Academic & Policy Research Disclaimer
This report is an independent academic policy analysis prepared for educational, research, and public-interest purposes by Di Tran University (DTU). It is based exclusively on publicly available regulatory documents, legislative materials, and school reporting data published by the Kentucky Board of Cosmetology and other governmental sources. All quantitative modeling, revenue estimates, and economic projections contained herein are derived from clearly stated assumptions and transparent formulas and should be interpreted as illustrative analytical scenarios—not audited financial statements, official revenue determinations, or administrative findings.
This publication does not allege misconduct, impropriety, discrimination, or regulatory violation by any governmental agency, licensing board, school, business, or individual. All institutions referenced are discussed in the context of publicly accessible data and statutory frameworks. Any discussion of enforcement patterns, fee structures, exam outcomes, or equity considerations is presented as policy analysis intended to inform constructive dialogue about regulatory design, economic mobility, occupational licensing efficiency, and access to lawful work.
Nothing in this report constitutes legal advice, compliance advice, or a formal accusation. Readers should consult qualified legal counsel or official regulatory authorities for authoritative interpretations of statutes, regulations, or administrative procedures.
The purpose of this study is to elevate evidence-based discussion regarding cosmetology licensure systems, exam retake policy, multilingual access, small-business formation, and immigrant entrepreneurship across Kentucky and neighboring states. It is offered in a spirit of academic rigor, institutional respect, and recognition of the lawful contributions of licensed professionals and regulatory bodies alike.
Scope and key findings
Kentucky’s cosmetology licensure pipeline is not just an education-and-testing system; it is also a public-revenue system (fees) and an enforcement system (fines), with real, measurable equity implications for multilingual candidates and for immigrant-and-underrepresented entrepreneurs who disproportionately participate in nail services. [1]
Using the Kentucky Board of Cosmetology (KBC) public “school reporting” spreadsheets for 2023–2025, I built a clean dataset with one row per school–program–exam type–year and calculated (a) weighted pass rates, (b) retake volumes, and (c) multilingual testing shares. [2]
Within that statewide system, Louisville Beauty Academy (LBA) functions as a high-volume, high-access on-ramp, especially for nail-licensure and non-English testing options. Across the KBC-posted 2023–2025 school reports included in this study:
- LBA recorded 694 total exam events (theory + practical, first-attempt + retake) with 200 retake events—a retake share of about 29%, higher than the statewide retake share (~19%) in the same reporting files. [3]
- LBA accounted for about 40% of all nail-technician exam events appearing in these KBC school reports (2023–2025). [3]
- In the same KBC school reports, LBA accounted for about 79% of non-English (“multilingual”) exam events, demonstrating that it is not merely participating in multilingual access—it is a principal provider of that access within the publicly posted school-reporting universe. [3]
On the revenue side, Kentucky law and regulation set a fee schedule that (a) charges an examination application fee that explicitly applies to retake applications and (b) charges recurring license and facility renewal fees. [4]
Separately, a 2024 legislative oversight review found that the Board received $374,200 in fine revenue (FY 2022–FY 2024) despite statutory direction that certain payments collected in lieu of suspension be credited to the General Fund; the report documents a large FY 2023 spike and identifies substantial process and transparency gaps. [5]
Economically, the nail and esthetics workforce is best understood as a licensed small-business and independent-contractor ecosystem, not merely a W‑2 employee sector—something that helps explain why state license counts can be far larger than wage-and-salary employment counts in standard labor datasets. [6]
National research and public agencies also document that nail salons and nail work are disproportionately staffed and owned by immigrant communities, especially Vietnamese Americans, strengthening the equity stakes of language access, exam retake policy, and enforcement design. [7]
Data and methods
Source corpus and coverage window
I used the KBC “Schools” page as the authoritative index of publicly posted school reporting files and downloaded every 2023–2025 exam-report spreadsheet link available there at the time of research, plus one additional 2023–2025 school reporting file that is publicly accessible on the same domain even though it did not appear in the visible school-page listing at the time (a standard situation in content-managed systems). [8]
Each school reporting file is an Excel workbook, typically with separate tabs for “2023,” “2024,” and “2025.” Each row contains:
- School name
- Program type (including language variants in some cases, such as “Nail Technician – Vietnamese” and “Cosmetology – Spanish”)
- Exam type (“Theory,” “Practical,” “Theory – Retakes,” “Practical – Retakes”)
- Number tested (N)
- Passing percentage (reported as a 0–1 fraction) [9]
Cleaning rules and derived fields
I standardized fields as follows:
- Year = sheet tab year.
- Program base = text before the first “ – ” (e.g., “Nail Technician”).
- Program language = text after the first “ – ” when present (e.g., “Vietnamese”); otherwise treated as “English” for analysis. [10]
- Exam component = “Theory” vs “Practical” derived from exam type.
- Retake flag = TRUE when exam type contains “Retakes.”
- Weighted pass rates computed as:
- WeightedPass = Σ(Nᵢ × PassRateᵢ) / Σ(Nᵢ), computed within any defined subgroup (statewide, school, program, language, exam component, retake status). [3]
Important limitations
The KBC school reporting files are attempt-level aggregates (counts of exam events), not student-level longitudinal records. That means:
- “Retake volume” measures exam attempts labeled as retakes, not unique individuals.
- Multi-program participation and repeated attempts by the same person cannot be de-duplicated without nonpublic candidate-level data. [3]
Also, some schools on the KBC page were labeled “Reports pending” and had no downloadable reporting file at the time; therefore, statewide totals in this report should be understood as totals across the publicly posted files included in the dataset, not necessarily a full census of all Kentucky candidates. [11]
KBC school exam outcomes and the role of LBA
Statewide patterns visible in the 2023–2025 school reports
Across the KBC-posted 2023–2025 school reporting files included in this study, the dataset contains 8,042 exam events (theory + practical, first attempts + retakes). Of these, 1,523 are “retake” events (about 19%). [11]
Weighted pass rates vary materially by exam component (theory tends to be the higher barrier), which is consistent with how cosmetology licensing often functions as a combined knowledge + performance gate. [12]
LBA’s exam footprint inside the statewide system
Across the same 2023–2025 school reports, LBA recorded:
- 694 total exam events, of which 200 are retakes (about 29%). [9]
- A program mix that is heavily nail-centered in the reporting period, using practical first-attempt volume as a proxy for pipeline throughput: ~88% Nail Technician, ~7.5% Esthetician, ~2.2% Cosmetology, with smaller shares for Shampoo Stylist and instructor pathways. [10]
- 192 non-English exam events (about 28% of all LBA exam events), dominated by Vietnamese (144) and Spanish (41), with smaller counts in Korean and Simplified Chinese appearing in 2025 reporting. [10]
Statewide, the total non-English exam events visible in these same school reporting files is 242, and LBA accounts for about 79% of them—suggesting LBA is a central access point for multilingual testing options in the publicly reported Kentucky school pipeline. [3]
LBA’s pass-rate profile: first attempts vs retakes, and theory vs practical
The table below compares LBA’s weighted pass rates to the statewide weighted averages visible in the same KBC school files (2023–2025 combined). These figures are weighted by number tested within each category. [3]
| Exam category (2023–2025 combined) | LBA N | LBA weighted pass rate | Statewide N | Statewide weighted pass rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Theory (first attempt) | 267 | 0.580 | 3,627 | 0.676 |
| Practical (first attempt) | 227 | 0.934 | 2,886 | 0.959 |
| Theory (retakes) | 185 | 0.427 | 1,424 | 0.440 |
| Practical (retakes) | 15 | 0.800 | 97 | 0.866 |
Interpretation (grounded in the data structure):
- LBA’s practical first-attempt pass rate is high (0.934), consistent with strong hands-on preparation, even though it is somewhat below the statewide weighted value in these posted files. [3]
- LBA’s theory first-attempt pass rate (0.580) is notably below the statewide weighted value, aligning with a plausible language-and-test-format barrier story—especially because LBA carries a disproportionate share of non-English exam events. [3]
- Retake performance is meaningfully lower than first-attempt performance for both LBA and statewide, which is typical of retake populations (they are, by definition, disproportionately comprised of candidates who did not pass on earlier attempts). [3]
Multilingual testing and the “theory gap”
A particularly policy-relevant pattern appears in Nail Technician theory testing when grouped into “English vs Non-English” exam variants:
- Statewide (in these posted school reports), Nail Technician theory first-attempt weighted pass rates are about 0.670 (English) vs 0.561 (Non-English). [13]
- At LBA specifically, the corresponding weighted pass rates are about 0.611 (English) vs 0.544 (Non-English)—a gap that is directionally consistent with the statewide pattern. [9]
This is not a claim about ability or effort. It is a predictable system outcome when a high-stakes, regulation-heavy theory exam is taken in a second language and by candidates who may also be balancing job, family, and immigration transitions—conditions that national research frequently associates with disproportionate burdens from occupational licensing. [14]
Fees, fines, and modeled revenue flows
Fee schedule sources and what changed from 2022 to the present
Examination fees (including retakes). Kentucky’s fee regulation explicitly states that “applications for examination including retake applications” carry a fee by license type. A 2022 amendment document shows the exam fee set at $85 and displays bracketed prior values of $75, indicating an increase to $85 around that period. [15]
The fee schedule also matches the practical reality of two-step testing (theory first, then practical): a KBC exam instruction document states that test takers must pass the theory test prior to applying for the practical portion and describes retesting limits and reapplication mechanics (a structure that naturally generates multiple paid exam events for persistence-minded candidates). [16]
Individual licenses and facility licenses. The 2022 fee amendment document (used here as the “2023–2024 operating schedule”) lists $50 initial and $50 renewal for cosmetologist, nail technician, esthetician, shampoo styling services, and instructor licenses, plus $100 initial and renewal for salons and $1,500 initial / $250 renewal for schools. [17]
The current LRC “current regulation” view of 201 KAR 12:260 shows a later schedule under which renewals are higher: $100 renewal for individual licenses, $200 renewal for salons, and $500 renewal for schools, while keeping many initial fees the same (e.g., $50 initial individual; $100 initial salons; $1,500 initial schools). This is effectively a doubling of multiple renewal categories relative to the 2022 schedule. [18]
Exam-fee revenue attributable to LBA candidates
Observed exam events from KBC school reports
Across 2023–2025 reporting files, LBA had 694 exam events total, 200 of which were retake events. [9]
Fee assumption and formula
Because Kentucky’s fee regulation applies a fee to exam applications and explicitly includes retake applications, and because KBC exam instructions describe sequential application (theory then practical), this model treats each “exam event” line item (theory/practical attempts as reported) as a fee-bearing application event at $85 per exam attempt: [19]
ExamRevenue = N_tests × $85
Modeled result (2023–2025 exam reporting period)
- Total exam-fee revenue (LBA, 2023–2025) ≈ 694 × $85 = $58,990. [20]
- Of this, retake-fee revenue ≈ 200 × $85 = $17,000, showing how persistence (retaking) also functions as a revenue stream inside a fee-funded licensing system. [21]
As a proportion of total exam events visible in the publicly posted 2023–2025 school reporting files used here (8,042 events), LBA’s exam events represent roughly 8.6% of these posted-file totals. This is best treated as a lower-bound share because “reports pending” schools are not in the denominator. [3]
Individual and facility license revenue attributable to LBA graduates
Here, the challenge is that KBC school reporting files measure exam attempts, while alumni revenue depends on unique individuals obtaining and renewing licenses, plus the number of salons created and maintained. [22]
LBA and affiliated public narratives describe scale on the order of 1,000+ graduates (late-2024 timeframe) and near-2,000 graduates (mid-2025 timeframe), along with self-reported high completion and placement outcomes. These are not audited administrative datasets, so the report treats them as self-reported scenario inputs and uses ranges. [23]
Technical revenue model tables
Modeled KBC fee revenue that can be reasonably attributed to LBA-related activity
All dollar figures below are modeled and depend on explicit assumptions. “Observed” means directly calculated from publicly posted KBC school reporting files; “estimated” means scenario-based. [24]
| Revenue stream | Inputs (observed or assumed) | Fee basis (source) | Estimated revenue |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exam applications (observed, 2023–2025) | 694 exam events (494 first-attempt; 200 retake) | $85 per exam application; retakes charged (201 KAR 12:260, 2022 fee amendment) [15] | $58,990 total (≈$41,990 first-attempt; ≈$17,000 retakes) |
| Individual licenses (5-year horizon, scenario range) | 1,000 grads × 90–100% licensed (900–1,000 licenses) | 2022 schedule: $50 initial + $50 renewal/year [15] | $270,000–$300,000 |
| Individual licenses (10-year horizon, scenario range) | Same cohort as above | 2022 schedule: $50 initial + $50 renewal/year [15] | $495,000–$550,000 |
| Individual licenses (5-year horizon, if current renewal schedule applies) | 1,000 grads × 90–100% licensed | Current schedule: $50 initial + $100 renewal/year [25] | $495,000–$550,000 |
| Salon licenses linked to LBA graduates (5-year horizon; illustrative range) | “Salons created” assumption for a 2,000‑graduate footprint: 40–200 new salons (≈1 per 50 grads to 1 per 10 grads) | 2022 schedule: $100 initial + $100 renewal/year [15] | $24,000–$120,000 |
| Salon licenses linked to LBA graduates (5-year horizon; if current renewal schedule applies) | Same salon-count range | Current schedule: $100 initial + $200 renewal/year [25] | $44,000–$220,000 |
| School license (LBA as a regulated school) | 1 licensed school | Initial $1,500; renewal $250 (2022 schedule) or $500 (current schedule) [26] | One-time initial fee $1,500; plus renewal $250/year (2022 schedule) or $500/year (current schedule) |
Notes on interpretation:
- The “individual license” estimates intentionally do not assume that every graduate remains continuously licensed for the entire horizon; they illustrate potential upper-bound revenue conditional on continued renewal behavior. [26]
- The salon-creation assumption is explicitly a modeling choice (because no public registry links a salon license to a specific school), but it is consistent with national research documenting nail salons as a major pathway for immigrant entrepreneurship, especially among Vietnamese Americans. [27]
Fine revenue in macro context
Kentucky statute authorizes fines in ranges tied to statutory vs regulatory violations (e.g., $50–$1,500 per statutory violation and $25–$750 per administrative-regulation violation). [28]
A 2024 Legislative Oversight and Investigations review documented that the Board received $374,200 in fine revenue across FY 2022–FY 2024, with FY 2023 accounting for $297,325 of that total. [29]
This matters for equity because the same ecosystem that generates licensure and fee revenue—especially salon operations—also becomes a principal contact point for enforcement actions and fines, and community reporting has described the burden of inspections and resulting penalties as particularly acute among nail salons (a sector with high immigrant participation). [30]
Regional economic and equity context for nail and esthetics professionals
Employment and earnings signals in Kentucky, Indiana, Ohio, and Tennessee
BLS Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS) for May 2023 shows the following wage-and-salary employment estimates (not self-employed counts) for key occupations:
- Manicurists and Pedicurists (39‑5092): Kentucky 160; Indiana 340; Tennessee 1,160; Ohio 3,510. [31]
- Skincare Specialists (39‑5094): Kentucky 570; Indiana 1,870; Tennessee 1,280; Ohio 1,390. [31]
In mean annual wages (May 2023 OEWS):
- Manicurists and pedicurists: Kentucky ≈ $42,330; Indiana ≈ $30,420; Tennessee ≈ $29,410; Ohio ≈ $54,390. [31]
- Skincare specialists: Kentucky ≈ $55,060; Indiana ≈ $44,500; Tennessee ≈ $42,320; Ohio ≈ $51,610. [31]
These figures show meaningful multi-state scale differences—especially Ohio’s larger employee base in nail services. They also help anchor the “per-technician gross revenue” modeling range: if wages alone are often in the ~$29k–$54k band depending on the state, typical top-line receipts per working technician can plausibly exceed wages by a large margin when accounting for chair rent, product costs, and the salon revenue split. [32]
Why license counts can dwarf wage-and-salary employment counts
A Kentucky legislative oversight document reports active license counts (as of July 16, 2024) including 19,698 cosmetologists, 4,053 nail technicians, 1,624 estheticians, and 7,067 salons. [33]
Because OEWS is based on employer surveys of wage-and-salary jobs, it can miss large shares of:
- independent contractors,
- booth renters,
- self-employed small-business owners, and
- family-labor arrangements,
all of which are common in nail and esthetics. That structural “data invisibility” is a known analytic issue when comparing licensing registries with standard labor market datasets. [34]
Nail salons, immigrant entrepreneurship, and why equity analysis belongs in licensing design
Multiple credible sources document that nail salons are disproportionately immigrant-driven, with Vietnamese Americans in particular constituting a major share of both ownership and labor:
- Smithsonian reporting summarizes research indicating over half of U.S. nail salons are Vietnamese American–owned and that the workforce is heavily Vietnamese. [35]
- A U.S. Environmental Protection Agency archive statement notes Vietnamese salons make up roughly 35–40% of nail salons nationally (with an accompanying discussion of workplace conditions and limited-English contexts). [36]
- UCLA Labor Center research describes nail salons as a sector with a predominantly immigrant and refugee labor force, including Vietnamese, Korean, Chinese, Nepali, Tibetan, and Latinx workers. [37]
Therefore, when a state’s licensing system exhibits (a) language-linked pass-rate gaps, (b) significant inspection-fine revenue patterns, and (c) high barriers or delays in retesting, those policies are not abstract. They shape who can translate hustle into lawful work—and who can translate lawful work into business ownership. [38]
Economic impact model for LBA-linked nail and esthetics businesses
This is a transparent “salon-template” model, designed to be adjustable.
Per-salon template (assumptions):
- Technicians per salon: 4–8
- Gross receipts per technician per year: $60,000–$100,000 (top-line receipts, not wages)
- Additional support roles per salon: 1–2 (front desk/manager/owner-operator time)
Formula:
TotalGrossRevenue = N_salons × TechsPerSalon × RevenuePerTech
TotalJobs = N_salons × (TechsPerSalon + SupportRoles)
These assumptions are anchored to the reality that OEWS wage-and-salary mean annual wages for manicurists/pedicurists range roughly from ~$29k to ~$54k across the four states (May 2023), which is compatible with higher top-line receipts once tips, independent contracting, and the salon split are included. [39]
Estimated annual impact of LBA-linked salons
The table below uses the salon-count scenarios in the revenue model (40/80/200 salons as illustrative low/medium/high for a ~2,000‑graduate footprint) and shows annual impacts.
| Scenario | Assumed salons | Techs per salon | Gross receipts per tech | Estimated annual gross receipts | Estimated direct jobs |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low | 40 | 4 | $60,000 | $9,600,000 | 200 |
| Medium | 80 | 6 | $80,000 | $38,400,000 | 560 |
| High | 200 | 8 | $100,000 | $160,000,000 | 2,000 |
These figures represent economic activity (gross receipts), not profit, and they exclude secondary effects like commercial rent, utilities, professional supplies, local services, and spillover spending in surrounding neighborhoods. [40]
Regional multiplier lens: If Kentucky’s nail and esthetics businesses form a visible small-business engine, neighboring states—especially Ohio, with substantially higher OEWS employment estimates for manicurists/pedicurists—can support a much larger absolute scale of similar activity, even before accounting for self-employment. [41]
Legal and policy terrain: retakes, equity, and system design
The old retake regime and its equity implications
Kentucky’s administrative regulation on licensing and examinations historically contained “three strikes” and “cooling-off” provisions: after three failed attempts, a candidate had to wait six months and complete an 80-hour supplemental course; after additional failures, a multi-year prohibition could apply. [42]
Such structures predictably impose higher costs on:
- candidates with limited English proficiency,
- candidates balancing multiple jobs and family responsibilities, and
- immigrants navigating credential translation and culture/administrative learning curves,
even when the underlying job tasks are learned effectively through applied practice. [14]
The shift toward unlimited retakes: SB 22 as enacted in 2025
Kentucky enacted SB 22 (Acts Chapter 68, signed March 24, 2025). Among other provisions, it amended KRS 317A.120 to:
- allow cosmetology-board license applicants to retake a failed exam portion an unlimited number of times, and
- require each retake be at least one month after actual notice of failure. [43]
This statutory shift is highly aligned with the empirical reality visible in LBA’s data footprint: high retake volume is not best read as “failure”; it is better understood as exam persistence and access behavior—candidates staying in the lawful pipeline until they clear the gate. [44]
Linking state reform to federal equity and competition frameworks
A legally careful framing is important:
- Title VI prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in programs receiving federal financial assistance, and DOJ guidance clarifies that “person” includes citizens and noncitizens alike—central to language-access discussions where “national origin” and limited-English proficiency are intertwined in practice. [45]
- Federal policy analysis has repeatedly warned that occupational licensing can reduce access and mobility when requirements exceed what is necessary for health and safety, recommending best practices that protect consumers without unnecessary exclusion. [46]
- Research focused specifically on immigrants finds that licensure can reduce foreign-born employment in a state-occupation pair by nearly 20% relative to native-born employment, indicating that “equal rules on paper” can still generate unequal outcomes in practice. [47]
- The Federal Trade Commission has emphasized that overly restrictive licensing regimes can reduce labor mobility and competition and has advocated for options that enhance license portability with fewer anticompetitive restrictions. [48]
Taken together, Kentucky’s SB 22 retake reform maps onto a broader national direction: reduce punitive retesting “dead ends,” preserve health-and-safety standards, and allow motivated candidates—especially those facing language barriers—to convert skill into lawful work rather than being trapped in prolonged, fee-intensive delays. [49]
Narrative: an uplifting, non-divisive story of resilience and contribution
In Kentucky—and just as clearly across Indiana, Ohio, and Tennessee—beauty professionals are not a footnote to the economy. They are an everyday infrastructure of care: the people who help others walk confidently into job interviews, weddings, faith gatherings, school dances, and ordinary Mondays that still deserve dignity. [50]
Within that world, nail and esthetics professionals occupy a unique place. Their work is detailed, close-up, and deeply interpersonal. It requires both technical control and emotional intelligence: to notice what a client doesn’t say out loud, to offer calm when life is loud, to make hands and faces feel like home again. It is not “less than” hair, and it is not “separate from” hair. It is a sister craft—another discipline in the same family of skilled beauty professionals. [51]
For many immigrant and underrepresented professionals, the first exam was never a written test.
The first exam was leaving—sometimes crossing an ocean, sometimes crossing a border, often crossing a threshold of fear—carrying family hopes in a suitcase and learning how to live in a new language. Then they arrive and take another set of exams: theory questions in unfamiliar vocabulary, practical demonstrations under pressure, and an entire regulatory world of forms, renewals, inspections, and compliance rules that can feel like a maze even for native speakers. [52]
And still, they persist.
The nail salon and the esthetics room are among America’s most under-recognized launching pads for immigrant entrepreneurship. Public research has documented how heavily the nail industry is shaped by immigrant labor and ownership—especially Vietnamese Americans, who have become a defining presence in nail salons nationwide. [53]
Those businesses create first jobs, second chances, and family stability. They pay rent on storefronts. They buy supplies. They support children in school and relatives abroad. They keep neighborhoods alive with lighted windows and open doors. [54]
Kentucky offers a concrete case study in how resilience becomes measurable:
- In the KBC-posted 2023–2025 school exam reports, LBA carries a disproportionate share of multilingual exam participation, especially Vietnamese and Spanish variants. [9]
- The same data show large retake volume—evidence not of defeat, but of persistence. Retakes are what “I will not quit” looks like in a licensing system that historically imposed long waiting periods after repeated failures. [55]
- When policy shifts to allow unlimited retakes with reasonable spacing (as SB 22 now does), it honors a simple truth: a temporary test outcome should not permanently exclude a person who is otherwise learning, practicing safely, and building lawful work. [43]
Across state lines, the pattern scales. Ohio’s larger estimated employment base for nail services, and strong esthetics employment across multiple neighboring states, suggest a regional beauty economy that is large, growing, and deeply connected to mobility—people moving for opportunity, bringing skill with them, and building new enterprises where they land. [56]
The key message is not that nail and esthetics professionals deserve “special treatment.” The message is more basic:
They deserve accurate recognition.
They are not side notes. They are central contributors—licensed professionals, compliance-facing entrepreneurs, and community builders. When systems measure outcomes fairly, design retesting rules with humanity, provide language access where it is needed, and enforce health and safety standards without unnecessary harm, the result is not simply “equity.” The result is a stronger economy and a deeper public trust—because the law becomes something people can realistically comply with and build a life around. [57]
[1] [2] [3] [8] [11] [12] [13] [22] [24] [38] Schools – Kentucky Board of Cosmetology
[4] [15] [17] [19] [20] [21] [26] https://kbc.ky.gov/July%202022%20Admin%20Regs/201%20KAR%2012.260-%20Fees%20-%207.2022.pdf
[5] [6] [29] [30] [33] [34] https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/CommitteeDocuments/344/30790/2024-11-07%20LOIC%20Cosmetology%20Oversight-Committee.pdf
[7] [27] [37] [40] [51] [54] https://www.labor.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/NAILFILES_2019jan09_FINAL_5a.pdf
[9] [10] [44] [55] Louisville Beauty Academy Reporting 2023 – 2025.xlsx
[14] [47] https://www.minneapolisfed.org/research/community-development-working-papers/occupational-licensing-as-a-barrier-to-entry-for-immigrants
[16] https://kbc.ky.gov/exams/Exam%20Instructions/KY%20CIB%20INS.pdf
[18] [25] https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/kar/titles/201/012/260/
[23] https://naba4u.org/2025/06/louisville-beauty-academys-model-vs-typical-u-s-beauty-schools-a-comprehensive-comparison/
[28] https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/statutes/statute.aspx?id=53220
[31] [32] [39] https://www.bls.gov/oes/2023/may/oes_ky.htm
[35] [53] https://americanhistory.si.edu/explore/stories/finding-sanctuary-unexpected-place
[36] https://www.epa.gov/archive/epapages/newsroom_archive/newsreleases/729802459bdb284c852570d60070ff4c.html
[41] [56] https://www.bls.gov/oes/2023/may/oes_oh.htm
[42] https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/kar/titles/201/012/030/1993/
[45] [52] https://www.justice.gov/crt/fcs/TitleVI
[46] [57] https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/docs/licensing_report_final_nonembargo.pdf
[48] https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/options-enhance-occupational-license-portability/license_portability_policy_paper_0.pdf
[50] https://www.bls.gov/ooh/personal-care-and-service/manicurists-and-pedicurists.htm