Ohio Study on Licensing In All States - Interesting Report Card on Licensing

A recent guest brought to light this report:

(cut and paste it into your browser)

on licensing that was done as part of a survey of real estate agents, home buyers, and home inspectors in several licensed and unlicensed states.

The findings may be surprising to some. According to the Ohio State Real Estate Commission, licensing has had no positive effects, nationally.

The major difference is that inspectors in licensed states have conducted less inspections than those in unlicensed states…Could this be caused by the influx of newer inspectors or does the increased number result in fewer inspections to go around? This is a very interesting read and totally objective - even for a real estate commission survey.

Ooooh, so NOBODY ever saw that? I was thrilled when I found that info on the web… great market research tool for somebody in the midwest!

It is, David, and thanks for sharing it.

Hard statistical data is rare in these discussions.

Jim perhaps you could point to the data in the report to suport your "No positive effect " statement.

I looked at the data and it seems more people get Home Inspections in License states. That seems good to me.:slight_smile: There are a few other interesting statistics the data suggest that are of a positive nature, maybe you will find them.:wink:

Maybe I didn’t read the entire report well enough but I found it interesting that a lot of the conclusions were drawn from data collected from Realtors regarding their opinion as to the quality and accuracy of inspections. So, if a Realtor is so qualified as to be able to pass judgment on our findings then what is our role again?
The entire report suggests there is no discernible difference between licensed and un-licensed states when it comes to quality of inspections which would seem to suggest that Ohio should not bother licensing yet the report concludes just the opposite. Apparently that’s because ‘everyone else is doing it’ and ‘licensing is inevitable’. I agree there’s lots of fodder there for discussion and debate but I’m not sure I buy into their overall premise.

Hi to all,

Nice link James, This comment is very telling and supports the contention that licensing of home inspectors actually does nothing to increase standards, or protect the public.



No Gerry, that supports the contention that real estate agents’ ratings would not change…big difference.

Too funny,

After having spent an hou reading this study it has become aparent that the Ohio real estate comunity want to see inspectors licensed for the following reasons.

  • To limit their own liability
  • To ensure inspectors have to suffer a similar form of licensing as them

Both good and valid reasons to support licensing, no???



And we have inspectors that believe it’s perfectly fine to involve the Realtor community on licensing of our profession. Go figure :roll:

When will someone propose and get some licensing passed that limits OUR liability??

Interestingly Blaine that report does appearto endorse a statute of limitations for actions against home inspectors, it mentions the Alaskan 1 year limitation.



That’s not too bad, but don’t we all say that the report is only good as of the day of the inspection?? :slight_smile:

In my state when they passed the HI licensing legislation, one of the arguments that was made in favor of it was “everyone else involved in the real estate transaction is licensed (agents, brokers, attorneys, appraisers, etc), shouldn’t the home inspectors be licensed too”? Valid point or hooey? I think maybe some who argued in favor of it had an axe to grind over some deals that may have been broken after an inspection.

WTF is the Alaskan 1 year limitation, is that some kind of scientific measurement like a light year or something?

Probably something that can only be computed on a super-computer; the square-root of the Alaskan 1 year limitation is equal to the number of months it takes for ice in a martini shaker located in Anchorage to thaw times Pi!

Now, could you translate that into Margaritaville time for us Floridians? :smiley:


That is one hell of a find. I took stats during my ungraduate degree. The amount of research performed is incredible. 142 pages is a lot of info to go through in one sitting. I am very happy to have it. Seems like this is the best study any State has done. I find the lack of response interesting. Kinda seems about the same percentage I see on this message board.

Nick will be happy to see NACHI as the first exam taken. Check out the percentages compared to membership in the various States.

Great Job Jim!!!

Having spent more than a few months in Adak, Alaska during a winter over, an Alaskan year seems like a light year. It is only daylight for about an hour, it snows sideways and there is a girl behind every tree. Only problem is there are NO trees.

A guest to our board, David Smits, brought this to us, Jay.

I agree that this is a significant find.

I managed to read most of the report. Very well done.
In spit of the reseach showing that almost everything was the same in both licenced and unlicenced states. The only difference I found was that there was a drop in the average number of inspections each inspector had proformed during his career. Once licencing was introduced the average career inspections declined. Is this good? I think not. The thing that boggles my mind is that the report recommemds that the state set up a board that will cotrol all aspects of the HI industry. Nothing in the research shows that there is a need for control. The states that have minimal control and simply call for inspectors to be certificed by the various associations. You still have to buy a licence but those states accept the standards of the approved associations. The study shows that the level of client satification is slightly better then the complete state controled inspectors.
I also agree 100% with the recommendation that realtors must not recommend specific inspectors. They must recommend every licenced inspector in the state.