Licensing Restoration Professionals

Bernazzani: The impetus varies from state to state, but the common theme is that legislators and regulators want to ensure that home inspection and remediation jobs are done right.

For example, mold is an issue in Florida because of the humid climate and the state legislation focuses on home inspectors, mold remediators, and mold assessors. I've participated in some of their discussions, representing the IICRC, which has an interest because of its involvement in mold and water damage remediation.

In some states, the issue is a concern about construction defects that lead to water damage and mold problems. In others, federal pesticide laws are also having an impact and complicating things. These laws mandate that anyone who applies an EPA-registered biocide to remediate mold needs to be a licensed pesticide applicator. Yet, very little of the pesticide application training applies to our trade. This makes things more challenging.

Claims: Is the licensing movement accelerating? Why?

Bernazzani: It is definitely picking up steam. I think that a lot of consumer affairs departments have heard horror stories about mold and water damage. Legislators and their constituents know more about things like global warming—which increases the likelihood of floods—and are trying to get ahead of the curve. There's also much more public awareness about these issues.

States that are looking into licensing mold and water damage inspectors and remediators include Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Florida, Maryland, Minnesota, Kentucky, New York, Arkansas, Virginia—the list goes on. I think interest will continue to grow, and more states will jump onto the licensing bandwagon.

Claims: What are the implications of licensing for restoration companies?

Bernazzani: There are essentially four overriding concerns. First, fees and overall costs are always a concern. For example, Florida licensing fees could be as high as $200 per technician, per year. When you factor in the cost of additional educational requirements, the burden on restoration companies can be very significant.

The level of education required to become licensed (and who will provide it) are also issues that need to be addressed. For example, Florida is looking at requiring that home inspectors have 20 [credit] hours of college courses in microbiology. They're also thinking about requiring 120 hours of course study in areas such as electrical, HVAC, and plumbing systems; roofing and window installation; and site conditions that affect the structure. The proposed continuing education (CE) requirements for mold remediators and mold assessors are just as rigorous.

The question of exactly who should be licensed is another consideration. It's one thing if a boss or supervisor must have a license. It's an entirely different matter if technicians at every level need to be licensed and trained in issues like microbiology. Understanding microbiology won't be of much use to the laborer who is removing damaged wall board.

Finally, who will need testing and who would be grandfathered? Florida is currently debating this question.

Claims: Does licensing water damage and mold remediators impact insurance adjusters?

Bernazzani: Absolutely. Licensing will have a significant impact on adjusters, insurance companies, and consumers. It all comes down to costs. If you start licensing every technician, then costs rise tremendously. If you had to hire a laborer with 20 hours of college microbiology courses, then what would that do to the rates? What is the impact of licensing fees?

Adjusters can count on remediation companies raising their rates to reflect their increased investment in CE and license fees. They're no different than licensed electricians and licensed plumbers, who charge more for their services.

Also, adjusters may not have as many remediation resources at their disposal as they do now. The burden of licensing may mean that some remediators opt out of the industry. Some say that's a good thing, and I agree when it comes to those who are not trained and certified in proper remediation procedures.

Don't get me wrong: I believe in continuing education, but common sense needs to prevail here. Remediation technicians don't need 20 hours of microbiology courses to work in a moldy home.

Claims: Why is a certification program a better alternative for states than licensing?

Bernazzani: There are a lot of myths about licensing. One myth is that licensing will protect consumers more than a certification program. Another is that licensed professionals are more proficient than certified professionals.

Here are the facts as to why certification is a much better way to go: Certified professionals have the training and experience to identify moisture sources and evaluate mold growth to contain damage to the smallest area possible. For example, IICRC-certified restoration technicians have successfully completed approved water remediation, applied structural drying, and applied microbial remediation courses. They are trained to physically remove contamination and properly dry materials to help ensure that mold will not return. They perform remediation procedures that can quickly return property to a pre-loss condition. There are also rigorous CE requirements in place that they must meet in order to maintain certification.

IICRC certification requirements are written—and courses developed—by seasoned professionals who have decades of real-world experience. Technical advisory committees, whose members are industry experts, determine the appropriate classroom training and develop tests for students at every level.

Certified firms must adhere to the IICRC Code of Ethics, pledging to perform their services with skill, honesty, integrity, and the highest degree of professionalism possible to protect the consumer. Before they are certified, they must provide proof of insurance and have written procedures in place to resolve customer complaints in a timely and professional manner. All unresolved complaints must be sent to the IICRC Complaint Committee for further action.

The bottom line is that if it isn't broke, then don't fix it. Licensing programs just aren't necessary because the current IICRC certification program is more than adequate to protect consumers.

Claims: How are states enforcing the licensing regulations?

Bernazzani: Enforcement is a significant Achilles' heel for licensing. Typically, legislators have written laws with the best intentions, but drop the ball when it comes to appropriating money to enforce the law.

Maryland and Florida are examples of how that is playing out. Maryland has a law, but the state hasn't appropriated dollars to enforce it. Funding will depend on the weather. If there is a significant hurricane that hits the state, then politicians will move this to the front burner because of the political capital it would entail. If that happens, then you can bet they'll find a way to enforce the legislation. In Florida, they are discussing funding enforcement through licensing fees.

Claims: When did the licensing movement begin?

Bernazzani: I think the licensing issue began in the late 1990s, when New York City developed suggested guidelines for mold and mold remediation. Shortly after that, [former] Calif. Senator Deborah Ortiz established the first toxic mold identification disclosure and remediation law in the nation. Her issue was disclosure of mold in a dwelling and how best to regulate remediation of that mold. This had significant implications for homeowners, lenders like Fannie Mae, landlords, and people who managed subsidized housing. Ortiz also raised issues about mold testing and what constituted "safe" levels of mold in buildings.

Her legislation passed the Senate, but died in a House committee because its members could not agree on what constituted normal fungal ecology. However, it shined the spotlight on these issues and there was a ripple effect into other states. It's mushroomed from there.

Claims: Where do we go from here? Can adjusters, the insurance industry, and IICRC work together to bring their perspectives to the licensing versus certification debate?

Bernazzani: I say absolutely. The IICRC has a long history of cooperating with the Property Loss Research Bureau (PLRB), individual carriers, adjusters, state insurance commissioners, and others to build bridges and address issues affecting our industries.

I think working together to give legislators and regulators a clearer picture of mold and water damage remediation would be a big help.

We need to remember that legislators and regulators have the best intentions in trying to protect their constituents, but they don't understand the consequences of what they're doing. Ultimately, the increased costs of getting and maintaining a license will be passed from the remediation professional through the chain to the constituents they're trying to protect. Put another way, consumers will end up paying more for a licensed professional who will likely not be any more proficient than one who is certified.

Educating legislators and regulators can be as simple as a power point presentation or a basic white paper that presents the issues and clarifies how the certification program that is already part of the remediation industry is doing its job.