Credentialing The Leisure Practitioner In Illinois

An Opportunity To Take A Big Step Up The Professional Ladder

By Mick Pope

By the time this article appears in print in the Illinois Parks & Recreation Magazine, the Illinois Park & Recreation Association (IPRA) Board will have begun to debate the proposal by the Professional Admissions and Standards Committee to move from the existing voluntary registration program, which has been in existence since 1978, to the newer and more stringent voluntary certification plan.

The purpose of this article is to discuss the differences between the two documents and to examine the more common pros and cons which have surfaced since the National Certification Board sought and received approval of the model certification plan through the Board of Trustees of the National Recreation & Park Association (NRPA) in October of 1981.

Definition Of Terms

The leisure practitioner frequently encounters the terms "Registration," "Certification," "Licensing," and "Accreditation" in connection with the credentialing of a profession. Unfortunately, the terms are often interchanged, resulting in confusion when persons discussing credentialing are calling the same process by different titles.

Registration is a noun which is used to permit the registrant to claim only that a review of qualifications has been made and they have been found to meet prescribed standards.

Certification is a noun, and is often referred to as a restriction in use of a title, and serves as title protection in that it restricts the use of a specific title to those who meet the requirements set forth in law.

Licensing is also a noun, and is commonly used to restrict a practice. It is often viewed as a stronger form of legal regulation stipulating that non-licensed persons may not engage in practice of a given profession which is regulated by state or higher authority.

Accreditation refers to a field of study as opposed to an individual. NRPA sanctions an accreditation process which is a review of a leisure curriculum against an established set of criteria.

IPRA's Registration Plan vs. The Proposed Certification Plan

When the Illinois Park & Recreation Society (IPRS) membership voted on a new constitution in 1976, which had its genesis in a task force report, the organization changed its name to the Illinois Park & Recreation Association (IPRA) and also mandated a more professional organization. The metamorphosis process of a profession is generally a slow and deliberate route which evolves slowly but steadily as its members continue to demand more stringent professional responsibility and standards.

The search for more stringent professionalism brought about the need for a plan which would establish and promote standards to help insure that the residents of Illinois receive the very best in leisure activities and facilities. The existing registration plan for professional park and recreation personnel in the State of Illinois became effective January I, 1979. It must be emphasized that IPRA's Registration Plan is voluntary in nature and is not affiliated with or mandated by the Department of Registration and Education of the State of Illinois.

The IPRA Professional Admissions and Standards Committee formulated the existing Registration Plan and recommended the details which are embodied in the Plan. The Committee administers and passes judgment on all applications and, after review, awards Continuing Education Points (CEP's) for various seminars, workshops, training programs, etc.

The existing voluntary Registration Plan sets forth the following requirements:

A.

Registered Professional (Society of Park & Registered Professionals): —Bachelor's degree in recreation, parks, leisure or conservation and two years full-time experience in the field of parks, recreation or conservation and evidence of annual continuing education efforts; or —Graduate level degree in recreation, parks, leisure or conservation and one year of full-time experience in the field of parks, recreation, leisure or conservation and evidence of continuing education efforts. —Individuals not able to meet the specific requirements would be eligible to make application for review of their specific qualifications.

B.

Registered Associate: —B.S. degree in parks, recreation, leisure or conservation; or

Illinois Parks and Recreation     26      November/December 1982

A.

Professional: —Bachelor's or higher degree in recreation, parks, leisure or conservation, with no less than two years of full-time experience; or —Not less than five years of full-time experience in recreation, parks, leisure or conservation and a bachelor's or higher degree in any field. —Important note: After November 1, 1986, the above will be eliminated and a substitute requirement will be in effect which will read "Bachelor's or higher degree from an NRPA/AALR accredited program verified by official transcript and no

Illinois Parks and Recreation     27      November/December 1982

Summary Of Differences

The practitioner should remember that both the existing Registration Plan and the proposed Certification Plan are voluntary and not a requirement to join IPRA or NRPA. Once an individual joins either organization, he or she may voluntarily opt to pay an additional modest fee to apply to be certified.

The practitioner should remember that both the existing Registration Plan and the proposed Certification Plan are voluntary and not a requirement to join IPRA or NRPA.

The Professional Admissions and Standards Committee proposal to switch from the existing Registration Plan to the proposed Certification Plan is also accompanied by a recommendation that the IPRA benefits for a professional be weighted for those who are certified. This approach is similar to the existing Registration Plan which affords the Registered Society Professional more privileges than other members.

The two most significant changes between the two plans are the requirements for a degree from an NRPA-accredited university and moving from C.E.P.'s to C.E.U.'s.

Both the proposed Certification Plan and the NRPA model Certification Plan will require not only a bachelor's or higher degree in parks, recreation, leisure or conservation, but by November of 1986 said degree must be from an NRPA-accredited university. The IPRA proposed Plan mandates a review of this provision one year prior to the 1986 date to review the number of accredited university curricula. Presently twenty-nine (29) institutions are accredited, which include three from Illinois (SIU, WIU and UICU). The Professional Admissions and Standards Committee will offer its opinion pertaining to moving the 1986 date back further into the future or keep it as stated.

Illinois was the first state, and may still be the only state professional organization, to require continuing education as a condition of registration. Rather than requiring the nationwide Continuing Education Units (C.E.U.) system, IPRA chose to devise its own process which is called Continuing Education Points (C.E.P.) the C.E.P. system now in effect requires seven (7) points per year. The criteria devised for C.E.P.'s is based on both length of time and intensity of subject matter. The Professional Admissions and Standards Committee has been fairly liberal in assigning points to a wide variety of training experiences. The C.E.U. process is controlled by criteria established by the Council on the Continuing Education Unit, an amalgamation of business, industry, government and social service organizations throughout the country.

A C.E.U. is defined as ten (10) contact hours of participation in an organized continuing education experience under responsible sponsorship, capable direction and qualified instruction. In essence, a total of twenty (20) contact hours are needed to accumulate the required two (2) C.E.U.'s within a two (2) year period. Most training programs that have qualified for C.E.P.'s would also qualify for C.E.U.'s. There are certain exclusions, such as annual state and national conferences which would not qualify for C.E.U. credit under the recent state conference structure. This would probably necessitate a restructuring of the state conference similar to the new approach the NRPA Congress has undergone in 1982.

It is entirely possible that the same amount of time or less will be necessary to obtain two (2) C.E.U.'s as

*These requirements will be reviewed prior to November 1. 1985, and recommendations will be made to the IPRA Board prior to that date.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Michael (Mick) S. Pope, Director of Parks and Recreation of Elmhurst Park District and a Past President of the Illinois Park and Recreation Association, is a leisure studies graduate of the University of Illinois with both Bachelor's and Master's Degrees from that institution. A member of the NPRA for the past 20 years, he has served on several professional committees in addition to being President. He is an honorary life member of IPRA.

Illinois Parks and Recreation     28      November/December 1982

compared to fourteen (14) C.E.P.'s. For those who prefer to work on an advanced degree or credit course work instead of non-academic continuing education, it should be noted that an equivalent number of college-level credits can be substituted.

One additional difference between both the existing and proposed plans is that a probationary status presently exists for those who fail to meet their seven (7) C.E.P. requirement. If a Registered Professional fails to obtain seven (7) points while on probation, he/she automatically moves from the professional level to the associate status. The proposed plan would provide for the withdrawal of certification for those not completing the required C.E.U.'s within the two-year period. No probation status is provided.

Benefits Of Certification Plan

The benefits of credentialing may not appear extremely enticing for those who weigh their personal gain against the modest fee. If one elects to be in favor of or against the new certification plan based upon the "mail box syndrome"; that is, how much one gets in the mail, it is suggested that the practitioner elevate his or her values of professional responsibility. If that doesn't work, petition the IPRA Board to waive the fee and suggest that they realize that the applicant is an underpaid civil servant.

The benefits of the proposed certification plan are:

1.	NRPA will review each state's Certification Plan and if, in the judgment of the National Certification Board Illinois' plan meets the minimum qualifications, individuals certified under the Illinois plan qualify for inclusion in the National Roster of Certified Recreation, Park Resources, and Leisure Personnel.
2.	By switching to C.E.U.'s, a more standardized continuing education process is available throughout not only the State of Illinois, but across the nation. Nearly all of the traditional regional and national workshops, seminars, training schools, forums, etc., which have been in existence will undoubtedly offer C.E.U.'s in the future. The NRPA Congress and IPR state conference have, or probably will, adopt a format which will offer C.E.U.'s.
3.	Illinois was the first state, and may still be the only state professional organization, to require continuing education as a condition of registration. Both the National and Illinois Certification Plans will eventually be linked to the accreditation process of university curricula. The educational institutions in Illinois have anticipated the benefits and need for accreditation and presently three of the universities offering leisure curricula are accredited. The other four institutions which offer a baccalaureate degree are presently in various stages of applying for accreditation. Additionally, Indiana University, Indiana State University, the University of Missouri, and Central Michigan University have also been accredited. These surrounding states, when added to those in Illinois, provide an unparalleled number of accredited institutions in or around Illinois, when compared to other states in the country.
4.	A fully-integrated plan, acceptable to the National Certification Board of NRPA, will provide good continuity with other similar states in the country, thus improving the chances of reciprocity, should a practitioner move from Illinois to another state to continue his or her professional career.
5.	A progressive profession meets the challenge of improving its standards as conditions warrant, thus making the public statement that it is not necessary that mandated changes be forced, but rather, that voluntary upgrading of entry level credentialing is seen to be important in the improved delivery of leisure services.
6.	Certified members will be eligible for certain exclusive professional opportunities within IPRA's structure which are not available to non-certified members.

Pros And Cons Of The Credentialing Process

The entire topic of credentialing often is considered controversial. There are those in the practitioner ranks who will be sensitive to change for a variety of personal reasons and still others who have misgivings about change strictly on a philosophical basis. In order that the reader may take an eclectic and two-sided view of the issue of credentialing, the author will attempt to summarize the more obvious issues on both sides.

The points listed have been gleaned from articles and position papers and by opinions expressed by various practitioners. It should also be noted that the following pros and cons are not necessarily directed at the differences in the existing IPRA Registration Plan as opposed to the proposed Certified Plan, but at the entire concept of credentialing.

— Cons —

1.	By definition, the leisure practitioner has not conclusively proven that the work in which he/ she is engaged qualifies as a profession. Credentialing (certification) is a professional issue — why credential if the basic work of strengthening the aspects of a profession are where the efforts should be placed?
2.	Certification is not an assurance of excellence. An authorization to practice a regulated occupation is not a guarantee that the practitioner is among the most competent in the field. (Salman 1979:4)
3.	The basis for regulation of an occupation has been, for years, the assumption that credentialing has a quality component; that it translates loosely into an assurance to the public of quality services. The fact is that all too often licensing (credentialing) bears little relation to quality. (Salman 1979:7)
4.	The credentialing process should be considered viable only when there is strong evi-

Illnois Parks and Recreation     30     November/December 1982

— Pros —

1.	Entrance into a regulated occupation requires the meeting of relevant minimum standards of education, experience and examination performance. Any system which accommodates this three-pronged linkage is better able to assure the public that established minimum standards are met. (Salman 1979:4)
2.	Beyond initial competence and entry into an occupation, recognition of the need for at least equal emphasis on continued competence has arrived. A profession cannot perpetuate the self-serving myth that "once licensed means forever competent."
3.	Both the National and Illinois Certification Plans will eventually be linked to the accreditation process of university curricula. Certification should be devised and used as a means of recognizing a practitioner's concern for achievement and commitment to self and professional improvement.
4.	Credentialing strives to ensure competence of the profession as a whole. Its intention is to protect the public from incompetence and unethical service providers who don't meet minimum qualifications. (Hamilton 1981:28)
5.	An integrated national program promoting a common element of standardization and reasonable requirements will assist in promoting competency of entering practitioners with continuing education emphasis to assist in the promotion of higher levels of leisure delivery.
6.	If occupations themselves do not assist in taking the necessary steps to assure the public that credentialed practitioners maintain or improve their skills after entering practice, they will face pressures from consumers and others for either more restrictive regulation which assures a greater measure of competence or, at the other end of the scale, total deregulation. Either may be found to be impossible to bear. (Salman 1979:6)

Summary

The existing IPRA Voluntary Registration Plan is being proposed to be replaced by a voluntary Certification Plan which is designed after the NRPA model Certification Plan. The definitions of registration, certification, licensing and accreditation are often co-mingled in conversation but have different meanings. It is being proposed that all individuals in IPRA's registration plan at the time that the proposed Certification Plan becomes effective will be grandfathered into the Certification Plan.

The existing IPRA voluntary Registration Plan places emphasis on educational requirements in the specific field of recreation, parks, leisure or conservation, with experience in full-time leisure employment of two years and evidence of annual continuing education.

The proposed plan of voluntary certification is designed along similar lines; however, beginning in November of 1986 the leisure degree must be from an accredited NRPA institution. Full-time experience remains the same, and basically, the continuing education requirements are equivalent. The existing C.E.P. program of IPRA will be superceded by the more universally-recognized C.E.U. program which requires more stringent criteria for the learning experience to receive C.E.U. status.

The IPRA Professional Admissions and Standards Committee is proposing that, along with the voluntary certification at the highest level (professional), goes the opportunity for more professional benefits. If NRPA accepts the proposed IPRA Certification Plan, a practitioner in Illinois, receiving certification, will also be included in the National Roster of Certified Recreation, Park Resources and Leisure Service personnel.

Every four-year institution in Illinois, offering a Bachelor's Degree in a leisure curriculum, has either been accredited or is in the process of applying for accreditation. Illinois is unique in this situation, as many states do not have a single accredited institution.

Salman makes two valid points about Credentialing which bear repeating. "The program (Credentialing or Certification) must avoid at all costs artificial barriers to entry designed to limit competition and ultimately increase the cost of such services to the consumer." He goes on to state, "It is indeed tragic when any nationally-recommended standard is not adopted by one or more authorities and the public is denied the services of some person(s) for reasons which do not reflect either the public interest or the qualifications of the practitioner." (Salman 1979:9-10)

It is hoped that the reader has a clearer understanding of this controversial subject and that the thoughts or opinions expressed herein will provoke additional questions or

Illinois Parks and Recreation    31 November/December 1982

points of view. The climb up the professional ladder is difficult and controversial. Credentialing is but one rung on the ladder. It is recommended that this issue be considered for discussion at staff meetings or at various professional organizations in an effort to have a more informed group of leisure practitioners.

After all, if the leisure practitioner doesn't take the responsibility to decide issues which directly affect the qualifications of the leisure field, who will?

References

1. Hamilton, A., "The Politics of Credentialing a Profession." Illinois Parks and Recreation, November December, 28-30, 1981.

2. Illinois Park and Recreation Association: Registration Plan for Professional Park and Recreation Personnel in the State of Illinois, September, 1980.

3. National Recreation and Park Association: A Model Certification Plan for Recreation, Park Resources and Leisure Service Personnel, October, 1981.

4. Salman R. D.. "Issues in the Credentialing of Professions,"an address delivered to the Convention of the National League for Nursing, Atlanta, Georgia. May 3, 1979.

5. Witt, P. A., "Professionalism/Certification/Accreditation: What's at Stake?" Leisure Commentary and Practice, North Texas State University Division of Recreation and Leisure Studies, March, 1982.

Illinois Parks and Recreation    35 November/December 1982