A performance audit of the Board of Cosmetology

              STATE OF ARIZONA
OFFICE OF THE
AUDITOR GENERAL
A PERFORMANCE AUDIT
OF THE
BOARD OF COSMETOLOGY
MARCH 1983
A REPORT TO THE
ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE
REPORT 83- 5
DOUGLAS R. NORTON. CPA
AUDITOR GENERAL
STATE OF ARIZONA
OFFICE OF THE
AUDITOR GENERAL
March 30, 1983
Members of the Arizona Legislature
The Honorable Bruce Babbitt, Governor
Ms. Carole Holt- Fisher, President
Board of Cosmetology
Transmitted herewith is a report of the Auditor General, A Performance
Audit of the Board of Cosmetology. This report is i n response to a
January 18, 1982, resolution of the Joint Legislative Oversight
Committee. The performance audit was conducted a s a part of the Sunset
Review set f o r t h i n A. R. S. § § 41- 2351 through 41- 2379.
The blue pages present a summary of the report; a response from the Board
of Cosmetology is found on the yellow pages preceding the appendices.
My s t a f f and I w i l l be pleased t o discuss or c l a r i f y i t e m s i n the report.
Respectfully submitted,
u Douglas R. Norton
Auditor General
S t a f f : WilliamThomson
Peter N. Francis
Brent L. Nelson
Deborah A. Baldwin
William A. Wright
Enclosure
I I I WEST MONROE SUITE 600 PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85003 ( 602) 255- 4385
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
A PERFORMANCE AUDIT OF THE
BOARD OF COSMETOLOGY
A REPORT TO THE
ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE
REPORT 83- 5
TAELE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
SUNSET FACTORS
FINDINGS
FINDING I
S t a t e r e g u l a t i o n of cosmetology i s unnecessary.
CONCLUS ION
RECOPlMENDATIOPJ
FINDING I1
Changes i n Board s t r u c t u r e could enhance S t a t e
r e g u l a t i o n of cosmetology.
CONCLUSION
RECOMMENDAT IONS
FINDING I11
The Board of Cosmetology can improve i t s a d m i n i s t r a t i v e
operations.
CONCLUSION
RECOMrlENI~ ATIONS
FINDING I V
Requirements f o r e n t r y i n t o the occupation of
cosmetology can be reduced.
CONCLUSION
RECOPIPENDAT IONS
OTHER PERTINENT lNFOH* lATION
WRITTEN RESPONSE TO AUDITOR GENERAL ' S REPORT
Page
i
1
5
LIST OF TABLES
- Page
2
Board A c t i v i t i e s F i s c a l Years 1978- 79
through 1981- 82
TABLE 2 - Board Revenues and Expenditures F i s c a l Years
1978- 79 through 1982- 83
TABLE 3 - Chemicals Used by Cosmetologists and
Their P o t e n t i a l s f o r Harm
S t a t u t o r y Duties of the
Cosmetology and Barber Boards
TABLE 4 -
S t a t u t o r y Scope of P r a c t i c e f o r
Cosmetology and Barbering
TABLE 5 -
TABLE 6 -
TABLE 7 -
Annual Operating Cost per Licensee
Board Actions on Public Safety- Related Complaints
January 1981 through October 1982
TABLE 8 -
TABLE 9 -
TABLE 10 -
License Renewal Processing Expenditures
Action on S a n i t a t i o n Violations
Average Number of Cosmetology Services Provided
by Students Graduating from Cosmetology School
Age Requirements f o r Cosmetology Licensing i n
the 50 S t a t e s
TABLE 11 -
TABLE 12 - Years of Formal Education Required f o r Cosmetology
Licensing i n the 50 S t a t e s
Cosmetology School Hours Required by t h e Board i n
Each Area
TABLE 13 -
TABLE 14 - Hours of Cosmetology School Required f o r Licensing
The Office of the Auditor General has completed a performance a u d i t of the
S t a t e board of Cosmetology i n response t o a January 18, 1982, r e s o l u t i o n
of the J o i n t L e g i s l a t i v e Cversight Committee. This performance a u d i t was
conducted a s part of the Sunset Review process s e t f o r t h i n Arizona
hevisrd S t a t u t e s ( A. R. S.) 5S41- 2351 through 41- 2379.
Regulation of cosmetology i n Arizona began i n 1929. Currently, the
three- member S t a t e Board of Cosmetology continues t o e x e r c i s e broad
a u t h o r i t y over the occupation of cosmetology through i t s l i c e n s i n g and
enforcement a c t i v i t i e s . The board l i c e n s e s cosrr, etologists, m a n i c u r i s t s ,
cosmetology shops, schools and i n s t r u c t o r s . The Board a l s o i n s p e c t s
cosmetology shops and schools, i n v e s t i g a t e s complaints and p r e s c r i b e s
cosmetology school curriculum.
S t a t e l i c e n s i n g of c o s m e t o l o g i s t s , m a n i c u r i s t s and cosmetology shops can
be eliminated because t h e p r a c t i c e of cosmetology does not pose a
s u f f i c i e n t r i s k to public h e a l t h and s a f e t y t o j u s t i f y r e g u l a t i o n .
Although a limited p o t e n t i a l e x i s t s f o r d i s e a s e transmission through the
p r a c t i c e of cosmetology, the a c t u a l h e a l t h t h r e a t is minimal because
diseases which could be spread a r e not s e r i o u s or l i f e t h r e a t e n i n g .
Similarly, l i c e n s i n g i s not j u s t i f i e d because of p o s s i b l e harm from the
use of cosmetology implercents or chemical s o l u t i o n s because such items a r e
r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e t o and r o u t i n e l y used by t h e g e n e r a l p u b l i c ( see page 9).
Because consumers possess adequate a b i l i t y and knowledge t o evaluate
cosmetology s e r v i c e s i n the a t s e n s e of l i c e n s i n g , we recommend the
L e g i s l a t u r e consider allowing the S t a t e Board of Cosmetology t o terminate
on July 1, 1984.
I f the ijoarci is not allowed t o terminate, changes should be made i n the
Board's s t r u c t u r e and conposition. The S t a t e Eoard of Cosmetology and
S t a t e Board of Barber Examiners skLould be combirled i n t o a s i n g l e a
regulatory agency because 1 ) both occupations provide many of the same
s e r v i c e s t o consumers, 2) Eoard a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s a r e i d e n t i c a l
and 3) s i g n i f i c a n t c o s t s a v i n g s c a n be r e a l i z e d ( s e e page 23).
Regardless of whether the tt; o Eoards a r e merged, Board of Cosmetology
members should cease t o a c t a s full- time s t a f f leaving a d m i n i s t r a t i v e
functions t o Eoard enployees. This is necessary t o avoid p o t e n t i a l
problems created when a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d u t i e s and d e c i s i o n making a r e not
separated and t o avoid possible Open heeting Law v i o l a t i o n s ( see page
3 0 ) . P u b l i c members should a l s o be added t o the Board t o i n c r e a s e public
p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n Board matters and promote public i n t e r e s t ( see page 32).
In a d d i t i o n , the Board can s u b s t a n t i a l l y improve its a d m i n i s t r a t i v e
operations i n a t l e a s t f o u r a r e a s . F i r s t , the Board does not adequately
i n v e s t i g a t e and resolve consumer c o n p l a i n t s because it has not viewed
c o n p l a i n t s a s s e r i o u s public s a f e t y matters and h a s m i s i n t e r p r e t e d i t s
complaint- handling a u t h o r i t y ( s e e page 35). Second, the Board does not
take c o n s i s t e n t a c t i o n when v i o l a t i o n s a r e found during shop i n s p e c t i o n s
( s e e page 3 9 ) . Third, board record keeping needs s u b s t a n t i a l
improvement. Cocumentation of Board minutes, consumer con~ plaints and
s e r v i c e uleasurements is d e f i c i e n t . F u r t h e r , the Board can improve its
o p e r a t i o n a l e f f i c i e n c y by changing t o a b i e n n i a l l i c e n s e renewal cycle
saving approximately $ 26,000 every two years ( s e e page 38).
F i n a l l y , i f the Board is r e t a i n e d , changes a r e needed i n the requirements
f o r e n t r y i n t o t h e occupation. Tlte Board's p r a c t i c a l examination of
a p p l i c a n t s is unnecessary because 1 ) most items t e s t e d do not r e l a t e to
public s a f e t y , 2) items which do r e l a t e t o public s a f e t y can be
e f f e c t i v e l y t e s t e d on the Eoard's w r i t t e n examination, and 3) the
p r a c t i c a l exam is costly t o administer ( a t l e a s t $ 8,800 annually) ( see
page 45). The Board's w r i t t e n exam needs t o be revised t o include only
questions r e l a t i n g to public p r o t e c t i o n . P r e s e n t l y most questions do not
r e l a t e d i r e c t l y to public p r o t e c t i o n but t o items n o n e s s e n t i a l f o r
l i c e n s i n g purposes ( s e e page 52). In a d d i t i o n , current r e c i p r o c i t y
provisions a r e too r e s t r i c t i v e and the S t a t u t e s should be amended t o
provide f o r l i c e n s i n g by endorsement without an examination f o r a p p l i c a n t s
who have been licensed i n another s t a t e with l i c e n s i n g requirements
s i m i l a r to Arizona's ( see page 54). Pioreover, Board requirements
regarding education, age and moral c h a r a c t e r a r e a l s o too r e s t r i c t i v e and
should be revised or eliminated ( see page 55).
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance a u u i t of the
S t a t e Board of Cosmetology i n response to a January 18, 1982, r e s o l u t i o n
of the J o i n t ~ e ~ i s l a t i vOev ersight Conmittee. This performance a u d i t was
conducted a s part of the Sunset Review s e t f o r t h i n Arizona Revised
S t a t u t e s ( A. R. S.) 9$ 41- 2351 through 41- 2379.
The p r a c t i c e of cosmetology has been regulated i n Arizona since 1929 when
the L e g i s l a t u r e created the S t a t e Board o f Barbers and Cosmeticians. The
1929 l e g i s l a t i o n provided f o r the l i c e n s i n g of cosmeticians and
cosmetology schools. Two years l a t e r , cosmetology shops and school
i n s t r u c t o r s were a l s o required t o be l i c e n s e d . Regulation of cosmetology
and barbering was s p l i t i n 1935 when l e g i s l a t i o n created two separate
boards.
The S t a t e Board of Cosmetology is composed of t h r e e members, a l l of whom
must be licensed cosmetologists o r i n s t r u c t o r s . The law a l s o r e q u i r e s a l l
three Board members t o devote t h e i r f u l l time t o the d u t i e s of the Board.
The Board has 4.3 other authorized employee p o s i t i o n s f o r a t o t a l of 7.3
full- time employees.
Requirements f o r l i c e n s u r e a s a cosn? etologist have become more s t r i n g e n t
since 1929 when one had t o be 18 years o l d , be of good moral c h a r a c t e r , be
f r e e from i n f e c t i o u s or contagious d i s e a s e , s e r v e a six- month
apprenticeship i n a r e g i s t e r e d cosmetology school and pass p r a c t i c a l and
o r a l exams. Now a cosmetologist candidate has t o have a tenth grade
education, graduate from a cosmetologist school with 1,800 hours ( more
than ten months) of i n s t r u c t i o n and pass p r a c t i c a l and w r i t t e n
examinations to be licensed a s a cosmetologist.
A t one time the Board held a power almost unique among occupational
regulatory agencies. The Board was given the a u t h o r i t y i n 1940 t o
e s t a b l i s h mininlum p r i c e s f o r cosmetoloby s e r v i c e s throughout the S t a t e .
This p r i c e f i x i n g a u t h o r i t y was repealed apparently because the Arizona
Supreme Court on hay 10, 1951, determined a s i m i l a r a u t h o r i t y held by the
Board of Barber Examiners t o be u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l .
The Board has other d u t i e s i n a d d i t i o n t o i t s l i c e n s i n g a u t h o r i t y . The
Board conducts i n s p e c t i o n s of cosmetology shops and schools, i n v e s t i g a t e s
complaints and ccnduc ts hearings. Table 1 d e t a i l s s p e c i f i c Board
a c t i v i t i e s f o r the l a s t four f i s c a l years.
A c t i v i t y
BOARD ACTIVITIES
FISCAL YEARS 1978- 79 THROUGH 1981- 82
Examinations:
Cosmetologist
bfanicuri s t
I n s t r u c t o r
Examination reviews
Licenses :
Cosmetology
Manicuring
I n s t r u c t o r
Salon/ Shops
Schools
Name changes
Inspections
Informal hearings
F i s c a l Years
19 78- 79 1979- 80 1980- 81* 1981- 82"
* The Board changed i t s r e p o r t i n g of s e r v i c e measurements, and a s a
r e s u l t , some of t h e f i g u r e s f o r 1980- 61 and 1981- 82 could not be
v e r i f i e d .
The Board obtains revenues from examinations, l i c e n s e s and renewals of
l i c e n s e s . The Board has experienced some f i n a n c i a l problems r e s u l t i n g i n
increased f e e s e f f e c t i v e July 1983. Table 2 d e t a i l s t h e Board's revenues
and expenditures f o r f i s c a l years 1978- 79 through 1982- 83.
TABLE 2
BOARD UVENUES AND EXPENDITUKE S
FISCAL YEAKS 1978- 79 THKOUGH 1982- 83
Actual
Activity 1978- 79
Number of Employees - 9.6
Revenues ( go%)* $ 170,050
Expenditures :
Personal s e r v i c e s 99,077
Employee- related 20,926
P r o f e s s i o n a l s e r v i c e s - 0 -
Travel -
In- State 8,202
Out- of- State 495
Other operating 31,548
Equipment
Total
Actual Actual
1979- 80 1980- 81
Actual Projected
1981- 82 1982- 83
9-. 1 7-. 3
Excess revenues $ 2.907 $ 790 $( 23.836) $( 49.935) $( 17.400)
* The board of Cosmetology remits 10 percent of i t s revenues t o the S t a t e
General Fund.
Scope of Audit
The scope o f our a u d i t included most Board o p e r a t i ~ n s and functions. Our
major a u d i t o b j e c t i v e s were t o determine:
1. Whether termination of the Board of Cosmetology and r e l a t e d l i c e n s i n g
provisions would s i g n i f i c a n t l y harm the public h e a l t h , s a f e t y o r
welfare;
2. I f the board is not terminated, whether ( a ) the Board of Cosmetology
should be combined with the Board of Barber Examiners t o improve
e f f i c i e n c y and e f f e c t i v e n e s s , ( b) Eoard members should continue to
serve a s full- time s t a f f , and ( c ) public members should be added t o
the Board;
3. Whether the Eoard of Cosmetology is operating i n an e f f e c t i v e and
e f f i c i e n t manner; and
4. Whether the degree of r e g u l a t i o n can be reduced i f cosmetology
l i c e n s i n g is not terminated.
The Auditor General and s t a f f express a p p r e c i a t i o n t o the Eoard members
and s t a f f f o r t h e i r cooperation and a s s i s t a n c e during t h e course of our
a u d i t .
SUNSET FACTORS
In accordance bit11 A. R. S. $$ 41- 2351 through 41- 2379, 11 f a c t o r s a r e
considered t o determine, i n p a r t , whether t h e S t a t e Board of Cosmetology
should be continued or terminated.
1. Objective and purpose i n e s t a b l i s h i n g the Board
According t o the Board's o r i g i n a l 1929 l e g i s l a t i o n , the o b j e c t i v e and
purpose i n e s t a b l i s h i n g the Board was
"... the p r e s e r v a t i o n of t h e p u b l i c welfare and
health...."
More r e c e n t l y , the Board has s t a t e d its purpose i s t o 1 ) p r o t e c t t h e
public s a f e t y by enforcing l i c e n s i n g provisions, 2) handle complaints
t o " appease patrons" receiving u n s a t i s f a c t o r y s e r v i c e s and 3) assure
t h a t s t u d e n t s of cosmetology o b t a i n the necessary j o b - r e l a t e d s k i l l s
and knowledge.
2. The e f f e c t i v e n e s s with which the Board has met its o b j e c t i v e and
purpose and the e f f i c i e n c y with which the Board has operated
The Board's a b i l i t y t o e f f e c t i v e l y meet its o b j e c t i v e and purpose is
a f f e c t e d by the f a c t t h a t public h e a l t h is n o t t h r e a t e n e d by the
p r a c t i c e of cosmetology ( see page 10). The p o t e n t i a l f o r harm t o the -
public s a f e t y i s likewise minimal ( s e e page 14). However, the Board
has not taken a c t i o n to i n v e s t i g a t e and resolve consumer complaints
( s e e page 35).
I f the Board is not allowed to terminate on July 1, 1984, the Board's
e f f i c i e n c y can be improved by 1 ) adopting a b i e n n i a l or t r i e n n i a l
l i c e n s e renewal system ( see page 38), 2) combining a d m i n i s t r a t i o n s of
the Cosnietology and Barber Boards ( see page 23), and 3) reducing
Board a d m i n i s t r a t i v e problems ( see page 39).
The extent t o which the Board has operated within the public i n t e r e s t
The Board has n o t operated w i t h i n t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t . S t a t e
l i c e n s i n g of cosmetologists, manicurists and beauty shops does not
serve t h e p u b l i c because t h e p r a c t i c e of cosmetology does not pose a
t h r e a t t o the public h e a l t h and s a f e t y ( see pages 10 and 14).
I n s t e a d , p r a c t i c e and e n t r y r e s t r i c t i o n s appear to p r o t e c t t h e
economic i n t e r e s t s of the profession. Therefore, c o s t s t o t h e public
outweigh the b e n e f i t s ( s e e page 20). I n a d d i t i o n , the Board does not
adequately i n v e s t i g a t e consumer complaints ( s e e page 35).
4. The extent to which r u l e s and r e g u l a t i o n s promulgated by the Board a r e
c o n s i s t e n t with the l e g i s l a t i v e mandate
Although r u l e s and r e g u l a t i o n s seem t o be c o n s i s t e n t with the
l e g i s l a t i v e mandate, numerous r u l e s and r e g u l a t i o n s appear t o be
e x c e s s i v e , o v e r l y r e s t r i c t i v e and/ or unreasonable and should be
revised by the Board with the a i d of i t s Attorney General
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e .
5. The extent to which the Board has encouraged input from the public
before promulgating i t s r u l e s and r e g u l a t i o n s and the extent t o which
it has informed the ~ u b l i ca s t o i t s a c t i o n s and t h e i r e x ~ e c t e di m ~ a c t
on the Dublic
The Board has not promulgated any r u l e s or r e g u l a t i o n s f o r a t l e a s t
t h r e e years.
The Board has encouraged p u b l i c i n p u t by posting n o t i c e s of Board
meetings i n accordance with A. R. S. $ 38- 431.02( A) 1. However, the
p o t e n t i a l f o r v i o l a t i o n of the Open Meeting Law e x i s t s because Board
members serve a s f u l l - t i m e employees of the Board ( s e e page 30).
Public members should be added t o the Board t o improve public
p a r t i c i p a t i o n and promote public i n t e r e s t ( see page 32).
The extent to which the Board has been a b l e t o i n v e s t i g a t e and resolve
c o m ~ l a i n t s t h a t a r e within i t s i u r i s d i c t i o n
The Board h a s n o t a d e q u a t e l y i n v e s t i g a t e d and resolved consumers
complaints ( see page 35). In a d d i t i o n , Eoard documentation of
complaints needs improvement ( see page 40).
6
7. The e x t e n t t o which the Attorney General or any other applicable
agency of. S t a t e government has the a u t h o r i t y t o prosecute a c t i o n s
under the enabling l e g i s l a t i o n
The Board's enabling l e g i s l a t i o n lists a c t s which a r e c l a s s i f i e d a s
misdemeanors and may be enforced by the County Attorney. In a d d i t i o n ,
the Attorney General has a u t h o r i t y t o seek i n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f against
v i o l a t i o n s of the Board's s t a t u t o r y provisions. The Attorney General
may a l s o f i l e complaints with the Board.
8. The extent t o which the Board has addressed d e f i c i e n c i e s i n the
enabling s t a t u t e s which prevent it from f u l f i l l i n g its s t a t u t o r y
mandate
The Board has introduced l e g i s l a t i o n t o r a i s e f e e s but has not
addressed other s t a t u t o r y provisions.
9. The extent t o which changes a r e necessary i n t h e laws of the Board t o
adequately comply with the f a c t o r s l i s t e d i n the subsection
I f the S t a t e Board of Cosmetology is not terminated on July 1, 1984,
the L e g i s l a t u r e should consider making the following s t a t u t o r y changes:
a. Combine Cosmetology and Barber Boards' a d m i n i s t r a t i o n s under a
s i n g l e regulatory board ( see page 23).
b. Remove Board members from the day- to- day operations of the Board
and provide f o r o f f i c e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n by p r o f e s s i o n a l
a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s t a f f ( see page 30).
c . Add public member( s) t o the Board ( see page 32).
d. Eliminate the p r a c t i c a l examination f o r a l l a p p l i c a n t s f o r
l i c e n s u r e ( see page 45).
e. Delete or reduce the requirement t h a t a p p l i c a n t s possess a t e n t h
grade education, a r e a t l e a s t 18 years of age and have " good
moral c h a r a c t e r " ( s e e page 55).
f . Delete ci: rrent r e c i p r o c i t y provisions and provide f o r l i c e n s i n g
by eniorsecent without an examination f o r a p p l i c a n t s licensed by
other s t i z e s which have comparable standards ( s e e page 54).
g. Anezii A. 2. S. $ 532- 529 and 32- 530 t o provide f o r t h e b i e n n i a l o r
t r i s n c i a ; renewal of l i c e n s e s issued by the Board ( s e e page 38).
In a d d i t i o n , the Board of Cosmetology proposes t h a t A. R. S.
3 - 5 3 . . be anended to provide f o r l i c e n s e s t o expire on t h e
" no; ltb. of the a p p l i c a n t ' s birthday" i n s t e a d of t h e a p p l i c a n t ' s
birrhday .
10. The e s t e z t t o which the termination of the Board would s i g n i f i c a n t l y
harm the ? u s l i c i: eaith, s a f e t y o r welfare
Termination of the S t a t e Board of Cosmetology would not harm the
public h e a i t h , s a f e t y or welfare. The p r a c t i c e of cosmetology does
not pose a s e r i o u s r i s k t o the consumer's l i f e , h e a l t h and s a f e t y o r
economic vell- being. Consumers can be expected t o possess the
knowledge xeedea to properly evaluate cosmetology s e r v i c e s . The
b e n e f i t s of r 2 g u l a t i o n do not outweigh its c o s t s t o t h e public ( see
page 9 ) .
11. The e x t e c t t o ~ h i c ht he l e v e l of r e g u l a t i o n exercised by the Board i s
a ~ ~ r o ~ r i antd e u hether l e s s o r more s t r i n g e n t l e v e l s of r e g u l a t i o n
would be a p ? r c p r i a t e
The S t a ~ e r e g u l a t i o n of cosmetology is unnecessary and could be
eliminated ( see Sunset Factor number 10 and page 9).
If the S t a t e o a r d of Cosmetology is not terminated on J u l y 1, 1984,
the l e v ? l s e i r e g u l a t i o n exercised by. the Board can be l e s s
r e s t r i c t i v e ( see Sunset Factor number 9).
STATE REGULATICN OF COSFETOLOGY IS UhXECESSARY.
The S t a t e Board of Cosmetology and r e l a t e d cosmetology l i c e n s i n g
provisions can be terminated without s i g n i f i c a n t l y harming public h e a l t h ,
s a f e t y or welfare. Licensing of cosmetology is not j u s t i f i e d because of
health and s a n i t a t i o n concerns or possible harm from the use of
cosmetology implements and chemical s o l u t i o n s . Moreover, consumers
possess adequate a b i l i t y and knowledge t o evaluate cosmetology s e r v i c e s .
Because cosmetology s e r v i c e s do not pose a s e r i o u s r i s k t o public h e a l t h
and s a f e t y , the b e n e f i t s of r e g u l a t i n g cosmetologists, manicurists and
beauty shops do not outweigh the c o s t s t o the public.
Arizona has licensed the occupation of cosmetology since 1929. Under t h e
p r e s e n t r e g u l a t o r y scheme both i n d i v i d u a l s and beauty shops a r e required
to be l i c e n s e d . A separate manicurist l i c e n s e is a v a i l a b l e f o r those
wishing t o provide only t h i s cosmetology s e r v i c e . Recently, the need f o r
l i c e n s i n g the cosmetology occupation has been challenged. A t l e a s t e i g h t
other s t a t e s ' sunset a u d i t r e p o r t s of cosmetology boards have concluded
t h a t l i c e n s i n g is unnecessary t o p r o t e c t the public.
Assessing the Need f o r Licensing
Licensing is a s e r i o u s e x e r c i s e of the power of the S t a t e . By-e
s t a b l i s h i n g l i c e n s i n g f o r an occupation, t h e S t a t e makes it i l l e g a l f o r
anyone who does not hold a v a l i d l i c e n s e t o engage i n t h a t occupation.
Because of t h i s , one e x p e r t h a s r e f e r r e d t o l i c e n s i n g a s " an awesome
power.
Licensing of an occupation or profession is j u s t i f i e d i f unlicensed
p r a c t i c e of the occupation could cause s i g n i f i c a n t harm t o t h e public. To
a s s e s s the p o t e n t i a l f o r harm, the Council of S t a t e Governments i n i t s
p u b l i c a t i o n Occupational Licensing: Questions a L e g i s l a t o r Should Ask has
e s t a b l i s h e d t h r e e questions which should be addressed. These questions
are:
1. Whether the unlicensed p r a c t i c e poses a s e r i o u s r i s k t o the consumer's
l i f e , h e a l t h and s a f e t y or economic well- being;
2. Whether users of t h e s e r v i c e can be expected t o possess the knowledge
needed t o properly e v a l u a t e t h e q u a l i f i c a t i o n s of those o f f e r i n g
sevices; and
3. Khether l i c e n s i n g b e n e f i t s t o ttie public c l e a r l y outweigh any
p o t e n t i a l harmful e f f e c t s such a s t h e p r i c e f o r s e r v i c e s or
a v a i l a b i l i t y of s e r v i c e providers.
In evaluating the r i s k t o the p u b l i c , both t h e s e r i o u s n e s s of p o t e n t i a l
harm which could be caused and t h e p r o b a b i l i t y o r l i k e l i h o o d t h a t such
harm would a c t u a l l y occur should be considered.
The S t a t e Board of Cosmetology i n d i c a t e s t h a t l i c e n s i n g of cosmetologists,
manicurists and beauty shops is needed f o r f o u r reasons: 1) t o p r o t e c t
a g a i n s t t h e p o t e n t i a l spread of i n f e c t i o u s conditions or d i s e a s e s ; 2) t o
p r o t e c t cosmetology patrons from p o t e n t i a l harm caused by the improper use
of h a i r c u t t i n g and manicuring implements; 3) t o p r o t e c t customers from
harm caused by various chemical a p p l i c a t i o n s ; and 4) t o p r o t e c t a g a i n s t
improper nassage which could break down muscle t i s s u e . If cosmetology
l i c e n s i n g is j u s t i f i e d , however, i t must be demonstrated t h a t these
concerns pose a s u f f i c i e n t l y s e r i o u s and l i k e l y r i s k t o warrant s t a t e
r e g u l a t i o n .
Health Concerns Are Unfounded
Cosmetology l i c e n s i n g cannot be j u s t i f i e d on t h e b a s i s of h e a l t h and
s a n i t a t i o n concerns. According t o public h e a l t h o f f i c i a l s , public h e a l t h
concerns do not j u s t i f y the r e g u l a t i o n of e i t h e r cosmetology o r
barbering. This is f u r t h e r supported by the f a c t t h a t shop i n s p e c t i o n s
uncover few v i o l a t i o n s and board i n s p e c t i o n s do not assure t h a t c r i t i c a l
s a n i t a t i o n procedures a r e followed . F i n a l l y , o t h e r occupations involving
s i m i l a r or g r e a t e r p o t e n t i a l f o r disease transmission a r e e i t h e r
unlicensed o r not inspected f o r s a n i t a t i o n , i n d i c a t i n g t h a t cosmetology
shop i n s p e c t i o n s a r e likewise unnecessary.
Disease Threat is Minimal - The types of d i s e a s e s which could possibly be
t r a n s z i t t e d i n a beauty shop a r e not l i f e t h r e a t e n i n g and cause only minor
s i s c c z i o r t . According t o the S t a t e Department of Eiealth Services, four
Xicds of communicable d i s e a s e s could be spread i n a beauty shop: 1 ) head
l i c e , 2 ) ringworm, 3) scabies ( a p a r a s i t e ) , and 4) staphylococcus
i n f e c r i o n s . Treatment f o r these d i s e a s e s i s simple and r e a d i l y
a v a i l z b l e . Head l i c e is t r e a t e d by washing with a medicated shampoo.
Zingworn i s t r e a t e d by o r a l o r t o p i c a l medication. Scabies i s t r e a t e d by
a cczbination of bathing and t o p i c a l ointment. The types of
staph;- lococcus i n f e c t i o n s which could be t r a n s m i t t e d i n beauty shops a r e
j e n e r z l l y not t r e a t e d because they a r e so common and minor i n n a t u r e .
Althocgh it is possible f o r these d i s e a s e s t o be t r a n s m i t t e d i n beauty and
barbershops, the a c t u a l t h r e a t t o the public is minimal. Incidence r a t e s
are xot a v a i l a b l e f o r these d i s e a s e s because they a r e not considered
s u f f i c i e n t l y s e r i o u s t o r e q u i r e monitoring by the Department of Health
Servic3s.
Public h e a l t h concerns do not j u s t i f y the l i c e n s i n g of cosmetology. Other
s t a t e s have concluded t h a t l i c e n s i n g cannot be j u s t i f i e d on t h e b a s i s of
healt? concerns. For example, the d i r e c t o r of the Washington S t a t e
Division of Health has s t a t e d ,
" The j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r r e g u l a t i o n of these professions
[ barbering and cosmetology] based on public h e a l t h concerns
i s lacking. Therefore, the negative public h e a l t h impacts
from s t a t e d e r e g u l a t i o n would be n e g l i g i b l e . "
X stacenent by the Director of the Division of Disease Control Services
f o r Arizona's Department of Health Services is c a u t i o u s l y s i m i l a r :
" Public health concerns would c o n t r i b u t e t o the support
of a s t a t e l i c e n s i n g program f o r b a r b e r s , c o s m e t o l o g i s t s ,
and t h e i r shops, but may not completely j u s t i f y such a
program. '
H e e x ~ r e s s e d concern t h a t the removal of minimum s a n i t a t i o n standards would
resul: i n an increased number of unsanitary shops p a r t i c u l a r l y i n low
incore c i s t r i c t s . However, a s discussed below, the Board of Cosmetology
i n s p e c t i o n of shops does not assure t h a t c r i t i c a l s a n i t a t i o n procedures a r e
f olloved.
11
I n s ~ e c t i o n s Uncover Few Froblecs - The Cosmetology Board i n s p e c t i o n s of
beauty shops l o not uncover nany v i o l a t i o n s nor a s s u r e t h a t e f f e c t i v e
s a n i t a t i o n procedures a r e followed. A review of board i n s p e c t i o n r e p o r t s
f o r the period of January 1, 1982, t o October 15, 1982, showed t h a t only 30
of 666 shops icspected or 3.5 percent were issued l e t t e r s from the Board a s
a r e s u l t of v i o l a t i o n s found. F u r t h e r , these l e t t e r s were o f t e n issued
because a s e r i e s of minor problems were noted by i n s p e c t o r s , and not because
a serious v i o l a t i o n was focnd.
Board i n s p e c t i o n s are designed t o check f o r evidence t h a t s a n i t a r y
procedures a r e followed by cosmetologists. In conducting an i n s p e c t i o n , t h e
Board checks to see i f
- l i c e n s e s a r e properly posted,
- sho? sign corresponds t o wording on shop l i c e n s e ,
- Board r u l e s and r e g u l a t i o n s a r e posted i n the shop,
- shop f u r n i t u r e i s i n a s a n i t a r y condition,
- shop equipment is i n a s a n i t a r y condition,
- shop has a wet s a n i t i z e r ,
- shanpoo bowls ( s i n k s ) a r e clean,
- restroom is clean,
- f l o o r is s a f e and clean,
- clean towels a r e kept i n a c l o s e d c o n t a i n e r ,
- paper towels and cups a r e used,
- cold wave rod c o n t a i n e r s a r e clean,
- shop has 70 percent a l c o h o l f o r d i s i n f e c t i n g t o o l s , and
- f o r each cosmetologist or manicurist
- an I . D . p i c t u r e i s posted with l i c e n s e ,
- work area is clean,
- dry s a n i t i z e r is used, and
- hair r o l l e r t r a y i s clean.
However, Board i n s p e c t i o n s carinot a s c e r t a i n t h a t those procedures most
c r i t i c a l i n e l i m i n a t i n g the p o t e n t i a l spread of d i s e a s e a r e a c t u a l l y
followed by cosmetologists. Diseases could be spread by d i r e c t physical
contact or by inplements c o n t a c t i n g a d i s e a s e d a r e a and then reused without
d i s i n f e c t i o n . The c r i t i c a l procedures a f f e c t i n g the spread of d i s e a s e which
cannot be f e a s i b l y checked by the Board a r e
- n o t using a towel o r neckband on more than one patron,
- using cosmetology implements only i f they have been d i s i n f e c t e d
before and a f t e r each p a t r o n , and
- washing hands before and a f t e r each patron.
It should be pointed out t h a t even i f proper s a n i t a r y procedures a r e not
followed, disease cannot be t r a n s m i t t e d u n l e s s the cosmetologist has
r e c e n t l y provided s e r v i c e t o a diseased patron. As explained e a r l i e r , the
a c t u a l t h r e a t of disease transmission is minimal.
Shop owners a r e motivated by the concept of r e t u r n business t o keep t h e i r
shops i n a clean and s a n i t a r y condition. Otherwise, customers may r e f u s e t o
frequent t h e i r shops and may go elsewhere t o c l e a n e r and more s a n i t a r y shops
t o obtain t h e i r cosmetology s e r v i c e s .
Other Occupations - Inspection of cosmetology shops f o r s a n i t a t i o n may be
unnecessary. Other occupations with a d i s e a s e transmission p o t e n t i a l
s i m i l a r t o o r g r e a t e r than t h a t of cosmetology a r e e i t h e r unlicensed o r a r e
not inspected f o r s a n i t a t i o n . Some occupations which a r e unlicensed i n c l u d e :
1. Massage operators - Massage operators deal with almost the e n t i r e body
including the face, head and hands-- areas t h a t cosmetologists deal
with. This occupation is completely unregulated by t h e S t a t e .
2. E l e c t r o l o g i s t s - E l e c t r o l o g i s t s remove h a i r from a r e a s of the body by
i n s e r t i n g e l e c t r o n i c needles i n t o h a i r f o l l i c l e s . E l e c t r o l o g i s t s ;
t h e r e f o r e , contact people i n ways s i m i l a r t o cosmetologists yet they a r e
e n t i r e l y unregulated.
The need f o r i n s p e c t i o n s may a l s o be questioned by the f a c t t h a t the o f f i c e s
and f a c i l i t i e s of h e a l t h p r o f e s s i o n a l s a r e n o t i n s p e c t e d f o r s a n i t a t i o n .
For example, the o f f i c e s of physicians, where t h e p o t e n t i a l f o r d i s e a s e
spread may be the g r e a t e s t , a r e not inspected f o r s a n i t a t i o n .
The f a c t t h a t the above- mentioned occupations a r e n e i t h e r licensed nor
inspected f o r s a n i t a t i o n suggests t h a t such i n s p e c t i o n s may be unnecessary
and r e g u l a t i o n of cosmetology on the b a s i s of s a n i t a t i o n concerns is
u n j u s t i f i e d .
13
Cosmetology Does Not Pose A
Serious Risk t o t h e P u b l i c S a f e t y
The unlicensed p r a c t i c e of cosmetology does not pose a serious r i s k t o the
public s a f e t y . There i s no evidence t h a t cosmetologists and manicurists
have caused s i g n i f i c a n t harm t o customers through misuse of t h e i r t o o l s .
Likewise, t h e u s e of chemical s o l u t i o n s does not pose a s e r i o u s danger t o
the public nor does massage f o r cosmetic purposes.
Use of Tools - Cosmetology l i c e n s i n g cannot be j u s t i f i e d by t h e u s e of
cosmetology instruments around the head, face and hands of a customer.
Instruments commonly used by cosmetologists i n c l u d e s c i s s o r s , r a z o r s ,
combs, brushes and c u t i c l e nippers and pushers. Under normal conditions
persons other than cosmetologists and manicurists may be expected t o use
these implements and t o do so with reasonable care. F u r t h e r , we could not
find any evidence t h a t cosmetologists or manicurists had caused any
serious harm t o customers by the uses of t h e i r implements. The Board has
received only one complaint i n two y e a r s a g a i n s t l i c e n s e e s a l l e g i n g harm
r e s u l t i n g from the use of an implement. The complaint alleged t h a t
f i n g e r s on both hands were c u t during a manicure. The Board took no
( I
a c t i o n t o i n v e s t i g a t e the complaint or t o a s c e r t a i n its v a l i d i t y because
i t o r i g i n a t e d a s a telephone complaint and the complainant did not return
a w r i t t e n complaint form t o the Board. In our opinion, the p o s s i b i l i t y of
s i g n i f i c a n t harm t o customers r e s u l t i n g from the use of cosmetology t o o l s
is remote.
C'se of Chemicals - The use o f chemical s o l u t i o n s i n cosmetology does not
present a l i k e l y danger t o the public and is i n s u f f i c i e n t t o j u s t i f y S t a t e
regulation. The type of harm which could be caused through misuse of
chemicals is generally minor. As with the use of cosmetology t o o l s , both
members of the public and cosmetologists can be expected t o use chemicals
with the degree of c a r e necessary t o avoid i n j u r y . Furthermore, these
chemical s o l u t i o n s a r e a v a i l a b l e f o r use by t h e g e n e r a l p u b l i c and some
p r o t e c t i o n is provided through the Federal government.
Chemical preparations a r e used i n c o l o r i n g , l i g h t e n i n g ( bleaching),
c u r l i n g and s t r a i g h t e n i n g h a i r . We consulted the Standard Textbook of
Cosmetology and the d i r e c t o r of the Division of Cosmetics Technology, U. S.
Food and Drug Administration t o i d e n t i f y t h e chemicals most o f t e n used i n
these h a i r processing procedures. We then contacted the Washington S t a t e
Department of Labor and I n d u s t r i e s * t o deternine the e f f e c t of these
chemical s o l u t i o n s i f they a c c i d e n t a l l y cane i n c o n t a c t w i t h eyes o r
skin. We found the chemicals a r e used a t r e l a t i v e l y low concentrations.
Further, although t h e s o l u t i o n s can cause burning and i r r i t a t i o n when
contacting the eye, t h i s can be a l l e v i a t e d by f l u s h i n g with water.
Permanent eye damage - not a f f e c t i n g v i s i o n i s t h e v o r s t t h a t may occur i f
the eyes a r e n o t f l u s h e d w i t h water. The Board has not received any
complaints a l l e g i n g eye damage through the use of chemicals by
cosmetologists. The only chemicals t h a t burn t h e s k i n a r e those used i n
waving and s t r a i g h t e n i n g s o l u t i o n s . However, minor damage t o t h e s k i n by
these chemicals i s probable even under normal use.
I f these s o l u t i o n s a r e l e f t on the h a i r too long during processing, the
h a i r may be damaged and h a i r breakage may occur. T h i s t y p e of harm is not
s e r i o u s because 1 ) h a i r i s not l i v i n g t i s s u e and damage is never
permanent because h a i r grows o u t a g a i n from the root and 2) h a i r l o s s can
be c o n t r o l l e d with the proper a p p l i c a t i o n of h a i r c o n d i t i o n e r s .
Table 3 on the next page lists the chemical products commonly used by
cosmetologists and d e t a i l s p o t e n t i a l harm t h a t can be caused by misuse. -
Harm i n each case is generally not severe. The chemicals appearing i n the
t a b l e possess the g r e a t e s t p o t e n t i a l f o r harm. Pfany other chemicals a r e
used i n cosmetology or cosmetic products but a r e harmless because of t h e i r
very low concentrations.
* This a& ency had researched the e f f e c t s of these chemical s o l u t i o n s
previously i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h the sunset review of the Cosmetology
Regulatory Activity i n the s t a t e of Lashington.
TAELE 3
CHEMICALS USED BY COSFETOLOGISTS
AND THEIR POTEKTIALS FOR HARM
Chemical Normal Use P o t e n t i a l Harm - Type and Severity
Ammonium thiogycolate Permanent waving - Skin - Some i r r i t a t i o n i n normal use,
more severe i r r i t a t i o n from improper
0
use.
Eyes - None, i f immediately flushed
with water. I f not flushed, possi-b
i l i t y of s c a r r i n g but not i n l i n e
of v i s i o n . a
Sodium hydroxide Hair s t r a i g h t e n i n g Skin - No harm t o skin normally.
Paraphenylene diamine Hair coloring
( a n i l i n e d e r i v a t i v e s )
Hydrogen peroxide Hair l i g h t e n i n g
- Eyes - I f not flushed, minor damage.
Damage t o v i s i o n u n l i k e l y under worst a
of circumstances.
Skin - No e f f e c t on normal skin but
may cause a l l e r g i c r e a c t i o n i n some
people. *
Eyes - I f n o t f l u s h e d , minor eye
damage but not a f f e c t i n g v i s i o n .
Skin - W i l l not i r r i t a t e skin.
Eyes - Only temporary i r r i t a t i o n
under the worst of circumstances.
* The Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act requires a " patch" t e s t t o be given before
each a p p l i c a t i o n of an a n i l i n e d e r i v a t i v e t i n t t o determine i f a n a l l e r g y e x i s t s .
The Board member i n charge of handling consumer complaints has a l s o
i n d i c a t e d t h a t s e r i o u s harm r e s u l t i n g from t h e misuse of chemicals is
unlikely. According to t h i s Board ember, a c t i o n is not taken on
complaints a l l e g i n g misuse of chemicals r e s u l t i n g i n h a i r breakage o r skin
burns because the h a i r can be e a s i l y repaired and most s k i n burns a r e not
s e r i o u s and heal quickly. The Board received 54 complaints during the
period January 1, 1981, t o October 18, 1982, a l l e g i n g s k i n burns o r h a i r
breakage from the use of chemical s o l u t i o n s by cosmetologists. No
complaints alleged eye damage.
Licensing based on the use of chemical s o l u t i o n s is unnecessary f o r two
other reasons. F i r s t , consumers can purchase on a r e t a i l l e v e l h a i r
waving, s t r a i g h t e n i n g , dyeing and l i g h t e n i n g products containing the same
chemicals a s i n those s o l u t i o n s used by cosmetologists. In f a c t ,
consumers can purchase the same products used by cosmetologists. Four of
e i g h t beauty supply s t o r e s contacted by our Office s a i d they s e l l products
marked " f o r p r o f e s s i o n a l use only" t o the general public. Second, the
Federal government c u r r e n t l y provides sotrie consumer p r o t e c t i o n through the
Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. According t o a F e d e r a l o f f i c i a l t h i s
a c t
" . . . p r o h i b i t s the presence, i n a cosmetic, of any
substance which is poisonous or d e l e t e r i o u s under the
conditions of u s e p r e s c r i b e d i n t h e l a b e l i n g o r under
the conditions of use which a r e customary o r usual,
without regard t o whether the product is intended f o r
p r o f e s s i o n a l u s e o r consumer use."
Further, the Code of Federal Regulations r e q u i r e s 1 ) " Each i n g r e d i e n t
used i n a cosmetic product and each f i n i s h e d cosmetic product s h a l l be
adequately s u b s t a n t i a t e d f o r s a f e t y p r i o r t o marketing" and 2) " The
l a b e l of a cosmetic product s h a l l b e a r a warning statement.. . t o prevent a
h e a l t h hazard t h a t nay be a s s o c i a t e d with the product." A r e p r e s e n t a t i v e
of the U. S. Food and Drug Administration confirmed t h a t these requirements
were a p p l i c a b l e t o both products sold on a r e t a i l l e v e l and those labeled
" f o r p r o f e s s i o n a l use only." W e examined 12 d i f f e r e n t p r o f e s s i o n a l use
products containing the chemicals mentioned e a r l i e r and found t h a t a l l
contained a warning statement.
Cosmetic Massage - F i n a l l y , the a c t of cosmetic massage does not possess
s u f f i c i e n t p o t e n t i a l f o r public harm t o j u s t i f y r e g u l a t i o n . This was
s u b s t a n t i a t e d by t h r e e p r o f e s s i o n a l s i n the f i e l d of massage who were
consulted by our a u d i t o r s . A l l s t a t e d t h a t there i s d e f i n i t e l y no damage
which could be caused by cosmetic massage. In f a c t , t h e danger of even
deep muscle massage is so minimal t h a t t h i s p r a c t i c e and profession is not
licensed by the S t a t e . a
Remedy f o r Damages - I n those cases where a consumer is i n j u r e d by a
person providing cosmetology s e r v i c e s , means other than l i c e n s i n g a r e
a v a i l a b l e t o a c t both a s a d e t e r r e n t and t o recover damages. Anyone
injured i n any way by another may seek t o recover damages through c i v i l
court proceedings. This method is inexpensive t o t h e i n j u r e d person and
w i l l c o s t no more than $ 20 i f damages l e s s than $ 2,500 a r e sought through
a j u s t i c e court system without a n a t t o r n e y ' s a i d . F u r t h e r , the Board of
Cosmetology c u r r e n t l y does not take a c t i o n on complaints a l l e g i n g harm t o
the public but instead informs complainants t h a t they should seek r e l i e f
through c i v i l court.
Consumers Possess Adequate Knowledge
t o Evaluate Cos~ etology Services
Cosmetology l i c e n s i n g cannot be j u s t i f i e d on t h e b a s i s of consumer
i n a b i l i t y t o understand cosmetology s e r v i c e s and make informed choices i n
the marketplace. Licensing can only be j u s t i f i e d when a condition of
" market f a i l u r e " e x i s t s . This condition i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by t h e following
elements: 1) the t a s k s o r s e r v i c e provided i s extremely d i f f i c u l t or
complex so a s not t o be e a s i l y comprehended by t h e consumer, 2) the
service i s of a nature where the consumer must r e l y on t h e provider t o
inform him of h i s needs, or 3) the consumer i s unable t o judge the
adequacy or competency of s e r v i c e provided. Cosmetology does not meet any
of these c r i t e r i a . The drive f o r s a t i s f i e d Customers and r e t u r n business
w i l l tend to r e g u l a t e t h e q u a l i t y and competence of s e r v i c e provided.
Consumers Understand Service - Consumers a r e a b l e t o understand and
comprehend t h e s e r v i c e s provided by a cosmetologist. The p r a c t i c e of
cosmetology a s defined i n law includes
" ( a ) ?! assaging, c l e a n s i n g , s t i m u l a t i n g , manipulating,
e x e r c i s i n g , beautifying or applying o i l s , creams,
a n t i s e p t i c s , c l a y s , l o t i o n s or o t h e r p r e p a r a t i o n s ,
e i t h e r k: hand or by mechanical or e l e c t r i c a l
appliances.
( b ) St>- ling, arranging, d r e s s i n g , c u r l i n g , waving,
permanent waving, c l e a n s i n g , s i n g e i n g , bleaching,
dyeing, t i n t i n g , coloring or s i m i l a r l y t r e a t i n g the
h a i r of t ~ heea d o f a person.
( c ) Cutting, clipping or trimming the h a i r o f persons
by the cse of s c i s s o r s , shears, c l i p p e r s or other
appliances.
( d ) Arcking eyebrows, or t i n t i n g eyebrows and
eyelashes.
( e ) Re~ oving superfluous h a i r from the f a c e , neck,
shoulders or ancs of a person by the use of
d e p i l a t o r i e s .
( f ) Cleznsing, d r e s s i n g , wrapping or p o l i s h i n g t h e
n a i l s . . . ."
While some s k i l l i a y be d e s i r e d t o provide a e s t h e t i c value, consumers
n e v e r t h e l e s s understand and comprehend t h e s e k i n d s of s e r v i c e s . I n f a c t ,
many consumers provide these s e r v i c e s to themselves o r members of t h e i r
f a m i l i e s without any formal t r a i n i n g . Cosmetology s e r v i c e s may be
contrasted t o service provided by medical doctors. Many s e r v i c e s provided
by an M. D. a r e of such a nature t h a t most consumers cannot understand or
comprehend them, euch l e s s attempt t o provide the s e r v i c e s t o themselves
o r t h e i r f a m i l i e s . Therefore, l i c e n s i n g of cosmetology is not j u s t i f i e d
on the b a s i s of cocsumer i n a b i l i t y t o comprehend and understand s e r v i c e s .
The market a l s o functions adequately t o allow consumers t o choose
q u a l i f i e d and conpetent p r a c t i t i o n e r s . Since most persons seeking
cosmetology s e r v i c e s do so numerous times, they can r e l y on t h e i r own
experiences t o guide them i n t h e i r s e l e c t i o n s . Consumers may a l s o seek
the advice of neighbors, f r i e n d s o r family t o i d e n t i f y a competent person
who provides t h e s e r v i c e they d e s i r e . Short of any other method,
consumers may q u e s t i o n p r o s p e c t i v e s e r v i c e providers t o determine t h e i r
t r a i n i n g and experience r e g a r d i n g t h e s e r v i c e consumers wish t o o b t a i n .
Therefore, c o n s ~ e r s a r e able to s e l e c t q u a l i f i e d and competent
p r a c t i t i o n e r s withcut S t a t e i n t e r v e n t i o n i n the form of l i c e n s i n g .
Consumers Gefine Their Own Service Needs - Consumers do not need t o r e l y
on cosmetologists t o inform them of t h e i r s e r v i c e needs and how best t o
meet those needs. I n s t e a d , consumers can inform cosmetologists of the
s e r v i c e s they want t o receive. While cosmetologists may suggest or
recommend a d d i t i o n a l or a l t e r n a t e s e r v i c e s , consumers s t i l l a r e capable of
determining t h e i r own wants. Contrast t h i s s i t u a t i o n with a v i s i t t o the
medical d o c t o r . Generally, a consumer must r e l y on t h e doctor t o inform
him of the s e r v i c e s he r e q u i r e s . This is not the c a s e , however, with
cosmetology s e r v i c e s . Therefore, cosmetology l i c e n s i n g cannot be
j u s t i f i e d on the b a s i s of consumer dependence on the judgment and a b i l i t y
of the p r a c t i t i o n e r .
Consumers Can Judge t h e Q u a l i t y of Services Provided - Consumers possess
t h e a b i l i t y t o adequately a s s e s s t h e q u a l i t y and competency of s e r v i c e s
which have been provided by cosmetologists. Both during and a f t e r the
s e r v i c e is provided, consumers can judge the q u a l i t y and competency of the
cosmetologist by 1 ) the manner i n which s e r v i c e s were provided,
2) whether any discomfort or harm was i n c u r r e d , and 3) the progress and
f i n a l r e s u l t of t h e s e r v i c e . In f a c t , beauty s e r v i c e s a r e of the nature
where only t h e consumer can judge whether or not they a r e t o h i s / h e r
l i k i n g . In making t h i s d e c i s i o n , he/ she may be aided by t h e comments of
family, f r i e n d s and neighbors. Contrast cosmetology s e r v i c e s t o medical
s e r v i c e s . I n receiving medical s e r v i c e s , consumers o f t e n cannot judge
whether the work performed was competent; o n l y a n o t h e r d o c t o r c a n make
t h a t decision. This is not t h e c a s e , however, with cosmetology s e r v i c e s .
Return Business Regulates Market - The concept of r e t u r n business is
s u f f i c i e n t t o r e g u l a t e the q u a l i t y of cosmetology s e r v i c e s provided i n the
marketplace. Economists studying the f i e l d of r e g u l a t i o n b e l i e v e t h a t any
long- run a b i l i t y of consumers t o reward high- quality p r a c t i t i o n e r s and
penalize low- quality p r a c t i t i o n e r s w i l l r e s u l t i n market a b i l i t y t o
monitor and guarantee product q u a l i t y . One economist s t a t e s
" i* farkets can and w i l l impose p e n a l t i e s f o r supply of
low- quality p r o f e s s i o n a l s e r v i c e s . . . . S e l f - i n t e r e s t e d
p r o f e s s i o n a l s a r e motivated t o c o n t r o l t h e i r own and
t h e i r colleagues' l e v e l s of q u a l i t y because of f u t u r e
quasi- rent returns [ f e e s f o r s e r v i c e s ] from c u r r e n t l y
s a t i s f i e d customers."
20
Another economist contends t h a t because s e r v i c e s of the same q u a l i t y a r e
supplied c o n t i n u a l l y over time by a p a r t i c u l a r person, customers have
information from past experiences, f r i e n d s and r e l a t i v e s i n which t o
e v a l u a t e s e r v i c e s . The repeat s a l e s concept i s even a p p l i c a b l e t o
one- t ime purchasers who through t h e i r s a t i s f a c t i o n o f f e r word- of- mouth
a d v e r t i s i n g . Therefore the cosmetology profession would tend t o be
s e l f - r e g u l a t i n g through the experiences of consumers, and incompetent o r
unqualified p r a c t i t i o n e r s would soon be eliminated from the marketplace.
Benefits of Regulation
Do Not Outweigh Costs
Since no s e r i o u s r i s k t o t h e p u b l i c ' s h e a l t h and s a f e t y e x i s t s , and
consumers possess the a b i l i t y t o properly e v a l u a t e the q u a l i t y and
competency of cosmetology s e r v i c e s o f f e r e d , t h e b e n e f i t s of r e g u l a t i o n do
not outweigh t h e c o s t s t o t h e public. These c o s t s a r e incurred through
r e s t r i c t i o n s on t h e p r a c t i c e of cosmetology s e r v i c e s and through t h e
imposition of high e n t r y c o s t s on those wishing t o become cosmetologists.
P r a c t i c e R e s t r i c t i o n s - The c u r r e n t r e g u l a t o r y scheme r e s t r i c t s t h e
p r a c t i c e of cosmetology f o r compensation t o o n l y t h o s e p r a c t i t i o n e r s who
have met a l l of t h e requirements f o r cosmetology l i c e n s i n g . S i m i l a r l y ,
cosmetology s e r v i c e s can o n l y b e provided i n beauty shops licensed by t h e
Board. These requirements not only r e s t r i c t the a v a i l a b i l i t y of
cosmetology s e r v i c e s but a l s o p r o h i b i t a cosmetologist from operating from
h i s / h e r home t o minimize business c o s t s . It a l s o s u b s t a n t i a l l y p r o h i b i t s -
a cosmetologist from performing cosmetology s e r v i c e s i n a patron' s home.
According t o t h e Board, l i c e n s e d cosmetologists can only provide s e r v i c e
i n a patron's home when t h e patron makes t h e appointment through a
l i c e n s e d s a l o n and t h e s t y l i s t l e a v e s from the salon and r e t u r n s t o t h e
salon when s e r v i c e s a r e completed.
Entry R e s t r i c t i o n s and Costs - The c u r r e n t r e g u l a t o r y scheme f u r t h e r
r e s t r i c t s o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r i n d i v i d u a l s t o p r a c t i c e cosmetology by
imposing high e n t r y c o s t s . A person who d e s i r e s t o become a cosmetologist
must meet the Board's minimum educational and other requirements and
graduate from a cosmetology school licensed by t h e Board. Average t u i t i o n
cost is about $ 2,400. The cosmetology student must then complete 1,800
hours of training ( approximately 10 to 11 months work) most of which
consists of providing cosmetology services to school clients without
receiving compensation. When schooling is completed, all- day written and
practical Board examinations must be taken which are only offered in
Phoenix. After passing the Board examinations, a person may then become
licensed; and only then can the cosmetologist legally practice for a
compensation. If the cosmetologist wishes to set up a shop, other Board
requirements must be met. Since cosmetology regulation is not needed to
protect public health and safety, it can be argued that these entry
restrictions only serve the economic interests of licensed cosmetologists
by protecting them from unwanted competition. ( For a related discussion
regarding the level of regulation, see Finding IV.)
CONCLUSION
State licensing of cosmetologists and beauty shops can be eliminated. The
practice of cosmetology does not pose a sufficient risk to public health
and safety to justify regulation, and consumers possess adequate knowledge
to evaluate cosmetology services.
RECOMMENDATION
The Legislature should consider allowing the Arizona State Board of
Cosmetology to terminate on July 1, 1984."
* If the Board is allowed to terminate, the licensing of cosmetology
schools would automatically transfer to the State Board of Private
Technical and Business Schools which regulates all other vocational
schools except cosmetology and barbering ( see page 59).
FINDIKG I1
CHANGES I N BOARD STRUCTURE COULD ENHANCE STATE REGULATION OF COSMETOLOGY.
If the S t a t e Board of Cosmetology i s not allowed t o terminate on J u l y 1,
1984, s e v e r a l changes a r e needed i n Board s t r u c t u r e and composition.
F i r s t , combining the Cosnetology and Barber Boards would improve
r e g u l a t i o n of these occupations and r e s u l t i n s u b s t a n t i a l c o s t savings.
Board operations could be f u r t h e r improved by removing Board members from
day- to- day a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s . F i n a l l y , public members should be
added t o the Board t o i n c r e a s e consumer p r o t e c t i o n and b e t t e r promote
public i n t e r e s t .
Combining the Cosmetology
and Barber Boards
The Cosmetology and Barber Boards can be consolidated t o improve
r e g u l a t i o n and increase a d m i n i s t r a t i v e e f f i c i e n c y . Several f a c t o r s favor
such a combination. F i r s t , both Boards perform the same a d m i n i s t r a t i v e
functions. Second, the p r a c t i c e s of barbering and cosmetology a r e very
s i m i l a r making it f e a s i b l e t o r e g u l a t e both occupations under a s i n g l e
board. Third, problems and i n e q u i t i e s c r e a t e d by s e p a r a t e r e g u l a t i o n of
s i m i l a r occupations could be eliminated by combining t h e r e g u l a t o r y
functions under one board. F i n a l l y , Arizona can r e a l i z e a s u b s t a n t i a l
cost savings by combining the Cosmetology and Barber Boards.
S i m i l a r i t y of Functions - The a d m i n i s t r a t i v e functions of the Cosmetology
and Barber Boards a r e almost i d e n t i c a l . As shown i n Table 4, both Boards
i s s u e and renew l i c e n s e s t o schools, shops and i n d i v i d u a l p r a c t i t i o n e r s ;
inspect schools and shops; handle complaints and perform s i m i l a r o f f i c e
a d m i n i s t r a t i v e functions. The only duty both Eoards do not have i n common
is t h a t the Board of Barber Examiners may a c t a s a mediator f o r
controversies. This duty has not been used by the Board and t h e Board has
suggested t h a t it be repealed.
TABLE 4
- Duty
STATUTORY DUTIES OF
THE COSFETOLCGY AND BAREER BOARDS
Conduct exams
Issue l i c e n s e s
Conduct hearings
Revoke/ suspend l i c e n s e s
Inspect shops and schools
Collect and deposit f e e s
Enforce r u l e s and r e g u l a t i o n s
Maintain records
Act a s mediator f o r c o n t r o v e r s i e s
Barber
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
S i m i l a r i t y of Cosmetology and Barber P r a c t i c e s - Cosmetologists and
barbers a l s o provide many of the same s e r v i c e s t o consumers making it
f e a s i b l e t o r e g u l a t e both occupations under one board. The s t a t u t o r y
d e f i n i t i o n s of barbering and cosmetology a r e very similar. Moreover,
c u r r e n t i n d u s t r y trends i n d i c a t e h i s t o r i c a l d i f f e r e n c e s between s e r v i c e s
provided by each occupation a r e diminishing.
Table 5 i l l u s t r a t e s the s i m i l a r s t a t u t o r y scopes of both p r a c t i c e s . With
the exception of manicuring and make- up a r t i s t r y ( arching eyebrows or
t i n t i n g eyelashes and eyebrows), barbers and cosmetologists perform t h e
same t a s k s . Barbers a r e t e c h n i c a l l y excluded from providing permanent
waving and r e l a t e d s e r v i c e s ; however, they a r e nonetheless providing these
s e r v i c e s t o customers.*
* A L e g i s l a t i v e Council memorandum dated September 21, 1982, s t a t e d t h a t
t h e s e s e r v i c e s a r e not c u r r e n t l y permitted under the d e f i n i t i o n o f t h e
p r a c t i c e of barbering.
TABLE 5
STATUTORY SCOPE OF PRACTICE FOR
COSFIETOLOGY AND EARBERING
Type of P r a c t i c e
Shave o r t r i m beard
Cut, c l i p o r t r i m hair
Give f a c i a l or scalp massage
Apply:
O i l s , creams, l o t i o n s or other p r e p a r a t i o n s
Cosmetic preparations, a n t i s e p t i c s ,
powders, o i l s , clays or l o t i o n s
Singeing, shampooing, dyeing the h a i r
or applying h a i r t o n i c s
S t y l i n g , arranging, d r e s s i n g , c u r l i n g ,
waving , permanent waving
Arching eyebrows o r t i n t i n g eyelashes and
eyebrows
Manicuring
Barber
Yes
Yes
Yes
Y e s
Yes
Yes
Cosmetology
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
* Barbers a r e nonetheless t r a i n e d i n these a r e a s and some a r e providing
these s e r v i c e s t o c l i e n t s .
H i s t o r i c a l d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e p r a c t i c e s of cosmetology and barbering
a r e diminishing. The d i f f e r e n c e s between these occupations o r i g i n a t e d
because barbers worked on men while cosmetologists worked on women.
However, today industry t r e n d s a r e c l o s i n g t h e gaps between t h e two
p r a c t i c e s . Cosmetologists and barbers a r e providing t h e i r s e r v i c e s t o '
both men and women. A review of t h e Metro- Phoenix phone book yellow pages
i n d i c a t e s t h a t at l e a s t 50 barbershops and 140 beauty shops a r e
a d v e r t i s i n g as serving both men and women. Some of these " unisex" shops
may be licensed by both Boards because they employ both cosmetologists and
barbers .
Recognizing t h i s trend and the convergence of the two occupations, seven
s t a t e s have r e c e n t l y combined barber and cosmetology r e g u l a t i o n under a
s i n g l e board. Connecticut, f o r example, which performed a job a n a l y s i s of
both cosmetology and barbering p r a c t i c e s , found t h a t barbers graduating
within the l a s t ten years were performing the same t a s k s as
cosmetologists. The National Hairdressers and Cosmetology Association
( NHCA), which has developed a model b i l l which i n c l u d e s p r o v i s i o n s f o r the
r e g u l a t i o n of cosmetology and barbering under a s i n g l e board, has noted
the convergence of both occupations:
". . . we must face t h e r e a l i t y t h a t one day we
[ barbers and cosmetologists] w i l l a l l be cosmetologists
performing cosmetological services."
The increasing s i m i l a r i t i e s of cosmetology and barbering is f u r t h e r
evidenced by the f a c t t h a t barber schools are teaching and barbers a r e
providing s e r v i c e s t o the public which had been h i s t o r i c a l l y reserved f o r
cosmetology. These s e r v i c e s include r o l l e r s e t t i n g , permanent waving,
h a i r s t r a i g h t e n i n g and h a i r s t y l i n g which, as mentioned e a r l i e r , a r e
t e c h n i c a l l y o u t s i d e the scope of barber p r a c t i c e .
Differences i n Regulation Cause Inequity - Inequity created by s e p a r a t e
r e g u l a t i o n of s i m i l a r occupations can be eliminated by combining
a d m i n i s t r a t i v e functions of the Barber and Cosmetology Boards.
Differences i n laws and r e g u l a t i o n s have created unnecessary and
o v e r r e s t r i c t i v e b a r r i e r s between the cosmetology and barbering p r a c t i c e s
which a r e burdensome t o shops and p r a c t i t i o n e r s , s t u d e n t s and school
owners .
Dual l i c e n s u r e is burdensome on shops and p r a c t i t i o n e r s because it
r e s t r i c t s employment. Barbers can only work i n shops licensed by the
Board of Barber Examiners and cosmetologists can only work i n shops
licensed by the Board of Cosmetology. For a shop wishing t o employ both
cosmetologists and barbers t h i s means 1 ) purchasing two s e p a r a t e
establishment l i c e n s e s 2) d u p l i c a t i n g s a n i t a t i o n i n s p e c t i o n s by both
Boards, and 3) following two d i f f e r e n t s e t s of r e g u l a t i o n s on shop,
equipment and p r a c t i c e . As a f u r t h e r example of these problems barbers
require an apprenticeship which means a barber graduate cannot work i n a
cosmetology shop unless t h e r e is a journeyman barber on the s t a f f . I n one
case noted during our a u d i t , a cosmetology shop wanted t o employ a recent
graduate of a barber school. However, i n order t o have done s o , t h e shop
would have had t o o b t a i n both a barbershop l i c e n s e and another barber to
s a t i s f y Board of Barber Examiners requirements. The barber school
graduate was not hired by the cosmetology shop even though it was f e l t he
was q u a l i f i e d .
The existence of d u a l s t a n d a r d s and requirements f o r cosmetology and
barbering may become an i n c r e a s i n g problem i n t h e f u t u r e because of the
trend t o employ both barbers and cosmetologists i n the same shop. The
Barber Board i n d i c a t e d t h a t approximately 13 percent of a l l barbershops
already have dual l i c e n s e s , and, according t o both Cosmetology and Barber
Board members, the trend t o employ both cosmetologists and barbers i n one
shop is growing.
The d i f f e r e n c e s i n educational requirements between cosmetology and
barbering c r e a t e burdensome r e s t r i c t i o n s on s t u d e n t s . While barbers a r e
only required t o receive 1,250 hours of schooling before l i c e n s u r e ,
cosmetologists must receive a t l e a s t 1,800 hours. P a r t of t h e increased
hours may be j u s t i f i e d because cosmetologists receive t r a i n i n g i n make- up
a p p l i c a t i o n and manicuring. However, f o r the cosmetologist who wishes t o
provide only h a i r care s e r v i c e s , t h i s requirement is unnecessarily
r e s t r i c t i v e . Further, barber school hours a r e not accepted f o r
cosmetology l i c e n s i n g and vice- versa except t h a t a licensed cosmetologist
e n r o l l i n g i n barber school is given 400 hours c r e d i t . Oregon has solved
t h i s educational r e c i p r o c i t y problem by c o n s o l i d a t i n g t h e h a i r d r e s s e r and
barber l i c e n s e s i n t o a s i n g l e l i c e n s e .
D
Differences i n requirements f o r cosmetology and barber schools a l s o c r e a t e
&-
unwarranted burdens on school owners. A b a r b e r s c h o o l must have a s i n k
for every student while a cosmetology s c h o o l o n l y needs s i x s i n k s p e r
D school. The i n s t r u c t o r / s t u d e n t r a t i o f o r barbering is 1 t o 12 while f o r
cosmetology i t is 1 t o 20. These and other unique requirements of each
law a r e o v e r r e s t r i c t i v e and cause f r u s t r a t i o n and economic hardships t o
shop and school owners. In a d d i t i o n , these economic burdens a r e l i k e l y t o
be passed on t o students and consumers.
Cost Savings - Combining the Cosmetology and Barber Boards would provide
cost savings and increased e f f i c i e n c y . As previously noted, the Barber
and Cosmetology Boards perform the same functions. However, we a r e unable
t o estimate cost savings through merging the Boards because of f a c t o r s
which a f f e c t the amount of savings.
Cost savings by combining Board functions w i l l r e s u l t f o r s e v e r a l •
reasons. F i r s t , an economy of s c a l e should provide savings. This can be
shown by comparing annual a d m i n i s t r a t i v e c o s t s per l i c e n s e e f o r both
Boards. As shown i n Table 6 , the Board of Barber Examiners expended $ 24
i n a d m i n i s t r a t i v e c o s t s f o r each l i c e n s e e while t h e Board of Cosmetology •
expended only $ 12, yet both Boards provide a s i m i l a r l e v e l of regulation.
The d i f f e r e n c e i n annual operating cost per l i c e n s e e is probably due t o an
economy of s c a l e because t h e r e a r e many more licensed cosmetologists than
barbers. I f the Boards were merged and the annual operating cost per
licensee could be maintained a t the Board of Cosmetology cost of $ 12, then
at l e a s t $ 40,000 could be saved by such an economy of scale.
TABLE 6
ANNUAL OPERATING COST PER LICENSEE
Total Board expenditures
Total number of l i c e n s e s
Cost per l i c e n s e
Barber
1981- 82
Cosmetology
1981- 82
Second, combining Boards w i l l provide savings by reducing duplication such
a s the inspection of shops which employ both cosmetologists and barbers.
Travel costs could be saved by one inspector inspecting both cosmetology
shops and barbershops i n outlying areas r a t h e r than each Board sending an
inspector. Finally, other expenditures such a s o f f i c e rent and telephone
service may be reduced by merging the Boards.
We did not attempt t o estimate cost savings through merging the two Boards
because s e v e r a l o t h e r f a c t o r s contribute t o the amount of savings which
can be realized. F i r s t , we recommend both Boards eliminate t h e p r a c t i c a l
examination f o r a l l candidates of licensure. This is estimated to save a t
l e a s t $ 8,800 annually f o r the Board of Cosmetology alone ( see page 45).
Second, we recommend a biennial renewal f o r licenses of both Boards f o r a
combined savings of $ 31,300. Third, we recommend t h a t Board members cease
t o function as full- time employees and that a l l administrative functions
be handled instead by Board employees ( see page 30). Finally, the Board
of Barber Examiners inspects shops approximately three times annually
while the Board of Cosmetology inspects less frequently. A l l of these
f a c t o r s individually and c o l l e c t i v e l y a f f e c t the amount of cost savings t o
be realized by merging the Boards of cosmetology and barbering.
However, experience with combined boards i n other s t a t e s indicates t h a t
s u b s t a n t i a l cost- savings can be achieved. Seven s t a t e s have recently
combined the two boards and a t l e a s t four report e f f i c i e n c i e s by job
sharing, reducing rent payments and number of personnel. Oregon reported
that combining the Cosmetology and Barber Boards i n 1977 resulted i n the
following advantages.
- Entry l e v e l f e e s for barbers and h a i r d r e s s e r s were reduced by a s
much a s 40 percent f o r the f i r s t time i n Oregon h i s t o r y .
- The number of full- time personnel was reduced from 14 t o 7.
- Administrative costs were reduced by streamlining the examination
operation and requiring biennial licensure.
Oregon f u r t h e r reported t h a t p r o d u c t i v i t y increased 300 percent with a
combined board a t a time when the average annual growth r a t e i n l i c e n s e s
was 10 percent. This r e s u l t e d i n an estimated cost savings of $ 93,500 i n
the 1981- 83 biennium and p r o j e c t i o n s e s t i m a t e a $ 140,000 cost savings i n
the next biennium. Colorado, which a l s o has a r e c e n t l y combined board,
s i m i l a r l y estimates a f i r s t - y e a r c o s t savings of between $ 39,000 t o
$ 45,000 by reducing personnel and rent payments .
Board Members Serving
as Full- time Staff
Regardless of whether the Cosmetology and Barber Boards a r e combined,
Board operations could be improved by removing Board members from
day- to- day a d m i n i s t r a t i v e functions. Having Board members serve a s
a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s t a f f creates p o t e n t i a l l e g a l problems w i t h s e p a r a t i o n of
functions and v i o l a t i o n of the Open Meeting Law. P r o f e s s i o n a l
a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s t a f f can perform the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e functions now
performed by Board members, thus eliminating these problems.
The Boards of cosmetology and barbering a r e the only Arizona occupational
l i c e n s i n g boards whose members a c t a s full- time a d m i n i s t r a t i v e employees.
The t h r e e Board of Cosmetology members a r e required t o serve a s s t a f f
pursuant t o A. R. S. s503. C. which s t a t e s i n p a r t ,
"... The [ Board] members s h a l l devote t h e i r f u l l time i n
performing t h e i r d u t i e s as members of the board."
Other occupational l i c e n s i n g boards a r e composed of only part- time board
members who a c t as decision makers and l e a v e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e functions t o
p r o f e s s i o n a l s t a f f .
Separation of Functions Needed - The functions of complaint handling which
include i n v e s t i g a t i o n , prosecution and judgment should be separated.
Currently one Board member receives complaints, i n v e s t i g a t e s them and
decides f i n a l a c t i o n t o be taken. This lack of s e p a r a t i o n of functions
v i o l a t e s fundamental notions of f a i r n e s s and may be u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l a s
suggested i n case law. The U. S. Supreme Court s t a t e d i n Withrow v.
Larkin, 421 U. S. 35, 46- 55,
3 0
"... under a r e a l i s t i c a p p r a i s a l of psychological
tendencies and human weakness, conferring i n v e s t i g a t i v e
and a d j u d i c a t i v e powers on the same i n d i v i d u a l s poses
such a r i s k of b i a s or prejudgment t h a t t h e p r a c t i c e
must be forbidden i f the guarantee of due process is t o
be adequately implemented."
This idea is supported by the National Association of Attorneys General
which s t a t e d t h a t
"... While the c o u r t s have not c l e a r l y defined the
degree t o which a board may combine the d u t i e s of a
prosecutor and a judge, such combination should be
avoided; the board's primary r o l e is t h a t of
decision- maker."
P o t e n t i a l Open Meeting Law Violations - The p o t e n t i a l f o r v i o l a t i o n of the
Open Meeting Law is increased i f the Board members work together d a i l y on
Board business. A l l l e g a l a c t i o n s of the Board must be conducted i n an
open meeting. Legal a c t i o n is defined as a c o l l e c t i v e decision,
comitment or promise made by a p u b l i c body pursuant t o its s p e c i f i e d
scope of a u t h o r i t y . Legal a c t i o n s taken by the Board not i n an open
meeting could be l a t e r declared n u l l and void. In one instance while an
a u d i t o r was present, two Board members, r e p r e s e n t i n g a quorum of the
Board, discussed whether t o grant or deny a l i c e n s e t o a l i c e n s e
a p p l i c a n t . A decision was made t o require another examination. Actions
taken by two or more Board members c o n s t i t u t e t e c h n i c a l v i o l a t i o n s of the
Open Meeting Law. Therefore, t o avoid p o t e n t i a l l e g a l problems, Board
members should not serve a s full- time s t a f f .
Administrative Functions Can Be Performed by Other Than Board Members -
Professional a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s t a f f can perform the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e functions
now performed by the full- time Board members. The Board of Cosmetology
i n d i c a t e s t h a t Board members need t o be full- time s t a f f i n order t o
proctor the p r a c t i c a l exam f o r l i c e n s e e s , answer p o l i c y q u e s t i o n s of the
public, perform i n s p e c t i o n s of cosmetology shops and schools and handle
complaints. However, the p r a c t i c a l portion of the examination can be
eliminated ( see page 45) thus allowing other s t a f f t o administer the
w r i t t e n portion of the examination. Staff could a l s o be t r a i n e d t o answer
most questions regarding Board r u l e s , r e g u l a t i o n s and policy. I n
a d d i t i o n , most cosmetology shop i n s p e c t i o n s a r e already performed by s t a f f
i n s p e c t o r s who receive lower s a l a r i e s than Board members.
Therefore, the problems a s s o c i a t e d with Board members serving a s full- time
s t a f f outweigh any b e n e f i t s . As s t a t e d by the N a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n of
Attorneys General, a board's primary r o l e is t h a t of d e c i s i o n maker. This
is f u r t h e r supported by the f a c t t h a t t h e Cosmetology and Barber Boards
a r e the only two l i c e n s i n g boards i n Arizona which have board members
a c t i n g as full- time a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s t a f f .
.6
Need f o r Public Members on
the Cosmetology Board
Public members should be added t o t h e Board of Cosmetology t o i n c r e a s e
consumer p r o t e c t i o n and promote public i n t e r e s t . A survey of 21 Arizona
occupational l i c e n s i n g boards shows t h a t t h e Cosmetology and Nursing Care
Administrators Boards a r e the o n l y o c c u p a t i o n a l boards i n Arizona t h a t do
not have public members.
The Board of Cosmetology is c u r r e n t l y composed of t h r e e members. A. R. S.
$ 32- 502 r e q u i r e s each member of the Board t o be a licensed cosmetologist
thus denying r e p r e s e n t a t i o n by l a y members.
The a d d i t i o n of public members t o l i c e n s i n g boards i s d e s i r a b l e f o r
s e v e r a l reasons. These reasons a r e explained i n t h e Council of S t a t e
Governments p u b l i c a t i o n Occupational Licensing: Questions a L e g i s l a t o r
Should Ask. Public l a y members can provide p u b l i c i n p u t and promote the
general p u b l i c ' s i n t e r e s t :
" There has been a growing movement t o place public
members on regulatory boards t o ensure t h a t t h e r e w i l l
be input from groups other t h a n t h o s e r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e
regulated occupation. Those who favor the idea believe
t h a t t h e of public members w i l l help t o break
up the in- group psychology t h a t o f t e n p r e v a i l s when a l l
board members a r e p r a c t i t i o n e r s . I d e a l l y , public
members w i l l provide a point of view o t h e r w i s e a b s e n t
on a board composed s o l e l y of l i c e n s e holders."
( emphasis added)
Public board members can a l s o balance t h e p o t e n t i a l f o r board members of
the occupation t o be sympathetic with or overly p r o t e c t i v e of t h e i r
peers. This is e s p e c i a l l y important when d e a l i n g w i t h consumer
complaints. As noted elsewhere i n t h i s r e p o r t , t h e Board has f a i l e d t o
i n v e s t i g a t e and resolve complaints a l l e g i n g malpractice or incompetence
( see page 35). The Council of S t a t e Governments ( CSG) has a l s o addressed
t h i s problem:
" Many r e g u l a t o r y agencies a r e perceived a s overly
p r o t e c t i v e of those whom they r e g u l a t e . This has l e d
consumers t o question whether ~ r o f e s s i o n a l l v dominated
boards a r e w i l l i n g t o d e a l f o r c e f u l l y with t h e i r peers
when complaints a r e received from the p u b l i c .
Consumers a l s o express doubts t h a t they w i l l receive a
f a i r h e a r i n g b e f o r e boards composed s o l e l y of licensed
p r a c t i t i o n e r s . " ( emphasis added)
The CSG a r t i c l e recommends t h a t a minimum of two public members serve on
l i c e n s i n g boards.
CONCLUSION
Regulation of cosmetology can be improved by changing the s t r u c t u r e and
composition of the Board of Cosmetology. The cosmetology and barber
boards can be combined t o improve a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and e f f e c t i v e n e s s of
r e g u l a t i o n f o r these occupations a t a s u b s t a n t i a l c o s t savings. Board
members should not serve a s f u l l - t i m e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s t a f f . This w i l l
eliminate p o t e n t i a l l e g a l problems and v i o l a t i o n of the Open Fleeting Law. -
Public members should be added t o the Board t o i n c r e a s e consumer
p r o t e c t i o n and promote public i n t e r e s t .
I f the Board of Cosmetology i s not allowed t o terminate on J u l y 1, 1984,
the l e g i s l a t u r e should consider making the following s t a t u t o r y changes.
1. Combine a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and r e g u l a t i o n of cosmetology and barbering
under a s i n g l e r e g u l a t o r y board.
2. Repeal statutory requirements of Board members serving as full- time
staff and provide for all administrative functions to be performed by
professional staff.
3. Add public members to the Board.
FINDING I11
THE COSMETOLOGY BOARD CAN IMPROVE ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OPERATIONS.
I f t h e Board of Cosmetology is not allowed t o terminate on J u l y 1, 1984,
the Board should s u b s t a n t i a l l y improve its a d m i n i s t r a t i v e operations.
F i r s t , the Board should adequately i n v e s t i g a t e and document consumer
complaints placing p r i o r i t y on complaints a l l e g i n g harm t o t h e public.
Second, renewals should be processed on a b i e n n i a l b a s i s t o save the Board
$ 26,000 i n operating expenses. Third, shop i n s p e c t i o n enforcement e f f o r t s
should be improved. F i n a l l y , documentation and r e p o r t i n g of Board
a c t i v i t i e s needs improvement.
The Board of Cosmetology
Does Not Take Adequate
Action on Consumer Complaints
The Cosmetology Board needs t o improve its handling of consumer
complaints. The Board does n o t t a k e adequate a c t i o n on consumer
complaints a l l e g i n g malpractice o r incompetence. Action is inadequate
because the Board has not viewed complaints as s e r i o u s public s a f e t y
matters and has m i s i n t e r p r e t e d its complaint- handling a u t h o r i t y . I n
a d d i t i o n , complaints have not been brought before the f u l l Board f o r
r e s o l u t i o n .
One of the Board's r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s is t o respond t o complaints from t h e
public. The Board received 115 w r i t t e n and 318 telephone complaints
between January 1981 and October 1982. The Board sends w r i t t e n complaint
forms t o telephone complainants and pursues these complaints when the
w r i t t e n complaint form is returned. The most . serious complaints received
by the Board t y p i c a l l y concern t h e misuse of chemicals. Harm a l l e g e d i n
these cases may include h a i r breakage and s k i n o r s c a l p burns.
Harm Complaints - The Board has not taken adequate a c t i o n on complaints
a l l e g i n g consumer harm. As shown by Table 7, the Board took a c t i o n on
only two of the 56 p u b l i c s a f e t y - r e l a t e d complaints received from January
1981 through October 1982. In 30 cases, the Board took no a c t i o n because
the complaint was taken by telephone but not received i n w r i t i n g . In
seven other cases, however, the Board took no a c t i o n even when a w r i t t e n
complaint was f i l e d . In 16 cases, the Board n o t i f i e d the complainant t h a t a
t h e complaint was a c i v i l matter which must f i r s t be handled i n a c i v i l
c o u r t , but the Board took no f u r t h e r a c t i o n . In t h e two cases where an
informal hearing was held, the complainant was not i n v i t e d ; and based on
the defendant's responses t o t h e a l l e g a t i o n s , the Board decided the
complaint was i n v a l i d . This same p a t t e r n of Board i n a c t i o n was found t o
be t r u e for complaints i n general.
TABLE 7
BOARD ACTIONS ON PUBLIC SAFETY- RELATED COMPLAINTS
JANUARY 1981 THROUGH OCTOBER 1982
Action
Number i n Percent of
Category Total
No a c t i o n : Phone complaint f o r which no
w r i t t e n form w a s returned 30
No a c t i o n : Written form returned
No a c t i o n : Consumer n o t i f i e d complaint
is a c i v i l matter 16
Informal hearing held 2 3.6
Complaint not within Board's j u r i s d i c t i o n
Complaints Not Serious - The Board does n o t view complaint matters a s
s e r i o u s t h r e a t s t o public h e a l t h and s a f e t y . According t o the Board
member i n charge of complaints, the harm alleged i n consumer complaints is
usually of such a nature t h a t permanent damage t o t h e complainant is
unlikely and the damage can usually be repaired by a d d i t i o n a l cosmetology
s e r v i c e s . This statement supports our conclusion t h a t the p r a c t i c e of
cosmetology does not pose a s i g n i f i c a n t t h r e a t of harm t o the public
s u f f i c i e n t t o warrant l i c e n s i n g ( s e e page 14).
P l i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Authority - The Board has a l s o m i s i n t e r p r e t e d its
a u t h o r i t y with regard t o complaint handling. F i r s t , the Board f e e l s
consumer harm complaints must be prosecuted i n c i v i l court p r i o r t o Board
a c t i o n . Second, the Board f e e l s t h a t telephone complaints should be
received i n writing before i n v e s t i g a t i o n s a r e made.
The Board f e e l s complaints of consumer harm must be prosecuted i n a c i v i l
court before the Board can take a c t i o n t o suspend or revoke a l i c e n s e .
According t o the Board's Attorney General r e p r e s e n t a t i v e , however, the
Board does have t h e d i s c r e t i o n a r y a u t h o r i t y t o t a k e a c t i o n . The Board may
i n v e s t i g a t e t h e complaint independently of t h e c i v i l case and base its
decision t o suspend or revoke a l i c e n s e on its own evidence.
In a d d i t i o n , the Board has m i s i n t e r p r e t e d its a b i l i t y t o handle telephone
complaints. The Board i n v e s t i g a t e s only complaints received i n w r i t i n g .
Some complaints a r e received over t h e telephone; however, a w r i t t e n -
complaint form is not subsequently returned t o the Board. According t o
the Board's Attorney General r e p r e s e n t a t i v e , a l l complaints, whether
w r i t t e n or o r a l , a l l e g i n g malpractice or incompetence should be
i n v e s t i g a t e d and should r e c e i v e t h e h i g h e s t p r i o r i t y .
Board Resolution - Complaints should be brought before the f u l l Board f o r
r e s o l u t i o n . The Board h a s a s s i g n e d one Board member t o i n v e s t i g a t e and
resolve consumer complaints. In most cases complaints a r e not brought t o
the f u l l Board f o r d i s p o s i t i o n . A p r e f e r r e d method of complaint handling
would be f o r the e n t i r e board t o make f i n a l d i s p o s i t i o n of complaints i n
Board meetings. Board d i s p o s i t i o n of complaints would reduce the
p o s s i b i l i t y of i n d i v i d u a l b i a s and i n a p p r o p r i a t e a c t i o n by an i n d i v i d u a l
Board member.
$ 26,000 Can Be Saved by
Biennial Renewal Cycle
The Board of Cosmetology can save up to $ 26,000 every two years by
renewing l i c e n s e s on a b i e n n i a l cycle.* Board s t a t u t e s c u r r e n t l y require
a l l l i c e n s e s t o be renewed on an annual b a s i s with a June 30 e x p i r a t i o n
d a t e . After July 1, 1983, cosmetologist and manicurist l i c e n s e s w i l l be
renewed on a staggered annual c y c l e w i t h t h e e x p i r a t i o n d a t e on the
a p p l i c a n t ' s d a t e of b i r t h . However, i f the Board would a l s o renew on a
b i e n n i a l cycle, $ 26,000 could be saved i n labor and m a t e r i a l c o s t s every
two years a s shown i n Table 8. Even g r e a t e r savings can be r e a l i z e d by
renewing l i c e n s e s on a t r i e n n i a l cycle. In a d d i t i o n , Board members and
employees would be a b l e t o devote more time t o o t h e r Board business.
Board members and s i x employees spent approximately 2,800 hours on the
typing and processing of 1982- 83 renewals.
TABLE 8
LICENSE RENEWAL PROCESSING EXPENDITURES
Labor ( including employee- related expenses)
License forms
Envelopes
Postage
* Actual c o s t savings may be l e s s s i n c e t h e Board hopes t o reduce annual
renewal c o s t s by acquiring a word processor u n i t i n May 1983. The
Board supports a change t o a b i e n n i a l renewal cycle and s t a t e s it has
requested such a l e g i s l a t i v e change i n the past.
The Board Needs t o Improve Enforcement
E f f o r t s on Shop Inspections
The Board does not take c o n s i s t e n t a c t i o n on v i o l a t i o n s found during
inspections. According t o Board policy, i f a shop receives two low
inspection grades i n one f i s c a l year, the shop owner s h a l l be c a l l e d i n
f o r an informal hearing. However, the Board has not enforced t h i s policy
c o n s i s t e n t l y and equitably among shops meeting the c r i t e r i a . A review of
approximately 800 shops inspected during January 1980 through October 1982
showed 37 shops i n v i o l a t i o n of t h i s Board policy. A hearing was held i n
7 cases, however, i n 13 cases no hearing was held. In 1 7 c a s e s Board
documentation was so poor t h a t it could not be determined what a c t i o n , i f
any, the Board had taken. Table 9 shows Board a c t i o n f o r shops meeting
the c r i t e r i a for an informal hearing.
TABLE 9
ACTION ON SANITATION VIOLATIONS
Board Action
Action undeterminable
Shop i n v i o l a t i o n of Board policy,
no informal hearing held
Informal hearing canceled
Warning l e t t e r s e n t , no hearing
Informal hearing held
The Board Needs Improvement
i n Documenting and
R e ~ o r t i nI~ ts A c t i v i t i e s
Number i n Percent of
Category 3 7
Documentation of Board of Cosmetology a c t i v i t i e s is d e f i c i e n t . The Board
needs t o improve its documentation and reporting i n three areas:
1) consumer complaints, 2) s e r v i c e measurements, and 3) Board minutes.
The Board is required i n A. R. S. § § 32- 504. A. and 41- 1346. A. t o keep
adequate and proper documentation of its a c t s and proceedings. A. R. S.
$ 32- 504 s t a t e s t h a t the Board s h a l l :
" 3. Make and maintain a record of its a c t s and
proceedings, including, but not limited t o , the
issuance, r e f u s a l , renewal, suspension or revocation of
the l i c e n s e s provided f o r i n t h i s chapter."
A. R. S. $ 41- 1346. A. s t a t e s t h a t an agency s h a l l :
" 2 . Make and maintain r e c o r d s c o n t a i n i n g adequate and
proper documentation of the o r g a n i z a t i o n , f u n c t i o n s ,
p o l i c i e s , d e c i s i o n s , procedures and e s s e n t i a l
t r a n s a c t i o n s of the agency designed t o f u r n i s h
information t o p r o t e c t t h e r i g h t s of the s t a t e and of
persons d i r e c t l y a f f e c t e d by the agency's a c t i v i t i e s . "
Complaints - Consumer complaints contain s e v e r a l documentation e r r o r s .
F i l e s do not contain a c l e a r s t a t u s of whether they a r e open or closed nor
what a c t i o n was taken by the Board. F i l e s a r e a l s o missing or contain
c l e r i c a l e r r o r s and a r e not cross- referenced.
Complaints do n o t c o n t a i n a c l e a r record of s t a t u s and d i s p o s i t i o n . A
review of Board complaints showed 62 percent were found t o be pending.
The pending f i l e s did not c l e a r l y show what a c t i o n had been taken and what
f u r t h e r a c t i o n was needed t o close the f i l e . Many of these complaints
dated as f a r back a s January 1981, but it is doubtful t h a t f u r t h e r a c t i o n
w i l l be taken. In a d d i t i o n , 11 percent of the f i l e s had been closed, but
it was unclear how the case had been resolved.
We were unable t o l o c a t e some complaint f i l e s and o t h e r s c o n t a i n c l e r i c a l
problems. During a review of complaint f i l e s , 11.4 percent were missing
from Board records. An a d d i t i o n a l 8 percent of the f i l e s contained
c l e r i c a l problems such a s the placement of s e v e r a l unrelated complaints i n
one f i l e , misnumberings of f i l e s , misplacements of i n v e s t i g a t i o n r e p o r t s
and lack of complaint d e s c r i p t i o n s .
The Board does not cross- reference complaint f i l e s t o d e t e c t operators or
shops with multiple complaints. By cross- referencing complaints, the
Board would be able t o determine who is receiving multiple complaints and
use t h i s information f o r possible d i s c i p l i n a r y a c t i o n .
Service Pleasurements - Board s e r v i c e measurements a r e improperly
documented and some a r e a r t i f i c i a l l y i n f l a t e d . These i n f l a t e d f i g u r e s
misrepresent i n f o r m a t i o n p r e s e n t e d i n both budget requests and the Board's
annual r e p o r t t o t h e Governor. For example, t h e 1983- 84 budget request
and Governor's report shows the 1981- 82 consumer complaint t o t a l a s 526.
However, a review of consumer complaint logs shows a t o t a l of 241
complaints. A portion of t h e d i f f e r e n c e is accounted f o r by what the
Board c a l l s " i n s p e c t i o n generated complaints" which a r e simply Board
i n s p e c t i o n r e p o r t s f o r shops and schools receiving low i n s p e c t i o n grades.
As a second example, the Board i n f l a t e s salon and school i n s p e c t i o n
f i g u r e s by including the number of s a l o n o p e r a t o r s and school students i n
its i n s p e c t i o n t o t a l . This method of r e p o r t i n g more than quadruples the
a c t u a l number of i n s p e c t i o n s . For i n s t a n c e , the 1979- 80 i n s p e c t i o n s were
determined by the Board t o be 6,045 but were shown i n t h e budget request
a s 25,560.
Board records do not s u b s t a n t i a t e complaint and i n s p e c t i o n f i g u r e s or
s e r v i c e counts, and we cannot v e r i f y t h e i r accuracy.
Minutes - Board minutes do not comply with A. R. S. $ 38- 431.01 i n both
content and a v a i l a b i l i t y of the minutes to the public. A. R. S. 538- 431.01
r e q u i r e s agencies t o keep a c c u r a t e documentation of Board meetings and t o
have Board minutes a v a i l a b l e t o the public. The s t a t u t e s t a t e s :
" B. A l l public bodies, except f o r subcommittees and advisory
committees, s h a l l provide f o r the taking of w r i t t e n minutes
or a recording of a l l t h e i r meetings, i n c l u d i n g e x e c u t i v e
sessions. For meetings other t h a n e x e c u t i v e s e s s i o n , such
minutes or recording s h a l l i n c l u d e , but not be l i m i t e d to:
1. The d a t e , time and place of the meeting.
2. The members of t h e p u b l i c body recorded as e i t h e r present
or absent.
3. A general d e s c r i p t i o n of the matters considered.
4. An accurate d e s c r i p t i o n of a l l l e g a l a c t i o n s proposed,
discussed or taken, and the names of members who propose each
motion. The minutes s h a l l a l s o i n c l u d e t h e names of the
persons, a s given, making statements o r presenting m a t e r i a l
t o the public body and a reference t o the l e g a l a c t i o n about
which they made statements or presented material....
D. The minutes or a recording s h a l l be open t o public
i n s p e c t i o n t h r e e working days a f t e r t h e meeting except a s
otherwise s p e c i f i c a l l y provided by t h i s a r t i c l e . . . . "
Board minutes do not comply with t h i s s t a t u t e a s Board a c t i o n s a r e not
adequately described, Board voting is of ten omitted and attachments t o the
minutes, such as l e t t e r s or memoranda, a r e frequently missing. In
a d d i t i o n , minutes t o two Board meetings a r e l o s t and a r e , t h e r e f o r e , not
a v a i l a b l e f o r p u b l i c i n s p e c t i o n .
The a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d e f i c i e n c i e s discussed i n t h i s Finding may be t h e
r e s u l t of Board members serving a s s t a f f . Board members, appointed by the
Governor as prescribed by law, a r e e i t h e r cosmetologists or cosmetology
i n s t r u c t o r s , n o t p r o f e s s i o n a l a d m i n i s t r a t o r s . Moreover, a s Board o f f i c e r s
a r e e l e c t e d annually, d u t i e s associated with an o f f i c e , such as complaint
handling o r o f f i c e supervision, may s h i f t . This s h i f t i n d u t i e s requires
Board members t o l e a r n new functions and f o r f e i t any proficiency which was
developed i n t h e i r p r i o r function. I n a d d i t i o n , the new o f f i c e r tends t o
implement h i s / h e r own procedures f o r performing h i s / h e r duty, thus
introducing i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s which may be confusing t o o f f i c e s t a f f .
Assigning a professional a d m i n i s t r a t o r t o manage Board a d m i n i s t r a t i v e
operations and removing Board members from day- to- day a d m i n i s t r a t i v e
functions should help c o r r e c t the d e f i c i e n c i e s addressed i n t h i s Finding
( see page 30 f o r f u r t h e r discussion of t h i s i s s u e ) .
CONCLUSION
The Board of Cosmetology should make improvements i n f o u r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e
areas. F i r s t , the Board is not adequately i n v e s t i g a t i n g consumer
complaints nor placing p r i o r i t y on complaints a l l e g i n g harm t o t h e
public. Second, renewals can be processed on a b i e n n i a l b a s i s t o save the
Board $ 26,000 every two years i n operating expenses. Third, shop and
school d i s c i p l i n a r y a c t i o n s f o r v i o l a t i o n s found during i n s p e c t i o n s should
be made more c o n s i s t e n t . F i n a l l y , t h e documenting and reporting of Board
a c t i v i t i e s needs improvement.
If the Board of Cosmetology is not allowed t o terminate on July 1, 1984,
the following recommendations should be considered.
1. The Board should improve its i n v e s t i g a t i o n of complaints involving
harm t o the public.
2. A l l complaints should be presented t o the f u l l Board f o r f i n a l
d i s p o s i t i o n .
3. A. R. S. $ 32- 529 should be amended t o require renewals t o be issued on a
b i e n n i a l o r t r i e n n i a l cycle. I n l i n e with t h i s change, A. R. S. $ 32- 530
would a l s o need an amendment t o provide f o r the doubling or t r i p l i n g
of renewal fees.
4. The Board should take c o n s i s t e n t a c t i o n on v i o l a t i o n s found during
inspections.
5. Complaint documentation should be improved by providing f i l e s with
c l e a r s t a t u s , safeguards t o prevent l o s s of f i l e s , a cross- referencing
system and increased accuracy t o reduce c l e r i c a l e r r o r s .
6. The Board should maintain accurate records of its s e r v i c e measurements
and r e p o r t t h e s e measures i n u n i n f l a t e d terms. Only the number of
shops and schools inspected should be reported, excluding students and
operators. Complaint f i g u r e s should include consumer complaints only,
no inspection- generated complaints.
7. Board minutes should be improved t o comply with A. R. S. s38- 431.01 by
recording an accurate d e s c r i p t i o n of proceedings, including Board
votes on decisions, and safeguarding minutes t o prevent misplacement.
FINDING I V
REQUIREMENTS FOR ENTRY INTO THE OCCUPATION OF COSMETOLOGY CAN BE REDUCED.
If cosmetology l i c e n s i n g is r e t a i n e d , those requirements f o r entry i n t o
the profession which a r e e i t h e r too r e s t r i c t i v e or do not serve a v a l i d
public purpose should be eliminated or changed. S p e c i f i c a l l y , the Board's
p r a c t i c a l examination should be eliminated and t h e w r i t t e n examination
revised t o include only items r e l a t i n g t o p u b l i c p r o t e c t i o n . In a d d i t i o n ,
the s t a t u t e s should be amended t o provide f o r l i c e n s i n g by endorsement
without an examination f o r a p p l i c a n t s who have been licensed i n another
s t a t e . F i n a l l y , requirements r e l a t i n g t o education, age and moral
character should be revised.
Currently, before a person can be licensed i n Arizona as a cosmetologist,
heishe has t o meet c e r t a i n q u a l i f i c a t i o n s . Applicants must 1) have
graduated from a licensed cosmetology school completing at l e a s t 1,800
hours of t r a i n i n g , 2) pass both a Board p r a c t i c a l and w r i t t e n
examination, 3) possess a t e n t h grade or equivalent education, 4) be a t
l e a s t e i g h t e e n y e a r s of age, and 5) be of good moral c h a r a c t e r . No
provisions e x i s t t o allow a p p l i c a n t s t o serve a n o p t i o n a l apprenticeship
i n l i e u of attending cosmetology school.
Board P r a c t i c a l Examination
Should Be Discontinued Saving $ 8,800
The Board of Cosmetology p r a c t i c a l examination of a p p l i c a n t s is
unnecessary and should be eliminated. Most t a s k s required a s part of the
p r a c t i c a l examination are not c r i t i c a l t o public p r o t e c t i o n , and those
which do r e l a t e t o public s a f e t y may be b e t t e r t e s t e d on the Board w r i t t e n
examination. In a d d i t i o n , candidates have received s u f f i c i e n t t r a i n i n g
and experience while i n cosmetology school and should possess adequate
performance s k i l l s . F i n a l l y , the p r a c t i c a l examination may cause undue
hardship f o r some a p p l i c a n t s and is c o s t l y t o administer. I f t h e
p r a c t i c a l examination is eliminated at l e a s t $ 8,800 i n expenses can be
saved annually.
Purpose of Examinations - The Board p r a c t i c a l and w r i t t e n examinations
should include only t h o s e i t e m s which r e l a t e t o p r o t e c t i o n of the p u b l i c .
Experts i n the f i e l d of occupational l i c e n s i n g and examining s t r e s s t h a t *
i t e m s on t e s t s should be r e l a t e d t o the purpose of l i c e n s u r e , p r o t e c t i o n
0
of the public. The exams should, t h e r e f o r e , measure the c r i t i c a l or
important knowledge, s k i l l s and a b i l i t i e s p r e r e q u i s i t e t o performance of
the job a t t h e minimum l e v e l of competence deemed necessary f o r the 9
p u b l i c ' s p r o t e c t i o n . This means t h a t a p p l i c a n t s f o r l i c e n s u r e need not be
t e s t e d on a l l a s p e c t s of t h e p r a c t i c e of cosmetology ( e. g., shop
management and h a i r s t y l i n g techniques) but only on those t a s k s o r subject
areas which a r e d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d t o p r o t e c t i o n of the public.
P r a c t i c a l Exam Unrelated t o Public P r o t e c t i o n - Most t a s k s included on the
Board p r a c t i c a l examination do not r e l a t e t o public h e a l t h and s a f e t y
matters; r a t h e r , they measure the a p p l i c a n t ' s s k i l l l e v e l . ( As discussed
i n Finding I, the p r a c t i c e of Cosmetology poses l i t t l e t h r e a t t o public
health and safety-- see page 9.) The 13 cosmetology s e r v i c e s required t o
be performed as p a r t of the a p p l i c a n t ' s p r a c t i c a l demonstration of
knowledge a r e b r i e f l y described below a s well a s the possible harm or
danger the public would be exposed t o i f t h e a p p l i c a n t is incompetent.
1. Thermal c u r l i n g - The a p p l i c a n t must press h a i r and demonstrate two
d i f f e r e n t kinds of c u r l s by using a heated c u r l i n g i r o n . The Board
s t a t e s danger to t h e public may occur i f t h e h o t i r o n touches the
p a t r o n ' s s c a l p or i f the i r o n is too hot and burns t h e h a i r .
2. F a c i a l - The a p p l i c a n t must give a f a c i a l treatment including f a c i a l
massage and the a p p l i c a t i o n of make- up. There is l i t t l e p o t e n t i a l f o r
public harm.
3. Scalp treatment - As t e s t e d , t h i s b a s i c a l l y c o n s i s t s of brushing the
h a i r and s c a l p . There is no p o t e n t i a l f o r public harm.
4. Haircut - A h a i r c u t is given. There is l i t t l e p o t e n t i a l f o r public
harm .
5. Chemical c u r l i n g ( permanent waving) - The a p p l i c a n t is required t o
s e c t i o n the h a i r and wrap f o u r waving rods. Actual chemicals a r e not
used. The Board s t a t e s damage t o t h e h a i r may occur i f h a i r is not
r o l l e d properly.
6. Coloring - The a p p l i c a n t simulates t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of h a i r c o l o r i n g
s o l u t i o n and is asked s e v e r a l o r a l questions regarding methods of
a p p l i c a t i o n . The Board holds t h a t overprocessed h a i r may become
damaged.
7. Fingerwave - The a p p l i c a n t demonstrates fingerwave s t y l i n g . There is
no p o t e n t i a l f o r public harm.
8. Skipwave - The a p p l i c a n t demonstrates skipwave s t y l i n g . There is no
p o t e n t i a l f o r public harm.
9. Pin c u r l s - The a p p l i c a n t demonstrates the r o l l i n g of h a i r i n t o pin
c u r l s . There is no p o t e n t i a l f o r public harm.
10. Shampoo - The a p p l i c a n t demonstrates t h e c o r r e c t shampooing procedure
including s a n i t a t i o n procedures. There is l i t t l e p o t e n t i a l f o r public
harm.
11. Wet s e t - The applicant demonstrates the wet s e t t i n g of h a i r i n h a i r
r o l l e r s i n preparation f o r h a i r s t y l i n g and the model is placed under
h a i r dryer. There i s no p o t e n t i a l f o r public harm. a
12. Manicure - The applicant provides a manicure including the a p p l i c a t i o n
of n a i l p o l i s h . There is l i t t l e p o t e n t i a l f o r public harm. *
13. Hairstyle and Combout - The applicant demonstrates the s t y l i n g of h a i r
subsequent t o the wet set. There is no p o t e n t i a l f o r public harm.
The only t a s k s demonstrated during t h e p r a c t i c a l exam which have the #
p o t e n t i a l of harm t o the public are thermal c u r l i n g , chemical c u r l i n g and
haircoloring. However, public s a f e t y a s p e c t s of these tasks can be as
e f f e c t i v e l y t e s t e d on the Board w r i t t e n examination, thus eliminating the
need f o r any p r a c t i c a l demonstration of knowledge.
Written Exam More Effective than P r a c t i c a l - Public s a f e t y items of the
Board p r a c t i c a l examination can be a p p r o p r i a t e l y t e s t e d by a w r i t t e n
examination. The w r i t t e n examination can e f f e c t i v e l y address a l l items of
public s a f e t y c u r r e n t l y appearing on the p r a c t i c a l exam. A w r i t t e n exam
has t h e a d d i t i o n a l advantage of being less subjective. Some s t a t e s have
e i t h e r eliminated the p r a c t i c a l examination of cosmetology a p p l i c a n t s o r
recommended t h a t it be eliminated.
C r i t i c a l items of public s a f e t y can be included on the Board w r i t t e n exam
eliminating the need f o r a separate p r a c t i c a l examination. Because the
Board has no guarantee t h a t procedures demonstrated by a p p l i c a n t s w i l l be
followed i n p r a c t i c e , the Board needs only t o a s c e r t a i n t h a t a p p l i c a n t s
possess the knowledge t o p r a c t i c e s a f e l y . For the p r a c t i c e of cosmetology
t h i s can be accomplished by a w r i t t e n examination. To i l l u s t r a t e t h i s
point, consider the Board p r a c t i c a l t e s t s f o r thermal c u r l i n g , chemical
c u r l i n g and h a i r coloring which a r e the only p r a c t i c a l examination t a s k s
which p o t e n t i a l l y a f f e c t public s a f e t y .
Thermal curling - The Board r e q u i r e s a p p l i c a n t s t o press one s e c t i o n
of h a i r and make two d i f f e r e n t c u r l s . The only p o i n t s of public
s a f e t y t e s t e d here a r e 1 ) the c u r l i n g i r o n temperature ( t o o hot an
i r o n w i l l burn h a i r ) and 2) how t o use t h e h o t i r o n . The i r o n
temperature is determined by touching it t o a piece of paper and
seeing i f it scorches the paper. This knowledge could be t e s t e d on a
w r i t t e n exam. Use of the hot i r o n is a procedure which need not be
t e s t e d .
Chemical curling - The Board r e q u i r e s a p p l i c a n t s t o s e c t i o n t h e h a i r
and wrap four c u r l i n g rods. No chemical c u r l i n g s o l u t i o n is used.
According t o the Board, improper sectioning and wrapping may cause
h a i r t o break a f t e r processing. However, the Board does not test such
things as proper a p p l i c a t i o n of chemicals and processing t i m e which
may a l s o cause h a i r breakage. Neither i s patron p r o t e c t i o n t e s t e d .
Knowledge of a l l these procedures can be t e s t e d on the w r i t t e n exam.
Hair coloring - The Board r e q u i r e s a p p l i c a n t s t o go through the
motions of applying h a i r coloring s o l u t i o n s without using t h e a c t u a l
s o l u t i o n . Applicants a r e graded on t h e b a s i s of answers to o r a l
questions only. The questions could be asked on the w r i t t e n exam.
As indicated above, knowledge of c r i t i c a l procedures c u r r e n t l y t e s t e d on
the Board p r a c t i c a l examination a s well a s other procedures c r i t i c a l t o
protect the public can be assessed by the Board's w r i t t e n examination.
S u b j e c t i v i t y - A w r i t t e n examination is p r e f e r a b l e t o a p r a c t i c a l
examination because of the inherent s u b j e c t i v i t y of p r a c t i c a l
examinations. The Board has no defined performance c r i t e r i a with which t o
r a t e a p p l i c a n t s on p r a c t i c a l demonstrations. ' T h i s does not allow f o r a
standardized r a t i n g of a p p l i c a n t s . Benjamin Shimberg i n Occupational
Licensing: A Public P e r s p e c t i v e n o t e s the importance of c a r e f u l l y defined
r a t i n g c r i t e r i a .
" Evaluating an a p p l i c a n t ' s performance poses many
problems . To guard against s u b j e c t i v i t y and
d i f f e r e n c e s i n standards among observers, c a r e f u l l y
defined performance c r i t e r i a a r e needed. In
well- developed performance t e s t s , evaluators a r e
usually provided with c h e c k l i s t s s o t h a t they know
p r e c i s e l y what t o look f o r . They a r e required t o
record f o r each item on the c h e c k l i s t whether or not
t h e a p p l i c a n t performed according t o the s p e c i f i e d
c r i t e r i a . "
In a d d i t i o n , although examiners may not know candidates by name, the
r a t i n g s could nonetheless be influenced by r a c e , s e x or o t h e r f a c t o r s
because examiners observe and t o some extent i n t e r a c t with candidates.
Such s u b j e c t i v e f a c t o r s can be avoided by providing a standardized w r i t t e n
t e s t t o a l l applicants.
Other s t a t e s have questioned the value of p r a c t i c a l examinations f o r
cosmetology l i c e n s i n g . Oregon abolished p r a c t i c a l examinations f o r both
barbers and cosmetologists i n 1977 presuming t h a t graduates of
state- approved schools possess the r e q u i s i t e performance s k i l l s , and i f
not, the marketplace would quickly eliminate those who a r e unqualified or
unsuited. The w r i t t e n exam was f u r t h e r revised t o include only those
items s p e c i f i c a l l y r e l a t e d t o public protection. Following Oregon's lead,
the Washington S t a t e Department of Licensing has recommended t h a t the
l e g i s l a t u r e consider eliminating p r a c t i c a l examination requirements f o r
cosmetology. They argue t h a t the use of p r a c t i c a l examinations to
evaluate a p p l i c a n t s is a questionable p r a c t i c e because 1 ) the exams a r e -
i n h e r e n t l y s u b j e c t i v e i n nature, 2) the t e s t s a r e not r e l i a b l e i n d i c a t o r s
of a n a p p l i c a n t ' s s k i l l or knowledge, 3 ) personal i n t e r a c t i o n between
applicant and examiner may a f f e c t the examiner's scores, and 4) p r a c t i c a l
t e s t scores may vary widely from exam t o exam i n ways unrelated t o
applicant s k i l l s .
S u f f i c i e n t P r a c t i c a l Training Provided i n Cosmetology School - Cosmetology
a p p l i c a n t s receive extensive p r a c t i c a l experience while attending
cosmetology school by providing cosmetology s e r v i c e s t o the public. Based
on responses from 33 of 49 licensed cosmetology schools, we determined the
average number of s e l e c t e d cosmetology s e r v i c e s provided by students upon
completing the 1,800 hours required f o r l i c e n s i n g . These averages a r e
shown i n Table 10.
TABLE 10
AVERAGE NUMBER OF COSMETOLOGY SERVICES
PROVIEED BY STUDENTS GRADUATING FROM COSMETOLOGY SCHOOL
Cosmetology Service
Chemical ( cold) waving
Thermal pressing, c u r l i n g and waving
Finger waving
Skip waving
P i n c u r l i n g
Hair relaxing or s t r a i g h t e n i n g
Hair t i n t i n g
Lash and brow t i n t i n g
Hair bleaching
Hair c u t t i n g
Shampoos
Rinses
Wet s e t or r o l l e r s e t
Hair s t y l i n g and comb out
Scalp treatment
F a c i a l s
Applying make- up
Manicuring
Number of
Times Performed
As shown, cosmetology s t u d e n t s should develop adequate performance s k i l l s
p r i o r t o graduation. This is a t t e s t e d by t h e low f a i l u r e r a t e on the
Board's p r a c t i c a l examination which, f o r a r e c e n t l l - m o n t h p e r i o d , was
only 5 percent. Some of these f a i l i n g a p p l i c a n t s retook t h e exam and
passed r e s u l t i n g i n an even lower percentage of candidates who were denied
l i c e n s u r e based on the p r a c t i c a l examination.
P r a c t i c a l Exara Causes Undue Hardship - The Board p r a c t i c a l examination may
impose undue hardship on a p p l i c a n t s and is c o s t l y t o administer. The test
is only offered i n Phoenix requiring many a p p l i c a n t s and t h e i r models* t o a
incur t r a v e l expenses and take time off from work or other a c t i v i t i e s .
The p r a c t i c a l examination is c o s t l y f o r the Board t o administer because
1) 5 hours are a l l o c a t e d t o a p p l i c a n t s t o complete the t e s t , 2) only 18
a p p l i c a n t s can be examined a t one time, and 3) 2 Board members must a
proctor the examination. By eliminating t h e p r a c t i c a l examination, Board
employees could proctor the w r i t t e n examination a t various s i t e s
throughout t h e S t a t e , thereby reducing applicant hardship. In a d d i t i o n ,
a t l e a s t $ 8,800 i n personal s e r v i c e expense could be saved annually.
Written Exam Needs Revision
The Board's w r i t t e n test a l s o needs r e v i s i o n because 65 percent of the
questions on the w r i t t e n exam do not r e l a t e t o public protection. The
exam c o n s i s t s of both t r u e / f a l s e and multiple c h o i c e q u e s t i o n s . Examples
of t r u e l f a l s e questions included on the exam which do not r e l a t e t o
p r o t e c t i o n of the public are:
- " The stockholders of a corporation a r e p e r s o n a l l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r
company losses."
- " A s t o r e l e a s e guards against any increase i n r e n t . "
- " In a partnership, each partner assumes unlimited l i a b i l i t y of
debts and bankruptcy."
- " In purchasing a s a l o n , t h e c o r r e c t i d e n t i t y of the s e l l e r must
be e s t a b l i s h e d before t r a n s a c t i n g f u r t h e r . "
* Each p r a c t i c a l exam applicant must bring a person ( model) t o the exam
on whom they can demonstrate t h e i r s k i l l s .
5 2
- " A middle p a r t i n the h a i r should minimize the roundness of a
round f a c i a l type."
- " In the a r t of make- up, a shadow e f f e c t minimizes prominent
f e a t u r e s . "
- " Bulging eyes may appear more normal i f dark eye shadow is used."
Examples of multiple choice questions included on t h e exam which do not
r e l a t e t o p r o t e c t i o n of the p u b l i c a r e :
- " The best form of a d v e r t i s i n g is:
A. a pleased patron
B. T. V.
C. newspaper
D. mailed f l y e r s "
- " The income tax law is a:
A. f e d e r a l law C. s t a t e law
B. county law D. f e d e r a l and s t a t e law"
- " State Board members a r e :
A. appointed by l e g i s l a t u r e C. e l e c t e d by cosmetologists
B. apointed by the governor D. hired by t h e S t a t e "
- " An e x c e l l e n t s t y l i n g comb is made of:
A. p l a s t i c C. s o f t rubber
B. hard rubber D. none of these"
- " A s e r v i c e record i n a salon records:
A. appointments C. supplies used
B. treatments given D. none of these"
As shown by the examples presented here, t h e w r i t t e n t e s t needs t o be
revised t o eliminate those items which do not r e l a t e d i r e c t l y t o the
purpose of licensing-- public protection.
Licensing by Endorsement
Should be Provided
Entry requirements imposed on out- of- state cosmetologists a r e too 1)
r e s t r i c t i v e and should be reduced. A. R. S. 932- 522. B. provides f o r
out- of- state a p p l i c a n t s t o be licensed as cosmetologists i n Arizona
without an examination i f they have practiced a s a licensed cosmetologist
for a t l e a s t f i v e of the l a s t seven years and i f the other s t a t e provides
the same opportunity t o Arizona cosmetologists. This means t h a t a
cosmetologist who has been t e s t e d and licensed i n another s t a t e and has
s u c c e s s f u l l y p r a c t i c e d as a cosmetologist f o r as many a s four years must
take and pass an Arizona Board of Cosmetology examination before he/ she
can provide s e r v i c e a s a cosmetologist i n Arizona. T h i s p r o v i s i o n does
not serve t o p r o t e c t the public but only r e s t r i c t s out- of- state a p p l i c a n t s
who may be otherwise q u a l i f i e d t o provide s e r v i c e s . Under a licensing- by-endorsement
apprcach, a p p l i c a n t s holding l i c e n s e s from other s t a t e s would
be granted l i c e n s u r e without examination r e g a r d l e s s of years i n p r a c t i c e
i f the l i c e n s i n g standards of t h e i r s t a t e s were comparable t o the
l i c e n s i n g standards of Arizona, regardless of whether these s t a t e s
reciprocated.
Miscellaneous Licensure
Requirements Can Be Reduced
Other l i c e n s i n g requirements can a l s o be reduced or eliminated. These
requirements p e r t a i n t o 1 ) age, 2) education, and 3) moral c h a r a c t e r .
Age requirements - The 18 years of age requirement f o r cosmetology
a p p l i c a n t s can be reduced or eliminated. Board members could not provide
adequate j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r the current age requirement. An a n a l y s i s of
other s t a t e s ' age requirements shows t h a t Arizona's requirement is higher
than most other s t a t e s ' age requirements. Table 11 shows age requirements
f o r cosmetology l i c e n s i n g i n the 50 s t a t e s .
TABLE 11
AGE REQUIREMENTS FOR COSMETOLOGY LICENSING
I N THE 50 STATES
Age Requirement
None
16 years
16 l / 2 years
17 years
18 years
Number of S t a t e s
- 11 ( includes Arizona)
-- 50
Educational Requirements - The t e n t h grade educational requirement f o r
cosmetology a p p l i c a n t s is u n j u s t i f i a b l e f o r the following reasons. F i r s t ,
the Board could provide no j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r a t e n t h grade educational
l e v e l although it f e l t some l e v e l of education was needed t o read product
l a b e l s and follow i n s t r u c t i o n s . Second, we found t h a t 22 s t a t e s have
educational requirements f o r cosmetology t h a t a r e lower than Arizona's
t e n t h grade requirement. Six of those s t a t e s have no educational
requirement a t a l l . Table 12 shows educational requirements f o r
cosmetology l i c e n s i n g i n the 50 s t a t e s .
TABLE 12
YEARS OF FORMAL EDUCATION REQUIRED
FOR COSMETOLOGY LICENSING I N THE 50 STATES
Years of Schooling Required
None
Number of S t a t e s
6
1
12
3
21 ( includes
Arizona)
- 7
- 50
F i n a l l y , t h e t e n t h grade requirement does n o t a l l o w f l e x i b i l i t y since
a p p l i c a n t s may be otherwise q u a l i f i e d . According t o Benjamin Shimberg, a
noted a u t h o r i t y on occupational l i c e n s i n g ,
"... once minimum educational requirements a r e
incorporated i n t o l i c e n s u r e l a w , they e s t a b l i s h an
i n f l e x i b l e standard t o which boards must adhere even
when the standard serves no c l e a r public purpose."
Although the Board w i l l accept a Graduation Equivalency Diploma ( G. E. D.),
the Board has no a u t h o r i t y t o accept l e s s than a t e n t h grade education or
its equivalent. This requirement may cause entry i n t o the profession t o a
be delayed or even cause an a d d i t i o n a l f i n a n c i a l hardship i f a p p l i c a n t s
must take a d d i t i o n a l schooling o r s p e c i a l courses i n order t o obtain a
G. E. D.
Good Moral Character - The requirement f o r good moral character and
temperate h a b i t s should be eliminated because i t is too vague. Neither
Board s t a t u t e s nor r u l e s and r e g u l a t i o n s define what c o n s t i t u t e s good
moral c h a r a c t e r and temperate h a b i t s . Currently, the Board has no method @
of assessing t h i s requirement s h o r t of a printed statement appearing on
the a p p l i c a t i o n f o r l i c e n s e immediately preceding t h e a p p l i c a n t s signature
which s t a t e s i n p a r t :
" I do hereby c e r t i f y and declare t h a t I am of good
moral character and temperate h a b i t s ; t h a t I am not an
h a b i t u a l drunkard or addicted t o the h a b i t u a l use of
morphine, cocaine o r o t h e r h a b i t forming n a r c o t i c
drugs.. . . "
I n the absence of s p e c i f i c g u i d e l i n e s d e f i n i n g moral character and
temperate h a b i t s and under what conditions a person would be d i s q u a l i f i e d
thereunder, the p o t e n t i a l f o r a r b i t r a r y r e j e c t i o n of an applicant f o r
reasons not r e l a t e d t o p u b l i c p r o t e c t i o n e x i s t s . Again, Benjamin Shimberg
questions the use of good moral character a s a t e s t of f i t n e s s f o r
l i c e n s i n g . He s t a t e s ,
". . . [ good moral character requirements] in addition
to keeping out those with criminal records, . . . [ are]
sometimes used to exclude individuals with ' histories
of mental illness, alcoholism, or drug abuse from
licensed occupations. Moreover, the ambiguity of ' good
moral character' makes it easy for boards to exclude
persons from dissident lifestyles' . . . - any
consideration of an applicant's character must be
limited to matters having a substantial relationship to
the functions and responsibilities of the licensed
occupation." ( emphasis added)
CONCLUSION
Some requirements for licensure are too restrictive, do not serve a valid
purpose in protecting the public and could be eliminated or revised to
provide greater ease of entry into the cosmetology occupation.
RECOMMENDATIONS
If the Board of Cosmetology is not allowed to terminate on July 1, 1984,
the following recommendations should be considered.
1. A. R. S. $ 32- 528 should be amended to delete the requirements of a Board
practical examination and provide that applicants shall only be
required to take a written examination on those aspects of cosmetology
relating to safe practice of the occupation.
2. The Board should revise its written examination to include only
questions directly related to public protection and the safe practice
of cosmetology.
3. A. R. S. $ 32- 522 should be amended to
a. eliminate current reciprocity provisions and provide for the
licensing by endorsement without an examination for those
applicants licensed in other states with comparable standards,
b. reduce or eliminate the age requirement,
c. reduce or eliminate education requirements, and
d. eliminate requirement of good moral character and temperate
habits.
OTHER PERTINENT INFOE@ lATION
During the a u d i t , o t h e r p e r t i n e n t information was developed regarding 1 )
cosmetology school r e g u l a t i o n and 2) cosmetology school hours required
for l i c e n s i n g .
Cosmetology School Regulation
The Board of Cosmetology l i c e n s e s and r e g u l a t e s cosmetology schools.
However, cosmetology school r e g u l a t i o n could be provided by another
e x i s t i n g S t a t e agency. The Board of P r i v a t e Technical and Business
Schools ( PTES) was e s t a b l i s h e d i n 1970 and l i c e n s e s approximately 235
p r o p r i e t a r y v o c a t i o n a l s c h o o l s e n r o l l i n g approximately 110,300 students
annually. The d i f f e r e n t schools licensed by the PTBS Board provide
t r a i n i n g and i n s t r u c t i o n t o students i n as many a s 60 d i f f e r e n t
occupational areas. Many of t h e s