Regional Certification Exams: The Good, the bad and the ugly An experiment to ascertain the feasibility of developing a common exam for EPA Region 5

The Plan Propose the plan to EPA and the participating states Secure money for travel expenses and survey costs from EPA Make arrangements, secure participants and communicate Actual cost was $48,000.

Proposal to EPA Proposal was made in January 2002 to… Identify validate and create an exam item bank in the general pest control category that will satisfy the needs of all EPA Region 5 states participating in the project. Produce a job analysis Produce a test blueprint Provide an item writing training session for the participants

Proposal to EPA (cont) Additional projected outcomes…. Produce an item bank of questions for this category Provide validation for the test blueprint and subject matter content Identify similarities & differences between the EPA Region 5 states general pest control category

Participants 5 of the 6 Region 5 states participated Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio & Wisconsin 1 SLA, 1 CES & 3 industry leaders from each state C&T Members included: Phil Nixon, Fred Riecks, Carl Rew, Carolyn Randall, Larry Swain, Joanne Kick-Raack, Diana Roll, Anne Parrish, Steve Tomasko

Job Analysis Meeting October 3-4, 2002 in Indianapolis Discussed the different category and licensing procedures in each state. Committee reviewed all tasks submitted for inclusion in common Region 5 job. Accepted 191 common tasks for inclusion in the identified general pest control category

Survey Preparation and Mailing Survey was prepared and sent to each committee member for review Received cover letters from each state SLA to mail with the surveys Mailed a total of 2,000 surveys to certified applicators in each participating state. (There were a total of approximately 10,000 applicators to select from)

Returns (658 OF 2,000 = 32.9%) Stat ed Undelivered Returned Percentage IL % IN % MI % OH % WI %

Exam Blueprint Meeting Survey results were reviewed in detail 5 major categories 13 sub categories 162 task items identified as common items in all EPA Region 5 states

Item Writing to Exam Blueprint Item writing principles explained Items submitted from participating states reviewed and modified Not enough time was allowed to review all items and develop new items for each of the 162 tasks identified

Project Results There is definitely a common job description for Region 5 The pests, application practices, IPM principles and pesticides used are common amongst the five EPA Region 5 states The most difficult hurdles are the different laws and practices each state has put into place to train, license and regulate these applicators

Additional Issues Illinois PC Association had politicians pass law to forbid the regional exam from being used in Illinois (It became political) A regional study manual is needed but state ownership becomes an issue Wisconsin must sell a manual to each candidate getting licensed by law

Additional Issues Exam does not exactly fit the current category definition in each state Ohio has split their categories into many Michigan category includes vertebrate animals in their category 7 Illinois allows for business licenses to be issued by passing the core exam only. In Illinois the category exam is required only if using RUP’s

Conclusion Regional or national certification and licensing laws need to be put into place if this regional process is to become feasible Funding for pesticide applicator exam development, certification, licensing, standard setting and training must be allocated specifically for this process rather than state’s money. Political interference cannot be allowed