Op-ed: The Problem With One-Size-Fits-All ‘Universal Licensing’
Making it easier for professionals to practice across state lines is appealing, but if it isn’t done right, it can endanger the public’s health and safety.
As states move toward reopening and more Americans are vaccinated, policymakers across the country are prioritizing a quick economic recovery. The latest trend among state lawmakers looking to solve economic challenges is occupational licensing reform, often in the form of so-called “universal licensing” — requiring states to grant a license to a license holder from any state across all occupations and professions.
But poorly conceived, one-size-fits-all licensing reform creates a new set of problems. Lawmakers are working against the interests of their constituents by scaling back regulations and established accountability models that have protected the public for decades.
Over the years, we have seen firsthand the consequences when necessary regulations and protective measures are deemed unnecessary due to political interests. That was evident most recently in Texas with the power crisis following February’s winter storms. Regulations were changed more than 20 years ago in favor of “consumer choice” and an open market.As a result, there was no agency enforcing accountability, such as updating energy resources for the state, and the public suffered when the system failed in the end. It was just the latest example of what can happen when you remove oversight in the name of low costs.
The goal of so-called universal licensing reform is certainly admirable: to make it easier for people to move with their careers. Of course people should be able to work where they want, but we must protect the public by ensuring that license holders, particularly in highly technical professions, are qualified wherever they practice.
Professions like architecture, certified public accounting, engineering, landscape architecture and surveying are responsible for the integrity of the nation’s buildings and other physical infrastructure, as well as its financial systems. Each profession requires rigorous and ongoing education, examination and experience.The key failing of these bills — and why universal licensing is set up to fail — is that they don’t consider how critical what’s known as “substantial equivalence” is to successful interstate practice. Substantial equivalence refers to the trust and confidence that the qualifications underlying one state’s license are on par with those of other states.
Without the trust and accountability of substantial equivalence, policymakers will create problems for consumers who will no longer have faith in the qualifications of professionals. What mistake will need to occur for us to look back and realize that reasonable regulation matters?
Some proponents of universal licensing reform point to doctors and other medical professionals being allowed to practice across state lines and mobilize where they have been most needed during the COVID-19 crisis. However, the interstate practice of medical professionals is actually an argument in favor of rigorous standards and substantial equivalency.
The reason states could trust that out-of-state doctors were qualified to help was because they had confidence in the strong underlying licensing requirements and the licensing systems that uphold them: substantial equivalence. In every state, medical professionals must meet stringent licensing standards. The country’s ability to respond to the crisis was made possible because of a strong licensing system — not in spite of it. If COVID-19 taught us anything about licensing, it’s that strong, consistent licensing standards are a critical foundation for professions entrusted to protect the public.
All of this only reinforces why a one-size-fits-all approach across hundreds, if not thousands, of occupations and professions doesn’t work. Reform must be carefully considered, with the recognition and understanding that broad-brush legislation is not the answer. Consumers have been well served by rigorous licensing systems, allowing us to have confidence that the professionals who are entrusted to design and build our roads, airports, bridges, buildings and financial systems are qualified to do so.
Every consumer deserves the same protections and access to high-quality services and high-caliber, licensed professionals. That’s why lawmakers must avoid these broad-brush measures and look to existing professional licensing models that have evolved and served the public well, in some cases for more than 100 years. These models allow for access to services without risking public safety, health and welfare.
Certainly, there are barriers to entry for some occupations that require the attention of lawmakers to attract new talent and expertise and spur economic recovery. But any licensing reform must be done thoughtfully and carefully, keeping in mind the public’s health, safety and welfare and the licensed professionals who have dedicated years to their field. Licensing done right works.
Marta Zaniewski is executive director of the Alliance for Responsible Professional Licensing and vice president for state regulatory and legislative affairs at the American Institute of CPAs.
Op-ed published in Governing:
https://www.governing.com/now/the-problem-with-one-size-fits-all-universal-licensing
read more
Op-ed: Well-governed licensing protects West Virginia
A new report, from the Alliance for Responsible Professional Licensing and the international research firm Oxford Economics, found that licensing is associated with 6.5% higher wages, on average, for all professions and occupations in the United States.
Moreover, the research found that, for women and minorities in technical fields requiring significant education and training, a license narrows the gender-driven wage gap by about one-third and the race-driven wage gap by about half.
Female engineers, surveyors, architects, landscape architects and certified public accountants can expect a 6.1% hourly wage increase, on average, after becoming licensed in their field.
These findings should serve as a red flag to lawmakers who might be considering one-size-fits-all legislation in an attempt to roll back state licensing systems this session.
West Virginians are well served by rigorous licensing for engineers, surveyors, architects, CPAs and landscape architects, because it ensures they are held to the highest standards of professionalism. And West Virginians deserve the same consumer protection, high-quality services and caliber of professionals as other states.
Indeed, responsible licensure is a vital means to protect the public’s health, safety and welfare…
Read the full op-ed here in the Charleston Gazette-Mail.
read more
Professional Licensing Associated with 6.5% Average Wage Increase Across All Professions and Occupations: National Report
2/2/2021
Professional Licensing Associated with 6.5% Average Wage Increase Across All Professions and Occupations: National Report
New research methodology shows that weakening licensing negatively impacts an important tool that helps fight pay inequity
WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Alliance for Responsible Professional Licensing (ARPL)—a national coalition of responsible licensing advocates—today released Valuing Professional Licensing in the United States, a new, first-of-its-kind report that was developed in partnership with the internationally recognized research firm Oxford Economics (executive summary attached). Oxford Economics’ economists analyzed all professions and occupations in the U.S. and found that licensing is associated with 6.5% higher wages on average.
The ARPL-Oxford Economics report comes as licensing reform is emerging as a hot topic of debate in statehouses across America, which are now kicking off their 2021 legislative sessions. The Valuing Professional Licensing report delivers a red flag to lawmakers and policy setters who are considering applying one-size-fits-all legislation in an attempt to roll back their state licensing programs. In 2020, several states attempted to pass bills that would eliminate licensure for various occupations and professions as a way to ease occupational mobility challenges caused by the pandemic or generate economic growth.
“Licensing impacts professions, occupations and populations differently and is a clear driver of higher wages and stronger economies. It also creates strong consumer protections and many professions – especially those that ARPL represents – have several decades of mobility and reciprocity programs that work. These are critical insights that must be acknowledged as part of any thoughtful consideration of licensing policy,” said Marta Zaniewski, Vice President for State Regulatory and Legislative Affairs for the American Institute of CPAs. “One size does not fit all. Time and again we have seen that broad-brush policy doesn’t work, but responsible licensing does.”
The ARPL-Oxford Economics report also shows that women and minorities in job fields requiring advanced education and training (e.g., engineers, surveyors, architects, landscape architects, and CPAs, among others) benefit significantly from licensing. For these workers, the results show that a license narrows the gender-driven wage gap by about one third and the race-driven wage gap by about half.
Key report findings:
- The results show that across all professions and occupations, licensing is associated with a 6.5% average increase in hourly earnings, even after accounting for the job holder’s educational attainment, gender, and racial demographics.
- The results show that among professionals in technical fields requiring significant education and training, a license narrows the gender-driven wage gap by about one third and the race-driven wage gap by about half.
- Minority engineers, surveyors, architects, landscape architects, and CPAs can expect an 8.1% hourly wage increase on average after becoming licensed in their field.
- Female engineers, surveyors, architects, landscape architects, and CPAs can expect a 6.1% hourly wage increase on average after becoming licensed in their field.
- Both white professionals and male professionals were shown to benefit from licensing too, but to a lesser degree. White engineers, surveyors, architects, landscape architects, and CPAs can expect a 2.9% hourly wage increase after becoming licensed; and males in these professions can expect a 0.7% hourly wage increase after becoming licensed.
- Those in trade and vocational occupations (e.g., barber, plumber, etc.) can expect a 7.1% hourly wage increase after becoming licensed, while those in a profession requiring advanced education and training (e.g., engineer, architect, etc.) can expect a 3.6% wage increase after becoming licensed.
“The report findings suggest licensing is an important economic tool for professionals,” said Oxford Economics Senior Economist Alice Gambarin, who served as project lead. “These new findings also reflect the distinctions between each profession and occupation, and the licensing systems that support them should take those differences into consideration.”
Access the full report, executive summary, and key findings here.
The Valuing Professional Licensing report was commissioned by the Alliance for Responsible Professional Licensing (ARPL), which is a coalition composed of national associations that represent highly complex, technical professions and their state licensing boards. Members of ARPL are licensed in all 50+ U.S. states and territories. Associations within ARPL have established uniform education, examination, and experience standards and a proven national mobility path for professionals.
The Alliance was formed to ensure their voices are heard by policymakers and the public amid the growing debate around licensing. You can learn more about ARPL, its members and the importance of professional licensing by visiting responsiblelicensing.org.
Members of ARPL include the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA), American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), the American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA), the Council of Landscape Architectural Registration Boards (CLARB), National Association of State Boards of Accountancy (NASBA), National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB), National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) and National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES).
For more information about the study click here or to request an interview with an ARPL or Oxford Economics representative, please contact Joe Sangiorgio at JSangiorgio@craftdc.com
read more
Op-ed: Occupational Licensing Reforms Must Maintain Standards to Protect the Public
As the United States works to reverse the economic downturn caused by the coronavirus pandemic, state legislatures will once again consider occupational licensing reform as a way to jumpstart the economy and get Americans back to work.
However, there is no silver bullet to this complex set of challenges.
Lately, anti-licensing groups have set their sights on so-called “universal licensing” (proposals from lawmakers that aim to allow states to recognize professional licenses from other states) as a way of enabling people to have more flexibility to move their careers from state to state.
Most people agree professionals should be allowed to move across state lines and earn a living with the least cost and hassle possible. Likewise, most people want to protect the public’s health, safety and welfare by ensuring they are being served by qualified professionals who have the knowledge, skills and experience for the job. This is especially true in highly technical, high-impact professions that the Alliance for Responsible Professional Licensing (ARPL) represents like certified public accountants (CPAs), architects, engineers, surveyors and landscape architects…
Read the full op-ed in Route Fifty:
read more
Licensed To Move: A Guide to Interstate Practice
The Alliance for Responsible Professional Licensing (ARPL) supports policies and legislative initiatives that seek to build pathways to interstate practice for professionals in highly technical professions.
ARPL represents professions and licensing boards that have more than 100 years of combined experience in creating greater flexibility for professionals and is uniquely positioned to offer best practices that could be helpful as lawmakers work to achieve interstate practice for a broader mix of professions and occupations.
ARPL’s newest report, Licensed To Move, explores several examples of how states can responsibly accomplish flexibility and mobility.
Click here to download the full report.
Click here to download the report one-pager.
read more
LTE: Be careful with broad-brush approach to occupational licensing reform
Point of View: Be Careful with broad-brush approach to occupational licensing reform
By: Tricia H. Hatley, President, National Society of Professional Engineers
“States need to cut licensing red tape permanently” (Point of View, Sept. 9) describes a push to weaken occupational licensing nationally. However, proponents failed to acknowledge the daily and invaluable contributions of licensed professionals to Oklahomans.
Efforts to weaken licensing, however well-intentioned, make no distinction for highly complex, technical professions. This is a critical distinction that broad-brush proposals like those referenced in the article fail to make — and puts thousands of lives at risk in Oklahoma and elsewhere.
Professions like engineering, architecture, accounting, landscape architecture and surveying are responsible for the safety of our physical spaces and the integrity of our financial systems. Because of this, they are required to meet rigorous standards based on education, experience and examination to demonstrate a minimum qualification level.
These working Americans create and maintain our most vital and valuable infrastructure systems. Oklahomans expect their buildings to have been designed and built to code and that structures can withstand the severe environmental hazards facing our communities. They assume vehicles will be able to safely traverse our interstates with appropriately sized entrance and exit ramps and bridges that can carry heavy truck loads. And they presume that informed and qualified CPAs are overseeing their financials and ensuring fiscal compliance.
Rigorous professional licensing is what makes that trust possible.
Oklahomans are rightly skeptical of broad-brush proposals that would sweep up these professions and wrongfully accuse their licensing practices as dispensable and unnecessary. It is not hard to imagine the negative repercussions of dismantling carefully developed professional licensing systems that protect the public.
LTE: Licensing for landscape architects
Licensing for landscape architects
By: Ryan R. Binkowski, Landscape Architect, Bonita Springs, FL
I was surprised to read a recent column in the Naples Daily News arguing for the elimination of licensing for landscape architects.
As a licensed landscape architect for 17 years and as a partner and chief operating officer of Waldrop Engineering, P.A., I believe this is a misguided and dangerous view.
Such a suggestion could put the health, safety and welfare of all Floridians at needless risk. Licensing for landscape architects is necessary, and it’s rigorous for a good reason: to protect public safety. The standards that come from licensing ensure that those who design and draft construction documents impacting our public spaces, transportation corridors and green stormwater infrastructure are qualified to do so.
Hurricanes increase the risk for Florida’s most vulnerable communities. Licensed professionals, including landscape architects, have the critical education and experience to develop necessary solutions.
Similarly, accountants, engineers and architects play a critical role in professions we depend on. They design and build our hospitals and protect our financial systems.
According to a recent study from the Alliance for Responsible Professional Licensing, 67% of voters believe they are best protected by a licensing system that oversees education, experience and examination standards. The public recognizes the value of licensing systems.
Op-ed: Reasonable licensing reform has to leave key protections in place
“You know, I always wanted to pretend to be an architect,” George Costanza told Jerry Seinfeld.
But you wouldn’t want Art Vandelay as your architect. Why? Because Vandelay — the sometimes alter ego of Seinfeld’s George Costanza — is not really an architect.
That’s where licensing comes into play: establishing, verifying, and enforcing the necessary minimum qualifications to practice critical professions such as engineering and architecture competently and safely.
Unfortunately, efforts are underway to undermine licensing and erode the public protection it provides. In state after state — Iowa, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, just to name a few — there is an orchestrated campaign to weaken professional standards by slipping legislation through during the COVID-19 crisis so a distracted public won’t see it happening, or by invoking the crisis as a justification.
Read the full op-ed in The Washington Examiner:
read more
LTE: Professional licensing must be protected in economy recovery
Professional licensing must be protected in economy recovery
By: Roger Grabman, PE, NSPE
Op-ed: Consumers are right to demand rigorous professional licensing remain as states reopen
From Juneau to Tallahassee, the issue of licensing reform is once again coming to the fore in statehouses across America as lawmakers weigh a range of measures to reverse the economic downturn caused by the coronavirus pandemic.
While licensing reform is predominately a state issue, the Trump administration has issued federal reports to guide state legislators on the difficult, delicate task of revising licensing laws.
Recently, the Trump administration issued an executive order loosening a raft of federal regulations in response to the pandemic. This approach is likely to be emulated by governors and state legislatures across America.
The purported intentions of the reformers: noble.
The apparent bipartisanship around their efforts: refreshing.
The allure of jumping onto their bandwagon: understandable.
However, as is so often the case with legislative solutions to complex problems, the devil is in the details — or perhaps, in the lack of them.
As we have seen throughout the current crisis, existing professional licensing models have allowed professionals to move to areas where their expertise is most needed without jeopardizing the public’s health, safety, and welfare. At all times, but especially during times of national crisis, the public needs to have confidence that our nation’s critical physical and financial infrastructure is in the hands of competent, qualified professionals.
While proposals to weaken licensing vary, there is a deeply troubling and potentially dangerous constant across them all: They rely on a one-size-fits-all approach.
These proposals make no distinction between easing licensing where there is a legitimate need and weakening necessary qualifications and licensing requirements for professions upon which the health, safety, and welfare of the public at large depend.
Fast-tracking these proposals, as some state lawmakers have suggested, would be a serious mistake.
It is not hard to imagine the consequences of unlicensed individuals planning highways where the curves are too sharp, roadways where hills are steep and hazardous in poor weather conditions, or bridges that are not designed to withstand earthquakes. The long-term consequences could be catastrophic.
Intentional or not, anti-licensing bills disregard the important role of licensing in setting a minimum level of expertise for high-impact, highly complex professions such as engineering and landscape architecture. The legislation also ignores the role of responsible licensing systems to ensure professionals stay current in their field and provide oversight and enforcement against bad actors.
Professional licensing systems are in place to protect the public. They’re rigorous for a reason — and they’re too important to be swept aside by broad-brush reform. Lawmakers need to realize and value what their constituents already know: Professional licensing protects the public, and the public supports professional licensing.
A nation-wide survey of likely voters released in February by the Alliance for Responsible Professional Licensing (ARPL) found that nearly three-quarters of voters believe it is important to regulate professionals in accounting, engineering, architecture, landscape architecture, surveying and related fields with high impact on the public’s safety and well-being.
This concern about licensing reform becoming indiscriminate deregulation is well-founded. Legislation that would do just that was popping up in statehouses before the pandemic with alarming regularity, and it is expected to return as legislatures and courts reconvene.
Some measures bizarrely suggested that professionals should show qualifications only after harm has occurred and then, only the least possible amount of qualification is required. A smarter approach is to start with a bias toward safety and verified qualifications. Proponents seem to have forgotten the adage “Better safe than sorry” — not “Better sorry than safe.”
And the public agrees. The same ARPL survey found the public would rather be safe first with 71 percent of voters wanting licensing required — unless it can be proven that eliminating it will not impact public health and safety.
These proposals weaken professional licensing standards that keep the public safe, and the only remedies they offer for bad outcomes are costly litigation or posting a negative online review. That may work for bad take-out, but it is of little consolation for a structural deficiency in a bridge, road, or building.
No fair-minded observer questions that unnecessary barriers to entry exist for many occupations and trades. Governors, state legislators, and activist groups are right to focus their rhetoric and their energy on eliminating these barriers where possible to jumpstart an ailing economy.
Yet when it comes to professions with high public impact, maintaining licensing standards is imperative to ensuring public trust and safety.
As the discussions continue in statehouse committee rooms, lawmakers would do well to respect the concerns of their constituents and eschew risky, one-size-fits-all measures that would weaken critical qualifications and endanger the public they serve.
Tom Smith is executive director of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE).
Wendy Miller is president of the American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA).
Matthew M. Miller is Chief Executive Officer of the Council of Landscape Architectural Registration Boards (CLARB).
Op-ed published in The Hill:
read more