California Massage Schools and Massage Legislation

by Carl W. Nelson

California Massage Schools and Massage Legislation

The approval and monitoring of California's massage schools is a function of the Bureau for Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education (BPPVE), under the California Department of Consumer Affairs. These massage schools issue certificates to their graduates who often use the designation CMP or CMT after their name. The State of California does not certify these graduates.

The practice of massage is not regulated by the state, but may be so locally by the county or city, if so chosen. Most areas have chosen not to do so.

Compiled in early 2004 by Carl W. Nelson from articles by Keith Eric Grant, David Palmer, Richard Bergess, and Judith McKinnon

There have been two new laws under consideration by lawmakers in California and San Francisco.

2004 January 03

Congratulations to the San Francisco Ordinance Coalition

The coalition of organizations and schools working on creating a new San Francisco ordinance more congenial to the interests of massage practitioners has succeeded. In December 2003, Mayor of the City and County of San Francisco Willie Brown signed the new massage ordinance approved by the Board of Supervisors, which, among other things, shifted massage permit authority from the Police Department to the Department of Public Health, and created a two-tiered massage permit system that recognizes therapeutic massage practitioners on the one hand, and adult entertainment massage workers on the other. The new ordinance also defines 100- and 200-hour training tiers.

A rather unique aspect of the San Francisco ordinance is the recognition of a legitimate role for sensual/erotic massage as well as a role for therapeutic/relaxation massage. In contrast, the California legislative Assembly Bill AB 1388, as a practice act, basically attempts to eliminate the former category, partly by eligibility requirements and partly by advertising restrictions. It's nice to see an alternative approach that aims to achieve some differentiation for therapeutic/relaxation massage and leaves adult entertainment as a local option. Here's a quote from the San Francisco Ordinance Coalition position statement.

The adult entertainment industry, which initiated this new ordinance, is very sincere in its desire to make massage parlors safe and profitable for the women who work in them. Most San Francisco elected officials have no desire to wipe out the massage parlors, so the net result is that therapeutic/relaxation practitioners have to coexist, for the time being, with adult entertainment practitioners. We have come to the best compromise that we believe possible at this time.

San Francisco is unique in that the Board of Supervisors does not see massage parlors as a 'legal' issue; they prefer to see massage parlor prostitution decriminalized except when there is a victim of a crime. San Francisco city officials are primarily concerned with human trafficking offenses and the proliferation of sexually transmitted diseases.

The new ordinance also sheds some light on successful two-tier implementations. Where two-tier laws are successful, they have been based on differentiation in massage establishment licensing as an inherently local affair. The differentiation is in whether one can establish an individual practice, do outcalls, or practice in one's home. This is evident in the Coachella Valley system and in the current law and future hope for zoning changes in San Francisco. It is also in marked contrast to scope of practice differentiation that had been proposed for the now-defunct Assembly Bill AB 1388. Scope of practice differentiation basically restricts what a lower tier can practice rather than where and when they can practice. A desire to stay with zoning-based tier systems may well be an argument in favor of keeping regulation at the local level.

State Level

The effort by the American Massage Therapy Association (AMTA) to regulate massage at the state level, require 500 hours of in-class supervised instruction, and require all bodyworkers to take the National Certification Board for Therapeutic Massage and Bodywork (NCBTMB) $250 written National Certification Examination (NCE) has been postponed until 2005 at the request in December 2003 of its sponsors. (see http://www.leginfo.ca.gov) The California legislative Assembly Bill AB 1388 did not move through the sunrise review in the Business and Professions Committee of the Assembly due to overwhelming opposition to licensing of massage therapy. This is because of the massive protests by California's bodyworkers and non-student-loan massage schools when they found out that the real purpose of AB 1388 was to allow the AMTA-approved/member massage schools to capture and control the bodywork industry in California and put all non-AMTA bodyworkers and schools out of business.