29/05/2026
The HMPPS accredited offending behaviour programmes list is short. Fully accredited, currently commissioned interventions represent a relatively small proportion of the total intervention landscape, and the gap is being filled, quietly and at volume, by organisations operating outside that list.
I want to make the case that this work is not a second-best solution. In many contexts it is operationally scalable, evidence-aligned, and meeting needs the accredited offer was never designed to reach.
The real divide is not accredited versus non-accredited. It is high-quality versus low-quality delivery.
What the evidence actually says
Accreditation does not make programmes effective. It indicates that a programme has been assessed against evidence-informed design standards. The evidence itself, drawing on decades of research and particularly the work of Andrews and Bonta on Risk-Need-Responsivity alongside Lipsey’s meta-analytic work, shows that outcomes are driven by something more specific: adherence to RNR principles, cognitive-behavioural methods, and strong programme integrity, including trained facilitators and ongoing fidelity monitoring.
CSAAP reviews programmes against those “what works” principles. Meta-analyses show that programmes meeting them reduce recidivism by around 10 to 20% on average, with the better-targeted, higher-fidelity programmes reaching the upper end of that range. Programmes mis-targeted, under-dosed, or delivered by untrained staff can be ineffective or actively harmful, a risk that exists inside and outside the accredited list. As HMPPS guidance itself acknowledges, poorly designed programmes can increase offending.
There is no robust body of evidence directly isolating accreditation status as the causal factor. What the literature consistently shows is that interventions built on RNR alignment, CBT methodology, trained facilitators and fidelity monitoring reduce reoffending, regardless of whether they carry a formal badge. Accreditation is best understood as a quality-assurance proxy. The mechanism of change sits underneath it.
There is also a structural point worth making. Accreditation systems are, by design, retrospective. They validate programmes after they have been developed and tested. That creates a lag between innovation and formal approval, particularly in areas like digital delivery and police-stage diversion where the operational landscape has moved faster than the accreditation framework has been able to follow.
The National Framework for Interventions itself draws this distinction. As the MoJ confirmed in a parliamentary answer in January 2025, in addition to Accredited Programmes, a number of approved interventions are also delivered by HMPPS and other partners, including Third Sector organisations, and the National Framework for Interventions Policy Framework sets out the minimum design standards for these types of interventions.
What this looks like in practice
Red Snapper Managed Services was an early pioneer of digital offending behaviour interventions in the UK. The Intervention Hub is now used across a large proportion of UK police forces and has been accessed by more than 100,000 participants. None of our core OOCR programmes are CSAAP-accredited. All are built deliberately around the principles the evidence base identifies as the drivers of effect, including structured programme design, facilitator training, and ongoing fidelity monitoring.
Across live contracts we are seeing strong attitudinal and engagement outcomes, measured using validated pre/post measures rather than proven reoffending data. Substance misuse modules consistently show high levels of positive change, with most cohorts achieving 70 to 85% improvement on pre/post measures across cannabis, cocaine, alcohol, nitrous oxide and ketamine modules. Multi-year drug diversion delivery has managed thousands of referrals with comparable improvement rates. End-to-end OOCR triage contracts return consistent 80%+ improvement in thinking and attitudes, with 24-hour first contact as the operational baseline. Hate crime intervention work has returned a 80% positive outcome shift, 92% increased victim awareness, and a 77% reduction in bias-related thinking on pre/post attitudinal measures.
These figures are attitudinal and behavioural change indicators, not equivalent to long-term reoffending data, and I would not claim otherwise. What they do show is consistent, scaled, RNR-aligned delivery producing the kind of change the evidence base identifies as the precursor to reduced reoffending.
And it is not just one provider
The sector is full of organisations doing serious, evidence-led work outside the accreditation framework. Forward Trust’s wider substance misuse and resettlement provision extends well beyond its two accredited programmes. Catch22, Cranstoun, St Giles Trust, and Nacro run structured interventions that change behaviour at scale. SafeLives, Khulisa, and User Voice are producing outcomes the system would be poorer without.
This work fills needs the accredited offer cannot reach: police-stage diversion, OOCR cohorts who will never see a probation officer, hate crime perpetrators with no formal accredited pathway, and the long tail of low and medium-risk offenders. The RNR evidence is unambiguous on this last point: over-treating lower-risk offenders with intensive accredited programming can be counterproductive. For that cohort, the lighter-touch work outside the accredited list is the right intervention, not a fallback.
Where this leaves us
Accredited programmes still hold the strongest longitudinal evidence and the most rigorous evaluation designs, and that is worth protecting. But the cost and timescales involved in accreditation can create barriers to entry, particularly for smaller providers, and the retrospective nature of the framework means innovation in emerging delivery areas often outpaces it.
You do not necessarily need an accreditation stamp to change behaviour. You need a credible theoretical model, trained facilitators, honest measurement, RNR-aligned targeting, fidelity monitoring, and the operational discipline to deliver at volume. Where accreditation enforces those conditions, it works well. Where they exist without it, the work is still capable of producing meaningful change.
The evidence base does not equate accreditation with effectiveness. It equates effectiveness with adherence to the principles accreditation was designed to test. Commissioning decisions should reflect that distinction.