Georgia Student Finance Authority; grants to eligible students to assist with cost of attending an approved school of barbering, cosmetology, esthetics, hair design, or nail care; establish pilot program
House Bill 867 would create a temporary pilot financial aid program within the Georgia Student Finance Authority to help eligible students pay for attendance at approved in-state schools of barbering, cosmetology, esthetics, hair design, and nail care. The bill defines an approved school as one located in Georgia and accredited by a recognized accrediting agency, and it defines eligible students as those enrolled or accepted at such a school who are economically disadvantaged or have a financial aid gap, and who also meet existing scholarship or grant eligibility requirements under state law.
Under the pilot, the commission would be authorized to award grants subject to appropriations, with a maximum of $10,000 per student and no more than $50,000 in total grants per year. The commission could set school-specific eligibility criteria and award amounts, establish retention requirements, and require applications under its rules. The bill also requires refunds if a student does not enroll, imposes misdemeanor penalties for knowingly false applications, and allows the commission to examine participating schools for compliance and to suspend schools that fail to refund improperly paid funds. The program would automatically repeal on July 1, 2028, after the commission collects data and annually evaluates outcomes.
The bill’s main legal effect would be to add a new subpart to Title 20 governing the Georgia Student Finance Authority and to create a new state grant program for vocational beauty and grooming education. It would not change school licensing or curriculum authority, but it would give the commission oversight over grant administration, school certification of attendance and eligibility, and data reporting. It also requires cooperation from the Office of Planning and Budget, the Department of Education, and participating schools to support program evaluation.
Because no committee transcripts or votes were provided, there is no recorded debate or voting history to indicate support or opposition. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears designed as a targeted workforce-development and access-to-training initiative, with an emphasis on helping low-income students cover remaining costs after other aid. The inclusion of a sunset date and reporting requirements suggests an experimental or cautious approach rather than a permanent expansion of aid.
The most notable points of potential contention are the funding cap, the narrow annual grant limit, and the eligibility restrictions tying aid to economic disadvantage, a financial aid gap, and existing grant eligibility. Another possible issue is administrative oversight, since schools can be audited and penalized for certification errors, and applicants can face criminal penalties for false statements. Supporters would likely emphasize access and workforce training, while critics might focus on the limited funding, administrative burden, or whether the program should be broader or permanent.
HB867 would amend Title 20 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated by adding a new pilot grant program under the Georgia Student Finance Authority for students attending certain accredited in-state career schools in barbering, cosmetology, esthetics, hair design, and nail care. It creates new definitions, application and compliance rules, school refund obligations, misdemeanor penalties for fraud, commission audit authority, and annual reporting requirements, while leaving school admissions and curriculum control intact. The program would expire automatically on July 1, 2028.
No committee discussion or vote record was provided, so there is no direct evidence of legislative sentiment from the available materials. The bill’s structure suggests generally favorable intent toward expanding access to vocational training, but in a limited, pilot-based form with spending caps, oversight, and a sunset date. That design typically reflects cautious support for testing the program before any broader commitment.
Potential contention centers on whether the state should fund this type of training at all, how much money should be appropriated, and whether the $50,000 annual statewide cap is too small to have meaningful impact. Another likely issue is the bill’s eligibility framework, which limits aid to economically disadvantaged students or those with a financial aid gap and ties eligibility to existing scholarship/grant criteria. Schools may also be concerned about compliance audits, refund liability, and the possibility of suspension for payment errors, while supporters may argue those safeguards are necessary to prevent misuse.