A performance audit of the Board of Barber Examiners

              STATE OF ARIZONA
OFFICE OF THE
AUDITOR GENERAL
A PERFORMANCE AUDIT
OF THE
BOARD OF BARBER EXAMINERS
MARCH 1983
A REPORT TO THE
ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE
REPORT 83- 6
DOUGLAS R. NORTON. CPA
AUDITOR GENERAL
STATE OF ARIZONA
OFFICE OF THE
AUDITOR GENERAL
March 30, 1983
Members of the Arizona L e g i s l a t u r e
The Honorable Bruce Babbitt, Governor
Mr. Sam B. LaBarbera, Chairman
Board of Barber Examiners
Transmitted herewith is a report of the Auditor General, A Performance
Audit of the Board of Barber Examiners. This report is 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 Oversight
Committee. The performance a u d i t was conducted as a p a r t of the Sunset
Review s e t f o r t h i n A. R. S. § § 41- 2351 through 41- 2379.
The blue pages present a summary of the r e p o r t ; a response from the Board
of Barber Examiners 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 d i s c u s s or c l a r i f y items i n the r e p o r t .
Respectfully submitted,
D O U ~ ~ R. S N orton
Auditor General
S t a f f : William Thomson
Peter N. Francis
Brent L. Nelson
Deborah A. Baldwin
W i l l i a m A. Wright
Enclosure
1 11 WEST MONROE SUITE 600 PHOENIX. ARIZONA 85003 0 ( 602) 255- 4385
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
A PERFORMANCE AUOIT OF THE
BOARD OF BARBER EXAMINERS
A REPORT TO THE
ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE
REPORT 83- 6
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
SUNSET FACTORS
FINDINGS
FINDING I
S t a t e l i c e n s i n g of barbers and barbershops
is unnecessary.
CONCLUSION
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 barbering.
CONCLUSION
RECOMMENDATIONS
FINDING I11
Board r e g u l a t i o n of barber schools can be
reduced.
CONCLUSION
RECOMMENDATIONS
FINDING I V
Requirements f o r entry i n t o the barbering
occupation can be reduced.
CONCLUSION
Page
i
1
5
RECOMMENDATIONS
FINDING V
The Board can improve its shop i n s p e c t i o n
and l i c e n s e renewal procedures.
CONCLUSION
RECOMFENDATIONS
OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
WRITTEN RESPONSE TO AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
- Page
4 7
LIST OF TABLES
Page
TABLE 1 - 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 - S t a t u t o r y Duties f o r the Barber
and Cosmetology 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
Barbering and Cosmetology
TABLE 5 - Annual Operating Cost per Licensee
TABLE 6 - Years of Formal Education Required f o r
Barber Licensing i n t h e 50 S t a t e s
TABLE 7 - Ratings Given Barbershops versus the
Number of Violations Found
The Office of the Auditor General has completed a performance a u d i t of the
S t a t e Board of Barber Examiners 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 Oversight Committee. This performance
a u d i t was conducted a s p a r t 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.) Ss41- 2351 through 41- 2379.
Regulation of barbering began i n Arizona i n 1929. Today, the three- member
S t a t e Board of Barber Examiners continues t o exercise broad a u t h o r i t y over
the occupation of barbering. The Board c u r r e n t l y l i c e n s e s barbers,
apprentice barbers, barbershops, barber schools and barber 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 barbershops and barber schools, i n v e s t i g a t e s
complaints and approves a p p l i c a n t s f o r barber schools.
S t a t e l i c e n s i n g of barbers and barbershops can be eliminated because the
p r a c t i c e of barbering does not pose a s u f f i c i e n t r i s k t o public h e a l t h and
s a f e t y t o j u s t i f y regulation. Licensing is not j u s t i f i e d because of
possible harm from the u s e o f barber implements o r 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 the
g e n e r a l p u b l i c . S i m i l a r l y , l i c e n s i n g is not j u s t i f i e d by h e a l t h and
s a n i t a r y concerns because the types of d i s e a s e s which could be spread i n
barbershops a r e minor and not prevalent i n our s o c i e t y . The minimal
t h r e a t of the spread of d i s e a s e is reinforced by the f a c t t h a t barbers a r e
not c u r r e n t l y p r a c t i c i n g h e a l t h and s a n i t a r y procedures which would be
e f f e c t i v e t o combat the spread of d i s e a s e , and the Board cannot conduct
e f f e c t i v e h e a l t h and s a n i t a r y i n s p e c t i o n s of barbershops ( see page 11).
Because consumers possess adequate a b i l i t y and knowledge t o evaluate
barber s e r v i c e s i n the absense of l i c e n s i n g , t h e L e g i s l a t u r e should
consider allowing the S t a t e Board of Carber Examiners t o terminate on
July 1, 1984.
I f the Board is not allowed t o terminate, s e v e r a l changes could be made t o
improve c u r r e n t r e g u l a t i o n . F i r s t , changes should be made i n the Board's
s t r u c t u r e . The S t a t e Board of Barber Examiners and the S t a t e Board of
Cosmetology should be combined i n t o a s i n g l e r e g u l a t o r y agency because
1) both occupations provide many of the same s e r v i c e s t o consumers,
2) Board 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 cost
savings can be r e a l i z e d ( s e e page 23). Regardless o f whether t h e two
Boards a r e merged, barber Board members should cease t o a c t as full- time
s t a f f leaving a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s t o Board employees. This i s
necessary t o avoid p o t e n t i a l problems c r e a t e d when a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d u t i e s
and decision making a r e n o t s e p a r a t e d and t o avoid possible Open Meeting
Law v i o l a t i o n s ( s e e page 30).
Second, Board s t a t u t e s and r u l e s and r e g u l a t i o n s c u r r e n t l y impose an
excessive and unnecessary r e g u l a t o r y burden on barber school operators
( see page 33).
Third, many requirements f o r e n t r y i n t o t h e barbering occupation are too
r e s t r i c t i v e , do not serve a v a l i d public purpose and could be eliminated.
The most prominent of these unnecessary requirements is t h e 18- month
apprenticeship which should be eliminated f o r a p p l i c a n t s graduating from a
barber school. Requirements r e l a t i n g t o t h e p r a c t i c a l examination of
a p p l i c a n t s , education, moral c h a r a c t e r and medical c e r t i f i c a t e s should
a l s o be eliminated. 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 ( s e e page 39).
F i n a l l y , i f the Board is r e t a i n e d , improvements can be made i n two
a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a r e a s . F i r s t , when i n s p e c t i n g shops the Board does not
r a t e barbershops i n a f a i r and c o n s i s t e n t manner and has not developed
c r i t e r i a and g u i d e l i n e s t o use i n assigning r a t i n g s . The shop i n s p e c t i o n s
a r e a l s o i n e f f e c t i v e i n c o r r e c t i n g problems discovered ( s e e page 47).
Second, the e f f i c i e n c y of t h e Board's l i c e n s e renewal p r o c e s s c a n be
improved and a small savings r e a l i z e d ($ 5,300 every two years) by changing
to a b i e n n i a l renewal cycle ( s e e page 50).
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance audit of the
S t a t e Board of Barber Examiners 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 Oversight Committee. 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.) § § 41- 2351 through 41- 2379.
The a r t of barbering has been regulated i n Arizona since 1929 when the
L e g i s l a t u r e c r e a t e d t h e S t a t e Board of 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 barbers, apprentices and barber
schools. Two years l a t e r barber establishments and school i n s t r u c t o r s
were a l s o required t o be licensed. Regulation of barbering and
cosmetology 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.
Since 1935 t h e S t a t e Board of Barber Examiners has been composed of t h r e e
members, two of which must be barbers. The t h i r d member, since 1973, is
required t o be a lay person. The law a l s o requires t h a t two of the Board
members devote t h e i r f u l l time t o the business of the Board. One other
full- time employee is employed by the B'oard, an o f f i c e s e c r e t a r y .
Requirements f o r l i c e n s u r e a s a barber have become more s t r i n g e n t since
1929 when one had t o be 18 y e a r s o l d , of good moral c h a r a c t e r , f r e e from
i n f e c t i o n s o r contagious d i s e a s e and able t o pass an examination. Now a
barber candidate has t o have a t e n t h grade education, graduate from a
barber school with 1,250 hours of i n s t r u c t i o n , pass an examination t o be
licensed a s an apprentice, serve an 18- month a p p r e n t i c e s h i p and then pass
another examination t o be licensed a s a barber.
At one t i m e the Board held a power which is almost unique among regulatory
agencies. The Board was given t h e a u t h o r i t y i n 1939 t o e s t a b l i s h minimum
p r i c e s f o r barbering throughout the S t a t e . This p r i c e f i x i n g law was held
u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l by the Supreme Court of Arizona on Nay 10, 1951.
The Board has other d u t i e s i n a d d i t i o n t o its l i c e n s i n g a u t h o r i t y . The
Board i n s p e c t s barber establishments and barber schools on a r e g u l a r b a s i s .
This a u t h o r i t y was granted i n 1929 and is an o p t i o n a l duty o f the Board. In
1939 the Board w a s given a u t h o r i t y t o a c t as mediator and a r b i t r a t o r i n any a
i s s u e r e l a t i n g t o barbering. Authority was granted i n 1968 t o s p e c i f y by
r u l e s and r e g u l a t i o n s what s e r v i c e s and merchandise can be sold i n
barbershops. These l a s t two powers have not y e t been exercised by the
Board. However, the Board i n t e n d s t o soon promulgate r u l e s and r e g u l a t i o n s
regarding the s e r v i c e s and merchandise t h a t can be sold i n barbershops. The
Board a l s o i n v e s t i g a t e s complaints, although the s t a t u t e s a r e s i l e n t
regarding t h i s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . 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.
TABLE 1
BOARD ACTIVITIES
FISCAL YEARS 1978- 79 THROUGH 1981- 82
ACTIVITY
FISCAL YEAR
1978- 79 1979- 80 1980- 81 1981- 82
Examinations:
Apprentice - Failed 2 5 12 6
- Passed - 111 85 - 111 - 107
Total 1- 13 90 - 1- 23 1- 13
Barber - Failed
- Passed
Total
Complaints Received 14 2 7 32 14 '
Inspections 1,100 2,154 2,380 , 2,145
Licensees ( a s of August 24, 1982*):
Barbers
Apprentices
Shops
Schools
I n s t r u c t o r s
* The Board could not provide us with a breakdown of l i c e n s e e s f o r past years.
m
Revenues a r e obtained from examinations, l i c e n s e s , renewal l i c e n s e s and
i n i t i a l . irispections of new or relocated barbershops and schools. Table 2
d e t a i l s the Board's revenues and expenditures f o r f i s c a l years 1978- 79 * through 1982- 83. As shown i n Table 2, Board expenditures have increased
from $ 56,255 i n f i s c a l year 1978- 79 t o an estimated $ 91,100 i n f i s c a l year
1982- 83.
TABLE 2
BOARD REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES
FISCAL YEARS 1978- 79 THROUGH 1982- 83
Actual Actual Actual Actual Projected
19 78- 79 1979- 80 1980- 81 1981- 82 1982- 83
No. of employees - 3 - 3 -- 3 -- 3 -- 3
Revenues ( 90%") $ 59,811 $ 98,294 $ 98,672 $ 100,190 $ 100,800
Expenditures:
Personal services 37,062 45,000 45,300 54,918 56,900
Employee r e l a t e d 7,060 8,065 8,800 11,112 11,700
Professional s e r v i c e s 200 100 546 800
Travel -
In- State 4,882 5,700 8,300 7,020 8,500
Out- of- State 600 500
Other operating 7,251 7,900 5,900 8,650 9,900
Equipment
Total
EXCESS 90% REVENUE $ 3 , 5 5 6 $ 31.429 $ 28,872 $ 16.681 $ 9.700
* 10% of Board revenues is deposited t o t h e S t a t e General Fund while 90%
is a v a i l a b l e f o r Board use.
Scope of Audit
The scope of our S t a t e Board of Barber Examiners a u d i t included a l l Board
operations 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 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 or welfare;
2. I f the Board is not terminated, whether ( a ) the Board should be
combined with the Cosmetology Board 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 and ( b) Board members should continue t o serve as
f u l l - t i n e s t a f f ;
3. Whether the Board 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 barber 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 Board 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 the course of our
a u d i t .
SUNSET FACTORS
In accordance with 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 the S t a t e Board of Barber
Examiners should be,- continued or terminated.
1. Objective and purpose i n e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e 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 , t h e objective and
purpose i n e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e board was "... the p r e s e r v a t i o n of the
public welfare and health.. . . " Nore r e c e n t l y , t h e Board has provided
the following statement of its purpose:
" The Arizona Board of Barber Examiners was e s t a b l i s h e d
t o i n s p e c t and enforce compliance by barber s t u d e n t s ,
a p p r e n t i c e s , b a r b e r s , barber shops and schools t o t h e
h e a l t h and s a n i t a r y laws e s t a b l i s h e d in.. . A. R. S.
$ 32.301 e t seq., and r e g u l a t i o n s promulgated
thereunder, t o p r o t e c t t h e consuming public."
The Board a l s o s t a t e s its o b j e c t i v e t o include ( 1) assuring t h a t a
p r a c t i t i o n e r i n t h e t r a d e has a minimum l e v e l of competence and ( 2)
p r o t e c t i n g the public from fraudulent and dishonest p r a c t i c e s and
p r a c t i t i o n e r s .
2. The e f f e c t i v e n e s s with which the Board has m e t its o b j e c t i v e and
purpose and t h e e f f i c i e n c y with which the Board h a s o p e r a t e d
The Board has not been e f f e c t i v e i n enforcing compliance with h e a l t h
and s a n i t a r y laws and r e g u l a t i o n s e s t a b l i s h e d i n A. R. S. $ 32- 301 e t
seq and r e g u l a t i o n s promulgated thereunder. However, Board
i n e f f e c t i v e n e s s is of l i t t l e consequence a s t h e r e appears t o be
minimal t h r e a t t o the public i n t h i s area ( see page 13).
I f the Board i s not allowed t o 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 50) and 2) combining
a d m i n i s t r a t i o n s of the Barber and Cosmetology Boards ( see page 23).
(.
3. The extent t o which the Board has operated within t h e public i n t e r e s t
The S t a t e l i c e n s i n g of barbers and barbershops does not serve the
i n t e r e s t of the general public. The nature of barbering services 0
does not j u s t i f y r e g u l a t i o n of the occupation. I n s t e a d , r e g u l a t i o n
appears t o prqtect the economic i n t e r e s t s of t h e profession. The
c o s t s t o the public outweigh t h e b e n e f i t s ( see page 20).
4. The e x t e n t t o 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
Several Board r u l e s and r e g u l a t i o n s r e l a t i n g t o barber schools a r e
unreasonable and o v e r - r e s t r i c t i v e ( see page 33). The Board is
c u r r e n t l y i n the process of reviewing and r e v i s i n g i t s r u l e s and
regulations.
5. The extent t o which the Board has encouraged input from the public
before promulgating its 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 public a s t o i t s a c t i o n s and t h e i r expected
impact on the public
The Board has not promulgated any r u l e s since 1975. However, the
Board i s c u r r e n t l y r e v i s i n g i t s r u l e s and r e g u l a t i o n s and has
involved the barber community i n t h i s process. According t o the
Board chairman, a public hearing w i l l be held before promulgating new
r u l e s and regulations.
6. The extent t o which the Board has been able t o i n v e s t i g a t e and
resolve complaints which a r e within its j u r i s d i c t i o n
The Board has received 102 complaints over a 5.5- year period. Only
two complaints d e a l t w i t h a l l e g e d harm t o the public. More than half
the complaints a r e a g a i n s t unlicensed persons performing barber
s e r v i c e s . The remaining complaints a r e of v a r i o u s n a t u r e s , none
r e l a t i n g t o harm t o the public. The Board has i n v e s t i g a t e d each
complaint t o determine its v a l d i t y . Most complaints a r e handled
quickly due t o t h e i r i n s i g n i f i c a n t nature.
The Board needs t o improve its complaint handling procedures and
documentation. The Board does not adequately document a c t i o n s taken
t o i n v e s t i g a t e complaints and reasons why a p a r t i c u l a r r e s o l u t i o n was
reached. Complaints a r e resolved by i n d i v i d u a l Board members and not
by a quorum of the Board. As a r e s u l t complaint d i s p o s i t i o n s a r e not
recorded i n the Board minutes and a record i s not a v a i l a b l e f o r the
public.
7. The extent t o which the Attorney General or any other applicable
agency of s t a t e government has t h e a u t h o r i t y t o prosecute a c t i o n s
under 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 as
misdemeanors and may be enforced by the County Attorney.
I n 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 t h e Board's s t a t u t o r y provisions.
2. The e x t e n t t o which the Board has addressed d e f i c i e n c i e s i n t h e
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 i d e n t i f i e d many d e f i c i e n c i e s i n t h e s t a t u t e s , however
i t has withheld s p e c i a l l e g i s l a t i v e proposals i n a n t i c i p a t i o n of the
" Sunset Review" process. The Board f e e l s t h a t a l l needed s t a t u t o r y
changes can be made at t h a t t i m e .
The Board would support the following s t a t u t o r y changes:
a. Deleting A. R. S. $ 32- 308 which requires the Board t o a c t a s
mediator i n any i s s u e or controversy r e l a t e d t o barbering.
b. Amending A. R. S. $ 32- 328. E. t o allow more students f o r each barber
school i n s t r u c t o r .
c. Expanding the d e f i n i t i o n of barbering t o include permanent waving
and other chemical processes.
d. Defining good moral character f o r t h e purposes of l i c e n s i n g
a p p l i c a t i o n s .
. The extent t o which changes a r e necessary i n the l a w s 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
If the S t a t e Board of Barber Examiners 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 Barber and Cosmetology 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
4
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 professional
a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s t a f f ( see page 30).
c. Eliminate the apprenticeship requirement f o r barber a p p l i c a n t s
graduating from a barber school and r e t a i n t h e apprenticeship only
a s an option f o r those persons not wishing t o a t t e n d a barber
school ( see page 39).
d. Amend A. R. S. $ 32- 328.~. t o remove the requirement of one i n s t r u c t o r
f o r each 12 students.
e. Provide l i c e n s i n g by endorsement without an examination for
a p p l i c a n t s l i c e n s e d by other s t a t e s which have comparable standards
( see page 41).
f . Deleting or reducing the requirement t h a t barber a p p l i c a n t s possess
a 10th grade education and " good moral c h a r a c t e r " ( see page 42).
g . 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 41).
h. Amend A. R. S. $ 532- 330 and 32- 331 t o provide f o r t h e b i e n n i a l or
t r i e n n i a l renewal of l i c e n s e s issued by the Board ( see page 50).
10. The extent t o which the termination of the Board 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 or welfare
Termination of the S t a t e Board of Barber Examiners would not harm the
public h e a l t h , s a f e t y or welfare. The p r a c t i c e of barbering does not
pose a serious 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. Consumers can be expected t o possess the
knowledge needed t o p r o p e r l y e v a l u a t e barbering s e r v i c e s . The b e n e f i t s
of r e g u l a t i o n do not outweigh i t s c o s t s t o the p u b l i c ( s e e page 11).
11. The extent t o which the l e v e l of r e g u l a t i o n exercised by the Board is
a p p r o p r i a t e and whether less or 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 ~ ~ r o ~ r i a t e
If the S t a t e Board of Barber Examiners is not terminated on
July 1, 1984, the l e v e l of r e g u l a t i o n exercised by t h e Board can be
made l e s s r e s t r i c t i v e ( s e e Sunset Factor number 9). I n a d d i t i o n ,
s e v e r a l r u l e s and r e g u l a t i o n s a r e unreasonable and serve no v a l i d
public purpose.
FINDING I
STATE LICENSING OF BARBERS AND BARBERSHOPS IS UNNECESSARY.
S t a t e l i c e n s i n g of barbers and barbershops can be eliminated because the
p r a c t i c e of barbering does not pose a s u f f i c i e n t r i s k t o public h e a l t h and
s a f e t y to j u s t i f y regulation. Licensing of barbers and barbershops is not
j u s t i f i e d because of h e a l t h and s a n i t a r y concerns or possible harm from
the use of barber 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 barber s e r v i c e s .
Because barber 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 , t h e b e n e f i t s of r e g u l a t i n g barbers and barbershops do not outweigh
t h e c o s t s t o the public.
Assessing the Need f o r Regulation
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 the public. To
a s s e s s t h e p o t e n t i a l f o r harm, the Council of S t a t e Governments i n its
publication 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
a r e :
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 t h e
consumer's l i f e , h e a l t h and s a f e t y o r economic well- being;
2. Whether users of the s e r v i c e can be expected t o possess the knowledge
needed t o p r o p e r l y e v a l u a t e the q u a l i f i c a t i o n s of those o f f e r i n g
s e r v i c e s ; and
3. Whether l i c e n s i n g b e n e f i t s t o the 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 the p r i c e f o r s e r v i c e s o r
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 public, both the seriousness of p o t e n t i a l
harm which could be caused and the p r o b a b i l i t y or 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.
a
The S t a t e Board of Barber Examiners i n d i c a t e s t h a t l i c e n s i n g cf barbers
and barbershops i s needed f o r four reasons: ( 1) t o prevent the spread of
communicable diseases and i n f e c t i o u s organisms; ( 2) t o protect barber
patrons from harm caused by barber implements used around the head, neck m
and face; ( 3) t o protect customers from harm caused by various chemical
a p p l i c a t i o n s ; and ( i) t o ensure a g a i n s t p o s s i b l e f r a u d u l e n t and dishonest
p r a c t i c e s . I f barber l i c e n s i n g is j u s t i f i e d , however, it must be
demonstrated t h a t these concerns pose a s u f f i c i e n t l y serious and l i k e l y a
r i s k t o warrant S t a t e regulation.
Health and Sanitary Concerns Are Unfounded
Barbershop 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
3
s a n i t a r y reasons. The types of diseases which could be spread i n
barbershops a r e minor and not l i f e t h r e a t e n i n g or prevalent i n our
s o c i e t y . I f they were more s e r i o u s or prevalent, i t would be r e a d i l y
apparent because 1 ) barbers a r e not c u r r e n t l y p r a c t i c i n g h e a l t h and
s a n i t a r y procedures which would be e f f e c t i v e t o combat the spread of
d i s e a s e i n t h e i r shops, and 2) h e a l t h and s a n i t a r y i n s p e c t i o n s of shops
conducted by the Board a r e i n e f f e c t i v e .
Health and Sanitary Requirements - Diseases could be spread i n a
barberghop s e t t i n g by e i t h e r d i r e c t p h y s i c a l c o n t a c t or contact with
fomites. Fomites a r e such inanimate o b j e c t s a s towels, combs, c l i p p e r s
and s c i s s o r s . I f the b a r b e r ' s hands o r t o o l s were i n f e c t e d by providing
s e r v i c e t o a diseased person, t h e d i s e a s e could be t r a n s m i t t e d t o other
persons served by the barber i f h i s hands and i n f e c t e d t o o l s were not
cleaned and s t e r i l i z e d .
Acceptable health and s a n i t a r y procedures f o r barbers a r e outlined i n the
S t a t u t e s and Board r u l e s and regulations. Board r u l e s require barbers t o
wash t h e i r hands with germicidal soap before each patron and s t e r i l i z e a l l
instruments before and a f t e r usage. The S t a t u t e s f u r t h e r provide t h a t it
is a c l a s s 3 misdemeanor f o r barbers t o use implements unless they a r e
kept i n a closed compartment and immersed i n boiling water or a s o l u t i o n
of 2 percent c a r b o l i c acid or its equivalent f o r a t l e a s t 20 minutes
before each use. After s t e r i l i z a t i o n barber t o o l s a r e t o be s t o r e d i n a
cabinet s t e r i l i z e r serviced by e i t h e r vapor s t e r i l i z i n g fumes or
u l t r a v i o l e t l i g h t u n t i l used t o maintain t h e i r s t e r i l i z e d condition.
Disease Threat Is Minimal - The types of d i s e a s e s which could be spread i n
a barbershop a r e not l i f e threatening and cause only minor discomfort.
According t o the Department of Health Services, four kinds of communicable
diseases could be spread i n a barbershop: ( 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 t i o n s . Treatment f o r
these diseases is simple and r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e . Head l i c e is t r e a t e d by
washing and applying a t o p i c a l medication. Ringworm is t r e a t e d by o r a l or
t o p i c a l medication. Scabies is t r e a t e d by a combination of bathing and
applying a t o p i c a l ointment. The types of staphylococcus i n f e c t i o n s which
could be transmitted i n barbershops a r e generally not t r e a t e d because they
a r e so common and minor i n nature.
The spread and incidence of t h e s e d i s e a s e s may have declined from r a t e s a t
the time the Board was created. Barbers interviewed by our a u d i t o r s have
seen no cases of t h e s e d i s e a s e s i n t h e i r barbershops with the exception of
i s o l a t e d cases of head l i c e . Incidence r a t e s a r e not a v a i l a b l e , however,
because the diseases 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 Services.
I n e f f e c t i v e Sanitary Procedures - I f the type of d i s e a s e s which could be
spread by barbershops were more prevalent, i t would be apparent because
barbers may not be p r a c t i c i n g s a n i t a r y procedures s u f f i c i e n t t o c o n t r o l
t h e i r spread. Auditors from our Office v i s i t e d 16 barbershops i n the
Maricopa County area and interviewed barbers t o determine i f adequate
h e a l t h and s a n i t a r y procedures were being used. None of t h e barbers we
interviewed were d i s i n f e c t i n g t h e i r implements before and a f t e r each
patron. Instead implements were being placed i n dry cabinet s t e r i l i z e r s
between customers or were o f t e n dipped i n a l i q u i d d i s i n f e c t i n g s o l u t i o n .
Neither method i s e f f e c t i v e t o d i s i n f e c t barber implements.
The dry s t e r i l i z e r s a r e e i t h e r serviced by formaldehyde t a b l e t s which
r e l e a s e fumes or by an u l t r a v i o l e t l i g h t . S c i e n t i f i c s t u d i e s have shown
t h a t it requires more than 20 hours and a s many a s 72 hours t o d i s i n f e c t
contaminated instruments by using formaldehyde t a b l e t s i n an a i r t i g h t
container. In l i k e manner u l t r a v i o l e t l i g h t is not e f f e c t i v e as a
d i s i n f e c t a n t because 1) an excessive exposure time i s required, 2) only
surfaces d i r e c t l y exposed a r e d i s i n f e c t e d , 3) b a c t e r i a is r e s i s t a n t t o
u l t r a v i o l e t l i g h t , and 4) although u l t r a v i o l e t l i g h t reduces the degree a
of contamination, it does not u t t e r l y destroy it. Therefore, using e i t h e r
method of s t e r i l i z a t i o n between customers w i l l not s t o p t h e spread of
disease.
Barbers a l s o have a " wet s t e r i l i z e r " which c o n s i s t s of a c o n t a i n e r f i l l e d
with a l i q u i d d i s i n f e c t i n g s o l u t i o n . This is generally used t o d i s i n f e c t
combs and sometimes other barber implements. However, most barbers we
v i s i t e d j u s t d i p combs and implements i n t o the s o l u t i o n . This is
i n e f f e c t i v e s i n c e implements need t o be immersed f o r a t l e a s t 10 minutes
t o be properly d i s i n f e c t e d .
I n e f f e c t i v e Shop Inspections - Inspections of barbershops by the Board a r e
a l s o i n e f f e c t i v e , again suggesting the a c t u a l danger of d i s e a s e is
minimal. The Board cannot f e a s i b l y inspect f o r h e a l t h and s a n i t a r y
procedures which a r e most c r i t i c a l i n eliminating the spread of disease i n
barbershops, and problems discovered during shop i n s p e c t i o n s a r e not found
corrected on a s many a s f i v e subsequent inspections.
Barbershop i n s p e c t i o n s do not focus on procedures most a f f e c t i n g the
spread of d i s e a s e ; i n s t e a d , shops a r e inspected f o r g e n e r a l c l e a n l i n e s s .
The c r i t i c a l procedures which cannot be f e a s i b l y inspected by the Board
a r e :
- Using barber t o o l s unless they have been s t e r i l i z e d before and
a f t e r each patron,
- Barber washing hands before each patron,
- Failing t o place a neck band o r towel on the patron so t h a t the
h a i r c l o t h does not c o n t a c t t h e p a t r o n ' s s k i n , and
- Failing to provide a clean towel or paper on t h e barber c h a i r
head r e s t f o r each patron.
Further, when i n s p e c t i o n s find problems which could o s t e n s i b l y a f f e c t the
spread of d i s e a s e , c o r r e c t i o n s a r e o f t e n not made. Problems discovered
during shop i n s p e c t i o n s a r e sometimes found on a s many a s f i v e subsequent
inspections. Two examples serve t o i l l u s t r a t e t h i s problem.
Example 1:
A barbershop was found t o have d i r t y f l o o r s and d i r t y hairbrushes and
d u s t e r s on four consecutive i n s p e c t i o n d a t e s . On t h r e e of these
occasions, the shop a l s o had inadequate dry s t e r i l i z a t i o n equipment.
Example 2:
A barbershop was found t o have inadequate dry s t e r i l i z a t i o n equipment
on four consecutive i n s p e c t i o n d a t e s . On t h r e e of t h e s e d a t e s , it
a l s o was found t o have d i r t y work s t a t i o n s .
We a l s o noted t h a t shops with a h i s t o r y of problems a r e not reinspected
with g r e a t e r frequency than shops without a h i s t o r y of problems.
The h e a l t h and s a n i t a r y conditions of barbershops can b e s t be f a c i l i t a t e d
by other means than Board inspections. A survey of l i c e n s e d barbers
indicated t h a t 80 percent of the i n d i v i d u a l barbering s e r v i c e s a r e
provided t o r e t u r n customers. This is an incentive f o r barbers t o keep
t h e i r shops i n a h e a l t h f u l and s a n i t a r y condition; otherwise, t h e i r
customers may go elsewhere f o r s e r v i c e s .
Barber Implements and Chemical Solutions
Do Not Pose a Serious Risk t o the Public
The uses of barber implements and chemical s o l u t i o n s d o n o t pose a
s u f f i c i e n t r i s k t o public h e a l t h and s a f e t y t o warrant l i c e n s i n g of
barbers. There i s no evidence t h a t barbers 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, the uses of
chemical s o l u t i o n s do not pose a s e r i o u s danger t o the public.
Use of Implements - Barber l i c e n s i n g cannot be j u s t i f i e d by the use of
barber implements around the head, neck and face of a customer.
Instruments commonly used by b a r b e r s i n c l u d e e l e c t r i c c l i p p e r s , s c i s s o r s
and razors. Under normal circumstances persons o t h e r t h a n barbers may be
expected t o use c l i p p e r s and s c i s s o r s with reasonable care without
i n f l i c t i n g harm. Further, we could not find any evidence t h a t barbers had
caused any s e r i o u s harm t o customers by the use of t h e i r implements. The
Board has received only two complaints i n over f i v e years against barbers
alleging harm r e s u l t i n g from the use of barber implements. In one
complaint, the customer alleged the barber was rude, the shop was d i r t y
and the barber nicked him. The other complaint involved a cut on the
ear. The Board took no a c t i o n a g a i n s t e i t h e r b a r b e r ' s l i c e n s e . In our a
opinion t h e 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 barber implements is remote. Even i n the case of using a
s t r a i g h t razor, nicks or c u t s a r e the worst p o t e n t i a l harm.
Use of Chemicals - Chemical s o l u t i o n s used by barbers a l s o do not pose a
danger t o the public 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 Board
has not received any complaints a l l e g i n g harm caused by barbers i n
applying chemicals t o the h a i r . Moreover, an Auditor General survey of
licensed barbers indicated t h a t barbers seldom use chemicals f o r s e r v i c e s
they provide t o consumers. Although chemical s o l u t i o n s are sometimes used
by barbers t o provide s e r v i c e s of permanent waving, h a i r s t r a i g h t e n i n g and
h a i r dyeing or t i n t i n g , other f a c t o r s e x i s t i n d i c a t i n g barbers do not need
t o be licensed because of these chemicals. F i r s t , during our Sunset
Review of the Board of Cosmetology we determined t h a t cosmetologists
perform many more chemical h a i r processing s e r v i c e s than barbers. We a l s o
concluded t h a t the use of these chemical s o l u t i o n s did not pose a probable
r i s k t o the patron. P o t e n t i a l harm which could be caused through the
misuse of these chemical s o l u t i o n s is minimal." Second, customers can
purchase on a r e t a i l l e v e l permanent waving, h a i r s t r a i g h t e n i n g and dyeing
s o l u t i o n s which contain t o x i c chemicals. Third, products a v a i l a b l e and
marked " for p r o f e s s i o n a l use only" a r e sold t o t h e general public.
Fourtli, the Federal Food and Drug Administration r e q u i r e s warning
statements on a l l products t h a t could cause a h e a l t h hazard. In a d d i t i o n ,
i t appears from our review t h a t a l l r e t a i l products contain d i r e c t i o n s f o r
use. A review of selected " p r o f e s s i o n a l u s e only" products showed t h a t
they a l s o contain use i n s t r u c t i o n s with the exception of some h a i r
coloring products.
Users of Barberinn Services Possess Knowledge
Needed t o Evaluate O u a l i f i c a t i o n s of Barbers
Consumers of barber s e r v i c e s possess adequate a b i l i t y and knowledge t o
evaluate t h e q u a l i t y of s e r v i c e s offered. Services provided by barbers
a r e not extremely complex and can be understood by consumers. The concept
of r e t u r n business i s s u f f i c i e n t t o regulate the market. I f a consumer is
i n j u r e d , remedies a r e a v a i l a b l e through t h e J u s t i c e Court system.
Licensing may 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 is c h a r a c t e r i z e d by the following elements: ( 1) the t a s k s
or s e r v i c e provided is extremely d i f f i c u l t o r complex so a s not t o be
e a s i l y comprehended by the consumer, ( 2) the s e r v i c e is of a nature where
the consumer must reIy on the provider t o inform him of h i s needs, o r ( 3)
the consumer is unable t o judge t h e adequacy or competency of s e r v i c e
provided. Barbering does not meet any of these c r i t e r i a .
* See page 14 of our report # 83- 5, A Performance Audit of the Board of
Cosmetology f o r more d e t a i l s .
Consumers Understand Services - Services provided by l i c e n s e d b a r b e r s a r e
not extremely d i f f i c u l t o r complex and can be understood by consumers.
The p r a c t i c e of barbering as defined i n t h e S t a t u t e s includes 1 ) shaving
or trimming the beard; 2) c u t t i n g , clipping or trimming h a i r ; 3) giving
f a c i a l or scalp massages or a p p l i c a t i o n s of o i l s , creams, l o t i o n s or other
preparations; 4) singeing, shampooing or dyeing the hair or applying h a i r
t o n i c s ; and 5) applying 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 . These services i n and of themselves a r e e a s i l y
comprehended by the consumer. While a degree of s k i l l may be required by
the barber t o provide a e s t h e t i c value, consumers nonetheless understand
s e r v i c e s offered.
Although some consumers may ask barbers f o r advice, consumers do not have
t o r e l y on barbers t o inform them of t h e i r barbering needs. Unlike a
v i s i t t o the d e n t i s t or doctor where the p r o f e s s i o n a l determines what
s e r v i c e is required, the consumer of barbering s e r v i c e s d i c t a t e s h i s own
needs and wants t o the barber. Consumers of barbering s e r v i c e s a r e more
q u a l i f i e d t o determine t h e i r barbering needs than barbers a s a matter of
personal preference.
The consumer is able t o judge. t h e q u a l i t y and adequacy of s e r v i c e s
provided by a barber. In most cases t h e s e r v i c e can be judged p r i o r t o
leaving a barbershop, thereby enabling modifications t o be made a t the
consumer's d i s c r e t i o n . The consumer does not have t o depend on h i s
judgement only but has t h e b e n e f i t of f r i e n d s , r e l a t i v e s and o t h e r s t o
provide him with feedback regarding the adequacy and competency of
barbering s e r v i c e s provided.
Assessing the competency of barbering s e r v i c e s before they a r e provided is
not a d i f f i c u l t task. The consumer may question f r i e n d s or r e l a t i v e s t o
l o c a t e a barber providing q u a l i t y and competent s e r v i c e . In the absence
of t h i s help, the concerned consumer, may observe the barber providing
s e r v i c e t o o t h e r s . Lacking both these means, the consumer can yet
question the barber a s t o h i s t r a i n i n g and experience. A l l of these
methods and others which could be c i t e d do not impose a c o s t l y burden t o
the consumer. The Board concedes t h a t even with l i c e n s u r e a consumer must
s t i l l evaluate the a l t e r n a t i v e s and q u a l i t y of s e r v i c e s provided by
barbers .
Return Business - 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
t h e q u a l i t y of barbering 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 believe 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 :
" Markets can and w i l l impose p e n a l t i e s f o r supply of
low- quality professonal services.... Self- interested
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 r e t u r n s [ 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."
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 barber, 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
evaluate barbering s e r v i c e s . The repeat s a l e s concept is even applicable
t o one- time 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 . We found t h a t barbers responding t o an Auditor General
survey r e l y on r e t u r n customers f o r a t l e a s t 80 percent of t h e i r barbering
business. Therefore the barber profession should be s e l f - r e g u l a t i n g f o r
t h a t reason.
Remedy f o r Damages - I n those cases where a consumer is i n j u r e d by a
person providing barbering 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 as a d e t e r r e n t and t o recover damages. Anyone
i n j u r e d 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 an a t t o r n e y ' s a i d .
Benefits of Regulation Do Not Outweigh Costs
Since no s e r i o u s r i s k t o the 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 evaluate the q u a l i t y and
competency of barbering s e r v i c e s o f f e r e d , the b e n e f i t s of r e g u l a t i o n do
not outweigh the c o s t s t o the 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 barbering t o licensed b a r b e r s o n l y and through the
imposition of high entry c o s t s on those wishing t o become barbers.
.+
The current regulatory scheme restricts the p r a c t i c e of barbering t o only
those p r a c t i t i o n e r s who have met a l l of the requirements f o r barber
l i c e n s i n g . The barber s t a t u t e s s t a t e t h a t it is i l l e g a l t o p r a c t i c e
barbering without a l i c e n s e . The s t a t u t o r y d e f i n i t i o n of barbering a
includes " c u t t i n g , c l i p p i n g or trimming h a i r by the use of s c i s s o r s ,
shears, c l i p p e r s o r o t h e r appliances." Taken l i t e r a l l y , the s t a t u t e s
p r o h i b i t a mother from c u t t i n g her c h i l d ' s h a i r . I n l i k e manner t h i s same
mother would be prohibited from c u t t i n g o t h e r c h i l d r e n ' s h a i r i f t h e i r
parents requested such s e r v i c e be provided with o r without compensation.
S i m i l a r l y , barber s e r v i c e s can only be provided i n barbershops licensed by
the Board. This r e s t r i c t s the a v a i l a b i l i t y of barber s e r v i c e s . It a l s o
p r o h i b i t s a barber from performing barbering s e r v i c e s i n a p a t r o n ' s home.
However, although not t e c h n i c a l l y permitted by barber s t a t u t e s , the Board
s t a t e s they w i l l allow barbers t o provide s e r v i c e s t o patrons confined i n
t h e i r homes i f the barber leaves from and r e t u r n s t o a licensed barbershop.
The current regulatory 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 barbering 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 barber must meet the Board's minimum education and 0
other requirements and graduate from a barber school. Average t u i t i o n
c o s t i s about $ 1,500. The b a r b e r s t u d e n t must then complete 1,250 hours
of t r a i n i n g ( approximately 8 months work), pay the Board f e e of $ 25 and
take an examination, following which the annual l i c e n s e f e e is $ 20. After
passing the Board examination, the barber must serve an 18- month
apprenticeship under a licensed barber. After serving the apprenticeship
a n a d d i t i o n a l f e e of $ 75 must be paid and another Board examination must
be passed by the barber. The annual l i c e n s e f e e is then $ 25. Only then
can the barber l e g a l l y p r a c t i c e on h i s own. I f the barber wishes t o s e t
up h i s own shop, more f e e s must be paid and other Board requirements must
be met. Since barber r e g u l a t i o n is not needed t o p r o t e c t public h e a l t h
and s a f e t y , it can be argued t h a t these e n t r y r e s t r i c t o n s only serve the
economic i n t e r e s t s of licensed barbers by p r o t e c t i n g them from unwanted
competition. ( For a r e l a t e d discussion regarding the l e v e l of r e g u l a t i o n
see Findings I11 and IV.)
CONCLUSION
S t a t e l i c e n s i n g of barbers and barbershops can be eliminated. The
p r a c t i c e of barbering does not pose a s u f f i c i e n t r i s k t o 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 , and consumers possess adequate knowledge t o
evaluate barber s e r v i c e s .
RECOMMENDATION
The L e g i s l a t u r e should consider allowing t h e Board of Barber Examiners t o
terminate on July 1, 1984.
FINDING I1
CHANGES I N BOARD STRUCTURE COULD ENHANCE STATE REGULATION OF BARBERING.
I f the S t a t e Board of Barber Examiners is not allowed t o terminate on
July 1, 1984, 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 Barber and Cosmetology 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 cost 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 functions.
Combining the Barber
and Cosmetolo~ v Boards
The Barber and Cosmetology Boards can be consolidated t o improve
r e g u l a t i o n and i n c r e a s e 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 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 could be eliminated by combining the regulatory
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 Barber and Cosmetology 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 f u n c t i o n s of the Barber and
Cosmetology Boards a r e almost i d e n t i c a l . As shown i n Table 3, 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 Boards do not have i n common
is t h a t t h e Barber Board may a c t a s a mediator f o r controversies. This
duty has not been used by the Barber Board and the Board has suggested
t h a t it be repealed.
TABLE 3
STATUTORY DUTIES FOR
THE BAKBER AND COSMETOLOGY BOARDS
Duty Barber Cosmetology
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
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Ye s
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
PJo
S i m i l a r i t y of Barber and Cosmetology P r a c t i c e s - Barbers and cosmetologists
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 s i m i l a r . Moreover, c u r r e n t industry
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 4 i l l u s t r a t e s the similar 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 the 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
* Although the Board told us its Attorney General r e p r e s e n t a t i v e
informally advised them t h a t licensed barbers could perform these
s e r v i c e s , a formal memorandum by t h e Arizona L e g i s l a t i v e Council dated
September 21, 1982, s t a t e d t h a t
" Permanent waving, h a i r s t r a i g h t e n i n g and r o l l e r
h a i r s e t t i n g a r e not permitted under the d e f i n i t i o n of
the p r a c t i c e of barbering prescribed i n A. R. S. s32- 302."
Iiowever, because t h e r e is l i t t l e or no r i s k of public harm from these
procedures ( see page 16 of t h i s r e p o r t and page 14 of the Cosmetology
r e p o r t ) there appears t o be l i t t l e reason t o r e t a i n o r enforce t h i s
r e s t r i c t i o n .
TABLE 4
STATUTORY SCOPE OF PRACTICE FOR
BARBERING AND COSMETOLOGY
Type of P r a c t i c e
Shave or t r i m beard
Cut, c l i p or t r i m h a i r
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 preparations
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, dressing, c u r l i n g ,
waving, permanent waving
Arching eyebrows or t i n t i n g eyelashes and
eyebrows
Manicuring
Barber
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
* Some barbers a r e nonetheless providing these s e r v i c e s .
Cosmetology
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
H i s t o r i c a l d i f f e r e n c e s between the p r a c t i c e s of barbering and cosmetology
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 i n d u s t r y t r e n d s a r e closing the gaps between the two
p r a c t i c e s . Barbers and cosmetologists 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 the Metro- Phoenix phone book yellow pages
i n d i c a t e s t h a t a t l e a s t 50 barbershops and 140 beauty shops a r e advertised
a s serving both men and women. Some of these " unisex" shops may be
licensed by both Boards because they employ both barbers and
cosmetologists.
Recognizing t h i s trend and the convergence of the two occupations, seven
s t a t e s have recently 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 barbering and cosmetology p r a c t i c e s , found t h a t barbers who graduated
within the l a s t ten years were performing the same tasks a s
cosmetologists. The National Hairdressers and Cosmetology Association
( NHCA), which has developed a model b i l l which includes provisions f o r the
regulation of barbering and cosmetology under a s i n g l e board, has noted
the convergence of both occupations:
". . . we must face the 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 barbering and cosmetology is f u r t h e r •
evidenced by the f a c t t h a t barber schools a r e teaching and barbers are
providing services t o the public which had been h i s t o r i c a l l y reserved for
cosmetology. These services include r o l l e r s e t t i n g , permanent waving,
hair straightening and h a i r s t y l i n g . •
Differences i n Regulation Cause Inequity - Inequity created by separate
regulation of similar occupations can be eliminated by combining
administrative functions of the Barber and Cosmetology Boards.
Differences i n laws and regulations 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 barbering and cosmetology practices
which are burdensome t o shops and p r a c t i t i o n e r s , students and school
owners .
~ u a l licensure 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
State Board of Barber Examiners and cosmetologists can only work i n shops
licensed by t h e S t a t e Board of Cosmetology. For a shop wishing t o employ
both barbers and cosmetologists t h i s means 1) purchasing two separate
establishment licenses 2) duplicating s a n i t a t i o n inspections by both
Boards and 3) following two d i f f e r e n t s e t s of regulations on shop,
equipment and practice. 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 u n l e s s t h e r e is a journeyman barber on the s t a f f . I n one
- C
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 so, the shop
would have had t o obtain both a barbershop l i c e n s e and another barber t o
s a t i s f y Barber Board 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 barbering and
cosmetology may become an increasing problem i n the 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 indicated 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 Barber and Cosmetology
Board members, the trend t o employ both barbers and cosmetologists i n the
same shop is growing.
The d i f f e r e n c e s i n educational requirements between barbering and
cosmetology c r e a t e burdensome r e s t r i c t i o n s on students. 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 at l e a s t 1,800 hours. Part of the 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 . Also, 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 barber and
h a i r d r e s s e r 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 .
Differences i n requirements f o r barber and cosmetology schools a l s o c r e a t e
unwarranted burdens on school owners. A barber school must have a sink
for every student while a cosmetology school only needs six sinks per
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 it is 1 t o 20. These and other unique requirements of each
law a r e over 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 , t h e s e 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 Barber and Cosmetology Boards would provide
c o s t 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 c o s t 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 5 , the Barber Board 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 the Cosmetology Board
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 are many more licensed
cosmetologists than barbers. If the Boards were merged and the annual
operating cost per l i c e n s e e could be maintained a t the Cosmetology Board
cost of $ 12, then a t l e a s t $ 40,000 could be saved by such an economy of
s c a l e .
TABLE 5
ANNUAL OPERATING COST PER LICENSEE
Barber
1981- 82
Total Board expenditures
Cosmetology
1981- 82
$ 213,333
Total number of l i c e n s e s - 3,478 j 17,333
Annual a d m i n i s t r a t i v e cost per licensee* $ 24.01
* The annual a d m i n i s t r a t i v e cost per l i c e n s e e i n c l u d e s Board c o s t s f o r
a l l Board f u n c t i o n s i n c l u d i n g conducting exams, i s s u i n g and renewing
l i c e n s e s , inspecting shops and schools and a l l other Board functions.
Second, combining Boards w i l l provide savings by reducing d u p l i c a t i o n such
as the inspection of shops which employ both barbers and cosmetologists.
Travel c o s t s could be saved by one i n s p e c t o r i n s p e c t i n g both cosmetology
rn shops and barbershops i n outlying areas r a t h e r than each Board sending an
inspector. F i n a l l y , o t h e r expenditures such a s off i c e rent and telephone
service may be reduced by merging the Boards.
We did not attempt to estimate cost savings through merging the two Boards
because s e v e r a l other f a c t o r s c o n t r i b u t e t o the amount of savings which
can be r e a l i z e d . F i r s t , we recommend both Boards eliminate the p r a c t i c a l
examination f o r a l l candidates of l i c e n s u r e ( s e e page 41). This is
estimated t o save at l e a s t $ 8,800 annually f o r the Cosmetology Board
alone. Second, we recommend a biennial renewal f o r l i c e n s e s of both
Boards f o r a combined savings of $ 31,300 every two years. Third, we
recommend t h a t Board members cease t o function a s full- time employees and
t h a t a l l a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s be handled instead by Board employees.
F i n a l l y , the Barber Board i n s p e c t s shops approximately three times
annually while the Cosmetology Board inspects l e s s frequently. All of
these f a c t o r s i n d i v i d u a l l y 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 r e a l i z e d by merging the Boards of barbering and cosmetology.
However, experience with combined boards i n other states i n d i c a t e s 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 r e c e n t l y
combined the two boards and at l e a s t f o u r r e p o r t e f f i c i e n c i e s by job
sharing, reducing rent payments and number of personnel. Oregon reported
t h a t combining the Barber and Cosmetology Boards i n 1977 r e s u l t e d i n the
following advantages.
- Entry l e v e l f e e s f o r barbers and h a i r d r e s s e r s were reduced by as
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 Board personnel was reduced from 14 t o 7.
- Administrative c o s t s were reduced by streamlining the examination
operation and requiring b i e n n i a l l i c e n s u r e .
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 c o s t 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 a
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 r e n t payments.
Board Members Serving
a s Full- time Staff
Regardless of whether the Barber and Cosmetology 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 c r e a t e s 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, t h u s e l i m i n a t i n g these problems.
The Boards of barbering and cosmetology a r e the only Arizona occupational
l i c e n s i n g boards whose members a c t as full- time a d m i n i s t r a t i v e employees.
Two of the three Barber Board members a r e required t o serve a s s t a f f
pursuant t o A. R. S. s32- 305. A. which s t a t e s i n p a r t ,
" The chairman and s e c r e t a r y of the board s h a l l devote
t h e i r e n t i r e time t o the business 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 a s decision makers and l e a v e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s t o
professional 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,
" . . . 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, con£ e r r i n g
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 bias or prejudgment
t h a t the p r a c t i c e must be forbidden i f the guarantee
of due process i s 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 t h e 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. All 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 d e c i s i o n ,
commitment or promise made by a public 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. Casual day- to- day
conversations regarding Board business by the working Board members could
be construed as a v i o l a t i o n 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 as full- time
s t a f f .
Administrative Functions Can Be Performed by Other Than Board Members -
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 f u n c t i o n s
now performed by the full- time Board members. Board members c u r r e n t l y
proctor t h e 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 inspections of barbershops and schools and handle
complaints. kiowever, the p r a c t i c a l portion of the examination can be
eliminated ( see page 41) 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 trained 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. Barber
school and shop inspections could a l s o be performed by s t a f f i n s p e c t o r s .
Therefore, the problems associated with Board members serving as full- time
staff outweigh any benefits. As stated by the National Association of
Attorneys General, a board's primary role is that of decision maker. This
is further supported by the fact that the Barber and Cosmetology Boards a
are the only two licensing boards in Arizona which have board members
acting as full- time administrative staff.
CONCLUSION
Regulation of barbering can be improved by changing the structure and
composition of the State Board of Barber Examiners. The Barber and
Cosmetology Boards can be combined to improve administration and
effectiveness of regulation for these occupations at a substantial cost
savings. Board members should not serve as full- time administrative
staff. This will eliminate potential legal problems and violation of the
Open Meeting Law.
If the State Board of Barber Examiners is not allowed to terminate on
July 1, 1984, the legislature should consider making the following
statutory changes.
1. Combine administration and regulation of barbering and cosmetology
under a single regulatory 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.
FINDING I11
BOARD REGULATION OF BARBER SCHOOLS CAN BE REDUCED.
The Board of Barber Examiners s t a t u t e s and r u l e s and r e g u l a t i o n s
c u r r e n t l y impose excessive and unnecessary regulatory burdens on barber
school operations. The c u r r e n t degree of r e g u l a t i o n r e q u i r e s barber
schools t o meet excessive f i n a n c i a l , enrollment, i n s t r u c t i o n r a t i o ,
curriculum, f a c i l i t y and equipment and other requirements which do not
seem j u s t i f i e d as serving a v a l i d public purpose.
School Regulation
The Board of Barber Examiners has licensed barber schools since 1929.
Four barber schools a r e c u r r e n t l y licensed and regulated by the Board.
Three schools a r e located i n Phoenix and one i n Tucson. The S t a t e Board
of P r i v a t e Technical and Business Schools ( PTBS) 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 vocational schools e n r o l l i n g
approximately 110,300 students annually. Barber schools were excluded
from PTBS Board r e g u l a t i o n because they were already regulated by the
Board of Barber Examiners.
Financial Requirements - The Board r e s t r i c t s the e n t r y of barber schools
i n t o the market place by excessive f i n a n c i a l requirements. A new school,
under Board Regulation R4- 5- 15. d, is required t o show evidence t h a t
". . . finances a r e a v a i l a b l e t o provide f o r operation
of the proposed c o l l e g e f o r a minimum period of 24
months without income."
This requirement appears excessive and unreasonable. For example, the
fourth and most recent barber school i n t h e S t a t e opened on December 12,
1980. The school owner estimated t h a t approximately $ 130,000 i n expenses
would be incurred over a 24- month period. Therefore, the owner had t o a
show t h a t $ 130,000 was a v a i l a b l e t o operate the school before i t could be
licensed r e g a r d l e s s of any a n t i c i p a t e d income t h a t would be received. By
c o n t r a s t , the Board of P r i v a t e Technical and Business Schools requires
instead t h a t schools maintain a $ 10,000 s u r e t y bond while the Board of a
Cosmetology requires a $ 5,000 s u r e t y bond f o r cosmetology schools ( the
Board of Cosmetology i s the only other occupational l i c e n s i n g board
besides the Board of Barber Examiners t h a t l i c e n s e s schools). According
t o the Board, t h i s r e g u l a t i o n is not c u r r e n t l y being enforced and the
Board plans t o require a $ 5,000 bond i n s t e a d .
Approval for Enrollment - Board r u l e s excessively r e s t r i c t t h e barber
school enrollment system by requiring Board approval before students can
e n r o l l i n a barber school and before licensed barbers and apprentices can
take r e f r e s h e r courses. Board Regulation R4- 5- 26 r e q u i r e s t h a t before a
school can e n r o l l a new student and the student receive i n s t r u c t i o n , Board
approval must be obtained. I f the student is not approved by the Board,
he cannot receive i n s t r u c t i o n from the school. In l i k e manner, a licensed
barber or apprentice is prohibited by Regulation R4- 5- 19. A from e n r o l l i n g
i n a barber school except i n c e r t a i n circumstances and t h e n o n l y i f
approved by the Board. These requirements a r e unique i n Arizona. No
other occupational l i c e n s i n g board i n the S t a t e r e q u i r e s Board approval
before students can be trained i n the occupation i t l i c e n s e s . Also,
A. R. S. $ 32- 328. D. allows barber schools t o o f f e r postgraduate courses i f
the courses a r e approved by the Board. Further, the Attorney General i n
l e g a l opinion No. 60- 25 held t h a t barbers licensed i n Arizona or
out- of- state barbers could e n r o l l i n Arizona barber schools for
postgraduate or r e f r e s h e r courses. Therefore, the Board r u l e p r o h i b i t i n g
licensed barbers t o e n r o l l i n barber schools may be i n v a l i d as well as
unreasonable.
According to a Board o f f i c i a l , the Board does not " approve" s t u d e n t s , but
only reviews enrollment m a t e r i a l s and i s s u e s an e d u c a t i o n a l c a r d . By
reviewing enrollment m a t e r i a l s , the Board knows who i s attending schools
8 and when i n s t r u c t i o n s t a r t e d so t h a t hours of school are kept a c c u r a t e l y .
However, t h i s appears t o be more a p p r o p r i a t e l y a school function and not a
Board function. A Board o f f i c i a l s t a t e d t h a t the Board h a s n o t denied
anyone entry i n t o barber school. He a l s o s t a t e d t h a t the Board r u l e
prohibiting barbers or apprentices from e n r o l l i n g i n barber schools is not
enforced by the Board.
Instructor/ Student Ratio - The barber school i n s t r u c t o r / s t u d e n t r a t i o
required by the S t a t u t e s a l s o appears too r e s t r i c t i v e . The S t a t u t e s
require an i n s t r u c t o r r a t i o of 1 i n s t r u c t o r t o each 12 s t u d e n t s o r
f r a c t i o n thereof. By comparison, the Board of Cosmetology allows 1
i n s t r u c t o r t o each 20 cosmetology students while the PTBS Board has no
s p e c i f i c r e s t r i c t i o n s on the r a t i o of i n s t r u c t o r s t o s t u d e n t s . The Board
of Barber Examiners agrees t h a t the r a t i o can be changed t o the 1: 20 r a t i o
of the Board of Cosmetology.
Curriculum Requirements - The S t a t u t e s may a l s o unnecessarily r e s t r i c t
barber school curriculum. Barber school curriculum contents have been
defined by A. R. S. $ 32- 328. C., thus t e c h n i c a l l y r e s t r i c t i n g schools i n t h e
courses offered. Barber schools, however, a r e c u r r e n t l y teaching s u b j e c t s
which are not included i n t h e s t a t u t o r y scope of barbering ( s e e f o o t n o t e ,
page 22, f o r L e g i s l a t i v e Council memorandum on scope of barbering).
When the t h r e e barber school owners were asked how they s e l e c t e d t h e i r
curriculum, two s t a t e d t h a t the curriculum followed the barber textbook,
and one s t a t e d t h a t curriculum was based on public demand. The Board of
P r i v a t e Technical and Business Schools ( PTBS) monitors school curriculum
while allowing schools f l e x i b i l i t y i n choosing courses. Schools under the
PTBS Board can choose t h e i r c u r r i c u l a r programs, r a t h e r than having a
defined program, with the s t i p u l a t i o n t h a t the course be of s u f f i c i e n t
comprehension and length t o enable a graduate t o demonstrate a l e v e l of
knowledge and s k i l l t o be employable.
F a c i l i t y Requirements - Board equipment and f a c i l i t y requirements f o r
barber schools a r e a l s o too r e s t r i c t i v e . Equipment r e g u l a t i o n s r e q u i r e
schools t o have a t l e a s t 10 barber c h a i r s with a sink f o r each c h a i r .
School premises must a l s o have a p r a c t i c a l worlcroom a t l e a s t 14 f e e t wide
for 1 row of barber c h a i r s or 22 f e e t wide f o r 2 rows of c h a i r s . These
r e g u l a t i o n s do not allow f l e x i b i l i t y f o r d i f f e r e n t circumstances. For
example, i f an i n d i v i d u a l i n a small town wished t o open a school with
f i v e c h a i r s , he would be denied on t h e b a s i s of Board r e g u l a t i o n s . Also,
the Board of Cosmetology does n o t r e q u i r e one sink f o r each c h a i r . The
a
Barber Board r e g u l a t i o n s , thus, r e s u l t i n increased c o s t s f o r opening a
school. The PTBS Board, on t h e o t h e r hand, provides f l e x i b i l i t y f o r
schools a s i t s r u l e s require only " adequate" f a c i l i t i e s and equipment t o
serve teaching and student needs.
a
License Fees - Board i n i t i a l l i c e n s e f e e s may be r e s t r i c t i v e . The Board
of Barber Examiners charges barber schools higher f e e s than are charged by
the cosmetology and PTBS boards. The Board of Barber Examiners r e q u i r e s a
f e e of $ 1,000 f o r i n i t i a l l i c e n s i n g of schools and a minimum renewal f e e
of a t l e a s t $ 350. Board of Cosmetology f e e s are only $ 175 f o r i n i t i a l
l i c e n s i n g and $ 150 f o r renewal,* and PTBS Board f e e s a r e $ 350 and $ 300,
respectively.
CONCLUSION
Board s t a t u t e s and r u l e s and r e g u l a t i o n s c u r r e n t l y impose excessive and
unnecessary regulatory burdens on barber school operations.
If the S t a t e Board of Barber Examiners is not allowed t o terminate on
July 1, 1984, the following recommendations should be considered:
1. The Board should amend Regulation R4- 5- 15. d t o discontinue its
requirement t h a t a proposed barber school show evidence t h a t finances
are a v a i l a b l e f o r a minimum of 24 months without income.
* Effective July 1, 1983, the Board of Cosmetology fees w i l l be $ 350 f o r
an i n i t i a l school l i c e n s e and $ 300 f o r renewal.
3 6
2. The Board should d e l e t e Regulations R4- 5- 19. A and R4- 5- 26 which
require a student t o receive Board approval before e n r o l l i n g i n school
and before l i c e n s e d b a r b e r s and apprentices can take r e f r e s h e r courses.
3. The Legislature should consider amending A. R. S. $ 32- 328.~. t o remove
the requirement of 1 i n s t r u c t o r f o r each 12 students.
4. The Board should amend Regulations R4- 5- 16 and R4- 5- 17 t o d e l e t e
excessive and r e s t r i c t i v e f a c i l i t y requirements.
5. The L e g i s l a t u r e should review the i n i t i a l $ 1,000 barber school l i c e n s e
f e e t o determine its r e s t r i c t i v e n e s s .
FINDING I V
REQUIREMENTS FOR ENTRY INTO THE BARBERING OCCUPATION CAN BE REDUCED.
I f l i c e n s i n g of barbers is r e t a i n e d , changes a r e needed i n t h e
requirements f o r entry i n t o the occupation. Piany requirements f o r entry
i n t o barbering a r e too r e s t r i c t i v e , do not serve a v a l i d public purpose
and could be eliminated. The 18- month apprenticeship requirement is
unnecessary and should be eliminated f o r a p p l i c a n t s graduating from a
barber school. 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 . The 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 and t h e w r i t t e n examination should i n c l u d e o n l y
those items r e l a t i n g t o p r o t e c t i o n of the public. F i n a l l y , requirements
r e l a t i n g t o education, moral character and medical c e r t i f i c a t e s should
a l s o be eliminated.
Currently before a person can be licensed i n Arizona a s a barber, 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 r e g i s t e r e d barber school with at least 1,250 hours of i n s t r u c t i o n ,
2) pass a Board examination, 3) p r a c t i c e a s a r e g i s t e r e d apprentice f o r
18 months under the supervision of a licensed barber, 4) pass another
Board examination, 5 ) be of good moral c h a r a c t e r , and 6) possess a t e n t h
grade or equivalent education. In a d d i t i o n , Board r u l e s r e q u i r e a medical
c e r t i f i c a t e be obtained before entry i n t o barber school.
Apprenticeship Is Unnecessary
The 18- month apprenticeship requirement is unnecessary and should be
eliminated f o r a p p l i c a n t s who graduate from a barber school. The
apprenticeship does not ensure any a d d i t i o n a l l e v e l of competency, and
persons who can pass the exam t o become an apprentice demonstrate equal or
g r e a t e r competency than t h a t c u r r e n t l y required f o r f u l l l i c e n s u r e .
Further, the apprenticeship may impose a f i n a n c i a l hardship on some
a p p l i c a n t s . T h i r t e e n o t h e r s t a t e s which l i c e n s e barbers do n o t r e q u i r e an
apprenticeship period.
39
The a p p r e n t i c e s h i p period s e r v e s no u s e f u l purpose f o r barber a p p l i c a n t s
who graduate from a barber c o l l e g e . These a p p l i c a n t s have spent 1,250
hours i n barber college. During t h i s time, a s k i l l l e v e l is developed by
providing complete barbering s e r v i c e s t o the p u b l i c . For example, barber
school s t u d e n t s perform an average of almost 700 h a i r c u t s , 25 shaves and
100 permanents while i n school. F u r t h e r , when licensed a s an apprentice,
barber candidates a r e not r e s t r i c t e d i n any manner a s t o the type of
s e r v i c e s they can provide. I n most c a s e s , a p p r e n t i c e s r e c e i v e the same
wages a s barbers f o r t h e i r s e r v i c e s . Apprentices a r e not required t o work
a s e t number of hours nor perform a s e t number o r type of s e r v i c e s during
t h e i r apprenticeship. Under these conditions, the l e n g t h of the
a p p r e n t i c e s h i p cannot be j u s t i f i e d .
Persons who can pass the examinations t o become a p p r e n t i c e s demonstrate
s u f f i c i e n t competency t o o b t a i n a f u l l l i c e n s e without an apprenticeship.
Both barbers and a p p r e n t i c e s a r e required by the Board t o take a n o r a l ,
w r i t t e n and p r a c t i c a l exam before l i c e n s u r e . O r a l q u e s t i o n s f o r both
apprentice and barber exams a r e i d e n t i c a l . A review of the barber w r i t t e n
exam showed t h a t 60 percent of the questions were contained word f o r word
on apprentice exams. Further, the p r a c t i c a l exam t o become an apprentice
is more d i f f i c u l t than the exam f o r a f u l l l i c e n s e because a p p r e n t i c e s are
required t o give two d i f f e r e n t s t y l e h a i r c u t s and t o r o l l permanent wave
rods w h i l e b a r b e r s are o n l y r e q u i r e d t o give one h a i r c u t of t h e i r choice
of s t y l e . I n a d d i t i o n , Arizona cosmetologists who perform many of the
same s e r v i c e s a s barbers a r e not required t o s e r v e a n apprenticeship
period before being licensed.
The a p p r e n t i c e s h i p requirement may pose a f i n a n c i a l hardship t o some
a p p l i c a n t s . An apprentice is required t o work under t h e supervision of a
licensed barber and may not own or operate h i s own barbershop. This may
r e s t r i c t the a p p r e n t i c e ' s a b i l i t y t o earn a l i v i n g . I n a d d i t i o n t o the
undue inconvenience of taking both an apprentice and an almost i d e n t i c a l
barber examination a candidate must pay $ 45 f o r the apprentice examination
and apprentice l i c e n s e and then a n a d d i t i o n a l $ 100 f o r t h e barber
examination and barber l i c e n s e .
We found 13 s t a t e s which do not require an a p p r e n t i c e s h i p period before
a p p l i c a n t s can be licensed a s barbers. Some states provide candidates
w i t h a n o p t i o n t o serve an apprenticeship i n l i e u of graduation from a
barber school. These s t a t e s allow i n d i v i d u a l s t o receive t r a i n i n g from
barbers and then take the Board examination f o r l i c e n s u r e .
Licensing by Endorsement
Should Be Provided
Entry requirements imposed on o u t - o f - s t a t e barbers a r e too r e s t r i c t i v e and
should be reduced. All a p p l i c a n t s d e s i r i n g t o be licensed as barbers i n
Arizona must take an examination r e g a r d l e s s of t h e i r p r i o r experiences.
This means t h a t a barber who has been licensed i n some other s t a t e f o r 20
years and has s u c c e s s f u l l y operated a barbershop must take and pass an
Arizona barber examination before he can provide s e r v i c e a s a barber i n
Arizona. The Board recognizes a need t o a l l o w b a r b e r s from other s t a t e s
t o receive an Arizona l i c e n s e without an examination. This can best be
provided by ammending the barber s t a t u t e s t o provide f o r l i c e n s i n g by
endorsement. Under the endorsement approach, a p p l i c a n t s from other s t a t e s
would be granted l i c e n s u r e without examination 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 equal t o or g r e a t e r than the l i c e n s i n g standards of
Arizona.
Board P r a c t i c a l Examination
Should Be Discontinued
The Board's p r a c t i c a l examination of a p p l i c a n t s should be discontinued and
the w r i t t e n examination 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 public. The p r a c t i c a l examination is unnecessary
because most tasks t e s t e d a r e not c r i t i c a l t o public p r o t e c t i o n , and a l l
barber a p p l i c a n t s a r e a l r e a d y r e q u i r e d t o have graduated from a licensed
barber school. It is reasonable t o presume t h a t graduates of these
schools possess the r e q u i s i t e performance s k i l l s . I f not, the marketplace
should function adequately t o eliminate those who a r e u n q u a l i f i e d o r
otherwise unsuited t o p r a c t i c e barbering. The s t a t e of Oregon has
discontinued the requirement of a p r a c t i c a l exam f o r these same reasons.
Experts i n the f i e l d of occupational l i c e n s i n g s t r e s s t h a t items 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 of the public.
The w r i t t e n exam should assure t h a t it measures 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 at
the minimum l e v e l of competence deemed necessary f o r t h e p u b l i c ' s
protection. This means the 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 s p e c t s of t h e p r a c t i c e of barbering ( f o r example, shop management and
h a i r s t y l i n g techniques) but only on those tasks or subject areas which a r e 4
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. Currently, the t e s t
i n c l u d e s q u e s t i o n s on good business p r a c t i c e s and techniques and methods
of performing barber s e r v i c e s .
Miscellaneous Licensure Reauirements
That Can Be Eliminated
The l i c e n s i n g requirements of a t e n t h grade education, a good moral
c h a r a c t e r and the obtaining of a medical c e r t i f i c a t e before entry i n t o
barber school can be eliminated. These requirements cannot be j u s t i f i e d
and are not 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.
Educational Requirements - The t e n t h grade educational requirement f o r
barbering 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 chairman of 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 he f e l t some l e v e l of education was needed SO
barbers could 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 28 s t a t e s have an educational requirement f o r barbers which is
lower than Arizona's tenth grade requirement. Eight of those s t a t e s have
no educational requirement a t a l l . Table 7 shows educational requirements
f o r barber l i c e n s i n g i n the 50 s t a t e s .
TABLE 6
YEARS OF FOmiAL EDUCATION REQUIRED
FOR BARBER LICENSING I N THE 50 STATES
Years of Schooling Required Number of S t a t e s with Requirement
None
7
8
9
10
12
F i n a l l y , the tenth grade requirement does not allow f l e x i b i l i t y although
no c l e a r purpose f o r it has been e s t a b l i s h 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 are
incorporated i n t o l i c e n s u r e law, 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 e n t r y i n t o t h e profession t o
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 school or s p e c i a l courses i n order t o obtain a G. E. D.
Good Moral Character - The Board's method of assessing good moral
character serves no c l e a r useful purpose and is not enforced. The Board
r e q u i r e s a p p l i c a n t s t o d e c l a r e t h e i r criminal records concerning past
crimes and t o s t a t e any h a b i t u a l drug or alcohol use. However, t h i s
information i s not used by the Board. For example, i f an applicant has
committed a crime, he w i l l not be excluded from entry i n t o barber school
nor denied a barber l i c e n s e .
Further, the Board has not developed any guidelines regarding the
d e f i n i t i o n of a h a b i t u a l drug or alcohol user nor a s t o what types of
crimes would warrant barring a n i n d i v i d u a l from the profession. The lack
of such guidelines o f f e r s the p o t e n t i a l f o r misuse. Benjamin Shimberg, i n
a report on occupational l i c e n s i n g , c i t e s an American Bar Association
decree on the absence of such guidelines and possible harm t o t h e l i c e n s e
applicant which can r e s u l t :
" I n t h e absence of g u i d e l i n e s , t h e r e i s o f t e n a f a i l u r e
by l i c e n s i n g agencies t o take i n t o account whether the
crime committed by the applicant r e l a t e s t o the
occupation sought, the age of the i n d i v i d u a l , and the
surrounding circumstances at the t i m e of the offense,
t h e length of time t h a t has elasped since the unlawful
a c t i v i t y , and the subsequent r e h a b i l i t a t i v e e f f o r t s of
the i n d i v i d u a l . The r e s u l t is t h a t without such
g u i d e l i n e s , broad d i s c r e t i o n is l e f t t o persons on the
l i c e n s i n g board or anencv t o exercise t h e i r a u t h o r i t y
i n such a manner a s t o a r b i t r a r i l v r e i e c t anv -
4
a p p l i c a n t , p a r t i c u l a r l y t h e former offender, whom they
consider u n f i t . " ( emphasis added)
In the absence of s p e c i f i c guidelines the Board's method of assessing
moral character should be discontinued.
Medical C e r t i f i c a t e - F i n a l l y , the Board's requirement of a medical
c e r t i f i c a t e f o r entry i n t o barber school is a l s o unnecessary. The medical
c e r t i f i c a t e must be signed by a medical doctor and t h e r e f o r e involves an
a d d i t i o n a l expense t o the a p p l i c a n t . The medical c e r t i f i c a t e only
c e r t i f i e s t h a t the applicant is f r e e from i n f e c t i o u s or contagious
diseases on t h e d a t e of examination. The c e r t i f i c a t e does not assure t h a t
a barber student w i l l remain f r e e from d i s e a s e as a d i s e a s e could be
contracted a t any t i m e p r i o r t o l i c e n s u r e . The Board does not require a
medical c e r t i f i c a t e f o r barber or apprentice l i c e n s i n g nor f o r the renewal
of l i c e n s e s . The Board agrees t h a t t h i s requirement f o r barber school
a p p l i c a n t s can be eliminated and r e p o r t s t h a t i t has already n o t i f i e d a l l
barber schools t h a t medical c e r t i f i c a t e s should no longer be required.
CONCLUSION
Some requirements f o r l i c e n s u r e a r e too r e s t r i c t i v e , do n o t s e r v e a v a l i d
purpose i n protecting the public and could be eliminated t o provide
g r e a t e r ease of entry i n t o the barbering occupation.
RECO?. IMENDATI ONS
I f the S t a t e Board of Barber Examiners is not allowed t o terminate on
July 1, 1984, the following recommendations should be considered.
1. Board s t a t u t e s should be amended t o eliminate the apprenticeship
requirement f o r barber a p p l i c a n t s graduating from a barber school and
r e t a i n the apprenticeship only f o r those a p p l i c a n t s n o t wishing t o
attend barber school.
2. Board s t a t u t e s should be amended t o permit l i c e n s i n g by endorsement
without an examination f o r those a p p l i c a n t s l i c e n s e d i n other s t a t e s
with comparable standards.
8 3. The p r a c t i c a l examination should be eliminated a s a l i c e n s i n g
requirement.
4. The Board's w r i t t e n examination should be revised t o i n c l u d e o n l y
those items r e l a t i n g t o p r o t e c t i o n of the public.
5. The s t a t u t o r y requirement t h a t barber a p p l i c a n t s have at l e a s t a t e n t h
grade education should be eliminated or reduced.
6. The Board should discontinue its c u r r e n t method of assessing moral
character or develop s u f f i c i e n t guidelines t o avoid p o t e n t i a l misuse
of t h i s requirement.
7. The Board should amend its r e g u l a t i o n t o remove the requirement t h a t
a p p l i c a n t s f o r barber school submit a medical c e r t i f i c a t e p r i o r t o
enrollment.
FINDING V
TIE BOARD CAN IFIPROVE ITS SHOP INSPECTION AND LICENSE RENEWAL PROCEDURES.
If the Board of Barber Examiners is not terminated on July 1, 1984,
improvements should be made i n two a d m i n i s t r a t i v e areas. F i r s t ,
barbershop i n s p e c t i o n s should be conducted i n a f a i r , objective and
e f f e c t i v e manner. Second, t h e e f f i c i e n c y of the Board's l i c e n s e renewal
system could be improved by i n i t i a t i n g a b i e n n i a l or t r i e n n i a l renewal
cycle.
Board Inspections Are Not
Fair. Obiective or Effective
Board procedures f o r inspecting and r a t i n g barbershops need improvement.
The Board does not r a t e barbershops i n a f a i r and c o n s i s t e n t manner and
has not developed c r i t e r i a and guidelines t o determine under what
conditions each type of r a t i n g should be given. I n a d d i t i o n , the shop
i n s p e c t i o n s a r e not e f f e c t i v e i n c o r r e c t i n g problems discovered.
Barbershops a r e inspected by the Board an average of t h r e e times each
year. The i n s p e c t i o n r e p o r t form used by the Board lists 12 items which
a r e inspected by Board members. Marks a r e made on the form next t o each
item i f i n t h e i n s p e c t o r ' s opinion a problem e x i s t s . The shops a r e then
given a n o v e r a l l r a t i n g of A, B o r C. A t a November 10, 1980, meeting the
Board decided t h a t one demerit would be given f o r a " B" r a t i n g and two
demerits would be given f o r a " C" r a t i n g . I f the shop accumulated s i x
demerits i n a y e a r ' s period, then the owner would be c a l l e d i n f o r a
hearing.
Shop Ratings Are Arbitrary - Board members performing shop i n s p e c t i o n s do
not assign shop r a t i n g s i n a c o n s i s t e n t and f a i r manner but do so
a r b i t r a r i l y . A review of 1,650 shop inspection r e p o r t forms shows:
1) Ratings a r e not based on the number or tvDe of ~ r o b l e m s noted on
t h e i n s p e c t i o n form.
Table 8, which shows the number of shops given A, B or C r a t i n g s
versus the number of v i o l a t i o n s found by i n s p e c t o r s , i l l u s t r a t e s t h a t
r a t i n g s a r e not based on the number of v i o l a t i o n s found.
TABLE 7
RATINGS GIVEN BARBERSHOPS
VERSUS THE NUMBER OF VIOLATIONS FOUND
Number of Shop Inspections
Number of Violations with Each Rating Total Shop
Found on Inspection A B C I n s p e c t i o n s
One 143 69 18
Two 3 3 52 4
Three 1 19 8
Four 1 1 4
Total shops inspected with v i o l a t i o n s noted
on i n s p e c t i o n r e p o r t forms
As shown by t h e t a b l e , of 230 shops which had one v i o l a t i o n , 143 were
given an A r a t i n g while 69 were given a B r a t i n g and 18 shops received
a C r a t i n g .
2) Shops with the same problems a r e given d i f f e r e n t r a t i n g s by
i n s p e c t o r s .
Of 52 shops whose only v i o l a t i o n s were d i r t y work stands, 23 were
given A r a t i n g s while 28 were given B r a t i n g s and 1 was given a C
r a t i n g . Another example is e i g h t shops t h a t were given A r a t i n g s
while f i v e shops were given B r a t i n g s f o r the same two problems of
inadequate dry and wet s t e r i l i z a t i o n equipment. a
3) Shops a r e rated lower than other shops which not only have the same
problems. but a d d i t i o n a l ~ r o b l e m s a s well.
The following f o u r c a s e s serve t o i l l u s t r a t e t h i s problem:
48
Case 1: A shop was given a B r a t i n g f o r an inadequate dry s t e r i l i z e r
and d i r t y brushes and d u s t e r s while another shop with the same
conditions plus a l i c e n s e v i o l a t i o n was given an A r a t i n g .
Case 2: A shop with d i r t y walls, d i r t y restrooms, inadequate dip
s t e r i l i z e r s and inadequate dry s t e r i l i z e r s was given an A r a t i n g while
numerous other shops received B r a t i n g s f o r only the l a s t two
conditions.
Case 3: Two shops were given C r a t i n g s f o r d i r t y work s t a t i o n s and
inadequate wet s t e r i l i z e r s while two other shops found t o have the
same conditions plus inadequate dry s t e r i l i z e r s were given B r a t i n g s .
Case 4: A shop was given a C r a t i n g f o r d i r t y f l o o r s and work s t a t i o n s
while two other shops with the same conditions plus d i r t y or
inadequate sinks were given B r a t i n g s .
4) I n s p e c t o r s g i v e many shops " B" r a t i n g s ( worth one demerit) without
any j u s t i f i c a t i o n .
At l e a s t 89 of 1,650 shops inspected by the Board were given B r a t i n g s
when no reasons were given on the inspection forms t o j u s t i f y a r a t i n g
below an A. In f a c t , 17 of these 89 shops were given B r a t i n g s on the
b a s i s of a n " o u t s i d e i n s p e c t i o n " where the inspector inspected the
shop through a window because the shop was closed. Also, some other
shops were given A r a t i n g s based on the same type of outside
inspection.
Inspections a r e a r b i t r a r y and i n c o n s i s t e n t because the Board h a s n o t
developed objective c r i t e r i a t o guide t h e i n s p e c t i o n process or determined
the r e l a t i v e seriousness of each type of problem t h a t could be discovered.
Because inspection r a t i n g s a r e a r b i t r a r y and i n c o n s i s t e n t , any Board
decisions based on them could be open t o l e g a l challenge. In a
May 20, 1981, memorandum involving a s i m i l a r s i t u a t i o n , t h e Arizona
L e g i s l a t i v e Council s t a t e d :
"... equal p r o t e c t i o n r e q u i r e s t h a t d i f f e r e n t treatment
of persons s i m i l a r l y s i t u a t e d be j u s t i f i e d by an
appropriate S t a t e i n t e r e s t . . . . "
We f a i l t o see a l e g i t i m a t e S t a t e i n t e r e s t i n a r b i t r a r i l y assigning shop
i n s p e c t i o n r a t i n g s .
Shop Inspections Are Not E f f e c t i v e - Barbershop i n s p e c t i o n s performed by
the Board a r e a l s o not e f f e c t i v e because timely c o r r e c t i v e a c t i o n is not
taken when problems a r e discovered. Problems discovered during shop
i n s p e c t i o n s a r e c i t e d again on as many as f i v e subsequent Board
i n s p e c t i o n s . F u r t h e r , the Board does not conduct follow- up i n s p e c t i o n s t o
assure t h a t problems a r e corrected.
Efficiency of Board Can Be Improved
The e f f i c i e n c y of the Board's l i c e n s e renewal process can be improved by
changing t o a biennial o r t r i e n n i a l renewal c y c l e . This would require a
l e g i s l a t i v e change, however, as A. R. S. $ 32- 330 r e q u i r e s t h a t l i c e n s e s
issued by the Board should be renewed on an annual basis.
If the s t a t u t e s were amended t o provide f o r a b i e n n i a l renewal period, the
Board could save $ 5,300 every two years i n processing c o s t s . In a d d i t i o n
Board members and employees would be able t o devote more time t o other
Board business. Approximately 560 hours a r e consumed i n processing the
3,300 annual l i c e n s e renewals. ( A t r i e n n i a l renewal period would provide
even g r e a t e r c o s t and time savings.) An Auditor General survey of
licensed barbers revealed t h a t 75 percent of the survey respondents favor
a change t o a biennial renewal cycle.
Changing A. R. S. S32- 330 t o provide f o r a b i e n n i a l or t r i e n n i a l renewal
cycle would n e c e s s i t a t e a change i n A. R. S. $ 32- 331 t o allow the Board to
c o l l e c t a renewal f e e equal t o two or t h r e e times the annual renewal f e e
depending on whether a b i e n n i a l or t r i e n n i a l renewal period was
e s t a b l i s h e d .
CONCLUSION
Two improvements need t o be made i n Board operations. F i r s t , the Board
does not conduct f a i r , o b j e c t i v e and e f f e c t i v e i n s p e c t i o n s of barbershops.
Second, Board e f f i c i e n c y can be improved by adopting a biennial or
t r i e n n i a l l i c e n s e renewal cycle.
RECOPPIENDATIONS
If the S t a t e Board of Barber Examiners is not allowed t o terminate on
July 1, 1984, as recommended i n Finding I, the following recommendations
should be considered.
1. The Board should e s t a b l i s h o b j e c t i v e g u i d e l i n e s , c r i t e r i a and
procedures f o r assigning r a t i n g s on shop i n s p e c t i o n s and should be
c o n s i s t e n t i n t h e i r use.
2. The Board should e s t a b l i s h s p e c i f i c follow- up procedures t o assure
t h a t problems found through i n s p e c t i o n s a r e corrected by barbershop
owners .
3. The L e g i s l a t u r e should consider amending A. R. S. SS32- 330 and 32- 331 t o
provide f o r the b i e n n i a l o r t r i e n n i a l renewal of l i c e n s e s issued by
the Board.
OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
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
barber school regulation.
The Board of Barber Examiners l i c e n s e s and r e g u l a t e s barber schools.
However, barber 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 ( PTBS)
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
vocational schools 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 a s many as 60 d i f f e r e n t occupational a r e a s .
Many of these schools a r e s i m i l a r t o barber schools i n t h a t they provide
both t h e o r e t i c a l and p r a c t i c a l t r a i n i n g t o s t u d e n t s . Also, some of these
schools provide vocational t r a i n i n g i n occupations which a r e regulated i n
some manner by some other S t a t e o r l o c a l governmental agency. Barber
schools were excluded from PTBS Board r e g u l a t i o n because they were already
regulated by the Board of Barber Examiners. Currently the Board of Barber
Examiners l i c e n s e s and r e g u l a t e s f o u r barber schools. Barber and
cosmetology schools a r e the only vocational schools not regulated by t h e
PTBS Board. I f the barber and cosmetology boards a r e allowed t o terminate,
r e g u l a t i o n of t h e r e s p e c t i v e schools w i l l automatically be vested i n the
PTBS Board.
t
STATE OF ARIZONA
STATE BOARD OF BARBER EXAMINERS
- 1645 WEST JEFFERSON. ROOM 418
PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85007
C
March 25, 1983
Mr. Douglas Norton, Auditor General
111 W. Monroe, Suite 600
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
Dear Mr. Norton:
We are submitting our response to the performance
audit conducted by your Sunset Review staff.
The Board wishes to thank the Arizona Legislature
for the Sunset Review Program and we appreciate
the coop~ ration and consideration of your staff
during this audit.
If you have any further questions, please feel
free to contact us.
Sincerely yours,
OF BARBER EXAMINERS
-
Sam B. LaBarbera, Chairman
encl.
*
INTRODUCTION
The State Board of Barber Examiners has been functioning effectively
since 1935. This agency is a 90/ 10 agency and has contributed more
than $ 90,000 over the past 5 years to Arizona's general fund. All
fifty states currently have some regulation of barbers. Most other
states, including Arizona, utilize a Barber Board to administer
their barber statutes.
Some regulation of the barber profession should be continued for
the health, safety and welfare of the public. Complete and sudden
deregulation of the barber profession would cause economic chaos
for the public much like the problems caused when cabs and ambulance
services were recently deregulated. To this end, some agency
combination would be preferable to complete abolishment of all
barber oversight.
The Barber Board is necessary and should be continued as presently
constituted. The present legislative delegation of authority to
the Board of Barber Examiners is the most effective means of
monitoring the barber profession to provide the public with the
measure of protection which they deserve.
- RE SPONSE TO FINDING I
STATE LICENSING OF BARBERS AND BARBERSHOPS IS NECESSARY. ( Page 11)
State Licensing of barbers and barbershops is necessary and should be
continued for the benefit and protection of the citizens of Arizona. ( I
The consuming public needs at least some state regulation of the barber
industry for protection of its health and safety from the risk of harm
caused by untrained barbers or the untrained use of barber tools and
instrumentalities. An additional risk of harm to the public resulting a
from the presence of unhealthy and unsanitary conditions within barber
establishments is minimized through inspections by the Barber Eoard
for establishment license compliance with appropriate health and
sanitary regulations. The use of the market system cannot be an effective 4
regulator of the barber profession due to the nature of the industry, the
needs of the consuming public and the ineffectiveness of the return of
business theory in this particular set of circumstances.
HEALTH AND SANITARY CONCERNS. ( Page 12)
The Barber Board should continue to license barbers and inspect barber
establishments since licensing and inspecting is a minimal, rational and
necessary means of protecting the public from the spread of communicable a
diseases and infectious organisms. While many of the diseases that could
be contracted in an unsanitary barber establishment are admittedly minor,
many other diseases and organisms are communicable and extremely un-pleasant.
For example, the public occasionally hears of the rapid spread
of head lice, among significant proportions of school children from
various areas of town. This fact has been confirmed by Kay Krouse, R. N.
of the Maricopa County health Department. Not only are these diseases
and parasites time consuming to treat and cost money to cure, but the 4
infection carries with it a social stigma and possible recurring psycho-logical
burdens.
HEALTH AND SANITARY PROCEDURES UTILIZED BY THE BARBER PROFESSION ARE
EFFECTIVE AND ARE IEIPROVING. ( Page 14)
a
The Board insures compliance with health and sanitary conditions through
the promulgation of regulations. The barber examiners are constrainsd
to act within the dictates of the Legislature, However, the Board
retains the power and authority to initiate the process to propose new
a
regulations or alter existing regulations which are no longer effective
or practical. To this end, a recently drafted set of proposed rules and
regulations address most of the valid criticisms voiced by the Auditor
General. For example, in response to page 14 of their report, a minihum
number of combs will now be required so that each barber will have enough
totally disinfected combs to use on a succession of patrons. ( Combs
must be immersed for at least 10 minutes in a " Barbisol" disinfectant
solution for total disinfection.) This is a minimal requirement since
combs cost less than one dollar. This is aiso an effective requirement
since combs are the instrumentality which directly contacts each patron's
scalp and thus is one of the most likely instruments to communicate
diseases and infection. Some recent scientific findings regarding the '
effectiveness of various disinfection procedures are being reviewed by
the Board to determine whether their use in the industry is feasible.
This insures that consumers will have continued protection consistent
with technological advances. Barber implements now will also be immersed
in a disinfectant solution to eliminate any chance of disease and in-fection.
Further, contrary to the A~ ditor General's statement on page 14, barber
implements are placed in a dry sterilizer or under ultraviolet light to
prevent contamination AFTER the instruments are sterilized in a wet
sterilizer rather than as an initial disinfection procedure.
CRITICAL PROCEDURES ARE A PART OF THE INSPECTION PROCESS. ( Page 15)
The Auditor General's report lists on pages 14 and 15 several " critical
procedures" which cannot be feasibly inspected by the Board. These
criticized procedures are the most basic procedures taught to barber
students. A great majority of operators habitually follow these pro-cedures
since these procedures comprise a substantial part of the barber
exams. The inspection forms and procedures are currently being revised,
however, for an increased focus on these criticized procedures. Although
the Board cannot feasibly insure minute by minute compliance with the
health and sanitary regulations by inspections, the present level of
inspections is enough to give a measure of protection to the public which
would not otherwise be present.
SHOP INSPECTIONS ARE EFFECTIVE AND ARE BEING IMPROVED. ( Pages 15- 16)
Inspection procedures are presently effective, however, the ~ oard adaits
that improvements are presently feasible. As a result the Board has 1
endeavored to improve the inspection procedures. First the Board, in its
proposed rules and regulations has promulgated standardized criteria
necessary to receive an A, B or C on the inspection certificates. Next,
the Board is amending its procedures to inspect the deficient establish-ments
more frequently while inspecting consistently clean and sanitary
establishments somewhat less frequently. Also, the critical procedures
enunerated above are soon to be jncluded as'a specific part of the in-spection
procedures. For further information regarding inspection pro-cedures,
please see Finding # V.
UNTRAINED OR IMPROPER USE OF BARBER INSTRUMENTS AND CHEMICAL SOLUTIONS
POSES A SIGNIFICANT DANGER TO THE CONSUMING PUBLIC. ( Pages 16- 17)
Barber instruments, including shears, razors, combs etc., are potentially
danqerous instruments utilized on some of the most vulnerable areas of the
body-- eyes, ears and neck. A small child is usually extremely nervous in
a barber's chair and often fidgets. A disaster could be caused by the
untrained use of shears in this situation. The improper use of razors or
use of a razor by an untrained individual, is obviously a dangerous
proposition since this extre'mely sharp instrument is being used on your
head, face and neck. The use of razors as a shaving instrument has
declined in most shops since the total number of shaves has declined.
The use of a razor for haircutting has, on the other hand, become in-creasingly
prevalent with the continued popularity of razor cut hair-styling.
Further, a razor is used on nearly every barber patron to shave
around his head, neck and ears. Thus, the statement that a barber should
be expected to use a razor as a reasonable person would use a razor is
oversimplified. The reasonable ( i. e., averaqe) citizen probably has
never used a straight razor to shave himself nor has he/ she cut hair with
a rayor but a barber uses a razor on a daily basis. Without the proper
training of barbers ensured by the Board of Barber Examiners through its
licensing procedures, the public would be forced to assume, unnecessarily,
a great risk of serious harm with possible irremedial consequences.
BARBERS USE OTHER POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS ITEMS ON THE CONSUMING PUBLIC.
Other dangerous instrumentalities frequently used by barbers include
strong chemical hairdyeing, hair straightening and permanent wave solu-tions.
A substantial harm to the public could occur through the un-trained
use of these chemicals. The Board has attached letters at the
conclusion of this response from experts who agree that the solutions
obtained by barbers from distributors are stronger and more dangerous
than those which are generally obtained by the consuming public.
~ lthough if solutions and chemicals obtained by the public for use in a
home environment are marked " For Professional Use Only", an examination
of their ingredients indicates that these chemicals are not as strong as
the solutions sold only to professionals. Further, no one questions the
proposition that even these weaker home preparations can cause severe
hair and skin damage if not properly used.
The distinction here between a home permanent and a professional perma- '
nent is that the home user has some degree of control over procedures
done at home, although that home user assumes the inherent risk present
in this procedure. On the other hand, a barber patron has little or no
personal participation in performing a professionally done permanent or
hair straightening job. Even if the permanent is performed on a fellow
barber who knows the instructions on the permanent solution and who knows
the application procedures intimately, the chances are great that mis-takes
or damages would be unnoticed by the individual as he reclines in
the barber chair.
A further degree of barber competence for public protection should be
continued through Board licensure of barbers and barber establishments.
The Auditor General advances the theory of return of business as being
a potentially more effective regulatory device than the Barber Board.
Patrons harmed by a barber establishment will not return there for
barber services, thereby driving the inept establishment out of business.
This theory sometimes works as a regulator of the quality of business
services. A close examination of what will actually occur with the
barber industry will indicate the flaws in this theory and thus the
ineffectiveness of using it as a regulatory device.
First, a barber who cperates in an environment with a highly transitory
population has no incentive to cul- tivate return business. A barber in
an airport, for exankple, will probably never again see a larger propor-tion
of his customers. THose customers could, however, be seriously
harmed by improper or inept barber services and not even possess the
weak remedy of never again patronizing this particular establishment
and operator.
Consider next the citizens who reside in small or isolated towns where ( I
there are few, if any, barbers. If the barber( s) in that locality don't
possess the minimal degree of professional competence assured by Board
licensing, the citizens in that town will be harmed. They will be forced
to return to the inept local practitioner's shop or ask a layperson to 4
cut their hair, since most people will not cut their own hair. Arguably
this individual could go to the next town for barber services but this is
not a fair and adequate alternative. Xt is'unreasonable for these citizens
to be forced to expend extra time and money for barber services. 1
The return of business theory assumes that the lack of return business .
will eventually force the inept, inadequate barber out of business. How
is the public protected until this barber actually does go belly- up? 1
In all likelihoodmany more people will be harmed until economic realities
force the inept barber out of business. The inept operator can then move
to a new location and start the procedure all over again. The citizens
of this state should not be forced to assumethis risk of harm and the duty 4
of regulating the barber industry- throughtheir market place behavior.
The Attorney General is under severe budget constraints and thus has
neither the time or money to prosecute these relatively minor ( i. e., not 1
criminal, life threatening or outrageously expensive) violations of the
barber code. Neither will the injured individual consult his attorney
for appropriate remedial legal action for harm caused by barbers due to
these same constraints of time and money. Further, even if a member of ( I
the public is aware of the potential remedy of small claims court,
general ignorance of court procedures and case presentation, as well as
time expenditures, prevent the small claims court from being an effective
remedy. The violations of the barber code and protection of the public 4
therefore are properly and wisely delegated to an administrative agency.
This delegation of authority by the Legislature to an administrative
agency, the Barber Board, is the least expensive, most effective and
widely accepted means of dealing with a necessary reasonable framework ( I
and should be continued as presently constituted.
CONCLUSION
The consuming public both wants and requires continued licensure of
barbers, their establishments and schools. This is necessary to protect
the public from untrained operators and unhealthy, unsanitary conditions.
RESPONSE TO FINDING 11 a
ADMINISTRATIVE COblBINATION OF BOARD FUNCTIONS IS A PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE
FOR INCitEASING BOARD EFFECTIVENESS. ( Page 21)
The State Board of Barber Examiners is a necessary and effective means of 4
protecting barber students and consumers of barber services within
Arizona, however administrative efficiency and the resulting cost savings
could be achieved through combining the adrnistrative functions of the
Barber and Cosmetology Boards. These two boards originally existed as a
one until the Legislature separated the regulation of barbers and
cosntetologists in 1935, In addition to combining offices, telephones
and other basic administrative functions, the boards could easily be
served by the same inspection pool. This inspection pool would assure 4
uniformity between barbers and cosmetologists in both establishment and
school inspections. A common pool of inspectors would also cut the ex-pense
of both boards on out- of- county inspection trips.
DUAL LICENSURE BURDENS CAN BE MINIMIZED. ( page 26)
The burdens of dual licensure could be diminished by using the common
inspection pool mentioned above. Only one inspection, instead of the
two presently required for a combination cosmetology/ barber shop, 1
would then suffice to allow the establishment the required license. The
burdens of dual licensure would also be diminished through combination of
the two boards. A single establishment license issued by a combined
Barber and Cosmetology Board could designate the establishment as either
a barber or cosmetology establishment or as a combination of both, *
Further, in contrast to the present system, only one set of regulations
would govern these establishments and the professionals who work i n them,
UNIQUE BARBER EDUCATIONAL REQUIREMENTS ARE STATUTORY. ( Page 27)
The different educational requirements that exist between barbering and
cosmetology are a result of statutes enacted in the wisdom of the
Legislators serving at the time of the enactment rather than as a result I
of any Barber Board action. The Board is thus constrained to administer
the laws as they are written. The Barber Board concedes that some
standardizztion of school hours required for barbers and cosmetologists
would be helpful. Further, some increased reciprocity between barber
and cosmetologist school hours for the same training should also be
considered. Full reciprocity between barber and cosmetology schools
@ should not be allowed, however, because of fundamental differences in
barber and cosmetology training. Barbers, for example, give shaves and
otherwise use a razor more often than cosmetologists, while barbers do
no manicures at all.
D
( See also Page 33) Differences in instructor/ student ratio requirements
for barber and cosmetology schools can also be changed to reduce the
chances of unequal treatment between reasonably sjmilar professions.
@ This is another changewhich must be made by the Legislature since the
1 to 12 instructor/ student ratio requirement is a statutory requirement.
The Board has no objection to legislative revision for consistency with '
the cosmetology requirement of a 1 to 20 instructor/ student ratio. Also,
I) the 1 sink per student requirement had its origins in practicality: the
difficulties and dangers from 3 students shaving 3 barber school pat- L O ~ S
with a straight razor from the same sink should be obvious. Many times
a sink is a necessity for barbering services. The Board has proposed,
B in its current rules revision, that this 1 sink per student requirement
be relaxed.
BOARD MEMBERS SERVING AS FULL- TIME STAFF SHOULD BE CONTINUED. ( Page 28)
B Even if the Cosmetology Board and Barber Board are combined, the current
practice of using full- time board members as staff can be continued with-out
any problem. An administrative organization can be developed in
which the board member investigator has neither voice nor vote in any
b board adjudication situation. The board member/ inspector practice has
been criticized as violation of the separation of powers doctrine. There
has never been a complaint nor any other allegation that any board member
has ever treated any person unfairly in the pursuit of his/ her duties.
@ The fact that a board member served as an inspector helps to alleviate un-healthy
conditions and prevent complaints before they actually occur.
The reason that most complaints are not severe is a result of the close
personal interaction between the Board and members of the profession.
8 Complaints, though few in number or severity, do not necessarily result
from an ineffective job. The lack of complaints is the result of ex-tremely
competent and conscientious attention to legislatively mandated,
delegated duties. Furthermore, as discussed above, consumers often have
no other remedy to voice complaints. The Attorney General's written
complaint procedure also prevents many individuals from making complaints
since the personal participation of the complainant is required.
THE BOARD CO> IPLIES WTTH OPEN MEETING LAWS. ( Page 31)
The Barber Board has enacted new measures to alleviate any chance of
an open meeting law violation. A standing board meeting date of
Monday has been set and permanently posted. The State Attorney
Gneral's Office has advised the Board regarding open meetings, agenda
availability and other like matters and is presently acting to prevent
any future violations. 4
Although many administrative functions could conceivably be delegated +
to employees, the board members still provide services that could not
be obtained from an employee, The Board also provides