BILL ANALYSIS
SB 360
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 17, 2003
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS
Lou Correa, Chair
SB 360 (Figueroa) - As Amended: June 12, 2003
SENATE VOTE : 23-12
SUBJECT : Board of Barbering and Cosmetology: Sunset Review.
SUMMARY : Makes changes to the Board of Barbering and
Cosmetology (Board) within the Department of Consumer Affairs
(DCA) and the Barbering and Cosmetology Act pursuant to
recommendations of the Joint Legislative Sunset Review Committee
(JLSRC). Specifically, this bill :
1)Raises the administrative fine limit from $2,500 to $5,000.
2)Changes obsolete references from "bureau" to "board "
throughout the Barbering and Cosmetology Act and makes other
related conforming changes.
3)Clarifies the Board's inspection authority.
4)Allows the Board to inspect an establishment prior to issuing
an establishment license.
5)Authorizes the Board to temporarily close an establishment for
egregious health and safety violations that constitute an
immediate threat to public health and safety.
6)Requires all licenses to contain a photo of the licensee.
7)Authorizes the Board to grant a license to an applicant who
submits a completed application with the necessary fee, proof
of a valid license issued by another state, and proof that the
applicant has not been disciplined by another state.
8)Repeals the voluntary instructor license provisions and the
corresponding continuing education provisions.
9)Provides that the examination fees paid by applicants shall
reflect the actual cost to the Board for developing,
purchasing, grading, and administering the appropriate
examination.
SB 360
Page 2
10)Repeals the following intent language: "any person who fails
to qualify for admission to an examination because the
person's practice outside this state does not fulfill the
requirements of this chapter shall receive credit for that
practice or study and training outside this state, or for the
number of hours of study and training completed outside this
state, which is substantially equivalent to the study and
training required in this state, as determined by the Board.
Those persons shall be qualified for examination upon
completion of supplementary study and training in an approved
school in this state."
11)Requires the Board to conduct the following studies and
reviews, and report its findings and recommendations to DCA
and JLSRC no later than September 1, 2005:
a) The Board, in conjunction with DCA's Office of
Examination Resources, shall review the 1600-hour training
requirement for cosmetologists.
b) The Board, in conjunction with DCA's Office of
Examination Resources, shall evaluate the equivalency of
the national exam.
c) The Board shall conduct a study to assess the costs and
benefits associated with requiring all applicants to submit
fingerprint cards for background investigations.
d) The Board, in coordination with Department of Industrial
Relations, shall review all components of the
apprenticeship program, including but not limited to the
apprenticeship curriculum requirements and the standards
for the pre-apprentice trainers, program sponsors,
trainers, and placement establishments.
e) The Board shall review all components of the externship
program. In addition to structural changes, the Board
shall address the following:
i) Whether the program should be eliminated.
ii) Whether the program should be available to all
students, not just cosmetology students attending private
schools.
SB 360
Page 3
iii) Whether students should be paid.
f) The Board shall assess the costs and benefits associated
with same day licensing. If the Board determines that the
benefits of same day licensing outweigh the costs, the
Board shall immediately plan and implement safety measures
to protect site staff and undispersed licenses.
g) The Board, in conjunction with DCA's Office of
Examination Resources, shall assess the validity of
aggregate scoring for Board applicants.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Establishes JLSRC, subjects the various licensing boards of
DCA to sunset review by JLSRC, and provides for the
elimination of all DCA boards on a specified schedule. The
law provides that when any board becomes inoperative and is
repealed (sunsets), DCA shall succeed to and be vested with
all duties and responsibilities of the board. It is the
intent of the Legislature that all existing and proposed
consumer-related boards or categories of licensed
professionals be subject to a review on a four-year cycle,
unless circumstances warrant a longer or shorter interval with
respect to a given board.
2)Authorizes specified boards, bureaus, and commissions to
establish regulations whereby the board, bureau, or
commission, in specified circumstances, may impose an
administrative fine not exceeding $2,500 upon its licensees.
3)Provides for the licensing and regulation of cosmetologists,
barbers, estheticians, manicurists, electrologists,
instructors and others by the Board within DCA. Establishes a
licensing, application and examination fee for each of the
Board's licensees.
4)Provides for the sunset of the provisions establishing the
Board as of July 1, 2007, and repeals those provisions as of
January 1, 2008.
5)Contains obsolete references to the Bureau of Barbering and
Cosmetology that is now the Board.
SB 360
Page 4
6)Does not specifically state that a patron must be receiving
services in order for an inspection to occur.
7)Requires barbering and cosmetology candidates enrolled in an
apprenticeship program to earn 3200 hours of on-the-job
training during the course of their two-year apprentice
license.
8)Provides for an externship program in which students may work
unpaid in a salon up to eight hours a week for the purpose of
gaining skills, knowledge, and abilities necessary to become
employed.
9)Authorizes the Board to seek an interim suspension order from
an administrative law judge to address violations that pose a
threat to the health and safety of consumers.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
Purpose of this bill . This bill is one of six "sunset review
bills" authored by the Chair of JLSRC. These bills are intended
to implement legislative changes as recommended by JLSRC for
several licensing boards reviewed by JLSRC in 2002/03.
Background . JLSRC and DCA last reviewed the Board of Barbering
and Cosmetology during the 1995-96-review cycle. In November
2002, JLSRC and DCA began their re-review of the Board. On
April 7, 2003, JLSRC made the following recommendations
regarding the Board:
1)The Board should be given the authority to inspect
establishments and authorize Board inspectors to issue
citations and fines to schools that are providing services to
the public, consistent with requirements in existing law;
2)The Board should review and revise the existing fine structure
and promulgate regulations to revise it, and the Board should
also take steps to ensure that it and the Bureau for Private
Postsecondary and Vocational Education (BPPVE) are not issuing
citations for the same violations;
3)Photographic licensing should be implemented and the
examination process should be streamlined;
SB 360
Page 5
4)The Board should assess actual costs for licensing exams;
5)Reciprocity should be allowed for all licensing categories;
6)The Board's occupational analysis should review the 1600 hour
training requirement for cosmetologists, and the Board should
provide the information to DCA and JLSRC upon conclusion of
the occupational analysis;
7)The Board should evaluate the equivalency of the national exam
and report back to DCA and JLSRC in conjunction with the
Board's next scheduled review in 2005;
8)The Board should conduct a study to assess the costs and
benefits associated with requiring all applicants to submit
fingerprint cards for background investigations and report
back to DCA and JLSRC in conjunction with the Board's next
scheduled review in 2005;
9)The voluntary license for barbering instructors and
cosmetology instructors and the corresponding continuing
education requirements should be eliminated;
10)The Board should, in coordination with the Department of
Industrial Relations, review all components of the
apprenticeship program, including apprenticeship curriculum
requirements and the standards for the pre-apprentice
trainers, program sponsors, trainers and placement
establishments. The Board should report its findings to DCA
and JLSRC in conjunction with its next scheduled review in
2005;
11)The Board should review all components of the externship
program. In addition to structural changes, the Board should
address the following: a) should the program be eliminated; b)
should the program be available to all students, not just
cosmetology students attending private schools; and, c) should
the students be paid. The Board should report their findings
to DCA and JLSRC in conjunction with their next scheduled
review in 2005;
12)The Board should assess the costs and benefits associated
with same day licensing. If the Board determines that the
benefits of same day licensing outweigh the costs, the Board
SB 360
Page 6
should immediately plan and implement safety measures to
protect exam site staff and undispersed licenses. The Board
should report their findings and/or actions to DCA and the
JLSRC in conjunction with the Board's next scheduled review in
2005; and,
13)The Board should work collaboratively with the Office of Exam
Resources to assess the validity of aggregate scoring for
Board applicants.
This bill provides state-to-state reciprocity for all licensing
categories . The Board receives between 400 and 500 applications
from professionals in other states and countries annually.
Since the scope of practice of manicurists, cosmetologists,
barbers, and estheticians does not differ significantly from
other states, professionals who are licensed in other states
should be permitted to practice in California. Licensees who
came to California from other states testified at a hearing,
held by DCA last year, about the length of time they were unable
to work in California while waiting to take the state
examination, in spite of being licensed in another state.
This bill repeals voluntary cosmetology and barbering instructor
licenses . The law does not require, but rather establishes, a
process whereby an individual can obtain a barbering or a
cosmetology instructor's license. In order to renew an
instructor's license an individual must complete at least 30
hours of continuing education in the teaching of vocational
education.
Instead of a voluntary instructor's license that only applies to
barber and cosmetology instructors, the law should establish
standards for instructors that will work in conjunction with the
school approval process. This will not only further the goal of
ensuring instructors meet specified standards, but will also
relieve the Board from the burden of updating and administering
the examinations as well as the corresponding continuing
education program, thus enabling the Board to focus on other
more pressing matters.
This bill provides increased enforcement authority to the Board .
This bill contains a number of provisions intended to enhance
the Board's enforcement authority, including:
1)Cite and fine schools . Existing law requires notices of
SB 360
Page 7
violation to be issued by inspectors to schools for health and
safety violations. Notices of violation have no fine
attached; they simply serve as warning notices. If
corrections have not been made within 30 days, an inspector
may issue a citation with administrative fines. This bill
authorizes the Board to issue citations with administrative
fines to schools upon first inspection.
2)Establishment inspections. Existing law is not clear as to
whether a patron must be receiving services in order for an
inspection to occur. Nothing in existing law allows the Board
to inspect an establishment prior to being issued a license.
The Board has found that, as a result of disciplinary actions
for health and safety code violations, a licensed
establishment may be sold and the new owner applies for an
establishment license. In order to ensure that violations
known to be present in an establishment under the prior owner
have been corrected, this bill provides the Board with the
authority to inspect the salon prior to issuing a new license
to the same address.
3)Review and revise fine structure . A key component of the
Board's ability to regulate the public is its authority to
issue citations and fines for violations. Although the cite
and fine program was established in 1994, the fine amounts
have not been updated since that time. Fines may be too low
to serve as a deterrent to licensees who are violating the
law. At DCA's public hearing last year, concerns were raised
that some licensees are not responsive to the threat of a
citation and a fine, due to the low cost of the fines levied.
If fines are considered a "cost of doing business" they may
lose their deterrent effect. This bill requires the Board to
review and revise the schedule of administrative fines for
violations, by January 1, 2005. Additionally, this bill
requires the Board to ensure that it and BPPVE do not issue
citations for the same violation.
4)Establishment closure authority . The Board has encountered
situations where something has occurred at an establishment
that poses an immediate public health and safety threat.
Unfortunately, the Board lacks the authority to immediately
shut down an establishment without having to go through the
courts to obtain an interim suspension order. This bill would
authorize the Board to suspend the operation of an
establishment for up to 30 days upon finding egregious health
SB 360
Page 8
and safety violations constituting an immediate threat to
public health and safety.
This bill requires the Board to assess actual costs for exams .
Currently, the Board collects approximately $900,000 in
examination fees while they annually spend approximately $3.4
million to administer the examination program. As a result of
this discrepancy, the Board is redirecting resources from other
critical functions, such as enforcement, to subsidize the
examination program. Consistent with many of DCA's other
regulatory programs; the Board should assess applicants for the
actual costs of the examination. This bill authorizes the Board
to assess actual costs for its examinations.
This bill requires the Board to provide the following reviews
and reports to JLSRC and DCA during its next review :
1)Review cosmetologist 1600 hour training requirement . Many
professionals opt to only provide hairdressing services, yet
are required to complete the 1600 hours needed to receive a
full cosmetologist license. Individuals seeking a
professional license in California should not be required to
complete more training or testing than is necessary to perform
a specific job. It is unclear why a stylist should be
required to complete courses in non-hairstyling services.
DCA's Office of Examination Resources is scheduled to complete
an occupational analysis of the cosmetologist examination this
year. This bill requires the Board, in conjunction with DCA's
Office of Examination Resources, to review the 1600-hour
training requirement for cosmetologists.
2)Review national exam . Adoption of the national examination
would facilitate reciprocity with other states. This bill
requires the Board, in conjunction with DCA's Office of
Examination Resources, to evaluate the equivalency of the
national exam.
3)Examine need to fingerprint applicants . The Board is
currently not required to obtain fingerprint cards for
background investigations from its applicants. As a consumer
protection agency charged with protecting the public, the
Board must be able to verify the identity of an applicant to
whom it is giving a state occupational license, and the
accuracy of criminal history information asserted on its
application form. Twenty-three other DCA regulatory agencies
SB 360
Page 9
(and many other non-DCD agencies) already use fingerprinting
in connection with their licensing and/or enforcement
activities. Therefore, this bill requires the Board to
conduct a study to assess the costs and benefits associated
with requiring all applicants to submit fingerprint cards for
background investigations.
4)Revision of apprenticeship program . There are different
licensing pathways in which an individual may qualify for the
examination. An individual may qualify through training in an
approved school, previous licensure in California, experience
and/or training in another state or country, or through the
apprenticeship program. If an individual chooses to take the
apprenticeship pathway, he/she applies to the Board for an
apprentice license and provides proof that he/she has
completed a minimum number of pretraining hours at a facility
approved by the Board. After obtaining an apprentice license,
the individual trains in licensed establishments under the
supervision of a licensee approved by the Board. It appears
that the standards have not been reviewed in some time. This
bill requires the Board to review, in coordination with the
Department of Industrial Relations, all components of the
apprenticeship program.
5)Revision of externship program . Students enrolled in private
cosmetology schools can, upon completion of a minimum of 60%
of the clock hours required for graduation in the course, work
in a cosmetology establishment participating in the
educational program of the school of cosmetology. Externs
receive clock hour credit toward graduation, but that credit
cannot exceed eight hours per week and cannot exceed 10% of
the total clock hours required for completion of the course.
No less than 90% of the responsibilities and duties of the
extern shall consist of the acts included within the practice
of cosmetology. The owner or manager of the establishment is
required to monitor and report on the student's progress to
the school on a regular basis, with assistance from
supervising licensees. A participating school is required to
assess the extern's learning outcome from the externship
program.
It is unclear whether the students should be paid or whether the
program should be extended to students of all schools, not
just cosmetology students from private schools. Therefore,
this bill requires the Board to review all components of the
SB 360
Page 10
externship program. In addition to structural changes, this
bill requires the Board to address the following: (a) whether
the program should be eliminated; (b) whether the program
should be available to all students, not just cosmetology
students attending private schools; and, (c) whether the
students should be paid.
6)Same day licensing protections . The Board is required to
issue licenses to passing examination candidates the same day
they are examined. The Board is the only regulatory body
under DCA to issue licenses to candidates on the day of the
examination. According to the Board's current report to
JLSRC, to meet this requirement, approximately 23,000 licenses
a year are pre-printed and sent weekly by courier from the
Employment Development Department printing plant to the two
examination sites. Of these licenses, less than 50% are
issued and the remainder must be shipped back to Board
headquarters, audited, voided, and destroyed, requiring
additional staff time and resources. This weekly transfer and
destruction of pre-printed licenses is not only costly, but
also presents a significant security risk by increasing the
opportunity for theft, loss and fraudulent use. This bill
requires the Board to assess the costs and benefits associated
with same day licensing. If the Board determines that the
benefits of same day licensing outweigh the costs, the Board
shall immediately plan and implement safety measures to
protect site staff and undispersed licenses.
7)Validity of aggregate scoring . California provides a two-part
licensing examination that consists of a written portion and a
practical portion. The required passing grade for all
examinations is 75%. Except for the barber examination, all
candidates must pass the written portion of the exam and the
practical portion of the exam separately. Cosmetology,
manicuring, esthetics and electrology candidates must achieve
300 points overall (out of a possible 400 points), including a
score of 225 on the practical portion of the examination, and
70 on the written portion. In order to achieve the 300
overall points, the candidates must earn the additional 5
points in either portion of the examination. Barber
candidates achieve a passing grade if the combined total
points from the written and practical portions of the
examination total 75 of 100.
For barber exams taken during FY 1999/2000, the passage rate for
SB 360
Page 11
the practical exam was 90% and 6% for the written exam. In
comparison, during this same time period, for cosmetology
exams, the passage rate for the practical exam was 75% and 67%
for the written exam. For barber exams taken during FY
2000/2001, the passage rate for the practical exam was 89% and
6% for the written exam. In comparison, during this same time
period, for cosmetology exams, the passage rate for the
practical exam was 71% and 70% for the written exam.
The low passage rate for barbers on the written exams calls into
question the validity of aggregate scoring. This bill
requires the Board, in conjunction with DCA's Office of
Examination Resources, to assess the validity of aggregate
scoring for Board applicants.
Related legislation this session . Other "sunset review bills"
include: SB 358 (Figueroa) which deals with the Board of
Registered Nursing and the Board of Vocational Nursing and
Psychiatric Technicians; SB 359 (Figueroa) which deals with the
Bureau for Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education; SB
361 (Figueroa) which deals with the Pharmacy Board; SB 362
(Figueroa) which deals with the Dental Board and Committee on
Dental Auxiliaries; and SB 363 (Figueroa) which deals with the
California Council for Interior Design Certification.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
None on file.
Opposition
Numerous individuals.
Analysis Prepared by : David Pacheco / B. & P. / (916)
319-3301