In October, the Knee Regulatory Research Center released its 2026 Annual Licensing Database Snapshot, providing a nationwide overview of occupational licensing requirements for policymakers and regulators. The report offers insight into state licensing requirements, professional qualifications and evolving approaches to occupational licensing reform.
GL Solutions spoke with report co-author Conor Norris about what the findings mean for regulatory leaders and the future of professional licensing. Norris serves as Assistant Professor of General Business at West Virginia University and Director of Labor at the Knee Regulatory Research Center.
Norris: The database lets boards and policymakers see where their state stands relative to others and how that position changes over time, supporting several practical decisions. Because many of the professions that we track are not licensed in every state, policymakers can use the data to benchmark against neighboring states. Even when every state licenses a profession, the requirements can differ considerably. Boards can see whether their requirements are unusually demanding, whether they restrict how applicants can qualify, or whether they are out of step with the approach most states take. For states with sunrise or sunset reviews, agencies can use the database to determine whether a license is still needed by quickly comparing how all other states regulate the same profession. Because we track changes each year, boards can see which reforms are spreading and where they have already been adopted. That information helps when evaluating or drafting a change of their own.
Norris: We saw several notable changes this year, and more of them reduced licensing than expanded it. Four states added a license: Delaware and Louisiana for radiologist assistants, Minnesota for veterinary technicians, and Nevada for speech-language pathology assistants.
Four states (Alabama, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Wyoming) removed licensing requirements for natural hair braiders. Alabama went further and sunset its entire State Board of Prosthetists and Orthotists, eliminating licensing for the professions it oversaw.
Some states adjusted requirements without adding or removing a license. Virginia reduced the minimum program length for barbers. South Dakota raised the education requirement for audiologists.
Norris: The most important trend to follow is the use of targeted reforms. We see states asking which specific requirements protect the public, and which are unnecessary barriers, rather than deregulating for its own sake. Licensing still matters for professions where consumers can’t judge quality and mistakes are costly. The reforms we see gaining ground keep that protection in place while removing hurdles that don’t add to it. States are allowing alternative pathways, giving candidates more than one way to qualify instead of lowering the standard. Where states are removing licenses entirely, they are mostly doing so for narrow, low-risk services, not core health or safety professions.
However, requiring national certification can cause credential creep without the states making any decisions. When states tie licensure to national certifications, a certifying body raising its own standards automatically increases the state’s requirement. Regulators should know which of their requirements are set in their own statutes and which are effectively set by outside organizations.
Norris: Niche beauty services, like hair braiding, shampooing, and makeup artistry, show the widest range of approaches. Depending on the state, the same service may be unlicensed, covered by a specialty license, or folded into the full cosmetology license, which typically requires far more training than the service involves.
How states treat licensed workers who move also varies by state and by profession. In some cases, transferring a license is a simple administrative process. In others, an experienced professional has to complete additional education and retake exams. The Knee Center also tracks the adoption of universal recognition in a separate dataset, which substantially improves licensing portability.
Finally, states vary on the transparency of licensing requirements. Some states publish their licensing requirements in one central place, which makes them easy for applicants and researchers to find. In other states, the information is scattered or hard to locate. In some cases, our analysts couldn’t find it publicly at all and had to contact the licensing board directly.
Norris: The 2026 edition adds five new professions, bringing the total in the database to 100. We also updated the requirements for every existing profession. The original set of professions now has four years of data, so users can track how each of the twelve specific licensing requirements changes over time. These requirements cover what it takes to get a license, including education, experience, exams and fees, as well as eligibility criteria such as minimum age, citizenship and good moral character. They also cover what it takes to keep a license, such as continuing education and renewal fees.
Norris: Our mission at the Knee Center is to provide data and research for policymakers and regulators to help them design and implement better policy. The occupational licensing database is one of several resources we make available, and we update it each year. We welcome suggestions for professions to add and feedback from the boards and agencies that use it.
Renee Moseley joined GL Solutions in 2016, bringing a strong background in research, writing and software documentation. She develops informative, industry-focused content that helps regulatory agencies navigate evolving requirements, stay informed about occupational licensing and regulatory trends and make informed decisions. Through her work, Renee highlights the technology, resources and best practices that support more efficient licensing, permitting and regulatory operations.
