AZAV Explained: How Training Providers Get Approved in Germany

Germany's publicly funded training market runs through the Bildungsgutschein — an education voucher issued by the Bundesagentur für Arbeit — and a voucher can only be redeemed with an approved provider on an approved course. That approval regime is the AZAV, the Akkreditierungs- und Zulassungsverordnung Arbeitsförderung, issued on 2 April 2012 and most recently amended by Article 118 of the Act of 10 August 2021 (BGBl. I S. 3436). For a provider based outside Germany it is the single gate to the market, and it is more structured than most funding regimes.

There are two approvals, not one

This is the point most often missed. AZAV requires a Trägerzulassung — approval of the provider — and separately a Maßnahmezulassung — approval of each measure, meaning each course. Holding the first does not give you the second. Under § 5(1) a certifying body checks the provider requirements in § 2, and under § 5(2) it separately checks the measure requirements in §§ 3 and 4.

Both are assessed per location, and the provider approval is also assessed per Fachbereich — the field of activity. There are six: activation and integration, placement, vocational training, further training, transfer benefits, and participation of disabled people in working life. Under § 5(6) the certificate carries an annex listing the approved locations and Fachbereiche, kept up to date. You are not approved in general; you are approved for named fields at named sites.

The assessment is carried out by a fachkundige Stelle, a certifying body which must itself be accredited under §§ 1 and 6 — and the accreditation body checks that the certifying body's own staff have comprehensive knowledge of the Fachbereiche and of how measures under §§ 45, 81 and 82 SGB III are delivered.

What the provider has to demonstrate

Leistungsfähigkeit — capacity (§ 2(1)). Financial and professional capacity, a declaration on whether insolvency proceedings have been opened, applied for or rejected for lack of assets, plus the organisational and staff structure, the suitability of premises, and the current course offering.

Zuverlässigkeit — reliability (§ 2(1)). Identity and address details for the provider and its legal representatives, register extracts where applicable, and declarations covering convictions, pending criminal or prosecution proceedings, and trade bans in the last five years.

Labour market orientation (§ 2(2)). The provider must take account of local training and labour market conditions, and document its cooperation with local labour market actors, how it tracks labour market developments, its past results, and feedback from participants and employers. This is a real obstacle for a remote or purely online provider: the regulation expects demonstrable local connection, not just a syllabus.

Staff (§ 2(3)). Management and teaching staff need suitable education and training, relevant practical experience in the Fachbereich, a documented career history, pedagogical aptitude and methodological-didactic competence — and participant evaluations of instructors form part of the assessment. A trainer who is an excellent subject-matter expert but has no pedagogical grounding is a gap under this paragraph.

The quality management system is specified, not left open

Section § 2(4) requires a documented system with targeted, systematic procedures to assure and continuously improve quality, and it names what the documentation must cover: a customer- and integration-oriented mission statement; organisation, governance and internal audits; a staff qualification and development concept; target agreements with performance measurement; methods for supporting participants and evaluating outcomes; cooperation with third parties; and a systematic complaints process including regular participant surveys.

Providers who already run a quality system for another regime will recognise most of this, but two items are commonly absent: the target agreements with performance measurement, and the participant survey cycle as a documented process rather than an occasional exercise.

Section § 2(5) adds that contracts should give participants a certificate of attendance stating the content, duration and goal of the measure. And helpfully, § 2(7) provides that where a provider has no track record for a requirement, it must explain how it intends to meet it — so a new entrant is not automatically excluded.

Course approval, costs and duration

Under § 3(1) a measure's objectives, duration and content must be designed for the target group and the stated goal, and must reflect current labour market developments. Cost appropriateness under § 3(3) is judged on the measure's design and calculation — and note the default assumption: group cost calculations assume twelve participants unless another figure is justified. That single sentence shapes pricing more than anything else in the regulation.

Section § 3(4) allows justified higher costs for above-average staffing, special facilities or equipment, specialised content, accessibility provision, or smaller group sizes. Section § 3(7) requires any licence needed to deliver a measure to be submitted. Section § 3(8) permits approved modules to be combined into a measure where it is individually tailored. And under § 4, a course preparing people for a recognised vocational qualification needs confirmation from the competent body that the provider is a suitable training establishment.

On duration, § 5(4) is specific: a Maßnahmezulassung should normally be limited to a maximum of three years, extendable to a maximum of five where labour market developments are not expected to materially affect the measure. The AZAV text does not state a validity period for the Trägerzulassung itself — the certificate is issued under § 181(6) SGB III, so that duration has to be checked in SGB III or current guidance rather than assumed.

Who polices what, afterwards

Section § 5(5) obliges the provider to report changes to its locations, Fachbereiche or measure delivery. Section § 5(3) lets the certifying body use independent, representative sampling when reviewing measures whose costs do not exceed the average cost rates. And § 5(8) draws the line clearly: the Bundesagentur für Arbeit alone monitors delivery and outcomes, while the certifying body then assesses whether those findings affect the approvals. Poor outcome data therefore reaches your certification by a route you do not control.

How AZAV compares with other funded routes

AZAV is an accreditation regime with funding attached, which makes it structurally different from the grant schemes a UK or Irish provider may know. Malta's Investing in Skills scheme funds a percentage of employer-chosen training with no provider accreditation requirement; Skillnet Ireland works through sector networks; and the UK apprenticeship levy is a drawdown against an employer's own contributions. Germany asks you to qualify as a provider first, then qualify each course — which is slower to enter and more durable once held.

For context on the wider German market, see ACCA recognition and career prospects in Germany and, for firms with compliance obligations there, the GwG anti-money-laundering duties on Wirtschaftsprüfer and Steuerberater. Our own CPD courses are accredited, which is the starting point for any measure-level approval conversation.