Putting the Advocacy Puzzle Together in Connecticut
Different perspectives help build a workable approach to restoration policy.
Our October 20th video call with Connecticut’s Department of Consumer Protection helped us identify several pieces needed to move emergency restoration services licensing forward. RIA explained the realities of responding to property damage, while C.J. Strand and his team explained what a new requirement would mean for the department and the consumers it serves.
Government advocacy takes more than a conversation with a bill sponsor and the hope that our experience will persuade them. It requires gathering facts from the people affected by a change, understanding their concerns and working toward compromises they can support. Each perspective supplies another piece of the puzzle.
That is the work we began with C.J. and his colleagues. We left with a clearer understanding of the questions to answer and a commitment to continue the discussion.
Bringing the people who would administer the law into the conversation
LizConnelly, who represents RIA in Connecticut, coordinated the meeting. Five DCP representatives joined the call, each overseeing a different area of the department’s work. The discussion included perspectives from legislation, regulations, licensing and legal oversight of home improvement contractors. Each brought another piece of the puzzle: how the proposal would affect their responsibilities and what would be needed to make it work. Hearing those perspectives together helped us identify questions that a conversation with a bill sponsor alone could not resolve.
RIA has proposed a separate license and a statutory definition for emergency restoration services. We want property owners to be able to identify qualified professionals and have confidence in the work performed after a loss. To advance that goal, we also need to understand how applications would be reviewed, complaints investigated and requirements enforced.
Understanding how the pieces affect one another
The discussion centered on several connected questions. Should the proposal cover residential properties, commercial properties or both? Should Connecticut create a separate restoration license or add a specialty endorsement to its existing home improvement registration? An endorsement would identify an additional qualification attached to that registration.
DCP explained its focus on residential consumer protection in this area and the additional questions raised by commercial work. The team also identified potential staffing and funding needs across licensing, investigations and legal services. Those concerns matter because a requirement on paper needs a workable process behind it.
We shared the operational challenges our members face. Water extraction, boarding up and stabilization require prompt action. The full extent of damage may remain hidden until work begins. We discussed how to address emergency authorization and cancellation requirements while maintaining customer protections and distinguishing mitigation from rebuilding.
These questions belong together. The scope of a license affects who must apply. Qualifications affect workforce availability. The number of applicants and the work covered affect the resources DCP would need. Changing one piece can change how the others fit.
Replacing assumptions with useful data
DCP asked about the certification landscape and the number of practitioners who could be affected. I committed to obtaining Connecticut certification counts from the Institute of Inspection, Cleaning and Restoration Certification, or IICRC, for water, fire and mold work, whom have partnered with RIA since nearly inception.
Those figures will provide a starting point. They will not provide a better understanding to how many indivduals are trained and ceretifed in the state, but provide data that can help in the assessment of the impact of legislation on their department.
Working toward an approach that can earn support
DCP remained open to further collaboration. We have not yet agreed on a final licensing structure or legislative language for 2027. Our next steps are to provide the certification data, work with Liz on language for further review and continue discussing scope, consumer protections and implementation.
The purpose of compromise is to find a way to achieve the consumer-protection goal that works for the people who must follow and administer the law. A concern raised early gives us a chance to improve the proposal before asking legislators to advance it.
Why member experience matters
RIA members bring a piece of the puzzle that government cannot supply on its own: experience from the jobsite. Clear examples of emergency work, customer authorization, training and the transition to reconstruction can help us test whether proposed language will work in practice.
Connecticut members who would like to contribute an example or participate in this effort can contact me at vscarfo@restorationindustry.org. Please leave customer names and claim details out of an initial message.
Our work with C.J. and his team is moving us toward a fuller picture. As we gather the remaining facts and consider each other’s concerns, we can build a proposal that better serves property owners and the professionals they rely on.