policy leads do not keep the EPF team updated with any changes. The EPF team attempts to mitigate this risk by continually monitoring use and performing monthly reviews of datasets and work with the supplier as required and with the continuity of a bi-weekly review to ensure changes are deployed as quickly as possible to ensure compliance.

4.13 - Data sharing agreements

There are no data sharing agreements in place. The contract with Ctrl O covers all necessary data sharing issues.

4.14 - Data access and storage

Data is accessible to MOJ users and supplier staff, all with RBAC that is managed and defined by the customer.

Ctrl O sub-contract Data Centre Cloud services and the data is stored in ServerHouse data centres in the UK. Ctrl O and ServerHouse are both UK organisations, are ISO27001 and Cyber Essentials Plus certified and have been risk assessed [accredited] by UK Government departments to operate these services.

Personal data is stored on the system and managed in accordance with GDPR requirements. The data can be deleted/purged in accordance with MOJ data retention policy.

Tier 2 - Risks, Mitigations and Impact Assessments

5.1 - Impact assessment

A Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) has been completed for the EPF tool. It was last updated on the 18/7/23. The DPIA describes a process designed to identify risks arising out of the processing of personal data and to minimise these risks as far and as early as possible. Further to this, an Equality Analysis of the EPF tool was completed on 19/10/23. All interventions within the EPF tool should have their own Equality Impact Analysis completed by the Policy Leads and/or Business Owners and should inform the eligibility and targeting criteria for them. Once configured within the EPF tool, the fact that the algorithm is augmented and not machine learning, means that the Tool will not distort the eligibility and targeting criteria in any way, nor will it undermine the Equality Analysis undertaken for the intervention in any way.

5.2 - Risks

There is a risk that the information in the EPF tool is incorrect and causes a practitioner to make incorrect selections for ineligible interventions. This is mitigated by a process which requires an audit trail of the decision-making process by the policy leads and business owners of each EPF record. The Effective Targeting Team ensures that any changes are discussed directly with them, that any unintended consequences are considered and that changes are not made live within the tool until signed off by the policy lead/business owner.