The Personal Training industry has come under the scrutiny of State law makers due to questions related to the competency of the fitness professional offering personal training services to the general public. Law makers challenge the seemingly easy process to become a personal trainer as some organizations and businesses serve as certification mills providing certifications using unproctored online or open book tests. Currently three States, including California, New Jersey, and Massachusetts have open bills calling for the regulation of personal trainers in some capacity, albeit using a complete licensing process or formal education and certifications with NCCA accreditation. The National Council on Strength and Fitness has communicated with law makers and provided testimony which challenges the language of the bills which would create unwarranted obstacles for fitness professionals in the respective States of practice. The general summary of requirements is listed with respect to each bill in its current language as well as the progress of each bill along the legislative process. It is important for personal trainers practicing in these states to gain an understanding of the Bill’s implications and vocalize concerns related to the respective Bill.

New Jersey Senate Bill 2164
Sponsored by Senator Paul A. Sarlo
Purpose: License Personal Trainers and Group Exercise Instructors
Status: Held over by committee, likely return in Fall 2009

Bill mandates:

1. Licensing of fitness professionals defined as “Personal Trainers” and “Group Fitness Instructors” (including Yoga, Pilates, and Spinning among others).
2. Creation of State Board. Member requirements of an associate’s degree or bachelor’s degree in a fitness related field.
3. Eligibility:
   
   1. be of good moral character
   2. Have successfully completed high school or equivalent
   3. Have successfully completed approved 300 in person classroom hours including 50 unpaid internship hours and have passed an examination administered by the board or approved by the board
      or
      possess an associate’s degree or a bachelor’s degree in physical education, exercise science, exercise physiology or adult fitness
      or
      those holding an NCCA accredited certification without a degree and who have enrolled in or completed at least 150 in-person classroom hours within 18 months following the initiation of the regulations by the board
4. Businesses employing fitness professionals and the fitness professionals must be registered and pay fees as a condition of doing business with the State every two years
5. Complete 25 credit hours of continued education

Key issues:

1. Unnecessary regulations – According to Philadelphia indemnity, the leading underwriter for NCCA accredited certifications, if clubs use NCCA accredited trainers liability risk related to personal training services is extremely limited. This suggests self regulation for protection to the public.
2. Board Redundancy – Creating a board and board examination is redundant to the process completed validly and consistent with universally accepted standards by NCCA accredited certification organizations. The use of significant State resources for an “at best outcome” of similar standards is inappropriate.
3. Board expertise - NCCA accredited certifications use boards comprised of discipline experts to oversee all aspects of credentialing including professional ethics, standards of practice including continued education, and credential verification for consumers. A board constructed of less qualified professionals may lack the expertise to effectively lead the profession.
4. Inappropriate education requirements – education beyond that needed to pass an NCCA accreditation is excessive at this time. The standards for Personal Fitness Trainers in two and four year institutions were established in 2007 whereas none exist for group exercise instructors. The process for school accreditation in personal fitness training is based on the Job Task Analysis of NCCA organizations and for most universities requires curricular and programmatic updates and modifications. This process takes time and no school in New Jersey currently maintains the program accreditation.

Massachusetts Senate Bill 870
Presented by Richard T. Moore
Purpose: License Personal Trainers
Status: Committee hearing date in July

Bill mandates:

1. Creation of a Board using a member of the general public, an NCCA accredited personal trainer and a professor specializing in kinesiology
2. Eligibility:
   
   1. be a graduate of an accredited educational program leading to professional qualifications in personal training and approved by the board
   2. hold a certification from a National certification organization accredited by the NCCA
   3. have passed a written examination administered by the board, in addition, the exam may be oral and demonstrative, and shall test the applicant’s knowledge of the basic and clinical sciences as they relate to physical therapy, including professional skills and judgments in the utilization of personal trainer techniques and methods, and other subjects the board deems useful.
3. The board examination shall be administered twice a year.

Key issues:

Inability for language compliance - No four-year schools have programmatic-specific accreditation in Massachusetts for personal fitness training. In addition, requiring a four year degree makes entrance into the profession extremely costly in time and financial resources.

No contingency for current trainers - No language for currently practicing professionals exists in the bill, which could potentially decimate the current trainer pool.

Redundancy similar to the New Jersey Bill - Board administered examination established by a three person committee, of which one may have appropriate expertise, is redundant to that done by qualified boards and is seemingly questionable in capability to fairly assess minimum competency.

“Knowledge of the physical therapy” is inappropriate – the language of the bill identifies practice domains of the physical therapist which is completely inappropriate and will certainly cause scope of profession conflict.

Examination offered twice a year creates further limitations to the profession.

California Senate Bill 374
Introduced by Senator Ron Calderon
Purpose: Impose requirements for Personal Trainers
Status: California Assembly

Bill mandates:

1. Unlawful to refer to oneself as a personal trainer unless;
2. Holds a bachelor’s degree in exercise science, kinesiology, fitness science, or another closely related field,
3. Is certified by a nationally independent organization accredited by the NCCA or by an organization accredited by the council for higher education or department of education.

Key issues:

1. Educational degrees do not mandate continued education so essentially under this Bill a person who possesses a degree is qualified to work as a personal trainer for life.
2. Accepting organizations without NCCA accreditation does not ensure the same standard. Education accreditations analyze programmatic outcomes and student learning outcomes indirectly and do not assess each student’s ability. A student learning outcome assessed by an individual, activity, or an open book test is not the same standard as a psychometrically developed examination based on a job task analysis and transparently assessed for validity and reliability.
3. A degree without valid assessment of minimum competency does not ensure a qualification standard which may vary from school to school and there is no guarantee the practice domains have been covered by a particular program.
4. A four year degree does not guarantee successful attainment of a professional credential which is why board exams exist.

The NCCA accredited certifications are named in each Bill as the valid mark of competency assessment. The NCCA is the accrediting body for the National Organization for Competency Assurance (NOCA). NOCA originates from the 1977 congressional creation of the National Commission for Health Certifying Agencies (NCHCA). The commission was funded federally through the Department of Health and Human Services. At the time of creation its mission was to develop standards for quality certification in the allied health fields and to accredit organizations that met those standards. With the growing use of certification in other fields, the NCHCA leadership recognized that what was essential for quality certification of individuals in the healthcare sector was equally essential for other sectors. In 1987, the NCHCA accreditation evolved into the NCCA accreditation under the parent organization NOCA. NOCA is a non-profit, 501(c)(3) organization accredited by the American National Standards Institute as a Standards Developer. NCCA's Standards exceed the requirements set forth by the American Psychological Association and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.