THE MISSISSIPPI LEGISLATURE

The PEER Committee conducted a “cycle review” of the Mississippi State Board of Cosmetology, which is a review that is not driven by specific complaints or allegations of misconduct.

In conducting this review, PEER first determined whether regulation of the cosmetology profession is necessary in order to protect the public from risks to safety, health, and welfare.

Once PEER established that there is a public need for regulation of the cosmetology profession, PEER then evaluated how well the board is carrying out its primary regulatory functions of licensure and enforcement.

PEER also addressed the issue of regulation of cosmetologists and barbers in Mississippi by two separate boards despite the overlap in practice between the two professions.

The Legislature established the Board of Cosmetology in 1948 to regulate schools, salons, and individuals engaged in the teaching, demonstration, and practices of cosmetology, manicuring, wigology, and esthetics. State law authorizes the board to regulate these professions through making rules and regulations; establishing curricula for schools; issuing licenses; and enforcing laws, rules, and regulations.

The Mississippi Board of Cosmetology currently oversees 42 licensed cosmetology schools, 4,109 licensed salons, and 20,431 licensed practitioners.

The nature of the practice of cosmetology presents a risk to the public if practitioners are not properly trained and regulated. Risks associated with the cosmetology profession fall into two major categories: transmission of communicable diseases and infection; and physical harm resulting from improper use of equipment and products. Because of the seriousness of these health and safety risks, all states regulate the practice of cosmetology.

The Board of Cosmetology contracts with the National-Interstate Council of State Boards of Cosmetology to provide a written, validated examination that tests the applicant’s knowledge of his or her specialty area. The council conducts ongoing test analysis and item review activities in accordance with testing industry standards to ensure the validity of the national examination.

However, the Board of Cosmetology developed the state examination (which tests knowledge of state cosmetology laws, rules, and regulations) and the practical examination (which tests basic skills learned through classroom instruction). Neither of these tests has been validated, which means that incompetent applicants could be licensed or that competent applicants could be excluded from licensure.

Regarding reciprocal licensure, although the Board of Cosmetology has reciprocity agreements with other states, the Mississippi board requires that all applicants for reciprocal licensure appear for a personal interview. The problem with a personal interview is that it could introduce subjectivity into a process that should be strictly objective. The board also requires the applicant to complete two application forms, a procedure which could be construed as harassment or as an effort to dissuade competent individuals from seeking licensure.

The Board of Cosmetology has an inspection program in place for detecting violations of laws, rules, and regulations. However, the board diminishes the effectiveness of its enforcement function because inspectors do not address all items on inspection forms and they do not also always issue violation reports when appropriate.

The board also has a formal process in place to investigate complaints, but it does not have a process for categorizing and analyzing the types of complaints received in order to develop ways to reduce the recurrence of problems in the future. Also, the board has not established a formal fine structure that would guide it in imposing similar fines for similar violations of state law and board rules and regulations. The board also does not consistently impose the fines authorized by law.

The overlap between the legal definitions of barbering and cosmetology is so significant, that it makes attempts at differentiating between the two difficult. State laws regulating the practice of barbering and cosmetology each contain a provision for licensing the other profession, although neither the Board of Cosmetology nor the Board of Barber Examiners keeps a list of dually licensed individuals. The consuming public could easily be confused as to which board to contact with complaints.

Arguments for merging the boards include possible savings in administrative costs, consistency in regulation, and improved consumer access. Arguments expressed against combining regulation include the ideas that the cosmetology profession is broader than the barbering profession and that barbers feel that their profession will be lost.

1. The Board of Cosmetology should have its state law and practical examinations validated in order to ensure that they measure the knowledge, skills, and abilities necessary to entry-level competent practice.


2. The Board of Cosmetology should review its process for granting reciprocal licenses to eliminate subjectivity and possible exclusion of qualified candidates. To ensure that applicants meet the statutory requirement that they can read, speak, and write English, the board should consider developing a valid reading comprehension test for applicants. Applicants could be required to answer some questions in writing and some orally to measure their ability to read, write, and speak English. The board should also rely on information obtained through a background check to the extent possible to verify applicants’ education, experience, and identity.


3. The Board of Cosmetology should reconsider its practice of issuing temporary work permits to students who have completed the prescribed hours in an accredited school until the next examination is held.


4. The Board of Cosmetology’s inspectors should complete all items on inspection forms in order to ensure that the licensee is carrying out all activities designed to protect the public.


5. The Board of Cosmetology’s inspectors should write violation reports for all violations in order to maintain a record that serves as the basis for determining appropriate penalties.


6. The Board of Cosmetology should categorize and analyze the complaints that it receives in order to reduce their recurrence through the adoption of necessary measures such as possible changes to rules and regulations.


7. The Board of Cosmetology should enforce laws and regulations related to the unlicensed practice of cosmetology.


8. The Board of Cosmetology should adopt a formal fine structure based on severity of the violation and consistently impose fines according to this structure in order to deter individuals from violating laws, rules, and regulations governing the practice of cosmetology.


9. The Legislature should amend MISS. CODE ANN. Section 73-7-27 (1972) to increase the fines provided for as follows:
   1. for the first violation—not less than $100 nor more than $200;
   
   
   2. for the second and each subsequent violation—not less than $200 or more than $500.

   The Legislature should also amend MISS. CODE ANN. Section 73-7-29 (1972) to increase delinquent renewal penalties for cosmetologists, manicurists, estheticians, wig specialists, and instructors as follows:

   3. 60 days to one year--$50 plus license fee;
   
   
   4. over 1 year to three years, per year--$100 plus license fee.

   In the same CODE section, the Legislature should also increase the salon delinquent renewal penalty as follows:

   60 days to one year--$50 plus license fee

   and remove the delinquent renewal penalty for over one year because the board requires a salon that has let its license expire for over a year to apply for a new license.

10. In order to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of regulation of the professions and in order to reduce confusion on the part of the consuming public, the Legislature should consider merging the Board of Barber Examiners and the Board of Cosmetology by creating a new board with five cosmetologist members and five barber members. This board would carry out the regulatory functions of both agencies and regulate all of the professions currently regulated by the two boards. The new board should repeal in three years. While it is in operation, the new board should propose to the Legislature a single regulatory program embracing all functions currently licensed as barbering and cosmetology.