HD6 - The Study of the Need for Certifying Interior Designers

  • Published: 1988
  • Author: Department of Commerce and Board of Commerce
  • Enabling Authority: House Joint Resolution 245 (Regular Session, 1987)

Executive Summary:
A. Study Overview

This study was conducted to determine the most appropriate level of regulation, if any, for interior design practitioners.

Through survey data and public hearings, this study examined the occupation of interior design, its effect on public health, safety and welfare, existing protection under current law, the public's need for assistance in selecting an interior designer and the regulatory provisions of other states. The level of regulation recommended is based on an extensive analysis of this information.

B. Key Findings

1. Interior design has evolved into an expertise which, at some levels, may require a high level of education and professionalism.

2. The research data provided little documentation of actual harm to public health, safety and welfare due to improper interior design services. However, the changing and complex nature of interior design results in a multitude of options and services which, improperly conducted, have the potential to be hazardous.

3. Consumers may not be able to select a competent interior designer due to the liberal use of the title and the professional associations' numerous designations.

4. An interior designer's work is often unsupervised or unapproved because building and fire codes do not cover all devices and materials used by an interior designer. The appropriate government officials often complete inspections before the designer complete the project.

5. An extensive complaint search revealed little evidence of complaints or abuses. Building officials who inspect interior design work found some problems with practitioners failing to follow building codes, to provide barrier free interiors, and to provide adequate egress. Such failures should be sufficient to deny approvals or occupancy permits.

6. Three states have enacted regulatory provisions for use of the title "interior designer", and the District of Columbia has passed a law which regulates the actual practice of interior design.

C. Conclusions

1. There are no documented cases of harm to public health, safety or welfare which can support the need for regulating the interior design profession.

2. The public is offered a means of selecting a competent interior designer through the use of professional credentials granted by the national professional interior designer associations.

3. Potential for harm can exist in commercial and industrial buildings if proper flammability and toxicity levels are not maintained.

4. It is premature to judge the effectiveness of the District of Columbia's practice act and the title acts enacted by three states provide little enforcement.

D. Recommendation

1. The Board of Commerce recommends that the General Assembly consider revisions to the building codes to ensure that occupancy permits are not granted to commercial and industrial buildings if the interior furnishings have exceeded flammability and/or toxicity limits.