Preferred Providers FAQ

Individuals or organisations that provide education suitable for IBCLC recertification may apply.

No. Each educational activity must be submitted and reviewed under the current programme requirements.

Eligible activities may include conferences, seminars, workshops, live virtual education, asynchronous learning modules, independent study modules, and other structured educational formats.

No. The IBCLC certification programme does not offer, approve, or accredit lactation education designed to prepare candidates for the IBCLC certification examination.

No. Submission of payment confirms application receipt but does not guarantee approval.

Each submission is reviewed under the current programme requirements as well as the current environment (e.g., current corporate structures). These requirements may change when appropriate, as the landscape of lactation changes.

Preferred Providers will be contacted for clarification or additional documentation. If a complete response is not provided after a second request, an additional review fee may be applied.

Yes. Review timelines may vary depending on submission volume and completeness of documentation.

Applications are prioritised based on both the programme start date and the date of submission.

CERPs are granted 0.25 CERPs for every 15 minutes of instruction. A 60-minute activity equals one (1) CERP.

Note: Instructional time will be rounded down to the nearest 0.25 CERPs.

CERPs are NOT assigned to the following if they are not a part of a specified portion of the educational activity, and do not have specific objectives and outlines stated in advance.

• Quizzes
• Intro  
• Lunch breaks 
• Post-Test 
• Pre-Test 
• Q&A sessions

Applications must be submitted at least 90 days prior to the programme start date for standard review. Applications submitted 60–89 days prior will incur a late submission fee. Applications submitted fewer than 60 days prior to the programme start date will not be reviewed.

No. Fees are non-refundable. If you have made a payment in error, please contact the region that serves you.

If your application is incomplete, and additional information is required, IBLCE staff will reach out to request more documentation. If, after a second request, sufficient information has not been provided, an additional review fee may be assessed. Incomplete applications are tremendously time-consuming and slow down the process for other Preferred Providers. Please visit the Preferred Provider Fee Schedule for more information.

No. Preferred Providers must apply for CERPs recognition a minimum of 90 days before the start date of their programme(s). Late applications (no less than 60 days in advance of the start date) may be submitted with an additional fee.

Typically, application reviews take six to eight (6-8) weeks. Activities with a large number of speakers (over 10) require additional time. If additional information is required to complete a review, or the application is incomplete, it will take longer for the application to be processed.

There is no limit to the number of times the same programme may be repeated while IBLCE CERPs recognition remains valid, either one or two years from the date of approval, as indicated on the approval letter. There is also no additional fee for repeat delivery of the programme. However, if there are changes in speakers, the content, or the length of the programme, or if the programme is being offered after the valid verification period, a new application with payment must be submitted.

Preferred Providers are required to maintain records of each repeated programme and, if selected for audit, provide required documentation to continue to participate in the Preferred Provider Programme.

Yes. Approved educational programmes are included in the Preferred Provider Directory. This offers exposure to your educational opportunity directly from the IBLCE website.

All submissions are reviewed against the current programme requirements, including alignment with the International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes (“WHO Code”) and subsequent World Health Assembly (WHA) resolutions, and the IBLCE MCI Policy.

If a programme does not meet one or more of the applicable criteria, CERPs are not awarded. Determinations relate solely to eligibility under IBLCE policy and do not necessarily reflect the overall educational value or professional merit of the activity.

Determinations are made in accordance with published programme policy. Preferred Providers attest in the Terms and Conditions for Preferred Providers that they understand that any acceptance or denial of CERPs for any of their educational programmes is at the sole discretion of IBLCE. 

CERPs recognition reflects the outcome of the review conducted under current programme requirements. If part of a submitted programme does not meet one or more applicable requirements, recognition may be granted only for the portion that meets the requirements.

Recognition decisions relate solely to eligibility under IBLCE policy and do not necessarily reflect the overall educational value or professional merit of the activity.

The provision of CERPs by a speaker presentation is assessed based on disclosed affiliations, financial relationships, publicly available information, and alignment with WHO Code standards. Freedom of expression is important and respected, but a session may not be eligible for CERPs pursuant to the Preferred Provider programme policies. It is the Preferred Provider that makes decisions with respect to its educational offerings. The allocation of CERPs does not reflect on a speaker’s professional expertise or standing.

Yes. Preferred Providers may revise programme structure, content, speakers, or disclosure documentation and submit a new application for review under current programme standards.

The International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes (“WHO Code”) and subsequent World Health Assembly (WHA) resolutions establish standards intended to protect breastfeeding from commercial influence. IBLCE strives to uphold the aims of the WHO Code and subsequent resolutions which are important to global public health. Therefore, Preferred Providers must affirm their support of the WHO Code and confirm that educational activities for which they are seeking CERPs align with programme requirements in order to become a Preferred Provider.

Activities within the previous five (5) years are considered when evaluating applications. If a company has met its obligations pursuant to the WHO Code for the preceding five (5) years, it is likely acceptable.

Activities within the previous five (5) years are considered when evaluating applications. If a speaker has not been affiliated with a company that is not meeting its obligations under the WHO Code for the preceding five (5) years, CERPs are likely to be awarded. Preferred Providers are responsible for completing due diligence so that educational content does not have any real or potential conflicts.

IBLCE staff reviews publicly available information and information included in the Speaker Disclosure Form.

It is recommended that you carefully review publicly available information regarding your speakers and sponsors, in addition to information provided on the Speaker Disclosure Form. Preferred Providers are responsible for communicating with speakers on these requirements and making clear that all potential conflicts of interest are included on disclosure forms.  Such potential conflicts of interest should be construed broadly and disclosed on the form.

No. Generally speaking, the WHO Code is focused on protecting safe and proper nutrition for infants by protecting breastfeeding and regulating the marketing of breast-milk substitutes, and the IBLCE Minimising Commercial Influence Policy seeks to protect the integrity, independence, and objectivity of decision-making in education.

A standalone educational activity is reviewed and assigned CERPs individually, for example, a 60-minute webinar on a singular topic.

A bundle consists of multiple activities that are reviewed together and assigned CERPs as a group, for example, a series of five (5) individual 60-minute webinars on a topic from the Detailed Content Outline that are sold together.

No. If sessions that are part of a bundle are offered individually, each session must be submitted and approved separately in order to be awarded CERPs. In the example above, each of the 60-minute webinars would also need to be submitted individually in order to be eligible to be offered separately.

A conference is typically submitted as a bundle, which includes multiple sessions within the same educational activity.

These are self-paced learning modules designed to provide structured educational experiences outside of traditional classroom settings. This most often includes online video recordings or interactive web-based education.

Preferred Providers may apply for CERPs for ISMs. All ISMs submitted for approval must meet the current criteria outlined in the Preferred Provider Guide.

After the CERPs verification expiration date for an ISM, which could be one or two years from the date of approval, the Preferred Provider must be able to demonstrate that the ISM is up to date with best practices and evidence.

Yes, the only difference between an in-person session and a web-based programme is that web-based programme participants must pass an quiz, or the Preferred Provider must provide IBLCE evidence of a system for tracking attendee access and evidence of using this information to award certificates of completion. If a quiz is provided, once the participant has submitted a completed quiz with a passing grade, the Preferred Provider must issue a certificate of completion.

Yes. However, any promotional materials published prior to final notification of CERPs recognition may not list the number of CERPs requested or state that CERPs have been awarded. One (1) copy of the final promotional materials for the CERPs-recognised programme must be submitted to IBLCE within seven (7) days of the date on which the education was approved.

Printed and/or web-based promotional materials may not publicise a specific number or type of CERPs until final CERPs recognition is granted. Promotional materials for programmes submitted for review may include the following statement:

“Application for Continuing Education Recognition Points (CERPs) has been submitted to the International Board of Lactation Consultant Examiners^®.”

INTERNATIONAL BOARD OF LACTATION CONSULTANT EXAMINERS^®, IBCLC^®, INTERNATIONAL BOARD CERTIFIED LACTATION CONSULTANT^®, and IBCLC^® are registered marks of the International Board of Lactation Consultant Examiners and may only be used with IBLCE’s prior, express, written authorisation.

No. The designation “IBCLC” is a trademark owned by IBLCE and should only be used to refer to an individual who holds the IBCLC certification. It may not be used as part of an organisation name, programme title, or company brand.

No. Domain names cannot use “IBCLC.”

Preferred Providers should avoid language that could imply that IBLCE endorses or directly provides the training. Preferred Providers may describe education as supporting continuing education for IBCLCs but must not imply that the programme grants the IBCLC credential.

No. The IBLCE logo is a corporate logo for IBLCE. The IBCLC logo may only be used by individuals who hold the IBCLC credential and must follow the IBLCE Trademark Use Policy.

IBLCE logo:

IBCLC logo:

Promotional materials that are finalised after IBLCE CERPs recognition may state how many IBLCE CERPs were recognised, type of CERPs, and Detailed Content Outline (DCO) domains for each educational activity on the programme.

Promotional materials must include the following disclaimer: “[Name of Provider] has been accepted by International Board of Lactation Consultant Examiners^® (IBLCE^®) as a Preferred Provider for the listed Continuing Education Recognition Points (CERPs) programme. Determination of CERPs eligibility or Preferred Provider status does not imply IBLCE’s endorsement or assessment of education quality. INTERNATIONAL BOARD OF LACTATION CONSULTANT EXAMINERS^®, IBLCE^®, INTERNATIONAL BOARD CERTIFIED LACTATION CONSULTANT^®, and IBCLC^® are registered marks of the International Board of Lactation Consultant Examiners.” For more information see the Preferred Provider Guide and the Terms and Conditions for Preferred Providers.

Preferred Providers should review the IBLCE Trademark Use Policy or contact IBLCE for clarification.

The Preferred Provider will be contacted and will need to make appropriate corrections to their materials.

Examples of Appropriate and Inappropriate Trademark Use

Appropriate: Advanced Lactation Care for IBCLCs
Inappropriate: Using IBCLC in a course title such as “Advanced Lactation Care – IBCLC Course”

Appropriate: Lactation R’Us Education Centre.
Inappropriate: Using IBCLC in an organisation name such as “Lactation R’Us IBCLC Education Centre” 

The certificate of attendance must include the following information:

• Name of the organisation providing the programme
• IBLCE Preferred Provider Verification Number
• Title and date of the programme
• Date of completion
• Name of the attendee
• The number of IBLCE CERPs earned by the attendee, recognised per category (e.g. L (lactation), E (ethics), or R (related)), and the domain those CERPs are affiliated with based upon the IBCLC Detailed Content Outline
• Signature and printed name of an authorised representative of the Preferred Provider

Certificates may also include, if applicable, information about accepted continuing education units from other organisations.

At the discretion of the Preferred Provider, a CERPs certificate for the portion of the programme the individual attended may be issued.

Routine reporting is not required. However, providers must retain attendance records for six (6) years. If selected for an audit, documentation must be provided to continue to participate in the Preferred Provider Programme.

Certificates should be distributed at the conclusion of the programme or once attendance verification is complete.

All application materials, speaker disclosures, attendance lists, and evaluation summaries must be retained for six (6) years.

Yes. Current speaker CVs are required at submission, and updates may be requested if the programme is selected for audit.

Failure to comply may result in corrective action, including suspension or revocation of Preferred Provider status and/or rescinding awarded CERPs.

It is best practice to have an evaluation survey provided after an educational activity. Preferred Providers are expected to compile an evaluation tool, collect responses, and retain a summary of the evaluation responses for each educational activity offered. Copies of the evaluation tool will be requested when an educational activity is selected for audit.

Yes. Speakers may receive double the number of attendance CERPs credited for the first time the presentation is given during the speaker’s five-year certification cycle. Repeat presentations on the same topic are not eligible for additional CERPs.

No. The IBCLC certification programme does not offer, approve, or accredit lactation education designed to prepare candidates for the IBCLC certification examination. Programmes recognised with CERPs are intended as continuing education for IBCLCs. Candidates for the IBCLC examination are not required to obtain CERPs.

Preferred Providers are responsible for responding to participants’ questions regarding attendance, the number of CERPs earned, and/or replacement certificates. Attendees who contact IBLCE or the IBCLC Commission will be referred to the Preferred Provider that delivered the programme.

Yes. It is your responsibility to request that every presenter disclose any affiliations and real or potential conflicts of interest that could reasonably be perceived as having competing interests in relation to their presentation. Each speaker must complete the required Speaker Disclosure Form and return it to the Preferred Provider. The Preferred Provider is responsible for reviewing disclosures and for declining speakers who are affiliated with organisations that do not meet their obligations under the WHO Code or other programme policies.

Speaker disclosure forms are valid for 12 months from the date signed, unless there has been a significant update to the form. In that case, IBLCE may request an updated signature.

A copy of the current disclosure must be submitted with every Preferred Provider application, even if the speaker has previously participated in an approved programme. Preferred Providers are responsible for completing due diligence to best ensure that the information in the disclosure is current.

If a speaker discloses no affiliations or conflicts of interest within the previous five (5) years, it is not necessary to print a statement in conference materials. However, a written statement may be included in presentation slides, promotional materials, or both.

If a speaker discloses an affiliation or conflict of interest, an appropriate disclosure statement must be included, clearly describing the nature of the relationship.

Approved Preferred Providers who do not comply with IBLCE requirements or are found not to be meeting their obligations pursuant to the WHO Code after receiving initial approval will be subject to further action. Please see the Preferred Provider Guide for additional information.

All education eligible for CERPs must comply with the IBLCE MCI Policy. The policy protects the independence, integrity, and scientific validity of continuing education and minimises the risk that activities contain commercial bias or marketing influence. Educational activities must not function as indirect promotion or promote brand visibility, as this could be construed as marketing.

Promotional content includes endorsement of products or services, inclusion of marketing messages, integration of logos or branding in a manner that promotes recognition, and content that could be perceived as advertising. CERPs-eligible education is to remain independent of commercial messaging.

A financial relationship includes any transfer of value from a commercial company, such as consultancy or advisory fees, honoraria, research funding, sponsored travel or accommodation, paid speaking engagements, or employment roles. These relationships must be disclosed to the Preferred Provider.

Potentially. Financial relationships must be disclosed and assessed for relevance to the educational content to minimise the risk that it may influence education. For example, if an individual is receiving funds from a company that sells a pillow that is advertised to aid in breastfeeding, individuals should not give a presentation that promotes that product, but may provide education on unrelated topics.

Individuals may speak on a wide variety of topics, but the session must meet Preferred Provider policies in order to be approved for CERPs.

Yes, provided that the Preferred Provider retains full control over educational content and faculty selection, the supporter has no influence over planning or delivery, and the support is transparently disclosed to learners.

Preferred Providers are responsible for ensuring that activities comply with the MCI Policy. Speakers are responsible for making full and accurate disclosures and making sure that their content remains independent and evidence based.

If an activity does not comply with the Preferred Provider Guide, WHO Code and subsequent WHA resolutions, and MCI Policy, CERPs may not be awarded. Preferred Providers are expected to maintain documentation demonstrating compliance and may be subject to review.

Standard 1 – Ensure Education is Valid, Balanced, and Evidence-Based
Scenario A – Appropriate
A speaker delivers a session analysing current research on infant feeding practices. The presentation references peer-reviewed studies and clearly distinguishes between evidence and opinion.
Why this is appropriate: The content is balanced and evidence-based and maintains scientific integrity.
Scenario B – Not Appropriate
A session promotes a specific technique as superior without citing research and dismisses alternatives without evidence.
Why this is not appropriate: Education must not present unsupported opinion as fact or lack balance.

Standard 3 – Identify, Mitigate, and Disclose Financial Relationships
Scenario A – Appropriate
A speaker discloses prior sponsored travel from a commercial company. The Preferred Provider assesses relevance and applies mitigation measures, such as declaring the sponsorships and confirming that the company is meeting their obligations pursuant to the WHO Code.
Why this is appropriate: Disclosure and mitigation protect independence. Note: This does not guarantee CERPs recognition.
Scenario B – Not Appropriate
A speaker fails to disclose consultancy payments from a company discussed during the session.
Why this is not appropriate: Undisclosed financial relationships could have hidden influence on the education provided.

Standard 4 – Manage Commercial Support Appropriately
Scenario A – Appropriate
A commercial company provides an unrestricted grant. The Preferred Provider retains full control over content and discloses support to learners.
Why this is appropriate: Independence and transparency are maintained.
Scenario B – Not Appropriate
A commercial supporter requires slide approval and product references.
Why this is not appropriate: Commercial influence over content breaches independence.

Standard 5 – Separate Education from Ancillary Commercial Activities
Scenario A – Appropriate
Commercial exhibits are located separately from educational sessions, and slides contain no branding.
Why this is appropriate: Marketing is clearly separated from education.
Scenario B – Not Appropriate
Slides include prominent commercial logos unrelated to the educational topic.
Why this is not appropriate: Integration of branding may function as promotion. Exhibits from a sponsor at the back of the room where the education is being delivered would also be considered inappropriate.