Held in Place: Locking in State Licensure Mandates

The cosmetology industry has not only teased out its influence in Washington, DC, but also in state capitals. Its primary goal has been to lock in state licensure and curriculum requirements that keep students in prolonged programs, allowing schools to continue siphoning off students’ out-of-pocket tuition and financial aid.

Many states layer on high numbers of licensure hours in cosmetology programs. No public documentation exists explaining the rationale for these requirements, “perhaps because many of these assignments were made several decades ago and have not changed since initial development,” according to an American Institutes for Research report.¹

But the industry has aggressively fought state efforts to pare back requisite licensure hours. In one particularly fierce policy battle in Iowa several years ago, state lawmakers sought to pull back on one of the steepest licensing requirements in the nation, at 2,100 hours. A New York Times investigation revealed intense lobbying efforts within the state. The Iowa Cosmetology School Association, for example, set up a political action committee that sent money to state candidates who fought legislation that would reduce licensure hours.² Despite the industry’s pressures, state officials ultimately passed a law in 2023 bringing the number of required hours down to 1,550, in line with the national average.

Research has found no correlation between time spent in school and improved rates of licensure, graduation rates, or wages.³ Simply put, a higher hourly licensing requirement (and thus more time spent in school) doesn’t seem to lift student outcomes.

Meanwhile, these trainings can surpass those of professions with far greater public safety responsibilities. For example, in Iowa, emergency technicians, dental assistants, pharmacy technicians, school bus drivers, pesticide applicators, unarmed security guards, and most types of building contractors need less training than barbers and cosmetologists.⁴ The Institute for Justice, an organization that lobbies states for reduced licensing hours, reached this conclusion when it published an investigation on hair braiding in 2016.⁵ Though hair braiding doesn’t involve heating, coloring, or using chemicals on customers, states still required licensure training of as much as 2,100 hours at the time the Institute published its report. It found that “health and safety concerns are extremely rare—so rare that a taxpayer is over 2.5 times more likely to be audited by the IRS as a licensed or registered braider is to have any complaint filed against them, let alone a complaint in which health or safety issues are implicated.”⁶

Cosmetology school associations don’t just push back against licensure changes—they’ll fight against other threats to their carefully polished profit margins. The same Iowa association that lobbied against lowering licensing requirements also successfully sued to prevent a state community college from offering a more affordable cosmetology program, arguing that state code prohibits public entities from competing with private ones.⁷ Such a campaign is not unusual—for-profit cosmetology schools and their associations have long tried to quash more affordable programming at community colleges. The American Association of Cosmetology Schools even helps to advocate for the beauty school industry to prevent more affordable cosmetology programs in community colleges, the IBISWorld industry research report notes.⁸

Also in Iowa, state legislators introduced a bill in 2024 that would have permitted cosmetology students to finish practical training completely outside of a traditional school.⁹ Under an apprenticeship model, students would work with a salon or barbershop that would register with the state, where they would train for licensure under the mentorship of a licensed professional. But the Iowa Cosmetology School Association brought in three lobbyists to help defeat the bill, which then stalled out during the legislative session.¹⁰

At the same time that beauty schools push to keep licensure hours sky-high and to maintain their hold as the dominant education model, their representatives sit on licensure boards that have jurisdiction over cosmetology education.

In New York, officials from beauty schools serve on the state’s Appearance Enhancement Advisory Committee, which counsels on licensing standards, training requirements, and other regulatory aspects of cosmetology and aesthetics.¹¹ It also approved the core cosmetology curricula for the state.¹² Though this dynamic may seem benign at first glance, it raises concerns about whether board members with ties to cosmetology schools can impartially advocate for policies that prioritize students’ best interests. In fact, in Iowa, a high-ranking official from La’ James International College holds a seat on the state’s Board of Barbering and Cosmetology Arts and Sciences.¹³ La’ James has faced a series of allegations and lawsuits alleging that the school chain issued worthless credentials and burdened students with low-paying jobs and significant debt. According to the New York Times investigation, La’ James’s president, Cynthia Becher, has reportedly emphasized to her employees that “this is a business first, and a school second.”¹⁴

Iowa officials cannot trust La’ James with the protection of cosmetology students and clients in the state, as the school has demonstrated time and again it will protect its own interests over student welfare in policy decisions.