The five rows below carry the operative statutory language verbatim, each quote pulled from the official code. This page is one state from the full state-by-state reference. Nothing here is legal, tax, or financial advice.
The five-part test in brief
Whether an ABA practice needs a professional entity is a stack of five questions. The licensing act is the gateway, because an unlicensed profession is generally not a professional service and an ordinary entity governs. The professional-entity statute supplies the form and the ownership rule that applies if that form is used. The scope definition decides whether ABA is actually inside that statute. The corporate-practice doctrine, a separate body of law that often lives in the medical practice act or case law rather than the entity statute, is usually what forces licensed ownership and pushes outside capital into a management company. And the fee-splitting and anti-remuneration rules constrain management-fee economics even where ownership is open. The rows below run those five against this state's actual code, quoting the operative language so the position rests on the statute.
The District of Columbia, provision by provision
District of Columbia
Ownership open under current law; 2024 licensure rules maturingHolding: ownership is open under current law, with a transitional caveat. Behavior-analyst licensure was enacted in 2024 and the Board of Psychology's implementing rules are still maturing; an ordinary LLC under the Uniform LLC Act may render ABA with non-licensee ownership and the licensee-owned professional corporation is optional, but confirm the current rules before forming.
Yes, but only recently. The District established behavior analyst licensure in the Health Occupations Revision General Amendment Act of 2024, which added a definition of the practice of behavior analysis, assigned regulation to the Board of Psychology, and directed the Board to license behavior analysts who hold current BACB certification and the required degree. The Act also directs the Mayor to issue rules for the scope and licensure of the practice within one year, so the framework is enacted but still being operationalized.
Conclusion. ABA is a licensed profession in the District as of 2024, regulated by the Board of Psychology, though the implementing rules are still being issued.
If a professional entity is used, its ownership is closed to licensees. A District professional corporation may have as shareholders only individuals licensed to render the same professional service, and the professional limited liability company is confined to licensed members on the same logic. Non-licensed staff are permitted, but only in non-clinical roles. Whether ABA must use a professional entity at all is addressed in the scope analysis below.
Conclusion. If a professional entity is used, its ownership is closed to licensees; non-licensed staff may serve only in non-clinical roles.
The District's Uniform Limited Liability Company Act lets an ordinary LLC be formed for any lawful purpose, including rendering a professional service, with no licensed-ownership requirement. The professional-corporation route, with its all-licensed rule, is therefore optional rather than mandatory for ABA.
Conclusion. An ordinary LLC may render ABA with non-licensee ownership; the professional corporation is optional.
The District enforces a judge-made corporate-practice doctrine that asks whether a corporate arrangement interferes with clinical decisions or commercializes the practice; it polices clinical control rather than barring non-licensee ownership. No District statute requires an ABA business to be owned by licensed behavior analysts.
Conclusion. Ownership is open under current law; clinical control must rest with the licensed clinician, and the Board's still-maturing rules are the item to confirm before forming.
A licensed behavior analyst is subject to the Health Occupations Revision Act's grounds for disciplinary action, which reach unprofessional conduct and improper financial dealing, and any ABA practice billing the District's Medicaid program or commercial insurers is bound by the federal anti-kickback statute and the Stark self-referral rules. The District does not add a broad professional fee-splitting statute of its own for this profession.
Conclusion. A management fee should be set at fair market value and built to the disciplinary, anti-kickback, and Stark rules.
ABA became a licensed District profession in 2024, regulated by the Board of Psychology, with implementing rules still pending (axis one). An ordinary LLC under the Uniform LLC Act may render ABA with non-licensee ownership, and the licensee-owned professional corporation is optional (axes two and three). The judge-made corporate-practice doctrine polices clinical control rather than ownership (axis four), and management-fee economics follow the disciplinary, anti-kickback, and Stark rules (axis five). Therefore ownership is open under current law; the live caveat is transitional, namely the Board of Psychology's forthcoming rules, which should be confirmed before forming.
Outlook: how this verdict could change
Likelihood of change: Moderate. The District licensed behavior analysts only in 2024, and the Board of Psychology's implementing rules are still maturing. The verdict would change only if the Board of Psychology's rules under the 2024 licensure law (D.C. Law 25-191) added entity, ownership, or scope conditions.
What to watch. issuance of the Board's behavior-analysis rules.
Disruption if it changes: Moderate. An ownership condition in the rules would force re-formation; a scope or ethics rule would not, and the District's current corporate law does not mandate an entity form.
Where professional advice is essential, not optional
Verbatim statutory text is a starting point, not a conclusion, and that is especially true in the District right now. Behavior analyst licensure was enacted only in 2024, and the Mayor's implementing rules, which will fix the scope of practice and may speak to entity and ownership questions, are still being developed. The corporate-practice doctrine here is judge-made, and its application to a new profession is untested. Use this page to locate the operative provisions and to speak from the source, then confirm the current text and the status of the behavior analysis rules against the official code and engage qualified District counsel before acting. The entity verdict is also only one layer of a District of Columbia practice's obligations, alongside the facility and records rules and the District of Columbia Medicaid enrollment that discloses the entity and its owners. Nothing here is legal, tax, or financial advice.
The provisions quoted here change and are interpreted by agencies and courts, and the District's behavior analysis rules are still being written. The official District of Columbia code, the forthcoming rules, and qualified District counsel are the authoritative sources. Neither this page nor any secondary source should be relied on in place of direct verification and professional advice.