The CPD Board Assessment Criteria

This document sets out the public-facing assessment criteria applied by The CPD Board™ when evaluating applications for accreditation in the Professional, Business, Not-For-Profit and Per Programme categories. It is written for applicants, assessors and partner organisations. It explains what is assessed, the evidence required, the decision framework and the procedural timeline.

1. Purpose and scope
This page explains the standards that govern accreditation decisions made by The CPD Board™. The criteria ensure that accredited providers and programmes meet consistent and verifiable quality, integrity and accessibility standards. The criteria apply to all applications submitted through the online portal.

2. Founding principles
Assessments conducted by The CPD Board™ adhere to the following principles: fairness, transparency, proportionality, evidence based decision making and proportionate regulatory burden. The approach is intended to be rigorous while recognising differences between individual trainers, organisations and one-off programmes.

3. Assessment domains and summary of expectations
Applications are evaluated against eight core domains. Each domain is assessed on the basis of the evidence you submit. Assessors consider whether materials are complete, verifiable and proportionate to the application category.

3.1 Integrity and honest communications
Applicants must demonstrate that promotional materials, course descriptions and public statements accurately reflect course scope and likely outcomes. All material claims must be supported by verifiable sources or documented methodology. Full disclosure of fees and any additional charges is required. Disclaimers that clarify dependencies on participant effort, organisational context or local regulation must be visible in course materials and in marketing collateral.

3.2 Professional competence
Lead trainers and teaching teams must hold appropriate and verifiable qualifications or demonstrate credible, documented professional experience. Trainers must maintain continuing professional development. Applicants must provide a portfolio of recent engagements, including brief descriptors and feedback summaries. Organisational applicants must demonstrate that the majority of listed trainers meet the required standards.

3.3 Quality of delivery and instructional design
Programmes must present clear and measurable learning objectives. Objectives must be Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time-bound (SMART). Content must align with assessment methods, and those assessments must demonstrably measure the stated objectives. Active learning strategies and learner engagement techniques should be employed and documented. Accessibility testing and evidence of piloting with representative learners are expected for full programmes.

3.4 Respect, inclusion and accessibility
Applicants must provide a documented policy on non-discrimination and demonstrate inclusive content and delivery. Digital materials must meet recognised accessibility standards and alternative formats must be available on request. For online delivery, demonstrable progress against Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.1 Level AA is required where practicable.

3.5 Conflict of interest and independence
All relevant financial and personal interests that could influence course content or assessment must be disclosed. Any sponsorship or third-party contribution to course materials must be clearly labelled. Where conflicts exist that cannot be managed, an external or independent reviewer must be engaged and the evidence of recusal provided.

3.6 Confidentiality and data protection
Applicants must provide a clear privacy notice and evidence of lawful data handling and consent processes. Secure storage, role-based access controls and retention schedules for learner records must be documented. Where The CPD Board™ supplies proprietary materials, applicants must demonstrate appropriate non-disclosure and IP handling arrangements.

3.7 Continuous improvement and evaluation
Applicants must operate systematic feedback mechanisms and demonstrate how feedback is used to improve delivery. Providers should demonstrate regular review cycles and corrective-action planning for areas that fall short of standards. Where cohort sizes permit, providers should show credible response rates to post-programme evaluation.

3.8 Environmental, social and governance commitments (where relevant)
For programmes that address social or sustainability claims, content must be evidence based and free of misleading statements. Modules that include ESG material should reference recognised frameworks where appropriate and, for novel technical claims, include third-party expert validation.

4. Required evidence and file types
Applicants must upload evidence via the portal. The standard evidence required for a complete submission comprises the following items:

• Completed online application form.
• Programme title and a short descriptor.
• Fee schedule and refund policy.
• Privacy notice and consent flow screenshots.
• Conflict of interest disclosure signed by the applicant and lead trainer(s).
• Accessibility statement and one accessible resource example.
• SMART learning objectives for each module.
• At least one assessment or evaluation instrument with marking criteria.
• Representative course materials, for example a slide deck or lesson plan.
• Lead trainer CV and qualification evidence.
• Recent participant feedback where available.

Category specific evidence requirements are enforced by the portal. Applicants must consult the portal checklist and upload items in the recommended filename format.

5. Decision framework and thresholds
Assessors score evidence in each domain. The final decision follows an objective threshold model and includes the following outcomes: Approved, Approved with Conditions, Revisions Required and Rejected. Major deficiencies in core compliance areas represent blocking items and will prevent approval until remedied.

5.1 Blocking items include, but are not limited to: lack of a privacy notice or consent mechanism; fabricated or unverifiable outcome claims; the absence of minimum trainer qualification where no credible equivalence is shown; undisclosed sponsorship that materially shapes learning content.

6. Category adaptations and proportionality
The same eight domains apply to all categories. The level of documentary detail and threshold for certain items varies by category in order to be proportionate.

6.1 Professional (individual trainer)
Expectations focus on the lead trainer. Required evidence includes CV and qualification proof, one representative module, one assessment and a CPD log demonstrating ongoing professional development.

6.2 Business (organisational provider)
Expectations include a trainer roster, quality assurance and instructional design processes, platform or data security evidence for online delivery and evidence that trainer qualifications meet the required standard for the majority of the roster.

6.3 Not-For-Profit and NGO providers
Expectations recognise alternative credentialing and community practice. Providers must supply a DEI and outreach plan, evidence of mission alignment and QA arrangements for volunteer trainers where applicable.

6.4 Per Programme and single-event accreditation
Expectations are focused and time bound. Required evidence includes syllabus, learning objectives, CPD hours calculation, representative materials and at least one evaluation mechanism. Validity periods may be shorter than for provider accreditation.

7. Submission, review process and timelines
The application process is entirely online. The standard operational timeline is as follows:

• Completeness check: within 24 hours after submission. Assessment begins only after the completeness check is passed.
• Initial assessor review: target within three working days of completeness confirmation. Typical decision timeline: under one week; in most cases three working days.
• Clarification requests: issued through the portal. Applicants will normally have five business days to reply. The assessment clock pauses while clarifications are pending.
• Final decision: issued within two business days after receipt of any required clarifications or resubmitted materials.

All communications are conducted via the portal and by email. Telephone contact is not required and is not part of the standard process.

8. Approvals with conditions and corrective actions
Where minor or medium gaps are identified, The CPD Board™ may grant conditional approval. Applicants will be required to submit a corrective action plan within 15 business days and to close conditions within 90 calendar days. Conditions must contain a description of the remedial steps, designated responsible parties and realistic timelines.

9. Spot checks, audits and renewal requirements
Accredited parties are subject to one or more unannounced spot checks during the accreditation term. Spot checks are conducted through portal requests; the recipient ordinarily has 10 business days to respond. Accredited parties must submit an annual self-audit using the prescribed template. Standard accreditation validity is three years. Renewal dossiers must be submitted at least 90 days before expiry.

10. Certificates, digital badges and verification
Certificates and digital badges are issued only after final approval and administrative payment. Each certificate contains the provider name, course title where applicable, CPD hours, issue and expiry dates and a unique certificate identifier. All badges and certificates link to a public verification record within The CPD Board™ verification system.

11. Fees and payment
Fee schedules are published and must be disclosed in full as part of the application. The CPD Board™ issues a secure payment link only after approval. Fees will vary by category; discounted tiers may apply for not-for-profit organisations.

12. Investigations, sanctions and appeals
Applicants and accredited parties must self-report breaches of the Code of Conduct within five business days. The CPD Board™ will investigate reported breaches in accordance with the stated investigative procedures. Sanctions may range from a written warning to suspension or revocation of accreditation. Applicants may appeal decisions in writing within ten business days of notification; appeals are considered by an independent panel and concluded within 20 business days.

13. Practical guidance and examples
Guidance materials and templates are available in the portal. These include a SMART objectives template, an assessment rubric example, an accessibility checklist and a conflict of interest disclosure form. Applicants are encouraged to use the templates to improve the quality and speed of their submission.

14. Publication and transparency
This Assessment Criteria page is published to inform applicants and the public. The CPD Board™ will publish anonymised summaries of serious enforcement outcomes where appropriate to preserve public trust.

15. Contact
For assistance contact: mail@cpdboard.com

16. Review cycle for these criteria
These assessment criteria are reviewed periodically to reflect changes in professional practice, regulatory expectations and international best practice. Applicants will be notified of material changes and provided a reasonable transition period to comply.