Intern Development Program Six-Month Rule to be Voted on in June (The Angle)

Intern Development Program Six-Month Rule to be Voted on in June

Next week, the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB) will hold their Annual Meeting in Pittsburgh. Perhaps one of the most highly debated agenda times is Resolution 2008-07, also known as the “six-month rule.” This resolution will require interns to report Intern Development Program (IDP) training units within two months following a six month training period or face the loss of those hours on a rolling basis for every day that the report is late.

In response to this resolution, the AIA Board of Directors, during the National Convention in Boston (May 15-17, 2008), approved the following position:

The Board requests that NCARB suspend any action on limitations to Intern Development Program (IDP) reporting periods (through the six-month rule) until a comprehensive evaluation can be conducted of the new online recording system.

The Board also requests that a collaborative effort between the AIA and the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB) be established to satisfy documentation concerns through the examination of time sensitive reporting including:

The evaluation of the new online system by an independent third party(ies) selected jointly by the AIA and NCARB;
The appropriate review of the “timeliness” of reporting in this modern context; and
The development of recommendations concerning changes to IDP training unit reporting.

What do you think about the proposed “six-month rule?” Should NCARB regulate a reporting rule? If yes, what time period do you recommend?

Posted by Hannah Wesolowski on June 17, 2008 5:11 PM | Permalink

Comments (13)

Claire Walpole, AIA:

Thanks to Jeremy Burge for the Angle article. I had no idea this was happening. I wholeheartedly agree with Jeremy that the electronic reporting could be great, but that its usefulness has to be evaluated before it is mandated. I also agree that the two efforts should not be combined. Perhaps a time limit should be imposed, but I think just two months is too short and including it in the introduction of the electronic reporting is hasty. I will keep up with this issue and hope to see it passed separately and with more input from our state boards.

Posted by Claire Walpole, AIA | June 19, 2008 12:25 PM

Posted on June 19, 2008 12:25

Robert Bittel:

I agree with this issue, waiting too long to report units can be detrimental to an interns development. But it has to go both ways in order to be successful. NCARB itself needs to set an example by also reporting and processing documents in a timely manner. Waiting 4-6 months to receive conformation and reports only reinforces a relaxed atmosphere that interns then emulate.

Posted by Robert Bittel | June 19, 2008 1:23 PM

Posted on June 19, 2008 13:23

Heidi Kasper, AIA:

One of the main reasons I put off dealing with NCARB as an intern was their generally consistant poor service. The online record information they have takes a long time to be updated. Paperwork is very slow to be reviewed, and it often hard to reach them on the phone. I think an online reporting system is a great idea, but at this point I think the 6 month rolling clock for interns is overly harsh.

Posted by Heidi Kasper, AIA | June 19, 2008 1:26 PM

Posted on June 19, 2008 13:26

Gary Dunn, Texas IDP Coordinator:

It appears that Jeremy does not have or has not seen all of the info regarding the implementation of this resolution. The first piece of the puzzle is the online reporting system, which, whether the 6 month rule passes or not, is still coming by year's end regardless. NCARB's plan is to have the system Beta tested this Fall by members of the NAC, AIAS and other selected Interns, with it then going fully operational by the beginning of 2009. The online system is part of NCARB's re-enginering of their processes which will allow them to finally be fully automated as opposed to the old fashioned passing stacks of paper method of record keeping, which is the primary reason response times and customer service has been inadequate for them in the past. The 6 month rule will only go into effect if the online reporting is operational, and has been for 6 months prior, and if it takes longer into 2009 to make that happen, then the 6 month rule will be pushed back accordingly. As this rule was presented to the IDP Coordinators in April, the intent is not to be an added hindrance to the process, but for NCARB to emphasize to the architecture community that getting licensed is a privilege, not a right. By allowing people to go on continuously putting off reporting their time, it creates a culture that sees IDP as a paperwork nuiscance that Interns can "just get around to eventually" when they are ready to get licensed. By placing limits on how long you can go without reporting your time, it reinforces the notion that if you want to be licensed, you have to be willing to do what it takes and understand it is not something handed to you automatically after 3 years. IDP is not the bothersome monster most people make it out to be. When treated as intended, it provides a means for the Intern to track their own development, identify areas of experience deficiencies and attempt to gain that experience sooner rather than later, which ultimately will lead them to completing IDP and getting licensed sooner. If an Intern uses the system rather than grumble about it, they are only helping themselves in the long run.

Posted by Gary Dunn, Texas IDP Coordinator | June 19, 2008 1:44 PM

Posted on June 19, 2008 13:44

Darren McKinnon, AIA:

I will definitely not disagree that the time it takes for NCARB to process reports was frustratingly long. However, I think I have to be fair and say that a major cause for this delay is because Interns sometimes do choose to wait and submit three years worth of TU's at once and then the records administrators at NCARB are left with the responsibility of sifting through three years worth of records. I think a 6 month rule could be beneficial in encouraging Interns to submit their TU reports more timely and becoming eligible for licensure sooner.

Posted by Darren McKinnon, AIA | June 19, 2008 1:48 PM

Posted on June 19, 2008 13:48

James Howarth:

I believe that the 6 month rule is not overly harsh or innapropriate. Reporting IDP units in a timely fashion is very easy to do. If your goal is to become an architect there is no reason to hesitate. However, I also agree with many other comments that NCARB customer service/processing is terribly slow. Finishing IDP requirements in 3 years is easy to do, getting NCARB to process your record in 3 years is not possible with their current system. If interns are going to be held to a 6 month rolling clock, then I believe NCARB should be held to a 1 week rolling clock for all processing/responses to any type of correspondence. If NCARB fails to meet the turnaround requirements, prorated portions of record fees should be refunded to the afflicted intern. Let's make it fair for everyone and improve the quality of all parties involved.

Posted by James Howarth | June 19, 2008 1:55 PM

Posted on June 19, 2008 13:55

Douglas Gilbert, AIA:

I'm glad to see NCARB enacting an online reporting system. Long overdue and may indeed help NCARB's horrific response times. But adding a reporting window is a terrible idea for interns and the future of our profession. Internship is about getting the varied experience needed to be licensed. Whether someone reports that experience within 2 months, 6 months or even 2 years is irrelevant. Many interns are overworked as it is and may not have time to keep up with the official reporting, and employers may not be as quick as they should be about signing off on the reports. Licensure may indeed be a priviledge and is hard work, but why make it more cumbersome just at the moment when NCARB is about to make IDP reporting easier? NCARB already has a terrible reputation and this is one reason I have refused to become NCARB certified - even though I completed IDP. There is no reason to further sully their reputation.

Posted by Douglas Gilbert, AIA | June 19, 2008 1:59 PM

Posted on June 19, 2008 13:59

lmd:

Well written and valid argument, Jeremy. Thank you for speaking on behalf of those of us who understand and share your views. I have submitted to begin recording my IDP progress. I sent my paperwork and credit card info on February second, and here it is four months later, and I still have not received my materials to begin my records. According to this amendment, my hours would expire within two months while I await my ability to even record my progress. While experience is valid and necessary for our profession, I would hope that the experience gained would never expire, regardless as to whether or not someone's valid experience hours would expire. Is gaining the experience not the bigger picture here? Has the market become so flooded with registered Architects that we need yet another hoop to jump through or road block to slow us down? Speaking on behalf of the highest educated, most underpaid professionals out there, please do not put us through any more torment. Good luck, Jeremy!

Posted by lmd | June 19, 2008 2:19 PM

Posted on June 19, 2008 14:19

Michael Meehan, AIA:

I agree with Jeremy's assertion that online reporting and a six-month rule are should not be linked, as structured in the current proposed resolution. Online reporting alone may provide the boost in IDP participation everyone hopes to see.

My fear is that a six-month cutoff will limit access to the profession by invalidating hard earned experience accrued by interns. There are already so many barriers and complications on the path to licensure, and this appears to be another obstruction rather than an improvement. I do not believe a six-month limitation on reporting hours solves the problem of slow progress through IDP. It will make it worse, as interns loose their hours.

There are other solutions to the problem of timely reporting. It may be justifiable for NCARB to institute extra processing fees for reporting more than six months of time on one form. Extra fees would serve as a disincentive, without stripping interns of the experience they have rightly earned. Cost-conscious interns would get better at reporting their time promptly.

Interns are challenged by time, and six months can go by in a flash. Even if the requirement were 12 months, the proposal would be less ominous.

NCARB touts that this proposal has been in the works for nearly four years, as if that should somehow quiet opposition. The time spent working on this proposal does not seem to increase the quality of the content, and I don't believe NCARB is acting on behalf of intern interests on this issue. NCARB would do well to consider the impression this proposal gives to its customers, in this case, interns, before implementing this policy.

Posted by Michael Meehan, AIA | June 19, 2008 4:12 PM

Posted on June 19, 2008 16:12

Martha Peck Andrews FAIA:

THIS LOOKS LIKE A SOLUTION looking for a problem. The emphasis should be in getting quality experience for interns, not how frequently they file their reports. I can imagine all kinds of totally understandable reasons why a person might be tardy in reporting IDP credits. There WOULD have to be some kind of appeal process, resulting in a whole lot of time & energy on both the part of NCARB and interns -- time and energy that would be much better spent on intern development. As architects, let's work ccooperatively in mentoring younger members in our profession, not penalizing them. Let't not lose sight of the whole point of IDP to start with -- and it wasn't established just to nourish a bureaucracy.

Posted by Martha Peck Andrews FAIA | June 19, 2008 4:31 PM

Posted on June 19, 2008 16:31

Brian:

Just a wild suggestion here, but what if they use something that's already familiar to them? Like what is already in place for the ARE's ... a 5-year rule (note: I'll use 5 years as an example, but it could be set at any reasonable length of time). Once an intern starts reporting their time, they have 5 years to complete the IDP process and obtain the required amounts of hours. This wouldn't require submitting timesheets/progress reports every 6 months (which given the 'speed' at which the AIA and NCARB work these days) seems very short for everything to be processed. After the 5-year anniversary of your first report, you could lose that time and have to make it up (similar to having to retake your first exam). This should be plenty of time for most interns to complete the NCARB requirements. This could possibly also (if needed) give the interns a little more push/pull with their employers when they say "I need more CA/Code/Office Management time/etc or else I'll be penalized, and it'll take longer to get licensed which hurts both of us". It'll also give the AIA what they are really looking for: a goal for people to work towards getting their license. All that said, personally I would still recommend for anyone out there to submit your info every 6 months or so, it's SO much easier on you rather than waiting. This approach shouldn't be required, just recommended, as they already say.

Posted by Brian | June 19, 2008 5:49 PM

Posted on June 19, 2008 17:49

Neena Jud:

I disagree with the six month rule. I do not think it is appropriate. A person must keep track of their time and report it when needed, which is when action must be taken based on that report. Treat these IDP participants like adults. I completely support separating this from the resolution about the online reporting.

Posted by Neena Jud | June 19, 2008 7:40 PM

Posted on June 19, 2008 19:40

Bob Collins:

The six month rule is terrible since it takes more than two months to contact NCARB and receive a response. NCARB has lost half the stuff I've sent to them, including my transcripts, and delayed my certification over two years past completion of the hours because of their incompetance, which is time they of course have charged me for. Gary Dunn is wrong. Licensure is a way to protect the public by recognizing the people who know the most about architecture. NCARB's belief that they are in charge of dispensing a "priveledge" is probably the biggest issue and speaks clearly to their lack of service and misguided priorities.

Posted by Bob Collins | June 23, 2008 11:59 AM

Posted on June 23, 2008 11:59

The Angle

The blog for The Angle, a Government Advocacy publication.

Intern Development Program Six-Month Rule to be Voted on in June

Comments (13)

Post a comment

Search

About