Our Licenses Visualized

[jamesh1467]

Hello everyone,

In my spare time I have been doing a lot of data science work and I started playing around quite a bit with our licence data. This can be found for everyone to see on the DCA website below. https://www.dca.ca.gov/consumers/public ... ndex.shtml

The hardest part about data science is know which questions to ask, not necessarily answering the questions themselves and making cool maps like this. So I would like your help with ideas of questions to ask from the data. Then hopefully I can find a way to answer them with the data I have from DCA.

I would note at least one disclaimer, DCA does not publish deceased, revoked or surrendered licenses. You can search them individually on their website, but they are not in their blocks of published data. Only active and delinquent licences are. All of these maps are created with active licenses only. The only one that isnt is line chart that shows new licenses per year historically. That has delinquent licenses included to show historical patterns. My best guess is that after 1995 the inaccuracy of that chart becomes around 10% and progressively becomes worse the further back you go because the board has reclassified delinquent licences (most are after 1995) as deceased once they finally receive notification the licence is deceased.

I can only include 5 attachments in the post, but the map I just worked on shows the growth per county over the past 5 years compared to the total proportion of surveyors in each county. In essence, its an attempt to show which counties are gaining surveyors and which counties are losing surveyors. I will include it in the first comment along with another map I made showing overall age of licence in each county which kind of shows the same trends. Counties with a healthy number of new surveyors have lower average ages closer to 20, counties that aren't getting new surveyors have much larger average ages.

For those who are interested, I have all this same info for all other licences and I also made information for dual licences.

This is based on everyone's published address to the board. Usually their home. This does not necessarily mean practice area. I myself am in the data in San Joaquin County, but I practice primarily in the bay area now. I know others that are in same situations. Just take the info provided here with a grain of salt. No dataset is perfect.

Thanks,

James

[jamesh1467]

See attached

[Dave Lindell]

How about persons per surveyor?

How do you know surveyors' age?

[jamesh1467]

How about persons per surveyor?

How do you know surveyors' age?

This is using both 2020 Base Census Data and 2022 Projected Census data. The numbers are really small (max was 0.08%) so to make it plot right I had to get rid of some unnecessary 0's. These need to be divided by 10 to get actual percentages.

I don't know surveyor's age. Its not available information. That is the age of the licence or how long the licence has existed. I know when they get the licence and I can do math to get the rest. Most people get the license around 20 or 30 years old. You can do the math to figure out to get a general sense of average age from that.

[Dave Lindell]

I was thinking more like the number of persons in the population divided by the number of surveyors in the county. Say, for example, that there are 500 surveyors in a county of 7 million. That's 14,000 people per surveyor. And a county with only 500 people may have two or three surveyors who live there, but service more than one county so it would be complicated.

[jamesh1467]

I was thinking more like the number of persons in the population divided by the number of surveyors in the county. Say, for example, that there are 500 surveyors in a county of 7 million. That's 14,000 people per surveyor. And a county with only 500 people may have two or three surveyors who live there, but service more than one county so it would be complicated.

That's the inverse of the percentage. So take the numbers in those graphs or the table, divide by 10 (to fix my 0's thing for clean plotting of the maps) and then inverse it. (1/the number in the chart) it will give you that.

To make it easy, I made a csv for you with that information. They are a lot easier to make than the maps. Its attached. I would say the average is somewhere around about 1 out of 10,000 people for the entire state (1 out of 10,264 as of the 2020 census and current 3852 licences). But places like LA get up to 1 out of 30,000 and places like Shasta get down to 1 out of 2,700. I added columns to show you how it's changing with the census (population) changes for all of the census projections each year.

[Jim Frame]

Most people get the license around 20 or 30 years old.

When did they drop the minimum age requirement? I'm pretty sure that when I got licensed an applicant had to be at least 25, but I don't see anything about that in the regs now.

[SueDonim]

When did they drop the minimum age requirement? I'm pretty sure that when I got licensed an applicant had to be at least 25, but I don't see anything about that in the regs now.

Mr. Frame...

I believe that age was never really part of the equation directly. Rather, the age of majority plus the required years of experience used to be limiting factor back when you and I got our licenses. I rode a Pterodactyl to the exam site for mine.

Keep on posting those machining post on FB. I really enjoy seeing what you're up to. Give my best to Kari!

Sue...

[Jim Frame]

Does anyone here have an old (circa 1980) copy of the PLSA handy? I'd like to know if the minimum age thing was ever really a thing.

[SueDonim]

§6711 of the '82 PE Act states: Each member, except the public members, shall have at least 12 years active experience and shall be of good standing in his profession. Each member shall be at least 30 years of age, and shall have been a resident of this state for at least five years immediately preceding his appointment.

But there isn't a similar requirement in the PLS Act.

Sorry, I don't have access to anything earlier than 1982.

[Dave Lindell]

The age minimum was 25 years old when I took the exam at 28 years old in 1972.
A fellow worker who was a genius had to wait years to qualify only because he was too young.

[SueDonim]

jamesh1467

Your csv file is rather impressive. I segregated out PEs and LSs. Interestingly (or not, depending upon your situation) the two earliest PEs are now deceased. I have not combed the remainder of the list, but that still leaves 57125 active PEs, 5412 of who were issued registration prior to 12/31/1981!

For LSs, again, without culling the list for deceased surveyors (pardon the expression), there are only 3852 active licenses.

The PEs outnumber us! there are 1,560 more of them than of us!

Bruce Golden, of Oceanside, has the oldest LS, having been issued in 1961! He is now 96 years old.

Robert Moon, of Monrovia, CA, has the earliest active PE, having been issued it in 1953! If Mr. Moon was 30 at the time he earned his PE, that would make him 100 years old, now. And I found no obituaries online.

[LA Stevens]

I believe Bill Lockett was licensed in the late 1940s early 50s and is 99. He has been retired for quite a few years, but always a joy to talk with him.

[jamesh1467]

I just checked and 19 licences were just issued on December 1st. None of that is included in the data. As you found in the data yourself, the dataset is not totally perfect.

I took this a couple of steps further and added all the information about Geotechnical Engineer, Structural Engineer & Traffic Engineers. This file is starting to get pretty big with the data once I included those licences so I have placed everything an online github repository.

This is the main file with all the work: https://github.com/james4515/Licence-Da ... Maps.ipynb
This is the overview file with the licence/usage information. https://github.com/james4515/Licence-Da ... and-Civils

Everything should be able to viewed in these files. For those of you who are interested in Civils a couple of more graphs are attached. I also placed the 1/population number on the table in the graphic.

[SueDonim]

I believe Bill Lockett was licensed in the late 1940s early 50s and is 99. He has been retired for quite a few years, but always a joy to talk with him.

Mr. Lockett's license (LS 2738 was issued 4/3/1953) and is now retired. Apologies for not clarifying, my observations were based on active licenses only.

Thank you Mr. Stevens! And Happy Christmas to you.

[Ric7308]

25 years of age requirement disappeared from the PLS Act about 1971.

[DWoolley]

...
In my spare time I have been doing a lot of data science work and I started playing around quite a bit with our licence data. This can be found for everyone to see on the DCA website below. https://www.dca.ca.gov/consumers/public ... ndex.shtml
...
Thanks,

James

I appreciate you compiling and sharing the information. According to the current BPELSG Sunset Report for FY2022/23:

Active PLS licenses: 3,892 [643 out of state (17%), 3 out of country, 334 are delinquent or expired (9%), 429 retired status (11%)].

This leaves approximately 2,500 in state active land surveying licenses.

Between FY2018/19 and FY2022/23 there was a reduction in licensed land surveyors of 5%. In my experience, many/most delinquent/expired licensees are dead and the family did not know to notify the board. Add some portion of that 9% expired to the reduction.

Active Civil Engineers stand at 57,447 [13,892 out of state (24%), 644 out of country (1%), 4,498 delinquent/expired (8%) , 3,575 retired (6%)].

Between FY2018/19 and FY2022/23 the number of Civil Engineers fluctuated less than 1% with a presumed dead of 8%.

Draw your own conclusions.

DWoolley

[SueDonim]

Of the PEs still active, 5,402 were issued their license prior to January 1, 1982. A few have passed since the database was created.

Of those, 23 are in foreign lands (still able to sign maps - as in "I hired a crew in California to do an ALTA and had to file an RS") and 1,057 are listed as being in another state (again...still able to sign maps). That leaves 4,322 Pre '82 PEs listed as active registrations in California.

Perhaps it would be a good idea to re-read Board Rule 415.

Powder your noses and fix up your lipsticks, Boys. We've got work to do.

[LS_8750]

How about revocations of licenses PE and PLS by geographical area. Let's test this bulls eye theory. And percent revocations of licenses per discipline between PEs and PLSs. And percent Board disciplinary actions leading to revocation, etc....

[SueDonim]

Great question, Mr. Stoner. Unfortunately, that information does not seem to be in the database James linked in the OP.

Perhaps Mr. Moore has access to a full database of all registrants and license holders he can share.

[DWoolley]

...
Powder your noses and fix up your lipsticks, Boys. We've got work to do.

Who among us will be the Buck Travis, of Alamo fame, and is willing to fight to the last man in the face of Santa Anna's blood red flag [no quarter]?   As the land surveying community moves through denial, anger, bargaining and depression I believe I have landed firmly on acceptance.

Among the California surveyors, there have been those before me that warned of this ultimate conclusion for the land surveyor.  It is certainly not original to me or exclusive to our profession [ahem, trade].

As you read these charts and statistical facts it is proper to close the office door, queue Ralph Stanley acapella, turn the volume to 9, and hear his words "won't you spare me over for another year" while contemplating the meaning of these numbers to the profession.

https://youtu.be/6Q-QH1XiCQw?si=2O-0cAwsBM6t9VOh

Lastly, ask yourself if you are paying someone that has thought it proper to collect a check for 5, 10, 20 years without sitting for an LSIT or paid a union -including contracting with a union firm that fields uncredentialed folks - that is actively working to deregulate your profession (with measurable success). Literacy, functional reading and writing, should be a minimum qualification. Now ask yourself, what are you going to do about it [hit replay on Ralph Stanley] and/or will you encourage your folks to move forward on licensure?

Should he or she exist, I will support the Buck Travis among us and share the same fate under an enemies blood flag.

DWoolley

[DWoolley]

For those that may not be familiar with the BPELSG enforcement stats I have reviewed the most recent report. Here are the four year averages broken down from FY20/21 to FY23/24 (50% remaining for FY24):

28% average percentage of complaints referred for issuance of a citation.
11% average percentage of complaints referred for formal disciplinary action.
61% average percentage of complaints washed i.e. "Closed with No Action Taken, includes No Violation/Insufficient Evidence; Compliance Obtained; Warning Letter; Other Reason for Closing Without Action (e.g., subject deceased); Resolved after Initial Notification; Referred to District Attorney with Request to File Criminal Charges; and Mediated."

The "referred to District Attorney" appears to be threatening, but I very much doubt any DA would take up one of these cases.

*when I referred to 70% of the complaints being washed the math is actually 60% with the caveat not all "referred for issuance of a citation and formal disciplinary action" actually result in any action. Fair to say the wash rate is somewhere between 60%-70%.

As I stated in another post, I have only known a few surveyors that actually went straight after going through the enforcement process. In my experience, it is common for them to continue on with their practices. I believe their business practices do not support lawful land surveying i.e. record boundaries, finding or setting monuments, filing maps, etc. Years ago, I had a rather blunt surveyor tell me "I cannot follow the law and make a living".

DWoolley

[jamesh1467]

So, I got all the data from DCA’s website for non-active licenses. It took a minute. But this has information for all licenses I could get down to license number 2650. Below that, nothing was published. License 2650 was issued in 1951.

surveyor_added_per_year_with_data_to_LS2650.png

surveyor_expired_per_year_with_data_to_LS2650.png

This should be about as good as it gets unless the board gives me more information. Lets supersede the previous exhibits I provided here with these.

If you are wondering about the random jumps in the removed licences, I'm pretty sure its due to the renewal years. Most people are on a 2 year cycle. My best guess is that someone died in the 2 years prior and the board was just never notified and just followed procedure after someone didn't renew and their date of licence expiration is the date of expiration. Therefore, those 2 year peaks should really be lower and low values in-between the peaks should be higher. Luckily the weighted average kind of shows the difference and where the line really should probably be.

license_population_with_data_to_LS2650_assumes_1000_start_decay_30.png

To give a population graph (which I think is probably the most informative), I had to decide how many of the pre 2650 licenses were around in 1951 when I started the graph and I then had to remove them from the population somehow. There are some assumptions in there that I don’t want to go into detail because it would take too long to explain. Just know that anything before 1981 has some form of manipulation by me to make sense of the data. But after 1981 I assumed that all the 2650 licenses were removed and after 1981 it is all hard board data that is publicly available today. Any pre 2650 licenses that were still around after 1981 would just make the population a little bit higher. COVID really hurt us it seems like. There may be some bias in the last datapoint for the end of 2023 because people just forgot to renew their licence or data error or something. But I dont think 2022 is a huge error. That was the end of the 2 year cycle thing. I think its right. There was a clear uptick in the number of licences removed.

Now we can get into enforcement stuff. I'm calling them "Bad Apples". But I can only tell you about licences that were 'REVOKED', 'VOLUNTARY SURRENDER OF LICENSE', or a few that were 'DENIED'. I cannot tell you about enforcement actions themselves. I don't have or see a way to get that data. Or at least I don't want to waste my time reading every public enforcement action to make heads or tales of it because it would be very complicated to build a robot to do that. I can just tell you the ones that actually don't have a licence anymore.

bad_apples_per_year_with_data_to_LS2650.png

bad_apples_by_county_with_data_to_LS2650.png

[hellsangle]

IMPRESSIVE study!!!!!

Thank you!

[Mike Mueller]

Hmm, that color graph looks almost like a "eye" does it not? Admittedly there are more surveyors in that eye, but the number of surveyors per county, as shown in the graphics higher up in this post, indicate the highest concentration of "bad apples" does not reside in the "Benson Bullseye", unless Benson retired to warmer climates :)

Southern CA highest
12/299 = 4.0% for LA
7/244 = 2.8% for Riverside
VS Bay Area highest
3/124 = 2.4% for Contra Costa
2/90 = 2.2% for Santa Clara

Personally it looks more like the idea of high value areas adjacent to low value areas creates more opportunity for low bidders to come in, and to have those low bidders interact with other surveyors who get them in trouble. Which also explains the data around Sacramento.

Would be interesting to compare with what counties have a PPC that is active... Sonoma County PPC has 2-6 complaints/inquiries a year as reported by the PPC reports at our chapter meetings.

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County