The Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) regulates and licenses or certifies more than 2.5 million professionals in more than 240 categories throughout California. At last count, the department oversaw 39 boards, bureaus, commissions and other entities, ensuring that professionals—auto mechanics, building contractors, cosmetologists, dentists, etc.—meet minimum standards of competency in their fields. The DCA investigates complaints against those professionals and businesses and can impose fines or revoke licenses. The department also provides information and resources to educate the public about their rights as consumers. The department will transition from the State and Consumer Services Agency to the new Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency by July 1, 2013.

2009-10 Annual Report (DCA website) (pdf)

The state of California set up its first regulatory agency in 1876 when the Legislature passed the Medical Practice Act. Many of the boards now overseen by DCA once operated independently; the California Board of Accountancy, for example, began in 1901. It operated independently until 1929, when it was absorbed by the recently created Department of Vocational and Professional Standards.

The department had 10 state boards under its umbrella in the late 1920s. Existing boards  regulating architects, barbers, cosmetologists, dentists, embalmers, optometrists, pharmacists, physicians and veterinarians were moved into the Department of Vocational and Professional Standards, and new boards regulating contractors and civil engineers were established.

Almost all were created by the industries they regulated, and until the 1960s, most boards were made up solely of licensees. Now, they include members of the public as well—some boards are led by a majority of public individuals.

The Consumer Affairs Act of 1970 created the Department of Consumer Affairs out of the older department and gave it some power to oversee state boards and more than 50 professional categories, albeit with a low budget that many thought rendered it ineffectual. The boards work to protect their industries by setting professional standards and testing. The DCA’s general tasks were to educate and inform California’s consumers, protect consumers from deception in the marketplace, foster competition, and “promote consumers’ interests in all branches and levels of government.”

During Governor Ronald Reagan’s administration and periodically thereafter—right up to 2005—efforts were made to eliminate or combine some of the many boards and bureaus of the DCA, but lobbying groups of the regulated industries fought successfully to keep them. In 1998, prompted by complaints that the DCA and the state had become lax in consumer protection or, conversely, that such protection was not necessary, the Little Hoover Commission found that consumer protection was vitally needed, and the DCA was essential.

Periodically, problems have arisen when boards have put the best interests of their members ahead of consumers’. The DCA’s strategic plan for 2010-2012 includes improving complaint investigation and enforcement of fines for all boards and bureaus under the DCA umbrella, increasing the number of licenses granted (which puts more people to work), and continuing to offer updated information to the public.

About DCA (DCA website)

Consumer Protection: A Quality of Life Investment (Little Hoover Commission) (pdf)

2010-2012 Strategic Plan (DCA) (pdf)

A department in the California State and Consumer Services Agency, DCA oversees boards that certify or license about 2.5 million practitioners in over 240 occupations, from accountants to veterinarians. A list of the bureaus (headed by one person, appointed by the governor) and boards (led by a collection of appointees) includes general contractors, landscapers, embalmers and cemetery workers, engineers, auto mechanics and those who repair appliances or air conditioning, investigators, barbers, court reporters, and more. Professionals must comply with and be tested by these boards.

In the health care field, doctors, dentists, optometrists, pharmacists, physical and occupational therapists, naturopaths, osteopaths, psychologist, nurses, and speech pathologists must all be examined by a DCA board before practicing in California.

Twenty-seven of the entities overseen by the department are organized as separate regulatory boards. The director of the department directly manages bureaus and programs, but has little authority to intervene directly in the functioning of a board.

The public can access information in many languages, verify licenses and make complaints to the department, which will then work with the state Attorney General to investigate. When violations of its standards are found, DCA can revoke or suspend licenses, issue citations and levy fines. In cases of disputes between a consumer and professional, the DCA offers a consumer resolution program to work out solutions without going to court.

Assisting and educating consumers is another part of DCA’s mandate. Much of its information is available on DCA’s Consumer Wiki site. In addition, DCA publications cover not only the professions it regulates, but offer consumer information on products and warranties, health, cyber safety, money, housing, children, and more.

The DCA operates the California Office of Privacy Protection, dedicated to educating and advocating for consumers on issues of privacy, including state residents who have suffered identity theft. DCA also oversees the state’s smog check program.

Who We Are and What We Do (DCA brochure, Rev. 2011) (pdf)

Although it has two separate entries in the state’s budget, one for DCA boards and one for DCA bureaus, the Department of Consumer Affairs’ combined budget from the state is $496.55 million. All of it comes from special funds, none from the state’s general fund. Another $7.27 million comes from federal and other funds and brings the total of the department’s expenditures to $503.82 million.

An additional $27 million has been requested via a budget change proposal to the governor, to fund a reform effort called the Consumer Protection Enforcement Initiative, which will streamline and improve complaint resolution in the DCA’s healing arts boards.

A little more than half the money (54%) is spent on the 25 regulatory boards, three committees and a commission. The rest on the bureaus.

The Bureau of Automotive Repair gobbles up the lion share (38.9%) of the department’s budget. The next biggest are the Contractor’s State License Board (11.9%), the Medical Board of California (11.1%), the Board of Registered Nursing (5.8%), the Board of Barbering and Cosmetology (3.6%), the California State Board of Pharmacy (2.9%), the Board of Vocational Nursing and Psychiatric Technicians of the State of California (2.8%) and the Dental Board of California (2.7%).

2011-12 Budget for Bureaus, Programs and Divisions (pdf)

2011-12 Budget for Regulatory Boards (pdf)

Board of Registered Nursing

Lack of enforcement is not a new problem in the boards overseen by DCA.

One incident involved the Board of Registered Nursing, which in 2009 was accused of taking up to three years and five months to review claims, thus allowing nurses facing misconduct charges to continue working for years. The Los Angeles Times and ProPublica analyzed records for 2,371 nurses who were cited for offenses such as criminal convictions and misconduct on the job between 2002 and most of 2009, then created a database tracking the disciplinary action taken against them by the board. By the end of 2009, just over half had lost their licenses. Fine collection, however, stood at 14 to 30% for the previous four years, and the average time from complaint to disciplinary action in 2008 was an astonishing 1,254 days.

The public excuse for inaction on behalf of DCA and the nursing board was a lack of staff; in 2010, after media criticism, staff was borrowed from other offices to make the collection efforts. The fine collection rate was brought up to 54% as a four-year average due to those 2010 collections.

The nursing board dustup in 2009 produced reforms: Governor Schwarzenegger replaced most of the members of the Board of Registered Nursing, and an internal review by the DCA and the State and Consumer Service Agency revealed similar complaint and enforcement backlogs in other healing arts boards. “The enforcement and backlog time found at these boards is absolutely unacceptable,” said the governor. “It is clear the current system is broken and the entire enforcement process across all boards must be reformed.”

“I will work closely with the governor and his staff, the boards and all other interested parties to enact reforms with rigorous standards for accountability and efficiency," said Brian Stiger on the day after he was appointed director of DCA in 2009. He cautioned that “This process will not be fixed by throwing staff and money at the problem—it will require targeted and thoughtful policy reforms that will strengthen and expedite the enforcement process."

Although, in the case of the nursing board, throwing staff at the problem did fix a big part of the problem.

Update: DCA Head Announces Reform Proposals (by Torey Van Oot, Sacramento Bee)

Sanctioned California Nurses Database (ProPublica)

Dental Board of California

Even with a new director helping the department implement new reforms in the wake of the nursing scandal, lack of enforcement stirred renewed controversy in 2011. Over the previous four years, the state’s dental board collected only about 20% of the fines levied against dentists—since 2006, only $24,000 of $125,000 due. The yearly percentages vary, from a high of 37% in 2007 to a low of 9% in 2010. In August 2011, the board was owed over $100,000 in unpaid fines over the last four years.

“What good does it do to investigate a matter and issue a fine if you’re just going to let them blow off the fine?” asked Julie D’Angelo Fellmeth of the Center for Public Interest Law at the University of San Diego, which tracks the activity of California’s licensing boards.

The executive officer of the dental board, Richard DeCuir, offered this defense: that fines are appealed repeatedly, and cannot be collected until that process is complete.

Sunset Report Final  (Dental Board of California)

Medical Oversight Fines Often Go Unpaid (by Christina Jewett, California Watch)

Consumer Protection Enforcement Initiative

After enduring criticism from the media, the government, and the public about the controversy surrounding the Board of Registered Nursing—i.e., the delay in collecting fines or revoking licenses—and after an investigation found similar problems in other healing arts boards, DCA has developed, and is implementing, its Consumer Protection Enforcement Initiative over the next two years.

The initiative’s goal is to reduce enforcement timelines from 36 months (the current average in 2011) to 12-18 months, and overhaul the enforcement process. The initiative will measure times between the actual complaint, investigation, review, resolution and customer satisfaction with the outcome. Cases that are over a year old will get increased focus, and new legislation may be introduced.

Consumer Protection Enforcement Initiative (DCA website)

Thin the Herd

Although California government has 150+ major boards, departments and agencies it has countless numbers of smaller entities like commissions, offices, committees and lesser boards scattered about Sacramento. The state Legislative Analyst’s Office, whose job it is to know these things, has estimated the number to be 300 but is, itself, unsure. Others put the estimate at between 400-500.

The Analyst’s office, along with the Legislature, the governor and the independent Little Hoover Commission regularly suggest the elimination or consolidation of many entities. In Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s 2004 California Performance Review, he proposed the elimination of 88 boards and that the DCA itself be merged into a new Commerce and Consumer Protection Department that would include the Department of Corporations, the Department of Motor Vehicles and the Department of Financial Institutions.

The merger didn’t happen and most of the smaller entities survived.

The Schwarzenegger administration followed up the performance review in later years, and proposed in its 2009-10 budget that the department get rid of four boards, four bureaus and two committees through elimination and consolidation. That included the California Board of Accountancy, the Board of Registered Nursing, Vocational Nursing and the Board of Behavioral Sciences.

The Legislative Analyst concurred with the administration. It didn’t happen.

Governor Jerry Brown’s proposed 2011-12 budget proposed eliminating 39 boards, commissions, task forces, offices and departments. None were in the Department of Consumer Affairs.

2004 Governor’s Reorganization Plans (California Performance Review)

2009 List of State Boards and Commissions (Partially Updated) (Legislative Analyst’s Office)

2009-10 Budget Analysis (Legislative Analyst’s Office)

Has Consumer Advocacy Created a Nanny State?

Just because the Department of Consumer Affairs actually has a website page about nannies (it links to the Department of Social Services and the Better Business Bureau), that doesn’t mean it is part of a “nanny state.” Nor does the fact that Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger actually appointed his nanny to the Board of Guide Dogs for the Blind cast aspersions on California state government.

British MP Iain Macleod coined the term “nanny state” in 1965. The term usually mocks government regulations as intrusive and overly protective. Is protective, regulatory government like the Department of Consumer Affairs the problem or the solution?

Yes, Intrusive Consumer Protection Creates a Nanny State

The line between consumer protections and nanny states can be blurry. Take tanning beds, the danger of skin cancer, and minors who like to look tan. In California, a law requires in-person parental permission before a 14-to-18-year-old can use an ultraviolet tanning bed. North Carolina has a similar law. But a new ordinance in NC would require anyone under 18 to get a doctor’s permission to use a tanning bed, and that crosses the line for Francis De Luca. “What it [the proposed law] really does is remove parents of children between the age of 13 and 18 from the decision making process of allowing their children to use a tanning facility and instead turns that decision over to the state and a doctor.”

De Luca extrapolates: “Carrying the line of thought that promotes a bill like this to a logical conclusion, you can envision a day when a parent of a child in this age range could be reported for child abuse if their child receives a bad sunburn on a trip to the beach or from a day at the pool.”

While it may be reasonable to have laws that keep the public safe, says Andrew Barr in the Heartland Institute’s blog, it is “illogical for government to apply higher tax rates to foods with higher fat and sugar content in an effort to end obesity; the state is not a weight loss coach.”  He cites this and other examples—like Cookie Monster giving up cookies for vegetables—as instances “of the government overstepping its authority and attempting to play the role of parent and moral compass.” Such nanny state policies “have permeated deep into our culture, slowly but surely transforming America into a nation of ninnies.”

“This intrusion into the private sphere marks the undoing of American Social Darwinism. The nanny state allows those who would not survive purely on their own devices to continue to exist, where in a world free of government meddling, these individuals, falling victim to themselves, would be removed from the gene pool.”

The idea of eliminating ninnies from the gene pool sounds harsh, but Anton Howes, for the Adam Smith Institute, argues a different point. “What makes the nanny state so bad?” he asks. “The state.”

“A society with advertising and religions trying to convert me is perfectly acceptable: PepsiCo or Jehovah’s Witnesses have every right to try. But the state adopting a moral position is a worrying symptom of its capture. Boosted by state power, nannies become something altogether more worrying, with the potential for violence to enforce their moral code . . . it’s rather like comparing a nanny who cannot beat you with one who can.” 

Bad Bill of the Week: Senate Bill 471(by Francis De Luca, Civitas Institute)

Protecting Yourself from Yourself: Reflections on the Nanny State (by Andrew Barr, Somewhat Reasonable blog at the Heartland Institute)

Why Do We Oppose the Nanny State? (by Anton Howes, The Adam Smith Institute blog at The Christian Science Monitor)

Consumer Advocacy Is Still Vitally Important

“Is the ‘nanny state’ bad?” asks Rob Schmidt in his Newspaper Rock blog. “One could argue just the opposite: that the lack of ‘protections’ gave the US a Wild West mentality that allowed and encouraged worker exploitation, slavery, Civil War, and genocide. That these things have become less thinkable precisely because of increased government oversight.

“All in all, I'm happier to live now, with a life expectancy of 80 or whatever, than then, when 50 was considered old. People died from disease, hardship, or violence that we've reduced through regulation.”

Some argue that competition is more effective than regulation in protecting consumers. Not so, says L.B. Woodgate. “Government regulation and oversight of large corporations becomes essential to ensure that the human agent of greed does not over ride a moral responsibility to workers and the general public. The state and federal governments are the only entities big enough to handle this with the legal power to check such bad business practices.”

E. Coli in our food supply . . . cribs that choke infants . . . predatory creditors . . .  a glance at the headlines shows us that “the work consumer advocates do is just as important today as ever,” writes Sally Greenberg, director of the National Consumers League. She points to agencies who’ve known about safety hazards for years, but dragged their feet on imposing tests and standards on industries—at least until tragedies or scandals focused media attention on the problems.

As Woodgate wrote, “Only the most naive of us would accept the premise that all corporations can be trusted to police themselves to avoid conflicts between gaining market share and sacrificing a few (or many) people to attain this goal.”

Is the Nanny State Bad? (by Rob Schmidt, Newspaper Rock)

Competition, Not Government Regulation, is the Best Way to Protect Consumers: Disagree (by L.B. Woodgate, Helium)

Consumer Advocacy as Needed as Ever (by Sally Greenberg, NCL’s Savvy Consumer Blog)

Brian Stiger, 2009-2012

Carrie Lopez, 2007-2009. Resigned after filing questionable travel expense claims.

Charlene Zettel, 2004-2007

Kathleen Hamilton, 1998-2003

Ron Joseph, 1998 (acting)

Marjorie Berte, 1995-1998

Lance Barnett, 1994 (interim)

Jim Conran, 1992-1994

Michael A. Kelley, 1987-1991

Marie Shibuya-Snell, 1983 -1985

Richard B. Spohn, 1976-1983. Spohn was an outspoken consumer advocate and a former staffer to Ralph Nader. When Spohn failed to deliver a promised overview of his department’s boards and bureaus to the Legislature on time, the Legislature retaliated by threatening to remove his salary from the 1979 budget. 

Taketsugu Takei, 1975 - 1976

John T. Kehoe, 1972-1974

Donald G. Livingston, 1972

Leighton Hatch, 1969-1970. Hatch, an appointee of Governor Ronald Reagan, had been the director of the Department of Vocational and Professional Standards, the agency that DCA replaced. He served only briefly in this post, and was appointed a judge in 1972.