Purpose: This formal accreditation rubric is used to determine whether a submitted course, certificate, or badging program meets GPHCB standards for public accreditation status.

4, Exemplary

Evidence is complete, aligned, learner centered, accessible, and may serve as a model practice.

Identify strengths and model practices.

3, Meets Standard

Evidence meets the standard with minor improvement opportunities.

Approve standard with optional enhancement comments.

2, Developing

Evidence partially meets the standard but needs improvement.

Provide required or recommended revisions, depending on pathway.

1, Minimal

Evidence is present but weak, unclear, incomplete, or inconsistently applied.

Require substantial revision.

0, Not Yet Acceptable

Evidence is missing or does not meet the standard.

Require resubmission, deferral, or non approval.

90 to 100

GPHCB Accredited with Distinction

The offering exceeds GPHCB standards and may serve as a model for global public health learning quality.

80 to 89

GPHCB Accredited

The offering meets GPHCB standards.

70 to 79

Accreditation Deferred

The offering is promising but must submit required revisions before accreditation is granted.

Below 70

Not Accredited

The offering does not yet provide sufficient evidence of quality, alignment, accessibility, competency based design, or credential integrity.

Critical standards rule: A course, certificate, or badging program cannot receive GPHCB accreditation if critical standards in competency clarity, alignment, assessment evidence, accessibility, ethical and inclusive content, credential integrity, or learner navigation are scored below 2. If a critical standard is below 2, the decision must be Deferred or Not Accredited regardless of total score.

1.1

The offering falls within GPHCB accredited subject areas and is accurately described to consumers.

Evidence shows the criterion is fully addressed, appropriate to the learning level and delivery format, and clear to learners and consumers.

0 to 4

1.2

The provider clearly identifies whether the submission is a course, certificate, course sequence, stackable credential, workforce development course, or badging program.

Evidence shows the criterion is fully addressed, appropriate to the learning level and delivery format, and clear to learners and consumers.

0 to 4

1.3

Public claims, marketing language, certificate language, and badge language do not overstate the scope of GPHCB accreditation.

Evidence shows the criterion is fully addressed, appropriate to the learning level and delivery format, and clear to learners and consumers.

0 to 4

1.4

The provider identifies audience, level, prerequisites, length, format, delivery mode, cost if applicable, and completion requirements.

Evidence shows the criterion is fully addressed, appropriate to the learning level and delivery format, and clear to learners and consumers.

0 to 4

2.1

Learners know where to begin, how to navigate, and how to complete the offering.

Evidence shows the criterion is fully addressed, appropriate to the learning level and delivery format, and clear to learners and consumers.

0 to 4

2.2

Communication expectations, support options, technical requirements, academic integrity, AI use, confidentiality, and professional conduct are clear.

Evidence shows the criterion is fully addressed, appropriate to the learning level and delivery format, and clear to learners and consumers.

0 to 4

2.3

The course or program structure, schedule, pacing, module sequence, and completion checklist are transparent.

Evidence shows the criterion is fully addressed, appropriate to the learning level and delivery format, and clear to learners and consumers.

0 to 4

2.4

Instructions for earning certificates, badges, continuing education evidence, or other completion evidence are clear.

Evidence shows the criterion is fully addressed, appropriate to the learning level and delivery format, and clear to learners and consumers.

0 to 4

3.1

Course, certificate, or badge competencies are clearly stated.

Evidence shows the criterion is fully addressed, appropriate to the learning level and delivery format, and clear to learners and consumers.

0 to 4

3.2

Objectives use measurable verbs appropriate to graduate, professional, or workforce learning.

Evidence shows the criterion is fully addressed, appropriate to the learning level and delivery format, and clear to learners and consumers.

0 to 4

3.3

Module or unit objectives build toward course or program competencies.

Evidence shows the criterion is fully addressed, appropriate to the learning level and delivery format, and clear to learners and consumers.

0 to 4

3.4

Learners can monitor progress, mastery, milestones, or credential pathway completion.

Evidence shows the criterion is fully addressed, appropriate to the learning level and delivery format, and clear to learners and consumers.

0 to 4

4.1

Assessments directly measure the stated objectives and competencies.

Evidence shows the criterion is fully addressed, appropriate to the learning level and delivery format, and clear to learners and consumers.

0 to 4

4.2

Learning activities, practice tasks, discussions, simulations, cases, or projects prepare learners for assessments.

Evidence shows the criterion is fully addressed, appropriate to the learning level and delivery format, and clear to learners and consumers.

0 to 4

4.3

Materials directly support objectives, competencies, and assessment requirements.

Evidence shows the criterion is fully addressed, appropriate to the learning level and delivery format, and clear to learners and consumers.

0 to 4

4.4

Certificates and badges are aligned with documented competencies, criteria, evidence, and achievement levels.

Evidence shows the criterion is fully addressed, appropriate to the learning level and delivery format, and clear to learners and consumers.

0 to 4

5.1

Assessments require authentic application, professional judgment, case analysis, project work, portfolios, simulations, or appropriate knowledge checks.

Evidence shows the criterion is fully addressed, appropriate to the learning level and delivery format, and clear to learners and consumers.

0 to 4

5.2

Rubrics, answer keys, mastery criteria, or performance standards define achievement levels clearly.

Evidence shows the criterion is fully addressed, appropriate to the learning level and delivery format, and clear to learners and consumers.

0 to 4

5.3

Learners receive meaningful, timely, and substantive feedback.

Evidence shows the criterion is fully addressed, appropriate to the learning level and delivery format, and clear to learners and consumers.

0 to 4

5.4

Assessment security, authorship, AI transparency, plagiarism prevention, and ethical completion expectations are addressed.

Evidence shows the criterion is fully addressed, appropriate to the learning level and delivery format, and clear to learners and consumers.

0 to 4

6.1

Content is credible, current, evidence informed, and appropriate for the subject area and learning level.

Evidence shows the criterion is fully addressed, appropriate to the learning level and delivery format, and clear to learners and consumers.

0 to 4

6.2

Content reflects real world practice, professional standards, global or local health relevance, and applicable community or workforce needs.

Evidence shows the criterion is fully addressed, appropriate to the learning level and delivery format, and clear to learners and consumers.

0 to 4

6.3

Equity, social determinants, cultural humility, ethics, accountability, sustainability, and diverse populations are integrated where relevant.

Evidence shows the criterion is fully addressed, appropriate to the learning level and delivery format, and clear to learners and consumers.

0 to 4

6.4

Subject matter experts or qualified faculty review or deliver the content.

Evidence shows the criterion is fully addressed, appropriate to the learning level and delivery format, and clear to learners and consumers.

0 to 4

7.1

Learners actively apply, analyze, create, evaluate, practice, reflect, or demonstrate skills.

Evidence shows the criterion is fully addressed, appropriate to the learning level and delivery format, and clear to learners and consumers.

0 to 4

7.2

Learner to content, learner to instructor, learner to learner, or learner to community interaction supports outcomes where appropriate.

Evidence shows the criterion is fully addressed, appropriate to the learning level and delivery format, and clear to learners and consumers.

0 to 4

7.3

Activities support professional identity, belonging, career relevance, ethical practice, and service to communities.

Evidence shows the criterion is fully addressed, appropriate to the learning level and delivery format, and clear to learners and consumers.

0 to 4

7.4

Self paced, asynchronous, synchronous, or blended formats include appropriate checkpoints, guidance, and engagement strategies.

Evidence shows the criterion is fully addressed, appropriate to the learning level and delivery format, and clear to learners and consumers.

0 to 4

8.1

Documents, slides, media, images, tables, audio, video, links, and LMS pages meet accessibility expectations or provide equivalent alternatives.

Evidence shows the criterion is fully addressed, appropriate to the learning level and delivery format, and clear to learners and consumers.

0 to 4

8.2

Navigation, visual design, readability, sectioning, links, and buttons are consistent and functional.

Evidence shows the criterion is fully addressed, appropriate to the learning level and delivery format, and clear to learners and consumers.

0 to 4

8.3

Learner support information is easy to find, including academic, technical, disability, library, advising, or professional support where applicable.

Evidence shows the criterion is fully addressed, appropriate to the learning level and delivery format, and clear to learners and consumers.

0 to 4

8.4

Technology use is appropriate, reliable, explained, privacy aware, and reasonably accessible across devices and bandwidth conditions.

Evidence shows the criterion is fully addressed, appropriate to the learning level and delivery format, and clear to learners and consumers.

0 to 4

9.1

Credential criteria state exactly what learners must complete, demonstrate, or submit.

Evidence shows the criterion is fully addressed, appropriate to the learning level and delivery format, and clear to learners and consumers.

0 to 4

9.2

Badge or certificate metadata includes title, issuer, description, competencies, evidence, issue date, expiration or renewal if applicable, and verification method.

Evidence shows the criterion is fully addressed, appropriate to the learning level and delivery format, and clear to learners and consumers.

0 to 4

9.3

Stackable credentials show how courses, certificates, and badges connect without misleading consumers.

Evidence shows the criterion is fully addressed, appropriate to the learning level and delivery format, and clear to learners and consumers.

0 to 4

9.4

The provider has a secure process for issuing, verifying, revoking, or correcting credentials.

Evidence shows the criterion is fully addressed, appropriate to the learning level and delivery format, and clear to learners and consumers.

0 to 4

10.1

The provider uses learner feedback, completion data, assessment results, evaluator feedback, and revision logs to improve quality.

Evidence shows the criterion is fully addressed, appropriate to the learning level and delivery format, and clear to learners and consumers.

0 to 4

10.2

Faculty, facilitator, reviewer, or SME qualifications are appropriate for the offering.

Evidence shows the criterion is fully addressed, appropriate to the learning level and delivery format, and clear to learners and consumers.

0 to 4

10.3

The course, certificate, or badging program is ready to launch, scale, or continue with sufficient materials, support, staffing, and quality control.

Evidence shows the criterion is fully addressed, appropriate to the learning level and delivery format, and clear to learners and consumers.

0 to 4

10.4

The provider agrees to annual updates, renewal review, public claim rules, corrective action expectations, and GPHCB monitoring requirements.

Evidence shows the criterion is fully addressed, appropriate to the learning level and delivery format, and clear to learners and consumers.

0 to 4

Offering Title

Submitting Organization

Lead Evaluator

Second Evaluator

Final Score

Final Decision

Date