A recent discussion among higher education professionals raised a question we often hear: How should institutions define the scope of licensure compliance, and where should they start?
It is a good question, especially as institutions try to balance limited capacity with increasing regulatory expectations. Many teams are attempting to apply a risk-based framework to determine which programs or states to review, often narrowing their focus based on delivery modality or student location.
The challenge is that professional licensure compliance is broad and narrowing focus too far creates wide risk gaps.
Start with the Right Scope
Under federal Title IV regulations (34 § CFR 668.14(b)(32) and 34 CFR § 668.43), identifying licensure programs is straightforward: whether a program is designed or advertised as preparing for a State-issued professional license (sometimes called something else: certification, endorsement, registration, authorization, etc.) that is required for employment.
These requirements apply regardless of whether the program is offered on campus or online. It is not limited to out-of-state students, and it does not depend on enrollment patterns – although student location is important.
SARA Policy 5.2 aligns institutional expectations with federal requirements for all programs and courses, even non-credit. Any SARA participating institution should have expanded their list of licensure programs beyond those that are Title IV eligible, including any licensure program that is being offered in other States via SARA.
In other words, the scope question is not about identifying a subset of licensure programs that meet certain criteria. Institutions must evaluate all programs and courses (and if SARA participating all non-credit offerings too) to determine whether they meet the definition of a licensure program – something that is designed or advertised as preparing for a State-issued professional license (sometimes called something else: certification, endorsement, registration, authorization, etc.) that is required for employment. Once a list of licensure programs has been developed, prioritization of the work should account for risk.
Where Risk-Based Thinking Does Apply
While risk-based frameworks are not appropriate for defining scope, they are essential for managing the work.
Once institutions have identified their licensure programs, prioritization becomes the next practical step. This is where factors like modality, geography, and enrollment patterns come into play.
Common approaches include:
- Starting with programs where educational requirements can vary significantly by state, such as nursing, teacher education, or counseling
- Prioritizing programs with larger enrollments or students distributed across multiple states
- Focusing first on states where the institution has the greatest student presence
- Building toward a comprehensive inventory and review cycle over time
This shift in thinking matters. It allows institutions to remain aligned with compliance expectations while still sequencing the work in a manageable way.
A More Effective Framework
Rather than asking whether a program meets multiple criteria before including it in scope, a more effective model separates the work into two distinct phases:
1. Scope: Identify all programs, courses, and non-credit offerings that are designed for (or are marketed as leading to) professional licensure. Remember that any state-issued credential required for employment is covered, even if it isn’t called a license.
2. Prioritization: Use risk-based factors to determine how and when those programs are reviewed. This work includes research into each State’s educational requirements for licensure and comparison to the institution’s program. The Bookmark can save thousands of research hours digging into each State’s requirements. Over 250 colleges and universities are currently using it as part of their compliance strategy.
This two-part framework reflects both regulatory expectations and operational reality. It ensures that institutions are not inadvertently excluding programs that require determinations and disclosures, while still allowing teams to focus their efforts strategically.
Why This Distinction Matters
Much of the confusion in licensure compliance stems from conflating these two steps. When scope and prioritization are treated as the same decision, institutions risk under-scoping their obligations.
Separating them provides clarity. It also creates a more defensible and sustainable process, especially as regulatory scrutiny continues to increase.
For many institutions, this is not just a technical distinction. It is a shift in how the work is organized, communicated, and resourced across teams.
And it is often the difference between a process that feels reactive and one that is structured, consistent, and scalable.
How We Can HELP You
Navigating scope and prioritization is where many institutions get stuck. HELP partners with institutions to build clear processes that hold up over time. The Bookmark gives you the verified, state-by-state information to do this work with confidence, in less time.
This post is based on common institutional questions and reflects HELP’s experience working with licensure compliance across higher education. It is intended for informational purposes and should be considered alongside guidance from legal counsel.