[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 172 (Tuesday, September 6, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 61294-61453]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-19748]



[[Page 61293]]

Vol. 81

Tuesday,

No. 172

September 6, 2016

Part II





Department of Health and Human Services





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





Administration for Children and Families





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





45 CFR Chapter XIII





Head Start Performance Standards; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 81 , No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 61294]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Administration for Children and Families

45 CFR Chapter XIII

RIN 0970-AC63


Head Start Performance Standards

AGENCY: Office of Head Start (OHS), Administration for Children and 
Families (ACF), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This final rule modernizes the Head Start Program Performance 
Standards, last revised in 1998. In the Improving Head Start for School 
Readiness Act of 2007, Congress instructed the Office of Head Start to 
update its performance standards and to ensure any such revisions to 
the standards do not eliminate or reduce quality, scope, or types of 
health, educational, parental involvement, nutritional, social, or 
other services programs provide. This rule responds to public comment, 
incorporates extensive findings from research and from consultation 
with experts, reflects best practices, lessons from program input and 
innovation, integrates recommendations from the Secretary's Advisory 
Committee Final Report on Head Start Research and Evaluation, and 
reflects the Obama Administration's deep commitment to improve the 
school readiness of young children. These performance standards will 
improve program quality, reduce burden on programs, and improve 
regulatory clarity and transparency. They provide a clear road map for 
current and prospective grantees to support high-quality Head Start 
services and to strengthen the outcomes of the children and families 
Head Start serves.

DATES: Effective Date: Provisions of this final rule become effective 
November 7, 2016.
    Compliance Date(s): To allow programs reasonable time to implement 
certain performance standards, we phase in compliance dates over 
several years after this final rule becomes effective. In the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below, we provide a table, Table 1: 
Compliance Table, which lists dates by which programs must implement 
specific standards.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Colleen Rathgeb, Division Director of 
Early Childhood Policy and Budget, Office of Early Childhood 
Development, at [email protected] or (202) 401-1195 (not a 
toll free call). Deaf and hearing impaired individuals may call the 
Federal Dual Party Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 7 
p.m. Eastern Time.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary
II. Tables
    Table 1: Compliance Table
    Table 2: Redesignation Table
III. Background
    a. Statutory Authority
    b. Purpose of This Rule
    c. Rulemaking and Comment Processes
    d. Overview of Major Changes From the NPRM
IV. Discussion of General Comments on the Final Rule
V. Discussion of Section by Section Comments on the Final Rule
    a. Program Governance
    b. Program Operations
    1. Subpart A Eligibility, Recruitment, Selection, Enrollment and 
Attendance
    2. Subpart B Program Structure
    3. Subpart C Education and Child Development Program Services
    4. Subpart D Health Program Services
    5. Subpart E Family and Community Engagement Program Services
    6. Subpart F Additional Services for Children With Disabilities
    7. Subpart G Transition Services
    8. Subpart H Services to Enrolled Pregnant Women
    9. Subpart I Human Resources Management
    10. Subpart J Program Management and Quality Improvement
    c. Financial and Administrative Requirements
    1. Subpart A Financial Requirements
    2. Subpart B Administrative Requirements
    3. Subpart C Protections for the Privacy of Child Records
    4. Subpart D Delegation of Program Operations
    5. Subpart E Facilities
    6. Subpart F Transportation
    d. Federal Administrative Procedures
    1. Subpart A Monitoring, Suspension, Termination, Denial of 
Refunding, Reduction in Funding and Their Appeals
    2. Subpart B Designation Renewal
    3. Subpart C Selection of Grantees Through Competition
    4. Subpart D Replacement of American Indian and Alaska Native 
Grantee
    5. Subpart E Head Start Fellows Program
    e. Definitions
VIII. Regulatory Process Matters
    a. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    b. Regulatory Planning and Review Executive Order 12866
    1. Need for Regulatory Action: Increasing the Benefits to 
Society of Head Start
    2. Cost and Savings Analysis
    i. Structural Program Option Provisions
    ii. Educator Quality Provisions
    iii. Curriculum and Assessment Provisions
    iv. Administrative/Managerial Provisions
    3. Benefit Analysis
    4. Accounting Statement
    5. Distributional Effects
    6. Regulatory Alternatives
    c. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    d. Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 1999
    e. Federalism Assessment Executive Order 13132
    f. Congressional Review
    g. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
Tribal Consultation Statement

I. Executive Summary

    Head Start currently provides comprehensive early learning services 
to more than 1 million children from birth to age five each year 
through more than 60,000 classes, home visitors, and family child care 
partners nationwide.\1\ Since its inception in 1965, Head Start has 
been a leader in helping children from low-income families enter 
kindergarten more prepared to succeed in school and in life. Head Start 
is a central part of this Administration's effort to ensure all 
children have access to high-quality early learning opportunities and 
to eliminate the education achievement gap. This regulation is intended 
to improve the quality of Head Start services so that programs have a 
stronger impact on children's learning and development. It also is 
necessary to streamline and reorganize the regulatory structure to 
improve regulatory clarity and transparency so that existing grantees 
can more easily run a high-quality Head Start program and so that Head 
Start's operational requirements will be more transparent and seem less 
onerous to prospective grantees. In addition, this regulation is 
necessary to reduce the burden on local programs that can interfere 
with high-quality service delivery. We believe these regulatory changes 
will help ensure every child and family in Head Start receives high-
quality services that will lead to greater success in school and in 
life.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration 
for Children and Families (2015). Office of Head Start Program 
Information Report, 2014-2015. Washington, DC: Author.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2007, Congress mandated the Secretary to revise the program 
performance standards and update and raise the education standards.\2\ 
Congress also prohibited elimination of, or any reduction in, the 
quality, scope, or types of services in the revisions.\3\ Thus, these 
regulatory revisions are additionally intended to meet the statutory 
requirements Congress put forth in the bipartisan reauthorization of 
Head Start in 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See https://www.congress.gov/congressional-report/110th-congress/house-report/439/1 and 42 U.S.C. 9836A(a)(1)(B).
    \3\ 42 U.S.C. 9836A(a)(2)(C)(ii).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 61295]]

    The Head Start Program Performance Standards are the foundation on 
which programs design and deliver comprehensive, high-quality 
individualized services to support the school readiness of children 
from low-income families. The first set of Head Start Program 
Performance Standards was published in the 1970s. Since then, they have 
been revised following subsequent Congressional reauthorizations and 
were last revised in 1998. The program performance standards set forth 
the requirements local grantees must meet to support the cognitive, 
social, emotional, and healthy development of children from birth to 
age five. They encompass requirements to provide education, health, 
mental health, nutrition, and family and community engagement services, 
as well as rules for local program governance and aspects of federal 
administration of the program.
    This final rule builds upon extensive consultation with 
researchers, practitioners, recommendations from the Secretary's 
Advisory Committee Final Report on Head Start Research and 
Evaluation,\4\ and other experts, public comment, as well as internal 
analysis of program data and years of program input. In addition, 
program monitoring has also provided invaluable experience regarding 
the strengths and weaknesses of the previous program performance 
standards. Moreover, research and practice in the field of early 
childhood education has expanded exponentially in the 15 years since 
the program performance standards governing service delivery were last 
revised, providing a multitude of new insights on how to support 
improved child outcomes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Advisory Committee on Head Start Research and Evaluation: 
Final Report. (2012). Washington, DC: Office of Head Start, 
Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health 
and Human Services. See https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/eval_final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Secretary's Advisory Committee, which consisted of expert 
researchers and practitioners chartered to provide ``recommendations 
for improving Head Start program effectiveness'' concluded early 
education programs, including Head Start, are capable of reducing the 
achievement gap, but that Head Start is not reaching its potential.\5\ 
As part of their work, the Committee provided recommendations for 
interpreting the results of both the Head Start Impact Study (HSIS),\6\ 
a randomized control trial study of children in Head Start in 2002 and 
2003 through third grade, and the Early Head Start Research and 
Evaluation Project (EHSREP),\7\ which was initiated in 1996 and 
followed children who were eligible to participate in Early Head Start. 
The Committee concluded that these findings should be interpreted in 
the context of the larger body of research that demonstrates Head Start 
and Early Head Start ``are improving family well-being and improving 
school readiness of children at or below the poverty line in the U.S. 
today.'' \8\ The Committee agreed the initial impact both Head Start 
and Early Head Start have demonstrated ``are in line with the magnitude 
of findings from other scaled-up programs for infants and toddlers . . 
. and center-based programs for preschoolers . . .'' but also 
acknowledged ``larger impacts may be possible, e.g., by increasing 
dosage in [Early Head Start] and Head Start or improving instructional 
factors in Head Start.''\9\ The Committee also addressed the finding 
that these impacts do not seem to persist into elementary school, 
stating the larger body of research on Head Start provides ``evidence 
of long-term positive outcomes for those who participated in Head Start 
in terms of high school completion, avoidance of problem behaviors, 
avoidance of entry into the criminal justice system, too-early family 
formation, avoidance of special education, and workforce attachment.'' 
Overall, the report determined a key factor for Head Start to realize 
its potential is ``making quality and other improvements and optimizing 
dosage within Head Start [and Early Head Start].'' The final rule aims 
to capitalize on the advancements in research, available data, program 
input, public comment, and these recommendations in order to accomplish 
the critical goal of helping Head Start reach its full potential so 
more children reach kindergarten ready to succeed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Ibid, (p.1).
    \6\ Puma, M., Bell, S., Cook, R., Heid, C., Broene, P., Jenkins, 
F., & Downer, J. (2012). Third grade follow-up to the Head Start 
impact study final report. U.S. Department of Health and Human 
Services Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation.
    \7\ Cohen, R.C., Vogel, C.A., Xue, Y., Moiduddin, E.M., Carlson, 
B.L., Twin Peaks Partners, L.L.C., & Kisker, E.E. (2010). Early Head 
Start Children in Grade 5: Long-Term Follow-Up of the Early Head 
Start Research and Evaluation Project Study Sample. Washington, DC: 
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for 
Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, 
(6933).
    \8\ Advisory Committee on Head Start Research and Evaluation: 
Final Report. (2012). Washington, DC: Office of Head Start, 
Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health 
and Human Services. See https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/eval_final.pdf.
    \9\ Ibid. (p. 30).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This final rule reorganizes previous program performance standards 
to make it easier for grantees to implement them and for the public to 
understand the broad range of Head Start program services. Our previous 
program performance standards consisted of 1,400 provisions organized 
in 11 different sections that were amended in a partial or topical 
fashion over the past 40 years. This approach resulted in a somewhat 
opaque set of requirements that were unnecessarily challenging to 
interpret and overburdened grantees with process-laden rules.
    This rule has four distinct sections: (1) Program Governance, which 
outlines the requirements imposed by the Head Start Act (the ``Act'') 
on Governing Bodies and Policy Councils to ensure well-governed Head 
Start programs; (2) Program Operations, which outlines all of the 
operational requirements for serving children and families, from the 
universe of eligible children and the services they must be provided in 
education, health, and family and community engagement, to the way 
programs must use data to improve the services they provide; (3) 
Financial and Administrative Requirements, which lays out the federal 
requirements Head Start programs must adhere to because of overarching 
federal requirements or specific provisions imposed in the Act; and (4) 
Federal Administrative Procedures, which governs the procedures the 
responsible HHS official takes to determine the results of competition 
for all grantees, any actions against a grantee, whether a grantee 
needs to compete for renewed funding, and other transparency-related 
procedures required in the Act.
    We also reorganized specific sections and streamlined provisions to 
make Head Start requirements easier to understand for all interested 
parties--grantees, potential grantees, other early education programs, 
and members of the general public. We reorganized subparts and their 
sections to eliminate redundancy, and we grouped together related 
requirements. Additionally, we systematically addressed the fact that 
many of our most critical provisions were buried in subparts that made 
them difficult to find and interpret, and did not reflect their 
centrality to the provision of high-quality services. For example, we 
created new subparts or sections to highlight and expand, where 
necessary, upon these important requirements.
    We also streamlined requirements and minimized administrative 
burden on local programs. In total, we significantly reduced the number 
of regulatory requirements without compromising quality. We give 
programs greater flexibility to determine how best to

[[Page 61296]]

achieve their goals and administer a high-quality Head Start program 
without reducing expectations for children and families. We anticipate 
these changes will help move Head Start away from a compliance-oriented 
culture to an outcomes-focused one. Furthermore, we believe this 
approach will support better collaboration with other programs and 
funding streams. We recognize that grantees deliver services through a 
variety of modalities including child care and state pre-kindergarten 
programs. Additionally, we removed other overly prescriptive 
requirements related to governing bodies, appeals, and audits.
    We include several provisions to support local flexibility to meet 
community needs and to promote innovation and research. We give Head 
Start programs additional flexibility in the structural requirements of 
program models, such as group size and ratios. Further, we permit local 
variations for effective and innovative curriculum and professional 
development models, giving flexibility from some of these requirements 
if the Head Start program works with research experts and evaluates the 
effectiveness of their model. We also support local innovation through 
a process to waive individual eligibility verification requirements, 
which will allow better coordination with local early education 
programs without reducing quality. Collectively, these changes will 
allow for the development of innovative program models, alleviate 
paperwork burdens, and support mixed income settings.
    We believe the benefits of these changes will be significant for 
the children and families Head Start serves. Strengthening Head Start 
standards will improve child outcomes and promote greater success in 
school as well as produce higher returns on taxpayer investment. 
Reorganizing, streamlining, and reducing the requirements in the 
regulation will make Head Start less burdensome for existing grantees 
and more approachable for potential grantees, which may result in more 
organizations competing for Head Start grants. These changes are 
central to the Administration's belief that every child deserves an 
opportunity to succeed.

II. Tables

[[Page 61297]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR06SE16.001


[[Page 61298]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR06SE16.002


[[Page 61299]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR06SE16.003


[[Page 61300]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR06SE16.004


[[Page 61301]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR06SE16.005


[[Page 61302]]



Table 2--Redesignation Table

    This final rule reorganizes and redesignates the Head Start Program 
Performance Standards under subchapter B at 45 CFR chapter XIII. We 
believe our efforts provide current and prospective grantees an 
organized road map on how to provide high-quality Head Start services.
    To help the public readily locate sections and provisions from the 
previous performance standards that are reorganized and redesignated, 
we included redesignation and distribution tables in the NPRM. The 
redesignation table listed the previous section and identified the 
section we proposed would replace it. The distribution table in the 
NPRM listed previous provisions and showed whether we removed, revised, 
or redesignated them. We believe the public may continue to find the 
redesignation table useful here, so we included an updated version of 
it below.

                      Table 2--Redesignation Table
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Previous section                        New section
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1301.1............................  1303.2
1301.20...........................  1305
1301.10...........................  1303.3
1301.11...........................  1303.12
1301.20...........................  1303.4
1301.21...........................  1303.4
1301.30...........................  1303.10
1301.31...........................  1302.90, 1302.102
1301.32...........................  1303.5
1301.33...........................  1303.31
1301.34...........................  1304.5, 1304.7
1302.1............................  1304.1
1302.2............................  1305
1302.5............................  1304.2, 1304.3, 1304.4
1302.10...........................  1304.20
1302.11...........................  1304.20
1302.30...........................  1304.30
1302.31...........................  1304.31
1302.32...........................  1304.32
1303.1............................  1304.1, 1303.30
1303.2............................  1305
1303.10...........................  1304.1
1303.11...........................  1304.3
1303.12...........................  1304.4
1303.14...........................  1304.5
1303.21...........................  1304.6
1303.22...........................  1304.6
1304.1............................  1302.1
1304.3............................  1305
1304.20...........................  1302.42, 1302.33, 1302.41, 1302.61,
                                     1302.46, 1302.63
1304.21...........................  1302.30, 1302.31, 1302, 1302.35,
                                     1302.60, 1302.90, 1302.34, 1302.33,
                                     1302.46, 1302.21
1304.22...........................  1302.47, 1302.92, 1302.15, 1302.90,
                                     1302.41, 1302.42, 1302.46
1304.23...........................  1302.42, 1302.44, 1302.31, ,
                                     1302.90, , 1302.46
1304.24...........................  1302.46, 1302.45
1304.40...........................  1302.50, 1302.52, 1302.80, 1302.18,
                                     1302.34, 1302.51, 1302.30, 1302.18,
                                     1302.81, 1302.46, 1302.52, 1302.70,
                                     1302.71, 1302.72, 1302.22, 1302.82
1304.41...........................  1302.53, 1302.63, 1302.70, 1302.71
1304.50...........................  1301.1, 1301.3 1302.102, , 1301.4
1304.51...........................  1302.101, 1302.90, 1303.23,
                                     1302.102, 1301.3, 1303.32
1304.52...........................  1302.101, 1302.91, 1302.90, 1302.91,
                                     1302.21, 1303.3, 1302.93, 1302.94,
                                     1302.92, 1301.5
1304.53...........................  1302.31, 1302.21, 1302.47, 1302.22,
                                     1302.23
1304.60...........................  1302.102, 1304.2
1305.1............................  1302.10
1305.2............................  1305
1305.3............................  1302.11, 1302.102, 1302.20
1305.4............................  1302.12
1305.5............................  1302.13, 1302.14,
1305.6............................  1302.14
1305.7............................  1302.12, 1302.15, 1302.70
1305.8............................  1302.16
1305.9............................  1302.18
1305.10...........................  1304.4
1306.3............................  1305
1306.20...........................  1302.101, 1302.21, 1302.90, 1302.23,
                                     1302.20
1306.21...........................  1302.91
1306.23...........................  1302.92
1306.30...........................  1302.20, 1302.21, 1302.22, 1302.23
1306.31...........................  1302.20
1306.32...........................  1302.21, 1302.24, 1302.17, 1302.102,
                                     1302.34, 1302.18
1306.33...........................  1302.22, 1302.101 , 1302.91,
                                     1302.35, 1302.44, 1302.23, 1302.31,
                                     1301.4, 1302.47, 1302.45, 1302.24
1307.1............................  1304.10

[[Page 61303]]

 
1307.2............................  1305
1307.3............................  1304.11
1307.4............................  1304.12
1307.5............................  1304.13
1307.6............................  1304.14
1307.7............................  1304.15
1307.8............................  1304.16
1308.1............................  1302.60
1308.3............................  1305
1308.4............................  1302.101, 1302.61, 1302.63, 1303.75
1308.5............................  1302.12, 1302.13
1308.6............................  1302.33, 1302.42, 1302.34, 1302.33
1308.18...........................  1302.47
1308.21...........................  1302.61, 1302.62, 1302.34
1309.1............................  1303.40
1309.2............................  1303.41
1309.3............................  1305
1309.4............................  1303.42, 1303.44, 1303.45, 1303.48,
                                     1303.50
1309.21...........................  1305, 1303.51, 1303.48, 1303.50,
                                     1303.46, 1303.47, 1303.48, 1303.55,
                                     1303.3
1309.22...........................  1303.49, 1303.51
1309.31...........................  1303.44, 1303.47
1309.33...........................  1303.56
1309.40...........................  1303.53
1309.41...........................  1303.54
1309.43...........................  1303.43
1309.52...........................  1303.55
1309.53...........................  1303.56
1310.2............................  1303.70
1310.3............................  1305
1310.10...........................  1303.70, 1303.71, 1303.72
1310.14...........................  1303.71
1310.15...........................  1303.72
1310.16...........................  1303.72
1310.17...........................  1303.72
1310.20...........................  1303.73
1310.21...........................  1303.74
1310.22...........................  1303.75
1310.23...........................  1303.70
------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Background

a. Statutory Authority

    This final rule is published under the authority granted to the 
Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services under sections 
640, 641A, 642, 644, 645, 645A, 646, 648A, and 649 of the Head Start 
Act, Public Law 97-35, 95 Stat. 499 (42 U.S.C. 9835, 9836a, 9837, 9839, 
9840, 9840a, 9841, 9843a, and 9844), as amended by the Improving Head 
Start for School Readiness Act of 2007, Public Law 110-134, 121 Stat. 
1363. In these sections, the Secretary is required to establish 
performance standards for Head Start and Early Head Start programs, as 
well as federal administrative procedures. Specifically, the Act 
requires the Secretary to ``. . . modify, as necessary, program 
performance standards by regulation applicable to Head Start agencies 
and programs. . .'' and explicitly directs a number of modifications, 
including ``scientifically based and developmentally appropriate 
education performance standards related to school readiness that are 
based on the Head Start Child Outcomes Framework'' and to ``consult 
with experts in the fields of child development, early childhood 
education, child health care, family services . . ., administration, 
and financial management, and with persons with experience in the 
operation of Head Start programs.'' \10\ Not only did the Act mandate 
such significant revisions, there was also bipartisan and bicameral 
agreement in Congress that its central purpose was to update and raise 
the education standards and practices in Head Start 
programs.11 12 As such, these program performance standards 
substantially build upon and improve the standards related to the 
education of children in Head Start programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See section 42 U.S.C. 9836A (a)(1) and (2).
    \11\ See http://beta.congress.gov/crec/2007/11/14/CREC-2007-11-14-pt1-PgH13876-4.pdf.
    \12\ See http://beta.congress.gov/crec/2007/11/14/CREC-2007-11-14-pt1-PgS14375-2.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Purpose of This Rule

    This rule meets the statutory requirements Congress put forth in 
its 2007 bipartisan reauthorization of Head Start and addresses 
Congress's mandate that called for the Secretary to review and revise 
the Head Start Program Performance Standards.\13\ Program performance 
standards are the foundation upon which Head Start programs design and 
deliver comprehensive, high-quality individualized services to support 
the school readiness of children from low-income families. They set 
forth requirements local grantees must meet to support the cognitive, 
social, emotional, and healthy development of children from birth to 
age five. They encompass requirements to provide education, health, 
mental health, nutrition, and family and community engagement services, 
as well as rules for local program governance and aspects of federal 
administration of the program.

[[Page 61304]]

Program performance standards in this final rule build upon field 
knowledge and experience to codify best practices and ensure Head Start 
programs deliver high-quality services to the children and families 
they serve.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See http://beta.congress.gov/crec/2007/11/14/CREC-2007-11-14-pt1-PgS14375-2.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This final rule strengthens program standards so that all children 
and families receive high-quality services that will have a stronger 
impact on child development and outcomes and family well-being. The 
program performance standards set higher standards for curriculum, 
staff development, and program duration, all based on research and 
effective practice, while maintaining Head Start's core values of 
family engagement, parent leadership, and providing important 
comprehensive services to our nation's neediest children. At the same 
time, the final rule makes program requirements easier for current and 
future program leaders to understand and reduces administrative burden 
so that Head Start directors can focus on delivering high-quality early 
learning programs that help put children onto a path of success.

c. Rulemaking and Comment Processes

    We sought extensive input to develop this final rule. We began the 
rulemaking process with consultations, listening sessions, and focus 
groups with Head Start staff, parents, and program administrators, 
along with child development and subject matter experts, early 
childhood education program leaders, and representatives from Indian 
tribes, migrant and seasonal communities, and other constituent groups. 
We heard from tribal leaders at our annual tribal consultations. We 
studied the final report of the Secretary's Advisory Committee on Head 
Start Research. We consulted with national organizations and agencies 
with particular expertise and longstanding interests in early childhood 
education. In addition, we analyzed the types of technical assistance 
requested by and provided to Head Start agencies and programs. We 
reviewed findings from monitoring reports and gathered information from 
programs and families about the circumstances of populations Head Start 
serves. We considered advances in research-based practices with respect 
to early childhood education and development, and the projected needs 
of expanding Head Start services. We also drew upon the expertise of 
federal agencies and staff responsible for related programs in order to 
obtain relevant data and advice on how to promote quality across all 
Head Start settings and program options. We reviewed the studies on 
developmental outcomes and assessments for young children and on the 
workforce by the National Academy of Sciences.14 15 We also 
reviewed the standards and performance criteria established by state 
Quality Rating and Improvement Systems, national organizations, and 
policy experts in early childhood development, health, safety, maternal 
health, and related fields.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ National Academy of Sciences (October, 2008) Early 
Childhood Assessment: Who, What, How. Washington, DC.
    \15\ National Academy of Sciences (April, 2015) Transforming the 
Workforce for Children Birth through Age 8: A Unifying Foundation. 
Washington, DC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on June 19, 
2015 to solicit comments from the public. We extended the notice of 
proposed rulemaking comment period 30 days past our original deadline 
to September 17, 2015, to allow for more feedback from parents, 
grantees, and the Head Start community in general. We received, 
analyzed, and considered approximately 1,000 public comments to develop 
this final rule. Commenters included Head Start parents, staff, and 
management; national, regional, and state Head Start associations; 
researchers; early childhood, health, and parent organizations; policy 
think tanks; philanthropic foundations; Members of Congress; and other 
interested parties.

d. Overview of Major Changes From the NPRM

    The public comments addressed a wide range of issues. We made many 
changes to the program performance standards in response to those 
comments, which range from minor to significant. The most significant 
changes fall under several categories: Service duration, the central 
and critical role of parents in Head Start, staff qualifications to 
support high-quality, comprehensive service delivery, and health 
promotion.
    First, we made changes to this final rule in response to the many 
public comments we received on the proposal to increase the duration of 
services children receive in Head Start. The changes to the service 
duration requirements in the final rule reflect concerns about local 
flexibility and access to Head Start for low-income children and their 
families. Instead of requiring all Head Start center-based programs to 
operate for at least 6 hours per day and 180 days per year as proposed 
in the NPRM, we changed the requirement to a minimum of 1,020 annual 
hours of planned class operations, which grantees will phase in for all 
of their center-based slots over five years. Similarly for Early Head 
Start, we changed the requirement in the NPRM for center-based programs 
to operate at least 6 hours per day and 230 days per year to 1,380 
annual hours in this rule, and allow two years for programs to plan and 
implement this increase in service duration. These requirements balance 
the importance of increasing service duration with allowing greater 
local flexibility and more time for communities to adapt and potential 
funding to be secured.
    Research supports the importance of longer preschool duration in 
achieving meaningful child outcomes and preparing children for success 
in school.\16\ \17\ \18\ \19\ \20\ \21\ \22\ \23\ Shorter preschool 
programs may not have as much time to adequately support strong early 
learning outcomes for children and provide necessary comprehensive 
services.\24\ \25\ \26\ In addition, the long

[[Page 61305]]

summer break in most Head Start programs likely results in summer 
learning loss that undermines gains children make during the program 
year.\27\ \28\ \29\ Furthermore, part-day programs can undermine 
parents' job search, job training, and employment opportunities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Robin, K.B., Frede, E.C., Barnett, W.S. (2006.) NIEER 
Working Paper--Is More Better? The Effects of Full-Day vs Half-Day 
Preschool on Early School Achievement. NIEER.
    \17\ Votruba-Drzal, E., Li-Grining, C.P., & Maldonado-Carreno, 
C. (2008). A developmental perspective on full- versus part-day 
kindergarten and children's academic trajectories through fifth 
grade. Child Development, 79, 957-978.
    \18\ Lee, V.E., Burkam, D.T., Ready, D.D., Honigman, J., & 
Meisels, S.J. (2006). Full-day vs. half-day kindergarten: In which 
program do children learn more? American Journal of Education, 112, 
163-208.
    \19\ Li, W. (2012). Effects of Head Start hours on children's 
cognitive, pre-academic, and behavioral outcomes: An instrumental 
variable analysis. Presented at Fall 2012 Conference of the 
Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management.
    \20\ Heckman, J.J., Moon, S.H., Pinto, R., Savelyev, P.A., & 
Yavitz, A. (2010). The rate of return to the HighScope Perry 
Preschool Program. Journal of Public Economics, 94, 114-128.
    \21\ Walters, C.R. (2015). Inputs in the Production of Early 
Childhood Human Capital: Evidence from Head Start, American Economic 
Journal: Applied Economics, 7(4), 76-102.
    \22\ Wasik, B. & Snell, E. (2015). Synthesis of Preschool 
Dosage: Unpacking How Quantity, Quality and Content Impacts Child 
Outcomes. Temple University, Philadelphia, PA.
    \23\ Yoshikawa, H., Weiland, C., Brooks-Gunn, J., Burchinal, 
M.R., Espinosa, L.M., Gormley, W.T., Ludwig, J., Magnuson, K.A., 
Phillips, D., & Zaslow, M.J. (2013). Investing in Our Future: The 
Evidence Base on Preschool Education. Policy Brief. Foundation for 
Child Development.
    \24\ DeCicca, P. (2007). Does full-day kindergarten matter? 
Evidence from the first two years of schooling. Economics of 
Education Review, 26(1), 67-82.; Cryan, J.R., Sheehan, R., Wiechel, 
J., & Bandy-Hedden, I. G. (1992). Success outcomes of full-day 
kindergarten: More positive behavior and increased achievement in 
the years after. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 7(2), 187-203.
    \25\ Lee, V.E., Burkam, D.T., Ready, D.D., Honigman, J., & 
Meisels, S.J. (2006). Full-Day versus Half-Day Kindergarten: In 
Which Program Do Children Learn More? American Journal of Education, 
112(2), 163-208.
    \26\ Walston, J.T., and West, J. (2004). Full-day and Half-day 
Kindergarten in the United States: Findings from the Early Childhood 
Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 1998-99 (NCES 2004-078). 
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education 
Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
    \27\ Allington, R.L. & McGill-Franzen, A. (2003). The Impact of 
Summer Setback on the Reading Achievement Gap. The Phi Delta Kappan, 
85(1), 68-75.; Fairchild, R. & Noam, G. (Eds.) (2007). Summertime: 
Confronting Risks, Exploring Solutions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/
Wiley.
    \28\ Downey, D.B., von Hippel, P.T. & Broh, B.A. (2004). Are 
Schools the Great Equalizer? Cognitive Inequality During the Summer 
Months and the School Year. American Sociological Review, 69(5), 
613-635.
    \29\ Benson, J., & Borman, G.D. (2010). Family, Neighborhood, 
and School Settings Across Seasons: When Do Socioeconomic Context 
and Racial Composition Matter for the Reading Achievement Growth of 
Young Children? Teacher's College Record, 112(5), 1338-1390.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the NPRM, we proposed to increase the positive impact of Head 
Start programs serving three- to five-year-olds by increasing the 
minimum hours and days of operation and to codify long-standing 
interpretation of continuous services for programs that serve infants 
and toddlers, in concert with increasing standards for educational 
quality. Specifically, the NPRM proposed to require programs to serve 
three- to five-year-olds for at least 6 hours per day and 180 days per 
year and to require programs to serve infants and toddlers for a 
minimum of 6 hours per day and 230 days per year. Our proposal was 
consistent with research demonstrating the necessity of adequate 
instructional time to improve child outcomes and aligned with 
recommendations from the Secretary's Advisory Committee.\30\ \31\ \32\ 
\33\ \34\ \35\ However, though the research is clear that longer 
duration matters, there is no clarity on an exact threshold or 
combination of hours and days needed to achieve positive child 
outcomes. Therefore, in response to a significant number of public 
comments on the NPRM, including comments from the national, state, and 
regional Head Start associations, the final rule defines full school 
day and full school year services as 1,020 annual hours for Head Start 
programs and defines continuous services as 1,380 annual hours for 
Early Head Start programs, instead of setting a minimum number of hours 
per day and days per year for each program. These adjusted requirements 
will give programs more flexibility to design their program schedules 
to better meet children and community needs as well as align with local 
school district calendars, where appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Advisory Committee on Head Start Research and Evaluation: 
Final Report. (2012). Washington, DC: Office of Head Start, 
Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health 
and Human Services.
    \31\ Curenton, S.M., Justice, L.M., Zucker, T.A., & McGinty, 
A.S. (2014). Language and literacy curriculum and instruction. 
Chapter 15 in in Handbook of Response to Intervention in Early 
Childhood, Buysee, V., & Peisner-Feinberg, E. (Eds.). Baltimore: 
Paul H. Brookes Publishing.
    \32\ Ginsburg, H.P., Ertle, B., & Presser, A.L. (2014). Math 
curriculum and instruction for young children. Chapter 16 in 
Handbook of Response to Intervention in Early Childhood, Buysee, V., 
& Peisner-Feinberg, E. (Eds.). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes 
Publishing.
    \33\ Justice, L.M., Mcginty, A., Cabell, S.Q., Kilday, C.R., 
Knighton, K., & Huffman, G. (2010). Language and literacy curriculum 
supplement for preschoolers who are academically at risk: A 
feasibility study. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in 
Schools, 41, 161-178.
    \34\ Ginsburg, H.P., Ertle, B., & Presser, A.L. (2014). Math 
curriculum and instruction for young children. Chapter 16 in 
Handbook of Response to Intervention in Early Childhood, Buysee, V., 
& Peisner-Feinberg, E. (Eds.). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes 
Publishing.
    \35\ Clements, D.H., & Sarama, J., (2008). Experimental 
evaluation of the effects of a research-based preschool mathematics 
curriculum. American Educational Research Journal, 45(2), 443-494.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To further address the comments about service duration and ensure a 
smooth transition for children and families, the final rule also 
includes a staggered approach to increasing service duration for Head 
Start preschoolers over the next five years. This gradual transition 
will allow programs more time to plan and implement changes while also 
increasing families' access to full school day Head Start services and 
ensuring more children receive the high-quality early learning services 
to help them arrive at kindergarten ready to succeed. The final rule 
also gives the Secretary the authority to reduce the proportion of each 
grantee's center-based slots required to operate for a full school day 
and full school year if the Secretary determines that such a reduction 
is needed to avert a substantial reduction in slots. We believe the 
requirements in the final rule strike an appropriate balance between 
setting the policy research demonstrates will best support positive 
outcomes for children and families, while minimizing reduction in the 
number of children and families Head Start can serve.
    Second, we received comments that expressed concern that the 
proposed changes to family engagement services and governance would 
result in a reduction in emphasis on family engagement processes, 
parent leadership, and parent influence on program policy. This was not 
our intent. The intent of the NPRM was for the family engagement 
standards to incorporate the changes made to governance in the 2007 
reauthorization and align with the groundbreaking work Head Start has 
led through the development of the Parent, Family, and Community 
Engagement Framework. Family engagement has always been at the 
foundation of Head Start, and as such, the final rule retains many of 
the proposed improvements to family services that integrate research-
based practices and provide greater local flexibility to help programs 
better meet family needs. However, given the perception that the 
changes would limit the role of parents and families in Head Start, the 
final rule includes several changes to more effectively reflect and 
maintain the important role of Head Start parents in leading Head Start 
programs, as well as the importance of family engagement to the growth 
and success of Head Start children. Specifically, we restore a 
requirement for parent committees, maintain and strengthen family 
partnership services (including goal setting), and strengthen the 
requirements for impasse procedures to make it clear that the policy 
council plays a leadership role in the administration of programs, 
rather than functioning in an advisory capacity. It is our expectation 
that the revisions to the final rule will ensure all grantees, 
programs, and parents understand the foundational role parents of Head 
Start children play in shaping the program at the local and national 
level.
    Third, this final rule includes several changes in response to 
comments that suggested Head Start should use the revision of the 
program performance standards to set a higher bar for the delivery of 
quality comprehensive services. Specifically, this final rule includes 
a greater emphasis on staff qualifications and competencies for health, 
disabilities, and family services managers, as well as staff who work 
directly with children and families in the family partnership process. 
The qualification requirements represent minimum credentials we believe 
are critical to ensuring high-quality services. However, because we 
also recognize the important role of experience and community 
connections for such staff, these requirements are only for newly hired 
staff and, in some cases, give programs the flexibility to support 
staff in obtaining the credentials within 18 months of hire.
    In response to public comments that the NPRM was not strong enough 
in addressing some serious public health issues, this final rule 
includes changes

[[Page 61306]]

that place a greater emphasis on certain health concerns, including 
childhood obesity prevention, health and developmental consequences of 
tobacco products and exposure to lead and support for mental health and 
social and emotional well-being. Given the prevalence of childhood 
obesity across the nation, especially among low-income children, we 
maintained important health and nutrition requirements and made 
specific changes to ensure Head Start actively engage in its prevention 
in the classroom and through the family partnership process. Given the 
serious health and developmental consequences of children's exposure to 
tobacco products, including second and third hand smoke, and to lead, 
we have explicitly required that programs offer parents opportunities 
to learn about these health risks and safety practices they can employ 
in their homes. We significantly strengthened the breadth and clarity 
on the requirements for programs to use mental health consultants to 
ensure Head Start programs are supporting children's mental health and 
social and emotional well-being. The final rule includes new provisions 
in the requirements for health, education, and family engagement 
services that elevate the role of Head Start programs in addressing 
these public health problems.
    Additionally, through ongoing tribal consultations and the public 
comment process, we received important feedback from the American 
Indian and Alaska Native community. We made a number of changes 
specifically related to American Indian and Alaska Native programs 
based on these public comments and the unique and important sovereign 
relations with tribal governments. We added a new provision that for 
the first time makes it explicit that programs serving American Indian 
and Alaska Native children may integrate efforts to preserve, 
revitalize, restore, or maintain tribal language into their education 
services. We also clarified that, due to tribal sovereignty, American 
Indian and Alaska Native programs only need to consider whether or not 
they will participate in early childhood systems and activities in the 
state in which they operate.
    In addition to these changes, the final rule maintains numerous 
changes proposed in the NPRM to strengthen program performance 
standards so all children and families receive high-quality services 
that will improve child outcomes and family well-being. We maintained 
and made important changes to strengthen service delivery. For example, 
we updated the prioritization criteria for selection and recruitment; 
made improvements to promote attendance; prohibited expulsion for 
challenging behaviors; strengthened services for children who are dual 
language learners (DLLs); and ensured critical supports for children 
experiencing homelessness or in foster care. Throughout the final rule 
we have made changes in response to public comments to make language 
clearer or more focused on outcomes rather than processes.

IV. Discussion of General Comments on the Final Rule

    We received approximately 1,000 public comments on the NPRM with 
many commenters supporting our overall approach to revising the Head 
Start Program Performance Standards. Commenters appreciated our 
reorganization and streamlining, and agreed this made the standards 
more transparent and easier to understand. Commenters generally 
supported our approach to systems-based standards that are more focused 
on outcomes and less prescriptive and process-laden. They did note that 
how OHS monitored these standards would affect their implementation and 
impact. Commenters also appreciated our research-based approach. They 
noted our education and child development standards focused on the 
elements most important for supporting strong child outcomes. 
Commenters supported standards in the NPRM to improve services to 
children who are DLLs and their families. Commenters also supported our 
emphasis on reducing barriers and improving services to children 
experiencing homelessness and children in foster care. Overall, 
commenters agreed our proposal would improve program quality, clarify 
expectations, and reduce burden on programs.
    We received a range of comments on our proposal to increase the 
minimum service duration for Head Start and Early Head Start programs. 
Some commenters supported the proposal to increase duration, citing the 
research base and its importance to achieving strong child outcomes. 
Many commenters stated that without sufficient funds, this would lead 
to a reduction in the number of children and families Head Start served 
and this would be an unacceptable outcome. Other commenters raised 
concern or opposition for a variety of other reasons. We discuss and 
respond to these concerns in detail our discussion of part 1302, 
subpart B.
    Many commenters were concerned that the NPRM overall reflected a 
reduced commitment to the role of parents in Head Start. They also 
pointed to specific proposals in different subparts and sections, which 
they stated contributed to a diminished role for parents. It was not 
our intent to diminish the role of parents in the Head Start program, 
and we have revised provisions in the final rule to ensure our intent 
for parent engagement is appropriately conveyed. We believe parent 
engagement is foundational to Head Start and essential to achieving 
Head Start's mission to help children succeed in school and beyond. We 
address specific comments on parent involvement and engagement and our 
responses in the discussions of the relevant sections.
    Many commenters believed there were excessive references to the 
Act. They asked that the final regulation translate the references to 
the Act with specific language or brief excerpts from the Act. We 
maintained the same approach as we proposed in the NPRM to reference 
the provisions in the Act so that the regulation will not become 
obsolete if the provisions in the Act change. However, we intend to 
issue a training and technical assistance document that integrates 
language from the Act into the same document as the program performance 
standards to address commenters' interest in having a single document.
    We also received other general comments or comments not tied to a 
specific section or provision of the rule. For example, some commenters 
offered general support for the Head Start program and noted it was 
important for Head Start to continue. One commenter thought we should 
have included examples of excellent Head Start programs. Commenters 
stated their overall opposition to the Head Start program or the NPRM 
as a whole, and others did not want Head Start program to continue to 
receive funding. Commenters stated that services for DLLs were 
emphasized too heavily in the regulation or that the standards for DLLs 
were too prescriptive. We believe DLLs are an appropriate priority in 
the regulation because the provisions reflect requirements in the Act 
and because it is important programs effectively serve DLLs because 
they are a rapidly growing part of both Head Start and the broader 
United States population. Commenters also offered specific suggestions 
on ways to clarify, enhance, or add language relevant to serving 
culturally and linguistically diverse children and families, including 
children who are DLLs throughout the NPRM. We incorporated some of the 
suggestions into the final rule but felt some were

[[Page 61307]]

already adequately covered while others were not feasible to include in 
regulation. We discuss these comments as appropriate in the relevant 
sections of the preamble.
    Commenters also pointed out technical problems, such as incorrect 
cross references, typographical errors, or small inconsistencies in 
related provisions. We corrected these errors and made other needed 
technical changes, including edits to ensure descriptive titles 
throughout the final rule. Commenters also requested that we update 
existing data collections to account for changes in the program 
performance standards. As we make changes to the Head Start Program 
Information Report (PIR) and other data collections we sponsor, we will 
consider the final rule, but this is not a regulatory issue.

V. Discussion of Section by Section Comments on the Final Rule

    We received many comments about changes we proposed to specific 
sections in the regulation. Below, we identify each section, summarize 
the comments, and respond to them accordingly.

Program Governance; Part 1301

    This part describes program governance requirements for Head Start 
agencies. Program governance in Head Start refers to the formal 
structure in place ``for the oversight of quality services for Head 
Start children and families and for making decisions related to program 
design and implementation'' as outlined in section 642(c) of the Act. 
The Act requires this structure include a governing body and a policy 
council, or a policy committee at the delegate level. These groups have 
a critical role in oversight, design and implementation of Head Start 
and Early Head Start programs. The governing body is the entity legally 
and fiscally responsible for the program. The policy council is 
responsible for the direction of the program and must be made up 
primarily of parents of currently enrolled children. Parent involvement 
in program governance reflects the fundamental belief, present since 
the inception of Project Head Start in 1965, that parents must be 
involved in decision-making about the nature and operation of the 
program for Head Start to be successful in bringing about substantial 
change.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See Federal Register, 40 FR 27562, June 30, 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We revised previous program governance requirements primarily to 
conform to the Act. We received many comments on part 1301. Below we 
discuss these comments and our rationale for any changes to the 
regulatory text in this subpart.
General Comments
    Comment: Many commenters offered reactions to part 1301. Commenters 
expressed general support for the requirements, indicating they reflect 
the statutory requirements, improve transparency, maintain the 
important role of parents, and increase local flexibility.
    Other commenters stated this part was unnecessarily complicated for 
parents, policy council members, and staff to follow as presented in 
the NPRM. Many commenters suggested all governance requirements be 
clearly stated in the rule rather than referenced with statutory 
citation in order to improve clarity and reduce burden for programs, 
parents, and others.
    Response: As noted previously, we maintained the approach to cross 
reference to the Act so that the regulations will not become obsolete 
if the provisions in the Act change. However, we plan to issue a 
training and technical assistance document that incorporates the 
language from the Act with the regulatory language.
    Comment: Some commenters suggested we failed to address the role of 
shared governance in the Head Start program, and that we relied too 
heavily on the Act, which is vague and ambiguous, and leaves grantees 
wondering about the proper balance between the role and responsibility 
of the governing body and the policy council. These commenters ask that 
we include more specificity about shared governance in the final rule.
    Response: We continue to believe the best approach is to align the 
governance requirements in the rule with the language and requirements 
specified in the Act. The statutory language has directed the 
governance of Head Start programs since it was passed in 2007 and there 
have not been any significant problems with this approach.
    Comment: Commenters asked that we include ``Tribal Council'' 
wherever the phrase ``governing body'' occurs.
    Response: We do not believe this is necessary, since the tribal 
council is acting as the governing body.
Section 1301.1 Purpose
    This section reiterates the requirement in section 642(c) of the 
Act regarding the structure and purpose of program governance. The 
structure as outlined in the Act includes a governing body, a policy 
council, and, for a delegate agency, a policy committee. We restored 
the requirement from the previous performance standards that programs 
also have parent committees as part of the governance structure, and we 
discuss this requirement in more detail in Sec.  1301.4. This section 
emphasizes that the governing body has legal and fiscal responsibility 
to administer and oversee the program, and the policy council is 
responsible for the direction of the program including program design 
and operations and long- and short-term planning goals and objectives.
    Comment: Commenters recommended that we revise the language in this 
section to state clearly that each agency must establish a policy 
council.
    Response: We proposed in the NPRM to use the term ``policy group'' 
to encompass the policy council and the policy committee more 
concisely. We defined ``policy group'' to mean ``the policy council and 
policy committee at the delegate level.'' After further consideration 
and in response to comments, we reverted to using ``policy council and 
policy committee at the delegate level.'' It is lengthier but clearer. 
Instead of introducing a new term, we are remaining consistent with the 
Act.
    Comment: Some commenters raised concerns with the policy council 
being responsible for the direction of the Head Start program. 
Commenters stated it was unclear how the policy council could be 
effective in that role. Others said both the governing body and the 
policy council should be responsible for the direction of the program 
or that this responsibility should rest solely with the governing body.
    Response: We maintained the language proposed in the NPRM because 
it is the statutory requirement in the Act that the policy council is 
responsible for the direction of the Head Start and Early Head Start 
programs.
Section 1301.2 Governing Body
    In the NPRM, this section described training requirements; however, 
we moved training requirements to Sec.  1301.5 and this section now 
pertains to the governing body.
    This section includes requirements for the composition of the 
governing body and its duties and responsibilities. It aligns with the 
Act's detailed requirements for the composition and responsibilities of 
the governing body. This section requires governing body members use 
ongoing monitoring results, data from school readiness goals, the 
information specified in section 642(d)(2) of the Act, and the 
information in Sec.  1302.102 to conduct their responsibilities. 
Paragraph (c)

[[Page 61308]]

permits a governing body, at its own discretion, to establish advisory 
committees to oversee key responsibilities related to program 
governance, consistent with section 642(c)(1)(E)(iv)(XI) of the Act. 
Below we address comments and requests for clarification.
    Comment: We received some comments on the governing body's duties 
and responsibilities that addressed the duties and responsibilities of 
both the governing body and the policy council together. Some 
commenters requested we provide a clear illustration of the 
responsibilities and powers of the governing body and policy council by 
including a chart or diagram. Commenters also provided specific 
suggestions for revisions, such as: Add language from the previous 
performance standards on the duties and responsibilities of the 
governing body and policy council; remove language specific to ongoing 
monitoring and school readiness goals, as this is addressed in another 
section; and require that program goals inform the governing body and 
policy council.
    Response: We did not include a diagram or chart in this rule 
because we believe the governance provisions in the rule and in the Act 
are clear. In response to comments, we added to paragraph (b)(2) a 
cross-reference to the requirement in Sec.  1302.102 related to 
establishing and achieving program goals. By adding this cross 
reference, we are requiring governing bodies to use this information to 
conduct their responsibilities.
    Comment: Some commenters offered support and raised concerns about 
the governing body's duties and responsibilities as laid out in 
paragraph (b). Some commenters supported the requirement that the 
governing body use ongoing monitoring results and school readiness 
goals to conducts it responsibilities, in addition to what is required 
in section 642(d)(2) of the Act. Some commenters suggested we enhance 
or clarify language about when programs needed to report to the 
responsible HHS official. Commenters also requested clarification about 
the governing body's responsibility to establish, adopt, and update 
Standards of Conduct, including reporting any violations to the 
regional office and about self-reporting requirements for immediate 
deficiencies.
    Response: The Act specifies that the governing body is responsible 
for establishing, adopting, and periodically updating written standards 
of conduct, so we believe this is addressed because we incorporated 
this requirement from the Act. We revised Sec.  1302.90(a) to clarify 
the role of the governing body in standards of conduct, which we had 
inadvertently left out of that standard. We did not revise the 
requirement about self-reporting because it is addressed in Sec.  
1302.102.
    Comment: Many commenters stated the proposed rule was unclear about 
conflicts of interest. Commenters requested clarification about this 
provision and recommended adding language that mirrors the IRS Form 
1023 Instructions, Appendix A, Sample Conflicts of Interest Policy.
    Response: We did not make changes to this language. There is 
guidance in the nonprofit community about the various ways to structure 
and apply a conflict of interest policy. If an agency wants to adopt 
the IRS rules, that would be one option, but it might not be the right 
option for all programs. Additionally, the governing body is required 
to develop a written conflict of interest policy, which can provide 
greater clarity than the overarching federal requirements.
    Comment: We received comments on advisory committees described in 
paragraph (c). Some commenters requested additional clarification, 
including who the advisory board is and what groups should be included 
and whether the governing body may establish more than one advisory 
committee. Others commenters suggested revisions to the advisory 
committee's role advisory committee with respect to the governing body. 
For example, commenters stated that all areas of program governance, 
especially supervision of program management, should be left in the 
hands of the Board of Directors or the established governing body. Some 
commenters noted that advisory committees should not make decisions 
about program governance because that is not advisory in nature. Other 
commenters made specific suggestions for the language related to 
advisory committees, such as eliminating the composition requirements, 
eliminating the requirement that advisory committees be established in 
writing, and differentiating between advisory committees that act as 
sub-boards versus other advisory committees.
    Response: To improve clarity, we revised and streamlined paragraph 
(c). We clarified that governing bodies may establish one or more 
advisory committees. We removed some of the more prescriptive 
requirements, such as written procedures or composition requirements, 
and explicitly required that when the advisory committee is overseeing 
key responsibilities related to program governance, it is the 
responsibility of the governing body to establish the structure, 
communication and oversight in a way that assures the governing body 
retains its legal and fiscal responsibility for the Head Start agency. 
This allows the governing body flexibility to structure their advisory 
committee but requires that they retain legal and fiscal responsibility 
for the Head Start agency. We also require the governing body to notify 
the responsible HHS official of its intent to establish such an 
advisory committee.
Section 1301.3 Policy Council and Policy Committee
    In this section, we retain a number of requirements from the 
previous program standards and included requirements to conform to the 
Act. In paragraph (a), we retain the requirement for agencies to 
establish and maintain a policy council at the agency level and a 
policy committee at the delegate level, consistent with section 
642(c)(2) and (3) of the Act. Paragraph (b) outlines the composition of 
policy councils, and policy committees at the delegate level, 
consistent with the Act. Paragraph (c) outlines the duties and 
responsibilities for the policy council and the policy committee to 
conform to the Act and is largely unchanged from the NPRM. Paragraph 
(d) addresses the term of service for policy council and policy 
committee members.
    Comment: Commenters recommended we include all of the statutory 
language from section 642(c)(2)(A) of the Act in this section, rather 
than summarizing that the policy council has responsibility for the 
direction of the program. Another recommended the policy committee at 
the delegate level be renamed to ``Policy Action Committee'' to 
eliminate programs from using ``PC'' for both policy council and policy 
committee.
    Response: We did not revise the concise reference to the policy 
council having responsibility for the direction of the program, 
although the Act's more expansive language is still part of the 
requirement. We maintain the terminology as it exists in the Act and 
did not rename ``policy committee'' at the delegate level.
    Comment: Commenters supported the standard in paragraph (b) to 
require proportional representation on the policy council by program 
option but also recommended revisions and asked for additional 
clarification. For example, commenters requested clarification on what 
proportional representation means and how to implement it within 
different program types.
    Other commenters expressed support for the requirement that the 
majority of

[[Page 61309]]

policy council members be parents but requested that language be added 
to the rule, rather than just citing the Act. Others requested 
clarification on how appropriate composition will be maintained and 
consistent with the Act when parents drop out.
    Response: We revised paragraph (b) to clarify that parents of 
children currently enrolled in ``each'' program option must be 
proportionately represented on the policy council or the policy 
committee. We believe programs should have the flexibility to specify 
in their policies and procedures how the composition requirements will 
be maintained when parents drop out and did not make revisions to 
address this.
    Comment: Commenters expressed disagreement with language in the 
preamble to the NPRM stating, ``We propose to remove current Sec.  
1304.50(b)(6) which excludes staff from serving on policy councils or 
policy committees with some exceptions. . .''. Commenters expressed 
confusion and stated this language has been interpreted to mean staff 
would be allowed to participate as a policy council or policy committee 
member. Though one commenter expressed support for allowing staff to 
serve on the policy council because they have field experience and 
skills to make informed decision, the commenters generally stated it is 
a conflict of interest and could inhibit parent driven decision-making.
    Response: In the NPRM, we proposed to remove Sec.  1304.50(b)(6), 
which excludes staff from serving on policy councils or policy 
committees with some exceptions, because it is superseded by the Act. 
In other words, the conflict of interest language in the Act, as well 
as the Act's clarity on who can serve on the policy council, means we 
no longer need the prohibition on staff serving on policy council or 
policy committee. However, commenters noted the exception related to 
substitute teachers is helpful and clarifying for programs. Therefore, 
we added the majority of the language on this topic from the previous 
performance standards back into paragraph (b)(2) to ensure clarity.
    Comment: Commenters stated the Act gives the policy council 
responsibilities outside its scope of authority, and that the final 
rule should be modified to include language from the previous 
regulation related to duties and responsibilities. Commenters 
recommended we instead should focus the responsibilities of the policy 
council on program issues.
    Response: In the final rule, we maintained the alignment with the 
Act with respect to the duties and responsibilities of the policy 
council. We did not add the requested language from the previous 
regulation because it has been superseded by the Act.
    Comment: Some commenters requested that we clarify in the final 
rule the role of the policy council in hiring and terminating staff.
    Response: We did not include a specific provision on the role of 
policy council in hiring and terminating program staff because we rely 
on the language in section 642(c)(2)(D)(vi) of the Act.
    Comment: Many commenters supported allowing programs to establish 
in their bylaws five one-year terms for policy council members as 
opposed to three. Commenters said the change would support continuity, 
increase understanding of the complexities of the Head Start program 
and regulation, and promote investment in the policy council.
    Some commenters opposed the option of extending policy council 
terms from three one-year terms to five. They stated that five years is 
too long, that parents may not have children in the program for five 
years, and that a shorter term would allow for more new members.
    Response: We did not revise this provision. This rule provides 
programs the discretion to establish in their bylaws the number of one-
year terms of policy council members up to five one-year terms. 
Programs have the discretion of setting a lower limit.
    Comment: We received comments about the term ``reasonable 
expenses'' in paragraph (e). Commenters recommended we add a definition 
of ``reasonable expenses,'' allow that all participants on the policy 
council/committee be reimbursed for ``reasonable expenses,'' and allow 
agencies to develop their own policies and procedures to determine 
eligibility based on the need of their communities.
    Response: We did not clarify the definition of ``reasonable'' but 
allow programs to make a determination. We clarified that eligibility 
for the reimbursement is only for low-income members.
Section 1301.4 Parent Committees
    Comment: We received many comments about our proposal to remove the 
requirement for the parent committee. Some commenters supported the 
proposal to remove the parent committee requirement. They emphasized 
that there are more meaningful and inclusive ways to engage parents 
that could allow for individual program flexibility and innovation. 
These commenters suggested that the focus should instead be on 
providing opportunities for parents to learn about their children and 
engage them in teaching and learning and on family engagement outcomes.
    Some commenters supported the removal of the parent committee 
requirement with reservations, but were concerned about the challenges 
it would pose for electing policy council representatives, about the 
loss of the benefits to parents previously derived from participation 
in parent committees, and about the perceived erosion of a core 
philosophy of Head Start. Others asked that the revised requirement 
ensure a structure for representing parent views and offering parents 
other opportunities for engagement.
    Many commenters opposed the removal of parent committees. 
Commenters urged that we reinstate the parent committee requirement as 
it existed in the previous standards. These commenters stressed that 
parents are foundational to Head Start and that parent committees are a 
long-standing cornerstone of the program. They stated removing the 
requirement for parent committees would weaken Head Start parent 
engagement and diminish parents' role. Commenters noted that parent 
committees stimulate parent participation in the program, help parents 
develop leadership, advocacy and other useful skills, and are critical 
to developing membership for policy council. Commenters disagreed with 
our statement in the NPRM that parent committees do not work in all 
models, such as Early Head Start--Child Care Partnership (EHS-CCP) 
grantees, and suggested we help these grantees learn how to incorporate 
this valuable experience for parents in order to infuse a higher level 
of quality into child care settings. Commenters were also concerned 
that the removal of parent committee would result in the loss of in-
kind contributions from parent involvement.
    Some commenters opposed the removal of the parent committee 
requirement and asked that we make modifications or recommended 
alternative language in the final rule if the parent committee 
requirement is removed. These commenters stated similar concerns to 
those who requested that we reinstate the requirement, but made 
suggestions for the final rule, such as to allow individual programs to 
determine the design and structure of parent committees, or to support 
flexibility in local design of parent committees and proposals for 
alternate mechanisms to engage families. Some of these commenters 
believed that parent committees are not for all parents. These

[[Page 61310]]

commenters asked that programs be required to have a process in place 
that ensures all parents of enrolled children have local site 
opportunities to actively share their ideas, that parents understand 
the process for elections or nominations to serve on the policy 
council, and that a communication system exist to share information 
between parents attending local sites and the policy council and 
governing body.
    Response: We restored a requirement for a parent committee in this 
part and in a new Sec.  1301.4. We also note that a parent committee is 
part of the formal governance structure in Sec.  1301.1. This section 
clearly outlines the requirements for a program in establishing a 
parent committee and the minimum requirements for parent committees, 
which are consistent with all of the substantive requirements from the 
previous performance standards. We maintain the requirement that a 
program must establish a parent committee comprised exclusively of 
parents of currently enrolled children as early in the program year as 
possible and that the parent committee must be at the center level for 
center-based programs and at the local program level for other program 
options. In addition, in response to comments, we require programs to 
ensure parents of currently enrolled children understand the process 
for elections to policy council or policy committee or other leadership 
roles. Also as suggested by commenters, we allow programs flexibility 
within the structure of parent committees to determine the best methods 
and strategies to engage families that are most effective in their 
communities as long as the parent committee carries out specific 
minimum responsibilities. It requires that parent committees (1) advise 
staff in developing and implementing local program policies, 
activities, and services to ensure they meet the needs of children and 
families, and (2) participate in the recruitment and screening of Early 
Head Start and Head Start employees, both of which are retained from 
the previous performance standards. In response to comments we have 
added a requirement that the parent committee have a process for 
communication with the policy council and policy committee at the 
delegate level.
Section 1301.5 Training
    This section describes the training requirements for the governing 
body, advisory committee members, and the policy council. It reflects 
section 642(d)(3) of the Act that requires governing body and policy 
council members to have appropriate training and technical assistance 
to ensure they understand the information they received and can oversee 
and participate in the agency's programs effectively. We moved this 
section from Sec.  1301.2 in the NPRM to this placement in the final 
rule to improve overall clarity of part 1301. We discuss comments and 
our responses below.
    Comment: We received comments that requested clarification or 
suggested ways to improve clarity. We also received comments that 
expressed opposition for the requirement. For example, commenters 
requested clarification on what is considered ``appropriate'' training 
and what is included in training. One commenter requested clarification 
on the inclusion of advisory committee members in the training. 
Commenters recommended we move this section out of Sec.  1301.2, and 
others recommended we improve clarity by cross-referencing training 
requirements in another section. Some commenters opposed our 
requirement that governing bodies be trained on the standards because 
they thought it was unrealistic to expect Boards to have knowledge of 
all the operating standards and it detracted from getting input from 
governing bodies on program outcomes.
    Response: We retained this requirement because it is required by 
the Act and because we believe governing bodies cannot effectively 
fulfill their program management responsibilities unless they have an 
understanding of the broader program requirements. Since governing 
bodies can choose to establish advisory committees, we included 
advisory committee members, who may be different individuals than 
governing body members, in this requirement.
    To improve clarity, we moved these standards from Sec.  1301.2 to 
this section so that it follows sections with the requirements for all 
components of an agency's formal governance structure. We revised the 
section to include a cross reference to training requirements in Sec.  
1302.12.
Section 1301.6 Impasse Procedures
    This section on impasse procedures was found in Sec.  1301.5 in the 
NPRM and is now Sec.  1301.6 in the final rule. It describes procedural 
requirements for resolving disputes between an agency's governing body 
and policy council. We received many comments on our proposed impasse 
procedures. Many commenters believed our proposed impasse procedures 
weakened the role of parents in the Head Start program. They stated 
that we relegated the policy council, the majority of which is 
comprised of parents, to an advisory role by allowing the governing 
body the final decision when an impasse remained unresolved. In 
response to comments, we revised the impasse procedures. A discussion 
of the comments and our response is below.
    Comment: Many commenters opposed our proposal for the dispute 
resolution and impasse procedures. Commenters stated our impasse 
procedure proposal contributed to a broader weakening of the role of 
parents in Head Start because it tilted the power balance toward the 
governing body and away from the policy council. They also stated that 
the standards conflicted with other program performance standards in 
this section and requirements in the Act. For example, they stated the 
proposal conflicted with the requirement for ``meaningful consultation 
and collaboration about decisions of the governing body and policy 
council.'' Commenters stated that conflicts often result from issues 
related to the direction of the program, which is the responsibility of 
the policy council. These commenters suggested that the proposed 
requirements amount to capitulation to the will of the governing body 
and are not actually impasse procedures, in contradiction with the 
Act's requirement. Others commenters noted further contradiction given 
the standards would require the governing body and policy council to 
work together yet exclude the policy council and allow the governing 
body to make the final decision. Some commenters stated that they 
embrace shared governance and provided examples of how the voice of 
parents has been critical to their decision-making during, for example, 
sequestration or previous impasses. Commenters made recommendations, 
such as adding formal mediation, strengthening the language related to 
``meaningful consultation and collaboration about decisions of the 
governing body and the policy council,'' referring to the impasse 
procedures as a consensus-building process, and establishing an 
independent arbitrator or third party to resolve disputes between the 
governing body and policy council.
    We also received comments supporting the impasse procedures 
proposed in the NPRM. Some of these commenters stated that it is 
appropriate for the governing body, since they bear legal and fiscal 
responsibility, to make the ultimate decisions on issues related to the 
Head Start program after taking into consideration the recommendations 
of the policy council and policy committee, if applicable. Further, 
commenters asked for additional

[[Page 61311]]

clarification about our proposed requirements, including the timeline 
for resolution.
    Response: For clarity, we included the statutory language that 
requires ``meaningful consultation and collaboration about decisions of 
the governing body and policy council,'' and we maintained requirements 
from the previous performance standards about these bodies jointly 
establishing written procedures for resolving internal disputes. We 
revised the requirements in this section to clarify the role of policy 
councils in the governance of Head Start programs, including processes 
to resolve conflicts with the governing body in a timely manner, and we 
included more specificity about what impasse procedures must include in 
order to better articulate the balanced process. In paragraph (b), we 
included a new standard that requires that in the event the decision-
making process does not result in a resolution of the impasse, the 
governing body and policy council must select a mutually agreeable 
third party mediator and participate in a formal process that leads to 
a resolution. In paragraph (c), we require the governing body and 
policy council to select a mutually agreeable arbitrator, whose 
decision will be final, if no resolution resulted from mediation. Due 
to tribal sovereignty, we excluded American Indian and Alaska Native 
programs from the requirement in paragraph (c) to use an arbitrator.

Program Operations; Part 1302

Overview
    In Sec.  1302.1, we made a technical change to remove paragraph (a) 
because the content of this paragraph was already included in the 
statutory authority for this rule and for this part and is therefore 
unnecessary to repeat here. Therefore what was paragraph (b) in the 
NPRM is an undesignated paragraph in the final rule.
Eligibility, Recruitment. Selection, Enrollment and Attendance; Subpart 
A
    In this subpart, we combined all previous requirements related to 
child and family eligibility, and program requirements for the 
recruitment, selection, and enrollment of eligible families. We updated 
these standards to reflect new priorities in the Act, including a 
stronger focus on children experiencing homelessness and children in 
foster care. We added new standards to reflect the importance of 
attendance for achieving strong child outcomes. Further, we included 
new standards to clarify requirements for children with persistent and 
disruptive behavioral issues as well as new standards to support 
programs serving children from diverse economic backgrounds, when 
appropriate. Commenters supported our reorganization of these 
requirements and our emphasis on special populations. Commenters were 
particularly appreciative of the standards throughout the section that 
were designed to reduce barriers to the participation of children 
experiencing homelessness. We made technical changes for improved 
clarity. We discuss additional comments and our responses below.
General Comments
    Comment: Commenters recommended adding language that specifically 
encouraged the recruitment and enrollment of children who are 
culturally and linguistically diverse, and/or prioritizing 
linguistically diverse children for enrollment.
    Response: We do not think it is necessary to explicitly encourage 
recruitment or prioritization of culturally and linguistically diverse 
children. Twenty-nine percent of Head Start children come from homes 
where a language other than English is the primary language.\37\ 
Additionally, as described in Sec.  1302.11(b)(1)(i), the community 
assessment requires programs to examine the eligible population in 
their service area, including race, ethnicity, and languages spoken. A 
program must then use this information when it establishes selection 
criteria and prioritization of participants, as described in Sec.  
1302.14(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 
Administration for Children and Families (2015). Office of Head 
Start Program Information Report, 2014-2015. Washington, DC: Author.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 1302.10 Purpose
    This section provides a general overview of the content in this 
subpart. We received no comments directly for this section but made 
changes to be consistent with revisions in Sec.  1302.11.
Section 1302.11 Determining Community Strengths, Needs, and Resources
    This section includes the requirements for how programs define a 
service area for their grant application and the requirements for a 
community assessment. We streamlined the standards to improve clarity 
and reduce bureaucracy. In addition, we eliminated a prohibition on 
overlapping service areas, added new data as required by the Act for 
consideration in the community assessment to ensure community needs are 
met, and aligned the community assessment to a program's five-year 
grant cycle. We also required that programs consider whether they could 
serve children from diverse economic backgrounds in addition to the 
program's eligible funded enrollment in order to support mixed-income 
service delivery, which research suggests benefits children's early 
learning.38 39 Below, we summarize and respond to the 
comments we received.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Mashburn, A.J., Justice, L., M., Downer, J.T., & Pianta, 
R.C. (2009). Peer effects on children's language achievement during 
pre-kindergarten. Child Development, 80(3), 686-702.
    \39\ Henry, G.T., & Rickman, D.K., (2007). Do peers influence 
children's skill development in preschool? Economics of Education 
Review, 26(1), 100-112.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Many commenters opposed or expressed concern about our 
proposal to eliminate the prohibition on overlapping service areas. For 
example, commenters stated that overlapping service areas will be 
confusing and will cause conflict because of competition between 
grantees. Many commenters suggested we include a process for mediation 
when there are disputes. Commenters supported our decision to remove 
the prohibition on overlapping service areas.
    Response: We believe removing the prohibition on overlapping 
service areas gives greater flexibility to local programs in a manner 
that will benefit the children and families they serve. Grantees may 
request additional guidance through the system of training and 
technical assistance. Therefore, we did not reinstate the prohibition 
on overlapping service areas in this rule.
    Comment: We received a few different recommendations for additional 
criteria for defining service area. For example, many commenters 
recommended we include parents' job locations as part of the service 
area.
    Response: While the service area is based on children's residence, 
this rule, as well as the previous regulation, is silent on whether a 
program can enroll a child that lives outside of the service area if 
their parents work in that area. We believe programs already have the 
flexibility to determine whether a child should be enrolled at a 
program closer to a parent's workplace and will clarify any existing 
sub-regulatory guidance to reflect this flexibility. We made no changes 
to this provision.
    Comment: We received suggestions for paragraph (b)(1) to more 
explicitly address the purpose and the goal of the community needs 
assessment, to add additional or change criteria to the data (either on 
the five-year cycle or annually), and to provide more guidance on how 
programs should

[[Page 61312]]

obtain data for the community needs assessment.
    Response: We made changes to the section title and clarified that 
the community assessment should be strengths-based. We think these 
changes, together with using the full name of the community 
assessment--``community wide strategic planning and needs 
assessment''--better reflect the purpose of the assessment. We revised 
paragraph (b)(1) to clarify that this list is not exhaustive, and 
reorganized the list to make it more logically flow. We also revised 
paragraph (b)(1)(ii) to also include prevalent social or economic 
factors that impact their well-being. We did not believe additional 
data requirements were necessary because programs already have the 
flexibility to include other relevant data in their community 
assessments. We clarified in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) that homelessness 
data should be obtained in collaboration with McKinney-Vento liaisons 
to the extent possible, but it is important that all programs consider 
the prevalence of homelessness in their community, however possible. 
The U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness has identified data gaps 
in tribal communities on young children experiencing homelessness, so 
we recognize tribal programs may need to utilize alternative methods to 
ensure they fully consider the prevalence of homelessness in their 
communities.
    Comment: We received comments about our proposal in paragraph 
(b)(1) to change the community assessment from a three-year to a five-
year timeline that would align with a program's five-year grant cycle. 
Some commenters supported this change because it removed unnecessary 
burden on programs. Commenters expressed concern that communities 
change rapidly and that five years is not frequent enough to review 
community needs.
    Response: We think we strike the right balance between ensuring 
programs regularly assess and work to meet their community needs 
through an annual re-evaluation of particular criteria described in 
paragraph (b)(2) and Sec.  1302.20(a)(2) and reduction of undue burden 
through alignment of the community assessment to the five-year grant 
cycle. We made no revisions to this timeline.
    Comment: Many commenters recommended we change the requirement in 
paragraph (b)(2) that programs must annually review and update the 
community assessment to reflect any significant changes to the 
availability of publicly-funded full-day pre-kindergarten. These 
commenters expressed concern that public pre-kindergarten programs may 
not meet the needs of at-risk families because they do not offer a full 
spectrum of comprehensive services. Commenters offered specific 
suggestions for other community demographics to be considered in the 
annual review.
    Response: Since the requirement to conduct community assessments 
was changed from every three years to every five years, this provision 
was intended to ensure programs annually capture what may be quickly 
changing demographic and policy landscape characteristics in their 
community. Emergence or expansion of publicly funded pre-kindergarten 
may offer new opportunities for partnerships and collaborations or it 
may offer new opportunities to extend the hours children receive 
services. We retained the standard that programs review and update the 
annual assessment to reflect any increase in the availability of 
publicly-funded pre-kindergarten including but not limited to ``full-
day'' programs. In addition, we clarify that this review and update 
should take into account whether the pre-kindergarten available meets 
the needs of the population of the grantee serves. We revised paragraph 
(b)(2) to also include significant shifts in community resources, 
because community demographics was too narrow.
    Comment: We received some comments in support of our proposed 
standard in paragraph (b)(3) for programs to consider whether 
characteristics of the community allow them to operate classes with 
children from diverse economic backgrounds. These commenters noted 
research demonstrates participation in mixed-income classes is 
beneficial to children from low-income families and stated the standard 
would support a broader notion of innovative funding models. We also 
received many comments requesting additional guidance to ensure this 
standard did not result in fewer services for income eligible children.
    Response: The intent of this requirement is for Head Start programs 
to consider whether it is feasible to implement a mixed-income delivery 
model. Research finds such models to be beneficial to the educational 
outcomes of children from low-income families.40 41 However, 
we revised this paragraph to clarify programs must not enroll children 
from diverse economic backgrounds if it would result in them serving 
less than their eligible funded enrollment. In addition, to both 
support consideration of innovative funding models and clarify our 
intent that children funded through other sources must not receive 
services instead of children eligible for Head Start, we revised 
paragraph (b)(3), and Sec. Sec.  1302.15(d) and 1302.18(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ Mashburn, A.J., Justice, L.M., Downer, J.T., & Pianta, R.C. 
(2009). Peer effects on children's language achievement during 
pre[hyphen]kindergarten. Child Development, 80(3), 686-702.
    \41\ Henry, G.T., & Rickman, D.K. (2007). Do peers influence 
children's skill development in preschool? Economics of Education 
Review, 26(1), 100-112.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 1302.12 Determining, Verifying, and Documenting Eligibility
    This section includes the process for programs to determine, 
verify, and document child and family eligibility for Head Start 
programs. We reorganized these requirements to clarify and better 
reflect best practices in the field. We also made technical and 
structural changes to standards that caused confusion in the field 
after publication in February 2015 of the final rule on eligibility, to 
eliminate duplication, and to update terms such as replacing ``land-
base'' with ``service area.''
    Comment: Commenters suggested changes to paragraph (a), which 
provides an overview of the process to determine, verify, and document 
eligibility. Suggestions included a recommendation to delineate more 
specific conditions under which alternative methods for eligibility 
determination would be approved and when in-person interviews would 
always be required.
    Response: We made one revision to paragraph (a). We noted that 
telephone interviews could be permitted when it was more convenient for 
the family and eliminated the need to document the reason. Otherwise we 
made no revisions as we think paragraph (a)(3) is broad enough to 
provide flexibility and encourage innovation at the local level.
    Comment: Many commenters expressed concern about the age provisions 
in paragraph (b). For example, some supported children transitioning to 
Head Start as soon as they turn three years old, whereas others 
suggested children stay in Early Head Start until the next program 
year. Others suggested that transitions should be based on 
developmental needs rather than birthdays. Many commenters were 
concerned about how the standards in this paragraph and paragraph (j) 
interacted with the allocation of funds for Early Head Start-Child Care 
Partnerships (EHS-CC Partnerships). Specifically, commenters were 
concerned that EHS-CC Partnerships

[[Page 61313]]

can serve children up to 48 months of age for family child care, and 
paragraph (b)(1) states a ``child must be an infant or a toddler 
younger than three years old.''
    Response: The ages children are eligible for Early Head Start are 
defined by the Act and not subject to regulatory change. The rule sets 
forth reasonable flexibility for transitioning children to Head Start 
or other early learning programs when they turn three years of age. 
Additional standards for this transition are in subpart G. Thus, we 
made no changes to provisions in this section regarding children 
turning three years of age. Further, the EHS-CC Partnerships 
appropriation explicitly allowed serving children up to 48 months old 
for family child care, which supersedes regulatory language.
    Comment: Commenters noted Head Start eligibility in paragraph (b) 
should not be tied to compulsory school attendance because in some 
states that would mean Head Start would have to serve children up to 
age six or seven.
    Response: It is clear from program data that standard practice is 
that Head Start programs serve children until they are eligible for 
kindergarten. However, the Act explicitly references eligibility up to 
compulsory school age. In addition, we think the final rule allows 
flexibility in the very rare circumstances it is needed. We made no 
revisions to these provisions.
    Comment: We received many comments on eligibility requirements in 
paragraphs (c), (d), (e), (f), and (g). For example, commenters 
recommended changes for income eligibility, continuous eligibility 
between Early Head Start and Head Start programs, new groups for 
categorical eligibility, and flexibility to reallocate funds at program 
discretion between Early Head Start and Head Start programs. Commenters 
also recommended changes in paragraph (j) of this section to address 
continuous eligibility. Commenters recommended we change prioritization 
requirements. Commenters also requested additional clarification for 
some of the proposed criteria, including on the definition of public 
assistance and absence of child care.
    Response: Most suggestions for amendments to eligibility would 
require legislative action by Congress and cannot be changed through 
regulation. For other suggestions, we want to allow local programs the 
flexibility in their selection process to determine which children and 
families are most in need. Therefore, we made no revisions to income 
eligibility, groups for categorical eligibility, or prioritization 
requirements. We made technical changes in this section to clarify that 
categorical eligibility is not a separate term used for eligibility. In 
addition, we made changes in paragraph (c)(1)(ii) to clarify that 
families are eligible if the child is receiving a Temporary Assistance 
for Needy Families (TANF) child-only payment. Finally we made technical 
changes in paragraph (d)(1) to correct the wording that implied 
individuals were ineligible at 100-130% of poverty. Programs may 
request additional guidance through the system of training and 
technical assistance.
    Comment: Commenters recommended modifying standards to allow 
programs to participate in a community wide and/or statewide 
recruitment and intake processes.
    Response: Programs already have the flexibility to participate in 
such systems and are expected to collaborate with community partners to 
ensure they are serving the children most in need. No revisions were 
made regarding this issue.
    Comment: We received some comments about verification standards for 
public assistance described in paragraph (i). Some commenters supported 
the standards, noting they would ensure uniform practices across 
programs. Others opposed them or expressed concerns, with some stating 
they would be costly, and would delay enrollment. Commenters requested 
additional clarification for standards in this paragraph, including 
what was meant by ``all'' tax forms.
    Response: We agree that the verification standards for public 
assistance will ensure uniform practices across programs and believe 
this is important to program integrity even if it may cause some 
delays, so we have not changed this language. We added language to the 
standard in paragraph (i)(1)(i) to include proof of income from 
individuals who are self-employed. This is meant to clarify that income 
sources from informal work, such as day laborers, should be included 
for income eligibility. Additionally we removed ``all'' before tax 
forms. We realize that programs want to be conscientious about proper 
eligibility verification so we will continue to provide guidance and 
support about the implementation of these standards as requested.
    Comment: As noted previously, some commenters submitted suggestions 
about eligibility duration standards in paragraph (j). Some commenters 
recommended changes that would facilitate eligibility from Early Head 
Start to Head Start. Commenters noted that the standard in paragraph 
(j)(4) can complicate a program's enrollment of over-income slots if an 
eligible family becomes more self-sufficient during their time in Head 
Start.
    Response: The Act sets forth the requirements for the re-
determination of eligibility for Head Start after Early Head Start so 
we do not have authority to change these standards. We believe programs 
have enough flexibility in their prioritization criteria in paragraph 
(j)(4), so we did not make changes.
    Comment: Commenters requested clarification of the standards in 
paragraph (m) about eligibility training. For example, commenters were 
confused by outdated language in paragraph (m)(3).
    Response: To improve clarity of this paragraph, technical changes 
were made to eliminate language in paragraph (m)(3), which was 
unnecessary and confusing because it noted an outdated timeline tied to 
the final eligibility rule published in February 2015.
Section 1302.13 Recruitment of Children
    This section maintained and streamlined standards from the previous 
rule about the goal of recruitment efforts and some specific efforts a 
program must make.
    Comment: We received some comments on this section, including 
requests for clarification and recommendations for additional emphasis 
on recruitment of certain populations.
    Response: Programs are required to serve children with disabilities 
as at least 10 percent of their funded enrollment. Therefore, requiring 
active recruitment for this specific population is appropriate. We 
added that programs should also actively recruit other vulnerable 
populations, including homeless children and children in foster care, 
and provided programs with the flexibility to define these populations 
based on their community assessment.
Section 1302.14 Selection Process
    This section describes the selection process and specific criteria 
programs must use to weigh the selection of eligible children. It 
includes a new requirement for programs to prioritize serving younger 
children if they operate in a service area with high-quality publicly 
funded pre-kindergarten. This section also included standards to 
conform with provisions from the Act that require at least 10 percent 
of a program's total enrollment to be children eligible for services 
under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). 
Commenters appreciated the emphasis on a priority for children 
experiencing homelessness and children

[[Page 61314]]

in foster care. We address these and other suggestions below.
    Comment: For a number of reasons, many commenters opposed the 
standard in paragraph (a)(3) that would require programs to prioritize 
serving younger children if publicly-funded pre-kindergarten is 
available for a full school day. For example, commenters were concerned 
this requirement would limit families with 4-year-olds from receiving 
the full range of comprehensive services and supports offered by Head 
Start. They were also concerned it would interfere with or even unravel 
partnerships with publicly-funded pre-kindergarten programs. Some 
commenters stated this provision interfered with tribal sovereignty. 
Some commenters supported greater priority for younger children and 
some recommended we include additional standards to further this goal. 
Commenters also recommended that American Indian and Alaska Native 
programs be exempt from this requirement.
    Response: We have maintained this requirement because we believe 
programs should be serving more 3-year-olds and infants and toddlers in 
areas where there is high-quality, accessible pre-kindergarten for 4-
year-olds. We revised this standard to reflect that the high-quality 
publicly funded pre-kindergarten must be accessible for the requirement 
to apply and clarified that this priority is part of the selection 
criteria programs establish as described in paragraph (a)(1). This, for 
example, would give programs flexibility to weigh other criteria that 
would not disrupt programs serving siblings or a child with a 
disability if it was determined this was the best placement. We also 
clarified that this prioritization would not be required if it 
interfered with partnerships with local educational agencies. Finally, 
we revised this requirement to clarify that American Indian and Alaska 
Native and Migrant and Seasonal Head Start programs must only consider 
this prioritization.
    Comment: We received some comments about the requirement in 
paragraph (b) for 10 percent of a program's funded enrollment to be 
composed of children eligible for services under IDEA. Some commenters 
supported this standard. Some commenters stated it was a difficult 
standard to meet in rural communities, and others recommended it be 
calculated across a grantee's Early Head Start and Head Start 
enrollment. Some commenters requested additional clarification, and 
some commenters requested we add specific criteria for the waiver for 
this standard and requested children with disabilities be given the 
first priority on any waiting list until the 10 percent requirement is 
met.
    Response: This standard is required by the Act. Therefore, we 
cannot revise its calculation. We slightly revised the language in 
paragraph (b)(1) to better clarify the 10 percent is calculated from a 
program's total funded enrollment. Our current waiver process evaluates 
whether programs are making reasonable efforts to comply with the 10 
percent requirement. Nationally, more than 12 percent of Head Start 
enrollment is comprised of children with disabilities, so we do not 
believe a change is necessary.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 
Administration for Children and Families (2015). Office of Head 
Start Program Information Report, 2014-2015. Washington, DC: Author.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Some commenters recommended changes to waiting list 
requirements in paragraph (c). Some recommended less focus on a 
waitlist and some recommended more focus and specificity.
    Response: We believe the standard in paragraph (c) is appropriate 
to ensure any openings during the program year get filled promptly. We 
made no revisions.
Section 1302.15 Enrollment
    This section reorganized and revised previous standards about 
enrollment. It includes requirements about how quickly programs must 
fill vacancies and efforts they must undertake to maintain enrollment 
of eligible children for subsequent years. It includes standards to 
reduce barriers to enroll children experiencing homelessness. This 
section includes new standards about reserving slots for pregnant 
women, children experiencing homelessness, and children in foster care. 
This section also includes a new standard to allow the enrollment of 
children who are funded through non-Head Start sources, including 
private pay. Further, this section includes a standard that clarified 
current policy that required programs to follow their state 
immunization enrollment and attendance requirements. We moved the 
standard from Sec.  1302.17(c) in the NPRM to paragraph (f) to improve 
clarity. We received many comments on this section, which we discuss 
below.
    Comment: We received comments opposed to our proposal in paragraph 
(a) that programs must fill any vacancy within 30 days because the 
previous performance standards did not require programs to fill a 
vacancy within 60 days of the end of the program year. Commenters 
expressed a variety of reasons for their opposition, such as difficulty 
meeting all of the comprehensive service requirements in the allotted 
time period.
    Response: We retained this provision with minor technical changes 
because we believe the provision of comprehensive services is 
beneficial to children--even during a period of 60 days or less. In 
addition, in some programs, 60 days represents one-quarter of the 
program year and allowing such a long period of vacancy represents lost 
opportunity and wasted funds. Furthermore, enrollment within the last 
60 days of the program year will facilitate service delivery for the 
following program year.
    Comment: We received comments that the standard proposed on 
eligibility duration that appeared in paragraph (b)(2) of the NPRM was 
redundant and unnecessary because of standards in Sec.  1302.12(j)(2) 
and (3).
    Response: We agree and have struck the provision that was paragraph 
(b)(2) in the NPRM.
    Comment: We received many comments recommending changes to the 
standard in paragraph (b)(2) (formerly paragraph (b)(3) of the NPRM) 
that allows a program to maintain a child's enrollment for a third year 
under exceptional circumstances as long as family income is re-
verified. For example, some commenters recommended we strike this 
provision because it was inconsistent with Sec.  1302.12(b)(2) and the 
Act. Other commenters requested we define ``exceptional circumstances'' 
for better clarity. Many commenters recommended the standard be 
clarified to apply specifically to Head Start and include services for 
five-year-olds in states where compulsory education does not begin 
until age six.
    Response: This standard is not new and we do not believe it has 
caused significant confusion in the past. However, we made revisions to 
clarify this requirement is specific to Head Start. Programs may 
request additional guidance, if needed.
    Comment: Some commenters recommended we revise paragraph (b) to 
establish continuous eligibility for children from the time they enroll 
in Early Head Start until they enter kindergarten.
    Response: As previously noted, eligibility is set by statute. Such 
a change is outside the scope of this rule.
    Comment: We received many comments that supported the provision in 
paragraph (b)(3) (formerly paragraph (b)(4) in the NPRM) that programs 
maintain enrollment for children who

[[Page 61315]]

are homeless or in foster care. Some commenters expressed concern about 
the proposed standard. Commenters supporting the provision noted its 
importance to support stability and continuity for children 
experiencing homelessness and children in foster care. Some commenters 
stated the standard should be made stronger. Some commenters were 
concerned about the provision and recommended it be struck because 
maintaining enrollment would be too costly.
    Response: We retained this provision with no revisions. Programs 
may request technical assistance to support their efforts to maintain 
enrollment for these children.
    Comment: We received comments that supported the provision in 
paragraph (c) to require a program to use their community assessment to 
determine if there are families experiencing homelessness or children 
in foster care in the area who could benefit from services and allowing 
programs flexibility to reserve up to three percent of slots for 
special populations. Commenters noted its importance in Head Start 
serving vulnerable children. Others supported the standard but 
recommended we expand it in a variety of ways. Others recommended 
changes, such as making the slot reservation a requirement instead of 
an allowance, adding additional subgroups for whom slots could be 
reserved, or allowing up to six percent of slots be reserved. Some 
commenters requested additional guidance on implementation.
    Response: We believe we have achieved an appropriate balance 
between reserving slots for particularly vulnerable children while 
maintaining availability for other eligible children who need Head 
Start services. Reserved enrollment slots will not be counted as under-
enrollment. Programs may request additional guidance on implementation 
as necessary. We made no revisions to this standard.
    Comment: Some commenters expressed concern about the flexibility to 
reserve slots for the specified populations and concerns about the 
timeline allowed for such reservation, as described in paragraph (c). 
Some commenters were concerned the slots would remain unused throughout 
the year and some were concerned that it was unrealistic to fill the 
slots within 30 days. Others were concerned that the record keeping 
would be too burdensome.
    Response: The rule is clear that if the reserved enrollment slot is 
not filled within 30 days, the slot becomes vacant and then must be 
filled within an additional 30 days. We believe we have achieved an 
appropriate balance between reserving slots for particularly vulnerable 
children for an appropriate length of time while maintaining 
availability for other eligible children. We believe this provision 
will foster enrollment of particularly vulnerable children and do not 
agree that it is too burdensome. We note that programs are allowed but 
not required to reserve such slots.
    Comment: We received comments in support of and opposed to the 
standard proposed in paragraph (d) for programs to consider the 
feasibility to enroll children from diverse economic backgrounds who 
would be funded from other sources. Commenters were concerned this 
standard could lead to serving fewer Head Start eligible children. 
Other commenters requested clarifications.
    Response: As noted previously, we revised a related standard in 
Sec.  1302.11(b)(3) to better clarify that programs must consider the 
feasibility of operating mixed-income programs but that they must not 
enroll children from diverse economic backgrounds if it would result in 
a program serving less than their eligible funded enrollment. We 
believe this additional clarification addresses commenters' concerns 
that the proposed standard would mean fewer eligible Head Start 
children would be served. To further clarify our intent, we revised the 
standard in paragraph (d) to reduce redundancy and make it clear that 
children from diverse economic backgrounds who are funded with other 
sources are not considered part of a program's eligible funded 
enrollment. We think Sec.  1302.11, which addressed how a program 
should consider their community assessment, is the more appropriate 
placement for consideration of the feasibility of mixed-income groups.
Section 1302.16 Attendance
    This section included provisions to support attendance. Research 
finds that attendance is essential for children to benefit from program 
experiences that promote success in preschool and 
beyond.43 44 45 Therefore, in addition to provisions from 
the Act to address systemic issues of a program's low monthly average 
daily attendance, we included new proposals to emphasize the importance 
of regular attendance for each child. Commenters generally supported 
the new emphasis and some commenters noted it would help programs 
identify family needs. However, many commenters opposed or expressed 
concern about the specific proposals and offered alternative 
suggestions. We discuss these comments below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ Ehrlich, S.B., Gwynne, J.A., Pareja, A.S., & Allensworth, 
E.M. (2013). Preschool Attendance in Chicago Public Schools. 
Research Summary. University of Chicago Consortium on Chicago School 
Research.
    \44\ Community Action Project Tulsa County. (2012). Attendance 
Works Peer Learning Network Webinar.
    \45\ Connolly, F., & Olson, L.S. (2012). Early Elementary 
Performance and Attendance in Baltimore City Schools' Pre-
Kindergarten and Kindergarten. Baltimore Education Research 
Consortium.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: We received many comments about the requirement in 
paragraph (a)(1) that programs contact parents if a child is 
unexpectedly absent and the parent has not contacted the program within 
one hour. Many commenters opposed the requirement, and stated it was 
too prescriptive and cumbersome. Some commenters also found the 
provision unclear and objected to the one-hour timeline. Some 
commenters supported the one-hour timeline because it promoted child 
safety and reduced the risk of a child being left in a car or on a bus.
    Response: We believe it is critically important that programs 
contact parents in a very timely manner to ensure children's well-
being. We revised the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) to be 
more systems-focused and have clarified that the program must ``attempt 
to'' contact the parent because it may not always be possible to reach 
the parent. However, we believe it is important for programs to ensure 
children's well-being by contacting parents when children are 
unexpectedly absent and parents have not contacted the program within 
one hour of program start time, so we have maintained this requirement.
    Comment: We received many comments on the provision in paragraph 
(a)(2) about steps a program must take to improve attendance for 
children who have four or more consecutive unexcused absences or are 
frequently absent. Some commenters were generally supportive of this 
provision. Many commenters expressed concerns that the requirements 
were too prescriptive or too costly for programs. Some commenters were 
concerned that since low attendance was often linked to family crises, 
home visits would pose significant challenges. Many commenters stated 
the emphasis on attendance should be more systems-focused. Commenters 
recommended alternative language. Some commenters requested additional 
guidance for implementation.
    Response: We believe regular and consistent attendance is essential 
for

[[Page 61316]]

programs to support children's early learning. We also think that 
inconsistent attendance often indicates a program needs to make more 
efforts to engage with and support families. We think it is very 
important for programs to realize the importance of regular attendance 
and work with families when appropriate to foster regular attendance. 
Therefore, we retained a strong focus on supporting attendance in the 
final rule. To further strengthen this requirement and clarify when 
frequent absences must be addressed, we revised paragraph (a)(2)(iii) 
to reflect that programs must conduct a home visit or other direct 
contact with parents if children experience multiple unexplained 
absences, such as two or more consecutive unexplained absences. 
Unexplained absences would not include days a child is sick if the 
parent let the program know that the child was out because of an 
illness. We also added paragraph (a)(2)(iv) to require programs to use 
individual child attendance data to identify children with patterns of 
absence that put them at risk of missing ten percent of program days 
per year and develop appropriate strategies to improve individual 
attendance among identified children, such as direct contact with 
parents or intensive case management as necessary. Programs may request 
technical assistance to address the causes of absenteeism.
    Comment: Some commenters stated the requirement about program-wide 
attendance in paragraph (b) should be triggered at a lower percentage 
for infants and toddlers.
    Response: We believe the 85 percent threshold is appropriate for 
Early Head Start and Head Start programs and has been the long-standing 
threshold in the previous Head Start regulation. We retained this 
provision as proposed.
    Comment: We received many comments about the provision in paragraph 
(c)(1), which provides flexibility to support the attendance of 
children experiencing homelessness. Many commenters were concerned 
about the reference to birth certificates in our proposal for fear it 
implied programs can require birth certificates for enrollment. Many 
commenters supported the flexibility but were concerned about how to 
satisfy federal and state requirements when they are in conflict. Some 
commenters were concerned this standard would pose a public health 
concern.
    Response: Birth certificates are not required for enrollment. We 
have revised paragraph (c) to eliminate confusion. Additionally, in 
order to address the conflict between the program performance standards 
and state licensing requirements and any public health concerns, we 
have clarified that programs must defer to state licensing 
requirements. However, since it is important that children without 
proper immunizations get up to date and attend Head Start as soon as 
possible, we also strengthened the standard to require programs to work 
with families to get children immunized as soon as possible.
    Comment: Some commenters stated the provision in paragraph (c)(2) 
about providing transportation for children experiencing homelessness 
where possible was too stringent. Some commenters stated it was not 
strong enough and recommended requirements that mirror those in the 
McKinney-Vento Act. Some commenters requested additional clarification 
about using program funds if community resources are unavailable.
    Response: A program may use program funds to provide transportation 
to all children in the program or to a subset, such as homeless 
children. However, approximately 40 percent of programs provide 
transportation services. We believe the requirement for programs to use 
community resources if available to transport homeless children while 
allowing but not requiring the use of program funds to do so is the 
appropriate approach, and have not changed this provision.
Section 1302.17 Suspension and Expulsion
    This section outlines the program performance standards pertaining 
to the suspension and expulsion of Head Start children. These standards 
codify long-standing practice to prohibit expulsion of Head Start 
children. However, given recent research that indicates suspensions and 
expulsions occur at high rates in preschool 
settings,46 47 48 we explicitly require all programs to 
prohibit expulsion and limit suspension in Head Start and Early Head 
Start settings and further require programs to take steps, based on 
best practices, to support the social, emotional and other development 
of children who demonstrate serious behavioral issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ Gilliam, W.S. (2005). Prekindergarteners left behind: 
Expulsion rates in state prekindergarten systems. New York, NY: 
Foundation for Child Development.
    \47\ Gilliam, W.S., & Shahar, G. (2006). Preschool and child 
care expulsion and suspension: Rates and predictors in one state. 
Infants & Young Children, 19, 228-245.
    \48\ Lamont, J.H., Devore, C.D., Allison, M., Ancona, R., 
Barnett, S.E., Gunther, R., & Young, T. (2013). Out-of-school 
suspension and expulsion. Pediatrics, 131(3), e1000-e1007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In general, many commenters were supportive of the standards 
described in this section. However, some commenters expressed concern 
about the implementation of these standards if, for example, parents 
refuse mental health consultation, programs lack specialized staff, and 
alternative placements for children are not available. Below, we 
summarize and respond to these and other comments on this section.
    Comment: Commenters recommended we define ``suspension'' and 
``expulsion.''
    Response: We did not add definitions for these terms. We note that 
other Federal laws contain requirements and safeguards when children 
with disabilities are suspended or expelled. IDEA's discipline 
procedures apply to children with disabilities as defined in section 
602(3) of IDEA in Head Start Programs. See IDEA section 615(k), 20 
U.S.C. 1415(k) and 34 CFR 300.530 through 300.536.
    There are other safeguards for children who are not served under 
IDEA but who are protected under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act 
of 1973 (Section 504), 29 U.S.C. 794, and Title II of the Americans 
with Disabilities Act (Title II), 42 U.S.C. 12131 et seq., because they 
satisfy the definition of disability in those Acts. Those statutes, 
IDEA, Section 504, and Title II also do not contain definitions for the 
terms ``suspension'' or ``expulsion.'' We expect programs to consider 
their ordinary and customary meanings. However, we think this section 
makes clear our expectations about supporting children instead of 
suspending and expelling them.
    Comment: Some commenters suggested we revise the suspension 
requirements in paragraph (a) to provide more support for children who 
may be temporarily suspended for challenging behavior. Others 
recommended we completely prohibit suspension instead of requiring 
programs to severely limit the use of suspension. Some commenters 
suggested we require programs document the support services provided to 
each child during a temporary suspension and upon their return. 
Commenters also recommended we require programs to conduct home visits 
during any temporary suspension. Other commenters requested we require 
specific interventions, such as early childhood mental health 
consultation before a temporary suspension is permitted.
    Response: We agree that instances where temporary suspensions are 
appropriate should be considered extremely rare. Young children with

[[Page 61317]]

challenging behaviors should be supported and not excluded. Therefore, 
the provision in paragraph (a)(1) requires the program to prohibit or 
severely limit the use of suspension. We agree that our requirements 
for limitation on suspension did not appropriately focus enough on 
preventive and support services. We revised paragraphs (a)(3) and (4) 
to ensure appropriate support services in the extremely rare 
circumstances where programs consider suspension for the safety of 
children or staff. We revised paragraph (a)(3) to require programs to 
engage with mental health consultants and parents before a program 
decides on a temporary suspension. In addition, we revised paragraph 
(a)(4) to engage with a mental health consultant and parents and 
provide supportive services such as home visits, and written plans of 
action, to support a child during a temporary suspension to facilitate 
their full participation in all program activities.
    Comment: Many commenters generally supported our requirements, 
described in paragraph (b), to prohibit expulsion. Many commenters 
appreciated our focus on positive interventions instead of punishment, 
indicated that they already prohibit expulsion in their programs, or 
wanted clarification that expulsion would not be permitted under any 
circumstances. Some commenters suggested that Head Start programs do 
not suspend or expel children often enough to warrant federal 
requirements, and questioned why such requirements were necessary.
    Some commenters were concerned about an outright prohibition on 
expulsion in paragraph (b). Commenters were worried it limited their 
options and raised concerns about how to effectively and safely 
implement this in their programs. Commenters raised a number of 
different issues, including parents refusing mental health consultation 
or disagreeing that their child needs additional services; danger to 
other children and staff; liabilities to programs; programs not having 
the specialized staff or access to appropriate services; and potential 
conflicts with state licensing. Some commenters suggested that 
expulsion should be allowed as a last resort for programs, that in some 
instances the threat of expulsion prevents parents from being 
disruptive to programs, and suggested that keeping children in the 
program may not be in their best interest. Finally, some commenters 
requested additional guidance on how to effectively and appropriately 
implement these requirements, some expressing concern about losing 
funding if programs are ``forced'' to suspend a child.
    Commenters also offered recommendations they felt made the 
requirement stronger, including requiring programs to provide staff 
with access to in-service training to prevent child suspension and 
expulsion, implementing specific strategies to address challenging 
behaviors such as trauma assessments, and providing extra funding to 
hire additional trained staff. Some commenters suggested we add a 
requirement for parents to consent to mental health consultation to 
address their concern.
    Response: We do not think young children should be expelled from 
Head Start because of their behavior. Though we do not believe it to be 
a widespread problem in Head Start, recent research finds that 
preschool children are being expelled at alarming rates nationwide.\49\ 
Stark racial and gender disparities exist in these practices. Young 
boys of color are suspended and expelled at much higher rates than 
other children in early learning programs and African American girls 
are suspended at much higher rates than other girls.\50\ Suspension and 
expulsion in the preschool early years is related to less educational 
achievement later and negative long-term outcomes.51 52 For 
these reasons, HHS has recommended this problem receive immediate 
attention from the early childhood and education fields.\53\ It is Head 
Start's mission to provide high-quality early education to vulnerable 
children and therefore, it is especially critical that Head Start 
ensure children with challenging behaviors are supported, rather than 
expelled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ Gilliam, W.S., & Shahar, G. (2006) Preschool and Child Care 
Expulsion and Suspension: Rates and Predictors in One State. Infants 
and Young Children, 19(3), 228-245.
    \50\ U.S. Department of Education, Civil Rights Data Collection 
(2016). Retrieved from: http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/2013-14-first-look.pdf,
    \51\ Lamont, J.H., Devore, C.D., Allison, M., Ancona, R., 
Barnett, S.E., Gunther, R., & Young, T. (2013). Out-of-school 
suspension and expulsion. Pediatrics, 131(3), e1000-e1007.
    \52\ American Psychological Association, Zero Tolerance Task 
Force Report (2008). An evidentiary review and recommendations.
    \53\ https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/ecd/expulsion_suspension_final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We understand commenters' concerns but believe we struck the 
appropriate balance. Children and staff will be best supported by our 
firm stance against expulsion; our requirements for best practice for 
prevention and intervention for children's mental health and social and 
emotional well-being in Sec.  1302.45; requirements in paragraph (a)(2) 
that permit a program to temporarily suspend a child if there is a 
serious safety threat that cannot be addressed through the provision of 
reasonable modifications; and our requirements in paragraph (b)(2) for 
supportive best practices when a child exhibits persistent and serious 
challenging behaviors. As a last resort, as described in paragraph 
(b)(3), a program may transition a child directly to a more appropriate 
placement if it has explored and documented all possible steps and 
collaborated with all parties involved in the child's care. Programs 
should provide children with the accommodations they need based on 
screenings and evaluations while they are awaiting a more appropriate 
placement.
    We believe it is critical to support parents from the time their 
children enroll in Head Start and to partner with them to address 
challenging behaviors. We understand that some parents may be reluctant 
to engage in mental health consultations. Programs must work to support 
a program-wide culture that promotes child mental health and social and 
emotional well-being as described in Sec.  1302.45 and as part of that 
process, take steps to normalize the mental health consultation 
process. We revised Sec.  1302.45(a)(3) to require programs obtain 
parental consent for mental health consultation services when they 
enroll children in the program. This should facilitate mental health 
consultation and help remove stigma around behavioral supports.
    Finally, we agree it is important for programs to have the tools 
necessary to address behavioral problems in children without the use of 
suspension and expulsion. Programs are required under Sec.  
1302.92(c)(4) to implement a system of professional development that 
supports teachers' ability to address challenging behaviors. Finally, 
Head Start has a long-standing history of preventing suspension and 
expulsion practices, and as such, programs should be able to budget 
accordingly.
    Comment: Some commenters suggested revisions to the requirements in 
paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) that detailed specific steps programs must 
take to support a child when they exhibit persistent and serious 
challenging behaviors. For example, commenters stated it was 
unrealistic to require programs consult with a child's physician since 
programs cannot compel physicians to participate in a consultation 
process. Some commenters also stated the phrase ``exhaustive steps'' 
was too subjective and requested clarification.
    Response: We agree and made revisions accordingly. We revised both 
paragraphs to require consultation with a child's teacher instead of 
their

[[Page 61318]]

physician, and revised paragraph (b)(2) to include consideration of the 
appropriateness of providing needed services and supports under Section 
504 of the Rehabilitation Act. We also revised both paragraphs to 
replace ``exhaustive steps'' with ``explore all possible steps and 
document all steps taken.'' We think this reflects best practice, 
clarifies our intent, and gives programs appropriate flexibility to 
implement best practices that are most appropriate for a particular 
child.
    Comment: Many commenters stated we needed to revise our expulsion 
requirements to allow programs to transfer children with behavioral 
problems to the home-based option. Some commenters stated a classroom 
setting was not developmentally appropriate for some children.
    Response: We believe programs must make significant efforts to 
support the full integration of all children into every program option. 
Effective implementation of the requirements to support children's 
mental health and social and emotional well-being, described in Sec.  
1302.45 will support positive learning environments, integrate 
preventive efforts to address problem behaviors, and engage mental 
health consultants to support families and staff when challenging 
behaviors arise. These types of comprehensive services are foundational 
to Head Start. If a child exhibits problem behaviors in the classroom, 
the child may be eligible for appropriate special education and related 
services, to be included in an Individualized Education Program (IEP) 
developed in accordance with section 614(d) of the IDEA or an 
Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP) developed in accordance with 
section 635 of the IDEA, or it may be appropriate to provide the child 
needed supports under Section 504 if the child satisfies the definition 
of disability in section 705(9)(b) of the Rehabilitation Act. We think 
moving a child to a home-based option without first exploring all the 
possible steps described in paragraph (b)(2) is a form of expulsion. If 
a child is exhibiting persistent and serious challenging behaviors in 
the classroom setting, programs must implement the process described in 
paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) to facilitate the child's safe participation 
in the program. Only as a last resort, and after exploring all possible 
steps and documenting all steps taken, programs may determine if a 
child needs an alternate placement such as on-going participation in a 
home-based program model.
    Comment: Some commenters recommended we explicitly prohibit 
suspension or expulsion of children for poor attendance or because they 
are picked up late from the program.
    Response: We agree children should not be suspended or expelled for 
poor attendance or parental tardiness. In Sec.  1302.16(a)(1) and (2), 
we already describe steps programs must take if a child is unexpectedly 
absent, has multiple consecutive unexpected absences, or is frequently 
absent.
    Comment: Many commenters stated our requirement in paragraph (c) 
that states parent participation is voluntary and not required as a 
condition of a child's enrollment was too vague.
    Response: This requirement was also in the previous Head Start 
Program Performance Standards. We moved this provision to Sec.  
1302.15(f) to improve clarity.
Section 1302.18 Fees
    This section describes our policy on fees. We maintain the 
overarching policy that programs are prohibited from charging parents 
of eligible children a fee for their child's participation in a Head 
Start program. We made revisions to improve clarity.
    Comment: Some commenters requested clarification of the requirement 
in paragraph (b)(1). For example, some commenters requested clarity on 
how long the program day could be, and how long the additional funded 
hours could be. Additionally, some commenters expressed concern about 
whether they would be able to assess fees for the pre-k funded portion 
of the day.
    Response: Hours per day, and thereby additional funded hours, 
depend on the length of the day the program is operating Head Start. 
Programs may assess fees only for additional hours beyond the Head 
Start day. The ability to assess fees for hours beyond the Head Start 
day is subject to state and local requirements. We revised this 
provision to improve clarity.
    Comment: Commenters requested clarity about the impact that 
paragraph (b)(2) would have on cost allocation. Specifically, some 
commenters expressed concern that programs should not be able to 
``double dip'' in funding, stating that we would need to ensure 
additional funds go to additional services. Other commenters asked 
whether collected fees would supplant current funding. Some commenters 
requested clarity about whether private pay children would be 
considered Head Start children or would be counted as part of 
enrollment.
    Response: All grantees receiving Head Start funds are required to 
comply with the provisions of 45 CFR part 75, Uniform Administrative 
Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements. Part 75 includes 
regulations requiring that all costs be allocated among multiple 
funding sources in accordance with relative benefits received. These 
regulations assure that programs cannot ``double dip'' or charge the 
same expense to more than one funding source. Head Start is designed to 
increase the number of low-income children receiving high-quality, 
comprehensive early education services that help facilitate healthy 
development, including physical and social and emotional development, 
and prepare them for school success. To meet this goal, it is critical 
that Head Start funds do not supplant existing services. Existing laws 
and regulations addressing cost allocation and non-supplantation are 
not re-stated in the proposed regulation. However, to improve clarity, 
we revised paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) to better articulate when fees may 
be charged to enrolled and non-enrolled families.
    Comment: Some commenters supported the standard in paragraph (b)(2) 
to encourage mixed income settings and the ability of Head Start 
programs to charge a fee to private pay or otherwise funded children. 
Other commenters expressed concern about these provisions or explicitly 
opposed the requirement in paragraph (b)(2) that allowed programs to 
charge fees to children who are not Head Start eligible to encourage 
mixed-income settings. For example, some commenters were concerned this 
would put Head Start in competition with other private pay providers in 
the community or were concerned about unintended consequences for 
eligible children in terms of access.
    Response: Research on peer influences suggests that low-income 
children achieve better learning outcomes in mixed-income 
settings.54 55 We do not believe that allowing Head Start 
programs to operate mixed-income classes will have a negative impact on 
other private pay providers in a community. This requirement does not 
allow programs to serve fewer eligible children than their Head Start 
funded enrollment. However, to further clarify our intent mixed-income 
settings must in no way displace Head Start eligible children, we 
revised Sec. Sec.  1302.11(b)(3),

[[Page 61319]]

1302.15(d), and paragraph (b)(2) in this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ Mashburn, A.J., Justice, L.M., Downer, J.T., & Pianta, R.C. 
(2009). Peer effects on children's language achievement during 
pre[hyphen]kindergarten. Child Development, 80(3), 686-702.
    \55\ Henry, G.T., & Rickman, D.K. (2007). Do peers influence 
children's skill development in preschool? Economics of Education 
Review, 26(1), 100-112.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Some commenters asked for clarification or suggested 
revisions for additional specificity in paragraph (b)(2). For example, 
commenters requested clarity about the definition of ``diverse economic 
backgrounds'' and whether over-income tuition could be applied to non-
federal match requirements. Some commenters asked for clarity about 
whether paragraph (b)(2) allows programs to charge fees to Head Start 
eligible children during the non-Head Start portion of the day. 
Additionally, commenters requested clarity about whether Head Start 
children can be expelled if their parents do not pay the fees for non-
Head Start hours. Some commenters suggested that expulsion should be 
possible, because otherwise it would be impossible to hold parents 
accountable for paying fees. Other commenters suggested that we ensure 
Head Start children cannot be turned away if the portion of day funded 
by child subsidies requires fee and the parents cannot pay.
    Response: We believe that it is important for programs to have 
local flexibility to define what economic diversity means in their own 
communities so did not include a definition. Any non-federal match must 
support services to Head Start eligible children during the Head Start 
day. Programs can charge fees to Head Start eligible children during 
the non-Head Start portion of the day. However, programs cannot 
predicate a child's participation in the Head Start portion of the day 
on enrollment in the non-Head Start portion of the day or payment of 
any fees.
    Comment: Some commenters requested clarification about the proposed 
regulations covering fees for services under Part C of IDEA in 
paragraph (b)(3). Commenters noted the provision referenced Part B of 
IDEA, not Part C.
    Response: We agree with commenters that the reference to IDEA in 
paragraph (b)(3) was incorrect and unnecessary. We removed this 
requirement.
    Comment: Commenters noted that both standard fees and ``de facto 
fees'' should be prohibited, including requiring parents to provide 
diapers, formula, or food and asked whether fees for special events 
like field trips were included.
    Response: We have codified the requirement to provide diapers and 
formula in Head Start programs in Sec.  1302.42(e)(1) of the standards 
and clarified here that fees are not allowed for activities, such as 
field trips, that are part of the Head Start day.
Program Structure; Subpart B
    In this subpart, we combined all previous performance standards 
related to program options into one coherent section and indicated 
different requirements for Head Start and Early Head Start when 
necessary. We set standards for how programs should choose a program 
option; defined the requirements for ratios, group size, and service 
duration for each of the program options; and outlined the waiver 
requirements to operate locally designed program options. The majority 
of the comments submitted on the NPRM provided input on this subpart. 
In particular, most commenters raised concerns with the proposal to 
increase the service duration for Head Start children to a full school 
day and full school year. We discuss the comments and our rationale for 
any changes other than technical changes to the regulatory text below.
Section 1302.20 Determining Program Structure
    This section describes how programs must select a program option 
and develop a program calendar. The provisions in this section also 
require that all program options provide comprehensive services, 
outline the process for conversion of Head Start slots to Early Head 
Start slots, allow American Indian and Alaska Native programs to 
reallocate funding, and clarify what are considered Head Start and 
Early Head Start hours of service.
    Comment: Commenters expressed some concerns about the proposed 
provision in paragraph (a)(1) that programs annually consider whether 
local needs would be better met through conversion of existing part-day 
to full-day slots or full-day to full working day slots. Some stated 
that annual consideration was too often and too burdensome and 
suggested less frequent alternatives. In addition, the proposals in 
paragraphs (a)(2) and (3) created some confusion. Some commenters 
opposed the provision that programs consider conversion to a full year 
program and others found the language unclear in regards to whether 
this conversion was mandatory and whether full year meant calendar or 
academic year. Commenters requested clarification on the proposal in 
paragraph (a)(3) that requires programs to try to identify alternate 
funding sources before using program resources to cover extended hours 
because they found the term ``extended hours'' confusing and were 
unsure how meeting this requirement would be evaluated.
    Response: We revised paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) and struck paragraph 
(a)(3) from the NPRM to improve clarity of what is required of 
programs. The requirement for programs to annually consider whether 
they should convert to a full year program was not meant to require 
actual conversion but rather for programs to annually consider whether 
such a conversion would better meet the needs of their community. 
Paragraph (a)(2) now makes clear that consideration of conversion and 
ways to promote continuity of care should take place as part of the 
annual review of the community assessment described in Sec.  
1302.11(b)(2). In addition, we replaced the term ``extended hours'' in 
what was paragraph (a)(3) in the NPRM with ``full working day 
services'' for improved clarity in paragraph (a)(2) in the final rule. 
We believe annual reconsideration of whether a program's model is 
meeting local needs is appropriate.
    Comment: We received comments on provisions in paragraphs (a)(1) 
and (3) of the NPRM regarding conversion to Early Head Start. Some 
commenters strongly supported these provisions. Some stated that annual 
consideration was too often and too burdensome and suggested less 
frequent alternatives. Some commenters requested that additional 
clarification be added to the regulation, such as noting that 
conversion was allowable for grantees who did not currently operate 
Early Head Start and that regional offices should approve or deny 
conversion requests within a stated timeline. Other commenters 
suggested the standards should explicitly allow a reduction in funded 
enrollment for programs that choose to convert Head Start slots to 
Early Head Start slots.
    Response: No changes were made to the provisions regarding 
conversion of slots to Early Head Start, which we believe are 
appropriately addressed in paragraph (c), with the exception of a 
technical correction that the policy council would also need to approve 
the request and a clarification that programs should update their 
school readiness goals to reflect the ages of children they serve. 
There are no statutory or regulatory prohibitions to prevent grantees 
that do not currently operate Early Head Start from converting slots. 
We agree that a reduction in funded enrollment is a likely outcome of 
conversion because of the higher relative costs of serving infants and 
toddlers, but this does not need to be included in the regulation. We 
understand there is concern about the time required to process 
conversion requests but note that the process follows the clear 
requirements set forth

[[Page 61320]]

in statute and further clarified in this rule.
    Comment: Some commenters asked for clarification about whether a 
blended or braided funding model would be allowed to achieve the full 
school day requirement. Some sought additional clarification about 
which Head Start standards would need to be met during hours of 
operation not funded by Head Start. Some commenters also sought 
additional clarification about which hours must meet Head Start 
standards and noted that they would not be able to meet Head Start 
standards for before and after care. Similarly, commenters asked for 
clarification about whether the ratio and group size requirements only 
referred to program hours funded by Early Head Start or Head Start.
    Response: The NPRM intended to convey that hours of service that 
meet Head Start standards would be counted toward calculation of Head 
Start service duration, regardless of whether those hours were funded 
by federal Head Start funding or another source. We understand the need 
for innovative funding models to leverage funds to more efficiently 
meet the needs of children and families. To eliminate confusion about 
whether these funding models are an allowable approach to meet the 
service duration minimum requirements, we added paragraph (d) to 
clearly state that programs may consider hours of service that meet the 
Head Start Program Performance Standards, regardless of the source of 
funding, as hours of planned class operations. We encourage programs to 
continue to seek innovative ways to fund their program models while 
meeting high-quality standards throughout the day. However, we 
acknowledge that ratio requirements, as well as all Head Start program 
performance standards, apply only during the hours of planned class 
operations for Head Start and Early Head Start.
Section 1302.21 Center-Based Option
    This section defines the setting for the center-based program 
option and sets requirements for ratios, group size, service duration, 
calendar planning, licensing, and square footage. Most comments 
addressed the service duration proposal for Head Start center-based 
programs.
    Comment: The NPRM proposed to increase the minimum hours and days 
of program operation for Head Start preschoolers in the center-based 
option. The majority of comments addressed this proposal. The NPRM also 
proposed making the double session model only available as a locally 
designed program option, instead of as a standard program model. Some 
commenters supported the proposed increase in the hours per day and 
days per year, regardless of available funding. Some specifically 
supported the move to full school day (minimum of 6 hours per day) or 
full school year (minimum of 180 days per year), and still others 
supported both provisions as the standard option for Head Start. 
Reasons for their support included: Significant increases in school 
readiness; the strong research base; alignment with state pre-K and K-
12 systems; increases in the employment rates of low-income parents; 
child needs for more time to reach learning goals; doubling the amount 
of time Head Start children would be exposed to high-quality 
instruction and services; and better meeting parent needs. Others 
recommended we re-calculate the cost per child needed for each grantee 
to move to the proposed standard dosage for center-based services.
    Some commenters supported the proposal to increase program duration 
for Head Start preschoolers, but only if funding is available to 
support the changes. These commenters noted the research base and 
potential improvement for children's outcomes, but stated that they 
would not support the policy without adequate funding because it would 
deprive many children of early learning opportunities due to a decrease 
in available Head Start slots. Some commenters generally agreed we 
should increase program duration for Head Start preschoolers, but they 
also raised concerns. We discuss those concerns in more detail below.
    Some commenters suggested alternative minimums to the 180 days per 
year and 6 hours per day proposed in the NPRM. Some suggested that the 
requirements for the length of day and year be shorter than those 
proposed in the NPRM, but longer than previous standards. Commenters 
suggested taking an annual hours approach to program duration, such as 
1,020 or 1,080 hours per year for Head Start preschoolers, to allow 
programs greater flexibility to design what works best for their 
community. Other commenters suggested requiring a specific percent of 
slots for each grantee, such as 50 or 75 percent, meet an increased 
duration requirement and allowing the remaining slots to be more 
flexible. Other commenters suggested that the minimum duration 
requirements should vary based on child age. Some suggested that the 
increase in duration should be encouraged, or optional, but not 
required. Some commenters asked if programs currently operating at a 
lower dosage would be ``grandfathered in'' and allowed to continue 
operating under the old program performance standards. Others suggested 
that the required hours per day should be less than what would trigger 
a nap requirement under local licensing rules. Some commenters 
recommended allowing programs to offer a ``menu'' of varied program 
models based on community assessments with an ability to shift slots 
between models over the course of the grant to meet changing needs. 
Some other commenters suggested that the increased duration 
requirements for Head Start (180 days) should align with the 
requirements for Early Head Start (230 days). Some commenters asked why 
duration requirements are not higher than those proposed in the NPRM, 
given the research on summer learning loss and evidence that children 
benefit from longer duration, and the need for a longer day to 
accommodate working families.
    Many commenters raised concerns about the impact of these changes 
on partnerships and collaborations with public schools. Commenters 
proposed alternative minimums or suggested that programs be allowed to 
align their calendar with the local school district or state 
requirements for K-12, to facilitate partnerships with schools. Some 
noted that their school district or state tracks time in hours per year 
and suggested that this same flexibility be applied to Head Start. 
Commenters also raised concerns about the challenges of operating 
longer than their local schools. Specific concerns included disruptions 
to transportation, facility space, and food service; the ways service 
days are calculated; and union agreements. Some commenters stated that 
double sessions are sometimes the best option when working with school 
districts due to space limitations and transportation. Others stated 
that attendance is low when Head Start is in session but the school 
district is not.
    The majority of commenters either opposed or expressed significant 
concerns with the provisions to increase the program day and year for 
Head Start preschoolers, with many citing multiple reasons for their 
concerns or opposition. Some of these commenters were generally against 
the proposal to increase program duration, without going into specific 
reasons for their opposition. Many commenters were concerned or opposed 
due to the loss of Head Start slots that would occur without 
appropriate funding. In this context, some were specifically concerned 
with the elimination of double sessions and only being able to serve 
half the number of children in their community. Some commenters

[[Page 61321]]

agreed that children would benefit from the increased exposure to Head 
Start, but they felt that this benefit was not worth other children and 
families no longer receiving Head Start services. Some suggested that 
the reduction in the number of slots could cause additional instability 
in already fragile communities and that there are no other high-quality 
early childhood education options available in some communities. Some 
commenters suggested delaying implementation of the new requirements 
until sufficient funding is in place to prevent enrollment reduction. 
Others expressed that any additional money should be used to increase 
access to Head Start, as opposed to program duration.
    Some commenters stated that the increased duration was not 
developmentally appropriate for preschoolers. Some noted that 
transportation in rural areas would make the day even longer for 
children. Some suggested that a 6-hour day may not be appropriate for 
certain groups of children, such as 3-year-olds, children with 
challenging behaviors or special needs, or DLLs. Some commenters 
asserted that a longer year is not appropriate for preschoolers. Others 
specifically stated that moving to a program that operates five days 
per week (as opposed to 4 days) is not appropriate for children this 
age.
    Many commenters expressed concern or opposition to the proposed 
operation minimums for preschoolers because they would limit the 
ability of programs to address the unique needs of the local 
communities and families they serve and/or because the proposed 
requirements do not take into account parental choice or preferences. 
Commenters stated the proposed requirements would prevent creative and 
innovative program designs that would be more responsive to community 
needs. Some commenters said that it does not support the cultural 
values of all families, such as American Indian and Alaska Native or 
immigrant families.
    Some commenters opposed or expressed concerns about the proposed 
increase in service duration for Head Start because of the logistical 
challenges programs would face, including significant disruptions to 
community collaborations. Some commenters stated that collaborations 
they use for transportation would be severely disrupted. Others noted 
they would lose access to facilities because their community 
partnership would not be able to provide full-day space. Many of these 
commenters raised concerns about the lack of adequate or reasonably 
priced facilities in their area. Some commenters were concerned with 
the challenges they would face finding enough high-quality teachers for 
new classes. Some commenters raised concerns about negative impacts on 
partnerships with child care providers and family eligibility for child 
care subsidies to provide families with care for a full working day. 
Some commenters noted that children who currently receive full day 
services through the combination of a half-day of Head Start and half-
day of state pre-k could be negatively impacted by the duration 
proposal.
    Some commenters opposed or expressed concerns about the proposed 
increase in duration for Head Start preschoolers because of the 
potential impact on teachers and other staff. Some commenters were 
concerned about the loss of staff jobs that would result without 
adequate funding to support the increased duration, noting this would 
have a negative impact on the economy and local community. Commenters 
were concerned about how the move to a longer school day or longer 
school year would increase the burden on teachers and reduce time for 
other necessary activities, which would undermine program quality. Some 
suggested that this would increase teacher stress, burnout, and 
turnover. These issues were of particular concern to some programs that 
believed they would have to move from a 4-day per week to a 5-day per 
week schedule. Commenters were also concerned that the proposed model 
would make it more difficult to recruit and retain highly qualified 
staff. Commenters noted the need to pay teachers more in order to 
offset the workload associated with the increased program duration. 
Some commenters were concerned about the loss of staff jobs that would 
result without adequate funding to support the increased duration and 
stated this would have a negative impact on the economy and local 
community.
    Some commenters stated that the research cited in the NPRM was not 
adequate or appropriate to justify the longer day and/or year for Head 
Start preschoolers. Some commenters stated that longer duration is not 
necessarily an indicator of higher program quality. Some commenters 
stated that moving to full school day services would not increase 
instructional time because of time that would need to be devoted to 
naps, meals, and transitions. Some commenters expressed concern with 
increasing duration for Head Start preschoolers because their state or 
municipality still has part-day, part-week, or optional kindergarten, 
or part-day state-funded preschool. Some commenters expressed concern 
about state licensing laws that would become applicable with a longer 
program day. Some commenters raised concerns about the impact on their 
non-federal share match if they served fewer families.
    Response: We made significant changes in paragraph (c) to the 
requirements for service duration for preschoolers in Head Start 
center-based settings. We believe, and research indicates, that strong 
child outcomes are best fostered through high-quality early education 
programs that provide at least a full school day and full school year 
of services and that children are best served if Head Start programs 
continue to move toward this goal. We do not agree that the increased 
service duration is developmentally inappropriate for preschoolers, 
including three-year-olds, or that the research we cited is inadequate 
to justify these proposals. While the research does not identify a 
specific threshold, there is ample research that points to increased 
duration in achieving positive child outcomes.\56\ \57\ \58\ \59\ \60\ 
\61\ \62\ \63\ \64\ \65\ \66\

[[Page 61322]]

Many Head Start programs, as well as State funded preschool programs 
already operate for a full school day and a full school year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ Lee, V.E., Burkam, D.T., Ready, D.D., Honigman, J., & 
Meisels, S.J. (2006). Full-Day versus Half-Day Kindergarten: In 
Which Program Do Children Learn More? American Journal of Education, 
112(2), 163-208.
    \57\ Walston, J.T., and West, J. (2004). Full-day and Half-day 
Kindergarten in the United States: Findings from the Early Childhood 
Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 1998-99 (NCES 2004-078). 
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education 
Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
    \58\ Sloan McCombs, J. et al., (2011). Making Summer Count. How 
Summer Programs Can Boost Children's Learning. Santa Monica, Calif.: 
RAND Corporation.
    \59\ Downey, D.B., von Hippel, P.T. & Broh, B.A. (2004). Are 
Schools the Great Equalizer? Cognitive Inequality During the Summer 
Months and the School Year. American Sociological Review, 69(5), 
613-635.
    \60\ Ehrlich, S.B., Gwynne, J.A., Sorice, E. (2014). Preschool 
Attendance in Chicago Public Schools: Relationships with Learning 
Outcomes and Reasons for Absences. University of Chicago Consortium 
on Chicago School Research. Research Report.
    \61\ Peisner-Feinberg, E.S., Schaaf, J.M., LaForett, D.R., 
Hildebrandt, L.M., & Sideris, J. (2014). Effects of Georgia's Pre-K 
Program on children's school readiness skills: Findings from the 
2012-2013 evaluation study. Chapel Hill: The University of North 
Carolina, FPG Child Development Institute.
    \62\ Barnett, W.S., Jung, K., Youn, M.J., and Frede, E.C. 
(2013). Abbott Preschool Program Longitudinal Effects Study: Fifth 
Grade Follow-Up. National Institute for Early Education Research 
Rutgers--The State University of New Jersey.
    \63\ Gormley, G.T., Gayer, T., Phillips, D., & Dawson, B. 
(2005). The effects of universal pre-k on cognitive development. 
Developmental Psychology, 4(6), 872-884.
    \64\ Weiland, C., & Yoshikawa, H. (2013). Impacts of a 
prekindergarten program on children's mathematics, language, 
literacy, executive function, and emotional skills. Child 
Development, 84, 2112-2130.
    \65\ Walters, C.R. (2015). Inputs in the Production of Early 
Childhood Human Capital: Evidence from Head Start, American Economic 
Journal: Applied Economics, 7(4), 76-102.
    \66\ Yoshikawa, H., Weiland, C., Brooks-Gunn, J., Burchinal, 
M.R., Espinosa, L.M., Gormley, W.T., Ludwig, J., Magnuson, K.A., 
Phillips, D., & Zaslow, M.J. (2013). Investing in Our Future: The 
Evidence Base on Preschool Education. Policy Brief. Foundation for 
Child Development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, we agree with commenters about the negative effects of 
implementing this model in such a way that could lead to significant 
reductions in the number of children and families served by Head Start 
programs, and recognize the need to allow programs and communities 
sufficient time to thoughtfully plan and adjust their operations. 
Therefore, we made significant changes to the service duration minimums 
in subpart B for Head Start preschoolers in center-based settings that 
we believe strike the right balance of giving more children access to a 
program with full school day and full school year services, while 
allowing greater local flexibility and more time for communities to 
adapt and potential funding to be appropriated.
    Revisions in paragraph (c)(2) specify a timeline, process, and 
requirements for programs to phase in full school day and full school 
year services for all preschool children served in center-based 
settings. In this rule, we require that each program offer full school 
day and full school year services, defined as 1,020 annual hours, for 
at least 50 percent of its Head Start center-based funded enrollment by 
August 1, 2019, and for all of its Head Start center-based funded 
enrollment by August 1, 2021. Exceptions to these requirements may be 
granted through a simplified waiver process, described in Sec.  1302.24 
and discussed in further detail in that section below. Paragraph 
(c)(2)(i) specifies that until the new requirement in paragraph 
(c)(2)(iv) or (v) is effective, programs that operate five days per 
week must provide at least 160 days per year of planned class 
operations for a minimum of 3.5 hours per day and programs that operate 
4 days per week must provide at least 128 days per year of planned 
class operations for a minimum of 3.5 hours per day. In paragraph 
(c)(2)(ii) double session variations are in effect permitted until July 
31, 2021, which gives grantees operating double session slots ample 
time to plan for full implementation of the new duration standards. 
Until this time, double session programs must operate for the same 
minimums described above. These service duration minimums in paragraphs 
(c)(2)(i) and (ii) are consistent with the previous program performance 
standards.
    Paragraphs (c)(2)(iii) and (iv) set forth an incremental timeline 
and process for grantees to shift their programs to provide at least a 
full school day and a full school year of services to all preschoolers 
in center-based settings. We made this service duration requirement 
less burdensome by changing the requirement to a total of 1,020 hours 
annually, as opposed to a minimum number of days per year and hours per 
day as proposed in the NPRM. This annual hours approach will allow more 
local flexibility and is consistent with how the majority of states set 
minimum requirements for how local education agencies set their 
calendars. In Head Start, it will provide programs greater flexibility 
to design schedules that meet the unique needs of their communities 
while maintaining high standards for the amount of instructional time 
children receive. As stated in paragraph (c)(2)(iii), each grantee will 
have until August 1, 2019 to provide at least 1,020 annual hours of 
planned class operations over the course of a minimum of 8 months to at 
least 50 percent of its Head Start center-based funded enrollment. As 
noted later, ``hours of planned class operations'' is defined in part 
1305 to clarify that only the hours when children are scheduled to 
attend count towards the 1,020 annual hours requirement. Paragraph 
(c)(2)(iv) states that by August 1, 2021 programs must provide at least 
1,020 annual hours of planned class operations over the course of at 
least 8 months for all of their Head Start center-based funded 
enrollment.
    Programs may design a variety of different schedules within the 
minimum requirements that meet the specific needs of their families, 
communities, and staff. For example, programs may choose to operate for 
four or five days a week for either an 8-month program year or year-
round, depending on the length of the day they select, as long as they 
meet the 1,020 annual hour minimum. This flexibility will allow 
programs to address many of the concerns that were raised in the 
comments, such as alignment of the summer break with the local 
education agency's calendar, the availability of facilities, the 
continuation of partnerships, and state licensing requirements. We 
clarify in Sec.  1302.20(d) that all hours of service that meet the 
program performance standards may be considered Head Start hours 
regardless of their source of funding.
    We believe the flexibility of the annual hours requirement will 
also allow programs to design schedules to minimize additional staff 
burden that would exacerbate challenges with attracting and retaining 
qualified staff. There are a variety of successful Head Start models 
across the country where programs currently provide full school day and 
full school year services. To address anticipated challenges, programs 
may choose to develop budgets that increase staff salaries to reflect 
the additional workload and to design innovative schedules that build 
adequate time for teacher planning and other activities into each week.
    Although some commenters were concerned that instructional time 
would not increase under increased duration minimums due to time 
required for naps, meals, and transitions, we believe having the chance 
to nap during the Head Start day can be very beneficial to consolidate 
learning and improve overall health.67 68 69 If a program 
feels their children would be best served by a day without a nap at 
Head Start, we designed a flexible enough requirement for programs to 
design a schedule that would not necessitate a nap under state 
licensing requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ Bates, J. E., Viken, R. J., Alexander, D. B., Beyers, J., & 
Stockton, L. (2002). Sleep and adjustment in preschool children: 
Sleep diary reports by mothers relate to behavior reports by 
teachers. Child Development, 73(1), 62-75.
    \68\ Lam, J. C., Mahone, E. M., Mason, T. B., & Scharf, S. M. 
(2011). The effects of napping on cognitive function in 
preschoolers. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 
32(2), 90.
    \69\ Kurdziel, L., Duclos, K., & Spencer, R. M. (2013). Sleep 
spindles in midday naps enhance learning in preschool children. 
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(43), 17267-
17272.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some commenters believed parents do not want or need Head Start 
services for a longer program day and year. If parents in a particular 
community truly do not want full school day or full school year 
services and a program can demonstrate its model effectively supports 
child learning, then the program can apply for a waiver in accordance 
with the requirements described in Sec.  1302.24.
    Paragraph (c)(3) provides the Secretary the discretion to lower the 
required percentage of funded enrollment slots for which grantees must 
offer 1,020 annual hours of planned class operations to the percentage 
the Secretary estimates available appropriations can support. This 
provision will allow the Secretary the flexibility to balance the 
important policy goal of providing all preschoolers with a full school 
day and a full school year of services in Head Start with the

[[Page 61323]]

disruption and potential slot loss such a policy might create in the 
absence of sufficient funding.
    In response to concerns about service duration requirements 
disrupting partnerships with local education agencies, and to reduce 
burden on programs that would need to seek waivers in these types of 
situations, paragraph (c)(2)(v) clarifies that a program providing 
fewer than 1,020 annual hours of planned class operations or fewer than 
8 months of service will be considered to meet the service duration 
requirements if their program schedule aligns with the annual hours 
provided by their local education agency's requirements for first grade 
and such alignment is necessary to support partnerships for service 
delivery.
    Additionally, commenters were concerned about the availability of 
adequate facilities to serve children for a full school day and a full 
school year. Congress appropriated $294 million in fiscal year (FY) 
2016 for grantees to increase service duration. Our cost estimates 
included in the Regulatory Impact Analysis are for annual operating 
costs, and we anticipate that a portion of the first annual awards will 
be available for the purchase or renovation of facilities before 
programs begin serving children at the higher duration. We also 
encourage programs to consider partnerships with school districts and 
child care centers to use existing facilities, which have proven to be 
successful models for many current Head Start and Early Head Start-
Child Care Partnership grantees.
    Comment: In addition to proposing to increase service duration for 
preschoolers, the NPRM proposed to codify long-standing interpretation 
for Early Head Start in the Act, which describes it as a ``continuous'' 
program. We have long interpreted this to mean a minimum of a full 
school day and full-year of services for infants and toddlers, and 
defined this in the NPRM as a minimum of 230 days of service per year 
for a minimum of 6 hours per day. Some commenters wrote in support of 
the proposal. Others expressed concerns or opposed the proposal for 
multiple reasons, including concern about a long day for infants, 
parents would not want services for this long, and program quality 
would decrease because teachers would have less preparation and 
professional development time. Some commenters suggested slightly lower 
minimums, using annual hours or weeks instead of number of days, and/or 
recommended changing the requirement to allow time for activities like 
professional development, parent-teacher conferences, and holidays.
    Response: We believe it is important to retain the continuous 
service model for Early Head Start that has existed since the program's 
inception. However, to provide greater local flexibility and alignment 
with the policy decision made for Head Start preschoolers, we changed 
the NPRM requirement from a minimum number of hours per day and days 
per year to a total number of annual hours of planned class operations. 
This requirement of 1,380 annual hours can be found in paragraph (c)(1) 
and must be met by August 1, 2018. Based on our latest data,\70\ 
approximately three-quarters of children attending Early Head Start 
center-based programs already receive services for 1,380 hours. In 
paragraph (c)(1)(ii), we also consider Early Head Start center-based 
programs that are designed to meet the needs of young parents enrolled 
in public school settings to meet the annual hours requirement if their 
program schedule aligns with the schedule of their local education 
agency (LEA), and they provide regular home-based services over the 
summer break. This specifically supports the innovative models local 
programs develop to support teen parents and their children.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ Submitted by grantees through the FY 2015 Grant Application 
Budget Instrument.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Commenters requested clarification on the definition of 
days (or hours) of planned class operation and whether it would include 
activities such as professional development, transportation time, and 
other types of activities or emergencies. Some commenters recommended 
that the required duration be inclusive of these types of activities. 
Some commenters were also confused about the definition of ``full 
year'' services, interpreting the requirement as a full calendar year 
without a summer break. Others were unclear about whether programs 
would still be allowed to operate 4 days per week under the increased 
minimums.
    Response: As noted above, we added a definition to part 1305 for 
``hours of planned class operations'' to clarify that these are hours 
when children are scheduled to attend and to specify what activities 
are and are not included in this calculation. Activities such as 
professional development, teacher planning, parent-teacher conferences, 
classroom sanitation, and transportation do not count toward the hours 
of planned class operations. Programs can choose to structure their 
calendar year to include a summer, holiday, and other breaks to be 
responsive to their community's cultural traditions and family needs 
while still meeting the minimum service duration requirements described 
in paragraph (c). Similarly, programs can choose to operate 4 days per 
week as long as they meet the service duration minimums. We made 
additional minor changes to the calendar planning provisions in 
paragraph (c)(5) to further simplify and clarify the process.
    Comment: Commenters wrote in response to the proposed teacher:child 
ratios and group size for the center-based option described in this 
section. Some commended the proposal for maintaining strong ratios and 
group size because it demonstrated commitment to quality and allowed 
individualization and good classroom management. Others expressed 
concern that the ratios were too high for all ages and should be 
lowered. Others recommended greater flexibility. Some commenters 
requested more flexibility to set ratios for infants that would still 
meet high standards but align with their state licensing requirements. 
Some commenters asked for clarification or flexibility on ratios during 
naptime and other program hours. For example, some were specifically 
concerned about or seeking flexibility to allow ratios to be met by 
persons other than teachers. Some commenters were confused about 
whether class size and group size had the same meaning. We received 
comments both in support of and against our proposal for how programs 
should determine the age of the majority of children in a class to set 
ratios and group size.
    Response: We believe this provision allows for the right balance of 
flexibility while also recognizing the importance of continuity of 
care. However, in paragraph (b)(2), we added new regulatory language to 
allow a group size of nine without needing a waiver for infant and 
toddler classes when the teacher to child ratio is 1:3 or lower. In 
paragraph (b)(1)(i), we clarify that brief absences of a teaching staff 
member that cause the group to be out of ratio for less than five 
minutes are acceptable. In paragraph (b)(1)(ii), we clarify that during 
naptime, one teaching staff member may be replaced by an adult who does 
not meet the teaching qualifications required. Thus, while the adult to 
child ratio requirement remains unchanged during naptime, additional 
flexibility is granted in how a program must meet that ratio. We 
believe this provides reasonable flexibility while maintaining high 
standards. Teachers that are present or staff that are substituted 
during nap times must have completed the safety training required

[[Page 61324]]

for their role as staff in Sec.  1302.47(b)(4)(i), including safe sleep 
practices. Ratios and group size requirements for double sessions are 
also now included in paragraph (b), as double sessions are now 
permitted as a standard option until the year 2021, and after but only 
as a locally designed option. These requirements are consistent with 
the previous regulation for double sessions. We did not make any 
changes to the provision in paragraph (b)(1) regarding determination of 
the primary age of the class. Throughout subpart B, we substituted the 
word ``group'' or ``class'' for ``classroom'' and replaced ``class 
size'' with the more commonly used ``group size'' to eliminate 
confusion. Because of this change, and to make clear that the 
importance of the learning environment as described in Sec.  1302.31 
applies to all groups regardless of the characteristics of the physical 
space, we have added a new paragraph (d)(3) to clarify appropriate ways 
to make divisions among groups when they are not in physically separate 
classrooms.
    Comment: Commenters also wrote about our proposal in paragraph 
(b)(2) to support continuity of care through consideration of mixed age 
groups for children under 36 months of age. Some found the mixed age 
groups concept to suggest developmentally inappropriate practice. 
Others wrote in support of continuity of care practices because of the 
benefits to children and their parents. Some offered slight changes to 
the regulatory language and others recommended we provide guidance on 
implementation of best practices for continuity of care.
    Response: We recognize there was some confusion about what mixed 
age groups might mean in practice. However, we believe best practices 
for continuity of care will be best delivered through technical 
assistance and guidance and not through the regulatory process. The 
provisions in this section facilitate but do not require continuity of 
care practices.
    Comment: Commenters wrote in regard to the center-based licensing 
and square footage requirements in paragraph (d). Some commenters 
expressed concern about licensing requirements in relation to schools, 
seeking greater clarification and noting that some states do not 
require public schools to be licensed. Commenters also requested 
clarity on whether programs have to meet licensing standards, or be 
licensed. Some comments supported and some opposed the center-based 
square footage requirements, while some stated they were too strict, 
others suggested they were not strong enough, and others commended the 
proposal to exclude square footage requirements from the waiver.
    Response: We modified the provision in paragraph (d) to make it 
clear that programs must meet local or state licensing requirements 
regardless of whether the licensing entity requires that they be 
licensed. However, we are not requiring that all center-based programs 
actually be licensed because some states or local jurisdictions may not 
be able to license entities, such as schools, that are not required to 
be licensed by state or local law. We believe this provision ensures 
quality and child safety while allowing for the appropriate amount of 
local flexibility and variance in types of grantees. As proposed in the 
NPRM, licensing and square footage requirements will not be eligible 
for waivers.
Section 1302.22 Home-Based Option
    This section defines the setting for the home-based program option 
for Head Start and Early Head Start and sets requirements for home 
visitor caseload, service duration, and licensing. We received many 
comments about our proposal to limit home-based models as a standard 
option to Early Head Start only. We discuss these and other comments 
below.
    Comment: Some commenters were in favor of removing home-based as a 
standard option for preschoolers. Commenters stated that home-based 
models do not meet the educational needs of preschool-age children. 
Commenters also expressed that, given the significant federal 
investment in home visiting through the Maternal, Infant, and Early 
Childhood Home Visiting (MIECHV) program, limited available Head Start 
funding should be targeted towards providing access to center-based 
programs rather than home-based programs for preschool-age children.
    Alternatively, many commenters opposed the removal of the home-
based option as a standard option for Head Start preschoolers, citing a 
number of different reasons. Commenters stated that home-based was the 
most appropriate delivery model in particular communities, such as 
rural areas, communities where home schooling is prevalent, and areas 
with large immigrant or non-English speaking populations. Some 
commenters suggested that the home-based option is a more appropriate 
setting for young children, children with severe special needs, 
disabilities, health problems, or behavior issues, and parents who 
request home-based to meet children's individual needs. Some commenters 
stated that center-based programs may not be what parents want for 
their child. Further, these commenters suggested that many parents are 
not familiar with resources in the community, do not speak English, or 
have other barriers that prevent them from taking their children to 
center-based care. Some commenters cited research or included data 
demonstrating that home visiting improves outcomes for preschool 
children.
    Response: We agree that a home-based preschool option for Head 
Start may be appropriate for certain communities, which is why we 
proposed programs could apply to operate the model through the waiver 
process. However, to reduce burden on grantees, we reinstated home-
based as a standard option for preschoolers in paragraph (c)(2) of this 
section. Though research indicates that high quality, full-day and 
full-year center-based settings produce strong outcomes for 
preschoolers, we recognize that there may be a small number of 
situations where the home-based model best meets the needs of the child 
and family. For example, as commenters suggested, in communities with a 
high home schooling rate, parents would likely prefer home-based 
services. We do not believe, however, that this model should be used as 
a means of excluding children from center-based settings. We also do 
not believe this model should be the only one available to preschoolers 
and therefore require that it may not be the only option available for 
Head Start unless the program seeks and receives a locally designed 
option within the parameters established in Sec.  1302.24. We believe 
the greater clarity in the community needs provisions in subpart A and 
the system of program management and quality improvement in subpart J 
will help programs ensure that the program options they offer truly 
meet the early learning needs of children and the local needs of the 
community. Clear minimum requirements for the number of home visits and 
group socializations for preschoolers in the home-based option have 
been added in paragraph (c)(2), along with expectations for meeting 
those minimums in paragraph (c)(3) and for maximum caseloads per home 
visitor in paragraph (b). These requirements are consistent with the 
previous standards.
    Comment: Commenters also addressed the proposal to increase the 
service duration for the Early Head Start home-based model to 46 home 
visits and 22 group socializations per year. Some supported the 
proposal to increase the number of home visits or

[[Page 61325]]

suggested a higher number. Other commenters expressed concerns about or 
opposition to the proposed minimums. Some cited the need for home 
visitors to have time for paperwork, professional development, and 
other duties. Some noted difficulty getting families to complete 46 
home visits and described family cancellation of scheduled home visits 
as a key inhibitor. Some of these commenters requested flexibility to 
allow for visits cancelled by the family. Further, some commenters 
suggested that the group socialization minimum was too high. Others 
suggested that 22 was an acceptable minimum number of socializations 
but requested flexibility for the number of socializations per month. 
Some commenters objected to the language that programs not replace home 
visits with medical or social services visits with the home visitor.
    Response: Early Head Start was established by Congress as a 
continuous program. As with the Early Head Start center-based model, 
the NPRM proposal codified long-standing interpretation of a 
``continuous program'' for Early Head Start in the home-based model by 
requiring 46 home visits per year. We retained this requirement in 
paragraph (c)(1)(i). We believe this level of service delivery is 
central to a successful home-based model and therefore no changes are 
being made to allow home visits or group socializations to be replaced 
by medical or social service appointments for the purposes of meeting 
service duration minimums. However, this does not limit the flexibility 
of programs to use scheduled home visit time to identify needs and 
schedule necessary medical or social service appointments. Home 
visitors should have the flexibility to determine how to best meet 
their families' immediate needs and still reach the minimum visits 
focused on child development and education. However, we believe greater 
flexibility for meeting the number of group socializations is 
appropriate and changed the requirement in paragraph (c)(1)(ii) to 
clarify that the number of required group socializations are for each 
family, not each child. In addition, instead of prescribing two group 
socializations per month, the standards require the group 
socializations to be distributed over the course of the program year. 
Although we expect programs to space group socializations relatively 
evenly throughout the year, we believe this change will maintain high-
quality while allowing local flexibility to address shifting and 
unexpected needs and schedules of the families programs serve. To 
address the confusion about requirements to make up cancelled visits, 
paragraph (c)(3) clarifies that a program must make up planned home 
visits or scheduled group socializations if canceled by the program in 
order to meet minimum service duration requirements, and that they 
should attempt to make up planned home visits when cancelled by the 
family.
    Comment: Many commenters questioned the need to require licensing 
for group socialization sites. Commenters believed this requirement 
would put an unreasonable burden on programs by limiting the locations 
for socializations. Many also stated that group socialization sites 
should only need to be licensed if they occur in Head Start facilities. 
Further, some commenters wanted clarification on the conflict between 
paragraph (a) and (d), noting that community facilities (including 
libraries and churches), homes, and field trip locations likely would 
not be licensed.
    Response: The language to require licensing for group socialization 
sites existed in the previous regulation, but we agree this is 
potentially confusing, unnecessarily limiting, and that not all group 
socialization sites need to be licensed. However, we do believe it is 
important that all sites are safe for children and their families. 
Therefore, to clarify our intent, we removed the proposed licensing 
requirement for group socialization sites and replaced it with a 
requirement in paragraph (d) that the areas for learning, playing, 
sleeping, toileting, preparing food, and eating in facilities used for 
group socializations meet relevant safety standards.
    Comment: Some commenters wrote in reference to the proposal in 
paragraph (b) that ``programs must maintain appropriate ratios during 
all hours of program operation'' and noted this language was 
unnecessary for the home-based option.
    Response: We agree that including ratio requirements for the home-
based option was an error and removed that requirement.
Section 1302.23 Family Child Care Option
    This section defines the family child care setting and the 
relationship between the program and the family child care provider, 
and sets requirements for ratios, group size, service duration, 
licensing, and the involvement of a child development specialist. 
Within this section, commenters asked for clarity regarding the 
relationship with the family child care providers and the program or 
the requirements for ratios and group size.
    Comment: As described in the preamble for Sec.  1302.21, we 
received many comments on the service duration requirements for center-
based and family child care programs, some in favor and some opposed. 
The comments typically addressed the service duration proposal 
generally without explicitly referring to the family child care option.
    Response: Because the previous program performance standards 
required that family child care programs operate for hours that meet 
the needs of families, nearly all family child care providers already 
meet the increased duration requirements of 1,020 annual hours for Head 
Start and 1,380 annual hours for Early Head Start. In fact, most family 
child care programs provide many more hours than these minimums to meet 
family needs. Therefore, we removed the service duration requirements 
in Sec.  1302.23(c) proposed in the NPRM, and instead require that 
family child care programs must operate for sufficient hours to meet 
the child care needs of families and cannot operate for less than 1,380 
hours per year in paragraph (c).
    Comment: Some commenters had concerns or questions about 
requirements specifically related to programs that operate in a family 
child care setting. Some commenters supported the family child care 
employment requirements in paragraph (a)(1) because it is important to 
ensure transparency and a successful partnership. Some commenters 
suggested the need for greater clarity regarding the ability for 
programs to either employ or contract with family child care providers. 
Others opposed the requirement that the program be the employer of the 
family child care provider, stating that it was overly restrictive and 
could hinder innovative employment strategies. Some sought additional 
guidance and other commenters were unclear about, opposed to, or had 
concerns about the proposed ``legally binding agreement'' between the 
program and family child care providers, and recommended we define this 
phrase.
    Some commenters requested general clarity on the family child care 
option section, including requirements for ratios and group sizes, as 
well as expectations for identifying alternate sources of funding for 
extended hours and expectations under paragraph (a)(2) regarding 
accessibility and the definition of ``as appropriate.'' A commenter 
recommended that grantees be required to annually share a list of their 
family child care contracts with the State Collaboration Office for 
better collaboration with the subsidy program.

[[Page 61326]]

    Response: We adjusted the language in paragraph (a)(1) to clarify 
that a program must either have a legally binding agreement with family 
child care providers or be the employer of the provider(s). We also 
considered terminology that could be used in place of ``legally binding 
agreement,'' such as ``legally enforceable agreement or contract,'' but 
determined that the original phrase accurately represents the necessary 
legal relationship and is inclusive of contracts. We also adjusted the 
language in paragraph (a)(2) to clarify that programs using the family 
child care option need to be able to accommodate children and families 
with disabilities. Additionally, we revised paragraph (b) to improve 
clarity of the ratio and group size requirements for the family child 
care option. We will not require grantees to share a list of family 
child care contracts with the State Collaboration Office as we do not 
believe that this is necessary for successful collaboration with 
subsidy programs.
    Comment: Some commenters asked for clarification about the standard 
in paragraph (b)(4) that requires family child care programs to 
maintain appropriate ratios during all hours of operation.
    Response: In paragraph (b)(4), we restored standards from the 
previous rule to clarify how family child care programs maintain 
appropriate ratios. Specifically, we revised paragraph (b)(4) to 
require programs to make substitute staff and assistant providers 
available and required a family child care program to ensure providers 
have systems to ensure the safety of any child not within view for any 
period.
Section 1302.24 Locally-Designed Program Option Variations
    This section describes the requirements for programs to request a 
waiver to operate a locally designed program option. The comments we 
received on this section mainly addressed the timeline and process for 
approval of waivers.
    Comment: Commenters expressed a range of opinions on the proposed 
locally-designed option waiver process. Some commenters were in favor 
of requiring a waiver based on evidence of community needs and child 
progress, and noted these requirements would promote accountability, 
objectivity, and continuous improvement for grantees in evaluating 
their program design, but still allow for innovation. Others were 
concerned about the process being burdensome and time-consuming and 
recommended alternative periods and processes for approval. Commenters 
were concerned that the criteria that would be used to approve or deny 
waivers for locally-designed program options would be inconsistent or 
unfair and requested clarification about what evidence of outcomes 
would be sufficient to justify approval of a waiver. Commenters 
expressed concern about waivers being approved in a timely manner.
    Commenters also recommended changes to limit the use of waivers. 
Some commenters recommended locally-designed options should be standard 
program options and should not require a waiver. Others recommended 
retaining all program options from the previous regulation as standard 
options instead of requiring a waiver, or other structures such as 
having a number of standard duration options that would include part-
day/part-year services.
    Some commenters expressed support for requiring approval for a 
locally-designed option every two years, particularly for programs that 
would seek to waive the requirements for increased service duration, 
but others opposed this requirement because it would be too burdensome 
for programs and suggested longer approval periods. Many of these 
commenters recommended a five-year period of approval that would align 
with the community assessment and the five-year grant cycle and would 
strike a better balance between accountability and burden. Some 
commenters recommended that programs be allowed to shift their program 
options annually or within their five-year grant if local needs warrant 
a change without requiring a new waiver.
    Response: We made a number of changes to the locally-designed 
program option waiver described in this section. As described in 
paragraph (b), we have changed the period of approval for locally 
designed option waivers to the full project period of the grant to 
align with the new five-year grant cycles. In addition, due to other 
changes made in subpart B, we believe many fewer programs will seek 
waivers, which will improve the timeliness of the process to review and 
make determinations. In order to ensure programs thoughtfully determine 
the appropriate program design that supports their long-term goals, we 
revised paragraph (a) to link the waiver request to achieving program 
goals in subpart J.
    We revised paragraph (c) to clarify exactly which requirements may 
be waived. Paragraph (c) more clearly states that the responsible HHS 
official may waive one or more of the requirements contained in Sec.  
1302.21(b), (c)(1)(i), (c)(2)(iii), and (c)(2)(iv); Sec.  1302.22(b) 
and (c); and Sec.  1302.23(b) and (c). These requirements include 
ratios and group size in center-based settings for children 24 months 
and older, Early Head Start service duration, Head Start service 
duration requirements for the percentage of each grantee's slots 
operating at 1,020 hours, caseload and service duration requirements 
for the home-based option, and ratios, group size, and service duration 
for the family child care option. However, if a waiver of group size 
for children over 24 months is permitted, paragraph (c)(2) specifies 
upper limits that are allowable under a waiver, which are included to 
ensure program quality and child safety. Additionally, paragraph (c)(1) 
clarifies that waivers are not allowable for ratios or group size for 
children under 24 months, which is discussed in more detail below. 
Provisions in the NPRM specific to double session requirements under a 
locally-designed option were struck because double sessions have been 
retained as a standard option until August 2021. We added additional 
language in paragraph (c)(3) to clarify the minimum center-based 
service duration requirements Head Start programs must meet when 
seeking a waiver from the 1,020 annual hours provisions in Sec.  
1302.21(c)(2)(iii) and (iv).
    We revised paragraph (c)(4) and added paragraph (c)(5) to clarify 
what programs must demonstrate in order to receive a waiver. 
Specifically, in paragraph (c)(4) we require programs seeking any 
waiver under this section to provide evidence that their locally-
designed variation effectively supports appropriate development and 
progress in children's early learning outcomes. In addition, in 
paragraph (c)(5), we require programs seeking waivers of service 
duration to also provide supporting evidence that their variation 
better meets the needs of parents than the options described in 
Sec. Sec.  1302.21 through 1302.23 and to evaluate the effectiveness of 
the variation in supporting appropriate development and progress in 
children's early learning outcomes. We believe local flexibility is 
important but that tax dollars should be spent on program models that 
are effective in helping close the achievement gap.
    Comment: Commenters stated American Indian and Alaska Native 
programs should not be required to apply for locally-designed option 
waivers for some of the provisions in subpart B, and specifically 
requested a tribal exemption from some of the

[[Page 61327]]

requirements, including extending the length of the day and length of 
the year.
    Response: We provided greater flexibility in subpart B for programs 
to design their program schedules in a way that best meets their 
community needs, including the ability to determine the length of 
summer breaks and the length of the day, while still ensuring American 
Indian and Alaska Native children reap the full benefits of greater 
exposure to high-quality early learning. We think this will allow most 
programs to accommodate important cultural practices and subsistence 
activities. However, when this additional flexibility is not adequate 
to meet community needs, we believe it is appropriate that tribal 
programs, like all programs, would be able to apply for a locally-
designed option.
    Comment: Some commenters addressed the standard in paragraph (c)(1) 
to allow programs to seek waivers from ratio requirements for classes 
serving children who are at least two years old. Some opposed the 
proposal to allow programs to apply for a waiver for teacher:child 
ratios for two-year-olds because such waivers would decrease program 
quality and lessen children's individualized care. Others supported 
this waiver because it would allow programs the flexibility to better 
address extreme unmet need in their communities. Some commenters 
recommended that we set upper limits for ratios approved by waivers so 
that flexibility could be sought without compromising quality.
    Response: We agree with the need for clear limits to group size and 
teacher:child ratios in locally-designed options so that high-quality 
is maintained. Therefore, waiver requirements are clarified in 
paragraph (c)(2)(i) to specify that even with a waiver, a class serving 
children 24 to 36 months of age may have no more than ten children. 
Furthermore, in paragraph (c)(2)(ii), we clarify even with a waiver, a 
class that serves predominantly three-year-old children must have no 
more than twenty children and in paragraph (c)(2)(iii), a class that 
serves predominantly four-year-old children must have no more than 
twenty-four children. As proposed in the NPRM, ratios and group size 
may not be waived for children younger than 24 months of age.
    Comment: Some commenters opposed the proposal to remove the 
combination option as a standard option. Some commenters felt 
combination options met their community and parent needs better than 
the proposed center-based or family child care options, which were the 
only program options for preschoolers included in the NPRM. Some stated 
they were against the removal of the combination option because it is 
an essential part of their service delivery for rural, isolated 
communities with no other services and not enough children for a 
center-based program.
    Response: We acknowledge there may be some instances in which a 
combination option can effectively serve a community but think these 
services are best achieved through the locally-designed option 
variation described in this section. This locally designed waiver 
process will ensure these more unique program models are specifically 
designed to respond to community needs while effectively meeting 
children's developmental and learning needs and that tax dollars are 
being effectively spent. As noted below, in changing the waiver 
approval process from two years to five years, we believe we struck the 
appropriate balance between accountability and flexibility.
Effective Dates of Subpart B Program Structure Provisions
    In the NPRM, we specifically requested comment on the effective 
dates of the service duration requirements throughout subpart B. We 
received many comments on what the effective dates should be and 
discuss those comments and our responses below. The effective date of 
this rule and dates for specific requirements that will go into 
effective after the remainder of the regulation are included in the 
compliance table in the Dates section.
    Comment: Commenters raised concerns with the timeline for phasing 
in the increased service duration requirements. Many of these 
commenters stated that one year after the rule is final is too fast for 
careful planning and implementation. Some commenters suggested that 
grantees be allowed to phase the requirements in as part of their five-
year grant cycle, to allow for thoughtful planning among many 
stakeholders, time to consider funding options, and time to find 
adequate facilities and qualified teachers. Some commenters suggested 
that the effective date of the duration provisions should be tied to 
Congressional appropriation of funds.
    Response: We acknowledge the importance of giving grantees 
sufficient time for thoughtful planning, consideration of community 
needs, and management of logistics when increasing the duration of 
their center-based services. Accordingly, we adjusted the effective 
dates of the increased service duration provisions to better facilitate 
thoughtful implementation. However, we are also mindful of moving 
forward to ensure more children receive the higher levels of service 
duration that we think are important to achieve strong child outcomes.
    The requirements for Early Head Start center-based and home-based 
service duration in Sec. Sec.  1302.21(c)(1) and 1302.22(c)(1) are 
effective August 1, 2018 and August 1, 2017, respectively. The majority 
of Early Head Start programs already operate in accordance with the 
service duration requirements we establish in this final rule. 
Therefore, only a small share of Early Head Start programs must 
increase their service duration to meet the new requirements. 
Additionally, funding in FY 2016 is available to support all Early Head 
Start center-based programs that need to increase their service 
duration and there should be time and resources for them to meet these 
minimums by 2018.
    The requirement for 50 percent of each grantee's Head Start center-
based slots to operate for a full school day and full school year in 
Sec.  1302.21(c)(2)(iii) is effective on August 1, 2019, which is 
approximately three years following the publication of this final rule. 
This interim requirement will mean many more families will have access 
to the educational services for a full school day and full school year 
within three years. This requirement will increase from 50 percent to 
100 percent effective August 1, 2021, as described in Sec.  
1302.21(c)(2)(iv). This effective date is approximately five years 
following the publication of this final rule. The gradual phase-in 
allows ample time for grantees to plan implementation and align changes 
with their five-year grant cycle if they choose. The service duration 
provisions for the Head Start home-based option described in Sec.  
1302.22(c)(2), which are unchanged from the previous performance 
standards, do not require a delayed phase-in.
    We also revised the service duration requirement for the family 
child care option described in Sec.  1302.23(c) to reflect language 
from previous standards to state that programs must meet the child care 
needs of families. Although the provision is not explicit that family 
child care programs must operate for a minimum of 1,380 annual hours, 
most family child care programs provide many more hours than this to 
meet family needs and therefore this provision does not require a 
delayed phase-in.
    We clarify in Sec.  1302.24(d) that programs currently approved to 
operate program models that do not meet the requirements described in 
subpart B of

[[Page 61328]]

this rule, such as combination options, may continue to operate in 
their existing approved program option until July 31, 2018. However, 
programs must have either an approved waiver to operate a locally 
designed program option that meets the requirements in Sec.  1302.24 or 
adopt one or more of the standard program options described in 
Sec. Sec.  1302.21 through 1302.23 no later than August 1, 2018.
    While we believe the respective August 1, 2018 and August 1, 2019 
effective dates of the center-based service duration provisions 
described in Sec. Sec.  1302.21(c)(1) and (c)(2)(iii) should give the 
vast majority of programs enough time to make changes to their service 
delivery, there may be unforeseen circumstances that arise which may 
necessitate additional time to complete the transition without 
disrupting services to children. Therefore, under Sec.  1302.21(c)(4), 
programs may request a one-year extension of the increased service 
duration requirements for center-based Head Start and Early Head Start 
described in Sec.  1302.21(c)(1) and (c)(2)(iii) if necessary to 
prevent displacement of children enrolled in the program at the time 
this rule becomes effective.
Education and Child Development Program Services; Subpart C
    In this subpart, we combined all previous program standards related 
to education and child development services. We significantly updated 
and restructured these requirements to reflect the Act, current 
research, and best practices in teaching and learning, to strengthen 
curriculum requirements, and to integrate the Head Start Early Learning 
Outcomes Framework: Ages Birth to Five. We also corrected an imbalance 
between Early Head Start and Head Start education standards with a 
unifying birth to five approach.
    We received comments on all sections of this subpart. Overall, 
commenters were supportive and positive about the provisions in subpart 
C. Commenters noted the subpart provided a much clearer picture of what 
high-quality early education looks like, reflected research on how 
children learn, and appreciated our strong focus on practices that 
promote intentional and effective teaching. Commenters also expressed 
their support for our focus on intentional teaching practices but 
recognizing and requiring play and exploration as important to 
developing school readiness. Commenters supported the curriculum 
requirements, including the integration of professional development 
into curriculum implementation. They also agreed with our provisions to 
use assessments to individualize services. Commenters supported the 
integration of the Head Start Early Learning Outcomes Framework: Ages 
Birth to Five through subpart C and appreciated our birth to five 
approach.
    We made some changes in response to public comments that further 
strengthen this subpart. For example, we modified some language and 
structure to ensure the subpart consistently and appropriately 
addressed children from birth to age five. In addition, we made changes 
to further strengthen and clarify effective services for DLLs. There 
were some recommendations we thought were too prescriptive, did not 
reflect best practice or research, were outside the scope of this 
regulation, sought guidance more appropriate for technical assistance, 
or were not consistent with current research-based practices. 
Therefore, we did not make changes based on these comments. We address 
additional comments below.
General Comments
    Comment: Some commenters recommended adding language throughout 
this subpart to recognize family child care providers separately from 
teachers.
    Response: While we recognize the unique role of family child care 
providers, we believe that it is important that family child care 
providers be recognized as the teachers of the children they serve, and 
therefore use the term teachers in Sec. Sec.  1302.30 through 1302.34 
to be inclusive of family child care providers.
    Comment: Some commenters expressed concern there were instances 
throughout this subpart that did not use language appropriate for 
infants and toddlers.
    Response: This subpart addresses Head Start children of all ages. 
We only included separate standards when developmental differences made 
it appropriate to do so. We made revisions throughout the subpart, 
including for example, requirements for responsive care, a broader 
reference to children's learning experiences as well as activities, and 
changes discussed in detail below above developmental scope and 
sequence in curricula. These changes ensure all sections are 
appropriate for children from birth to age 5.
    Comment: Some commenters suggested we specifically include the 
principles of universal design (UD) and universal design for learning 
(UDL) in requirements for curriculum objectives, learning materials and 
spaces, teaching practices, and assessments.
    Response: Though we did not revise the regulation to specifically 
reference UDL, many of its principles are long standing Head Start and 
Early Head Start requirements that are expanded and enhanced in this 
final rule. We also did not incorporate the suggestion to require that 
programs adhere to UD. We agree that UD principles are beneficial for 
all users of a facility but think we can effectively promote the 
principles of UD through technical assistance provided for renovation 
and construction projects.
    Comment: Some commenters suggested that we needed to address 
teacher compensation in order for this subpart to be effectively 
implemented.
    Response: We agree that teacher compensation is vitally important 
to attracting and retaining effective teachers. However, addressing 
compensation is outside the scope of this regulation because teacher 
compensation is determined by Congressional appropriations and local 
decisions.
    Comment: Some commenters stated that the regulation failed to 
recognize that supporting the home language of DLLs is important in and 
of itself, separate from the goal of supporting English acquisition.
    Response: We believe there is clear language in Sec.  1302.31(b)(2) 
that emphasizes the importance of supporting the home language of DLLs, 
separate from the goal of English acquisition. The Act requires that 
Head Start programs support the acquisition of English for children who 
are DLLs.
Section 1302.30 Purpose
    This section provides an overarching statement of the general 
purpose and goals for education services in center-based, family child 
care, and home-based settings for Early Head Start and Head Start 
programs. We received some suggestions for this section.
    Comment: Some commenters recommended the section include a 
statement that the goal of Head Start is to close the achievement gap.
    Response: The purpose of Head Start is stated in the Act and is the 
foundation for this section, so we made no changes.
Section 1302.31 Teaching and the Learning Environment.
    This section includes the key research-based elements of teaching 
practices and the learning environment and is central to preparing 
children to succeed in school. It provides programs with the elements 
for delivering a more intentional and focused education and

[[Page 61329]]

learning experience that will better promote skill growth and stronger 
child outcomes without micromanaging local decision-making and creating 
undue burden.
    Commenters were very supportive and expressed that the section 
appropriately reflected best practice and effectively elevated the 
research-based teaching practices that support children's learning and 
development.71 72 73 74 75 Commenters supported the 
alignment with the Framework as well as the explicit recognition of 
nurturing and responsive interactions as components of effective 
teaching practices. Commenters noted the benefits of integrating each 
child's assessment information into teaching practices and supported 
the focus on development of skills children need to enter kindergarten 
ready to succeed. Commenters also appreciated the inclusion of play and 
exploration as key aspects of effective education programming. Others 
praised our approach to include meals and daily routines in the 
education section because it denoted their importance as opportunities 
for learning experiences and activities. We made some changes in 
response to comments, including minor structural changes to clarify our 
intent. Additional comments are addressed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2001). Early teacher-child 
relationships and the trajectory of children's school outcomes 
through eighth grade. Child Development, 72(2), 625-638.
    \72\ Burchinal, M., Howes, C., Pianta, R., Bryant, D., Early, 
D., Clifford, R., & Barbarin, O. (2008). Predicting child outcomes 
at the end of kindergarten from the quality of pre-kindergarten 
teacher-child interactions and instruction. Applied Development 
Science, 12(3), 140-153.
    \73\ National Institute of Child Health and Human Development 
(NICHD) Early Child Care Research Network. (2000). Characteristics 
and quality of child care for toddlers and preschoolers. Applied 
Developmental Science, 4(3), 116-135.
    \74\ Rowe, M. L. (2008). Child-directed speech: relation to 
socioeconomic status, knowledge of child development and child 
vocabulary skill. Journal of Child Language, 35(1), 185.
    \75\ Zimmerman, F. J., Gilkerson, J., Richards, J. A., 
Christakis, D. A., Xu, D., Gray, S., & Yapanel, U. (2009). Teaching 
by listening: the importance of adult-child conversations to 
language development. Pediatrics, 124(1), 342-349.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Some commenters thought this section should include 
additional integration of professional development.
    Response: We agree that integration of professional development to 
support effective teaching practices is a key component of a high-
quality early education program. Therefore, we specifically addressed 
this in paragraph (a) to ensure the system of individualized and 
ongoing professional development supports teachers and in curriculum 
requirements in Sec.  1302.32. While professional development revisions 
to this section were limited to those changes, we also increased the 
standards for the quality of professional development in subpart I.
    Comment: Some commenters suggested that paragraph (b)(2) include a 
focus on ``biliteracy'' in addition to bilingualism. Commenters noted 
that the term biliteracy expands on the goals of bilingualism to 
include a focus on reading, and eventually writing, in the home 
language.
    Response: We agree with this suggestion and we incorporated 
``biliteracy'' into paragraph (b)(2) as well as in the home-based 
option in Sec.  1302.35(c)(4).
    Comment: Commenters asked for clarification and raised concerns 
about paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (ii) related to finding bilingual staff 
or interpreters to work with DLLs, such as lack of bilingual staff with 
appropriate credentials, especially in rural areas; lack of 
interpreters due to the rarity of some languages; and a high diversity 
of languages in the same class. Some commenters suggested this may be 
particularly challenging with refugee populations.
    Response: Based on the best research available, we believe it is 
critically important to support the development of both English and the 
home language for children who are DLLs.76 77 78 79 80 
Additionally, we believe that all teachers, including those who only 
speak English, can support the development of DLLs. However, we also 
understand that in certain instances, such as when there are multiple 
non-English languages in the same class, it may be difficult to have 
program staff or interpreters present that speak all languages. In 
these instances, we encourage programs to collaborate with outside 
entities to ensure the presence of multiple languages in the class. 
Further we require programs to work to identify e volunteers who can be 
trained to work in the classroom that can provide high-quality input in 
children's home language(s). We added new language to the final rule 
under paragraph (b)(2)(iii) to reflect these realities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ Bialystok, E. (2001). Bilingualism in development: 
Language, Literacy, & Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University 
Press.
    \77\ Genesee, F., Paradis, J., & Crago, M.B. (2004). Dual 
language development and disorders: A handbook on bilingualism and 
second language learning. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
    \78\ Castro, D. C. & Espinosa, L. M. (2014). Developmental 
characteristics of young dual language learners: Implications of 
policy and practice in infant and toddler care. Zero To Three, 
January, 2014.
    \79\ Espinosa, L. (2010). Getting it right for young children 
from diverse backgrounds: Applying research to improve practice. 
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
    \80\ McCAbe, A., Tamis-LeMOnda, C.S., Bornstein, M.H., Cates, 
C.B., Golinkoff, R., et al. (2013). Multilingual children: Beyond 
Myths and towards Best Practices. Society for Research in Child 
Development: Social Policy Report, 27 (4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Some commenters recommended we add more specificity to 
paragraphs (b) and (c), including on the structure of the day, the data 
teachers use to plan, and the types of learning experiences provided.
    Response: We believe it is important to include the key elements of 
the teaching and learning environment so programs clearly understand 
the components they need to implement to have high-quality education 
programming. However, flexibility is also needed to allow for 
innovation, individualization for a class or a child, and effective 
implementation. Therefore, we did not incorporate the suggested 
revision.
    Comment: Some commenters noted the term ``classroom'' in paragraph 
(c) was not inclusive of family child care terminology.
    Response: We agree and revised paragraph (c) to reference 
``learning environments'' instead of ``classrooms.''
    Comment: Some commenters opposed or expressed concern about the 
proposal in paragraph (e)(1) to require an age appropriate approach 
that accommodates children's need to nap or rest. Some were concerned 
about logistical challenges such as cost, staffing, and space. Some 
commenters supported the proposal to promote learning through 
approaches to rest, noting that adequate rest is closely tied to 
learning and health.
    Response: We made no changes to the requirements to have an 
intentional and age appropriate approach to children's need to nap or 
rest except to clarify for programs serving preschoolers, it applied 
for programs operating 6 or more hours per day. Though maximizing 
learning time is important, research shows a clear link between 
adequate sleep and learning.81 82 83 We believe this 
provision will support children's health and increase the

[[Page 61330]]

learning children can gain from other portions of the day. Moreover, 
most states already require center-based programs to provide naps if 
they operate for fewer hours than the 6-hour threshold. Therefore, many 
programs are already subject to a more stringent requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ Bates, J. E., Viken, R. J., Alexander, D. B., Beyers, J., & 
Stockton, L. (2002). Sleep and adjustment in preschool children: 
Sleep diary reports by mothers relate to behavior reports by 
teachers. Child Development, 73(1), 62-75.
    \82\ Lam, J. C., Mahone, E. M., Mason, T. B., & Scharf, S. M. 
(2011). The effects of napping on cognitive function in 
preschoolers. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 
32(2), 90.
    \83\ Kurdziel, L., Duclos, K., & Spencer, R. M. (2013). Sleep 
spindles in midday naps enhance learning in preschool children. 
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(43), 17267-
17272.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Some commenters opposed the proposal in paragraph (e)(2) 
that replaced the requirement for family style meals with an approach 
that was less prescriptive but retained most of the key characteristics 
of family style meals and ensured mealtimes were considered part of the 
learning day. Some commenters felt strongly that family style meals 
were integral to Head Start's culture. Commenters also raised concerns 
about eliminating an important research-based requirement because 
family style meals are important to teach lifelong healthy food habits 
and they support socialization and conversation during mealtime. Some 
commenters seemed concerned that family style meals would be prohibited 
under our proposal or that the proposal conflicted with requirements in 
the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP).
    Some commenters wrote in support of our proposal to replace the 
family style meal requirement with a less prescriptive proposal that 
focused on meals as a time for learning, socialization, and 
conversation. Some commenters stated that our proposal allowed for 
better collaboration with community partners like schools, while still 
retaining important parts of family style meals. Others agreed it would 
support intentional teacher practices, focus on conversations, 
learning, and socialization, and eliminate overly prescriptive 
requirements.
    Many commenters recommended we change the provision to explicitly 
encourage family style meals. Some of these commenters noted that the 
proposal included many central characteristics of family style meals 
and appreciated our focus on mealtime as a learning activity. They also 
noted they understood the benefits of our approach since it made it 
easier to partner with other programs because some of the specifics of 
family style meals were logistically challenging for some partnerships. 
However, these commenters strongly recommended we add language to 
encourage use of family style meal so it would be consistent with CACFP 
and because the benefits were important.
    Response: We believe it is essential that programs structure and 
implement meals and snacks in ways that support development and 
learning. Family style meal service is one effective method of 
accomplishing this goal. Therefore, we revised the provision in 
paragraph (e)(2) to make clear that programs are encouraged but not 
required to meet the requirement to support development and learning 
during meals times through the use family style meals when children are 
old enough for this to be developmentally appropriate practice. This is 
consistent with CACFP, which encourages but does not require family 
style meals. However, we also believe it is appropriate to not be 
overly prescriptive, to support partnerships, and to allow flexibility 
in how a program promotes learning during meals.
    Comment: Some commenters expressed support for our retention of 
requirements in paragraph (e)(2) that children be given sufficient time 
to eat, should not be forced to finish their food, and that food should 
not be used as a reward or punishment. Some commenters wrote that we 
should add requirements around food activities, including retaining a 
requirement from the previous program standards about participating in 
food activities.
    Response: We agree that participating in food activities can be 
part of good practice but think this is overly prescriptive and did not 
make these suggested changes.
    Comment: Some commenters recommended we add requirements for 
physical activity, including parameters about how much time children 
should be physically active. They suggested requirements based on the 
National Health and Safety Performance Standards: Guidelines for Out-
of-Home Childcare, including that we require at least 60 minutes of 
moderate to vigorous physical activity for children in Early Head Start 
and at least 90 minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity for 
children in Head Start.
    Response: We agree that physical activity is important for young 
children. Not only is it important for children's health, but movement 
and physical activity are important to children's learning and 
development.84 85 86 Developmentally appropriate practice is 
clear that young children need to move and be physically active. For 
example, the Office of Head Start's initiative I Am Moving I Am 
Learning has been well-received by programs and helped institute 
healthy practices. However, we do not believe we should dictate to 
local programs the amount of time children should engage in such 
activities. To ensure that programs recognize the role of physical 
activity in children's learning and health, we added a new provision in 
paragraph (e)(4) that reads: ``A program must recognize physical 
activity as important to learning and integrate intentional movement 
and physical activity into curricular activities and daily routines in 
ways that support health and learning. A program must not use physical 
activity as a reward or punishment.'' We believe this provision will 
allow local programs to implement policies appropriate to their program 
design and the needs of their children.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ Becker, D. R., McClelland, M. M., Loprinzi, P., & Trost, S. 
G. (2014). Physical activity, self-regulation, and early academic 
achievement in preschool children. Early Education & Development, 
25(1), 56-70.
    \85\ Timmons, B. W., LeBlanc, A. G., Carson, V., Connor Gorber, 
S., Dillman, C., Janssen, I., . . . & Tremblay, M. S. (2012). 
Systematic review of physical activity and health in the early years 
(aged 0-4 years). Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism, 
37(4), 773-792.
    \86\ Hodges, E. A., Smith, C., Tidwell, S., & Berry, D. (2013). 
Promoting physical activity in preschoolers to prevent obesity: a 
review of the literature. Journal of Pediatric Nursing, 28(1), 3-19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Some commenters recommended we include new requirements 
with specific limitations on screen time.
    Response: We agree that children should have limited exposure to 
screen time and believe that if programs are implementing the standards 
in this section for nurturing, responsive, rich learning environments 
and experiences that effectively support strong child outcomes, screen 
time will, by necessity, not be available or will be appropriately 
limited to interactive educational activities that evidence shows 
support learning. However, as even the meaning of screen time is 
currently evolving and the research on technology use and children's 
learning is an emerging field, we chose not to add any specific 
requirements.
Section 1302.32 Curricula
    This section includes requirements for the curriculum or curricula 
programs use. It reflects new requirements from the Act, the current 
role and use of curricula in the early education field, and a deeper 
understanding of the curriculum qualities associated with improved 
child outcomes. This applies to center-based and family child care 
programs. Curriculum requirements for home-based programs are found in 
Sec.  1302.35. Some commenters were supportive of the curriculum 
provisions. We also received comments with concerns and suggestions 
that we discuss below.
    Comment: Commenters were generally supportive of our curriculum 
provisions. They stated the section included important changes that 
would

[[Page 61331]]

raise the quality of curriculum and its implementation. Commenters 
noted the importance of the requirements for content rich curricula, 
and the benefits of requiring a clear scope and sequence and 
integration of professional development and support for teachers. They 
also supported the focus on implementation fidelity and the qualities 
of an effective curriculum, including alignment with early learning 
standards.
    Response: We believe it is essential that programs intentionally 
review the curriculum or curricula they are using to ensure it meets 
each criterion in the final rule and appropriately supports children's 
development and learning. In some instances, we believe it will be 
necessary for programs to use curricula enhancements to ensure their 
programming is sufficiently content rich and to achieve strong child 
outcomes. We expect programs to be thorough in reviewing their 
curriculum and the professional development system that supports 
teachers' implementation of curriculum. For this reason, as proposed in 
the NPRM, programs have approximately one year after publication of 
this rule to implement this standard.
    Comment: Some commenters recommended we include a list of 
acceptable curricula to ensure programs use effective ones and to help 
guide state pre-kindergarten curriculum choices.
    Response: Development of curricula that can effectively impact 
child outcomes is a growing field. Programs should not just accept the 
publisher's word that their curriculum meets Head Start standards, but 
should continuously evaluate its effectiveness as part of the program 
management approach. We did not include a specific list of acceptable 
curriculum so programs have the flexibility to implement appropriate 
curricula for the children they enroll, supplement curricula as needed, 
and make changes as the field advances.
    Comment: Some commenters expressed concerns about the provision in 
paragraph (a)(1)(iii) that requires curriculum to include an 
``organized developmental scope and sequence.'' Others supported this 
standard. Some commenters were concerned that ``scope and sequence'' 
would not be interpreted in a developmentally appropriate manner. 
Others were concerned its interpretation was not clear for infants and 
toddlers.
    Response: We revised paragraph (a)(1)(iii) to clarify our meaning 
of developmental scope and sequence. This standard now reads: ``has an 
organized developmental scope and sequence that includes plans and 
materials for learning experiences based on developmental progressions 
and how children learn.'' We made similar changes to the comparable 
provision for curricula in home-based programs in Sec.  1302.35 for the 
same reasons. As part of this revision, we moved our requirement that 
curricula be sufficiently content-rich to promote measurable progress 
to paragraph (a)(1)(ii). This reorganization was for clarity; we did 
not change the substance.
    Comment: Some commenters were concerned the curriculum requirements 
were not developmentally appropriate. Some were confused about 
narrative in the NPRM's preamble that noted that research finds that 
strong child outcomes for children are supported by activities that 
intentionally engage children in activities like math or language for 
15 to 20 minutes multiple times each week.
    Response: We are clear in paragraph (a)(1) that programs must 
implement developmentally appropriate curricula and we do not believe 
any of the criteria required in paragraph (a)(1) are developmentally 
inappropriate. Therefore, we do not need to revise this section to 
address this concern. Neither the proposed rule nor the final rule 
included any requirements about the specific amount of time teachers 
should spend on any particular activity. Content-rich curriculum, in 
which children intentionally engage in a math activity (for example), 
does not require children sit still or be passive recipients of rote 
instruction. For example, if implemented correctly, content-rich 
learning activities are interesting, appropriate, and engaging for 
children. Developmentally appropriate practice and effective 
intentional teaching with young children does not mean rote 
instruction, sitting still for lengthy periods while adults talk at 
them, or ``drill and kill.'' Such teaching practices would not meet the 
requirements in this subpart.
    Comment: Commenters supported the provisions in what were 
paragraphs (a)(2) and (3) that addressed professional development 
support for curriculum implementation and fidelity of implementation. 
Some commenters offered suggestions for further clarifying and 
strengthening the goals of these provisions.
    Response: We retained the two key concepts of the provisions in 
paragraph (a)(2)--professional development--and paragraph (a)(3)--
curriculum fidelity, but integrated and streamlined them into paragraph 
(a)(2) to improve clarity and implementation. Our revisions place more 
focus on staff support and are less compliance oriented. In paragraph 
(a)(2), we more clearly articulate the important requirement of 
supporting all teachers with support, feedback, and supervision in 
order to continuously improve curriculum implementation. In addition, 
whereas in the proposed rule, curriculum fidelity kits were likely the 
main way programs would comply with paragraph (a)(3), we revised 
paragraph (a)(2) to focus on the requirement not the method. We made 
similar changes to the comparable provisions for home-based programs in 
Sec.  1302.35 for the same reasons.
    Comment: Many commenters expressed concern or sought clarity on the 
provisions in paragraph (b) that proposed requirements for when 
programs sought to make significant adaptations to curriculum. Many 
commenters requested greater flexibility in curriculum requirements in 
paragraphs (a) and (b) so programs who serve culturally diverse 
communities for whom curricula have not been designed or validated. 
Some commenters were not clear how much adaptation would necessitate 
partnerships with researchers. Others thought the provision was too 
burdensome and unnecessary. Some supported the requirement and 
suggested we make it more stringent.
    Response: We agree our proposal in paragraph (b) lacked sufficient 
clarity and flexibility. We revised paragraph (b) to require that 
programs that need to make significant adaptations to a curriculum or 
curriculum enhancement, must partner with early childhood education 
curriculum or content experts. For example, programs would not need to 
seek external expertise if they are adding a research-based curriculum 
supplement to an underlying curriculum in order to make it sufficiently 
content rich. Programs would also not need to seek external expertise 
if they were supplementing the curriculum's set of picture books if 
they were replacing them with books that reflect the diversity of 
culture and languages spoken in the classroom. However, a program 
seeking to significantly adapt a curriculum by translating major 
portions of it to respond to the needs of children learning more than 
one language would need to seek external review by a curriculum expert 
to ensure such translation maintained the scientifically valid 
characteristics of the underlying curriculum. This will ensure programs 
implement high-quality curricula that meet the requirements in 
paragraph (a). We eliminated the proposed

[[Page 61332]]

requirement for a research evaluation of the adaptation to improve 
flexibility, but still encourage programs to partner with outside 
evaluators. To ensure accountability, paragraph (b) requires programs 
to assess whether the adaptation adequately facilitates progress toward 
meeting school readiness goals as part of the program management 
process described in subpart J. We believe this provision provides 
better clarity and strikes the right balance between flexibility and 
maintaining high standards for curriculum quality. We made similar 
changes to the comparable provision for home-based programs in Sec.  
1302.35 for the same reasons. We note that paragraph (a)(1) allows 
curricular enhancements and does not require the partnerships described 
in paragraph (b). Likewise, small changes to curricula to make them 
more culturally appropriate for the children being served do not 
require the partnerships described in paragraph (b). While not 
required, we encourage programs to work with a researcher or evaluator 
to examine their adaptations, if possible. We retain the requirement 
from the NPRM that programs must report curricula variations to the 
responsible HHS official.
Section 1302.33 Child Screenings and Assessments
    This section applies screening and assessment requirements to all 
program options and includes significant revisions to the previous 
program performance standards in order to integrate advances from 
research, reflect best practice, and implement provisions from the Act. 
It includes requirements for the appropriate use of developmental 
screening and ongoing child assessment that are integral to high-
quality programs.
    Commenters supported many of the changes in this section, including 
the clear process for referral for formal evaluation and the updates to 
individualize services for children. We made changes to strengthen and 
clarify the provisions in this section.
    Comment: Some commenters noted the importance of maintaining the 
45-day requirement for developmental screenings in paragraph (a)(1), 
but some commenters stated the timeline for screening was too short and 
some stated it was too long. Some commenters noted we dropped the 
timeline from the previous regulation for developmental screenings in 
Migrant and Seasonal Head Start programs, and many commenters noted we 
inadvertently dropped the requirement to programs to obtain screenings 
instead of only explicitly completing them.
    Response: The final rule retains the 45-day timeline for 
developmental screening. We believe it is both reasonable and important 
to complete screenings quickly so that individualized needs can be 
promptly identified. We restored the 30-calendar day timeline for 
Migrant and Seasonal Head Start programs to paragraph (a)(1), which is 
consistent with the previous regulation and was inadvertently dropped 
from the proposed rule. In addition, in paragraph (a)(1), we clarified 
that a program can meet the development screening requirement either by 
completing it themselves or obtaining the results from another source, 
and that the screening must be current.
    Comment: Some commenters noted that what was paragraph (a)(2) in 
the NPRM for programs to adhere to a prompt timeline for referrals that 
they cannot control.
    Response: We made revisions in paragraph (a)(3) to address these 
concerns. We believe it is important for programs to refer children to 
the local agency responsible for determining IDEA eligibility for a 
formal evaluation as soon as possible, and not to exceed timelines 
required under IDEA, but understand programs cannot control how quickly 
the IDEA agency completes the formal evaluation.
    Comment: We received comments both in support and opposition of the 
proposal in what was paragraph (a)(3) in the NPRM to waive the 45-day 
developmental screening requirement for children with a current 
individualized family service plan (IFSP) or IEP. Some commenters 
supported the proposal and noted it was good to eliminate redundant and 
unnecessary screening. Some commenters opposed the provision and stated 
that relying only on an IFSP or IEP would lead programs to miss 
important information about the children they serve.
    Response: We revised the final rule to remove the provision to 
waive the 45-day screening for children with a current IFSP or IEP. We 
note that developmental screenings are not overly time consuming, are 
not a burden for children, and agree that there is the potential for 
developmental issues to be missed if a program only relies on an IFSP 
or IEP. We believe that screenings can also serve as an important 
mechanism to build teacher-family partnerships, celebrate children's 
developmental milestones, and provide valuable information to both 
teachers and families on supporting children's holistic development, 
across settings.
    Comment: Some commenters supported our proposal in paragraph (a)(5) 
for programs to help parents access services and support if their child 
has a significant delay in one or more areas of development that were 
likely to interfere with the child's development and school success. 
Some commenters suggested this was an important provision because it 
would ensure a specific at-risk population was better served. Some 
commenters supported the provision but stated that it was too vague and 
that further information or definitions were needed to clarify what we 
meant by ``significant delay'' and ``supports and services.'' Some 
commenters also recommended referencing Section 504 and the Americans 
with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements or clarity about these 
services being provided in the natural environment. Some commenters who 
supported the provision stated that these children should be counted in 
the program's calculation for meeting the requirement that 10 percent 
of children in Head Start be eligible for services under IDEA.
    Many commenters were opposed to our proposal in paragraph (a)(5). 
They acknowledged it would be an important service but opposed it 
because of associated costs. Other commenters opposed the provision for 
reasons that included: They did not think programs had the expertise to 
make the decision or provide the services; they believed it was 
inappropriate if other specialists already deemed special education 
services unnecessary; or they were concerned it would undermine their 
partnerships with local educational agencies. Some commenters felt it 
was unnecessary because programs already individualize services. Some 
commenters agreed it could be helpful to children but that it should be 
a recommendation not a requirement. Other commenters who opposed the 
requirement requested that if we implemented the provision, the 
children should count toward the program's 10 percent disability 
enrollment requirement.
    Response: We believe that when a formal assessment finds a child 
has a significant delay, it is important that the program work with 
parents to address the identified needs, even if the child is not found 
eligible for early intervention or special education and related 
services under IDEA. Therefore, the final rule retains the policy in 
paragraph (a)(5) but makes changes to the provision to better clarify 
what is and is not expected of the program. We clarified that programs 
are

[[Page 61333]]

required to partner with parents to determine if needed supports and 
services are available through a child's health insurance and/or 
whether it is appropriate to provide supports for the child pursuant to 
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act if the child satisfies the 
definition of disability in section 705(9)(b) of the Rehabilitation 
Act.
    A program may use Head Start funds for such services and supports 
when other funding is not available but the program is not required to 
do so. Family service, health, or other appropriate staff, together 
with the parents, must try to identify resources that can help provide 
the child with the services and supports they need. We think this 
clarifies what we mean by ``supports and services'' and did not define 
the term. We also note that the provision explicitly requires this 
determination be made with guidance from a mental health or child 
development professional to ensure staff with appropriate expertise 
guide the determination of the child's needs. We did not define 
``significant delay'' so the mental health consultant and local experts 
can have appropriate flexibility.
    Comment: Many commenters wrote in support of the general approach 
to child assessment in paragraph (b), including its research base and 
its clarity on using and integrating assessment information into 
individualization and teaching practices. However, many commenters 
expressed concern about the term ``standardized and structured 
assessment'' in paragraph (b)(1) and sought greater clarity on its 
meaning.
    Response: We added language to paragraph (b)(1) to clarify that the 
standardized and structured assessments may be ``observation-based or 
direct.''
    Comment: Some commenters recommended we add requirements about the 
frequency of assessments or made other suggestions for paragraph (b), 
such as how the data are reported.
    Response: We did not revise paragraph (b) to include requirements 
about the frequency of assessments because we believe those 
determinations are best made at the local level. However, we made small 
changes in paragraph (b)(2) to further strengthen how programs use 
assessments. Specifically, paragraph (b)(2) was revised to require 
program ``regularly'' use assessment and other information to support 
individualized learning and that such assessment data be used to 
``inform'' strategies for individualization.
    Comment: Some commenters were unclear about the need to assess DLLs 
in multiple languages if they are proficient in English, as proposed in 
paragraph (c)(2). Some recommended that DLLs only be assessed in their 
non-English language if they struggle with English. Some commenters 
stated that assessment in both languages should not be required for 
program participation and asked whether programs will seek parental 
input or consent for screenings and assessments in both languages.
    Response: Assessing the language development of a DLL child in both 
English and his/her home language provides a more complete picture of 
the child's language development, including potential strengths or 
concerns, even if the child is proficient in English. Additionally, as 
stated in Sec.  1302.34(b)(6), program staff must inform parents and 
family members about the purposes and results of screenings and 
assessments and discuss children's progress.
    Comment: Commenters were concerned with the feasibility of 
assessing DLLs in their home language as proposed in paragraph (c)(2). 
Commenters raised concerns such as: lack of valid, reliable assessments 
in less common languages; feasibility of having interpreters for all 
languages; and burden on staff to assess children in both languages. 
Some commenters requested clarification, such as if it is acceptable 
for an English-speaking staff person to use a Spanish interpreter to 
conduct assessments with DLLs and, for assessments conducted in both 
languages, if teachers should record the higher of the two scores.
    Response: We strongly believe that programs should assess DLLs in 
their home language with valid, reliable assessments, when feasible. 
While Spanish is the home language of most DLLs in Head Start, we 
recognize that there are over 140 other languages spoken by Head Start 
children and that valid, reliable assessments are not available in 
every language spoken by children in Head Start. We revised paragraph 
(c)(2)(ii) and added new language at paragraph (c)(2)(iii) in the final 
rule to reflect this reality including mechanisms that support accurate 
and appropriate assessment processes. We also revised paragraph (c)(3) 
to acknowledge when interpreters may be necessary to work in 
conjunction with qualified staff that do not speak the language. 
Finally in paragraph (c)(4) we clarified that only in instances where 
an interpreter and qualified staff are not available can screenings and 
assessments be done in English, but it is particularly important that 
programs gather and use other information and structured observations 
over time about the child development, including information from the 
family about home language use. Assessments with DLLs should be 
conducted with the same frequency as that for all children--as noted in 
paragraph (b)(1), assessments must be conducted with sufficient 
frequency to allow for individualization within the program year.
    Comment: Some commenters were concerned that requirements for 
serving DLLs might not support parental choice, including the 
requirement in paragraph (b)(2) to assess children in both languages, 
and the focus on exposure to English for infants and toddlers in Sec.  
1302.31(b)(2)(i).
    Response: We believe assessing children's language skills in both 
English and their home language is necessary to accurately capture DLL 
children's language development. Additionally, the Act requires Head 
Start programs support the acquisition of English for DLL children.
Sec.  1302.34 Parent and Family Engagement in Education and Child 
Development Services
    This section includes provisions to ensure that center-based and 
family child care programs structure their education services to 
recognize parents' important roles in their child's education. It 
primarily reflects the previous requirements replaced by the final rule 
but reorganizes them for better clarity and implementation.
    Many commenters expressed an over-arching concern that the proposed 
rule diminished the role of the parents, though commenters generally 
supported this section and noted it retained the important philosophy 
that parents are children's first and most important teachers. Some 
commenters also recommended changes, some of which we felt were too 
prescriptive or unnecessary to support best practice. Other comments 
are discussed below.
    Comment: Some commenters recommended changes to further clarify the 
important role of parents and suggested greater alignment with the 
Parent Family and Community Engagement Framework.
    Response: We revised this section to clarify and strengthen the 
standards. For example, the section heading has been changed from 
``Parent involvement'' to ``Parent and family engagement in education 
and child development services'' to better reflect the intent of this 
section and align the work programs have done with the Parent, Family, 
and Community Engagement Framework. In addition, changes were made in 
paragraph (a) to better reflect parents' central role in children's 
education. We added a new provision in

[[Page 61334]]

paragraph (b)(2) to strengthen the engagement between teaching staff 
and parent. In addition, we made changes in paragraphs (b)(4), (6), and 
(7) to better distinguish which engagement activities are appropriate 
for parents as opposed to families.
    Comment: Some commenters stated that we required too many home 
visits, and others suggested we require more home visits. Some 
commenters opposed the requirement in paragraph (b)(7) for teachers to 
complete a home visit before the start of the program year, if 
possible, while others supported it.
    Response: In response to comments seeking some clarification, we 
made a few small structural changes to the provision that is now found 
in paragraph (b)(7) to clarify the home visit requirement. However, we 
did not revise the number of required teacher home visits. Further, we 
note that paragraph (b)(7) states that one visit should take place 
before the program year begins ``if feasible.'' We believe that home 
visits before the start of the program year reflects best practice but 
that sufficient flexibility is provided when it truly is not feasible. 
As before, teachers can do more than two home visits if they feel that 
is appropriate.
    Comment: Some commenters recommended combining the provisions in 
this section with those in Sec.  1302.51.
    Response: We agree that both this section and Sec.  1302.51 address 
activities to engage parents and families in their children's learning. 
However, we did not combine the sections because this section 
specifically addresses services and philosophies related to children's 
educational services and Sec.  1302.51 includes parent services and are 
better organized in the parent engagement subpart.
Section 1302.35 Education in Home-Based Programs
    This section includes the requirements for education services in 
home-based programs. It codifies and builds upon the guidance and 
technical assistance we provided to home-based programs for many years. 
We discuss comments and changes we made to the proposed rule below.
    Comment: Some commenters supported the use of research or 
evidenced-based home visiting curriculum, the use of promising 
practices, and recommended we specify particular home visiting programs 
or curricula or asked for clarifications about the requirement.
    Response: We believe the use of a research-based home visiting 
curriculum is critical to ensuring home-based services improve child 
and family outcomes. We did not revise the section to require a 
particular curriculum for serving children in the home-based program 
because we believe programs should have local flexibility to select a 
curriculum that best meets the needs of the children and families they 
serve. We clarified the language around adaptations of curricula in the 
same way as in Sec.  1302.32 for center-based and family child care 
programs.
    Comment: Some commenters suggested we include language that clearly 
states home visits are to help parents understand their child's 
development and to support responsive interactions between parent and 
child. Some commenters further requested clarification about how the 
Head Start Early Learning Outcomes Framework: Ages Birth to Five 
applies to home-based because it does not include family goals.
    Response: We agree that home visits must reflect the critical role 
of helping parents support the early learning and development of their 
children. Therefore, we revised paragraph (b)(1) to clarify that home 
visitors must be able to effectively communicate with parents directly 
or through an interpreter. In addition, we reordered the home-based 
education section to put the parent and the home-based experiences in 
paragraph (c) prior to the discussion of curriculum now found in 
paragraph (d), to emphasize the central role of parents in successful 
home-based services. We believe this addresses the comments and that 
further revision is not necessary. Further, the Head Start Early 
Learning Outcomes Framework: Ages Birth to Five describes what children 
ages birth to five should know and do. We have the same expectations 
for all children enrolled in any Head Start option.
    Comment: Many commenters suggested that we require components of 
the Parent, Family, and Community Engagement Framework (PFCEF) to be 
included in the home visit experiences in what was paragraph (d) and is 
now paragraph (c).
    Response: Programs are required to use the PFCEF as part of their 
family engagement services, which are already required in paragraph 
(b)(4). Therefore, we did not make this revision.
Section 1302.36 Tribal Language Preservation and Revitalization
    This section provides support for programs serving American Indian 
and Alaska Native children that wish to or are already engaging in 
tribal language revitalization efforts. We added this as a new section 
based on reviewer comments about our inconsistent inclusion and meaning 
of the phrase ``Native language'' in the proposed standards in the 
NPRM.
    Comment: Some commenters expressed concern about the inconsistency 
of the inclusion of ``Native language'' for American Indian and Alaska 
Native children and requested clarity on the intent of these provisions 
in Sec. Sec.  1302.31 and 1302.35.
    Response: We revised the language in Sec. Sec.  1302.31 and 1302.35 
to clarify the intent of these provisions with respect to American 
Indian and Alaska Native children. Additionally, we added this new 
section to clarify that programs serving American Indian and Alaska 
Native children may choose to engage in efforts to preserve, 
revitalize, restore, or maintain the tribal language(s) for these 
children.
Health Program Services; Subpart D
    In this subpart, we updated program performance standards related 
to health, nutrition, mental health, and safety. We retained the core 
health services from the previous program performance standards, 
including screening, ongoing care and follow-up care both because the 
Act clearly links health, mental health, and nutritional services as 
important supports to foster children's school readiness and because 
research demonstrates a strong link between child health, school 
readiness, and long-term outcomes.87 88 89 We further 
strengthened the requirements with an emphasis on oral health and 
parent education in health issues. We also updated the mental health 
requirements to reflect best practice, to ensure programs use mental 
health services to improve classroom management, and to support staff 
in effectively addressing challenging behaviors. We also streamlined 
program performance standards to make it easier for programs to find 
what they need and to implement what we require. We received many 
comments on this subpart. Commenters generally supported our 
reorganization and streamlined requirements. Some noted their support 
for our continued emphasis on health services as central to Head Start. 
Many commenters offered recommendations for additional changes. In 
response to comments, we

[[Page 61335]]

made technical changes, clarified requirements, and further 
strengthened health, nutrition, and mental health services. We also 
improved family support services and strengthened and clarified safety 
practices. We discuss comments and our responses below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ Currie, J.M. (2005). Health disparities and gaps in school 
readiness. The Future of Children, 15(1), 117-138.
    \88\ Janus, M., & Duku, E. (2007). The school entry gap: 
Socioeconomic, family, and health factors associated with children's 
school readiness to learn. Early Education and Development, 18(3), 
375-403.
    \89\ Bruner, C. (2009). Connecting child health and school 
readiness. (Issue Brief No. 9). Denver, CO: The Colorado Trust.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

General Comments
    Comment: Some commenters were concerned we diminished the 
importance of health services in Head Start.
    Response: We do not believe we diminished the importance of health 
services in Head Start. The rule is clear that programs are required to 
promote the health and well-being of all children in Head Start. We 
believe this is central to Head Start's mission of helping children 
succeed in school and in life. The rule clearly articulates the many 
health services programs must provide and allows programs better 
flexibility to focus on improved delivery of health and well-being 
services instead of process-laden requirements.
    Comment: Some commenters recommended we replace the word ``dental'' 
with ``oral'' throughout the rule to reflect current scientific and 
clinical terminology.
    Response: We agree ``oral'' is a more appropriate description than 
``dental.'' Therefore, we replaced the word ``dental'' with ``oral'' 
throughout the regulation.
Section 1302.40 Purpose
    In this section, we outline the overall goal of this subpart, which 
is to ensure programs provide high-quality health, mental health, and 
nutrition services that support each child's growth and school 
readiness. To improve clarity, we moved the requirement for programs to 
establish and maintain a Health Services Advisory Committee from 
subpart E to this section.
    Comment: Some commenters suggested we include oral health in the 
list of health services included under this section. Other commenters 
recommended we include the word ``culturally'' in the description of 
appropriate services.
    Response: We agree oral health is an important element of overall 
health and might not automatically be recognized as included under 
health. So, we added ``oral health'' to the list of health services. We 
also agree health practices need to be culturally appropriate and 
revised paragraph (a) to improve clarity about service delivery.
Section 1302.41 Collaboration and Communication With Parents
    This section requires programs collaborate and communicate with 
parents about their children's health in a linguistically and 
culturally appropriate manner and communicate with them about health 
needs and concerns in a timely manner. It also includes program 
requirements for advance authorization from parents and for sharing 
policies for health emergencies. We received some comments on this 
section.
    Comment: We received some comments requesting clarification on 
communication and collaboration with parents. For example, commenters 
noted that an example offered in the NPRM preamble did not appear in 
the regulation text. Other commenters asked which ``health emergency 
policies'' referenced in paragraph (b)(2) programs must share with 
parents.
    Response: The preamble in the NPRM provided explanation and 
rationale for the proposed requirements. We offered examples as 
guidance to make the rule more accessible to readers. We did not revise 
the requirement about sharing policies for health emergencies because 
we think it is appropriately described. Most programs share their 
health emergency policies with parents through a parent handbook or 
other vehicle.
Section 1302.42 Child Health Status and Care
    This section includes requirements for programs to determine 
children's source of care, to support parents in ensuring children are 
up-to-date for preventive and primary medical and oral health care, and 
to support parents to ensure children receive ongoing necessary care. 
It also requires programs to determine if children have health 
insurance and supports families in accessing health insurance if they 
do not. It also includes requirements for extended follow-up care where 
appropriate and clarifies use of program funds for medical and oral 
health services. Commenters generally supported this section but also 
requested clarification and offered additional suggestions. We address 
these comments below.
    Comment: We received many comments about the timelines in 
paragraphs (a) and (b) that describe requirements for determining 
whether a child has an ongoing source of health care and insurance 
coverage, to assist families in accessing care and health coverage, and 
to determine if children are up-to-date on preventive and primary 
medical and oral health care. Some commenters stated that the 30-day 
and 90-day timelines in paragraphs (a) and (b) were too long and would 
result in delayed services. Some commenters stated the 30-day timeline 
in paragraph (a)(1) was too short. Many commenters requested additional 
clarification on the timelines. For example, many commenters requested 
more specificity about what we meant by ``as quickly as possible'' in 
paragraph (a)(2). Some commenters suggested we clarify the definition 
for ``program entry'' to distinguish it from ``enrollment.'' They 
stated that the perceived distinction between the two terms could 
result in unintended consequences, such as programs delaying child 
enrollment because they cannot obtain required health information 
before children actually attend the program.
    Response: We retained the 30-day and 90-day timelines from the 
previous standards, which we believe are appropriate to ensure 
children's needs are addressed in a timely manner and have not 
presented problems for most programs to meet. However, to improve 
clarity about when the timelines begin, we replaced the phrase, ``from 
the child's enrollment'' with ``after the child first attends the 
program or, for the home-based program option, receives a home visit'' 
in paragraphs (a)(1), (b)(1), (b)(2) and (b)(3) to clarify when 
requirements must be met.
    Comment: Some commenters recommended we revise paragraph (a)(2) to 
recognize the unique role that Indian Health Services plays for many 
children enrolled in tribal Head Start programs.
    Response: We acknowledge the role Indian Health Services plays for 
children enrolled in American Indian Alaska Native Head Start programs. 
However, we did not think it was necessary to provide additional 
clarity in paragraph (a)(2). Paragraph (a) clearly does not exclude any 
source of continuous and accessible health care.
    Comment: Some commenters recommended changes or requested more 
clarity to the requirements in paragraph (b)(1)(i) to determine if 
children are up-to-date on preventive and primary care. For example, 
some commenters requested we specifically include oral health care 
services. Some commenters suggested we waive the Early and Periodic 
Screening, Diagnostic and Treatment (EPSDT) requirement for blood lead 
testing because of concerns that local doctors refuse to do blood lead 
tests for children who are at low risk based on a lead risk assessment. 
Others suggested we allow programs to substitute a lead risk

[[Page 61336]]

assessment in lieu of blood lead testing. Some commenters requested 
more clarity about the meaning of ``health care professional'' as it 
relates to oral health. Others requested more clarity about the 
qualifications of health care professionals.
    Response: We revised paragraph (b)(1)(i) to improve clarity. We 
amended this paragraph to include ``dental periodicity schedule'' to 
clarify programs must determine whether the child is up-to-date on both 
medical health and oral health care. We agree that our use of the term 
``health care professional'' to apply to both health and oral health 
was confusing. So, we amended this provision to include ``oral health 
care professional'' as well as ``health care professional.'' We did not 
specify qualifications for health care professionals, because state 
requirements vary. We expect programs to ensure that health and oral 
health professionals are qualified in their respective areas per state 
requirements. We did not make revisions to the requirements related to 
EPSDT because we do not have the authority to promulgate a regulation 
that contradicts how states implement EPSDT, especially in light of the 
potential serious health consequences of elevated lead levels.
    Comment: Some commenters stated that paragraphs (b)(1)(ii) and 
(iii) suggested parents were not capable of or bore no responsibility 
to get their children up to date on immunizations. They believed the 
requirement would force programs to undermine the role of parents when 
they provide this service.
    Response: It was not our intent to undermine the role of parents in 
getting children up-to-date with preventive and primary medical and 
oral health care. We consolidated what were paragraphs (b)(1)(ii) and 
(iii) in the NPRM into paragraph (b)(1)(ii) and revised the language to 
more clearly articulate our intent. We expect programs to help parents, 
as necessary, in their efforts to ensure their children are up-to-date 
with preventive and primary care. For those children who are not up to 
date, paragraph (b)(1)(ii) requires that programs must assist parents 
to make arrangements to bring their children up to date and to directly 
facilitate health services only with parental consent.
    Comment: Some commenters were concerned that paragraph (b)(2) 
required programs to conduct all hearing and vision screenings, rather 
than accept screening results from another source. In addition, 
commenters suggested that children should be screened for ``mental and 
physical trauma,'' as well as hearing and vision.
    Response: We revised paragraph (b)(2) to clarify that programs must 
either conduct or obtain hearing and vision screenings. We did not make 
revisions to specifically include screening for mental and physical 
trauma. Local programs may, with parent consent, implement such 
screening as indicated, particularly if they serve populations with 
known or likely exposure to trauma.
    Comment: Some commenters suggested revisions to paragraph (b)(4) 
that requires a program to identify children's nutritional health needs 
and describes specific information they must take into account. For 
example, some commenters opposed requirements to collect so much 
specific health information because it was an unhelpful ``paper chase'' 
and unnecessarily burdensome since health care providers already 
collect this data and provide follow up as necessary. Some commenters 
opposed our requirements that programs collect hematocrit or hemoglobin 
for each child. Some commenters suggested we require programs to 
collect additional information about children's health status, such as 
sweetened beverage consumption, physical activity, screen time levels, 
and consumption of healthy foods such as whole grains, fruits, and 
vegetables. Some commenters asked for clarification about what follow-
up was necessary based on the health information. Some commenters 
objected to the requirement accounting for all children's body max 
index (BMI) when BMI is not generally used for children under age two. 
Other commenters expressed concern about whether Head Start staff are 
qualified to interpret BMI and suggested programs with concerns about 
children's weight, BMI, or growth refer families to their physicians 
for further assessment. Commenters requested clarification, including a 
timeline to identify nutrition needs.
    Response: We believe it is appropriate to require programs collect 
some information about each child's nutritional health status to help 
meet the individual needs of children. However, we revised paragraph 
(b)(4) so that rather than requiring programs to collect and track data 
on all children, many of whom would fall within typical or acceptable 
ranges, we require programs to identify each child's nutritional health 
needs, taking into account available health information, including the 
child's health records, and family and staff concerns. In addition, in 
paragraph (c), we required programs to work with parents to ensure 
children obtain necessary referral, follow up appointments, and 
treatments. Programs may collect height and weight data directly as a 
means to more regularly track growth and as part of the required 
periodic observations or use other appropriate strategies for new or 
recurring concerns. We also revised paragraph (d) to include examples 
of how programs would use health information that may affect children's 
development, learning, or behavior.
    Comment: Commenters suggested we revise paragraph (c)(3) to state 
topical fluoride or varnish can be used for all children, not just for 
those that live in areas where the water is not fluoridated.
    Response: We revised paragraph (c)(3) to clarify programs must 
provide oral health preventive care for all children including, access 
to topical fluoride treatments and, as indicated, fluoride supplements.
    Comment: Some commenters requested we require programs to provide 
diapers and formula for infants and toddlers during the portion of the 
day they attend the program.
    Response: In paragraph (e)(1), we codified a long-standing 
expectation that programs must provide formula and diapers as needed by 
children during the time they attend the program.
Section 1302.43 Oral Health Practices
    In this section, we require programs to promote effective oral 
health hygiene with daily tooth brushing. Research demonstrates a link 
between oral health, dental pain, and children's attendance in 
preschool programs, as well as their ability to effectively engage in 
class activities.90 91 92 93 We discuss the comments we 
received on this section below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\ Abanto, J., Carvalho, T. S., Mendes, F. M., Wanderley, M. 
T., B[ouml]necker, M. and Raggio, D. P. (2011), Impact of oral 
diseases and disorders on oral health-related quality of life of 
preschool children. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology, 39, 
105-114. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0528.2010.00580.x.
    \91\ U.S. General Accounting Office. (2000). Oral Health: Dental 
Disease Is a Chronic Problem Among Low Income and Vulnerable 
Populations. Washington, DC: General Accounting Office.
    \92\ Schechter N. 2000. The impact of acute and chronic dental 
pain on child development. Journal of the Southeastern Society of 
Pediatric Dentistry 6(2), 16.
    \93\ Altarum Institute. 2007. Issue Brief: Oral Health Is 
Critical to the School Readiness of Children in Washington, DC. 
Washington, DC: Altarum Institute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Commenters offered a number of suggestions for this 
section. Some recommended we change the title of this section to 
``Tooth brushing and other evidence or best practice based preventive 
oral health practices.'' Some commenters recommended we include greater 
specificity. For example, some recommended we include requirements for 
cleaning infant gums, to use

[[Page 61337]]

toothpaste that contains fluoride, to implement tooth brushing as soon 
as a child's first tooth emerges, or to ensure children brush their 
teeth two times per day, for two minutes each time.
    Response: We revised the title of this section from ``Tooth 
brushing'' to ``Oral health practices'' to better reflect the 
connection between tooth brushing and oral health status. We also 
revised this section to require that all children with teeth, not just 
those age one or older, have their teeth brushed at least once per day 
with toothpaste that contains fluoride. We did not make further 
revisions to this section because we did not think further specificity 
was appropriate or supported by strong evidence.
Section 1302.44 Child Nutrition
    This section details program performance standards for Head Start 
programs to meet each child's nutritional requirements and feeding 
needs. This section includes nutrition service requirements, including 
how much food should be offered and requirements for supporting 
breastfeeding. It also includes requirements about use of funds. 
Nutrition is one of the founding principles of Head Start programs. 
Good nutrition supports children's ability to grow, develop, and 
achieve and maintain a healthy weight. Commenters suggested revisions 
and sought clarification. Based on comments we received, we made some 
changes to improve clarity and further strengthen requirements. We 
address comments below.
    Comment: Some commenters recommended we specify in paragraph (a)(1) 
that nutrition services must be culturally and developmentally 
appropriate to ensure they respond to the needs of enrolled children.
    Response: We agree and made this revision.
    Comment: Some commenters recommended we add additional requirements 
to paragraph (a)(2). For example, some commenters suggested we require 
programs to make drinking water available to children. They stated that 
if children were able to satisfy thirst with water, they may be less 
likely to consume large amounts of sugar sweetened beverages. Other 
comments suggested we require programs to serve a varied diet with an 
emphasis on fruits, vegetables, and whole grains rather than meet a 
proportion of children's daily nutritional needs.
    Response: We revised this section to add a new requirement at 
paragraph (a)(2)(ix) to require programs make safe drinking water 
available to children during the program day. We did not make revisions 
to emphasize fruits, vegetables, and whole grains because we think the 
requirement that programs meet the nutritional needs of children and 
adhere with CACFP requirements on meal patterns is sufficiently 
prescriptive.
    Comment: We received some comments about how our requirements in 
this section interact with CACFP requirements. For example, some 
commenters requested we remove the requirement in paragraph (a)(2)(iii) 
about food being high in nutrients and low in fat, sugar, and salt 
because it is redundant with CACFP. Some other commenters expressed 
concern or sought clarification about or exemption from CACFP 
requirements because of burden and cost.
    Response: We did not revise paragraph (a)(2)(iii) because we 
believe it is necessary to emphasize the importance of healthy food 
that is high in nutrients and low in salt, fat and sugar over and above 
CACFP requirements regarding the nutrition content of food. We did not 
revise paragraph (a)(1)(iv) because we think it is sufficiently clear. 
In addition, we note that we require programs to use reimbursement from 
CACFP, unless, as might occur in a home-based option, CACFP is not 
available. In that case, programs may use Head Start or Early Head 
Start funds for allowable food costs as we state in paragraph (b). We 
have no authority to change CACFP requirements and made no revisions.
    Comment: Commenters suggested we retain the provision from the 
previous program performance standards that required programs to 
involve parents and appropriate community agencies in planning, 
implementing, and evaluating the program's nutrition services.
    Response: We did not retain the previous standard that programs 
engage parents and the community in nutrition services. While we think 
this can be a valuable method to ensure cultural appropriateness and 
respond to local nutrition related issues, we recognize it may be 
difficult for some programs to regularly do this. We encourage programs 
to maintain this practice as much as they can, but we want to provide 
local flexibility to identify the approach.
    Comment: Some commenters indicated that the word ``appropriate'' in 
paragraph (a)(2)(vii) that modifies snacks could vary widely in 
interpretation and suggested we replace ``appropriate'' with 
``healthy.''
    Response: We agree this requirement is clearer if we indicate 
snacks and meals should be ``healthy'' and revised the paragraph 
accordingly.
    Comment: We received comments about our requirement to promote 
breastfeeding in paragraph (a)(2)(viii). Commenters were generally 
supportive of our focus on breastfeeding. Some commenters recommended 
we require programs to train staff on how to properly handle and store 
breast milk. Other commenters recommended we require programs to either 
ensure staff complete lactation counselor training or provide referrals 
to lactation counselors or consultants. Others asked us to clarify 
whether programs must have breastfeeding rooms in each center.
    Response: We did not think it was necessary to add a requirement 
for programs to train staff on how to properly handle and store breast 
milk because we think that is unnecessarily prescriptive in detailing 
how a program must meet the requirement that they properly store and 
handle breast milk. Many programs will find state licensing already 
requires this. We also did not require programs to ensure staff 
complete lactation counselor training. However, we amended paragraph 
(a)(2)(viii) to require programs provide referrals to lactation 
consultants or counselors if necessary. Finally, neither the NPRM nor 
the final rule required programs to have separate rooms for 
breastfeeding in each center. Programs may meet the requirement in 
Sec.  1302.44(a)(2)(viii) to promote breastfeeding with a designated 
private area with a comfortable chair, an outlet for a pump, and access 
to a sink for hand washing to accommodate the needs of mothers who 
breastfeed or pump milk.
Section 1302.45 Child Mental Health and Social and Emotional Well-Being
    This section includes the requirements for services programs must 
provide related to child mental health and the support of children's 
social and emotional well-being. Early childhood mental health and 
healthy social and emotional well-being has been clearly linked to 
children's school readiness outcomes. Research estimates between 9 
percent and 14 percent of young children experience mental health or 
social and emotional issues that negatively impact their 
development.\94\ The standards described in this section support 
programs in creating a culture that promotes positive mental health and 
social and emotional well-being,

[[Page 61338]]

including supporting positive staff-child interactions and parental 
knowledge of mental health. Research also demonstrates that the use of 
mental health consultation services has distinct benefits, including 
improved child behavior, staff job satisfaction, and overall 
effectiveness of early childhood programs.95 96 97 
Therefore, this section also includes specific requirements for what 
mental health consultants must do to assist programs, staff, and 
parents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \94\ Brauner, C. B., & Stephen, B. C. (2006). Estimating the 
prevalence of early childhood serious emotional/behavioral disorder. 
Public Health Reports, 121, 303-310.
    \95\ Gilliam, W.S., & Golan, S. (2006). Preschool and child care 
expulsion and suspension: Rates and predictors in one state. Infants 
and Young Children, 19(3), 228-245.
    \96\ Perry, D. F., Dunne, M. C., McFadden, L., & Campbell, D. 
(2008). Reducing the risk for preschool expulsion: Mental health 
consultation for young children with challenging behaviors. Journal 
of Child and Family Studies, 17(1), 44-54.
    \97\ Brennan, E. M., Bradley, J. R., Allen, M. D., & Perry, D. 
F. (2008). The evidence base for mental health consultation in early 
childhood settings: Research synthesis addressing staff and program 
outcomes. Early Education and Development, 19(6), 982-1022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In general, commenters supported strengthening mental health 
consultation in Head Start, but suggested ways to improve the standards 
to ensure a clear understanding of the importance of mental health, the 
qualifications of a mental health consultant, and the role that the 
mental health consultant plays in improving programs' ability to 
address mental health problems, including challenging behaviors. We 
address these and other comments below and describe changes we made to 
this section to ensure that programs have the tools to successfully 
promote the mental health and social and emotional well-being of all 
children.
    Comment: Commenters suggested we refer to social-emotional well-
being rather than ``child mental health'' to reduce the prejudice and 
discrimination around mental health services and improve parent and 
staff understanding of what mental health means for children.
    Response: We agree and revised the title of this section as well as 
the requirements throughout to more accurately mirror how the field of 
early childhood discusses children's mental health and behavior by more 
broadly defining child mental health and social and emotional well-
being.
    Comment: Commenters requested clarification about who can serve as 
mental health consultants and the role of mental health consultants in 
the program. For example, commenters asked about the necessary 
qualifications of mental health consultants and the amount of time 
mental health consultants must spend in the program. Commenters also 
noted a shortage of mental health consultants who are licensed, 
particularly in rural and tribal areas, and suggested sharing best 
practice information about effective mental health consultation in such 
programs. Some commenters misinterpreted this section to remove 
requirements for programs to use mental health consultants and were in 
favor of only utilizing mental health consultants on an as-needed 
basis. Other commenters suggested that additional funds would be needed 
to implement these standards.
    Response: We agree that it is important for programs to understand 
the importance of mental health and the role of mental health 
consultants in promoting the well-being of Head Start children. We 
revised this section to include that programs must ensure mental health 
consultants assist the program, staff and parents and clarified how 
programs must support a culture of promoting children's mental health 
and social and emotional well-being. We clarified the qualifications of 
mental health consultants in Sec.  1302.91(e)(8)(ii). We understand 
that access to mental health consultants, particularly those with 
knowledge and experience serving young children, may not be available 
in all communities, and that there may be a particular struggle in 
tribal and rural areas, but we believe access to mental health 
consultants in all programs is critically important. In order to 
acknowledge this difficulty, we only require knowledge and experience 
working with young children if consultants with this knowledge and 
experience are available in the community.
    To address the level of utilization of mental health consultants, 
we revised paragraph (a)(2) to reinstate the requirement from the 
previous regulation that a program must ``secure mental health 
consultation services on a schedule of sufficient and consistent 
frequency.'' We also clarified that programs must ensure that mental 
health consultants are available to partner with staff and families in 
a timely and effective manner. Additionally, to improve clarity, we 
added a new paragraph (b)(6) to reference the use of mental health 
consultants as required in Sec.  1302.17. While we understand the 
concerns some commenters describe related to cost, Head Start has a 
long-standing history of using mental health consultants who are 
certified and licensed and we expect programs to meet these 
requirements within their existing budgets and may use a variety of 
strategies, including the use of technology, when capacity is an issue.
    Comment: Some commenters recommended that the standards be revised 
to require parental consent for consultation.
    Response: To help normalize the mental health consultation process 
and reduce prejudice and discrimination around use of mental health 
consultants, we revised paragraph (a)(3) to require programs to obtain 
parental consent for mental health consultation services when they 
enroll children in the program.
    Comment: Commenters suggested we add specific strategies for 
addressing mental health issues and challenging behaviors, including 
home visits, Applied Behavior Analysis, and trauma-informed care. Some 
commenters suggested we require programs track and evaluate mental and 
behavioral health practices in programs.
    Response: While we agree that these strategies can be effective in 
supporting children with behavioral and mental health problems, we 
think it is important to give programs flexibility to address 
individual child needs in the most appropriate way. Therefore, we do 
not prescribe specific practices or strategies, but have revised 
paragraph (b)(1) to reflect the concept in paragraph (a) that programs 
must implement strategies to identify and support children with mental 
health and social and emotional concerns and their families.
    Comment: Some commenters recommended the inclusion of mental health 
services within the context of home visiting or family child care 
options so that these services will be more effectively integrated 
throughout various program settings.
    Response: We agree that mental health consultants should support 
staff in all Head Start program models and revised paragraphs (b)(2) 
and (3) to clarify our intent.
    Comment: Commenters further suggested that internalizing or 
withdrawn behaviors should be explicitly referenced throughout the 
requirements to broaden the focus of child mental health beyond 
behaviors that can disrupt classes. Commenters also noted these 
problems need to be both identified as well as supported.
    Response: We also added paragraph (b)(4) to explicitly include both 
internalizing and externalizing problems as issues for mental health 
consultants to assist staff to address.
    Comment: Commenters stated that this section does not reflect the 
important role of parents and parental mental health.

[[Page 61339]]

    Response: We agree that parents are critical to the promotion of 
child mental health and did not intend for the requirements to exclude 
them. We have added paragraph (b)(5) to explicitly include parents.
Section 1302.46 Family Support Services for Health, Nutrition, and 
Mental Health
    This section includes the requirements that address health 
education and support services that programs must deliver to families. 
It consolidated requirements from the previous rule to improve clarity 
and transparency. This section highlights the critical importance of 
parental health literacy, which has been linked to the health and long-
term outcomes of young children.98 99 Commenters supported 
this section and our reorganization. Commenters also offered 
suggestions to expand, reduce, and reorganize the requirements. We 
discuss comments and our responses below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \98\ Herman, A., & Jackson, P. (2011). Empowering low-income 
parents with skills to reduce excess pediatric emergency room and 
clinic visits through a tailored low literacy training intervention. 
Journal of Health Communications, 15(8), 895-910.
    \99\ Dewalt, D.A., & Hink, A., (2009). Health Literacy and Child 
Health Outcomes: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Pediatrics, 
124(3), 265-274.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: We received some comments with broad suggestions for this 
section. For example, commenters suggested we include a specific 
emphasis on father involvement. Commenters expressed concerns that 
staff do not have time to comply with the section's requirements and 
that the requirements are too broad. Others recommended we move this 
section to follow Sec.  1302.41.
    Response: We did not make revisions to address these comments. This 
section addresses parents, which is defined to encompass mothers and 
fathers. Strategies to promote father engagement are included in 
subpart E. In addition, we believe these requirements are critical to 
supporting child and family outcomes and are an essential part of Head 
Start's comprehensive two-generation approach. Finally, we think the 
organization of subpart D clearly conveys requirements and did not 
revise the order of the sections.
    Comment: Some commenters suggested revisions to increase the 
emphasis on health literacy and parent collaboration.
    Response: We made slight revisions to paragraph (a), which we 
believe appropriately emphasizes parent collaboration, including for 
individuals with low health literacy.
    Comment: Some commenters recommended we expand services in 
paragraphs (b)(1) related to nutrition, breastfeeding, tobacco, lead 
exposure, safe sleep and mental health. Some expressed concern that the 
requirements did not appropriately reflect the important role of 
parents and parental mental health and suggested revisions. They also 
recommended we revise our terminology about mental health to more 
clearly indicate the breadth of issues that should be addressed.
    Response: We agree and revised these three paragraphs to better 
clarify the topics on which programs must offer to collaborate with 
parents to include health and developmental consequences of tobacco and 
lead exposure, safe sleep, healthy eating and the negative health 
consequences of sugar-sweetened beverages; breastfeeding support and 
treatment options for parental mental health or substance abuse 
problems; and more broadly defined child mental health and social and 
emotional well-being.
    Comment: Some commenters recommended we include requirements to 
specifically assist children and families accessing health insurance 
for which they are eligible.
    Response: We agree that programs play an important role in 
assisting families who need health insurance. We revised paragraph 
(b)(2)(i) to specify that programs provide information about public and 
private health insurance and designated enrollment periods.
Section 1302.47 Safety Practices
    This section includes the requirements for strong safety practices 
and procedures that will ensure the health and safety of all children. 
Basic health and safety practices are essential to ensure high-quality 
care. In some instances, we moved away from prescribing extensive 
detail when it is unnecessary to maintain a high standard of safety. 
Instead, we allow programs flexibility to adjust their policies and 
procedures according to the most up to date information about how to 
keep children safe. To ensure programs are equipped with adequate 
instruction on how to keep children safe at all times, we encourage 
programs to consult a new ACF resource called Caring for Our Children 
Basics (Basics).\100\ The section includes health and safety 
requirements for facilities, equipment, materials, background checks, 
safety training, safety practices, administrative safety procedures, 
and disaster preparedness plans. These recommendations were informed by 
research and best practice. We received many comments on this section 
including suggestions to expand, reduce, and clarify requirements. We 
address the comments we received on this section below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \100\ https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/hslc/tta-system/health/docs/caring-for-our-children-basics.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Many commenters appreciated our focus on health and safety 
systems instead of extensive checklists and recommended monitoring 
protocols reflect this approach.
    Response: We agree that the systems approach reflected in this rule 
is preferable to a checklist approach and have made a number of small 
changes to further support the systems approach, including in 
paragraphs (b)(1)(ix) and (b)(2)(v) adding that programs must keep 
facilities and materials safe through an ongoing system of preventive 
maintenance. This systems approach will also be reflected in monitoring 
in the future.
    Comment: Some commenters recommended we rely on state licensing for 
health and safety standards and not include different health and safety 
standards.
    Response: Many states have stringent health and safety regulations, 
but some do not. In addition, not all Head Start programs are state 
licensed. Therefore, we retained this section in the final rule; 
however, we have made some language changes to align the health and 
safety training for staff to the health and safety requirements in the 
CCDBG Act. This will relieve the burden of different or conflicting 
licensing standards.
    Comment: Some commenters addressed our provision in paragraph (a) 
that programs should consult Caring for our Children Basics for 
additional information to develop and implement adequate safety 
policies and practices detailed further in the subpart. Some commenters 
appreciated the flexibility we afforded programs under this section 
though noted that reduced specificity may compel programs to consult 
other authorities. Some commenters supported our inclusion of Caring 
for Our Children Basics and some suggested we require the specifics 
recommendations from Basics and include them in the regulation. Some 
commenters objected to the requirement and offered alternatives. For 
example, some commenters recommended we require programs to either 
``follow'' Basics or ``consult'' Basics so our intent is clearer. Some 
commenters stated the requirements in Basics were unnecessarily high 
and costly. Other commenters requested additional clarification or 
expressed concern about what would happen if there were

[[Page 61340]]

inconsistencies between Basics and state or local standards. Some 
seemed confused about the difference between Caring for Our Children 
and Caring for Our Children Basics or pointed out differences between 
the two documents. Some commenters were concerned about potential 
inconsistencies if Basics is updated more frequently than Head Start 
Program Performance Standards. Some commenters were concerned we would 
find programs to be out of compliance if they failed to meet all the 
recommendations included under Basics.
    Response: We believe our reference to Basics will help clarify 
minimum health and safety expectations across early childhood settings. 
Many programs already exceed what Caring for Our Children Basics 
recommends as best practice. Other programs may need guidance in 
establishing their policies, procedures and systems and Basics will be 
a useful resource guide for these programs. Furthermore, Basics 
represents a uniform set of health and safety standards and provides 
specific guidance to assist programs in achieving the standards 
identified in this regulation. We believe Basics will be an important 
resource for programs and useful tool for achieving consistency across 
programs. Therefore, we retained our requirement in paragraph (a) that 
encourages programs to consult Basics in developing their safety 
standards and training.
    Comment: We received comments requesting clarification on the 
introductory text in paragraph (b) and paragraph (b)(1). For example, a 
commenter suggested we delete ``at a minimum'' in the introductory text 
in paragraph (b) to improve clarity. In addition, some commenters 
suggested we require family child care providers store guns and 
ammunition so children cannot readily access them. They also 
recommended we require programs to train staff on safe gun and 
ammunition storage procedures. Other commenters noted we omitted food 
preparation from paragraph (b)(1)(viii). Others suggested we require 
smoke-free environments and promote smoke-free environments for 
children to families and other caregivers.
    Response: We agree the placement of ``at a minimum'' in the 
introductory text in paragraph (b) was confusing and moved it to 
paragraphs (b)(1), (2), (4), (5), (6), and (7) to improve clarity. We 
did not include revisions on gun safety because we think the 
requirement in paragraph (b)(1)(vii) that states facilities must be 
free from guns or firearms that are accessible to children is 
sufficient. Local programs may elect to provide training on storage 
safety but we did not require it. We revised paragraph (b)(1)(viii) to 
clarify that facilities have separate toileting and diapering areas 
from areas for food preparation. This reflects an important basic 
requirement from the previous program standards. We agree smoke-free 
environments are important. We did not make revisions to address this 
comment because paragraph (b)(1) already requires facilities be free 
from pollutants and we prohibit smoking in all Head Start facilities 
under the terms of grant awards.
    Comment: We received comments about our requirement in paragraph 
(b)(2) that all equipment and materials meet standards set by the 
Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and the American Society for 
Testing and Materials, International (ASTM). Some commenters agreed 
with this requirement. Commenters were concerned about the complexity 
and cost of meeting CPSC and ASTM standards. Some commenters suggested 
we reference the full names of the CPSC and the ASTM to improve 
clarity.
    Response: We agree with commenters that it may be difficult for 
programs to identify all equipment and materials that are covered by 
the CPSC and the ASTM. Our understanding is that most equipment and 
material used in early childhood programs is labeled as compliant with 
applicable standards. In order to reduce potential burden for programs, 
we struck what was paragraph (b)(2)(iii) and revised paragraph (b)(2) 
to specify that indoor and outdoor play equipment, feeding chairs, 
strollers, and cribs must meet the applicable ASTM or CPSC standards 
and other materials and equipment used in the care of enrolled children 
must also meet those standards as applicable. We also included the full 
names of these entities for better clarity.
    Comment: Some commenters recommended we include more specificity in 
paragraph (b)(2)(i). Specifically, they suggested we include specific 
language from Caring for Our Children about ensuring all indoor and 
outdoor equipment and materials and play spaces are clean and safe and 
appropriately disinfected.
    Response: We did not revise paragraph (b)(2)(i) to make it more 
specific. We expect programs to determine what they must do to provide 
safe and healthy environments and encourage them to consult Caring for 
Our Children Basics or other similar resources for additional guidance.
    Comment: We received comments on paragraph (b)(4) that address 
safety training. Commenters requested more clarification, such as what 
topics programs must include in the initial training and how often they 
must offer this training. They also asked us to clarify what positions 
are included under ``all staff.'' Other comments offered 
recommendations for additional specificity to the required staff 
training topics. For example, some commenters recommended additional 
specificity about safe sleep practices, and some commenters suggest we 
add cold weather safety.
    Response: We agree that we were not clear enough about which staff 
needed safety training and whether it was necessary for all staff to be 
trained on all required topics. Therefore, we revised paragraph (b)(4) 
to clarify what safety training was required for staff with regular 
child contact in paragraph (b)(4)(i) and what safety training was 
necessary for staff without regular child contact in a new requirement 
at paragraph (b)(4)(ii). We have also clarified that the areas of 
training provided should be appropriate based on staff roles and ages 
of children they work with. Further, we did not specify in paragraph 
(b)(4) of this section what topics programs must include in the initial 
training and how often must they offer this training. We expect 
programs to design training curricula and determine how often this 
training must be provided in order to ensure staff are properly trained 
to keep children safe. We did not make revisions to address other 
requests for more specificity because we did not think we did not 
believe that level of prescription was necessary to ensure child 
safety.
    Comment: Commenters recommended we replace ``spills of bodily 
fluids,'' with ``exposure to blood and body fluids'' in hygiene 
practices.
    Response: We revised this requirement accordingly, now found at 
paragraph (b)(6)(iii).
    Comment: We received many comments about safety requirements for 
addressing child food allergies, which we addressed primarily in what 
was paragraph (b)(8)(vi) in the NPRM and is paragraph (b)(7)(vi) in the 
final rule. Many commenters were concerned the requirement created 
privacy concerns and offered alternative suggestions. Some commenters 
were concerned standards were not strong enough and parents might 
decline to enroll their child. Specific recommendations included: 
Implementation of a system to share allergy information with relevant 
staff; to have a training system to ensure staff are prepared to manage 
allergy related emergencies; posting a list under a sign indicating 
that there is confidential information; and making

[[Page 61341]]

sure all staff are aware of all allergies and using scan cards that 
include allergy information.
    Response: A program's most critical responsibility is to keep 
children safe. We did not make changes to the food allergy requirements 
in paragraph (b)(7)(vi). We require programs to implement 
administrative safety procedures, including posting child allergy 
information prominently where staff can view where food is served. We 
do not believe this requirement creates privacy concerns. We believe 
that with the very young children that Head Start serves, the threat 
posed by any staff or volunteer who is serving food not knowing about a 
child's allergy is a far greater threat than others knowing about a 
child's food allergy. We have also made this clear in subpart C of part 
1303 on Protections for the Privacy of Child Records.
    Comment: We received comments about the requirement in paragraph 
(c) that programs must report any safety incidents in accordance with 
Sec.  1302.102(d)(1)(ii). For example, commenters requested 
clarification about the timeline or suggested the reporting requirement 
was unnecessary. We received many comments about Sec.  
1302.102(d)(1)(ii) to which this requirement in paragraph (c) is 
aligned.
    Response: We revised Sec.  1302.102(d)(1)(ii) to reflect the many 
comments we received on that requirement. We discuss those comments and 
our revision in subpart J. We think those revisions provide sufficient 
clarity for this provision.
Family and Community Engagement Program Services; Subpart E
    This subpart includes program requirements for family and community 
engagement services. It requires programs integrate family engagement 
into all systems and program services. It also includes the strategies 
and approaches programs must use for family engagement and strengthens 
the requirements for offering parent activities that promote child 
learning and development. Further, it details the family partnership 
process, including identification of family strengths and needs and 
individualized family partnership services. Finally, it details program 
requirements for community partnerships and coordination with other 
programs and systems. This subpart retains many provisions from the 
previous program standards but consolidates, clarifies, and reorganizes 
them and strengthens them with a greater focus on family services 
outcomes instead of processes and a requirement to offer research-based 
parenting curriculum.
    We received many comments on this subpart. Some commenters 
supported the improved flexibility, attention to children's learning, 
and integration of family engagement. However, many commenters were 
concerned this subpart contributed to an overarching theme of a 
weakened role for parents. We believe parents are foundational to Head 
Start's success and that Head Start's two-generation approach is 
integral to its impact on the children and families it serves. It was 
not our intent to diminish the role of parents in the NPRM. The NPRM 
built on the groundbreaking work of the Parent, Family and Community 
Engagement Framework (PFCEF) to focus on system-wide parent, family, 
and community supports that would create a roadmap for progress in 
achieving the types of outcomes that lead to positive and enduring 
change for children and families. However, it was clear from public 
comments that we needed to revise provisions to ensure the integral 
role of parents in Head Start is appropriately reflected in the final 
rule. We discuss public comments as well as our responses and revisions 
below.
General Comments
    Comment: Many commenters expressed concern that family partnership 
services were too focused on child development and learning and 
recommended we revise them to focus more broadly on strategies to 
enhance families' social and economic well-being and leadership skills. 
In addition to recommending revisions to separate parent and family 
services from child learning and development, some commenters offered 
specific suggestions, such as identification of economic well-being as 
part of family well-being and pilot programs to support two-generation 
practices.
    Response: Section 636 of the Head Start Act specifies the purpose 
of Head Start is to improve the school readiness of children and 
provide services to families that support children's cognitive, social, 
and emotional development and school readiness. Research shows that 
family social and economic well-being greatly impacts children's 
development and school readiness,101 102 103 104 105 which 
is why two-generation approaches like Head Start are so important. We 
revised Sec.  1302.50(a) to further clarify the purpose of parent and 
family engagement as supporting children's learning and development. We 
made substantial revisions in Sec. Sec.  1302.50 and 1302.52 to clarify 
that family partnership services should include the depth and breadth 
appropriate to support families. We also revised Sec. Sec.  
1302.50(b)(3) and 1302.52(a) to clarify that family well-being includes 
family safety, health, and economic stability. Thus, we believe the 
final rule appropriately reflects the statutory requirement that family 
engagement services be provided to improve children's learning and 
development and the importance of strong family partnership services in 
support of that purpose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \101\ Kingston, S., Huang, K. Y., Calzada, E., 
Dawson[hyphen]McClure, S., & Brotman, L. (2013). Parent involvement 
in education as a moderator of family and neighborhood socioeconomic 
context on school readiness among young children. Journal of 
Community Psychology, 41(3), 265-276.
    \102\ Soltis, K., Davidson, T.M., Moreland, A., Felton, J., & 
Dumas, J.E. (2015). Associations among parental stress, child 
competence, and school-readiness: Findings from the PACE study. 
Journal of child and family studies, 24(3), 649-657.
    \103\ Fantuzzo, J., McWayne, C., Perry, M. A., & Childs, S. 
(2004). Multiple dimensions of family involvement and their 
relations to behavioral and learning competencies for urban, low-
income children. School Psychology Review, 33(4), 467-480.
    \104\ McWayne, C., Fantuzzo, J., Cohen, H. L., & Sekino, Y. 
(2004). A multivariate examination of parent involvement and the 
social and academic competencies of urban kindergarten children. 
Psychology in the Schools, 41(3), 363-377.
    \105\ Barnard, W. M. (2004). Parent involvement in elementary 
school and educational attainment. Children and Youth Services 
Review, 26, 39-62.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Many commenters broadly recommended revisions to emphasize 
the key role of parents in all areas of program operations.
    Response: We agree that parents should be engaged in all aspects of 
program operations. Effective, comprehensive family engagement depends 
upon strategies that support family well-being and family engagement 
being embedded throughout systems and services. We believe the rule 
accomplishes this integration and note that collaboration with parents 
and families and parent and family engagement and services are 
integrated into all program services. In addition to the extensive 
parent and family services required in this subpart and in Program 
Governance, parent and family engagement services are integrated 
throughout program operations. For example, we integrate these services 
in the education subpart (e.g., Sec.  1302.34), the health services 
subpart (e.g., Sec. Sec.  1302.41 and 1302.46), the disabilities 
subpart (e.g., Sec.  1302.62), the transitions subpart (Sec. Sec.  
1302.70(c) and 1302.71(b)), personnel policies (e.g., Sec. Sec.  
1302.90(a) and 1302.92(c)(3)), and program management (subpart J). 
However, we did make some revisions to address this

[[Page 61342]]

concern. As previously noted, we reinstated parent committees as part 
of the governing structure in part 1301. Also as previously noted, we 
revised the family engagement section title in the Education and Child 
Development subpart to reflect the broader nature of parent and family 
engagement. In addition, to reflect that family and community program 
services in this subpart are not limited to partnership services, we 
revised the subpart title to read ``Family and Community Engagement 
Program Services.'' We also revised Sec.  1302.50(b)(1) to recognize 
parents as children's primary ``teachers and nurturers'' to more 
specifically define the parent's role.
    Comment: Many commenters recommend we reorganize part 1302 to place 
subpart E--Family and Community Engagement Program Services--before 
subpart C--Education and Child Development Services. They stated this 
would help convey the centrality of parent engagement to Head Start.
    Response: We agree that parent engagement is foundational to Head 
Start. We think this is appropriately reflected in this subpart as well 
as in parent-related provisions integrated into every other subpart in 
part 1302--Program Operations. Therefore, we do not think reorganizing 
the subparts is necessary to reflect parents' essential roles in the 
lives of their children and as partners in the Head Start program. We 
did not reorder any subparts in part 1302.
    Comment: Some commenters recommended we do more to integrate the 
Parent, Family, and Community Engagement Framework (PFCEF) into the 
rule. For example, some commenters recommended we include the PFCEF 
title and outcomes definitions into the rule. Others recommended we add 
more specificity related to the PFCEF and/or stronger requirements to 
track and measure progress in the outcomes included in the PFCEF.
    Response: We agree programs have made important progress in service 
delivery through integration of the PFCEF in their systems and 
services. Therefore, this subpart included many of those key strategies 
and approaches, including a strong focus on family engagement outcomes. 
In response to comments, we revised the final rule to provide clearer 
identification of PFCEF outcomes in Sec.  1302.52(b), alignment of the 
individualized family partnership services to the PFCEF outcomes in 
Sec.  1302.52(c)(1), and stronger requirements for tracking outcomes in 
Sec.  1302.52(c)(3).
Section 1302.50 Family Engagement
    This section included the fundamental requirements that apply 
broadly to all parent and family engagement activities as well as 
general parent and family program practices. It requires programs to 
integrate family engagement strategies into all systems and program 
services and details fundamental requirements for approaches to family 
engagement. To address overarching concerns about conveying the 
centrality of family engagement and the important role of parents, we 
made some structural and other revisions to requirements in this 
section. In addition to some of the revisions to paragraph (a) that we 
previously noted, we made revisions such as changing the section title 
from ``In general'' to ``Family engagement'' and deleting the reference 
to community partnerships to clearly differentiate requirements in the 
sections related to family engagement in Sec. Sec.  1302.50, 1302.51, 
and 1302.52 from the requirements for community engagement in Sec.  
1302.53. We also added the title ``Family engagement approach'' to 
paragraph (b) and changed the structure for the lead-in to paragraph 
(b) so that its requirements for family engagement are clearly 
delineated. We discuss comments and our responses below.
    Comment: Some commenters suggested revising the requirement in what 
was paragraph (b)(2) in the NPRM and has been moved to paragraph (b)(6) 
in the final rule to ensure information is provided in a family's 
preferred language to ensure that they access and participate in 
services. Another commenter recommended we explicitly require materials 
be accessible to families who are ``low literacy'' or not proficient in 
English.
    Response: Though we agree it is important that programs make 
information and services available in the languages spoken by enrolled 
families, we also understand that programs may have a dozen or more 
languages represented among their enrollment at any one time and that 
some languages may be spoken by only a few members of a community. We 
believe that our requirement in what is now paragraph (b)(6) is 
appropriately specific. We also have confidence that programs will 
consider the needs of the families they enroll, including literacy, in 
their interactions with families.
    Comment: Some commenters supported the father engagement 
requirement in what was paragraph (b)(3) in the NPRM. Other commenters 
stated that father engagement should not be mandated. Some offered 
additional suggestions, such as adding the term ``male'' to father 
engagement to include the men who participate in raising children who 
are not their biological fathers and explicitly adding services for 
lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) parents.
    Response: The definitions of ``family'' and ``parent'' under part 
1305 allow for many variations of people who may have the role of 
parents or guardians or as authorized caregivers. We have retained a 
focus on ``father engagement,'' which is in paragraph (b)(1) in the 
final rule, because research demonstrates that child outcomes improve 
when fathers are positively involved. This does not preclude the 
engagement of other males who may have significant roles in children's 
lives so we do not think we need a broader requirement. While the 
regulation requires that programs implement strategies to engage 
fathers in their children's learning and development, this is not the 
same as mandating father engagement for every father. In fact, the 
requirement in Sec.  1302.15(f) explicitly states that parent 
participation is not required. Because of the inclusive definitions we 
provide for ``parent'' and ``family,'' we did not amend the section to 
specifically list LGBT parents.
    Comment: Some commenters recommended replacing the phrase 
``responsive to and reflect'' with ``incorporates'' in paragraph 
(b)(2).
    Response: We agree and made this revision.
    Comment: Commenters believed the provisions in this section 
weakened family services, and requested changes to ensure that Head 
Start's two-generation approach to addressing family needs is not 
diminished. Some of these commenters requested that Head Start programs 
be allowed to utilize innovative two-generation approaches to deliver 
services to families of enrolled children.
    Response: As stated previously, it was not the intent of the NPRM 
to diminish or weaken the critical role that Head Start programs play 
in supporting families of enrolled children. In addition, Head Start 
programs have always been allowed to utilize two-generation approaches 
to deliver services to families of enrolled children, and many already 
do. However, we added a provision in paragraph (b)(4) to clarify that 
programs should implement innovative strategies to address prevalent 
needs of families across the program. This provision further 
acknowledges that in order to implement such strategies effectively, 
programs may need to leverage

[[Page 61343]]

community partnerships or other funding sources.
Section 1302.51 Parent Activities To Promote Child Learning and 
Development
    This section includes requirements for activities programs must 
provide to parents to assist them in promoting child development and 
learning. It included a new requirement that programs offer the 
opportunity for parents to participate in research-based parenting 
curriculum. We revised this section to include the requirement for 
working with parents to support regular child attendance from Sec.  
1302.50(b)(1) in the NPRM. We believe it is more appropriately placed 
in this section. We also addressed the concern that we did not 
adequately reflect the important role of parents in children's learning 
with revisions in the introductory text in paragraph (a) and paragraph 
(a)(1).
    Comment: As previously noted, some commenters recommended we 
combine the requirements of this section with the requirements of Sec.  
1302.34. Others recommended a reorganization to amplify the importance 
of supporting children's learning as a purpose for family engagement.
    Response: We did not make this revision. We believe Sec.  1302.34 
appropriately integrates parent and family engagement into center-based 
and family child care education services that are focused on the child. 
The activities in this section are parent-focused. We think this 
organization better conveys the importance of integrated family 
engagement services throughout program operations and reflects which 
staff will primarily engage in the service delivery.
    Comment: Some commenters suggested adding language to the 
regulation on informing parents about the importance of bilingualism.
    Response: We agree that programs should provide parents with 
information about brain development, including bilingualism. We added 
paragraph (a)(3) to reflect this suggestion.
    Comment: Some commenters supported the requirement in paragraph (b) 
for a research-based parenting curriculum, noting it would raise 
program quality. Some requested further clarification, such as a list 
of acceptable curricula or whether adaptations could be made to the 
curricula. Others recommended we add more strengths-based language to 
the requirement. Some commenters opposed this requirement for reasons 
such as cost and concern appropriate research-based curricula were 
unavailable or suggested participation be optional because it would be 
burdensome to working parents.
    Response: We think this requirement will improve the quality of 
service delivery. We do not think further clarification is necessary, 
but agree that the requirement should be strengths-based and revised 
paragraph (b) to reflect that characteristic. We also clarified that 
significant adaptations could be made to better meet the needs of the 
populations served, but that in such cases programs must work with an 
expert to develop these adaptations. Technical assistance is available 
on available research-based parenting curricula through the Early 
Childhood Learning and Knowledge Center. We note that parent 
participation is never required as criteria for a child's enrollment in 
Head Start.
Section 1302.52 Family Partnership Services
    This section details the family engagement service requirements 
programs must provide to identify family needs and goals and provide 
services and supports to help meet family needs and achieve their 
goals. It requires a family partnership services approach that is 
initiated as early as possible, shaped by parent interest and need, 
focused on outcomes instead of process, and effectively targeted 
program and staff resources based on need to ensure appropriate levels 
of service intensity. We designed this section to align with the 
Parent, Family, and Community Engagement Framework that has helped 
programs develop an ongoing process of individualized services based on 
family strengths and needs instead of the development of a single 
written plan. Many commenters strongly opposed our elimination of a 
specific family partnership plan. Though we intended to strengthen 
family engagement services with requirements that detail an ongoing 
outcomes-focused process, commenters believed this section diminished 
family engagement services and contributed to an overall weaker role 
for parents in Head Start. We address these and other comments below.
    Comment: Many commenters strongly suggested we restore the written 
family partnership agreement. Commenters articulated concern that 
removal of the requirement for a written agreement weakened family 
services in Head Start. Other commenters thought that eliminating the 
requirement for a written agreement meant we eliminated the family goal 
setting process. Though some commenters agreed that the paper document 
can become more of a paperwork process than the means to supporting 
families in identifying and achieving goals, they still felt that the 
written agreement is an important step in formalizing the process. Some 
commenters expressed support for the increased local flexibility 
afforded by not requiring a written agreement.
    Response: We intended for this subpart and this section 
specifically to streamline requirements, place an emphasis on outcomes 
over process, and allow more local flexibility to implement effective 
processes and strategies for meeting family service outcomes. We did 
not intend for this section to diminish the program's two-generation 
approach or the strength and breadth of family services.
    We made revisions to this subpart and section to clarify our intent 
for the family partnership services, including that it must include a 
family partnership agreement. We added this provision in Sec.  
1302.50(b)(3). We also added Sec.  1302.50(b)(5) in the final rule to 
require a program's family engagement approach to include partnership 
with families to identify needs, interests, strengths, goals, services 
and resources that support parents. As previously noted, we revised 
paragraph (a) in this section to clarify that family well-being 
includes family safety, health, and economic stability. Also as 
previously noted, we revised paragraph (b) to strengthen alignment 
between intake and family assessment procedures and identification of 
family strengths and needs to the outcomes of the Parent, Family, and 
Community, Engagement Framework. These changes help clarify that the 
rule does not narrow the breadth or depth of family services that are 
ultimately aimed at promoting the school readiness of children.
    Finally, we made significant revisions to paragraph (c) to detail 
the full process of family partnership services. In paragraph (c)(1), 
we require programs to offer individualized services that identify 
family interests, needs, and aspirations related to the family 
engagement outcomes in the PFCEF. In paragraph (c)(2), we require 
programs to help families achieve their identified outcomes. In 
paragraph (c)(3), we require programs to establish and implement a 
family partnership agreement process, including a family partnership 
agreement, to review family progress, revise goals, evaluate and track 
whether identified needs and goals are met, and adjust strategies on an 
ongoing basis. In paragraph (c)(4), we provide programs with 
flexibility to target resources to ensure appropriate levels of service 
intensity.

[[Page 61344]]

    We believe the revisions to this section and to Sec.  1302.50 
strengthen program quality through a focus on outcomes instead of 
process, dispel concerns about the rule diminishing family partnership 
services, and will ensure programs implement strong and effective 
family partnership services that strengthen families and improve child 
outcomes.
    Comment: Some commenters suggested we clarify whether parent goals 
should focus on the parent or the parent's goals for the child. Others 
recommended that we be more explicit about data and performance 
indicators related to family services and well-being.
    Response: We believe this subpart provides appropriate flexibility 
for parents to identify their needs, goals, and aspirations so we did 
not include additional specificity about the types of goals parents 
set. We revised this section to reframe a requirement that was in 
paragraph (c)(2) in the NPRM and paragraph (c)(3) in the final rule to 
ensure programs review, evaluate, and track family needs and goals and 
appropriate strategies on an ongoing basis.
Section 1302.53 Community Partnerships and Coordination With Other 
Early Childhood and Education Programs
    This section includes program requirements for community 
partnerships. It largely maintains provisions from the previous 
performance standards about ongoing collaborative relationships and 
partnerships with community organizations. It requires programs take an 
active role in promoting coordinated systems of comprehensive early 
childhood services. It added a new requirement for a memorandum of 
understanding with the appropriate local entity responsible for 
managing publicly funded preschool programs to reflect requirements 
from the Head Start Act. It also added new requirements for 
coordination with state and local Quality Rating and Improvement 
Systems and state data systems to ensure that we are maximizing access 
to services, reducing duplication and fostering informed quality 
improvement.
    We reorganized and retitled this section to improve clarity. For 
example, we reorganized Sec. Sec.  1302.50 and 1302.54 so community 
partnership requirements were solely consolidated under Sec.  1302.53. 
We reorganized this section to describe program requirements for 
ongoing collaborative relationships and partnerships with community 
organizations in paragraph (a). We moved what was paragraph (a) in the 
NPRM to paragraph (b) in the final rule and restructured requirements 
for memorandum of understanding, QRIS, and data systems to fall under 
paragraph (b) to better articulate the linkages between these three 
requirements and those in paragraph (b) that require programs take an 
active role in promoting coordinated systems of comprehensive early 
childhood services. We also revised and moved the requirement to 
participate in statewide longitudinal data systems from subpart J to 
this section.
    We also moved the requirement about Health Services Advisory 
Committees from paragraph (c) to Sec.  1302.40(b). In addition, we 
renamed this entire section ``Community partnerships and coordination 
with other programs and systems'' to more clearly identify its 
applicability and purpose. We received many comments on this section. 
We discuss them and our responses below.
    Comment: We received many comments on the community partnership 
requirements described in what is now paragraph (a) but was paragraph 
(b) in the NPRM. Many commenters suggested we add new partners with 
which programs should establish collaborative relationships and 
partnerships, such as programs funded through the Runaway Homeless 
Youth Act, financial partners, and school boards. Other commenters were 
concerned we removed explicit mention of nutrition and housing 
assistance agencies. Some commenters recommended we not add any 
specific community partnerships and let programs decide based on 
community data. Some commenters requested additional clarification, 
such as for greater specificity for coordinating community plans or 
whether we will allocate funds to comply with this section of the 
regulation.
    Response: We agree that there are a variety of potential partners 
with the capacity to help meet the comprehensive needs of children and 
families. However, rather than continue to add to the list of potential 
specific partnerships, we believe programs will appropriately assess 
their family and community needs and identify partnerships that will 
support their service delivery. In addition, we note this section 
promotes local flexibility in the development of community partnerships 
and there is no requirement for a program to have community plan. 
Programs may request additional assistance for guidance with the 
development of community plans and partnerships. Finally, Congress 
appropriates funds for the Head Start program. We do not have the 
authority to provide additional funds.
    Comment: We received many comments about our proposal, now found in 
paragraph (b)(2), that stated programs should participate in their 
state or local QRIS under certain conditions. Some commenters supported 
this requirement for reasons including: it increases a program's 
marketability; it improves information available to parents; it can 
reduce inefficiencies and inequities by aligning Head Start programs 
with other child care and state pre-kindergarten programs; it 
encourages quality improvement; it could direct more families to Head 
Start; and it makes progress toward common indicators of quality across 
programs. Some commenters asked for clarification, such as how to 
incentivize participation in QRIS. Other commenters suggested 
revisions, such as moving it to another section or adding criteria for 
specific subgroups such as DLLs.
    Many commenters opposed this requirement and recommended its 
removal. Commenters expressed a number of reasons including: QRIS is 
not available in every state; it is duplicative of monitoring, 
licensing, and NAEYC accreditation; it would be too costly and 
burdensome; and research is mixed on its benefits to programs or 
families.
    Response: We believe it is important that Head Start programs 
participate in state or local quality improvement efforts and that the 
value of QRIS outweighs the challenges, including giving parents more 
informed choices about the quality of programs. While it is true that 
most local education agencies are exempt from licensing, Preschool 
Development Grants require participation in QRIS. We believe this 
signals recognition of the value of QRIS participation and that as 
participation occurs across the spectrum of programs; it will continue 
to strengthen both local programs and the QRIS itself. We also 
recognize that there may be challenges that make it difficult for all 
programs to participate in QRIS, including wait times, and a lack of 
validated systems. However, we also understand that unqualified 
mandated participation could lead to duplication in monitoring and 
rating and that the conditions as we outlined them in the NPRM may have 
been too stringent. Therefore, we modified this provision in the final 
rule. Specifically we removed the qualifier that the tiers must be 
validated and added a condition that the state must accept Head Start 
monitoring data as evidence of meeting indicators in the

[[Page 61345]]

QRIS tiers and that participation must not impact a program's ability 
to meet Head Start standards. We believe the final rule sets a strong 
and reasonable way for Head Start programs to participate in these 
important state systems without duplication and burden.
    Comment: Some commenters opposed the requirement for tribal 
programs specifically, stating that it was not appropriate in these 
service areas.
    Response: We agree that state and local QRIS systems are not 
comparably structured to serve in tribal areas as they are in other 
service areas. Therefore, we revised paragraph (b) to clarify that 
tribal programs only need to consider whether participation in state or 
local QRIS would benefit their programs and families.
    Comment: Some commenters requested we combine the two standards on 
Statewide Longitudinal Data System (SLDS): one in this section and 
another in Sec.  1302.101 on partnering with the SLDS, and requested 
clarification of the requirements.
    Response: We agree with this comment and think that the two mostly 
duplicative requirements may lead to confusion. Thus, we removed the 
requirement from Sec.  1302.101 and combined it into Sec.  1302.53. In 
the process, we dropped the terms ``early childhood data systems,'' 
``statewide data system,'' and ``Statewide Longitudinal Data System'' 
and replaced them with ``state education data systems'' to make it non-
program specific and less confusing.
Additional Services for Children With Disabilities; Subpart F
    This subpart includes the standards for additional services for 
children with disabilities and their families. These provisions align 
with the Act and reflect requirements that children must be identified 
and receive services as prescribed in IDEA, focus on effective service 
delivery instead of outdated or unused documentation, and incorporate 
best practices. In order to communicate its critical importance, we 
also incorporated requirements for the full inclusion and participation 
of children with disabilities in all program activities, including but 
not limited to children eligible for services under IDEA. Commenters 
generally supported our overall approach to serve children with 
disabilities and their families. We discuss these and additional 
comments below.
General Comments
    Comment: Some commenters were concerned our elimination of what was 
part 1308 in the prior rule meant we eliminated requirements for 
services to children with disabilities.
    Response: While there is no longer a part 1308, the final rule 
preserves the critical role of Early Head Start and Head Start programs 
in screening and referring children with suspected disabilities and as 
a program where children with disabilities are prioritized for services 
and fully integrated into every aspect of service delivery. We believe 
the final rule builds upon Head Start's long-standing commitment to 
serving children with disabilities and strengthens these services 
through part 1302. The final rule reflects the appropriate role of 
local agencies responsible for implementing IDEA, as required by IDEA, 
for evaluation, eligibility for services, establishment of an IFSP or 
IEP, and implementation of early intervention services or special 
education and related services, as appropriate.
    Comment: Some commenters suggested we include additional services 
or specific approaches to service delivery in this subpart. For 
example, some commenters suggested audiology services or Applied 
Behavioral Analysis be added under this subpart.
    Response: It is not our role to identify the specific type of 
special education and related services used with children with 
disabilities. We think audiology screening for all children is 
essential and require it under subpart D, which addresses health 
services. We did not make revisions.
    Comment: Commenters suggested adding a requirement to ensure DLLs 
struggling with English acquisition are not misidentified as having a 
developmental delay or disability. Some commenters suggested that staff 
should receive training to work with DLLs who also have disabilities.
    Response: We believe these topics are more appropriate for 
technical assistance or guidance.
Section 1302.60 Full Participation in Program Services and Activities
    This section includes an outline of the requirements contained in 
this subpart and an assurance that all children with disabilities, 
including but not limited to those who are eligible for services under 
IDEA, receive all applicable program services and are able to fully 
participate in all program activities.
    Comment: Many commenters recommended we revise this section to 
include specific reference to inclusive program practices.
    Response: We agree that it is essential to specify that services 
should be provided in the least restrictive possible setting and made 
revisions to reflect this clarification.
Section 1302.61 Additional Services for Children
    This section describes the additional services programs must 
provide to children with disabilities and children referred for but 
awaiting the determination of IDEA eligibility by the local agency 
responsible for implementing IDEA. It requires programs meet the 
individualized needs of children with disabilities and provide any 
necessary modifications and supports necessary to support the full 
participation of children with disabilities. It includes a new 
requirement for programs to provide individualized services and 
supports to the maximum extent possible to children awaiting 
determination of IDEA eligibility. Further, it includes additional 
services for children with an IFSP or IEP. Commenters were generally 
supportive of this section but raised some concerns and suggestions, 
which we discuss below.
    Comment: Some commenters offered unqualified support for this 
section, but others expressed concerns about the proposal in paragraph 
(b) to provide services and supports while children are awaiting 
determination of IDEA eligibility. For example, concerns included 
program staff may not have the expertise to know what services should 
be provided, the cost of services. Some commenters stated the standard 
was unnecessary because programs already individualize services for 
children.
    Response: There is sometimes a significant delay in local agencies 
determining eligibility for IDEA and the development of an IFSP or IEP; 
even though both IDEA Part C and Part B have timelines for conducting 
evaluations, and for developing an IFSP or IEP once the eligibility 
determination has been made. Therefore, we think it is important that 
programs review all reasonable avenues for providing services that 
maximally support a child's individual needs, including services and 
supports for which the child may be eligible through insurance pending 
an eligibility determination under IDEA and the development of an IFSP 
or IEP. However, we made revisions to paragraph (b) to clarify our 
expectations including that programs should work with parents to 
determine if services and supports are available through a child's 
health insurance and/or whether they should be provided pursuant to 
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act if the child satisfies the 
definition of disability in section

[[Page 61346]]

705(9)(b) of the Rehabilitation Act. When such supports are not 
available through alternate means while the evaluation results are 
pending, though staff are not required to provide early intervention 
services or special education and related services, programs must 
individualize program services based on available information such as 
parent input and child observation, screening, and assessment data. We 
also clarify in paragraph (b) that program funds may be used for this 
purpose.
    Comment: Some commenters stated they would like to be able to 
include children who receive services while IDEA eligibility is 
pending, as described in paragraph (b), in the calculation to meet the 
requirement that ten percent of total enrollment are children with 
disabilities.
    Response: Though we understand that not all children with 
disabilities are eligible for services under IDEA, the Act stipulates 
that children must have an IFSP or IEP under IDEA to be counted as a 
child with a disability. Therefore, we have no authority to change how 
the ten percent requirement is calculated. We did not revise this 
provision.
    Comment: Some commenters suggested we require the local educational 
agency to operate and coordinate with the Head Start program, similar 
to how Head Start is required to form agreements with the local 
educational agency.
    Response: We appreciate that this would foster collaboration but we 
have no authority over local educational agencies. Programs are 
encouraged to develop ongoing working relationships with local agencies 
responsible for implementing IDEA.
    Comment: Some commenters offered suggestions to further strengthen 
and clarify the standards for additional services for children with an 
IFSP or IEP.
    Response: In response to these comments, we revised paragraph 
(c)(1)(iii) and added a new standard at paragraph (c)(1)(v). The 
revision to paragraph (c)(1)(iii) clarifies that many elements of an 
IFSP or IEP will be implemented by ``other appropriate agencies, 
related service providers and specialists.'' Our addition at paragraph 
(c)(1)(v) clarifies that most services can be effectively delivered 
within the classroom setting. Providing services in the ``natural 
environment'' reduces transitions, increases inclusion, and increases 
the opportunity for gains to be generalized. We think it is an 
important stipulation that programs should work with parents and 
agencies responsible for implementing IDEA so that IFSPs and IEPs 
specify that services be delivered within children's own classes or 
family child care homes, if determined appropriate for the child.
Section 1302.62 Additional Services for Parents
    This section described the additional services programs must 
implement to support the parents of children with disabilities. These 
standards reorganize, clarify, and build upon previous regulations.
    Comment: A commenter recommended that programs be required to 
provide information to their state parent and health assistance 
centers. Another commenter recommended we clarify some of the 
difference between Parts B and C of IDEA.
    Response: Though we agree this can be useful information, it is not 
universally applicable and can be effectively provided as guidance or 
technical assistance so we did not make revisions. We believe our 
definition of ``local agency responsible for implementing IDEA'' is 
sufficiently clear and did not add further clarification.
Section 1302.63 Coordination and Collaboration With the Local Agency 
Responsible for Implementing IDEA
    This section describes program requirements to coordinate and 
collaborate with the local agency (or agencies) responsible for 
implementing IDEA. This section retains many provisions from the 
previous regulation but streamlines and updates them to focus less on 
planning and more on service delivery. We believe coordination and 
collaboration with the local agencies responsible for implementing IDEA 
reflect an essential partnership in meeting the needs of children with 
disabilities in Head Start. Commenters generally supported this 
section.
    Comment: Commenters expressed concern that children with 
disabilities sometimes are required to leave Early Head Start or Head 
Start or be dually enrolled to receive special education and related 
services at another site and offered recommendations to strengthen our 
standards.
    Response: We fully support the requirements of IDEA that services 
must be provided in the least restrictive possible environment. We 
revised paragraph (b) to address concerns about dually enrolled 
children and the setting in which children receive services.
Transition Services; Subpart G
    This subpart describes requirements for supporting transitions for 
children and families as they move between programs and settings. This 
subpart reorganizes and updates previous standards to reflect best 
practice for better clarity and implementation. Commenters supported 
many of the provisions in subpart G, such as the detailed requirements 
for activities to support transitions into kindergarten or other early 
childhood programs, the requirements for transitions of children with 
IEPs or IFSPs, the language focused on supporting transitions for 
children in migrant and seasonal Head Start programs, and the removal 
of the requirement to have a staff-parent meeting at the end of the 
year. We received other comments on this subpart and respond to them 
below.
General Comments
    Comment: Some commenters suggested that implementing the additional 
supports for transitions between Early Head Start to Head Start and 
from Head Start to kindergarten will impact programmatic procedures and 
budgets, and that additional funding will be needed. Others were 
concerned this subpart placed too much burden on the program from which 
a child is exiting and suggested revisions.
    Response: We believe the transition services in this subpart are 
critical to support child development from birth to age five and 
beyond. This rule supports the transition process and continuity of 
services regardless of where families seek services, but we do not 
believe they are substantially different than current practice. 
However, we agree that programs cannot control the receiving school or 
program, but our language supporting transitions and collaborating with 
community partners is sufficiently flexible to allow for these 
realities. Therefore, we did not revise the provisions.
    Comment: Some commenters recommended that we include requirements 
for programs to assess their transition practices to ensure they 
effectively minimize the number of transitions and promote smooth 
transitions for children and families.
    Response: Although we encourage programs to assess all aspects of 
their programming as part of the continuous quality improvement 
process, we do not agree that requiring programs to specifically assess 
their transitions practices is necessary.
Section 1302.70 Transitions From Early Head Start
    This section describes what programs are required to do to support 
successful transitions for children leaving Early Head Start. The 
requirements in this

[[Page 61347]]

section also support parents' continued involvement in their child's 
education.
    Comment: Commenters expressed concern about the requirement in 
paragraph (b)(2) on the timing of moving children from Early Head Start 
to Head Start after their third birthday. Some commenters recommended 
we allow a child who turns three after the kindergarten cut-off date to 
remain enrolled in Early Head Start until the child transitions into 
Head Start or to another program at the beginning of the next program 
year. Also, some commenters recommended we clarify the phrase ``a 
limited number of additional months'' in paragraph (b)(2) because this 
timeframe is vague.
    Response: The Act sets the age requirements for Early Head Start. 
We encourage programs to use ongoing planning processes to make 
informed choices based on individual needs and development for 
appropriate enrollment options into Head Start, pre-kindergarten, or 
other community based programs, to the extent available in their 
communities. Additionally, we used the phrase ``a limited number of 
additional months'' to provide programs with flexibility to determine 
the appropriate number of months to extend a child's enrollment to 
ensure a smooth transition. Children that turn three after the date of 
eligibility for kindergarten can enroll in Head Start if there is a 
space available during the program year. Therefore, we did not revise 
the provision.
    Comment: Some commenters supported the requirements in paragraph 
(d) for Early Head Start and Head Start to work together to support 
continuity of services from birth to five. Some commenters recommended 
specific revisions, including adding a requirement to paragraph (d) for 
programs to serve families with the highest demographic risk.
    Response: Prioritization requirements are described in subpart A, 
so we have not made changes to this section.
Section 1302.71 Transitions From Head Start to Kindergarten
    In this section, we outline the services programs must implement to 
support successful transitions from Head Start to kindergarten. We 
received comments from the public and address them below.
    Comment: One commenter suggested we change the phrase ``transition 
to kindergarten'' to ``transition to school'' throughout this section 
to better emphasize that broader transitions may occur between Head 
Start and the public school system, such as state preschool.
    Response: This section focused on supports for transitions to 
kindergarten, while Sec.  1302.72 already addressed transitions to 
other early childhood education programs.
    Comment: One commenter expressed concern that the language in 
paragraph (b)(2)(iii) on transition services to prepare parents to 
exercise their rights and responsibilities including options for their 
child to participate in language instruction educational programs, does 
not reflect the intent of Section 1112 of the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act (ESEA), as referenced in the Act, and that programs 
should tell parents about the range of educational options available to 
DLLs when they enter elementary school. This commenter suggested that 
we should not promote native language instruction over other options. 
Additionally, other commenters requested clarification about whether 
Head Start programs are required to judge the appropriateness of 
different instructional approaches for DLLs in public schools.
    Response: As described in section 642A of the Act, Head Start 
programs are required to help parents of DLL children understand the 
information provided to them under Section 1112 of ESEA. We believe 
that paragraph (b)(2)(iii) is consistent with this requirement; 
however, for clarity, we removed the explicit mention of ``native 
language instruction.'' Further, Head Start programs are not expected 
to judge the appropriateness of different instructional approaches for 
DLLs; rather, programs should help make parents aware of different 
options for language instruction programs in the elementary school 
setting. We made appropriate edits to paragraph (b)(2)(iii) to clarify 
this intent.
    Comment: Some commenters stated that requirements in this section 
were too challenging and burdensome. For example, some commenters 
expressed concern that collaboration with school districts receiving 
Head Start children is challenging and highlighted collaboration to 
determine the availability of summer school programming for children 
entering kindergarten as an example.
    Response: We believe that supporting successful transitions of 
children and families into school is critical for supporting child 
development and continued parental involvement in children's education. 
We do not agree that this section is too burdensome or challenging so 
we did not make changes in response to these comments.
    Comment: Some commenters suggested we include additional 
requirements in this section to make transition services stronger. For 
example, commenters recommended we expand transition services to 
encompass after care in kindergarten and suggested we include more 
requirements on community collaborations in this subpart.
    Response: We think we focus on the key components of transition 
services to support families when children transition to kindergarten. 
As always, we encourage programs to identify the individual needs of 
Head Start children and families and work to meet those needs. 
Additionally, we believe that community collaborations are sufficiently 
addressed in Sec.  1302.53(a), which requires programs take an active 
role in promoting a coordinated system of comprehensive early childhood 
services among community agencies and partners, so additional 
requirements about community collaboration were unnecessary.
    Comment: One commenter recommended we permit programs to continue 
to provide comprehensive services to a subset of very at-risk families 
after those children transition to elementary school.
    Response: Head Start is not authorized or funded to serve children 
and families after they leave Head Start.
Section 1302.72 Transitions Between Programs
    In this section, we included three new provisions that will support 
transitions for children and families who might not otherwise receive 
such services.
    Comment: Some commenters explicitly supported the provision for 
programs to make significant efforts to support transitions for 
children experiencing homelessness or in foster care when they move out 
of the community. Because of their high mobility rate, one commenter 
suggested that programs should anticipate transitions for these 
children, and that the language in paragraph (a) should include support 
for transitions to other early childhood programs, not just Head Start, 
as well as connections to other types of community services that can 
support these children.
    Response: We agree with the suggestion to support transitions to 
other early childhood programs if Early Head Start or Head Start 
services are not available. We edited paragraph (a) to reflect this.
    Comment: Some commenters expressed concerns about the requirement 
in paragraph (b) to provide transition services to families who decide 
to enroll their children in other high-quality early education programs 
in the year prior to kindergarten.

[[Page 61348]]

Challenges described include difficulty identifying participation in 
other programs by children who do not return to Head Start and lack of 
mandates on other public programs. Commenters asked for clearer 
definitions of the terms ``high quality'' and ``practical and 
appropriate,'' as well as guidance on determining the quality of other 
programs. One commenter stated that this transition strategy does not 
promote the continuity of care emphasized in the NPRM.
    Response: We agree the term ``high quality'' is vague and difficult 
to determine during a transition process; therefore, we struck the term 
from this provision. The intent of this provision is to support the 
transition process, regardless of where families seek services. To 
allow for program flexibility, we retained the phrase ``as practical 
and appropriate.'' We will continue to provide guidance on these terms, 
as requested by grantees.
Services to Enrolled Pregnant Women; Subpart H
    This subpart describes services Early Head Start programs must 
provide to pregnant women enrolled in their programs. Long standing 
research clearly demonstrates the importance of prenatal care and the 
effectiveness of prenatal interventions to facilitate healthy 
pregnancies 106 107 108 109 110 and improve child outcomes 
that affect later school readiness 111 112 113 114 115 among 
at-risk women. While most of this subpart is structurally different 
from Sec.  1304.40 in the previous rule, it expands upon services we 
have always required to codify best practices and also highlights the 
importance of prenatal health care and education. Commenters generally 
supported this subpart. We discuss specific comments and our responses 
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \106\ Olds, D.L., Henderson, Jr., C.R., Tatelbaum, R., & 
Chamberlin, R. (1986) Improving the Delivery of Prenatal Care and 
Outcomes of Pregnancy: A randomized Trial of Nurse Home Visitation. 
Pediatrics, 77(1), 16-28.
    \107\ Villar, J., Farnot, U., Barros, F., Victora, C., Langer, 
A., & Belizan J.M. (1992) A Randomized Trial of Psychosocial Support 
during High Risk Pregnancies, The New England Journal of Medicine, 
327(18), 1266-1271.
    \108\ Olds, D.L., & Kitzman, H. (1993). Review of Research on 
Home Visiting for Pregnant Women and Parents of Young Children. The 
Future of Children, 3(3), 53-92.
    \109\ McLiaghlin, F.J., Altemeier, W.A., Christensen, M.J., 
Sherrod, K.B., Dietrich, M.S., & Stern, D.T. (1992). Randomized 
Trial of Comprehensive Prenatal Care for Low-Income Women: Effect on 
Infant Birth Weight. Pediatrics, 89(1), 128-132.
    \110\ Alexander, G.R., & Korenbrot, C.C. (1995). The Role of 
Prenatal Care in Preventing Low Birth Weight. The Future of 
Children, 5(1), 103-120.
    \111\ Larson, C. P. (1980). Efficacy of Prenatal and Postpartum 
Home Visits on Child Health and Development. Pediatrics, 66(2), 191-
197.
    \112\ Olds, D.L., Henderson, Jr., C.R., & Kitzman, H. (1994). 
Does Prenatal and Infancy Nurse Home Visitation have Enduring 
Effects on Qualities of Parental Caregiving and Child Health at 25 
to 50 Months of Life? Pediatrics, 93(1), 89-98.
    \113\ Olds, D.L., & Kitzman, H. (1990). Can Home Visitation 
Improve the Health of Women and Children at Environmental Risk? 
Pediatrics, 86(1), 108-116.
    \114\ Hack, M. Klein, N.K., & Taylor, H.G. (1995). Long-term 
Developmental Outcomes of Low Birth Weight Infants. The Future of 
Children, 5(1), 176-196.
    \115\ Reichman, N. E. (2005). Low birth weight and school 
readiness. The Future of Children, 15(1), 91-116.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

General Comments
    Comment: Commenters supported our overall approach that creates a 
standalone subpart for services to pregnant women as well as individual 
new requirements for services to pregnant women. Some commenters 
opposed the additional requirements we proposed for pregnant women 
while other commenters suggested programs would require additional 
funds if they increased services to pregnant women.
    Response: We understand the concerns some commenters described, 
especially related to cost. However, pregnant women are enrolled in 
Early Head Start programs, and therefore, funding is provided for these 
services. This subpart primarily reflects current practice that was not 
included in the regulation. We retained this section to codify 
practices related to pregnant women.
    Comment: Some commenters recommended programs carefully consider 
when to enroll pregnant women so that their children will be able to 
enroll in the Early Head Start program.
    Response: While we agree with this comment, we do not think there 
is a need for a program performance standard to require such 
consideration.
    Comment: Some commenters suggested that the entire subpart should 
refer to expectant families rather than pregnant women, or requested 
clarification about the scope of services required for a pregnant 
mother of an enrolled child who is not herself enrolled in Early Head 
Start.
    Response: This subpart pertains only to enrolled pregnant women, 
and we revised Sec.  1302.80(a) to further clarify this. While we made 
it clear that relevant services should include the entire expectant 
family, wherever possible, pregnant women are the family member who is 
enrolled in Early Head Start. Further, Sec.  1302.46 describes services 
for expectant families of enrolled children that may be relevant, but 
programs must only provide opportunities to learn about healthy 
pregnancy and post-partum care to expectant parents of enrolled 
children who are not themselves enrolled. We did not make revisions 
based on these comments.
Section 1302.80 Enrolled Pregnant Women
    This section describes the services programs must provide to 
enrolled pregnant women. It requires programs to assess whether or not 
enrolled pregnant women have access to an ongoing source of health care 
and health insurance, and if not, to facilitate their access to such 
care and insurance. It also includes a requirement for a newborn visit. 
We received comments on this section and discuss them below.
    Comment: One commenter explicitly opposed the new requirement in 
paragraph (b) to assist pregnant women in accessing health insurance.
    Response: Ensuring pregnant women have health insurance is critical 
to ensuring they receive adequate prenatal care.116 117 118 
We did not revise the provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \116\ Marquis, M. & Long, S. (2002). The role of public 
insurance and the public delivery system in improving birth outcomes 
for low-income pregnant women. Medical Care (40), 1048-1059.
    \117\ Howell, E. (2001). The Impact of the Medicaid expansions 
for pregnant women: A synthesis of the evidence. Medical Care 
Research Review,(58) 3-30.
    \118\ Phillippi, J. C. (2009). Women's perceptions of access to 
prenatal care in the United States: A literature review. Journal of 
Midwifery & Women's Health, 54(3), 219-225.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Some commenters requested clarity about what we meant by 
``as quickly as possible'' in regard to the requirement in paragraph 
(b) that programs support access to health care for pregnant women. 
Commenters suggested 30 or 45 days.
    Response: While we agree that 30 or 45 days are both reasonable 
interpretations of ``as quickly as possible,'' in some cases this 
requirement should be met more quickly, and in other cases challenges 
may arise that prevent programs from providing these services within 
those timeframes. Therefore, it is not appropriate to regulate a 
precise time frame. We did not revise the provision.
    Comment: Some commenters recommended we require programs to refer 
families to emergency shelters or transitional housing in cases of 
domestic violence or homelessness.
    Response: Paragraph (c) already requires programs to refer families 
to emergency shelters or transitional housing, as appropriate.
    Comment: Many commenters suggested we revise what was Sec.  
1302.82(b) to require programs to offer

[[Page 61349]]

but not necessarily provide a newborn home visit within two weeks 
because families should have the right to refuse. Some commenters asked 
that programs be allowed to consider cultural practices and length of 
hospital stays or illness in requiring an initial home visit at two 
weeks.
    Response: The initial home visit is planned with the pregnant woman 
and her family as part of prenatal services that a program provides and 
the timing of the visit can reflect the beliefs and circumstances of 
the family. We clarified this intent by revising what is now Sec.  
1302.80(d) to require that programs must schedule a home visit within 
two weeks.
    Comment: Commenters requested clarification about the 
qualifications for the ``health staff'' mentioned in what was Sec.  
1302.82(b) who perform the two-week postpartum visit.
    Response: We removed the reference to ``health staff'' in what is 
now Sec.  1302.80(d) to clarify programs have flexibility to staff the 
home visit in a manner that is appropriate for individual family needs. 
We now call this visit a newborn visit.
Section 1302.81 Prenatal and Postpartum Information, Education, and 
Services
    This section strengthens program performance standards pertaining 
to enrolled pregnant women by requiring programs to ensure all enrolled 
pregnant women have opportunities to learn about various relevant 
topics. It also makes clear that programs must address needs for 
appropriate supports for emotional well-being, nurturing and responsive 
caregiving, and father engagement during pregnancy and early childhood.
    Comment: Some commenters suggested we revise paragraph (a) and the 
title of this section to clarify the expectation for the level of 
service delivery.
    Response: For clarification, we have changed the title of this 
section and the phrase in paragraph (a) to ``prenatal and postpartum 
information, education, and services.''
    Comment: Some commenters suggested that maternal and paternal 
depression should be included in the list of prenatal and postpartum 
services described in paragraph (a). Some commenters explicitly 
suggested that expectant families be screened for both prenatal and 
postnatal depression.
    Response: We revised the language in paragraph (a) to include 
parental depression.
    Comment: Commenters recommended we require programs to use tools 
and resources to assess risk factors and needs of expectant families. 
Further, some commenters requested inclusion of explicit requirements 
regarding the hours and days or number of home visits required for 
pregnant women.
    Response: We believe we struck the right balance in allowing 
programs to determine the specific ways to achieve the outcomes and do 
not think additional prescriptive federal requirements are necessary. 
We did not make these changes.
    Comment: Some commenters suggested additions to the required 
educational services regarding oral health for both pregnant women and 
newborns during the newborn home visit.
    Response: We do not believe that discussing later oral health is an 
appropriate focus of this newborn home visit. We did not revise the 
provision.
    Comment: Some commenters requested guidance about the availability 
of prenatal educational materials. Other commenters suggested that we 
issue guidance to make programs aware of the educational materials 
available free of charge through the CACFP regarding nutrition, 
physical activity, and breastfeeding.
    Response: As commenters noted, there are materials available 
through USDA, and other sources that could be used, free of charge to 
provide prenatal educational services to pregnant women and their 
families. We believe programs can easily access this information and do 
not think changes are needed to the regulation.
Section 1302.82 Family Partnership Services for Enrolled Pregnant Women
    This section describes requirements for programs to provide family 
partnership services for enrolled pregnant women.
    Comment: Some commenters wanted this section to include specific 
language for including fathers and father engagement in family 
partnership services for enrolled pregnant women.
    Response: We agree that the language should more explicitly reflect 
the role of fathers and revised paragraphs (a) and (b) accordingly.
Human Resources Management; Subpart I
    In this subpart, we combined all previous performance standards 
related to human resources management into one coherent section. This 
subpart includes requirements for personnel policies, staff 
qualifications, training and professional development, and staff health 
and wellness and volunteers. We renamed the subpart Human Resources 
Management to better encompass the requirements in this subpart. We 
received many comments on this subpart. We summarize and respond to 
these comments below.
Section 1302.90 Personnel Policies
    This section requires programs to establish written personnel 
policies and procedures, sets forth a background check process, 
standards of conduct for staff, consultants, and volunteers, and 
staffing requirements when programs serve DLLs. We received many 
comments on our background check requirements. We discuss these and 
other comments on this section below.
    Comment: Commenters supported the general requirement in paragraph 
(a) that programs develop written personnel policies and procedures. 
Many commenters asked us to provide more clarity about the policy 
council's role in hiring and firing staff. Some commenters asked us to 
require programs to make policies and procedures available to all 
staff. Some commenters asked us to prescribe exactly what program 
policies and procedures must contain.
    Response: We revised paragraph (a) to read, ``A program must 
establish written personnel policies and procedures that are approved 
by the governing body and policy council or policy committee and that 
are available to all staff.'' We purposely devised this rule to be less 
prescriptive to afford programs flexibility and autonomy so we did not 
include additional specificity about personnel policies and procedures 
other than what is required in paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) in this 
section. We revised this paragraph to clarify that staff have access to 
the personnel policies and procedures and to reflect the Act's 
requirement that the governing body and policy council or policy 
committee must review and approve the program's personnel policies and 
procedures. We relied on the Act for the governance requirements on 
hiring and firing so we did not make any changes.
    Comment: Commenters generally supported our background check 
requirements in paragraph (b), noting that they were in the best 
interests of children and align with the Head Start Act and Child Care 
Development Block Grant Act of 2014 (CCDBG). Commenters expressed some 
concern with potential costs associated with the requirements. Some 
commenters recommended additional alignment, such as with provisions 
from Section 658(H) of CCDBG that require programs to complete the 
background check process within 45 days. Some commenters asked us to 
mirror exactly

[[Page 61350]]

what the Act states about background checks to minimize conflict. They 
did not interpret the Act to require fingerprints with criminal history 
records checks. Others requested additional amendments such as limits 
to fees a program may charge to process criminal history checks, 
mandates for confidentiality, an appeal process, and an exemption for 
some employees. Some commenters recommended we rename paragraph (b) to 
improve clarity.
    Response: We believe our background check requirements align with 
the Act and generally align with section 658(H) of CCDBG. However, we 
did not change the timeframe we prescribed for programs to complete 
background checks. We believe 90 days is appropriate, particularly 
since the Act requires Head Start programs to complete one of the 
checks before hire. We did not address background check fees in this 
rule. We understand programs may bear costs associated with background 
checks and we encourage programs to use the resources available to them 
and consider ways to allocate funds differently to cover these costs. 
We do not think it is the best interest of Head Start children to allow 
exemptions from the background checks. In regard to concerns about 
privacy, we expect programs will address confidentiality in their 
written policies and procedures because paragraph (c)(1)(iv) requires 
programs to ensure all staff, consultants, and volunteers comply with 
confidentiality policies. We did not require programs to establish a 
background checks appeal process. If either prospective or current 
employees decide to challenge background check findings, we encourage 
programs to direct them to the state, tribal, or federal agency that 
conducted the check. We agree the title of paragraph (b) was not clear 
enough and have renamed it ``Background checks and selection 
procedures.''
    Comment: Some commenters expressed concern about the legality of 
asking prospective employees for their dates of birth. Other commenters 
were concerned if we did not reference Title VII of the Civil Rights 
Act of 1964, programs could use background checks to discriminate in 
hiring practices against protected individuals such as African 
Americans and Hispanics.
    Response: Dates of birth are probably the most important factor 
needed to identify an individual and are necessary to conduct 
background checks. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 
does not prohibit an employer from asking for date of birth or age. In 
fact, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) 
specifically ruled that an employer that asks for date of birth or age 
does not automatically violate that act. As a best practice, the EEOC 
urges employers to clearly disclose to applicants why they need birth 
dates.\119\ Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) 
requires employers to screen individuals based on criminal history in a 
manner that does not significantly disadvantage protected individuals, 
such as Hispanics and African Americans. In Sec.  1303.3 we include 
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act among the other federal laws Head 
Start programs need to comply with.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \119\ See www.eeoc.gov/facts/age.html for more facts about age 
discrimination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Some commenters found our structure for paragraph (b) to 
be confusing and asked us to clarify whether programs must complete the 
background check before a person was hired or within 90 days. 
Commenters offered suggestions, such as adding a provision that 
required programs to hire individuals who otherwise cleared one of the 
checks before they were hired or to limit their access to children 
until all background checks are cleared.
    Response: We agree that our structure for paragraph (b) made it 
difficult to clearly understand what type of background check needed to 
be conducted before or after an individual is hired. We did not change 
the background check requirements but we revised paragraphs (b)(1) and 
(2) to improve clarity. Paragraph (b)(1) now clearly requires programs 
to obtain either state or tribal criminal history records with 
fingerprint checks or federal criminal history records with 
fingerprints before an individual is hired. Paragraph (b)(2)(i) now 
clearly requires programs have 90 days after an individual is hired to 
obtain whichever criminal history check listed in paragraph (b)(1) they 
could not obtain before hire. It also states in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) 
and (iii) that programs have 90 days after an employee is hired to 
complete background checks with child abuse and neglect registries, if 
available, and sex offender registries. To ensure child safety while 
the all of the background checks are being completed, we added 
paragraph (b)(3) to require programs ensure the new employee will not 
have unsupervised access to children until their full background check 
process is complete.
    Comment: Some commenters were concerned we would find programs 
either non-compliant or deficient if there were no child abuse and 
neglect registries in their state. Some commenters suggested we should 
specify whether programs must use state or national sex offender 
registry and we should require programs to conduct searches on the 
National Crime Information Center.
    Response: We require programs to obtain checks from the national 
sex offender registry and state child abuse and neglect and sex 
offender registries, if available. We think the regulation is strong on 
ensuring child safety and do not think it is necessary to require 
programs to check the National Crime Information Center.
    Comment: Some commenters recommended we require programs to conduct 
background checks on volunteers, contractors, and family child care 
providers.
    Response: We agree contractor and family child care providers are 
required to have background checks. To clarify our intent we added the 
phrase ``directly or through contract'' to paragraph (b)(1) and clarify 
that transportation staff and contractors are also subject to these 
requirements, consistent with the policy proposed in the NPRM. We also 
clarify that all staff, consultants, and contractors are subject to 
this requirement. We do not require background checks for volunteers 
because there is some evidence this stifles parent volunteering and 
engagement, which is fundamental to Head Start's two-generation 
approach. Additionally, as described in paragraph (c)(1)(v) and Sec.  
1302.94(b), programs must ensure children are never left alone with 
volunteers.
    Comment: Many commenters were concerned about language in the 
preamble about programs providing justification for hiring individuals 
with arrests or convictions in relation to what was paragraph (b)(3) in 
the NPRM and is now paragraph (b)(4). Commenters noted this caused 
unnecessary bureaucracy and a few thought it contradicted the Act.
    Response: Paragraph (b)(4) in this rule requires programs to review 
each employment application to assess relevancy. It does not conflict 
with the Act and does not require written justifications.
    Comment: We received some comments about disqualification factors. 
Some commenters suggested we revise what is now paragraph (b)(4) to 
clarify that school-based grantees can use whichever state-imposed 
disqualification factors apply to them. Some commenters suggested we 
allow tribes to use tribal disqualification factors. Some commenters 
asked us to list specific pre-employment or disqualification factors.
    Response: We revised paragraph (b)(4), which was paragraph (b)(3) 
in the

[[Page 61351]]

NPRM, to clarify programs must use ``applicable state or tribal Child 
Care Development Fund (CCDF) disqualification factors in any employment 
decisions.'' However, because pre-employment and disqualification 
factors vary by state and tribe, we did not list those factors here.
    Comment: Most commenters supported the requirement in what was 
paragraph (b)(4) in the NPRM but is now paragraph (b)(5) to conduct 
complete background checks every five years. They believed what we 
proposed aligns with background checks across multiple early childhood 
programs and with typical hiring practices. Some commenters opposed 
this requirement because it would impose undue costs for programs. Many 
commenters suggested exemptions for programs that have a more stringent 
system in place. Some commenters offered other alternatives to the 
five-year requirement, like use of consumer reporting agencies because 
they are fast and more comprehensive, and background checks more 
frequently than every five years.
    Response: We agree that our five-year requirement that now appears 
in paragraph (b)(5) in the NPRM aligns with other program requirements 
and with typical hiring practices. We understand there may be costs 
associated with background checks. However, we believe child safety is 
paramount. Therefore, we expect programs to use resources available to 
them and to allocate funds differently, if necessary, to cover these 
costs. We revised paragraph (b)(5) to exempt a program from the five-
year requirement if the program can demonstrate it has a more stringent 
system in place that will ensure child safety.
    Comment: Some commenters asked us to clarify the requirement in 
what was paragraph (b)(5) and is now paragraph (b)(6) about 
consideration of current and former program parents for employment 
vacancies. They requested we clarify that programs are not required to 
consider otherwise qualified parents for positions if they do not 
apply.
    Response: We revised paragraph (b)(6) to clarify that parents 
should be considered only for jobs for which they apply.
    Comment: Some commenters asked us to define: ``background check,'' 
``before and individual is hired,'' ``clearance by registries,'' 
employment application,'' and the term ``hire'' as distinct from the 
phrase ``an offer of employment.''
    Response: We did not define these terms or phrases. Programs should 
consider their ordinary and customary meanings.
    Comment: Commenters generally supported the standards of conduct 
described in paragraph (c). Some noted their support of the 
requirements in what is now paragraph (c)(1)(ii) that prohibit staff 
from using food or physical activity or outdoor time as a reward or 
punishment. Some commenters requested we add more specificity to the 
requirements in paragraph (c)(1)(ii). For example, some requested we 
expressly ban physical, mechanical, and chemical restraint, as well as 
seclusion. Some commenters stated that the terms ``isolation,'' 
``sarcastic,'' ``derogatory,'' and ``humiliation'' were subjective and 
asked us to define them. Some commenters recommended we delete the list 
of what staff must not do and include a standard by which staff should 
aspire to conduct themselves instead.
    Response: We do not think our standards of conduct in paragraph 
(c)(1)(ii) require more specificity. We made small changes to this 
paragraph to improve clarity that did not change meaning. For example, 
the prohibition on public or private humiliation, that was found in 
paragraph (c)(1)(ii)(I) in the NPRM, was moved to paragraph 
(c)(1)(ii)(F). We agree it was appropriate to add a requirement to the 
standards of conduct that expressed the positive and supportive 
behavior all staff, consultants, and volunteers must exhibit. This 
standard can be found at paragraph (c)(1)(i) and standards describing 
prohibitions that were in paragraph (c)(1)(i) in the NPRM are now found 
at paragraph (c)(1)(ii).
    We did not define ``isolation,'' ``sarcastic,'' ``derogatory,'' and 
``humiliation'' because we expect programs to consider these terms' 
ordinary and customary meanings. Furthermore, we did not amend 
paragraph (c) to use the terms physical, mechanical, and chemical 
restraint or seclusion. We believe our standards of conduct clearly 
convey prohibition on restraint. Furthermore, the requirement now found 
in paragraph (c)(1)(ii)(B) that expressly prohibits isolation as a form 
of discipline and the requirement in paragraph (c)(1)(v) that prohibits 
staff from leaving children alone or unsupervised at any time more 
clearly convey our prohibition on seclusion.
    Comment: Some commenters suggested we reference staff, contractors, 
and volunteers in paragraph (c)(1)(iii) so programs understand who must 
adhere to standards of conduct.
    Response: We agree that we must clarify standards of conduct 
described in paragraph (c)(1) apply to staff, consultants, contractors, 
and volunteers. We revised paragraph (c) accordingly.
    Comment: Some commenters requested we reaffirm Head Start's policy 
that does not exclude same sex couples and add ``sexual orientation'' 
to what is now paragraph (c)(1)(iii)
    Response: We agree, and we revised paragraph (c)(1)(iii) 
accordingly.
    Comment: Commenters generally supported that personnel policies 
include appropriate penalties for staff that violate standards of 
conduct. Commenters asked us to clarify paragraph (c)(2), which 
requires personnel policies and procedures to include appropriate 
penalties for staff who violate the standards of conduct. Commenters 
requested to know who determines appropriate penalties.
    Response: We expect programs to designate staff that will determine 
appropriate penalties. We think local programs are best suited to 
determine who that staff should be so we did revise the provision. We 
also clarified in paragraph (c)(2) that personnel policies and 
procedures must include appropriate penalties for consultants and 
volunteers, as well as staff, who violate the standards of conduct.
    Comment: Some commenters raised concerns with the requirement in 
paragraph (d)(1) about communication that is effective with DLLs and 
their families. Some commenters were concerned about the rarity of 
certain languages and corresponding lack of interpreters or qualified 
teachers. Commenters pointed out that, in some instances, staff who 
speak the second language are sometimes not proficient in English and 
it is costly for programs to train them.
    Response: The prior performance standards required that programs be 
able to communicate effectively with families, either directly or 
through an interpreter. This has been a long-standing requirement and 
expectation in Head Start. If program staff, interpreters, or 
translators do not speak all languages of the families in the program, 
then other support services should be utilized, such as interpretation 
services available via phone and other methods. We revised paragraph 
(d)(1) to take into account those extremely limited circumstances where 
interpretation services are not available by phone and other methods 
and to clarify the requirement by including ``to the extent feasible.''
    Comment: Some commenters raised concerns with the standard in 
paragraph (d)(2) that requires programs to have at least one staff 
member who speaks the home language of DLLs in classes where the 
majority of children speak the same

[[Page 61352]]

non-English language. Commenters were concerned about the lack of 
qualified bilingual staff, particularly for infant groups. Some 
commenters asked whether a waiver will be available for this 
requirement, and how to find interpreters.
    Response: The prior performance standards required that at least 
one staff member or home visitor speak the language of the majority of 
children in the class or home-based program. This has been a long-
standing requirement and expectation in Head Start. When the majority 
of children speak the same language, we believe it is imperative that 
staff be able to provide the children with high-quality language 
experiences. There is not a waiver available for this requirement.
Section 1302.91 Staff Qualification and Competency Requirements
    This section includes requirements for staff qualifications and 
competencies. We raised many staff qualifications over those in the 
previous performance standards, as required by the Act. In response to 
comments, we included some new staff qualification requirements for 
child and family services management staff, family services staff, and 
mental health consultants. We also restructured the section to improve 
clarity. We discuss comments and our responses below.
    Comment: Some commenters offered general comments that addressed 
the entire section. Some requested guidance on how to measure 
sufficient knowledge, training, and experience, as it relates to 
requirements throughout this section. Other commenters suggested we 
require all staff in all program options to have the knowledge and 
ability to work with children with disabilities. Some commenters noted 
the need to fund and implement strategies with higher education to 
ensure degree and credential programs include appropriate coursework 
content specific to the infant, toddler, and preschool workforce. Other 
commenters suggested that the credential or degree requirements for 
bilingual staff be more flexible, as it is very difficult to find 
bilingual staff who are also qualified in early childhood education. 
Further, some commenters recommended we require programs to review 
state early childhood workforce requirements on a regular basis to 
ensure that Head Start's requirements support and enhance state-based 
career ladders.
    Response: We revised paragraph (a) to integrate professional 
development to support program service staff so they have the 
knowledge, training, experience, and competencies to fulfill their 
roles and responsibilities. We think programs should be continuously 
supporting staff in fulfilling their roles and responsibilities. We 
also revised paragraphs in this section to expand competencies for 
teachers, assistant teachers, family child care providers, and home 
visitors to include working with children with disabilities and DLLs to 
support effective service delivery. While we recognize recruitment of 
bilingual staff who are qualified in early childhood education may be 
challenging, we believe children who are dual language learners need 
highly-qualified teachers in order to achieve meaningful child 
outcomes. Additionally, while we agree access to appropriate coursework 
and financing is critical for a well-trained workforce, many of these 
challenges are beyond the scope of this final rule.
    Comment: Commenters generally supported our proposal, in paragraph 
(i) of the NPRM and now found in paragraph (b), to require Early Head 
Start and Head Start program directors hired after the effective date 
of this final rule to have at least a baccalaureate degree. Some 
commenters were concerned this requirement would make it too difficult 
for programs to hire and retain directors. Some commenters suggested we 
allow programs to implement an alternate approach, such as allowing 
time for directors to acquire appropriate degrees or restricting the 
requirement to new hires. Other commenters supported a stronger 
requirement for directors and suggested we require directors to have a 
master's degree. Some commenters suggested additional requirements 
regarding experience or competencies.
    Response: We retained our standard to require at least 
baccalaureate degrees for program directors as proposed in the NPRM. We 
revised the minimum background experience requirement to include 
administration in addition to supervision of staff and fiscal 
management. However, we retained local flexibility to define other 
necessary experience and competencies including experience in early 
childhood.
    Comment: Some commenters supported our standard in what was 
paragraph (h)(3) in the NPRM that allowed flexibility for programs to 
establish qualifications for their fiscal officer based on an 
assessment of their needs and secure regularly scheduled or ongoing 
services of a fiscal officer. Other commenters suggested that fiscal 
functions should be led by a qualified accounting professional with 
expertise in understanding the operational risks, the potential for 
misalignment of funding, and the financial reporting associated with 
federal funding.
    Response: We revised the standard for fiscal officer 
qualifications, now found in paragraph (c), to clarify that programs 
must consider the fiscal complexity of their organization to ensure 
fiscal officers have sufficient knowledge and experience to fulfill 
their role. We also require newly hired fiscal officers to be certified 
public accountants or have a baccalaureate degree in a related field.
    Comment: The NPRM did not specifically address qualifications for 
staff who manage family services, health services, and disabilities 
services other than to require in paragraph (a) that all staff and 
consultants have sufficient knowledge, training, and experience to 
fulfill their roles and responsibilities. The NPRM did not retain 
language from the previous program performance standards about 
disabilities and health managers because we thought it was vague and 
not helpful for programs. Some commenters opposed our approach and 
interpreted it to mean we were removing services area management. 
Commenters suggested we require all supervisors have a baccalaureate 
degree. Other commenters suggested we require all supervisory staff to 
have knowledge of and training on reflective supervision. Further, some 
commenters provided explicit suggestions for qualifications that the 
health services manager should be required to have, such as a minimum 
of an associate's or bachelor's degree in health, public health, 
nursing, or a related field, or an early childhood education degree 
with health-related certification or licensure. In addition, some 
commenters suggested qualifications for disabilities managers, 
including a bachelor's degree with a certification in early childhood 
special education or related field. Finally, some of these commenters 
also suggested adding competencies for disabilities managers, such as 
experience working in an early childhood education setting.
    Response: We did not intend for the NPRM to signal the removal of 
service area management. Our goal in omitting references to service 
area management was to increase local flexibility to better meet the 
variety of needs in programs of differing size. However, we revised the 
rule to require degree qualifications for newly hired family services, 
health, and disabilities managers. Specifically, as stated in paragraph 
(d)(1), staff responsible for the management and oversight of family 
services, health services, and services to children with disabilities 
hired after the effective date of this rule, must have at a minimum, a 
baccalaureate degree, preferably

[[Page 61353]]

related to one or more of the disciplines they oversee. Programs should 
not interpret this requirement to mean they must have different people 
for disabilities management, family services management, and health 
services management. Due to the varying sizes and complexities of 
program structures, we think programs must have the flexibility to 
decide on their own appropriate staffing patterns to meet these 
oversight and management responsibilities.
    Comment: In what was paragraph (e) in the NPRM, we proposed minimum 
requirements for education coordinators, as required by the Act. Some 
commenters recommended phasing in a requirement for education 
coordinators to have a master's degree. Some commenters requested 
additional flexibility in the requirement, such as allowing the degree 
to be in elementary education or family studies or allowing relevant 
coursework combined with a degree in an unrelated field. Additionally, 
some respondents suggested that education coordinators should have 
experience working explicitly with the age group of the classes they 
oversee.
    Response: We believe the requirement as written is sufficient to 
ensure high-quality services and retained this requirement as proposed, 
now found in paragraph (d)(2). We did not include additional 
flexibility since minimum requirements for education coordinators are 
set by the Act. We made small technical revisions.
    Comment: We specifically solicited comments on the appropriate 
qualifications for Early Head Start teachers, which was described in 
paragraph (b)(1) and now is located at paragraph (e)(1). We received a 
variety of different recommendations. For example, some commenters 
suggested we retain requirements from the Act that Early Head Start 
teachers have at least CDA. Some commenters suggested the CDA is 
adequate only if staff work closely with a coach, and some commenters 
recommended we require an associate's degree in early education. Others 
recommended we require a baccalaureate, and some supported phasing in 
baccalaureate requirements. Some commenters supported allowing one 
teacher in an Early Head Start class to meet a higher qualification and 
for the second teacher to have the current CDA qualification. Some 
commenters requested clarification of the term ``equivalent course 
work,'' and offered suggestions. Some commenters expressed concern that 
increasing qualifications would impact programs' ability to hire 
parents and other community members who accurately reflect and can 
address the culturally and linguistically diverse needs and experiences 
of children and families, particularly in programs serving rural, 
migrant, and tribal populations.
    Response: We maintained the staff qualification requirements for 
Early Head Start as proposed. Lowering these requirements is beyond the 
scope of this rule because they are set by the Act. We did not raise 
the requirement to a baccalaureate degree, although we agree with 
recommendations from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report 
\120\ that a lead teacher in every class with a bachelor's degree and 
demonstrated competencies is optimal. Grantees are encouraged to 
implement effective career and professional development models and 
might find it particularly effective to have at least one lead teacher 
with higher credentials and another teacher who meets the minimum 
qualifications. We do not define ``equivalent course work'' because 
different colleges and universities describe majors and classes in a 
variety of ways; programs must evaluate the content and relevancy of 
the individual courses their teachers have taken.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \120\ Institute of Medicine (IOM) and National Research Council 
(NRC). 2015. Transforming the workforce for children birth through 
age 8: A unifying foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies 
Press.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: We specifically solicited comments on the appropriate 
qualifications for Head Start teachers. In general, commenters 
supported requiring bachelor's degrees for all Head Start teachers. 
Some commenters suggested that all staff working directly with children 
and families should have a bachelor's degree. Other commenters 
expressed concern about compliance with higher standards, given the 
difficulties they already face in finding appropriately credentialed 
staff. These commenters were especially concerned with adding new 
credential requirements without designated funding to achieve the 
higher standards. Some commenters requested we allow degrees to be in a 
related field such as elementary education or family studies. Some 
commenters suggested the teacher qualification requirements should 
mirror language of other federal programs that supports alternative 
pathways and demonstrated competencies in lieu of credentials. Others 
recommended partnering with the Department of Education on an early 
education TEACH campaign in order to recruit highly qualified teachers. 
Other commenters suggested allowing programs to use proxy indicators of 
competence such as years of experience, completed training, or CLASS 
scores as a way to maintain employment of individuals who do not meet 
degree requirements. Some commenters were concerned that the broad 
language of ``equivalent coursework'' may create unnecessary confusion 
in the field as to whether Teach for America candidates may be hired; 
and suggested that clarifying language be included in the final rule.
    Finally, commenters described challenges in recruiting and 
retaining qualified staff members who speak the community's language 
and understand its nuances. These commenters expressed concern that 
increasing qualifications would impact programs' ability to hire 
parents and other community members who accurately reflect and can 
address the culturally and linguistically diverse needs and experiences 
of children and families, particularly in programs serving rural, 
migrant, and tribal populations.
    Response: In paragraphs (e)(2) and (3), we maintained the staff 
qualification requirements for Head Start teachers as proposed and as 
required by the Act. Lowering these requirements is beyond the scope of 
this rule because minimums are set by the Act. The Act also does not 
grant us authority to allow exemptions or proxy indicators of currently 
employed teachers who do not meet qualification requirements. As noted 
earlier, we are in agreement with the NAS report that having teachers 
with a baccalaureate degree in every class is optimal.\121\ We have 
updated the statutory reference in paragraph (e)(2)(ii) to include all 
of the alternative credentials, including Teach for America.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \121\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: We received some comments on our requirement in what is 
now paragraph (e)(3) for qualifications for assistant teachers. Some 
commenters requested clarification on whether or not assistant teachers 
with a CDA credential must also be enrolled in a program leading to an 
associate or baccalaureate degree, or if assistant teachers without a 
CDA credential must be enrolled in either a degree program or CDA 
credential program. Some commenters suggested we should encourage 
assistant teachers to attain associate's degree as a career ladder 
towards becoming a teacher. Other commenters expressed concern that two 
years is not long enough for an assistant teacher to attain a 
credential or degree. Some commenters expressed confusion about the 
difference between teacher assistants and teacher aides.

[[Page 61354]]

    Response: As required by the Act, the provision in paragraph (e)(3) 
requires Head Start assistant teachers have at least a minimum of a CDA 
credential or be enrolled in a CDA credential program to be completed 
within two years of the time of hire. We revised this provision to 
clarify that the minimum requirement also permits a state-awarded 
certificate that meets or exceeds the requirements for a CDA 
credential. While assistant teachers with a CDA credential or state-
awarded equivalent are not required to be enrolled in a program that 
will lead to an associate or baccalaureate degree, assistant teachers 
that are enrolled in a program that will lead to such a degree meet the 
qualification requirements. We consider assistant teachers to be a 
second educational staff person working within a preschool setting who 
supports the teacher in implementing planned curricular activities with 
the children. A teacher aide is a third person who may or may not 
provide direct curriculum support.
    Comment: We specifically solicited comments on the appropriate 
qualifications family child care providers, which was addressed in 
paragraph (g) in the NPRM and now is found in paragraph (e)(4)(i). Some 
commenters objected to our proposal in what is now paragraph (e)(4)(i) 
to shorten the timeline for family child care providers to attain 
credentials from two years to eighteen months. Conversely, some 
commenters suggested we require family child care providers meet the 
same qualifications as center-based teachers.
    Response: We retained the requirements for family child care 
providers as proposed. We believe our requirement in paragraph 
(e)(4)(i) appropriately balances the need to strengthen requirements 
and acknowledge funding realities and the ability of higher education 
to support degrees in early childhood. We did not substantively revise 
the provision.
    Comment: Some commenters suggested the requirement in what is now 
paragraph (e)(4)(ii) that a child development specialist have at a 
minimum, an associate degree in child development or early childhood 
education is too low, given their responsibilities. Some commenters 
requested we define ``child development specialist'' as it relates to 
family child care.
    Response: We agree the work that child development specialists do 
with family child care providers to support high-quality service 
delivery in family child care settings, as described in Sec.  
1302.23(e) requires a higher level of expertise. Therefore we amended 
what is now paragraph (e)(4)(ii) to more clearly link the duties of the 
child development specialist as described in Sec.  1302.23(e) and 
require child development specialists have a baccalaureate degree in 
child development, early childhood education or a related field.
    Comment: Some commenters supported our focus on both staff 
qualifications and the staff competencies for teaching staff we 
described in what were paragraphs (b)(2) and (c)(2) and are now found 
in paragraph (e)(5). Some commenters suggested additional competencies 
for teaching staff including understanding the birth to five 
developmental continuum; partnering with and engaging parents in their 
child's education; effective team teaching; culturally and 
linguistically responsive practices; second language acquisition; 
administering assessments; and the capacity and desire to expand 
skills, knowledge and abilities.
    Response: Programs have the flexibility to determine the 
appropriate competencies to ensure high-quality staff and program 
effectiveness within their own communities. However, we revised 
paragraph (e)(5) to add use of assessment and promoting the progress of 
children with disabilities and dual language learners.
    Comment: Many commenters expressed concern with or opposed our 
proposal to require home visitors have at least a CDA in what was 
paragraph (f) in the NPRM. Concerns with our proposal included: it was 
more important to focus on home visitor skills; home visitors are 
already trained and certified in other home visiting curriculum and 
that a CDA would be an inefficient use of funds; time should be 
provided to allow home visitors to obtain a CDA; and our proposal would 
disqualify home visitors with sociology, psychology, or other possibly 
relevant degrees.
    Some commenters supported our proposal for home visitors to have a 
minimum of a CDA, although some of these commenters suggested their 
support was conditional on additional funds to raise home visitor 
salaries accordingly. Some commenters suggested additional flexibility 
for staff to meet this requirement such as an alternative or equivalent 
credential. Many commenters recommended we revise the standard to allow 
the home visitor to have a CDA or equivalent coursework or be enrolled 
in coursework to earn a CDA. Some commenters suggested that the minimum 
requirement of a CDA was too low and recommended we require at least an 
associate's degree in early childhood, child development or a related 
field with equivalent coursework that could be attained within a 
realistic timeframe. Some commenters suggested we set a national 
percentage goal for home visitors with bachelor's degrees.
    Response: We believe our minimum requirement of a CDA for home 
visitors, now found in paragraph (e)(6)(i) is reasonable and in fact, 
given the complex nature of their work, that it is preferable for such 
staff to have an associate's or baccalaureate degree in a relevant 
field. We revised this requirement to clarify the credentials necessary 
for this position. In order to allow adequate time for staff to obtain 
a CDA, we are delaying the requirement to comply with this provision 
for two years. We also revised competency requirements in paragraph 
(e)(6)(ii) to include supporting children with disabilities and DLLs, 
and building respectful, culturally responsive, and trusting 
relationships with families.
    Comment: The NPRM required all staff, including family services, 
health, and disabilities staff, to have sufficient knowledge, training, 
and experience to fulfill their roles and responsibilities. It did not 
retain vague language from the prior program performance standards 
about family services, health, and disabilities staff. We specifically 
requested comments on specific degree requirements for these staff. We 
received comments in support and opposition of our approach. Some 
commenters praised our removal of these provisions, and stated it would 
increase local flexibility for programs to set their own qualifications 
and better address their professional needs. Other commenters 
disagreed, and instead suggested we at least restore the previous 
requirements and suggested we include new degree competencies and 
qualifications, such as a minimum of a baccalaureate. Some commenters 
provided specific recommendations for strengthening qualifications for 
family service workers, such as a requirement that they, at a minimum, 
have an associate's degree in social work or a related field.
    Response: We agree with the concerns commenters raised about child 
and family services staff and made revisions accordingly. We added a 
new requirement in paragraph (e)(7) to require newly hired staff who 
work on family partnership services have at least a credential or 
certification in social work, human services, family services, 
counseling or a related field within eighteen months of hire. We 
believe it is optimal for these staff to have an associate's or 
baccalaureate degree in a

[[Page 61355]]

related field. We restored health professional qualification 
requirements in paragraph (e)(8)(i), and we expanded requirements for 
competencies to include assistant teachers and family child care 
providers in paragraph (e)(5).
    Comment: Some commenters offered suggestions for the requirement 
for mental health consultants in what is now paragraph (e)(8)(ii). Some 
requested clarification about what it meant to ``support'' mental 
health services. Some commenters suggested mental health consultants be 
licensed or certified, demonstrate specific competencies, or have a 
degree in social work, professional counseling, or marriage and family 
therapy. Other commenters opposed the requirement that a mental health 
consultant be licensed or certified, citing inadequate funding.
    Response: We think it is important that mental health consultants 
are licensed or certified mental health professionals so they have the 
training needed to provide the appropriate scope of services to young 
children and families. To strengthen the standard, we revised what is 
now paragraph (e)(8)(ii) to require that mental health consultants 
have, to the extent possible, knowledge of and experience in serving 
young children and their families. We also removed the language that 
referenced staff who ``support'' mental health services to improve 
clarity. We did not address other suggested requirements, because we 
believe that local programs need flexibility to determine the best 
approach to ensure mental health consultants are able to meet child and 
family needs.
    Comment: Some commenters requested clarification for our use of the 
term ``nutritionist'' in what is now paragraph (e)(8)(iii). Commenters 
were concerned it could be interpreted to include a person who lacks 
formal education or training in the area of nutrition. Some commenters 
suggested we require registered dieticians and licensed nutritionists 
oversee all nutrition services.
    Response: We believe the requirement that nutrition services be 
provided by registered dieticians and nutritionists is sufficient to 
ensure high-quality services.
    Comment: Some commenters suggested we modify staff qualification 
requirements for migrant and seasonal and American Indian and Alaskan 
Native programs because these programs often find it difficult to hire 
staff with either credentials or degrees. For example, some commenters 
recommended we broaden the requirement for using child development 
specialists with associate's degrees in family child care to apply to 
migrant and seasonal programs because of challenges to find bilingual 
qualified staff in rural communities. Commenters recommended we allow 
migrant or seasonal Head Start programs to have lower staff 
qualifications than other Head Start programs and help them obtain 
degrees.
    Response: Although we understand the challenges migrant and 
seasonal and American Indian and Alaskan Native programs face, we 
require these programs to hire qualified staff to work with children. 
However, we encourage programs to implement individualized professional 
development plans for all staff.
    Comment: Some commenters suggested we add specific qualifications 
for coaches, such as a minimum of a bachelor's degree in in early 
childhood education or child development. Some commenters suggested we 
require coaches to demonstrate specific areas of knowledge, skills, and 
experience.
    Response: We agree that in order for coaches to effectively support 
education staff they should have a minimum of a baccalaureate degree in 
early childhood education or a related field. Therefore, we have added 
a requirement in paragraph (f).
    Comment: Some commenters requested clarification about teachers and 
providers working within community child care partnership sites need to 
meet the staff qualification requirements. They stated that increased 
requirements for Early Head Start programs could harm partnerships with 
community child care programs.
    Response: Teachers and family child care providers must meet staff 
qualification requirements. Grantees funded with EHS-CC Partnership 
funds are allowed 18 months following receipt of the award to help 
staff attain the required credentials or degrees.
Section 1302.92 Training and Professional Development
    In this section, we describe requirements for staff training and 
professional development. We require a coordinated system of 
professional development, including individualized coaching for all 
educators, including family child care providers. Commenters generally 
supported our integrated systems approach, and noted support for our 
more individualized professional development. Others cited research in 
support of our coaching requirements. We made revisions to strengthen 
professional development and training for all staff and to improve 
clarity of coaching requirements. We discuss these and other comments 
below.
    Comment: Some commenters opposed our decision to omit a previous 
standard for staff performance appraisals because they stated these 
appraisals are an important way to identify professional development 
needs and to provide data to develop a training and technical 
assistance plan.
    Response: We do not believe we need specific requirements for the 
process by which programs assess staff. Instead, we focused this 
section on requiring programs to implement a system to ensure all staff 
members receive the supportive training and development they need to 
provide high-quality services. Programs that value staff performance 
appraisals may continue to use this method as part of their system. We 
did not revise this provision.
    Comment: Some commenters expressed concerned about the burden of 
``all day'' orientations for program consultants.
    Response: Paragraph (a) requires programs to provide an orientation 
to all new staff, consultants, and volunteers. We did not include any 
reference to ``all day'' or any prescribed length of orientations. We 
feel the intent of the provision is clear as written. Therefore, we did 
not revise this provision.
    Comment: Many commenters expressed concern about the requirement in 
what was paragraph (b) about training and professional development 
having academic credit, as appropriate. Commenters recommended we 
revise the requirement to include continuing education units (CEUs). 
Some commenters misunderstood the intent of the requirement, pointing 
out that training on CPR, Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS), etc. 
could not bear academic credit.
    Response: Paragraph (b) requires programs establish and implement a 
systematic approach to staff training and development. We did not 
intend to require that all staff training within the required system 
provide academic credit. Rather, academic credit should be sought, when 
appropriate, for such training and staff development in order to 
support staff progress toward degrees and other goals. We did not 
revise this provision.
    Comment: Some commenters requested clarification about whether 
coaching hours would count toward the requirement for 15 clock hours of 
professional development. Some commenters expressed concerns that 
coaching hours will not be eligible for state registry professional 
development trainings.

[[Page 61356]]

    Response: We consider coaching hours applicable toward meeting the 
15 clock hours of professional development per year, assuming the 
coaching hours are designed to assist staff in increasing knowledge and 
acquiring new skills to help them provide high-quality services within 
the scope of their job responsibilities. Whether coaching hours are 
eligible for state registries is beyond the purview of this rule.
    Comment: Some commenters request that parent engagement strategies 
be included in training and professional development.
    Response: We revised what was paragraph (b)(2) and is now paragraph 
(b)(3) to require training for all staff on best practices for family 
engagement strategies. In addition, to appropriately address 
professional development for child and family services staff who are 
not education staff, we included a new requirement in paragraph (b)(4) 
to require training for family services, health, and disabilities staff 
to build on their knowledge, experience, and competencies to improve 
child and family outcomes. We also amended paragraph (b)(5) to include 
partnering with families as an area of the professional development for 
education staff.
    Comment: Some commenters suggested there were disparities in 
training opportunities between lead teachers and teacher assistants.
    Response: We believe it is important for the entire teaching team 
to receive appropriate training and professional development. 
Paragraphs (b)(5) and (c) require research-based approaches to 
professional development for all education staff, which includes 
assistant teachers.
    Comment: Some commenters requested the training and professional 
development system explicitly include additional subjects, such as 
physical activity, outdoor play, positive behavior supports, and 
children with disabilities.
    Response: We revised what is now paragraph (b)(5) to include 
partnership with families, supporting children with disabilities and 
their families, and use of data to individualize learning experiences. 
We did not include other revisions to broaden the focus of the 
requirement. This paragraph appropriately emphasizes professional 
development for education staff on the central aspects of effective 
teaching. We think it is important this section focus on these key 
skills for education staff. Programs can choose to provide professional 
development on other topics if they determine it best meets the needs 
of the children and families they serve.
    Comment: Many commenters were concerned about our requirement in 
what is now paragraph (b)(5) to require research-based approaches to 
professional development for education staff. Commenters expressed a 
variety of concerns, such as cost, and requested further clarification 
about the term ``research-based approaches.'' Other commenters 
supported our emphasis on research-based professional development and 
noted this was important to improving Head Start quality.
    Response: We believe effective professional development is central 
to the delivery of high-quality education services that foster strong 
child outcomes. We think the requirement in paragraph (b)(5) is 
important to ensure program quality. There is existing guidance at at 
the Early Childhood Learning and Knowledge Center (ECLKC) \122\ about 
research-based approaches professional development and professional 
development. We believe this a reasonable minimum threshold that will 
ensure programs are able to demonstrate outcomes for teacher 
development. Therefore, we did not revise this provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \122\ http://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/hslc/tta-system/pd/pds/Mentoring/edudev_art_00050_081105.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: We received many comments on our proposal to require 
coaching be a part of the research-based approaches to professional 
development. Many commenters opposed it because of concerns such as 
cost. Some commenters strongly supported it, and pointed to research 
that demonstrated its importance in high-quality implementation and 
strong child outcomes. Some commenters stated the requirement was too 
prescriptive and placed too much burden on programs, especially rural 
programs, and staff. Other commenters requested we include more 
specificity and requirements for the proposed coaching systems, such as 
additional qualifications or expanding the requirement beyond education 
staff. Commenters also requested additional clarification, such as a 
definition of ``intensive'' coaching or which staff members are covered 
by the coaching requirement. Some commenters requested clarification 
about whether coaching could include online, remote and video supported 
coaching or if the requirement could be phased in, in order to build 
the capacity of coaching over time.
    Response: We revised the structure of the coaching requirements to 
improve clarity. Coaching requirements are now found in paragraph (c) 
instead of paragraphs (b)(4) and (5) in the NPRM. We restructured these 
requirements to improve clarity, made revisions to the structure of 
this section and specifically to paragraph (c) to clarify the coaching 
requirements apply to education staff, and revised paragraph (c)(1) to 
incorporate a strengths-based approach. In paragraph (c)(1), we require 
programs to implement a research-based coordinated coaching strategy 
that assesses all education staff to identify their strengths and areas 
of needed support and to identify which staff would benefit most from 
intensive coaching. In paragraph (c)(2), we require programs to provide 
intensive coaching to, at a minimum the education staff identified as 
most benefiting from intensive coaching. In paragraph (c)(3), we 
require programs to provide other forms of research-based professional 
development to education staff who do not receive intensive coaching. 
In paragraphs (c)(4) and (5), we require specific elements of the 
coaching system.
    The intent of these requirements is to ensure all programs utilize 
research-based coaching strategies, whether the strategies are employed 
via online or video supported methods is up to the grantee to 
determine. We acknowledge there are costs associated with implementing 
coaching strategies, but think is important for high-quality service 
delivery. We believe we appropriately balance local flexibility with 
requirements to include basic features that research indicates will 
support progress. The requirement allows programs flexibility to define 
much of the structural and goal setting aspects of their coaching 
strategy, including staffing patterns. Moreover, the effective date of 
the coaching requirement is delayed for approximately one year after 
this rule is published so programs have sufficient time for effective 
implementation. Additionally, we revised what is now paragraph (d) to 
add more flexibility to address concerns that the coaching provisions 
were too prescriptive.
    Comment: Commenters requested we include language in coordinated 
coaching strategies in what is now paragraph (c) about a range of 
embedded professional development approaches.
    Response: Paragraph (c)(2) requires intensive coaching for a subset 
of staff members. Paragraph (c)(3) requires programs provide other 
forms of research-based professional development to education staff who 
do not receive intensive coaching.

[[Page 61357]]

Section 1302.93 Staff Health and Wellness
    This section includes requirements for staff health and wellness, 
including staff health checks to ensure child safety and standards to 
support staff wellness. We discuss comments and our responses below.
    Comment: We received many comments on the standards in paragraph 
(a) that address initial health examinations and periodic 
reexaminations for staff members. Some commenters requested 
clarification about the tuberculosis screening requirement in paragraph 
(a) for the initial health examination, including why it is the only 
mandatory screening. Other commenters recommended we revise paragraph 
(a) to describe the purpose and aspects of the initial health exam and 
others offered suggestions about the periodic re-examination. Some 
commenters recommend we include a reference to the Health Services 
Advisory Committee (HSAC) in this section. Many commenters stated that 
paragraph (a) conflicted with state requirements and would therefore 
make some collaborations difficult.
    Response: We revised paragraph (a) to be consistent with state, 
tribal, and local laws, which will support collaborations. We also 
struck the specific requirement for screening for tuberculosis and 
instead reference that health examinations include screenings or tests 
for communicable diseases, as appropriate. This provides local 
flexibility to respond to local health needs and meet applicable 
requirements. We think it is too prescriptive to define how often a 
health re-examination should occur and did not prescribe the required 
timeframe. We also do not think it is necessary to prescribe 
requirements related to occupational health exams. Programs may want to 
use recommendations for doctors, jurisdiction, or the HSAC. We did 
think it was necessary to reference the HSAC in this section.
    Comment: Some commenters recommend the standard in paragraph (b) 
should be strengthened to include activities beyond making mental 
health and wellness information available. For example, commenters 
suggested we broaden the focus of health and wellness or add a new 
standard for a daily staff health check. Some commenters recommend we 
note that an Employee Assistance Program could be used to implement 
these standards. Some commenters noted staff compensation contributed 
to stress and mental health problems and should be addressed.
    Response: We agree we should strengthen paragraph (b), but that 
most of the specific suggestions were too prescriptive. We also believe 
it is important for programs to have flexibility to develop their own 
approach to ensure staff wellness. We revised paragraph (b) to specify 
that programs must provide regularly scheduled opportunities to learn 
about health topics. Staff compensation is outside the purview of this 
regulation. We agree that the Employee Assistance Program could be 
helpful but do not think it is appropriate to prescribe that level of 
specificity.
Section 1302.94 Volunteers
    This section includes requirements related to the utilization of 
volunteers. We address comments below.
    Comment: Some commenters recommended that we provide a definition 
for a regular volunteer and some commenters suggested we require 
volunteers receive an orientation on program and class procedures.
    Response: We revised the requirement in paragraph (a) about 
screening for communicable diseases to be consistent with staff 
requirements in Sec.  1302.93. What constitutes a regular volunteer can 
vary by program so we did not define this term. Section 1302.92(a) 
already requires volunteers to receive an orientation on the goals and 
underlying philosophy of the program and on the ways they are 
implemented. We think this is sufficient.
Program Management and Quality Improvement; Subpart J
    This subpart establishes the roles and responsibilities for a 
program's management system and sets requirements for a data-driven 
management system for continuous improvement toward high-quality 
service delivery. It also sets forth requirements for the 
implementation of this rule. We received many comments on this subpart, 
most of which address the timeline for implementation of the final 
rule. Other commenters offered positive feedback on the management 
requirements or requested technical changes for clarity. We discuss the 
comments and our rationale for any changes to the regulatory text in 
this section.
General Comments
    Comment: Some commenters supported our requirement that programs 
implement a coordinated approach to serving DLLs and offered further 
suggestions to increase the focus on DLLs throughout program 
management. Specifically, these commenters suggested requirements for 
programs to identify DLLs as a focal point of the process of ongoing 
monitoring and self-improvement for achieving program goals in Sec.  
1302.100. Commenters also requested a revision to Sec.  1302.101(b)(2) 
to indicate how their coordinated approach should be evaluated. 
Finally, commenters suggested revising Sec.  1302.102 to require 
programs set goals related to first and second language development for 
DLLs.
    Response: The requirements in this subpart apply to all children, 
including special populations. This subpart also ensures the 
intentional implementation of a coordinated management approach for the 
full and effective participation of children who are DLLs and their 
families. We do not believe it is necessary to further emphasize 
particular populations within individual requirements throughout 
program management.
Section 1302.100 Purpose
    This section provides a general requirement for programs to 
implement management systems and a process of ongoing monitoring and 
continuous improvement for achieving program goals. Aside from the 
overarching comment related to DLLs discussed above, we did not receive 
comments on this section.
Section 1302.101 Management System
    This section describes the implementation of a program's management 
system by requiring regular and ongoing staff supervision to support 
continuous program improvement. This section also outlines requirements 
for programs to establish coordinated approaches to ensure professional 
development, services for dual language learners, services for children 
with disabilities, and data management. We received many comments on 
this section, including suggestions for strengthening management system 
requirements and requests for clarification.
    Comment: We heard from commenters about the proposal to remove the 
requirement to have written plans for management systems. Some 
commenters opposed the removal of written plans, suggesting they are 
critical to building effective management systems. Other commenters 
praised the elimination of the written plans, noting that the removal 
of this requirement would reduce unnecessary bureaucracy. Still other 
commenters requested guidance or clarification regarding the removal of 
this requirement.

[[Page 61358]]

    Response: We agree programs may find written plans to be valuable. 
We expect these programs will continue to use written planning to 
coordinate their management systems and ensure that all staff are able 
to fully implement them. However, the intention of removing written 
plans as a requirement is, as some commenters noted, to shift the focus 
from compliance with prescribed plans to monitory progress toward 
goals. We did not restore this requirement.
    Comment: Some commenters suggested that, for clarity, we eliminate 
the phrase ``adequate record keeping'' in paragraph (a) and create a 
new standard to address record keeping so that all of the requirements 
in paragraph (a) were not explicitly linked to record keeping.
    Response: We agree and untethered adequate record keeping from the 
other provisions in paragraph (a) and instead added a new paragraph 
(a)(4) to reflect this requirement.
    Comment: Some commenters suggested revisions to the reference to 
promoting continuity of care in paragraph (a)(3). Some commenters 
thought it should be deleted because it is already covered by the full 
range of services described in subparts C through H. Other commenters 
suggested this requirement be linked directly to services for infants 
and toddlers.
    Response: We believe continuity of care is critically important, 
and therefore we emphasize it in this section, despite its 
representation throughout the broader set of standards. Further, while 
we agree that continuity of care is of particular importance to infants 
and toddlers, we believe it is also important for preschoolers. 
Therefore, we did not revise this requirement.
    Comment: Some commenters suggested we specifically include 
reflective supervision, particularly for Early Head Start staff, as 
part of the regular and ongoing supervision required in paragraph 
(a)(2).
    Response: We require programs to implement research-based 
professional development in subpart I and regular and ongoing 
supervision under this subpart. Reflective supervision could be a 
component of both of these strategies. Therefore, Early Head Start 
programs may use reflective supervision if it helps them to ensure 
continuous quality improvement. However, we believe local flexibility 
for individual programs to determine the best approach to ensuring 
their management system provides regular and ongoing supervision, as 
long as the approach is research-based and effectively supports 
achieving program goals. Therefore, we did not revise this requirement.
    Comment: Some commenters supported and others opposed the 
requirement that programs integrate Head Start data with other early 
childhood data systems and work with the state's K-12 Statewide 
Longitudinal Data System (SLDS) to share relevant data. Most of these 
commenters expressed concerns about the burden for programs to 
participate in their state's SLDS and recommended that it should be 
encouraged to the extent practical but not required. Commenters also 
expressed concerns with the varied capacity of states to partner 
effectively with Head Start providers to share, use, and interpret data 
which leads to barriers for programs to participate such as poor data 
infrastructure in the state's SLDS, statutory roadblocks, or lack of an 
SLDS in the state. Commenters stated that programs should not be held 
fully responsible with SLDS integration since it is beyond the 
abilities of most individual Head Start programs. Commenters also 
requested we advocate for the SLDS to send reports and information to 
programs that participate with their SLDS. One commenter recommended 
that tribes be explicitly exempt from any requirement to participate in 
their state's SLDS.
    Response: We revised and reorganized the standards previously 
provided in Sec.  1302.101(b)(4)(iii) to Sec.  1302.53(b)(3). There, we 
clarified that a program should participate in their state education 
data system to the extent practicable and only if the program can 
receive the same support and benefits as other participating early 
childhood programs. Since state education data systems can vary greatly 
from state to state and the practicality of a program to participate in 
these systems can also vary, we provided programs flexibility as steps 
are taken to share data with their state within their capacity and 
existing supports provided. Regarding an exemption for tribes, we agree 
and added that AIAN programs are exempt from any requirement to 
participate in their state education data systems, unless an AIAN would 
choose to participate in the statewide data system to the extent 
practicable. Further, in paragraph (b)(4), we clarified that AIAN 
programs can determine whether or not they will participate in such 
data systems.
    Comment: Commenters expressed concern with the requirement proposed 
in Sec.  1302.101(b)(4) of the NPRM to align data collections and 
definitions to the Common Education Data Standards (CEDS) due to the 
burden on programs (e.g., time, additional staff, and expense), and 
some commenters indicated that the responsibility to align with CEDS 
should not be on any individual program. Some commenters stated that 
the definitions in CEDS are not appropriate for all Head Start 
programs. Some commenters requested guidance on how to fulfill this 
requirement.
    Response: We agree it is premature to promulgate standards 
encouraging programs to engage with CEDS since the early childhood data 
standards are not as far into development as the K-12 standards and 
there is insufficient information on the benefits and utilization of 
CEDS at the individual school level or early childhood setting. 
Additionally, CEDS is meant to be voluntary. As a result, we removed 
this standard.
    Comment: Some commenters requested that programs be allowed to 
disclose PII from child records to the SLDS administrator to facilitate 
data sharing with the SLDS.
    Response: According to Sec.  1303.22(c)(2), a program is allowed to 
disclose PII from child records without parental consent to federal or 
state officials, in connection with an audit or evaluation of education 
or child development programs, as long as the program maintains 
oversight of child records through a written agreement or other means. 
Therefore, officials representing a state entity that manages a state 
education data system, such as an SLDS, would fall under this 
description and a program would be allowed to disclose the necessary 
PII to such an official.
    Comment: Some commenters opposed the requirement of a data 
governance body or council described in paragraph (b)(4) and stated 
that it is an excessive and costly requirement. Some commenters were in 
favor of the requirement. Commenters also requested clarity on the 
definition of this group, including its purpose, role, and function; 
how it differs from other governing groups, specifically the board of 
directors, policy council, and governing board; and whether it applies 
to Early Head Start programs.
    Response: We believe programs have established systems that focus 
on the security of data, an important goal, but this has overshadowed 
effective data sharing with other relevant entities. We shifted the 
focus to encompass a balance between the security, availability, 
usability, and integrity of data through these provisions. However, 
commenters misinterpreted our intent, primarily due to the terminology 
used. Therefore, we changed the term ``data governance'' to ``data 
management'' in this paragraph and we removed the reference to a ``body 
or council'' to focus less on the

[[Page 61359]]

process and more on the desired outcome of establishing procedures to 
ensure data quality and effective data use and sharing, while 
protecting the privacy of child records. For this same reason, we also 
removed the requirement to consult with experts and advisors on early 
childhood data systems in their state. Programs are still encouraged to 
do this but including it as a standard distracts from the overall focus 
on outcomes instead of process. To clarify that this requirement also 
applies to Early Head Start, we changed ``Head Start data'' to 
``data.''
    Comment: A commenter requested we require programs to align their 
data systems with one another.
    Response: We disagree with this suggestion. Programs use multiple 
data systems and not every data system used can or should be aligned. 
For example, a data system used for salaries, wages, and fringe 
benefits would not align with a data system for the administration of 
children immunizations. Thus, requiring programs to align their data 
systems is too broad of a requirement and could create more 
complications than benefits.
Section 1302.102 Achieving Program Goals
    This section describes the program goal setting process with 
respect to quality improvement. It is reorganized from the previous 
rule to better convey the importance of establishing goals for 
effective health and safety practices, all elements of high-quality 
service provision, and continuous quality improvement for all programs, 
not just those with identified quality issues or deficiencies. It 
includes requirements for each aspect of the cycle of continuous 
quality improvement including planning; goal setting; and monitoring 
short- and long-term progress towards achieving goals. This section 
also describes reporting requirements as they relate to ongoing 
monitoring and self-assessment. Commenters made a number of 
recommendations for strengthening this section, and we made small 
changes to the language for clarification throughout the section. We 
discuss specific comments and responses below.
    Comment: Some commenters recommended we require a system that sets 
benchmarks for child and family outcomes, based on nationally normed 
assessment measures, and outlines strategies for tracking progress in 
order to support program improvement efforts, professional development, 
and evaluation. These commenters suggest that such a system would 
better ensure children enter school performing on par with their more 
advantaged peers.
    Response: We believe that it is important for programs to have 
local flexibility to set their own goals and measure children and 
families' progress towards those goals. We do not think it is 
appropriate for us to set a single standard all programs must use to 
assess the continuous improvement of their program.
    Comment: Commenters requested we require programs to set goals for 
the outcomes of educational and other services, rather than for the 
provision of these services. Some commenters also suggested that 
programs should be required to set goals for the recruitment, 
retention, and development of qualified staff. Other commenters 
suggested we reduce the types of program goals that are required. These 
commenters stated that too many goals would prevent programs from being 
able to focus and achieve desired outcomes.
    Response: We believe we have achieved an appropriate balance for 
the goal-setting requirements. We encourage programs to set additional 
goals if it helps them effectively meet the needs of their community 
and ensure continuous quality improvement. The intent of this 
requirement is to set a minimum.
    Comment: Many commenters requested programs be allowed to align 
revisions to their goals, as described in paragraph (a), with their 
five-year grant cycle.
    Response: While we understand that programs may wish to revisit 
their goals, especially their long-term strategic goals described in 
paragraph (a)(1) with their five-year grant cycle, we feel continuous 
quality improvement requires programs to thoughtfully re-evaluate their 
goals on an ongoing basis. Additionally, the replacement of the Head 
Start Child Development and Early Learning Framework for three to five-
year-olds with the Head Start Early Learning Outcomes Framework: Ages 
Birth to Five should result in a re-evaluation of programs' school 
readiness goals to ensure they are promoting the school readiness of 
all children in all domains. We did not revise this provision.
    Comment: Many commenters praised the clear link of the Head Start 
Early Learning Outcomes Framework: Ages Birth to Five (HSELOF) to 
school readiness goals in paragraph (a)(3). Other commenters requested 
we allow programs to align with both HSELOF and their state early 
learning standards. Further, some commenters expressed confusion about 
the relationship between performance goals and school readiness goals.
    Response: The requirement in paragraph (a)(3) is for all programs 
to align with both HSELOF and their state early learning standards, 
where state standards are applicable. We previously issued guidance 
describing the relationship between school readiness goals and program 
goals. This guidance clarifies that school readiness goals are a subset 
of program goals. However, we agree that the terminology ``program 
performance goals'' is confusing. Therefore, we revised the term 
throughout subpart J to ``program goals.'' We also re-ordered the list 
of goals that programs must establish in this section to reflect a 
hierarchy of goals, starting with broad, strategic long-term goals.
    Comment: Many commenters noted that the monitoring system will need 
to be aligned with the outcomes-focused approach to continuous quality 
improvement described in the section, and the requirements in paragraph 
(b).
    Response: The monitoring process will be revised to align with 
these program performance standards.
    Comment: Commenters offered suggestions for strengthening data use 
for continuous quality improvement in paragraph (c). Some commenters 
recommended we include requirements for best practices in using data to 
improve instruction, including how often data must be reviewed and used 
to inform services. Others suggested strengthening requirements for 
continuous improvement by referencing feedback loops, which they 
thought would allow programs to be proactive rather than reactive. 
These commenters also suggested that programs should be required to 
develop and implement policies and procedures that guide staff 
collaboration on the review, interpretation, and use of data to advance 
policy and practice improvements and professional learning goals.
    Response: We do not agree that we should set such specific 
requirements for the process by which individual programs ensure 
continuous quality improvement. Rather, we focus on requiring programs 
to implement a system to ensure continuous quality improvement but 
leave the details of how each program will achieve this up to local 
communities to determine.
    Comment: Some commenters suggested we require additional areas of 
data collection, aggregation and analysis to ensure continuous program 
improvement in all areas of program services. Suggestions included 
adding family engagement, home visits, group socializations, and staff 
development. Some commenters suggested that the

[[Page 61360]]

requirement included too many areas for data collection, aggregation, 
and analysis, stating that grantees need to be able to focus their 
efforts on a limited set of specific goals for program improvement.
    Response: We believe we have achieved an appropriate balance for 
data requirements. Programs are encouraged to collect additional data, 
as necessary, in order to inform their own goals and ensure continuous 
quality improvement. The intent of this requirement is to set a minimum 
for service areas grantees must collect data on.
    Comment: Some commenters stated that it is inappropriate to 
aggregate data for infants and toddlers, especially in small programs 
with very few children in similar developmental age ranges, or that it 
is inappropriate to directly assess infants and toddlers three times 
per year.
    Response: The requirement to aggregate and analyze child-level 
assessment data three times per year in paragraph (c)(2)(ii) is not 
new. Guidance already exists on the topic of assessment and data 
aggregation for infants and toddlers and can be found at http://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/hslc/tta-system/ehsnrc/school-readiness/SchoolReadiness.htm. This guidance clarifies that aggregation and 
analysis of data is possible for infants and toddlers and does not have 
to done by child age. Further, we revised paragraph (c)(2)(ii) to refer 
programs to the definition of child-level assessment data in part 1305, 
which includes observation-based as well as direct assessments. We 
believe this change addresses concerns about frequent direct assessment 
of infants and toddlers.
    Comment: Some commenters noted that we should add an exception for 
programs less than 90 days to the requirement to aggregate and analyze 
data three times per year.
    Response: We agree and revised paragraphs (c)(2)(ii) and (iii) and 
a requirement in paragraph (c)(2)(iii) to clarify that programs 
operating for fewer than 90 days only have to aggregate and analyze 
their data twice per year.
    Comment: Some commenters asked us to define ``lessons'' in 
paragraph (c)(iv), formerly paragraph (c)(2)(iii) in the NPRM.
    Response: We revised the requirement to read ``information,'' 
rather than ``lessons'' to clarify our intent.
    Comment: Some commenters requested we provide justification for 
requiring reports.
    Response: The Secretary has broad statutory authority under section 
641A(a)(1) of the Act to establish standards to ensure the health and 
safety of children and appropriate program operation.
    Comment: Many commenters suggested that the requirements in 
paragraph (d)(1)(ii), formerly paragraph (d)(1)(iii) in the NPRM, were 
too vague. Specifically, many commenters requested clarity about what 
risks should be reported under paragraph (d)(1)(iii)(C) in the NPRM. As 
proposed, commenters suggested the requirement would include everything 
from chicken pox to a bite from a classmate to an outbreak of influenza 
at a nearby nursing home. Commenters also requested clarity on which 
reasons for program closure under paragraph (d)(1)(iii)(B) in the NPRM 
need to be reported. For example, commenters asked whether programs 
needed to report when they close due to inclement weather. Finally, 
commenters stated the requirement in paragraph (d)(1)(iii)(D) in the 
NPRM was too vague and requested clarity on what legal proceedings, 
involving which related parties, would need to be reported.
    Response: We agree with commenters that the proposed requirements 
in paragraphs (d)(1)(ii) and (iii) in the NPRM were unclear and we made 
revisions to clarify our intent. We revised and restructured these 
standards into paragraph (d)(1)(ii) and struck paragraph (d)(1)(iii) to 
clarify that programs must report significant incidents, rather than 
``risks,'' related to health and safety or financial and administrative 
circumstances, to the responsible HHS official. Therefore, inclement 
weather closings, for example, would not apply to the requirement in 
what is now paragraph (d)(1)(ii)(B) and risks such as a nearby outbreak 
of influenza or minor incidents such as child biting a classmate are 
clearly not included. Finally, we revised what is now (d)(1)(ii)(C) to 
better clarify that we only require programs to report legal 
proceedings that are directly related to program operations.
    Comment: Some commenters noted that the community assessment is too 
long to include in the annual self-assessment. These commenters 
suggested amending the requirement to include only a synopsis or 
summary of the most recent community assessment. Additionally, some 
commenters suggested that inclusion of the community assessment in the 
self-assessment should be aligned with each grantee's five-year grant 
cycle, such that grantees would only be required to include it when 
their grant cycle is being renewed.
    Response: We revised paragraph (d)(2) to allow for a summary of the 
most recent community assessment to be included in the annual self-
assessment. We also clarified that programs must be publish and 
disseminate the report.
Section 1302.103 Implementation of Program Performance Standards
    This section includes requirements to ensure programs implement the 
program performance standards effectively and to provide flexibility to 
programs in meeting the requirements of subpart B, if any currently 
enrolled Head Start children could be displaced.
    Comment: Many commenters requested consistent guidance, 
communication, and training and technical assistance to grantees 
related to the implementation of the final performance standards, and 
explicitly the move to full day programs.
    Response: The final rule includes a compliance table that outlines 
that dates by which programs have to be in compliance with the new 
standards. It shows that many of the provisions go into effect 60 days 
after publication but that others, such as some of the provisions 
related to curriculum, assessment, and coaching, do not require 
compliance until August 2017 and that the requirement for a longer day 
and year are further delayed. We think this staggered phase-in timeline 
will give programs adequate time to implement these changes in a 
thoughtful way with support from OHS and our training and technical 
assistance system.
Financial and Administrative Requirements; Part 1303
    This part lays out financial and administrative requirements for 
agencies.
Section 1303.1 Overview
    This part specifies the financial and administrative requirements 
for programs consistent with various sections in the Act. Subpart A 
outlines the financial requirements; subpart B focuses on 
administrative requirements; subpart C implements statutory provisions 
related to personally identifiable data, information, and records; 
subpart D outlines the requirements for the operation of delegate 
agencies; subpart E implements statutory provisions related to 
facilities; and subpart F describes transportation requirements. We 
received comments on each of these subparts. We summarize comments and 
provide our response below.
Financial Requirements; Subpart A
    This subpart reorganizes, revises, and streamlines the financial 
requirements

[[Page 61361]]

in subparts A, B, C, and D of part 1301 in the previous performance 
standards. This purpose of these changes is to organize the 
requirements in a more logical order, conform to recent changes in 
regulations that govern all federal grants, and reduce the 
administrative burden on agencies.
Section 1303.2 Purpose
    This section specifies that the purpose of this subpart is to 
establish requirements for program administration and grants management 
that apply to all grants under the Act. A summary of comments and our 
responses is below.
    Comment: Some commenters were pleased we removed the accounting 
system certification we required in the previous performance standards 
at Sec.  1303.11. They stated that it resulted in added cost for 
programs with limited or no gain.
    Response: We agree the certification was an unnecessary burden to 
grantees and their financial professionals.
    Comment: Some commenters suggested that we should not have removed 
the annual audit requirement in Sec.  1301.12 of the previous 
performance standards. Many commenters recommended we clarify that an 
annual audit is still an allowable expense for programs of all sizes.
    Response: The Office of Management and Budget establishes audit 
requirements and specified their requirement related to all federally 
required audits in the Uniform Guidance. Audits are a permissible 
expense regardless of program size. No changes to this section are 
necessary.
Section 1303.3 Other Requirements
    This section displays in a chart an updated list of HHS regulations 
that apply to all grants made under the Act. We received many comments 
on this chart.
    Comment: Commenters suggested we clarify what is required for 
issuance of a Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Number System (DUNS) 
number and annual or reoccurring reporting requirements.
    Response: We did not make changes in response to this comment. We 
believe that the cross-reference to 2 CFR 25.10 CCR (Central Contractor 
Registration)/DUNS provides grantees with sufficient DUNS information 
to support initial and ongoing compliance and reporting requirements.
Section 1303.4 Federal Financial Assistance, Non-federal Match, and 
Waiver Requirements
    This section consolidates into one section the financial 
assistance, non-federal match, and waiver requirements that were in 
Sec. Sec.  1301.20 and 1301.21 of the previous performance standards. 
We did not receive comments on this section but made two technical 
changes to the regulatory text in the final rule. First, we used the 
term ``non-federal match'' throughout, instead of ``non-federal share 
match'' or ``non-federal share matching'' to be consistent and to more 
closely align with the Uniform Guidance. Second, we modified the 
language to state that a waiver of all or a portion of non-federal 
match could be approved ``for'' the budget period instead of ``during'' 
the budget period. Since waivers after the close of the budget period 
are possible, we wanted to ensure the language reflects that allowable 
activity.
Section 1303.5 Limitations on Development and Administrative Costs
    This section affirms the requirement in section 644(b) of the Act 
that agencies not exceed the 15 percent cap on development and 
administration. It also implements the requirement in section 644(b) of 
the Act that the Secretary establish criteria for determining the costs 
of developing and administering a program and the total costs of such a 
program. In contrast to Sec.  1301.32(b) through (f) of the previous 
performance standards, this section represents a simplified and 
streamlined approach that requires grantees to categorize, identify, 
and allocate costs in order to determine whether they meet the 15 
percent administrative cap. This section also specifies the 
requirements related to waivers of the cap on development and 
administration.
    We received comments on this section and made one technical change 
to the regulatory text in the final rule. We removed the language 
requiring that a waiver not exceed 12 months to provide for the 
possibility of longer budget periods like those used for the Early Head 
Start-Child Care partnerships.
    Comment: Some commenters believed it would be helpful if we train 
grantees on how to appropriately identify development and 
administrative costs. Other commenters suggested we increase the limit 
on administrative and development costs we proposed in paragraph (a)(1) 
of this section.
    Response: We did not increase the limit on administrative and 
development costs specified in paragraph (a)(1) because it is 
established in the Act. Training is available on how to identify 
administrative and development costs.
Administrative Requirements; Subpart B
    This subpart outlines the requirements for agency conduct, the 
limitations and prohibitions to which agencies must adhere, and the 
requirements for insurance and bonding.
Section 1303.10 Purpose
    This section specifies that grantees must observe standards of 
organization, management, and administration and conduct activities in 
a manner consistent with the Act. We received comments related to these 
general requirements.
    Comment: Some commenters supported the requirement that grantees 
observe stated standards of organization, management and administration 
but urged us to include a new standard that requires employers to pay 
living wages, or provide compensation levels at parity with elementary 
school teaching staff or the average compensation level for comparable 
work in the area.
    Response: We did not change this requirement. We continue to 
require grantees to establish wages that are comparable to those paid 
in their community based on the wage comparability provision in the 
Act.
    Comment: Some commenters expressed concern that we eliminated 
previous language that required each agency to provide reasonable 
access to information and records.
    Response: We believe the issue of access to information and records 
is already adequately addressed by other applicable federal and state 
law and a Head Start specific provision is not necessary.
    Comment: Some commenters asked that we consider equipment to be any 
item with a value of $25,000 or more.
    Response: The fiscal regulations at 45 CFR part 75 govern the 
definition of equipment and we cannot adopt contrary requirements in 
these regulations.
    Comment: Some commenters requested we allow agencies with Head 
Start and Early Head Start awards to prepare a single budget.
    Response: Head Start and Early Head Start awards use separate 
Central Accounting Numbers (CANs) and fiscal regulations require 
separate accounting for those funds.
Section 1303.11 Limitations and Prohibitions
    This section consolidates into one place the sections in the Act 
that place

[[Page 61362]]

limitations or prohibitions on agencies. These sections pertain to 
union organizing, the Davis Bacon Act, limitations on compensation, 
nondiscrimination, unlawful activities, political activities and 
obtaining parental consent. We received comments on this section.
    Comment: Some commenters recommended removal of the requirement 
that programs comply with the Davis-Bacon Act or requested that we 
limit the application of the Davis-Bacon Act to new major projects 
only.
    Response: The Act requires compliance with the Davis-Bacon Act, 
including the definition of covered projects. We cannot eliminate this 
requirement through the regulatory process.
    Comment: Some commenters suggested that Head Start program 
employees should not be allowed to engage in union organizing.
    Response: Section 644(e) of the Act states that Head Start funds 
may not be used to assist, promote, or deter union organizing. We 
retained this prohibition in this section by referencing the Act.
Section 1303.12 Insurance and Bonding
    This section requires that grantees maintain a documented process 
to identify risks and provide proof of appropriate coverage in their 
grant application. Our approach to require grantees to assess their own 
risks and determine appropriate cost-effective coverage is a less 
prescriptive approach that section Sec.  1301.11 of the previous 
performance standards. We received comments on this section.
    Comment: Some commenters said removing specific requirements for 
insurance provides too much leeway, creates risk of liability and that 
appropriate coverage should be defined, with a minimum threshold or 
reference to state child care licensing requirements and suggested we 
remove the requirement that the process of identifying risks consider 
the risk of losses resulting from fraudulent acts by individuals 
authorized to disburse Head Start funds.
    Response: We did not change this requirement in response to 
comments. We believe that implementation of an intentional risk 
assessment process is an important aspect of grantee fiscal viability 
and may dictate varying amounts of insurance coverage depending on the 
grantee's unique circumstances. We believe assurance that Head Start 
funds are not lost to fraudulent acts is an important part of 
identifying risks.
Protections for the Privacy of Child Records; Subpart C
    This subpart outlines the requirements for programs to ensure the 
protection of child records, including requirements for parental 
consent and instances where disclosure of children's personally 
identifiable information (PII) without parental consent is allowable. 
We added standards that ensure the protection of the confidentiality of 
PII contained in child records. These standards align with the 
policies, protections, and rights found in the Family Educational 
Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), as appropriate for Head Start and Early 
Head Start programs. We received comments on all sections of this 
subpart. Overall, commenters were supportive and positive about these 
standards, especially the alignment to FERPA and the emphasis placed on 
parent rights in respect to their child's record.
Section 1303.20 Establishing Procedures
    This section outlines required procedures that support the sections 
that follow on confidentiality of PII in child records. We respond to 
the comments we received below.
    Comment: Commenters requested clarification on whether programs are 
required to have procedures for parents to inspect a child's record or 
challenge the sharing of the child's PII, and suggested we reference 
this subpart in subpart D Health Program Services to ensure programs 
consider the privacy of child records in health program services.
    Response: According to Sec.  1303.20, a program must establish 
procedures to protect the confidentiality of any PII in child records. 
As part of these procedures, programs must ensure parents have the 
right to inspect, ask to amend, and obtain copies of their child's 
records, request hearings, and inspect written agreements. This subpart 
is not specified in subpart D since the protections of the privacy of 
child records should be considered throughout the entire final rule. We 
also added breaches of PII to the issues that programs must report in 
Sec.  1302.102(d)(1)(ii).
    Comment: Commenters requested federal support and training 
opportunities on this subpart to ensure proper implementation, 
especially for programs without a deep understanding of privacy rules 
and while programs link data to their state and federal data systems. 
Some commenters recommended we require capacity building for data 
privacy as part of staff training.
    Response: We are committed to providing support for programs to 
understand, build capacity, and comply with the new privacy 
regulations. Programs must ensure staff, consultants, and volunteers 
comply with program confidentiality policies in accordance with Sec.  
1302.90(c)(1)(iv).
Section 1303.21 Program Procedures--Applicable Confidentiality 
Provisions
    In this section, we describe in paragraph (a) that when FERPA's 
confidentiality requirements apply (i.e., for educational agencies and 
institutions that maintain education records), the confidentiality 
requirements in this subpart do not apply because those educational 
agencies and institutions must comply with FERPA. Similarly, we 
describe in paragraph (b) that the Head Start confidentiality 
requirements in this subpart also do not apply when IDEA's 
confidentiality provisions apply (i.e. a program collects, uses, or 
maintains early intervention records of infants and toddlers with 
disabilities referred to or eligible under Part C of the IDEA or 
education records of children with disabilities referred to or eligible 
under Part B of the IDEA). Therefore, the Head Start confidentiality 
requirements in this subpart do not apply to the records of those 
children covered by IDEA or programs covered by FERPA. Commenters 
raised specific concerns and requested clarity, and our responses are 
discussed below.
    Comment: Commenters requested we provide guidance and clarity on 
how other privacy laws apply including state laws and the Children's 
Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA).
    Response: A program must comply with other applicable federal, 
state, or local privacy laws such as COPPA, which applies to all 
programs, the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) which applies 
to programs in the E-Rate program, and the Protection of Pupil Rights 
Amendment (PPRA), which applies to programs administered by the U.S. 
Department of Education (ED) receiving federal funds.
    Comment: Some commenters expressed concern that it will be 
burdensome and confusing for some programs to comply with FERPA and 
this subpart, and that we make this subpart consistent with FERPA or 
provide guidance on how to comply with both.
    Response: We agree that we are not duplicating under Head Start the 
confidentiality protections that already apply under FERPA and IDEA. 
The provisions we are promulgating are very

[[Page 61363]]

similar to FERPA. However, we want to reiterate that when programs 
comply with FERPA or IDEA for the records of those children and 
programs covered under FERPA and/or IDEA, then this subpart does not 
apply. Thus, we are eliminating any perceived burden and duplication. 
We changed and restructured the language in this section to implement 
these provisions.
Section 1303.22 Disclosures With, and Without, Parental Consent
    In this section, we describe provisions programs must follow to 
protect the privacy of child records and to share data. Most commenters 
in this section made recommendations or requested clarifications 
related to specific needs of Head Start programs, which are discussed 
below.
    Comment: Commenters recommended several changes to this section to 
reflect FERPA, such as: Add an exception to parental consent for 
disclosing PII classified as ``directory information''; include the 
entire criteria in FERPA on a written agreement; remove the term 
``disaster'' from Sec.  1303.22(c)(4); add other FERPA requirements on 
the disclosure of PII without parental consent for a lawfully issued 
subpoena or judicial order; require the class of recipients be 
specified within the consent form; and permit disclosure without 
parental consent to a school the child intends to enroll or is already 
enrolled.
    Response: We intended to align this section with FERPA while 
meeting the needs of Head Start and Early Head Start programs, and 
therefore a direct replication of FERPA would not be appropriate. In 
regards to directory information, we believe that a list of names, 
addresses, photographs, and other information that may fall under 
directory information can be harmful if disclosed without parental 
consent for the vulnerable population we serve, and therefore no change 
was made. In regards to the written agreement, our intent is for the 
program to determine the reasonable method to maintain control 
appropriate for the disclosure including a written agreement, direct 
supervision, and/or other methods. We updated Sec.  1303.22(c)(1) 
through (3) to focus on our intent which provides programs flexibility 
without being overly prescriptive. In regards to ``disaster,'' the term 
refers to an emergency such as a natural or manmade disaster. We agreed 
with the recommendations to include the class of recipients in the 
consent form and to permit disclosure in compliance with a subpoena 
without consent, similar to what FERPA permits, and these changes have 
been made. Lastly, the disclosure without parental consent related to a 
child's enrollment or transfer is already addressed in Sec.  
1303.22(b), and parental consent is not required.
    Comment: Commenters recommended we add clarify, replace, or define 
terms in this section including, ``dependency matters'' as this could 
refer to any case involving a dependent child and an adult caregiver, 
``case plan,'' and ``foster care.'' Commenters expressed concern that 
these terms could differ from state to state.
    Response: We disagree on defining dependency matters. However, it 
is not our intent that any case involving a dependent child and an 
adult caregiver inherently involves dependency matters, so we clarified 
that the court proceedings must directly involve dependency matters. 
Foster care is defined in part 1305. The definition for ``case plan'' 
was added to part 1305.
    Comment: Commenters expressed concern that posting child allergy 
information prominently as described in Sec.  1302.47(b)(7)(vi) 
violates the privacy of children.
    Response: We believe it is critical that food allergies are 
prominently displayed in areas wherever food is served to mitigate a 
serious health and safety risk for infants, toddlers, and preschool 
aged children. We also believe programs should be able to address other 
serious health and safety risks without parental consent to disclose 
PII. As a result, we added a ``serious health and safety risk such as a 
serious food allergy'' to Sec.  1303.22(c)(4) of this section.
    Comment: Some commenters recommended that violators of the privacy 
rule be given the opportunity to self-correct before any sanctions are 
applied.
    Response: Any violations of the privacy rule will be handled 
through existing monitoring and Head Start enforcement mechanisms.
    Comment: Commenters requested an exception to release PII without 
consent in the case of reporting child abuse or neglect if they are 
required to do so by law.
    Response: States receiving funds under the Child Abuse Prevention 
and Treatment Act (CAPTA) from HHS are required to enact laws mandating 
the reporting of known and suspected instances of child abuse and 
neglect. States must also ensure that the disclosure is made only to 
persons or entities determined by the State to have a need for the 
information. To ensure this section of the regulation does not conflict 
with federal, state, local, or tribal laws that require reporting of 
child abuse or neglect, we added Sec.  1303.22(c)(8) which allows the 
disclosure of PII without parental consent to an appropriate party to 
address suspected or known child maltreatment to comply with applicable 
federal, state, local, or tribal laws on reporting child abuse and 
neglect. We do not specify the persons who may access the records and 
under what circumstances since these vary by state.
    Comment: Commenters expressed concern that a program would apply 
the five-year rule that used to appear in Sec.  1303.22(d) 
automatically after a single violation of a written agreement which 
could lead to conflicts with state and local mandatory reporting 
requirements; that barring third parties from accessing child records 
for any violation of the written agreement is too broad; and the annual 
review of the written agreement seems arbitrary.
    Response: We agree with the concerns on the five-year rule, and we 
modified the provision to allow a program greater flexibility in 
handling third party violations. A program must review the written 
agreement annually, but only update it if necessary.
    Comment: Commenters expressed concern that programs will not be 
allowed to share data with partners critical to Head Start programs 
such as community partners, health partners, contractors, consultants, 
subrecipients, and volunteers. Commenters requested that we clarify 
data sharing with community partners; the term ``educational 
interest''; and the term ``official.''
    Response: A program may disclose PII from a child record without 
consent to a partner if the partner meets one of the conditions in 
Sec.  1303.22(c). A partner will most likely qualify as an ``official 
acting for the program'' if they are directly or indirectly providing 
program services for which the agency would otherwise use an employee. 
If a community partner does not qualify under any condition in Sec.  
1303.22(c), we recommend programs build written consent into the 
enrollment process for these partners. We removed ``educational 
interests'' and replaced it with plain language for clarity. We added 
language to Sec.  1303.22(c)(1) through (3) to clarify the term 
official.
Section 1303.23 Parental Rights
    In this section, we focus on parents' rights. We recognize that 
parents should be at the forefront when it comes to the collection, 
use, and sharing of the PII in respect to their child's record. Most 
commenters in this section supported the rights provided to parents. 
Other commenters raised concerns, which are discussed below.

[[Page 61364]]

    Comment: Some commenters requested we provide an additional 
requirement for programs to annually inform the parent on what data are 
being collected, how and why the data are used, and how the data are 
being safeguarded.
    Response: The parental consent form coupled with the annual notice 
already provides this information to the parent. We believe that 
requiring details on each data element collected, how each is used and 
for what exact purpose, and the specific security measures taken to 
protect the data would be excessive and burdensome.
    Comment: Commenters both agreed and disagreed with informing 
parents of their rights annually due to the conflicting perceived level 
of effort required by the program. Another commenter noted a 
conflicting requirement that allowed a parent the right to obtain a 
copy of the child record even when court ordered the contents related 
to disclosure not be disclosed or when it involves a child abuse or 
neglect case.
    Response: We believe that it is important that the program annually 
notify parents of their rights. However, this notification does not 
necessarily need to be individualized for every parent. For instance, 
the program could include a standard handout as part of the material 
the parent will already receive during the program year. This 
flexibility reduces burden on programs. In regards to the conflicting 
information, we added language in Sec.  1303.23(d) to ensure the 
parents' right to a copy of a record does not conflict with a court 
order.
    Comment: Some commenters expressed concern with programs making 
decisions on how to effectively share data and what specific data to 
share.
    Response: We agree that it can be challenging for programs to make 
decisions about how to share data and what data to share. Programs may 
request guidance through the training and technical assistance system. 
Additionally, we did not intend for programs to share all PII during a 
disclosure, therefore we added Sec.  1303.22(f) to limit the program to 
only disclose the PII that is necessary for the purpose of the 
disclosure.
Section 1303.24 Maintaining Records
    In this section, we describe recordkeeping requirements related to 
the protection of child privacy. Programs must maintain, with each 
child's record, a list of all individuals, agencies, or organizations 
that obtained access to PII from child records. The list must indicate 
the expressed interests that each person, agency, or organization had 
to obtain this information. Recordkeeping of disclosures to program 
officials or parents are not required since it would be too burdensome 
for programs. Programs must ensure that only parents, officials, and 
appropriate staff have access to records. We received some comments on 
this section, discussed below.
    Comment: Some commenters requested we provide the amount of time a 
child record must be maintained and how IDEA relates to record 
maintenance.
    Response: Depending on the type of data involved and the context in 
which the data are being used, there may be requirements for 
destruction of data with which programs must comply. We do not address 
information about other applicable program requirements, including 
those that may apply under IDEA, as that is beyond the scope of this 
regulation, but note that programs may be subject to record retention 
requirements for children they are serving based on applicable Federal 
and State statutes of limitations. However, when no other requirement 
exists, a program must destroy child records within a reasonable 
timeframe after the child has been served--this was added to Sec.  
1303.24(a). We also added a restriction to data destruction in Sec.  
1303.23(a)(4) to protect the parental right to inspect a record.
    Comment: Some commenters pointed out an inconsistency between the 
NPRM preamble and proposed regulatory text. Specifically, for Sec.  
1303.24(b), the NPRM preamble required a program maintain information 
of all requested access to PII from child records, but the proposed 
regulation stated that information on these parties is only maintained 
when a disclosure of PII is actually made. The commenters preferred the 
proposed regulatory text.
    Response: We agree that programs must only maintain this 
information when a disclosure is actually made. It is not necessary to 
maintain records on each request for PII from child records if the 
program does not make a disclosure of PII in response to the request.
Delegation of Program Operations; Subpart D
    This subpart consolidates previous performance standards on 
delegation of program operations into one section and revises 
requirements to conform with the Act. Section 641A(d) of the Act 
requires agencies to establish procedures that relate to its delegate 
agencies and that provide further specifics related to evaluation, 
corrective actions, and terminations. We discuss and analyze the 
comments on this section below.
Section 1303.30 Grantee Responsibility and Accountability
    In this section, we clarify that a grantee is accountable for its 
delegate agencies. That means the grantee retains legal authority and 
financial accountability for the program when services are provided by 
delegate agencies. Consequently, the grantee must support and oversee 
delegate agencies and ensure they provide high-quality services to 
children and families and meet all applicable regulations. We also 
clarify a grantee may not terminate a delegate agency without showing 
cause and must establish a process for delegate agencies to appeal 
adverse decisions. We discuss the few comments we received on this 
section below.
    Comment: One commenter stated the phrase ``bears financial 
accountability'' in the fourth sentence in this paragraph, implied the 
grantee was responsible for any financial debt a delegate incurred. The 
commenter recommended we clarify the grantee bears responsibility for 
those allowable transactions it authorizes that are directly related to 
the Head Start program provided by delegate agencies.
    Response: When the phrase ``bears financial accountability'' is 
taken in context of the entire section, it implies the grantee is 
responsible for the use of Head Start funds by the delegate. Therefore, 
we did not make any changes to this section.
    Comment: One commenter asked us to allow programs to terminate 
delegate agencies ``at will'' with provisions that cause the least 
amount of undue stress and harm as possible to children and families 
served.
    Response: We did not allow grantees to terminate delegate agencies 
``at will.'' Grantees can only terminate delegate agencies, if the 
grantee shows cause why termination is necessary and the grantee's 
decision to terminate cannot be arbitrary or capricious.
Section 1303.31 Determining and Establishing Delegate Agencies
    Under this section in the NPRM, we proposed to require an agency 
that enters into an agreement with another entity to serve children to 
determine if the agreement meets the definition of ``delegate agency'' 
in section 637(3) of the Act. We proposed this performance standard to 
clarify that if an entity meets the definition of delegate in the Act, 
it

[[Page 61365]]

is a delegate, regardless of what a grantee calls the entity to which 
it has delegated all or part of the responsibility for operating the 
program.
    Comment: The NPRM proposed a requirement for HHS to approve the 
delegate agency before the grantee may delegate program operations. One 
commenter suggested that a delegate agreement be considered as approved 
if HHS had not approved or denied it 60 days before the program year 
starts.
    Response: We believe HHS approval of delegates is important. We did 
not change the requirement.
    Comment: One commenter asked whether or not programs could 
grandfather in existing delegate relationships or must they still have 
written agreements.
    Response: All grantee/delegate relationships must have written 
agreements approved by the responsible HHS official. This is not a new 
provision.
    Comment: Some commenters asked us to differentiate between 
``delegate agency'' and ``contractors.'' Another commenter asked if 
partners and family child care homes were considered delegates and if 
so does the grantee provide appeal procedures of the agreement is 
terminated. If family child care homes are considered delegates, the 
commenter recommended for us to add the following language to paragraph 
(a) to clarify that a grantee, partner, or family child care home can 
mutually agree to decline a delegate/grantee relationship: ``. . . 
unless the grantee and the entity negotiate to form a contractual 
rather than a delegate relationship.'' This will provide flexibility to 
the entity regarding the requirement to form a policy committee or 
other delegate responsibility.
    Response: A ``delegate agency'' is a public, private nonprofit 
(including a community based organization, as defined in section 9101 
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801), 
or for profit organization or agency to which a grantee has delegated 
all or part of the responsibility of the grantee for operating a Head 
Start program. Generally, a ``contractor'' either performs work or 
provides goods at a certain price or within a certain time.
    We did not make any changes to paragraph (a) in this section. 
Family child care providers do not meet our definition for ``delegate 
agency'' because they do not meet the first part of that definition. 
They are our partners under the Early Head Start Child Care Partnership 
(EHS-CCP). Under EHS-CCP, new or existing Early Head Start grantees 
partner with regulated center-based or family child care providers who 
agree to meet Head Start program performance standards.
Section 1303.32 Evaluations and Corrective Actions for Delegate 
Agencies
    This section includes requirements from section 641A(d) of the Act 
with respect to the evaluation of delegate agencies and corrective 
actions in the event of a deficiency.
    Comment: Some commenters asked us to include the actual language of 
section 641A(d) of the Act rather than cite to it and to clarify that 
the Act's requirement for each Head Start agency to establish 
procedures to evaluate and defund delegate agencies and for delegate 
agencies to appeal defunding decisions may be satisfied with provisions 
on those topics in its delegate agency agreement(s).
    Response: We refer to the Act when possible to streamline and to 
make the regulation read better. We did not make any changes to this 
section.
Section 1303.33 Termination of Delegate Agencies
    In this section, we clarify that a grantee cannot terminate a 
delegate agency without showing cause and the grantee's decision to 
terminate cannot be arbitrary or capricious. To align with section 
641A(d)(1)(C) of the Act, we require grantees to establish procedures 
to defund a delegate agency. We also require grantees to establish 
procedures that are fair and timely for a delegate agency to appeal a 
defunding decision.
    Furthermore, we removed the appeal procedures for delegate agencies 
that were under part 1303 subpart C in the previous rule. The reason 
being, grantees are accountable for the services their delegate 
agencies provide to children and families. We believe they must have 
the necessary tools at their disposal to remove delegate agencies. We 
believe the previous system inappropriately tied the hands of grantees 
and had become overly burdensome.
    We address the comments we received on this section below.
    Comment: Some commenters supported our proposal to eliminate 
complex delegate agency appeals procedures. They believed this provided 
helpful flexibility to Head Start agencies that, for reasons of cost or 
inadequate delegate agency performance, may find it necessary to 
terminate a delegate agency relationship.
    Response: We agree that grantees are ultimately accountable for 
their delegates. Consequently, grantees must be able to remove 
delegates when necessary, without having to go through an overly 
burdensome process. Furthermore, we believe grantees are in the best 
position to provide appeal processes for delegate agencies. We have not 
changed this provision.
Facilities; Subpart E
    This subpart implements the statutory requirements related to 
facilities in section 644(c), (f), and (g) of the Act. It clarifies and 
reorganizes requirements for grantees when they apply to use Head Start 
funds to purchase, construct or make major renovations to facilities.
    This subpart logically organizes all relevant information and 
requirements for protecting the federal interest under a broad variety 
of circumstances. It also removes requirements that are not Head Start-
specific but rather are overarching requirements for managing federal 
grants and aligns all remaining provisions with the Uniform 
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements 
for Federal Awards. We address comments we received on each section 
within this subpart below.
Section 1303.40 Purpose
    This section clarifies that the whole of subpart E applies to major 
renovations. It explains these provisions apply only to minor 
renovations and repairs when they are included in a purchase and are 
part of the purchase costs. We address the one comment we received on 
this section below.
    Comment: One commenter noted that it may be necessary to us to 
clarify that information contained in a Program Instruction and its 
application be made clear in this section.
    Response: We integrated the information from Program Instructions 
into this section and into our definition for ``purchase'' in part 
1305. We did not make any changes here.
Section 1303.41 Approval of Previously Purchased Facilities
    Our previous regulation did not address refinancing. But as 
interest rates have fallen, grantees have asked us for permission to 
apply for more advantageous loan terms. In this section, we allow 
grantees that have purchased facilities beginning in 1987 and that 
continue to pay purchase costs or seek to refinance indebtedness to 
apply for funds to meet costs associated with refinancing. We also 
revised the language to clarify that a purchase includes both principal 
and interest payments on approved loans in accordance with section 
644(g)(2) of the Act. We received comments on this section and address 
them below.

[[Page 61366]]

    Comment: One commenter asked why we included ``1987'' in this 
section.
    Response: The ``1987'' date is consistent with the Act. The date 
notes it is allowable to use funds to purchase or continue the purchase 
of facilities after December 31, 1986. We revised the language to more 
closely mirror the Act.
    Comment: One commenter asked us to remove language that requires 
grantees to obtain HHS permission to refinance an existing mortgage.
    Response: We did not remove language that requires grantees to get 
HHS permission to refinance an existing mortgage. Refinancing of 
existing indebtedness may result in cross-collateral or cross-default 
provisions that put facilities subject to a federal interest at risk of 
foreclosure for debt not associated with the Head Start program.
Section 1303.42 Eligibility To Purchase, Construct, and Renovate 
Facilities
    This section prescribes what grantees must show to be eligible to 
construct or renovate a facility. It also clarifies grantees that apply 
for funds to purchase, construct or renovate a facility must establish 
that the facility will be available to Indian tribes, rural, or other 
low-income communities. We received multiple comments on this section. 
We address those comments below.
    Comment: Commenters suggested we clarify in paragraph (a) how a 
grantee can establish that preliminary eligibility requirements are 
satisfied.
    Response: We did not revise language in this section to prescribe 
how a grantee can establish preliminary eligibility to purchase, 
construct, or renovate a facility. We believe that a grantee may 
demonstrate preliminary eligibility in a variety of ways and that a 
prescriptive process might create compliance challenges for some 
grantees.
    Comment: Some commenters felt we created an unnecessary cost burden 
because we require a certified appraiser to address availability of 
suitable facilities in paragraph (b) of this section. These commenters 
believed a real estate professional's opinion was sufficient.
    Response: We agree availability of suitable facilities can be 
adequately established, at lower cost, by an independent real estate 
professional familiar with the local commercial real property market. 
Therefore, we revised paragraph (b) to clarify a real estate 
professional's opinion is sufficient.
Section 1303.43 Use of Grant Funds To Pay Fees
    This section clarifies the type and extent of pre-project costs, 
such as project feasibility studies and professional fees, we may 
approve before a grantee applies for funding to purchase, construct, 
and renovate facilities.
    Comment: One commenter asked us to revise this section to allow 
grantees to use funds from their then-current Head Start grant for 
facilities projects or apply for and receive funds under the noted 
section.
    Response: We did not revise this section to allow grantees to use 
existing grant funds for fees and costs associated with a facilities 
project. We believe that can be addressed through existing facilities 
regulations at 45 CFR part 75.
Section 1303.44 Applications To Purchase, Construct, and Renovate 
Facilities
    This section focuses on the process grantees must use to apply for 
funds to purchase, construct, and renovate facilities. We address 
comments we received on this section below.
    Comment: One commenter queried whether the facilities application 
process is applicable to all uses of funds for facilities activities or 
only when additional funds are requested. Another suggested we should 
add a performance standard that requires the responsible HHS official 
to promptly review and make final decisions regarding completed 
applications under this subpart.
    Response: General language in Sec.  1303.40 refers to facilities 
purchased, constructed or renovated with grant funds and applies to all 
defined activities regardless of how funding is awarded. Therefore, we 
did not make changes here.
    We also did not require the responsible HHS official to promptly 
review and make final decisions. The primary reason being facilities 
applications require substantial information and some applications are 
incomplete when submitted. The length of time the responsible HHS 
official may need to help a grantee submit a complete application and 
determine availability of funding varies.
    Comment: One commenter noted in paragraph (a)(2) of this section a 
deed or proof of legal ownership should not be the sole requirement for 
renovations on leased facilities. Grantees should be able to present a 
proposed lease agreement.
    Response: We currently require grantees to submit a proposed lease 
in paragraph (b)(1) in this section currently requires submission of a 
proposed lease agreement and landlord consent. A slight amendment was 
made to remove the requirement that the submitted copy by an 
``official'' copy since leases are not subject to official 
certification.
    Comment: One commenter contended value appraisals for major 
renovations to leased properties were an unnecessary expense. The 
commenter also suggested we should allow grantees to submit bids and/or 
procurement documents in lieu of appraisals.
    Response: Since a grantee does not obtain title to leased property 
subject to major renovations, we agree that an appraisal is not needed 
in that limited circumstance. We revised paragraph (a)(7) accordingly. 
However, we did not revise paragraph (a)(7) to allow grantees to submit 
bids and/or procurement documents in lieu of appraisals. We believe a 
licensed appraisal to establish value ensures consistency and accuracy.
    Comment: One commenter suggested we should eliminate the required 
Phase I environmental assessment of proposed facilities sites in 
paragraph (a)(12) because remediation would increase project costs and 
prove to be an impediment to facilities projects on leased property. 
Another commenter suggested we should not require environmental 
assessments for major renovations.
    Response: We did not remove this performance standard. We rely on 
environmental assessments to ensure we only fund those activities that 
result in safe and healthy care environments for children, families and 
staff whether the facility is owned or leased.
    Comment: One commenter asked us to reduce the lease term 
requirement for modular units on property not owned by the grantee from 
15 years to 10 years.
    Response: Modular units often represent a substantial expenditure. 
We believe that a lease term of 15 years will assure grantees have a 
location for the modular unit for a period of occupancy long enough to 
use the full value of the federal investment in the modular unit.
Section 1303.45 Cost Comparison To Purchase, Construct, and Renovate 
Facilities
    We require grantees to compare costs to renovate, to lease an 
existing facility, or to construct a new facility to determine which 
activity would be most cost effective to meet program needs. Grantees 
must be able to demonstrate that they have compared costs and weighed 
options so we know our investment in a particular facility activity is 
cost-effective and service-relevant. This section allows grantees 
greater flexibility to describe projects

[[Page 61367]]

and to compare costs to other alternatives within their service areas.
    We address the one comment we received on this section below.
    Comment: One commenter asked us to revise the last sentence in 
paragraph (a)(1) in this section so that it refers to a ``comparable 
alternative facility.''
    Response: We did not revise paragraph (a)(1). We believe the term 
``alternative,'' allows for the possibility of a non-comparable 
facility, such as one that might be made usable through major 
renovations.
Section 1303.46 Recording and Posting Notices of Federal Interest
    This section focuses on federal interest and clarifies when 
grantees must file notices of federal interest and what the notices 
must contain. We address comments we received on this section below.
    Comment: Some commenters contended grantees would not be able to 
file federal interest notices until the purchase, construction, or 
major renovation was either complete or at least when these activities 
have begun or when a grantee obtains ownership or begins occupancy.
    Response: To protect federal interest in acquired facilities or in 
facilities undergoing major renovations with federal funds, we believe 
the notice of federal interest must be filed as early as possible to 
avoid the superior placement of liens for materials and services that 
would compromise priority of the federal interest. Therefore, we did 
not revise paragraphs (b)(1)-(3).
    Comment: Some commenters felt the performance standard in paragraph 
(b)(4) that requires grantees to post the notice of federal interest on 
the exterior and the interior of modular units, could be cost 
prohibitive.
    Response: We did not revise paragraph (b)(4). Posting the notice of 
federal interest on the exterior of the property informs all third 
parties that there is federal interest in the property. The exterior 
notice of federal interest for a modular unit can be as simple as a 
single-page laminated weatherproof copy of the interior notice firmly 
attached to the exterior of the modular unit, which would involve 
minimal cost.
    Comment: Commenters liked our streamlined definition for ``major 
renovations,'' but asked us to either define or clarify what we mean by 
``federal interest.''
    Response: We agree our former definition for ``major renovations'' 
was difficult for grantees to apply.
    We did not change our definition for ``federal interest,'' because 
we believe it fully advises grantees of when a federal interest is 
created and how property that is being used to meet non-federal match 
is treated. We believe what we mean by ``federal interest'' is more 
detailed and complete in this final rule.
Section 1303.47 Contents of Notices of Federal Interest
    This section comprehensively explains what notices of federal 
interest must contain when a grantee owns a facility, when a grantee 
leases a facility, and when a grantee occupies a modular unit. We 
received some comments on this section, which we address below.
    Comment: One commenter asked us to strike the term ``or minor'' 
from paragraph (a)(4).
    Response: We revised paragraph (a)(4) to remove the phrase ``or 
minor'' because minor renovations or repairs are not subject to this 
subpart unless they are part of a purchase.
    Comment: One commenter recommended we remove the performance 
standard in paragraph (a)(8) that requires the governing body to 
formally approve the notice of federal interest because it was 
unnecessarily prescriptive.
    Response: We believe as the entity fiscally and legally responsible 
for the grantee, the governing body should be made aware of any notices 
of federal interest the grantee files. However, given the governing 
body must approve all facilities applications, we agree they do not 
also need to approve the notice of federal interest. We revised 
paragraph (a)(8) accordingly.
    Comment: Commenters asked us to clarify whether a recorded lease 
could serve as a notice of federal interest. Other commenters noted the 
reference in paragraph (b)(1)(vi) of this section to notices of federal 
interest on leased property should have referred to Sec.  1303.50(b)(1) 
through (4). Another commenter stated landlords may be unwilling to 
lease to Head Start grantees if a notice of federal interest for major 
renovations to leased property is required.
    Response: We revised paragraph (b)(1)(vi), so it is clear a 
recorded lease that includes requisite provisions can serve as a notice 
of federal interest for leased property subject to major renovations. 
We also revised paragraph (b)(1)(vi) so that it references paragraph 
(b)(1)(i) through (v).
    Finally, we did not revise this performance standard to accommodate 
situations where landlords may be unwilling to lease to Head Start 
grantees if a notice of federal interest for major renovations to 
leased property is required. We believe requiring recognition of the 
federal interest resulting from major renovations in lease agreements 
filed in the public record protects the ongoing use of improved 
properties for Head Start purposes during the useful life of the 
improvements financed with Head Start funds.
    Comment: Commenters asked us to clarify what the word ``proof'' in 
paragraph (c)(3) meant.
    Response: We replaced the word ``proof'' with the phrase ``[A] 
statement that.''
Section 1303.49 Protection of Federal Interest in Mortgage Agreements
    Funding for facilities often includes both federal funds and 
mortgage proceeds. As funding for facilities has become more complex, 
it is common to find federal funds and mortgages on the same property. 
In order to protect federal interest, we require grantees to ensure 
that any mortgage agreements they have include specific provisions that 
would mitigate our risk of loss and ensure the property remains for 
Head Start purposes.
    This section prescribes what mortgage agreements must contain. We 
address comments we received on this section below.
    Comment: Commenter indicated the term ``a real property . . . 
agreement'' made paragraph (b) in the section unclear. The commenter 
asked us to reference any default under ``an agreement described in 
Sec.  1303.49(a) instead.
    Response: We revised paragraph (b) accordingly.
Section 1303.50 Third Party Leases and Occupancy Arrangements
    Grantees may use federal funds to renovate leased property, often 
at substantial cost. This section requires grantees to have leases in 
place for 30 years for construction of a facility and at least 15 years 
for a renovation or placement of a modular unit to protect federal 
interests in these unusual cases where the government is putting major 
costs into facilities on land that they do not own. We address comments 
we received on this section below.
    Comment: Some commenters asked us to not apply paragraph (a) in 
this section to existing leases that did not meet term requirements.
    Other commenters suggested there should be a flexible approach to 
lease term lengths that depended on the cost of the facilities project, 
individual circumstances of the grantee, community and nature of the 
facilities project or, that we adopt a fixed period of 10 years. Some 
commenters also

[[Page 61368]]

noted that five-year grant cycles did not align with 15 or 30 year 
leases.
    Response: We revised paragraph (a) to clarify that its terms did 
not apply to existing leases prior to the effective date of the 
regulations. We did not take a flexible approach to lease term lengths. 
Given that facilities activities involve substantial Head Start funds 
and are intended to be available for Head Start use as needed during 
the useful life of the facility, we made lease term lengths consistent. 
We also set term lengths to ensure grantees are subject to comparable 
lease term length requirements, regardless of location. Finally, we 
believe long term occupancy agreements for the full useful life of 
major renovations and purchases are needed to protect the Head Start 
funds used for major renovations and purchase of facilities located on 
leased property.
    It is understood that migrant and seasonal Head Start programs may 
not utilize leased premises for entire program years. However, given 
the high dollar cost of major renovations and purchase of facilities, 
we believe that long term occupancy agreements, even if for limited 
portions of the program year, are needed. If a facility is no longer 
needed for program purposes, grantees can request disposition of the 
leasehold interest in the property.
Section 1303.51 Subordination of the Federal Interest
    This section emphasizes that only the responsible HHS official can 
subordinate federal interest to a lender or other third party. Grantees 
cannot subordinate federal interest on their own. The HHS official must 
agree to subordination in writing. In addition to a written agreement, 
the mortgage agreement or security agreement for which subordination is 
requested must comply with Sec.  1303.49, and the amount of federal 
funds already contributed to the facility must not exceed the amount 
provided by the lender seeking subordination. We address comments we 
received on this section below.
    Comment: Commenters indicated that limiting subordination of the 
federal interest to circumstances where the amount requested exceeds 
the amount of federal funding in the property would result in reluctant 
lenders.
    Response: We revised this performance standard to integrate the 
possibility of subordination to a lesser debt if certain conditions are 
met.
Section 1303.52 Insurance, Bonding, and Maintenance
    Our experience has demonstrated that grantees have not maintained 
sufficient insurance for replacement of facilities that are 
substantially damaged or destroyed, particularly through floods and 
other natural disasters. After Hurricane Sandy, we realized we had to 
be more vigilant to protect grantees against loss.
    In this section, we require grantees to obtain flood insurance if 
their facilities are located in areas the National Flood Insurance 
Program defines as high risk. We also clarify for grantees that 
physical damage or destruction insurance must cover full replacement 
value.
    We address comments we received on this section below.
    Comment: One commenter noted that the cost of flood insurance 
should be included in the Cost and Savings Analysis so as not to create 
an unfunded mandate upon the grantee.
    Response: We did not make any changes here because flood insurance 
is an allowable cost to the Head Start award and can be included in the 
grantee's application for funding.
    Comment: One commenter asked us to revise paragraph (b)(3) to read, 
``A grantee must submit to the responsible HHS official, within 10 days 
after coverage begins, copies of applicable certificates of 
insurance.''
    Response: We revised paragraph (b)(3) to clarify what insurance 
coverage must be proven but leaves it to the grantee to choose what 
documents to present to prove coverage.
Section 1303.53 Copies of Documents
    This section adds notices of federal interest to the list of 
required documents grantees must provide to the responsible HHS 
official. It also requires grantees to give copies of notices of 
federal interest to the responsible HHS official after they have filed 
the notices in their jurisdiction's property records. This is 
particularly important because notices of federal interest do not fully 
protect the federal share until the notices are filed in the 
appropriate property records. We address comments we received on this 
section below.
    Comment: One commenter was concerned that if we include leases in 
this section, we might create a situation wherein large numbers of 
leases would have to be reviewed annually.
    Response: We do not require grantees to submit documents listed in 
this section annually. Furthermore, these documents are only necessary 
when related to purchase, construction or major renovation, so we 
believe the volume of submissions will be manageable. We revised this 
section to clarify these documents must be submitted when Head Start 
funds are used for the noted facilities activities.
Section 1303.54 Record Retention
    This section clarifies what documents grantees must retain as 
records. This section does not change the basic retention period, which 
is aligned with general requirements in the Uniform Administrative 
Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal 
Awards. We did not receive any comments on this section.
Section 1303.55 Procurement Procedures
    This section summarizes general procurement procedures as context 
for grantees. We did not receive any comments on this section.
Section 1303.56 Inspection of Work
    This section aligns the elements of the final inspection report 
with those required in the engineer or architect's certification that 
accompanies the initial facilities project application. We address 
comments we received on this section below.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that we do not require project 
architects to certify compliance with regulations beyond his control 
such as licensing and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.
    Response: We did not make any changes here. We believe the project 
architect is a qualified professional familiar with the project, who 
can express an opinion as to whether a facility subject to purchase, 
construction or major renovation with Head Start funds meets all 
applicable federal, state, and local requirements.
Transportation; Subpart F
    This subpart describes the requirements for programs related to 
transportation services. We received comments on this subpart. Some 
commenters supported the requirements in this section and stated that 
without transportation provided by the program, many high need families 
would be unable to access the program as they do not have private 
vehicles or access to public transportation. Other commenters expressed 
concerns or asked for clarifications. These comments are discussed in 
further detail below along with our responses.
General Comments
    Comment: Some commenters asked about the applicability of the 
regulation including for field trips or transporting children and 
parents to medical appointments. Some commenters expressed concern 
about the cost of transportation services or specific elements, such as 
requiring bus monitors. One commenter asked about

[[Page 61369]]

the relative cost, quality, and compliance of contractual versus 
directly provided transportation.
    Response: Incidental transportation as described under the 
definition of ``transportation services'' in part 1305 is exempt from 
the requirements of this subpart. This includes taking a sick child 
home or taking a child and parent on a medical visit. Field trips are 
not incidental transportation and therefore are subject to the 
requirements of this subpart. Additionally, we recognize that providing 
transportation is expensive, but that many high need children would not 
be able to participate in Head Start without transportation services. 
No program is required to transport all or any children, but if high 
need families require transportation services to access the program, 
such services should be part of the program design. Programs should 
also regularly assess the cost and quality of their transportation 
service and make informed decisions about the safest and most cost 
efficient options. We did not make any changes to the regulation in 
response to these comments.
Section 1303.70 Purpose
    This section describes transportation services and waiver options 
for programs. We received some comments on this section, which are 
discussed below.
    Comment: Some commenters objected to the requirement in paragraph 
(b) that programs not offering transportation services make reasonable 
efforts to assist families who might otherwise have difficulty ensuring 
their child's participation. Some commenters indicated this provision 
could be especially difficult in rural areas and should therefore be 
removed. Some commenters requested more clarity about what constitutes 
``reasonable assistance.''
    Response: This provision is intended to ensure that programs that 
do not provide transportation ensure that lack of such service does not 
pose a barrier to participation in the program for the highest need 
children and families. Many rural Head Start programs, for example, 
provide transportation because not doing so would greatly limit the 
number of the highest need children who could participate. We expect 
that when a program has determined transportation is not a needed 
service, there are available alternatives. Therefore we retained this 
requirement, but added an example of reasonable assistance to paragraph 
(b).
    Comment: One commenter suggested that programs must ensure 
compliance with the requirements of this subpart when obtaining Head 
Start transportation services by coordinating with another human 
service agency.
    Response: We agree with this comment but do not think it requires a 
revision to the regulation. As defined in part 1305, Head Start 
transportation services include ``the planned transporting of children 
to and from sites where an agency provides services funded under the 
Head Start Act.'' Therefore services provided through a coordinating 
agency would have to meet the requirements of this subpart. Each 
program is responsible for ensuring that the transportation services it 
provides, whether directly, through a coordinated effort with an LEA or 
community partner, or through a contractual arrangement, meet these 
requirements.
    Comment: Some commenters asked for additional information about the 
circumstances under which a waiver can be issued and how decisions 
regarding waiver approval are made.
    Response: Per the regulation, we will only consider waivers in 
circumstances where adherence to this subpart would create a safety 
hazard or, for preschool children, a major program disruption in 
relation to the requirements for child restraint systems or bus 
monitors, such that a waiver is in the best interest of enrolled 
children. We did not make any changes to these provisions. Typically, 
programs receiving transportation services through a partnership with a 
local education agency are the only ones approved for waivers. Programs 
can find information about applying for a transportation waiver through 
the Head Start Enterprise System (HSES) or by contacting their program 
official.
Section 1303.71 Vehicles
    This section describes the requirements for vehicles used to 
transport children. We received some comments on this section, which 
are discussed below.
    Comment: One commenter requested additional information about 
allowable alternate vehicles.
    Response: The definition of ``allowable alternate vehicle'' is 
provided in part 1305 and refers to a vehicle designed for carrying 
eleven or more people, including the driver, that meets all the Federal 
Motor Vehicle Safety Standards applicable to school buses, except 49 
CFR 571.108 and 571.131. It is a vehicle that may not look like a 
traditional school bus, but has the required safety features such as 
compartmentalized seating, rollover protection, joint impact strength, 
and fuel system integrity. We did not make any changes to this 
provision.
    Comment: One commenter objected to the removal of the former 
requirement that safety equipment be strategically placed and marked.
    Response: While we expect each program to store such equipment 
where it is safe from children but accessible in an emergency, we agree 
that such equipment should be clearly labeled. We amended paragraph (b) 
to specify this.
Section 1303.72 Vehicle Operation
    This section describes safety requirements during vehicle 
operation, driver qualification and application review requirements, 
and requirements for driver and bus monitor training. We received some 
comments on this section, discussed below.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that we allow reasonable 
accommodation related to the requirements of the commercial driver's 
license (CDL) and that drivers should follow applicable Department of 
Transportation (DOT) regulations, including for drug and alcohol 
testing.
    Response: In addition to possessing an appropriate CDL, drivers 
providing Head Start transportation services must meet applicable DOT, 
tribal, state, and local requirements for their jurisdiction. There are 
requirements for drug and alcohol testing associated with a CDL. 
Therefore, we did not make any revisions to this provision.
    Comment: Some commenters expressed concern that the requirement to 
review a driver candidate's record through the National Driver Register 
could delay the hiring of needed drivers.
    Response: While we understand the concerns about the expediency of 
various background checks, we believe it is very important to use 
available sources that may provide information about the safety record 
of driver candidates. Therefore, we retained this requirement to check 
the National Driver Register where available.
    Comment: One commenter expressed concern that standards articulated 
the requirement for child safety restraint systems, but did not 
actually require that children be seated while using them.
    Response: We agree that safety restraint systems only afford 
protection if they are properly used. We amended Sec.  1303.72(a)(1) to 
specify that each child should be seated in a child restraint system 
appropriate to the child's age, height and weight.
    Comment: Some commenters referred to the requirement in paragraph 
(d) that drivers receive training in first aid. One suggested that 
Cardio Pulmonary

[[Page 61370]]

Resuscitation (CPR) also be required. Another suggested it is not 
necessary to require first aid training for drivers.
    Response: We agree that drivers should have both first aid and CPR 
training. This is required in Sec.  1302.47, and is therefore deleted 
from the list of training requirements in this section.
Section 1303.73 Trip Routing
    This section establishes requirements for the safe and efficient 
planning of transportation routes.
    Comment: Some commenters had concerns about the length of bus 
routes, including that some bus routes exceed an hour due to the 
geography of the service area and that complying with the trip routing 
safety requirements results in longer trips.
    Response: Programs must keep trips under one hour, to the extent 
possible. We recognize that in some areas, such as rural areas, routes 
may be longer than an hour. We encourage programs to train bus monitors 
to provide meaningful interactions, discussion, songs, etc. with 
children during the time on the bus. We also understand that such 
things as requiring no U turns and curbside pick-up and drop off may 
extend routes. However, as the majority of school bus related child 
fatalities occur before boarding or after exiting the bus, we believe 
these safety provisions are necessary. We did not make any changes to 
these provisions.
Section 1303.74 Safety Procedures
    This section describes the safety procedures programs must adhere 
to as part of transportation. We did not receive any comments on this 
section and therefore did not make any changes to these provisions.
Section 1303.75 Children With Disabilities
    This section describes requirements for transporting children with 
disabilities. Below we discuss the comments we received on this section 
and our corresponding responses.
    Comment: Some commenters supported the provision in paragraph (a) 
of this section that children with disabilities must be transported in 
the same vehicles used to transport other children whenever possible. 
Other commenters raised questions or concerns including a request to 
retain a previous provision to ensure special transportation 
requirements in a child's IEP or IFSP are followed, and a question 
about whether a program must ensure that drivers from other agencies 
are trained.
    Response: In paragraph (b), we retained the provision that ensures 
special transportation requirements in a child's IEP or IFSP are 
followed; this provision was also retained in the NPRM. All Head Start 
transportation services, including those for children with 
disabilities, must meet the requirements of this regulation, whether 
they are provided directly, contractually, or through agreement with a 
local educational agency or other partner.
Federal Administrative Procedures; Part 1304
Monitoring, Suspension, Termination, Denial of Refunding, Reduction in 
Funding, and Their Appeals; Subpart A
    This subpart focuses on monitoring, areas of noncompliance, 
deficiencies, and quality improvement plans. It outlines what happens 
when a grantee is suspended, when a grantee is terminated, when a 
grantee's financial assistance or application for refunding is denied, 
and when a grantee's assistance is reduced. It also clarifies the 
appeals process for certain adverse actions. We analyze the comments 
received on this subpart below.
Section 1304.1 Purpose
    This section lays out the Secretary's authority to monitor whether 
grantees meet program performance standards and to prescribe notice and 
appeal procedures. We did not receive any comments on this section.
Section 1304.2 Monitoring
    This section clarifies our authority to monitor grantees to ensure 
they comply with the Act, all program performance standards, and other 
federal regulations. We also clarify for programs that a deficiency can 
develop from an uncorrected area of noncompliance and from monitoring 
findings that show either a grantee's systemic or substantial material 
failure to comply with standards. We received comments from the public 
on this section and we discuss those comments below.
    Comment: Some commenters urged us to take the lead to streamline 
Early Head Start, Head Start, and Child Care and Development Fund 
monitoring requirements and practices so that programs can focus more 
on performance and outcomes and less on monitoring compliance with 
detailed regulation. These commenters suggest for ACF to work more 
collaboratively with other federal partners to coordinate approaches to 
monitoring, and evaluating and supporting continuous quality 
improvement of early learning programs and their impacts. One commenter 
urged us to take the lead to build better integration between Early/
Head Start data and state/local data systems.
    Response: We will continue to work to better align Early Head 
Start, Head Start, and Child Care and Development Fund monitoring 
requirements and practices where possible. We will also continue to 
work with other federal partners to coordinate approaches to 
monitoring. We will continue to work with partners to facilitate better 
integration between Early/Head Start data and state/local data systems.
    Comment: Some commenters asked us to define ``immediate 
deficiencies,'' to prescribe how these deficiencies can be resolved, 
set time frames to correct areas of noncompliance and deficiencies, 
and, establish a deficiency review board that is independent of the 
regional office.
    Response: We defer to the Act's definition for ``deficiency,'' at 
section 637. Deficiencies are not determined at the regional level, 
though they were many years ago. Now, the Director of the Office of 
Head Start determines all deficiencies independently.
    Comment: One commenter asked us to consider whether CLASS scores 
that fall below national norms, should be a non-compliance issue rather 
than a deficiency. The commenter believes data, including CLASS 
results, should be used as flashlight to illuminate paths to 
professional development and the central tenet of Head Start, 
continuous improvement.
    Response: We did not propose any changes to the designation renewal 
system at former part 1307 in the NPRM. As we did not invite comments 
on the designation renewal system in the NPRM, we cannot respond to 
this comment here.
Section 1304.3 Suspension With Notice
    This section includes the program performance standards for 
suspensions with notice. Although we retained, without change, most 
performance standards in this section, we proposed a few changes in the 
NPRM. We received comments on what we proposed in the NPRM and we 
address them below.
    Comment: Some commenters complained paragraph (g) in this section 
gives the HHS official unilateral authority to impose additional 
suspensions indefinitely without having to verify in writing that 
deficiencies still exist. They argue that this practice conflicts with 
section 646(a)(5)(A) of the Act which requires the Secretary to 
prescribe procedures to assure that the Secretary may suspend financial 
assistance, ``for not more than 30 days . . .'' To comply with the Act, 
they

[[Page 61371]]

asked us to remove the sentence: ``Nothing in this section precludes 
the HHS official from imposing suspension again for an additional 30 
days if the cause of the suspension has been corrected.''
    Response: Paragraph (g) in this section does not violate section 
646(a)(5)(A) of the Act. If a grantee has not satisfactorily corrected 
what led to the suspension in 30 days, HHS has the ability to impose 
another suspension for 30 days.
Section 1304.4 Emergency Suspension Without Advance Notice
    In this section, we discuss the circumstances that warrant 
emergency suspension without notice. We proposed a few small changes in 
the NPRM, specifically we added the term ``emergency situation'' to the 
reasons we can suspend without notice, to be more closely aligned with 
the Act. And we proposed to no longer allow grantees to use 
contributions during the suspended period to count toward in-kind 
match. We received comments on this section and discuss those comments 
below.
    Comment: Some commenters believed paragraph (b) was worded 
awkwardly. To make the paragraph read better, the commenter asked us to 
make the following changes: Delete the phrase ``by any means'' in 
paragraph (b)(2); reword paragraph (b)(3); and clarify what the 
``informal meeting'' is in paragraph (b)(4). The commenter also pointed 
out something was missing in paragraph (c).
    Response: We revised the language in paragraphs (b)(1)(iv), (b)(2) 
and (3), and (c) for clarification.
    Comment: Some commenters noted if we allow the responsible HHS 
official to impose additional 30 days suspensions, then in effect we 
have terminated the program. If a Head Start program loses funding for 
60, 90, or more days, the program is likely to be so financially 
handicapped that the result could be the same as a termination of 
funding.
    Response: We disagree that suspension is tantamount to termination. 
We only use suspension when such measure is allowed under the Act and 
usually in extraordinary circumstances. From 2013 to 2015, we issued 5 
summary suspensions. Of the 5 summary suspensions, 4 resulted in 
termination.
    Comment: Some commenters recommended we describe how programs 
should appeal findings to the HHS official.
    Response: We did not prescribe how programs should appeal findings 
to the HHS official. There is no formal process for how programs must 
appeal findings to the HHS official. However, regardless of how 
evidence is presented to the HHS official, we will consider it.
Section 1304.5 Termination and Denial of Refunding
    In this section describe the circumstances under which HHS can 
terminate, and, deny refunding or reduce funding. We also discuss 
appeal procedures for terminations and denials of refunding. We address 
the one comment we received on this section below.
    Comment: Some commenters asked us to define ``financial viability'' 
again because our proposed definition was too broad and too subjective. 
A commenter proposed the following definition: ``Financial viability 
means that an organization is able to meet its financial obligations as 
they become due.''
    Response: We did not revise our definition for ``financial 
viability.'' However, we will clarify here what we mean by the phrase 
``balance funding and expenses.'' The phrase ``balance funding and 
expenses'' refers to the status of a grantee's funds and obligations by 
the end of the funding period. We understand throughout a funding 
period, funding and expenses will not always remain balanced. However, 
they should balance by the end of the funding period.
Section 1304.6 Appeal for Prospective Delegate Agencies
    Section 646(a)(1) of the Act requires appeal procedures for certain 
conflicts between delegates and grantees. The Act requires a timely and 
expeditious appeal to the Secretary for an entity who wants to serve as 
a delegate and whose application has been rejected or not acted upon.
    The previous regulation included an additional step that allowed 
prospective delegate agencies to appeal application decisions to the 
grantee first. This extra step added nothing to the application appeal 
process beyond extending it. Therefore, in the NPRM, we proposed to 
eliminate this extra step. We also proposed to eliminate the 
reconsideration process. We address the one comment we received on this 
section below.
    Comment: According to one commenter, because we eliminated the 
appeal between prospective delegate agencies and grantees and require 
only the appeal to ACF, there may be occasions where a grantee wishes 
to reconsider its decision about a prospective delegate agency.
    Response: Granted, there may be occasions where a grantee wishes to 
reconsider its decision about a delegate agency. We did not prohibit a 
grantee that chooses to reconsider its decision about a prospective 
delegate agency, but we did not require the grantee to do so either.
Section 1304.7 Legal Fees
    This section focuses on grantees' right to attorneys and attorney 
fees. In the NPRM, we proposed to revise this section to align with 
section 646(a)(4)(C) of the Act, which requires the Secretary to 
prescribe procedures that prohibit a Head Start agency from using 
program grant funds to pay attorney fees and costs incurred during an 
appeal. This section also addresses when an agency may apply for 
reimbursement of fees and the procedures for doing so.
    Comment: Some commenters asked us to clarify whether delegate 
agencies can seek reimbursement for legal fees.
    Response: No. Delegate agencies cannot seek reimbursement for legal 
fees. The Act only speaks to the reimbursement of legal fees for the 
grantee appealing an HHS decision.
Designation Renewal; Subpart B
    We did not make changes to the content of this subpart and 
therefore did not invite comments in the NPRM. We made technical 
changes to reorder what was part 1307, where this subpart was located 
in the previous rule, in a logical order for this rule. Although we did 
not invite comments, some commenters raised concerns about the 
Designation Renewal System and offered suggestions for alternate 
approaches. As prescribed by the Administrative Procedures Act, because 
we did not give notice of any potential changes we cannot make any 
changes in the final rule.
Selection of Grantees Through Competition; Subpart C
    Section 641(d)(2) of the Act outlines the specific criteria the 
Secretary must use to select grantees and allow consideration of 
``other factors'' and we refer to this citation in our regulatory text. 
This subpart revises previous program performance standards to reflect 
a more transparent and streamlined process for Head Start grant 
competitions and outline the other factors that are considered. We 
received comments on this section and discuss them below.
    Comment: Commenters were concerned about removing the previous 
criteria for grantee selection regarding opportunities for employment 
and for the direct participation of parents in planning, conducting, 
and administering the program.
    Response: In the Act, Congress included an extensive list of 
criteria that

[[Page 61372]]

must be considered when selecting from among qualified applicants. This 
list includes family and community involvement, and thus by referencing 
section 641(d)(2) of the Act, these important concepts are covered by 
this section of the regulation. This list includes the important 
participation of families and communities.
Replacement of American Indian and Alaska Native Grantees; Subpart D
    This subpart outlines the requirements for replacing American 
Indian and Alaska Native Head Start programs. We did not receive any 
comments on this section and did not make any changes.
Head Start Fellows Program, Subpart E
    This subpart outlines the requirements for administration of the 
Head Start Fellows Program. We did not receive any comments on this 
section and did not make any changes.
Definitions; Part 1305
    In this part, we include definitions from all sections of the 
previous rule for ease of grantee and prospective grantee understanding 
and transparency. In the previous rule, definitions were attached to 
each section. We consolidated definitions that were repeated in 
multiple sections in the previous rule. In addition, we removed many 
definitions that were either not meaningful or did not add to the 
widely understood meaning. We also removed definitions when it was 
clearer to incorporate their meaning into the provisions themselves or 
when the terms were not included in the final rule. We restored 
definitions from the previous rule that were not included in the NPRM 
when we used these terms in the final rule. We added some new 
definitions to this part in order to support other revisions throughout 
the rule or to provide technical clarity including their statutory 
basis in the Act, and reference the definitions in other relevant 
pieces of legislation where appropriate. Finally, we made a technical 
change to add a section on the purpose of this part, and renamed and 
redesignated the proposed section Sec.  1305.1 to Sec.  1305.2 in this 
final rule.
    We received many comments on this part. Many commenters requested 
that we add additional definitions. Others asked that additional 
details be included in previous or proposed definitions. Others pointed 
out inconsistencies between definitions and asked for clarification. 
Finally, commenters asked that definitions from the Act and other 
statutes be spelled out in the rule. We discuss and respond to each of 
these categories of comments below.
    Comment: Many commenters requested a definition for ``planned 
operation.''
    Response: In light of the changes to the service duration 
requirements for center-based programs in Sec.  1302.21(c) that remove 
the term ``planned operation,'' we have deleted the definitions for 
``hours of operation'' because they are no longer necessary. We added a 
definition for ``hours of planned class operations.''
    Comment: Many commenters requested definitions that were not in the 
previous rule or the NPRM including: authorized caregiver, directory 
information, entry, high-quality pre-K, noncompliance, inclusion, LEA, 
frequently absent, unexcused absence, material, standardized and 
structured assessments, seclusion/restraint, and research-based.
    Response: We did not include definitions for directory information, 
entry and seclusion/restraint because they are not used in the 
performance standards and so need no definition. We did not define 
frequently absent or unexcused absence to allow programs reasonable 
flexibility to define those terms to best meet the needs of the 
families they serve. We did not define authorized caregiver, LEA, 
noncompliance, material or inclusion because we are using their widely 
understood meaning. We did not define high-quality pre-K but changed 
the language in Sec.  1302.14(a)(3) to include that pre-kindergarten 
must be comprehensive and available for a full school day. Similarly we 
did not define standardized and structured assessments but added in 
Sec.  1302.33(b)(1) that they may observation-based or direct. We did 
not include a definition for deficiency because if it defined by the 
Act and we rely entirely on that statutory definition.
    Comment: Many commenters asked that definitions from statutes, 
including the Head Start Act, IDEA, and McKinney-Vento, be restated as 
definitions in this rule.
    Response: We did not define terms when we are relying on the 
definition from other statues.
    Comment: Many commenters requested clarification of definitions 
that were in the previous rule or the NPRM, such as enrolled, family, 
and federal interest.
    Response: We have modified the definition of enrolled to clarify 
that a child is not considered enrolled until they attend the program 
for center-based and family child care or received a home visit for 
home-based. We do not believe the definitions of family or federal 
interest needed changes.
    Comment: Commenters pointed out that the definition of Migrant or 
Seasonal Head Start Program did not limit agricultural work to ``the 
production and harvesting of tree and field crops,'' while the 
definition of migrant family did limit it in this way.
    Response: We removed this phrase to make the definitions 
consistent.
    Comment: Some commenters suggested adding language to the 
regulation stating that DLLs should be defined and identified in a 
consistent manner. Some also suggested including a definition for DLLs 
in the regulation.
    Response: We do not agree that we should require programs to 
identify DLLs in a consistent manner in regulation, as this would 
unnecessarily limit program flexibility to develop their own processes 
for identifying DLLs. However, we do agree that it is important to 
incorporate a definition for ``dual language learner'' into regulation. 
We added a definition to part 1305 that is consistent with definitions 
used by experts in the field. This definition is inclusive of children 
who have a home language other than English, as well children who have 
home languages of both English and another non-English language.

VI. Regulatory Process Matters

a. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),\123\ as amended by the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, requires federal agencies 
to determine, to the extent feasible, a rule's economic impact on small 
entities, explore regulatory options for reducing any significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of such entities, and explain 
their regulatory approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \123\ 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This final rule will not result in a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small entities. It is intended to ensure 
accountability for federal funds consistent with the purposes of the 
Improving Head Start for School Readiness Act of 2007 \124\ and is not 
duplicative of other requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \124\ 42 U.S.C. 9801
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Regulatory Planning and Review Executive Order 12866

    Executive Order 12866 requires federal agencies to submit 
significant regulatory actions to the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) for review. The Order defines ``significant regulatory actions,'' 
generally, as any

[[Page 61373]]

regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may (1) have 
an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely 
affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, 
productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or 
safety, or state, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) 
create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action 
taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary 
impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the 
rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal 
or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's 
priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive Order.\125\ 
This final rule is different from many rules in the federal government 
in that it will not require Head Start programs to spend more or less 
money on Head Start services, rather it will require programs to spend 
the money they are awarded in different ways. Nonetheless, given that 
the cost of the rule exceeds $100 million and that, if fully 
implemented, the costs will either be borne by the federal government 
in the form of additional appropriations for Head Start or by Head 
Start programs in the form of loss of slots for eligible children and 
teacher employment, we have determined this rule represents a 
significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866. 
Given both the directives of the Order and the importance of 
understanding the costs savings, and benefits associated with these 
requirements both with and without additional appropriations, we 
describe the costs, savings, and benefits associated with this final 
rule as well as available regulatory alternatives below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \125\ Executive Order 12866 section 3(f)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Need for Regulatory Action
    The purpose of Head Start, as prescribed by the Act, is to 
``promote the school readiness of low-income children by enhancing 
their cognitive, social, and emotional development.'' \126\ This 
mission is based upon decades of scientific research that documents the 
strong and lasting impact of children's experiences in their first five 
years of life on brain development, learning, and health,\127,128,129\ 
and the significant economic impact of such benefits on children 
individually and on society as a whole. A wealth of research suggests 
that participation in early learning programs can help support optimal 
child development during these crucial first five years, particularly 
for children from low-income families, with benefits for society 
lasting well into adulthood.130 131 132 133 However, 
provision of consistently high-quality early learning experiences is 
central to reaping these benefits from early learning programs, 
including Head Start programs. The congressionally mandated, randomized 
control trial study of Head Start's impact did not show lasting effects 
on the outcomes measured beyond the end of the Head Start program years 
for all children. Specifically, while the Impact Study found effects at 
the end of participation in Head Start, by third grade the control and 
treatment groups showed no significant differences.\134\ However, 
recent reanalysis of data from the Head Start Impact Study suggests 
that those programs that were full-day had a more positive impact on 
children's cognitive outcomes.\135\ In order for Head Start to achieve 
its mission to be an effective tool in supporting children's success in 
kindergarten and beyond, all programs must be high quality. Decades of 
best practices, the latest research in early education, expert advice, 
the Secretary's Advisory Committee's recommendations, and Congressional 
mandates from the Act, all demonstrate that more can be done to ensure 
all Head Start programs provide consistently high-quality early 
learning experiences that prepare children for kindergarten and have 
long-term effects on their academic success. These findings all 
culminate in the need for policy changes. Additionally, we streamlined 
requirements and minimized administrative burden on local programs 
anticipate these changes will help move Head Start away from a 
compliance-oriented culture to an outcomes-focused one. Furthermore, we 
believe this approach will support better collaboration with other 
programs and funding streams. We believe the final rule, which 
incorporates these needed changes, will empower all programs to achieve 
this goal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \126\ 42 U.S.C. 9831
    \127\ National Scientific Council on the Developing Child 
(2007). The Timing and Quality of Early Experiences Combine to Shape 
Brain Architecture: Working Paper No. 5. Cambridge, MA: Author.
    \128\ Anda R.F., Felitti V.J., Bremner J.D., Walker J.D., 
Whitfield C., Perry, B.D., Dube, S.R., & Giles, W.H. (2006). The 
enduring effects of abuse and related adverse experiences in 
childhood. A convergence of evidence from neurobiology and 
epidemiology. European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical 
Neuroscience, 256(3), 174-186.
    \129\ National Scientific Council on the Developing Child 
(2010). Early Experiences Can Alter Gene Expression and Affect Long-
Term Development: Working Paper No. 10. Cambridge, MA: Author.
    \130\ Heckman, J.J., Moon, S.H., Pinto, R., Savalyev, P.A. & 
Yavitz, A. (2010). The Rate of Return to the High/Scope Perry 
Preschool Program. Journal of Public Economics, 94(1-2), 114-128.
    \131\ The Council of Economic Advisers. (December, 2014). The 
Economics of Early Childhood Investments. Washington, DC: Authors.
    \132\ Reynolds, A.J., Temple, J.A., Robertson, D.L., Mann, E.A. 
(2002). Age 21 Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Title I Chicago Child-
Parent Centers. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(4), 
267-303.
    \133\ Yoshikawa, H., Weiland, C., Brooks-Gunn, J., Burchinal, 
M., . . .Zaslow, M. (2013). Investing in our future: The evidence 
base on preschool education. Foundation for Child Development.
    \134\ Puma, M., Bell, S., Cook, R., Heid, C., Broene, P., 
Jenkins, F., & Downer, J. (2012). Third grade follow-up to the Head 
Start impact study final report. US Department of Health and Human 
Services Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation.
    \135\ Walters, C. (2014). Inputs in the production of early 
childhood human capital: Evidence from Head Start. American Economic 
Journal: Applied Economics, 7(4), 76-102.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Cost and Savings Analysis
    In this section, we first summarize and respond to comments we 
received on the Regulatory Impact Analysis in the NPRM. Then, we 
describe the data sources and general methodology used to calculate 
costs and savings throughout this analysis. We also summarize the total 
estimated costs and cost savings associated with this rule, split into 
four categories: costs and cost savings borne by Head Start, costs and 
cost savings borne by other parties, opportunity costs, and transfer 
costs. Finally, we itemize the cost and cost savings estimates 
associated with individual provisions and describe the assumptions, 
methodology, and data used to calculate each estimate.
Comment and Response
    Comment: Many commenters noted that new requirements would impose 
additional costs. Some of the costs that commenters highlighted were 
already accounted for in the Regulatory Impact Analyses of the NPRM 
including costs associated with increased duration, background checks, 
curriculum requirements, mentor coaching, additional staff 
qualifications, the waiver application process, providing annual notice 
to parents of release of personally identifiable information, and costs 
to implement the changes to the Head Start Program Performance 
Standards (HSPPS). Other commenters explicitly suggested that the 
Regulatory Impact Analysis underestimated the costs associated with the 
provisions it addressed, such as the cost of additional facilities or 
other start-up including cots for naptime, in the estimate for 
increasing Head Start center-based duration. Some of these commenters 
did not provide evidence or a rationale to support these claims. Other 
commenters suggested costs in their community would be higher for a 
variety of reasons.

[[Page 61374]]

    Response: We estimate the costs associated with increasing 
duration, additional background checks, new curriculum requirements, 
coaching, additional staff qualifications, the waiver application 
process, providing annual notice to parents of release of personally 
identifiable information, and many other new requirements in the HSPPS 
in this Regulatory Impact Analysis. We acknowledge there are additional 
costs associated with facilities and other start-up activities for 
increasing duration Given the period of ramp-up that most programs will 
need to implement the duration requirements with additional funding, we 
anticipate that a portion of any first 12-month operational award will 
be available for the purchase or renovation of facilities and other 
start-up activities before programs begin serving children at the 
higher duration. Nonetheless, we have included an estimate of start-up 
costs and assumed that these one-time costs will be borne the year 
prior to the effective dates for duration requirements to reflect the 
additional costs that would be incurred if these requirements were 
implemented without adequate funding. In addition, we have adjusted 
estimates throughout this analysis to reflect revisions to requirements 
in response to public comments, for example, the final rule requires 
1,020 annual hours rather than prescribing 6 hours per day and 180 days 
per year for Head Start center-based programs, and the final rule 
reinstates the requirement for parent committees. While we understand 
that costs of specific provisions will vary across communities, we use 
the best available data to estimate the cost for all Head Start 
programs, on average.
    Comment: Some commenters expressed concerns related to costs that 
the NPRM would have imposed or they perceived the NPRM to impose. These 
costs include the cost of group socialization sites needing to be 
licensed, costs in rural areas if the home-based option for preschool 
was removed as a standard option, reduced benefits from the elimination 
of family partnership agreements, transportation for child health 
services, partnering with universities to adapt curricula, decreased 
in-kind matches in volunteer hours and engagement due to reduced 
enrollment, loss of transportation when partnering with an LEA because 
of full day requirements, and services to children with significant 
delays who do not yet have IEPs or IFSPs.
    Response: Throughout the preamble of the final rule, we address 
comments suggesting concerns related to requirements that would have 
imposed unnecessary or unaccounted for costs. We revised the final rule 
to provide greater flexibility or prevent unintended consequences that 
would have resulted in additional costs for many of the concerns 
commenters noted. For example, the final rule requires 1,020 annual 
hours rather than prescribing 6 hours per day and 180 days per year for 
Head Start center-based programs. The final rule also allows programs 
to align their schedules with their local education agency to maintain 
or facilitate partnerships. These changes address concerns about costs 
that would arise from disrupted partnerships with local education 
agencies and costs associated with extending the year in cases where 
1,020 annual hours are already being provided through a slightly 
shorter year.
    Comment: Some commenters expressed concerns about costs that are 
implicitly required in current regulation but more explicitly required 
in the revision of the HSPPS including tracking and analyzing data for 
continuous quality improvement, providing mental health consultation 
services, and appropriate training for staff or volunteers involved in 
the transportation of children.
    Response: Although we recognize there are costs associated with 
these services, the purpose of the Regulatory Impact Analysis is to 
estimate the costs associated with new requirements. Tracking and 
analyzing data for continuous quality improvement, providing mental 
health consultation services, and appropriate training for staff or 
volunteers are requirements that existed in the previous performance 
standards so those costs have not been quantified here. However, in the 
Benefits Analysis section, we have noted that the clarity the final 
rule provides should lead to improved compliance with these and other 
requirements which should be associated with improved child safety and 
stronger child and family outcomes.
    Comment: Some commenters suggested that the Regulatory Impact 
Analysis should incorporate costs associated with prioritizing three 
year olds for enrollment in Head Start. These commenters highlighted 
the lower group size and ratio requirements for three-year-olds as an 
indication of greater cost.
    Response: We would consider prioritizing three-year olds and 
thereby serving fewer children in Head Start a conversion that would 
not change the grantee's overall budget and would not be supported by 
additional funds. Therefore we have not accounted for any monetary 
costs associated with this provision here. While we recognize that this 
would lead to a reduction in slots, it would actually be an increase in 
the number of children served by early childhood programs overall, 
because the prioritization is only required if there are programs in 
the community serving four-year olds. Further, we lack data to support 
a reasonable assumption about how often and at what point in the future 
other programs in Head Start communities would be available to serve 
four-year-olds. Therefore, we have not quantified these costs to 
programs or any transfer of benefits here.
    Comment: Many commenters suggested specific costs associated with 
new requirements in the NPRM that are being maintained in the final 
rule and that were not addressed in the original Regulatory Impact 
Analysis, including use of a parenting curriculum, attempting to 
contact parents if they have not notified the program that their 
children will be absent, participation in state Quality Improvement 
Rating Systems, and participation in state longitudinal data systems.
    Response: We have estimated costs associated with these 
requirements in the Regulatory Impact Analysis below.
    Comment: Many commenters expressed the desire for the Head Start 
Performance Standards to require and account for increased teacher 
compensation.
    Response: We agree that teacher compensation is vitally important 
to attracting and retaining effective teachers. However, addressing 
compensation is outside the scope of this regulation because teacher 
compensation is determined by congressional appropriations and local 
decisions. Nonetheless, our cost estimates for increasing duration 
assume costs will be driven in large part by additional pay for 
teacher's time, such that programs that must increase their duration as 
a result of this rule could increase teacher pay in a commensurate 
fashion if sufficient funds are available.
    Comment: Some commenters suggested the Regulatory Impact Analysis 
should include mention of the benefits associated with longer duration 
allowing parents to work.
    Response: We agree and have revised the discussion of potential 
benefits to include the benefits associated with allowing more Head 
Start parents to work.
    Comment: Some commenters suggested revisions to our cost estimates 
for specific provisions. Commenters suggested we revise the assumption 
that there would be no additional administrative costs associated with 
transforming double session programs

[[Page 61375]]

into single session, full school day and full school year programs. 
Commenters also suggested that the regulatory impact analysis should 
build in cost of living increases overtime to reflect the true cost of 
the rule.
    Response: We have revised our estimates in response to these 
comments. With regard to administrative costs we no longer assume a 
reduction in the cost estimate for increasing duration based on lower 
administrative costs. In addition, while the Regulatory Impact Analysis 
reports costs in real dollars, we have added a table in the section on 
the implications of Congressional and Secretarial action that reflects 
the costs of the rule, adjusted for cost of living increases over time, 
to ensure the full cost and the potential slot loss associated with 
those costs are clearly articulated.
Data Sources and Methodology
    The majority of the estimates in this regulatory impact analysis 
utilize two Office of Head Start internal datasets: The Grant 
Application and Budget Instrument (GABI) and the Program Information 
Report (PIR). Whenever possible, in this regulatory impact analysis, 
estimates are based upon these datasets. When a data point is necessary 
to estimate the cost of any provision that cannot be drawn from the 
GABI or PIR, other data sources are utilized. These data sources are 
described or cited in the narrative of the relevant cost estimates.
    The Head Start GABI is a uniform OMB approved application and 
budget instrument to standardize the format for the collection of 
program-specific data grantees provide with a continuation grant 
application. Head Start grantees provide a range of data on their 
proposed budgets including non-federal share, any other sources of 
funding, program options, and program schedules.
    The PIR is a survey of all grantees that provides comprehensive 
data on Head Start, Early Head Start and Migrant Head Start programs 
nationwide. Data collection for the PIR is automated to improve 
efficiency in the collection and analysis of data. Head Start achieves 
a 100 percent response rate annually from approximately 2,600 
respondents.
    These datasets have some limitations. For example, depending on 
where programs are in the application process or if they are submitting 
competitive applications, rather than continuation applications, the 
GABI data can be incomplete. We addressed this limitation in two ways. 
For grantees that had not submitted GABI data in FY 2015 due to DRS 
transitions or other factors, we used their FY 2014 GABI data. In 
addition, to account for missing data, we determined which specific 
grantees did not have program schedules in the 2015 GABI data, and then 
determined the funded enrollment associated with those specific 
grantees using data from the Head Start Enterprise System. Through this 
analysis, we learned that 11 percent of Head Start funded enrollment 
slots and 13 percent of Early Head Start enrollment slots are missing 
from the 2015 GABI data. Therefore, throughout this analysis, we 
increase estimates using GABI data by 11 percent for Head Start and 13 
percent for Early Head Start. Further, the PIR data is self-reported 
data that has not been independently verified.
    The methodology we use to estimate costs and cost savings 
associated with individual provisions varies throughout this analysis. 
We have included a description of each methodology in the Itemized 
Costs and Cost Savings section of this analysis. As appropriate, 
estimates associated with new salaries have been doubled to account for 
fringe benefits and overhead. Estimates associated with duration 
requirements that increase the hours and days staff must work and 
increases to salaries based on higher credentials are inflated by one-
third to include costs associated with an increase in fringe benefits 
but exclude any additional overhead costs.
    Finally, in general, we have rounded total cost estimates but have 
not rounded itemized cost estimates for transparency of the estimation 
process. These unrounded itemized cost estimates should not be 
interpreted as overly precise, but instead represent our best 
estimation given limitations.
Summary of Costs and Cost Savings
    Throughout this analysis, we identify and itemize the costs and 
cost savings to society associated with the changes from the previous 
regulation in three categories: costs borne by Head Start, costs borne 
by other parties, and opportunity costs. We describe the calculation of 
each of these costs in the appropriate sections throughout this 
analysis. The table below summarizes all of the itemized costs for 
every year over a ten year window. The final year (year ten) represents 
our best estimation of costs in year ten and ongoing costs thereafter. 
We analyze the costs of the regulation two ways in the table and 
throughout this analysis--we estimate the costs of the regulation 
without consideration of the substantial resources provided in FY 2016 
to increase duration in Head Start and we estimate the costs net of 
these resources which have already been provided and are now part of 
the budget baseline for the Head Start program, assuming this funding 
increase is maintained across the ten year window. In year 10, the 
total cost to Head Start after accounting for the funding Congress has 
already provided to expand duration total $1,003,152,645; without the 
$294 million in funding provided in FY 2016 and now part of the budget 
baseline, the total cost would be $1,297,152,645. In year ten and 
ongoing, costs borne by other parties total $46,464,140, and 
opportunity costs total $4,202,017. Therefore, we estimate the net cost 
to society of the final rule, if fully implemented, to be 
$1,053,818,802 in year ten and ongoing, when the funding Congress has 
already provided is taken into account.
    Without additional appropriations in future years or action by the 
Secretary as described in Sec.  1302.21(c)(3) to lower the requirements 
described in paragraphs Sec.  1302.21(c)(2)(iii) and (iv) of the final 
rule, Head Start programs would need to absorb any additional costs 
within their current budgets. We discuss the implications of 
Congressional and Secretarial actions, as well as potential slot and 
teacher job loss, in more detail in the Benefits Analysis section 
below.

                                                Summary Table of All Costs Borne by Head Start Years 1-5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Year 1  2016-     Year 2  2017-     Year 3  2018-     Year 4  2019-     Year 5  2020-
                                                                     2017 *            2018 *            2019 *            2020 *            2021 *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increased Head Start Center-Based (CB) Program Duration,        ................  ................  ................      $508,440,805      $508,440,805
 Excluding Duration Funding Appropriated in FY 2016...........
FY 2016 Funding Appropriated to Expand Head Start CB Duration.  ................  ................  ................     (263,121,940)     (263,121,940)
Net Cost of Head Start CB Duration Increase...................  ................  ................  ................       245,318,865       245,318,865

[[Page 61376]]

 
Increased EHS CB Duration, Excluding Duration Funding           ................  ................       $30,878,060        30,878,060        30,878,060
 Appropriated in FY 2016......................................
FY 2016 Funding Appropriated to Expand EHS CB Duration........  ................  ................      (30,878,060)      (30,878,060)      (30,878,060)
Net Cost of EHS CB Duration Increase..........................  ................  ................                 0                 0                 0
Start-up Costs for Duration Increase for CB Programs..........  ................        $6,175,612       101,688,161  ................       124,109,936
Increased EHS Home-Based (HB) Duration........................  ................         8,188,508         8,188,508         8,188,508         8,188,508
Waiver for Two-Year-Old Ratios................................     $(24,541,262)      (24,541,262)      (24,541,262)      (24,541,262)      (24,541,262)
Waiver Applications...........................................            42,751            54,137            60,153            80,899            80,899
Home Visit for Frequently Absent Children.....................           927,603           834,842           742,082           649,322           556,562
Parent Contact--Unexpectedly Absent Children..................         3,540,199         3,540,199         3,540,199         3,540,199         3,540,199
Associate's Degree for Head Start (HS) Teachers...............        10,472,585        10,472,585        10,472,585        10,472,585        10,472,585
Home-visiting CDA for Home Visitors...........................  ................  ................         5,112,499         5,112,499         5,112,499
Credential for New Family Service Workers.....................           549,046           549,046           549,046           549,046           549,046
Bachelor's Degree for New Management Staff....................         2,182,809         3,977,108         5,515,809         6,798,912         7,826,417
Mentor Coaching...............................................  ................       141,978,651       141,978,651       141,978,651       141,978,651
Improving Curriculum..........................................  ................         4,390,220         4,390,220         4,390,220         4,390,220
Monitoring Fidelity of Curriculum Implementation..............  ................            33,983            33,983            33,983            33,983
Assessments for Dual Language Learners........................  ................         6,082,338         6,082,338         6,082,338         6,082,338
Removal of Head Start-specific IEPs...........................      (41,180,576)      (41,180,576)      (41,180,576)      (41,180,576)      (41,180,576)
Parenting Curriculum..........................................         4,055,157         4,055,157         4,055,157         4,055,157         4,055,157
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).............................            61,506  ................  ................  ................  ................
Criminal Background Checks....................................  ................         4,117,348         4,117,348         4,117,348         4,117,348
Mediation and Arbitration.....................................           333,000           333,000           333,000           333,000           333,000
Removal of Annual Audits......................................         (306,000)         (306,000)         (306,000)         (306,000)         (306,000)
Delegate Appeals..............................................         (833,638)         (833,638)         (833,638)         (833,638)         (833,638)
Clarification of Facilities Application Process...............       (4,350,000)       (4,350,000)       (4,350,000)       (4,350,000)       (4,350,000)
Community Assessment..........................................       (1,152,558)       (1,152,558)       (1,152,558)       (1,152,558)       (1,152,558)
Managerial Planning...........................................       (2,298,905)       (2,298,905)       (2,298,905)       (2,298,905)       (2,298,905)
Data Management...............................................  ................         6,643,811         6,643,811         6,643,811         6,643,811
Participation in QRIS.........................................  ................         1,695,928         1,695,928         1,695,928         1,695,928
Participation in State longitudinal data systems..............  ................           824,593           824,593           824,593           824,593
Implementation Planning.......................................         3,474,474         3,474,474  ................  ................  ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total, Excluding Duration Funding Appropriated in FY 2016.      (46,320,371)       134,637,446       264,118,036       672,906,362       797,951,042
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total, Including Duration Funding Appropriated in FY 2016.               n/a               n/a               n/a       378,906,362       503,951,042
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Year ranges refer Head Start program years, which for these estimates, begin on August 1st of each year and end on or before July 31st.


                                                          Summary Table of All Costs Years 6-10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Year 6  2021-     Year 7  2022-     Year 8  2023-     Year 9  2024-    Year 10  2025-
                                                                     2022 *            2023 *            2024 *            2025 *            2026 *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increased Head Start CB Program Duration, Excluding Duration      $1,128,990,485    $1,128,990,485    $1,128,990,485    $1,128,990,485    $1,128,990,485
 Funding Appropriated in FY 2016..............................
FY 2016 Funding Appropriated to Expand Head Start CB Duration.     (263,121,940)     (263,121,940)     (263,121,940)     (263,121,940)     (263,121,940)
Net Cost of Head Start CB Duration Increase...................       865,868,545       865,868,545       865,868,545       865,868,545       865,868,545
Increased EHS CB Program Duration, Excluding Duration Funding         30,878,060        30,878,060        30,878,060        30,878,060        30,878,060
 Appropriated in FY 2016......................................
FY 2016 Funding Appropriated to Expand EHS CB Duration........      (30,878,060)      (30,878,060)      (30,878,060)      (30,878,060)      (30,878,060)
Net Cost of EHS CB Duration Increase..........................                 0                 0                 0                 0                 0
Increased EHS HB Duration.....................................         8,188,508         8,188,508         8,188,508         8,188,508         8,188,508
Waiver for Two-Year-Old Ratios................................      (24,541,262)      (24,541,262)      (24,541,262)      (24,541,262)      (24,541,262)
Waiver Applications...........................................           104,650            20,930            20,930            20,930            20,930
Home Visit for Frequently Absent Children.....................           463,801           463,801           463,801           463,801           463,801
Parent Contact--Unexpectedly Absent Children..................         3,540,199         3,540,199         3,540,199         3,540,199         3,540,199
Associate's Degree for HS Teachers............................        10,472,585        10,472,585        10,472,585        10,472,585        10,472,585

[[Page 61377]]

 
Home-visiting CDA for Home Visitors...........................         5,112,499         5,112,499         5,112,499         5,112,499         5,112,499
Credential for New Family Service Workers.....................           549,046           549,046           549,046           549,046           549,046
Bachelor's Degree for New Management Staff....................         8,726,123         9,370,230        10,014,338        10,525,534        10,908,931
Mentor Coaching...............................................       141,978,651       141,978,651       141,978,651       141,978,651       141,978,651
Improving Curriculum..........................................         4,390,220         4,390,220         4,390,220         4,390,220         4,390,220
Monitoring Fidelity of Curriculum Implementation..............            33,983            33,983            33,983            33,983            33,983
Assessments for Dual Language Learners........................         6,082,338         6,082,338         6,082,338         6,082,338         6,082,338
Removal of Head Start-specific IEPs...........................      (41,180,576)      (41,180,576)      (41,180,576)      (41,180,576)      (41,180,576)
Parenting Curriculum..........................................         4,055,157         4,055,157         4,055,157         4,055,157         4,055,157
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).............................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................
Criminal Background Checks....................................         4,117,348         4,117,348         4,117,348         4,117,348         4,117,348
Mediation and Arbitration.....................................           333,000           333,000           333,000           333,000           333,000
Removal of Annual Audits......................................         (306,000)         (306,000)         (306,000)         (306,000)         (306,000)
Delegate Appeals..............................................         (833,638)         (833,638)         (833,638)         (833,638)         (833,638)
Clarification of Facilities Application Process...............       (4,350,000)       (4,350,000)       (4,350,000)       (4,350,000)       (4,350,000)
Community Assessment..........................................       (1,152,558)       (1,152,558)       (1,152,558)       (1,152,558)       (1,152,558)
Managerial Planning...........................................       (2,298,905)       (2,298,905)       (2,298,905)       (2,298,905)       (2,298,905)
Data Management...............................................         6,643,811         6,643,811         6,643,811         6,643,811         6,643,811
Participation in QRIS.........................................         1,695,928         2,024,583         2,024,583         2,024,583         2,352,595
Participation in State longitudinal data systems..............           824,593           965,550           965,550           965,550         1,106,507
Implementation Planning.......................................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total, Excluding Duration Funding Appropriated in FY 2016.     1,294,396,889     1,295,285,932     1,296,895,589     1,297,406,786     1,297,152,645
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total, Including Duration Funding Appropriated in FY 2016.     1,000,396,889     1,001,285,932     1,002,895,589     1,003,406,786     1,003,152,645
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Year ranges refer Head Start program years, which for these estimates, begin on August 1st of each year and end on or before July 31st.


                                    Summary Table of All Costs Borne by Other Parties and Opportunity Costs Years 1-5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Year 1  2016-     Year 2  2017-     Year 3  2018-     Year 4  2019-     Year 5  2020-
                                                                     2017 *            2018 *            2019 *            2020 *            2021 *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Costs Borne by Other Parties
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Managerial Planning...........................................      $(1,043,016)      $(1,043,016)      $(1,043,016)      $(1,043,016)      $(1,043,016)
Data Management...............................................  ................           741,978           741,978           741,978           741,978
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).............................            28,679  ................  ................  ................  ................
Community Assessment..........................................         (352,028)         (352,028)         (352,028)         (352,028)         (352,028)
Improving Curriculum..........................................  ................           140,396           140,396           140,396           140,396
Implementation Planning.......................................         1,624,843         1,624,843  ................  ................  ................
Waiver Application............................................            14,023            17,758            19,731            26,537            26,537
Bachelor's Degree for New Management Staff....................         1,036,673         1,888,833         2,619,603         3,228,982         3,716,971
Participation in QRIS.........................................  ................           888,598           888,598           888,598           888,598
Participation in State longitudinal data systems..............  ................           399,268           399,268           399,268           399,268
Removal of Head Start-specific IEPs...........................        41,180,576        41,180,576        41,180,576        41,180,576        41,180,576
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Subtotal..................................................        42,489,751        44,745,228        43,853,127        44,469,312        44,957,301
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Opportunity Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Home Visit for Frequently Absent Children.....................           455,721           410,149           364,577           319,005           273,433
Criminal Background Checks....................................  ................           838,985           838,985           838,985           838,985
Data Management...............................................  ................         2,393,194         2,393,194         2,393,194         2,393,194
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Subtotal..................................................           455,721         4,384,306         4,338,734         4,293,161         4,247,589
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Year ranges refer Head Start program years, which for these estimates, begin on August 1st of each year and end on or before July 31st.


                                   Summary Table of All Costs Borne by Other Parties and Opportunity Costs Years 6-10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Year 6  2021-     Year 7  2022-     Year 8  2023-     Year 9  2024-    Year 10  2025-
                                                                     2022 *            2023 *            2024 *            2025 *            2026 *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Costs Borne by Other Parties
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Managerial Planning...........................................      $(1,043,016)      $(1,043,016)      $(1,043,016)      $(1,043,016)      $(1,043,016)

[[Page 61378]]

 
Data Management...............................................  ................           741,978           741,978           741,978           741,978
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).............................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................
Community Assessment..........................................         (352,028)         (352,028)         (352,028)         (352,028)         (352,028)
Improving Curriculum..........................................           140,396           140,396           140,396           140,396           140,396
Implementation Planning.......................................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................
Waiver Application............................................            34,327             6,865             6,865             6,865             6,865
Bachelor's Degree for New Management Staff....................         4,144,265         4,450,168         4,756,072         4,998,852         5,180,938
Participation in QRIS.........................................           888,598         1,119,660         1,119,660         1,119,660         1,350,409
Participation in State longitudinal data systems..............           399,268           469,767           469,767           469,767           540,267
Removal of Head Start-specific IEPs...........................        41,180,576        41,180,576        41,180,576        41,180,576        41,180,576
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Subtotal..................................................        45,392,386        45,972,388        46,278,292        46,521,072        46,464,140
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Opportunity Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Home Visit for Frequently Absent Children.....................           227,861           227,861           227,861           227,861           227,861
Criminal Background Checks....................................           838,985           838,985           838,985           838,985           838,985
Data Management...............................................         2,393,194         2,393,194         2,393,194         2,393,194         2,393,194
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Subtotal..................................................         4,207,017         4,202,017         4,202,017         4,202,017         4,202,017
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Year ranges refer Head Start program years, which for these estimates, begin on August 1st of each year and end on or before July 31st.


                                                     Summary Table of Net Cost to Society Years 1-10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Year 1  2016-     Year 2  2017-     Year 3  2018-     Year 4  2019-     Year 5  2020-
                                                                     2017 *            2018 *            2019 *            2020 *            2021 *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Cost to Society, Excluding Duration Funding Appropriated        $(3,374,899)      $183,367,712      $311,910,629      $721,269,567      $846,756,665
 Beginning in FY 2016.........................................
Net Cost to Society, Including Duration Funding Appropriated                 n/a               n/a               n/a       427,269,567       552,756,665
 Beginning in FY 2016.........................................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Year 6            Year 7            Year 8            Year 9           Year 10
                                                                     2021-2022 *       2022-2023 *       2023-2024 *       2024-2025 *       2025-2026 *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Cost to Society, Excluding Duration Funding Appropriated      $1,343,592,024    $1,344,990,571    $1,346,906,131    $1,347,660,108    $1,347,818,802
 Beginning in FY 2016.........................................
Net Cost to Society, Including Duration Funding Appropriated       1,049,592,024     1,050,990,571     1,052,906,131     1,053,660,108     1,053,818,802
 Beginning in FY 2016.........................................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Year ranges refer Head Start program years, which for these estimates, begin on August 1st of each year and end on or before July 31st.

Itemized Costs and Cost Savings
    In the following sections, we itemize each of the regulatory 
changes for which we expect there to be associated costs or cost 
savings in the areas of structural program option provisions, staff 
quality provisions, curriculum and assessment provisions, and 
administrative/managerial provisions.
Structural Program Option Provisions
    This final rule includes several provisions that increase the 
duration of the Head Start experience for children. It also includes 
provisions intended to improve child attendance. We analyzed costs 
associated with the following specific requirements: minimum of 1,020 
hours of planned class operations for all Head Start center-based 
programs in Sec.  1302.21(c)(2)(iii)-(iv) minimum of 1,380 hours for 
all Early Head Start center-based programs in Sec.  1302.21(c)(1)(i)-
(ii); minimum of 46 home visits and 22 group socializations for all 
Early Head Start home-based programs in Sec.  1302.22(c)(1)(i) and 
(ii); and additional home visits for chronically absent children, as 
appropriate, and contacting parents when children are unexpectedly 
absent in Sec.  1302.16. In all cases, costs are estimated based on 
data about whether programs are currently meeting these new minimum 
requirements.
Increased Head Start Center-Based Program Duration
    This final rule increases the minimum annual hours that Head Start 
programs must provide to 1,020 annual hours. The requirements in Sec.  
1302.21(c)(2)(iii) and (iv) phase in the minimum annual hour 
requirement for Head Start such that each grantee must operate 50 
percent of its Head Start center-based slots at the 1,020 annual hour 
minimum by August 1, 2019 and 100 percent of its Head Start center-
based slots at this minimum by August 1, 2021. Further, to minimize the 
potential for slot loss as described above the requirements in Sec.  
1302.21(c)(3) give the Secretary the authority to reduce these 
percentages if adequate funding is not available to support the policy.
    These changes will increase the amount of exposure to Head Start 
experiences, which research suggests will, in turn, result in larger 
impacts on school readiness and long-term outcomes.136 137 
Research suggests that previous Head Start minimums are

[[Page 61379]]

inadequate to achieve strong child outcomes and effectively promote 
school readiness. Specifically, research on full school day programs, 
instructional time, summer learning loss and attendance demonstrates 
the importance of extending the minimum hours of early learning in Head 
Start.138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153
 Research finds that pre-kindergarten programs that focus on 
intentional teaching and both small group and one-to-one interactions 
have larger impacts on child outcomes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \136\ Weiland, C., & Yoshikawa, H. (2013). Impacts of a 
prekindergarten program on children's mathematics, language, 
literacy, executive function, and emotional skills. Child 
Development, 84, 2112-2130.
    \137\ Barnett, W.S., Jung, K., Youn, M.J., and Frede, E.C. 
(2013). Abbott Preschool Program Longitudinal Effects Study: Fifth 
Grade Follow-Up. National Institute for Early Education Research 
Rutgers--The State University of New Jersey.
    \138\ Logan, J.A.R., Piasta, S.B., Justice, L.M., 
Schatschneider, C., & Petrill, S. (2011). Children's Attendance 
Rates and Quality of Teacher-Child Interactions in At-Risk Preschool 
Classrooms: Contribution to Children's Expressive Language Growth. 
Child & Youth Forum 40(6), 457-477.
    \139\ Hubbs-Tait, L., McDonald Culp, A., Huey E., Culp, R., 
Starost, H., & Hare, C. (2002). Relation of Head Start attendance to 
children's cognitive and social outcomes: moderation by family risk. 
Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 17, 539-558.
    \140\ Lamdin, D.J. (1996). Evidence of student attendance as an 
independent variable in education production functions. Journal of 
Educational Research, 89(3), 155-162.
    \142\ Wong, V. C., Cook, T. D., Barnett, W. S., & Jung, K. 
(2008). An effectiveness-based evaluation of five state 
prekindergarten programs. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 
27, 122-154.
    \143\ Camilli, G., Vargas, S., Ryan, S., & Barnett, W. S. 
(2010). Meta-analysis of the effects of early education 
interventions on cognitive and social development. The Teachers 
College Record, 112, 579-620.
    \144\ Yoshikawa, H., Weiland, C., Brooks-Gunn, J., Burchinal, 
M., . . .Zaslow, M. (2013). Investing in our future: The evidence 
base on preschool education. Foundation for Child Development. New 
York, NY.
    \145\ Barnett, W. S., & Hustedt, J. T. (2005). Head Start's 
lasting benefits. Infants & Young Children, 18(1), 16-24.
    \146\ Schweinhart, L. J., Montie, J., Xiang, Z., Barnett, W. S., 
Belfield, C. R., & Nores, M. (2005). Lifetime effects: The HighScope 
Perry Preschool study through age 40. Ypsilanti, MI: HighScope 
Press.
    \147\ Aikens, N., Kopack Klein, A., Tarullo, L., & West, J. 
(2013). Getting Ready for Kindergarten: Children's Progress During 
Head Start. FACES 2009 Report. OPRE Report 2013-21a. Washington, DC: 
Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for 
Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
    \148\ The Council of Economic Advisers. (December, 2014). The 
Economics of Early Childhood Investments. Washington, DC: Authors.
    \149\ Peisner-Feinberg, E. S., Schaaf, J. M., LaForett, D. R., 
Hildebrandt, L.M., & Sideris, J. (2014). Effects of Georgia's Pre-K 
Program on children's school readiness skills: Findings from the 
2012-2013 evaluation study. Chapel Hill: The University of North 
Carolina, FPG Child Development Institute.
    \150\ Weiland, C., & Yoshikawa, H. (2013). Impacts of a 
prekindergarten program on children's mathematics, language, 
literacy, executive function, and emotional skills. Child 
Development, 84, 2112-2130.
    \151\ Gormley, W., Gayer, T., Phillips, D.A., & Dawson, B. 
(2005). The effects of universal Pre-K on cognitive development. 
Developmental Psychology, 41, 872-884.
    Campbell, F. A., Ramey, C. T., Pungello, E., Sparling, J., & 
Miller-Johnson, S. (2002). Early childhood education: Young adult 
outcomes from the Abecedarian project. Applied Developmental 
Science, 6, 42-57.
    \152\ Schweinhart, L. J., Montie, J., Xiang, Z., Barnett, W. S., 
Belfield, C. R., & Nores, M. (2005). Lifetime effects: The HighScope 
Perry Preschool study through age 40. Ypsilanti, MI: HighScope 
Press.
    \153\ Ehrlich, S.B., Gwynne, J.A. ....Sorice, E. (2014). 
Preschool Attendance in Chicago Public Schools: Relationships with 
Learning Outcomes and Reasons for Absences. University of Chicago 
Consortium on Chicago School Research. Reynolds, A.J. (2000). 
Success in early intervention: The Chicago Child-Parent Centers. 
Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

50 Percent Estimate for the Extension of Head Start Center-Based 
Program Duration
    Starting in year four following publication of this rule (program 
year 2019-2020), programs are required to serve 50 percent of their 
children in Head Start center-based classrooms for at least 1,020 hours 
per year. In this section, we estimate costs associated with the 
additional service provided by these programs. Note that Migrant and 
Seasonal Head Start programs are excluded from these requirements. We 
first estimate the marginal cost per child for the Head Start services 
that exist today, updated to account for teacher salary increases 
associated with the final rule. These salary increases are discussed 
later in this analysis. To estimate this cost, we first calculate the 
Head Start cost per child under the final rule by adding total Head 
Start grant expenditures in FY 2015 ($6,354,595,188) to teacher salary 
increases associated with requirements in the final rule in Sec.  
1302.91(e) ($7,874,124), and divide this sum by FY 2015 Head Start 
funded enrollment (791,886). This results in a cost per child of 
$8,035, which is an increase of ten dollars per child from the FY 2015 
actual annual Head Start cost per child of $8,025.
    We estimate costs for Head Start center-based double session and 
non-double session programs separately. We assume grantees will move 
double session and non-double sessions, and three-year-old and four- 
and five-year-old slots, to 1,020 annual hours proportionately.
    Given that double session programs include a morning and afternoon 
session with the same teacher, we estimate that for every two children 
in these programs, the marginal cost of providing additional service in 
line with the rule's requirements will be equivalent to providing Head 
Start services to an additional child, resulting in a cost of $8,035. 
Therefore, we estimate for Head Start double session center-based 
programs, 31,197 new slots would need to be created and we estimate the 
cost to move these slots to 1,020 hours to be $250,664,993. However, 
this cost excludes the impact of the funding already provided by 
Congress in FY 2016 to expand duration. As discussed below, some of 
these costs will be covered by that funding.
    We take a different approach to estimate costs for non-double 
session programs. We calculate the number of Head Start center-based 
non-double session slots that operate for fewer than 1,020 annual hours 
and would need to be increased in order for each grantee to meet the 50 
percent requirement (121,116, after inflating values for missing GABI 
data). Based on GABI data, the average number of hours that a non-
double session slot would need to add in order to reach the 1,020 hours 
annually is 290.354 hours. We assume that programs would choose to 
increase their service duration to the 1,020 annual hour requirement in 
a variety of ways, some by adding hours to each day of service and some 
by adding additional service days. Based on the service duration 
patterns of programs that currently provide 1,020 or more annual hours 
of service, we assume 30 percent of programs would decide to add only 
hours to each day of service already provided, and therefore their 
costs would be driven entirely by teaching salaries. We assume 70 
percent of programs would choose to increase the number of days they 
operate per year to meet the 1,020 annual hour requirement.
    We next estimate the marginal cost per hour per child for Head 
Start non-double session, center-based slots. This is done using the 
sum of the average teacher ($18.70) and average assistant teacher 
($11.99) hourly wages from the PIR to calculate the cost per classroom 
per hour for teaching staff on average ($30.69). Then, we increased 
this cost per classroom per hour for teaching staff by 0.124 percent to 
account for the marginal increase in teacher salaries associated with 
all teaching staff meeting the minimum education requirements described 
later in this analysis ($7,874,124). This increase was calculated by 
finding the marginal increase in the cost per child after accounting 
for these salary increases ($8,035) from the FY 2015 actual cost per 
child for Head Start ($8,025). The new cost per classroom per hour for 
teaching staff is $30.73, on average. Then, we inflated this cost per 
classroom per hour by one-third to account for fringe benefits, which 
is $40.87 (we assumed no additional costs for overhead). We then assume 
that children will be served in classroom

[[Page 61380]]

settings with the maximum allowable group size. To calculate the 
marginal cost per hour, we divide the hourly wage by the maximum group 
size for three-year olds (17) and four- and five-year-olds (20) to get 
an average marginal cost per hour per child for three-year olds ($2.40) 
and four- and five-year olds ($2.04).
    We then use FY 2015 PIR data to calculate the percentage of three-
year-olds (42 percent) and four- and five-year-olds (58 percent) served 
by Head Start center-based programs. To calculate the cost of 
increasing the proportion of slots at 1,020 hours to 50 percent in each 
grantee by adding only hours to the day, we take 30 percent of the 
share of three-year-olds (42 percent) and four- and five-year-olds (58 
percent) enrolled in these programs respectively to find the number of 
three-year-old slots (15,179) and four- and five-year-old slots 
(21,156) that would need additional hours to meet the requirement. We 
then calculate the average number of annual hours that non-double 
session Head Start center-based slots not currently meeting 1,020 
annual hours would need to add to reach 1,020 hours, which is 290.354 
hours. Finally, we multiply the estimated number of three-year-old 
slots (15,179) and four- and five-year-old slots (21,156) by their 
respective average marginal cost per hour per child ($2.40 and $2.04) 
and by the average number of hours these slots would need to increase 
to reach 1,020 annual hours (290.354) to get a total estimated cost for 
this 30 percent of non-double session slots of $23,108,599. However, 
this cost excludes the impact of the funding already provided by 
Congress in FY 2016 to expand duration. As discussed below, some of 
these costs will be covered by that funding.
    As discussed above, we anticipate a different marginal cost per 
hour per child for the 70 percent of Head Start non-double session 
slots we assume will meet the 1,020 annual hours by adding days, 
because it would be necessary to extend all of the relevant child and 
family services for a longer program year in addition to the cost per 
classroom for teaching staff. In order to estimate these costs, we 
divide the average annual Head Start cost per child inflated for 
teacher salary increases as called for in Sec.  1302.91(e) ($8,035) by 
the average number of hours per year provided across all Head Start 
center-based slots (956.49 hours) to get an average cost per hour of 
$8.40 to extend days. Then, to account for fringe benefits, we inflated 
80% of this cost per hour by one-third (we assume no additional costs 
for overhead) because most programs spend approximately 80% of their 
budget on personnel. This results in an average cost per hour of $10.62 
to extend days. We then multiplied the average number of hours these 
slots would need to increase to reach 1,020 annual hours (290.354) by 
the marginal cost per hour per child ($10.62), and by the number of 
slots that we estimated would meet 1,020 annual hours by adding days 
(84,781) to get an estimated cost of $261,427,256. Finally, we estimate 
the total cost for all Head Start non-double session center-based slots 
to meet the 50 percent requirement, using these two approaches, is 
$284,535,855. However, this cost excludes the impact of the funding 
already provided by Congress in FY 2016 to expand duration. As 
discussed below, some of these costs will be covered by that funding.
    In sum, the total cost for Head Start double session and non-double 
session center-based slots to meet the 50 percent requirement is 
$535,200,848 before accounting for the $294 million in funding Congress 
has provided in FY 2016 to expand duration. However, because we assume 
that 5 percent of all programs currently not meeting the 1,020 for 50 
percent of their slots will receive a waiver to continue operating at 
their current level of annual hours, we reduce this estimate by 5 
percent for a total cost borne by Head Start of $508,440,805 before 
accounting for the $294 million in funding Congress has provided in FY 
2016 to expand duration. These costs will be realized in years four and 
five, if the rule is fully implemented. As noted, Congress appropriated 
$294 million in FY 2016 to increase the duration of Early Head Start 
and Head Start programs. Thus, a substantial share of the $508 million 
in costs will be absorbed by this funding, assuming this funding 
increase is maintained across the ten year window.

                  50% Extension of Head Start Center-Based Duration: Costs Borne by Head Start
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     New slots    Cost per child
                                                  Total DS slots      needed       (less admin)        Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Double Session (DS).............................          62,393          31,197          $8,035    $250,664,993
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 
                                                                   Average cost
                                                       Slots      per child  per   Hours needed        Cost
                                                                       hour
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-double session adding hours (30%) 3 year              15,179           $2.40         290.354     $10,577,515
 olds...........................................
Non-double session adding hours (30%) 4 year              21,156            2.04         290.354      12,531,084
 olds...........................................
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Subtotal....................................  ..............  ..............  ..............      23,108,599
Non-double session adding days (70%)............          84,781           10.62         290.354     261,427,256
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total, Excluding Duration Funding Appropriated Beginning in FY 2016.........................     535,200,848
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Less 5% Waiver, Excluding Duration Funding Appropriated Beginning in FY 2016................     508,440,805
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total, Including Duration Funding Appropriated Beginning in FY 2016.........................     245,318,865
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

100 Percent Estimate for the Extension of Head Start Center-Based 
Program Duration
    Starting in year six following publication of the final rule 
(program year 2021-2022), most programs are required to serve children 
for at least 1,020 hours. In order to estimate the cost associated with 
this requirement for each grantee to operate all of their Head Start 
center-based slots for 1,020 annual hours, we used the same approach 
described above for the 50 percent requirement. The only difference in 
the estimate is that we used GABI data to calculate the number of slots 
for which each grantee would need to increase duration in order to 
operate all of its

[[Page 61381]]

center-based Head Start slots for 1,020 annual hours. As above, we 
estimate the cost of increasing double session and non-double session 
slots to 1,020 annual hours separately. Therefore, as described above, 
we estimate for Head Start double session center-based programs, 72,727 
new slots would need to be created. As a result, starting in year six 
following publication of the final rule, we estimate costs of 
$584,363,052 associated with providing additional service to these 
children in line with the requirements of the final rule. However, this 
cost excludes the impact of the funding already provided by Congress in 
FY 2016 to expand duration. As discussed below, some of these costs 
will be covered by that funding.
    For Head Start non-double session center-based programs, we 
estimate 36,355 slots would meet the 100 percent requirement by 
increasing only hours per day. We estimate the share of three-year-old 
slots is 35,746, and the share of four- and five-year-old slots is 
49,821. Therefore, we estimate the cost of meeting the 100 percent 
requirement for these programs to be $54,419,668. For Head Start non-
double session center-based programs, we estimate 199,656 slots would 
meet the 100 percent requirement by adding days. Therefore, we estimate 
the cost of meeting the 100 percent requirement for these programs to 
be $615,651,152. Finally, we estimate the total cost for all Head Start 
non-double session center-based slots to meet the 100 percent 
requirement, using these two approaches, is $670,070,820. However, this 
cost excludes the impact of the funding already provided by Congress in 
FY 2016 to expand duration. As discussed below, some of these costs 
will be covered by that funding.
    In sum, the estimated total cost for Head Start double session and 
non-double session center-based slots to meet the 1,020 requirement is 
$1,254,433,872 before accounting for the $294 million in funding 
Congress has provided in FY 2016 to expand duration. This represents an 
additional $719,233,024 over the 50 percent requirement. However, 
because we assume that 10 percent of all programs not currently meeting 
the 1,020 annual hours minimum will receive a waiver to continue 
operating at their current level of annual hours, we reduce this 
estimate by 10 percent for a total cost borne by Head Start of 
$1,128,990,485 before accounting for the $294 million in funding 
Congress has provided in FY 2016 to expand duration. This represents an 
additional $620,549,679 over the 50 percent requirement. These costs 
will be realized in year six and annually thereafter, if the rule is 
fully implemented. As noted, Congress appropriated $294 million in FY 
2016 to increase the duration of Early Head Start and Head Start 
programs. Thus, a substantial share of the $1,128,990,485 in costs will 
be absorbed by this funding, assuming this funding increase is 
maintained across the ten year window.

                  100% Extension of Head Start Center-Based Duration: Costs Borne by Head Start
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     New slots
                                                  Total DS slots      needed      Cost per child       Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Double Session (DS).............................         145,454          72,727          $8,035    $584,363,052
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 
                                                                   Average cost
                                                                  per child  per
                                                       Slots        hour (less     Hours needed        Cost
                                                                      admin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-double session adding hours (30%) 3 year              35,746           $2.40         290.354      24,909,586
 olds...........................................
Non-double session adding hours (30%) 4 year              49,821            2.04         290.354      29,510,082
 olds...........................................
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Subtotal....................................  ..............  ..............  ..............      54,419,668
Non-double session adding days (70%)............         199,656           10.62         290.354     615,651,152
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total, Excluding Duration Funding Appropriated Beginning in FY 2016.........  ..............   1,254,433,872
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Less 10% Waiver, Excluding Duration Funding Appropriated Beginning in FY      ..............   1,128,990,485
     2016.......................................................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total, Including Duration Funding Appropriated Beginning in FY 2016.........  ..............     865,868,545
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Extension of Early Head Start Center-Based Program Duration
    Similar to the approach to estimating the cost of increasing 
duration for Head Start, to estimate the costs associated with the 
requirement that Early Head Start center-based programs provide a 
minimum of 1,380 annual hours for all slots, we used GABI and PIR data. 
We excluded all programs not required to meet the 1,380 minimum. 
Therefore, we calculated the cost using data from Early Head Start 
center-based programs including American Indian and Alaska Native 
programs but excluded all other program options and Migrant and 
Seasonal Head Start. We calculated estimates for Early Head Start 
center-based double session and non-double session programs separately. 
Double session programs include a morning and afternoon session with 
the same teacher, therefore, we used the entire FY 2015 Early Head 
Start cost per child for center-based services from the GABI ($13,041). 
Next, we divided the current Early Head Start funded enrollment in 
double session programs (324, which is inflated for missing GABI data) 
by 2 to get a total estimated number of new Early Head Start slots that 
would need to be created to eliminate double sessions (162). We then 
multiplied the resulting number of slots by the average marginal cost 
per child. From these calculations, we estimate the cost of extending 
duration for all Early Head Start center-based double session slots to 
be $2,112,642. However, this cost excludes the impact of the funding 
already provided by Congress in FY 2016 to expand duration of Early 
Head Start programs. As discussed below, all of these costs will be 
covered by that funding.
    For non-double session programs, we calculated the proportion of 
Early Head Start center-based non-double session slots that operate 
fewer than 1,380 annual hours (14,270, which is inflated for missing 
GABI data). First, we divided the average annual Early Head Start cost 
per child by the average number of hours per year provided

[[Page 61382]]

across all Early Head Start non-double session center-based slots 
(1,627.61 hours) to get an average cost per hour of $8.01. Then, to 
account for fringe, we inflated 80% of this cost per hour by one-third 
(we assume no additional costs for overhead) because most programs 
spend approximately 80% of their budget on personnel. This results in 
an average cost per hour of $10.12.
    Further, we assumed all Early Head Start programs would choose to 
increase the number of days they operate per year to meet the 1,380 
annual hour requirement because most Early Head Start programs already 
operate for a full day. In order to estimate the costs associated with 
meeting the requirement for these programs, we assumed they would need 
the full average cost per child per hour, inflated for fringe. Then we 
multiplied the adjusted cost per child per hour ($10.12) by the average 
number of hours programs not currently meeting the 1,380 minimum would 
need to add (210.443 hours) by the number of slots (14,270) that we 
estimated would need to move to meet 1,380 annual hours to get an 
estimated cost of $30,390,579. However, this cost excludes the impact 
of the funding already provided by Congress in FY 2016 to expand 
duration. As discussed below, all of these costs will be covered by 
that funding.
    In sum, the total cost for Early Head Start double session and non-
double session center-based slots to meet the 1,380 requirement is 
$32,503,221 before accounting for the $294 million in funding Congress 
has provided in FY 2016 to expand duration. However, because we assume 
that 5 percent of all programs currently not meeting the 1,380 will 
receive a waiver to continue operating at their current level of annual 
hours, we reduce this estimate by 5 percent for a total cost borne by 
Head Start of $30,878,060 before accounting for the $294 million in 
funding Congress has provided in FY 2016 to expand duration. These 
costs will be realized in year three and annually thereafter. As noted, 
Congress appropriated $294 million in FY 2016 to increase the duration 
of Early Head Start and Head Start programs. Thus, the entirety of the 
$30,878,060 costs will be absorbed by this funding.

                 Extension of Early Head Start Center-Based Duration: Costs Borne by Head Start
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     New slots    Cost per child
                                                  Total DS slots      needed       (less admin)        Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Double Session (DS).............................             324             162         $13,041      $2,112,642
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 
                                                                   Average cost
                                                                  per child  per
                                                       Slots        hour (less     Hours needed        Cost
                                                                      admin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-double session..............................          14,270          $10.12         210.443     $30,390,579
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total, excluding FY 2016 duration funding...................................................      32,503,221
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Less 5% Waiver, excluding FY 2016 duration funding..........................................      30,878,060
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total, including FY 2016 duration funding...................................................               0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Start-up Costs for Extension of Center-based Programs
    In addition to the cost of extending center-based programs 
estimated for Head Start and Early Head Start above, there are 
additional costs associated with facilities and other start-up 
activities for increasing duration. If there is adequate funding to 
support these requirements, there will be a period of ramp-up that most 
programs will need to implement the duration requirements, therefore we 
anticipate that a portion of any first 12-month operational award will 
be available for the purchase or renovation of facilities and other 
start-up activities before programs begin serving children at the 
higher duration. These costs would be subsumed in the grant awards to 
cover the costs estimated above. However, if the requirements are 
implemented in the absence of adequate additional funding, these start-
up costs would represent additional costs that should be estimated 
here.
    In order to estimate the amount of start-up costs, we rely on 
historical information from prior expansions in which approximately one 
quarter to one third of the total operating budget is needed for start-
up activities. However, since non-double session slots will require 
significantly fewer start-up activities at a significantly lower cost, 
we assume that, on average, start-up activities will reflect twenty 
percent of the estimated cost to extend slots to meet the duration 
requirements. Therefore, we estimate the cost of start-up activities 
for meeting the Early Head Start requirement to be $6,175,612, the cost 
of start-up activities for meeting the 50 percent requirement in Head 
Start to be $101,668,161, the additional cost of start-up activities 
for meeting the 100 percent requirement in Head Start to be 
$124,109,936. Finally, we assume start-up costs will be incurred the 
year prior to the effective date for each duration requirement. We 
estimate start-up costs for all requirements will total $231,973,709.

 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Cost of
                                           requirement   Start-up costs                   Year *
                                          (Incremental)       (20%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EHS Requirement........................     $30,878,060      $6,175,612  Year 2 (2017-2018)
50% HS Requirement.....................     508,440,805     101,668,161  Year 3 (2018-2019)
100% HS Requirement....................     620,549,679     124,109,936  Year 5 (2020-2021)
                                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 61383]]

 
    Total..............................  ..............     231,973,709
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Year ranges refer Head Start program years, which for these estimates, begin on August 1st of each year and
  end on or before July 31st.

Extension of Early Head Start Home-Based Program Duration
    The final rule requires that Early Head Start home-based programs 
operate for a minimum of 46 weeks per year in Sec.  1302.22(c)(1). In 
order to estimate the cost of this provision, we assumed the entire FY 
2015 Early Head Start cost per child for home-based services from the 
GABI ($9,782). We then calculated the cost per week by dividing the 
cost per child by the average number of weeks all Early Head Start 
home-based programs operate (46.28), which we estimate is $211.37. We 
then multiplied the cost per child per week by the number of weeks 
programs not providing 46 weeks would need to add to meet the 
requirement (2.78) to calculate the cost per slot to meet the 
requirement ($587.60). Finally, we multiplied this cost by the funded 
enrollment of programs currently not meeting the requirement (15,484). 
We estimate the total cost of this provision to be $9,098,342. However, 
we also assume that 10 percent of these programs will receive a waiver 
to continue providing their current level of service; therefore, we 
estimate the total cost borne by Head Start of this provision to be 
$8,188,508. These costs will be realized in year two and annually 
thereafter.

                  Extension of Early Head Start Home-Based Duration: Costs Borne by Head Start
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Funded
                                                  Cost of      enrollment  not                   Cost reduced by
                                                 meeting 46        meeting         Total cost       10% waiver
                                               weeks per slot    requirement
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
46 weeks for EHS home-based.................         $587.60           15,484       $9,098,342       $8,188,508
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Head Start Home-Based Standard Option
    We received comments expressing concern about our proposal in the 
NPRM to remove home-based services as a standard program option for 
Head Start. These comments are described in detail in the comment and 
response portion of this rule. In response to these comments, we have 
retained home-based services as a standard option for preschoolers in 
the final rule and no longer estimate costs associated with the removal 
of the home-based option for Head Start.
Waiver Authority for Ratios in Early Head Start Two-year-old Groups
    This rule allows, for the first time, programs to request a waiver 
of ratios for groups with two-year-old children. We believe that 
programs in states that allow higher ratios for two-year-olds groups or 
mixed age groups may request waivers to allow them to serve more 
children and support continuity as children approach pre-school. We 
anticipate awarding waivers to programs who propose to serve two-year-
old children at a ratio of 1:5 rather than 1:4, provided they have 
sufficient space to meet square footage requirements and can 
demonstrate it meets the needs of the community, the learning needs of 
children, and can ensure the change in ratio poses no health and safety 
risk. We estimate the savings associated with receipt of this waiver 
here.
    First, we estimated the savings associated with all two-year old 
groups operating with a 1:5 ratio. We used the total number of two-
year-olds currently being served (61,752 from PIR data) to find the 
number of teachers that would no longer be needed by dividing the 
number of two-year-olds by the current ratio of 1:4 (which yields 
15,438 teachers); and then by the 1:5 ratio that would now be allowed 
(which yields 12,350 teachers); and taking the difference (3,088). We 
then multiply this number of teachers that would no longer be needed 
(3,088) by the average Early Head Start teacher salary of $26,491, 
doubled to account for fringe and overhead ($52,982) to get a total 
potential savings of $163,608,416. However, while we assume that 20 
percent of programs will apply to waive the ratio requirements for two-
year olds given our experience with the Early Head Start--Child Care 
Partnership grantees, we assume that only approximately 15 percent of 
programs currently serving two-year-olds have adequate space to 
accommodate the larger group size associated with a 1:5 ratio. As such, 
we estimate only 15 percent of programs will receive the waiver. 
Therefore, we estimate that the actual total savings for this provision 
would be $24,541,262. These costs will be realized in year one and 
annually thereafter. While we recognize it is possible that programs 
will opt to purchase, lease, or renovate new space to become eligible 
for this waiver, we believe the costs of such purchase, lease, or 
renovation would offset the savings estimated here and we lack data to 
support a reasonable assumption about the proportion of programs who 
would do so, therefore we have not estimated these costs and cost 
savings here.

[[Page 61384]]



                                             Waiver for Two-Year-Old Ratio: Cost Savings Borne by Head Start
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                              Salary
                                                          Current number   New number of     Number of      Average EHS    inflated for
               Total number of 2 year olds                  of teachers   teachers (1:5)    teachers no   teacher salary    fringe and     Total savings
                                                               (1:4)                       longer needed                     overhead
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
61,752..................................................          15,438          12,350           3,088         $26,491         $52,982    $163,608,416
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total (Reduced by 85% for programs without adequate space)..........................................................................      24,541,262
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Waiver Application Process for Locally-Designed Program Options
    As discussed above, this rule includes a provision in Sec.  1302.24 
that would require any program wishing to operate a locally-designed 
program option to submit a waiver application explaining why the local 
design better meets community needs. As discussed in further detail in 
the discussion of the rule for Sec.  1302.24, this waiver option will 
strengthen program accountability while maintaining local flexibility. 
The rule also includes a provision, as described above, to allow 
programs to request a waiver of teacher to child ratios for groups 
serving two-year-old children. The application process itself has a 
cost to grantees which is the focus of this cost estimate.
    In order to estimate the cost associated with preparing and 
submitting waiver applications as allowed in other sections, we used 
GABI data to determine the total number of grantees that do not meet 
the new service duration minimums. Among the 1,412 Head Start grantees 
(which is 1,271 inflated by 11% for missing GABI data), 966 (which is 
870 inflated by 11 percent for missing GABI data) do not meet the 
requirement to provide 1,020 annual hours to 50 percent of slots and 
1,036 (which is 933 inflated by 11 percent for missing GABI data) do 
not meet the requirement to provide 1,020 annual hours to 100 percent 
of slots. Among all Early Head Start grantees, 822 programs provide 
center-based or family childcare services (which is 727 inflated by 13 
percent for missing GABI data) and 739 programs provide home-based 
services (which is 656 inflated by 13 percent for missing GABI data), 
275 (which is 243 inflated by 13 percent for missing GABI data) do not 
meet the 1,380 hours for center-based and family child care programs, 
and 263 (which is inflated by 13 percent for missing GABI data) do not 
meet the minimums for home-based programs. Finally, PIR data indicates 
there are 995 all Early Head Start and Migrant or Seasonal Head Start 
programs that currently serve two-year-olds.
    We anticipate more waiver requests will be submitted than will be 
granted and estimate that half of the waiver requests received will be 
approved, which is reflected in the above calculations on increasing 
program duration and group ratios. Given the flexibility built into the 
duration requirements in the final rule, we assume that only 10 percent 
of Head Start grantees not meeting the 50 percent requirement will 
apply for a waiver (97), 20 percent of Head Start not meeting the 100 
percent requirement will apply for a waiver (207), 10 percent of Early 
Head Start center-based grantees not meeting the new minimums will 
apply for a waiver (28), and 20 percent of Early Head Start home-based 
grantees not meeting the new minimums will apply for a waiver (53). 
Finally, we assume that 20 percent of programs serving two-year-olds 
will apply for a waiver (199), even though only 15 percent of programs 
will receive it. Based on these assumptions we expect a total of 199 
waiver applications in year one, 252 waiver applications in year 2, 280 
waiver applications in year three, 377 waiver applications in years 
four and five, and 487 waiver applications in year 6. Finally, we 
assume upon full implementation of the rule, programs would choose to 
reapply once every five years, resulting in an estimated 97 waiver 
applications annually in year 7 and ongoing.
    In order to calculate the costs associated with these applications, 
we assume that each waiver application will require 8 hours of a 
program director's time at $35.36 per hour. Therefore, we calculate the 
cost associated with the applications by multiplying the number of 
applications by 8 hours of a center director's hourly wage ($285.30). 
Using this method, we calculate the total cost associated with these 
waiver provisions for each year in the table below. Then we applied the 
proportion of Head Start center director's salary paid for with Head 
Start funds (75.3 percent) to the cost by year to find the costs borne 
by Head Start and the costs borne by other parties in the table below.

                                   Waiver Applications: Total Cost to Society
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Number of
                                                     programs          Hours       Cost per hour       Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
50% HS Center-based duration....................              97               8          $35.36         $27,551
100% HS Center-based duration...................             207               8           35.36          59,093
EHS Center-based duration.......................              28               8           35.36           7,988
EHS Home-based duration.........................              53               8           35.36          15,121
Two-year-old ratio..............................             199               8           35.36          56,775
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The table below describes the cost to society disaggregated by 
costs borne by Head Start and costs borne by other parties for years 
three through ten. We assumed that programs would only apply for 
waivers once the compliance date of the provision they are requesting a 
waiver for has passed. Therefore, we assumed that the cost of applying 
for a waiver from the 50 percent Head Start center-based duration 
requirement would be borne in years three through five; the cost of 
applying for a waiver from the 100 percent Head Start center-based 
duration requirement would be borne in year 6; the cost of applying for 
a waiver from the Early Head Start center-based would be borne 
beginning in year 3; the cost of applying for a waiver from the Early 
Head Start home-based duration requirement would be

[[Page 61385]]

borne beginning in year 2; and the cost of applying for a waiver from 
the Early Head Start ratio requirement would be borne beginning in year 
1. Finally, we assume upon full implementation of the rule, programs 
would choose to reapply once every five years, resulting in the costs 
for years seven through ten.

                                           Waiver Applications: Costs Borne by Head Start and by Other Parties
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Year 1       Year 2       Year 3       Year 4       Year 5       Year 6     Years 7-10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost to Society..............................................      $56,775      $71,896      $79,884     $107,435     $107,435     $138,977      $27,795
Cost to Head Start (75.3%)...................................       42,751       54,137       60,153       80,899       80,899      104,650       20,930
Cost borne by other parties..................................       14,023       17,758       19,731       26,537       26,537       34,327        6,865
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Home Visits for Frequently Absent Children
    The rule includes a new provision in Sec.  1302.16 that requires 
programs to provide additional services to families of children who are 
frequently absent (for non-illness or IFSP/IEP related reasons), which 
may include a home visit. This requirement will improve consistent 
attendance, which is important because research demonstrates that 
attendance is predictive of school success. For example, one study 
conducted in the Chicago Public Schools shows that preschool attendance 
is important for several reasons: (1) It sets up patterns for long-term 
school attendance; (2) children who regularly attend preschool perform 
better on kindergarten entry assessments tests; and 3) regular 
attendance enhances social-emotional development.\154\ Another study in 
Tulsa found that preschoolers who attended regularly showed more growth 
in literacy skills than their peers who were frequently absent.\155\ In 
Baltimore, researchers found that 25 percent of children who were 
chronically absent in pre-kindergarten and kindergarten were retained 
in later grades, compared to nine percent of their peers who regularly 
attended in these early years.\156\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \154\ Allensworth, E.M., Ehrlich, S.B., Gwynne, J.A., & Pareja, 
A.S. (2013). Preschool Attendance in Chicago Public Schools: 
Relationships with Learning Outcomes and Reasons for Absences.
    \155\ Community Action Project Tulsa County. (2012). Attendance 
Works Peer Learning Network Webinar.
    \156\ Connolly, F., & Olson, L.S. (2012). Early Elementary 
Performance and Attendance in Baltimore City Schools' Pre-
Kindergarten and Kindergarten. Baltimore Education Research 
Consortium.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We considered both monetary costs as well as opportunity costs in 
estimating the total cost of this new provision in Sec.  1302.16. In 
order to estimate the associated monetary costs, we used data from the 
Family and Child Experience Survey (FACES) and babyFACES, which are 
federally funded nationally representative surveys of Head Start and 
Early Head Start programs, respectively. These studies provided 
estimates of the proportion of children in both Head Start and Early 
Head Start who are absent for more than 20 days in a given school year. 
For Head Start, FACES data suggests 5.6 percent of children are absent 
for more than 20 days. We used this proportion as a proxy for the 
proportion of children who are frequently absent, and would trigger the 
requirement in the rule for an additional home visit. For Early Head 
Start, we assumed approximately half of this proportion would be 
children for whom absences were explained, given the frequency of 
illness among very young children and thus would not trigger this 
requirement. Therefore, we used half (17 percent) of the proportion 
from babyFACES data (34 percent) as a proxy for children in Early Head 
Start who are chronically absent and would thus trigger additional 
services, which could include an extra home visit. Then, we estimated 
the number of extra home visits this requirement will trigger by 
multiplying cumulative enrollment for center-based programs in Head 
Start and Early Head Start, respectively, by these proxy proportions. 
We estimated the monetary cost of this provision by multiplying the 
number of extra home visits by the average wage of a teacher and an 
assistant teacher for two hours, because we expect some home visits 
will be conducted by teachers or home visitors and others may be 
conducted by the family service worker (usually paid on par with 
assistant teachers). Finally, we assumed that only half of families 
would receive an additional home visit rather than other direct contact 
as allowed under the requirement. Using this method, we estimate the 
total monetary cost of this requirement to be $927,603 starting in year 
one. However, we also expect the activities that programs engage in to 
address frequent and chronic absenteeism, including home visits, will 
reduce the number of children who are frequently and chronically absent 
over time. Therefore, we have estimated a 10% reduction in the number 
of frequently and chronically absent children every year for the first 
five years this policy is in place. This results in a cost of $834,842 
in year two, $742,082 in year three $649,322 in year four, $556,562 in 
year five and $463,801 in year six and on an ongoing basis thereafter.
    To calculate the opportunity cost, we use foregone wages as an 
estimate for the value of parents' time spent meeting this requirement 
of one additional home visit. This represents the value of their time 
when they participate in an additional home visit rather than working. 
However, we acknowledge this is likely an overestimate of opportunity 
cost, given the potential for opportunity cost savings associated with 
parents' time if their children resume regular program attendance. We 
used the number from our estimate of children experiencing chronic 
absenteeism (62,858) and assumed one parent per child. Because Head 
Start families are primarily families from low-income backgrounds, we 
used the federal minimum wage and assumed two hours of time for each 
parent to meet this additional requirement for half of parents of 
chronically absent children (because parents of the other half of these 
children would receive other direct contact), which would result in a 
monetized opportunity cost of $455,721. These opportunity costs will be 
realized in year one. However, as discussed above, we expect these 
activities will reduce the number of parents of frequently and 
chronically absent children over time. Therefore, we estimate an 
opportunity cost of $410,149 in year two, $364,577 in year three 
$319,005 in year four, $273,433 in year five and $227,861 in year six 
and on an ongoing basis thereafter.

[[Page 61386]]



                      Home Visits for Frequently Absent Children: Costs Borne by Head Start
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         Estimated    Estimated
                                      National                 Estimated                cost of all    cost of
           Program type                survey         FE       number of    Avg. wage/   potential    additional
                                      proxy %                  additional    2 hours     additional      HVs
                                                                  HVs                       HVs        provided
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HS................................          5.6      874,604       48,978       $30.70   $1,503,625     $751,812
EHS...............................           17       81,649       13,880        25.33      351,580      175,790
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.........................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........      927,603
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 
                                    Year 1 2016/ Year 2 2017/ Year 3 2018/ Year 4 2019/ Year 5 2020/ Year 6 2021/
                                        2017         2018         2019         2020         2021         2022
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduction Over Time...............     $927,603     $934,842     $742,082     $649,322     $556,562     $463,801
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                          Home Visits for Frequently Absent Children: Opportunity Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Estimated cost  Estimated cost
             Total number of parents                Hourly wage      Number of        for all       for parents
                                                      forgone          hours          parents      receiving HV
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
62,858..........................................           $7.25               2        $911,441        $455,721
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................  ..............  ..............  ..............         455,721
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 
                                                           Year 1 2016/    Year 2 2017/    Year 3 2018/    Year 4 2019/    Year 5 2020/    Year 6 2021/
                                                               2017            2018            2019            2020            2021            2022
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduction Over Time.....................................        $455,721        $410,149        $364,577        $319,005        $273,433        $227,861
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Parent Contact for Unexpectedly Absent Children
    The rule includes a new provision in Sec.  1302.16 that requires 
programs to attempt to contact parents if they have not notified the 
program that their children will be absent. This requirement will 
ensure child safety and facilitate more consistent attendance for all 
children. The NPRM included a similar requirement, though the 
requirement in the final rule has been revised in response to comments. 
However, the Regulatory Impact Analysis in the NPRM did not account for 
costs associated with this requirement. In response to comments, we 
estimated the costs associated with contacting parents when they have 
not notified the program that their children will be absent in this 
section. In order to estimate the cost of this requirement, we assumed 
that 10 percent of children would be absent on any given day, which is 
91,216 children when applied to the funded enrollment number for Head 
Start and Early Head Start programs. Then we found the proportion of 
Head Start children who would be absent each day (83.8% or 76,439), and 
the proportion of Early Head Start children who would be absent each 
day (16.2% or 14,777). We further assumed one-quarter of these 
children, 19,110 in Head Start and 3,694 in Early Head Start, would be 
unexpectedly absent or that their parent would not contact the program 
within an hour to report the absence that day. To estimate the cost of 
making phone calls, we assume 5 minutes of administrative staff or 
family service worker time per phone call resulting in 1,592 hours of 
staff time per day across all Head Start programs and 308 hours of 
staff time per day across all Early Head Start programs. As a proxy for 
the hourly wage of this staff person, we averaged the hourly wage of 
Head Start and Early Head Start assistant teachers ($11.72). Then we 
estimate the cost associated with this provision per day to be this 
hourly wage multiplied by the number of hours of staff time, which is 
$18,650 for Head Start programs and $3,608 for Early Head Start 
programs. Finally, in order to estimate the cost of this provision 
annually, we multiplied the cost per day by the average number of days 
currently provided by Head Start (146.8) for a cost of $2,737,861 per 
year in Head Start, and by the average number of days currently 
provided by Early Head Start (222.364) for a cost of $802,338 per year 
in Early Head Start. Finally, we summed these costs for a total cost 
per year across all programs of $3,540,199.

                                 Parent Contact for Unexpectedly Absent Children
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Number of
                                     Number of     unexpectedly   Hours of staff
                                      absent          absent       time (5 mins    Cost per day    Cost per year
                                     children        children        per call)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Head Start......................          76,439          19,110           1,592         $18,650      $2,737,861
Early Head Start................          14,777           3,694             308           3,608         802,338
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............       3,540,199
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 61387]]

Staff Quality Provisions
    This rule also includes several provisions to improve the quality 
of staff in Head Start and Early Head Start programs. Specifically, we 
analyzed costs associated with the following requirements: Minimum of 
associate's degree for all Head Start teachers in Sec.  
1302.91(e)(2)(ii); minimum of CDA or equivalent credential for all home 
visitors in Sec.  1302.91(e)(6)(i); credentials for newly hired family 
services workers in Sec.  1302.91(e)(7); credentials for newly hired 
management staff in Sec.  1302.91(d)(1)(i); and mentor coaching in 
Sec.  1302.92(d).
Associate's Degree (AA) for Head Start Teachers
    The Act detailed new degree requirements for all Head Start 
teachers. Specifically, 648A(a)(3)(B) of the Act codified a minimum 
requirement that all Head Start teachers have at least an associate's 
degree. While progress towards meeting this requirement has been 
substantial, according to PIR data, a small percentage of Head Start 
teachers in 2015 (4.2%) did not have such a degree. In this rule, we 
added this requirement into the staff qualifications section of the 
performance standards in Sec.  1302.91(e)(2)(ii). Given that some 
teachers do not have the minimum degree, we estimated the cost 
associated with this requirement by finding the respective differences 
in average salaries for teachers with no credential and teachers with a 
Child Development Associate (CDA), compared to teachers with 
associate's degrees. We then multiplied the number of teachers who 
currently have no credential or the number of teachers who currently 
have only a CDA by the additional salary for each group. Finally, we 
increased the estimated salary for these teachers by one-third to 
account for fringe benefits (we assumed no additional overhead costs). 
Using this method, we estimate the total cost for Head Start programs 
to meet this requirement to be $10,472,585. These costs will be 
realized in year one and annually thereafter.

                      Associate's Degree for Head Start Teachers: Costs Borne by Head Start
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Salary
                                                   differential                                       Cost of
               Current credential                    (between      Inflated for      Number of      additional
                                                    current and       fringe         teachers      salary after
                                                        AA)                                        obtaining AA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CDA.............................................          $4,535          $6,032           1,314      $7,925,457
None............................................           3,426           4,557             559       2,547,128
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................  ..............  ..............  ..............      10,472,585
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Home-Visiting Child Development Associate for Home Visitors
    In this rule, we also propose to require that all home visitors 
have, at a minimum, a home-based CDA credential or equivalent in Sec.  
1302.91(e)(6)(i). This change will ensure that all home visitors are 
equipped with the critical content knowledge offered through a home-
based CDA that will support their competency to implement a research-
based curriculum and ensure children served in this model receive high-
quality learning experiences. Because our current PIR data does not 
differentiate between credential types for home visitor salaries, we 
used a proxy of the differential percentage of salary for teachers with 
associate's degrees compared to teachers with CDAs. We then applied 
this differential percentage to the average home visitor's salary to 
estimate the increase in salary for home visitors who would obtain a 
CDA which is $6,029 when inflated by one-third to account for fringe 
benefits (we assumed no additional overhead costs). Finally, we 
multiplied this additional salary by the number of home visitors who 
currently have no credential. This approach gives us an estimate of the 
total cost of requiring higher credentials for home visitors. Using 
this method, we estimate the total cost of meeting this new requirement 
to be $5,112,499.

                                                      Home-Visiting CDA: Costs Borne by Head Start
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Proportion of                                                                           Cost of
                                                         salary                                                         Number of HVs w/    additional
                Current credential                    differential    Avg. HV salary     Additional    Salary inflated       o any          salary for
                                                     (Teachers: CDA                        salary         for fringe       credential      credentialed
                                                         to AA)                                                                                HVs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
None..............................................          14.91%          $30,397           $4,533           $6,029              848       $5,112,499
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Credential for New Family Service Workers
    The final rule includes a requirement in Sec.  1302.91(e)(7) for 
new family services staff who work directly with families on the family 
partnership process to earn a credential in family services within 18 
months of hire. In order to calculate the cost associated with this 
requirement, we found the number of family services staff who currently 
do not have a credential or higher qualification (6,196) and assumed 
that approximately half of all family service workers work directly 
with families on the family partnership process for an estimate of 
3,098 staff members whose replacement would need to earn a credential 
if the current worker left their job. We then calculated an estimate of 
new staff who would need to earn a credential by applying the average 
turnover rate of 17 percent for teachers and home visitors as a proxy 
(because we do not have data on turnover of family services staff) for 
an annual estimate of 542 staff turning over. Then we assumed the 
average cost for each staff person to get the necessary credential 
within 18 months would be

[[Page 61388]]

$1,013, based on an average of costs for common family development 
credentials. Therefore, we estimate the cost of this provision at 
$549,046 annually. Given the difficulty, programs may face in the 
future finding staff that already have this credential, we have assumed 
this cost will be an ongoing annual cost. Therefore, these costs will 
be realized in year one and annually thereafter.

                                          Credential for New Family Service Workers: Costs Borne by Head Start
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Proportion of
                                                                      staff working                      Total staff
          Number of family service workers w/o credential              directly on       Estimated         affected         Cost of      Total estimated
                                                                          family       turnover rate       annually        credential          cost
                                                                       partnerships
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6,196..............................................................           3,098              17%              542           $1,013         $549,046
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bachelor's Degree for New Management Staff
    In response to comments described in the preamble of this rule, the 
final rule includes a requirement in Sec.  1302.91(d)(1) that newly 
hired staff who oversee health, disabilities, and family support 
services must have a bachelor's degree (BA). If a grantee assigns a 
separate area manager for each of these three service areas, it would 
result in three additional managers being required to hold a BA or 
higher. However, it is currently common practice for programs to assign 
the duties associated with the oversight of two service areas to a 
single manager. We assume that half of programs assign oversight of 
disabilities services to their Education Coordinator (who is already 
required to have a BA), which would lead to two managers (one for 
health and one for family support services) needing to possess BAs, and 
that half of programs would assign oversight of disabilities and family 
services or health to a single manager. Therefore, we estimate that two 
managers at each program will need to possess BAs to meet this 
requirement.
    We then estimated the number of supervisors or management staff 
affected by the requirement who do not currently have a BA. We used 
data from the PIR on the education level of family services supervisors 
because we do not collect data on the educational attainment of other 
service area managers. Data indicate that 1,255 family services 
supervisors do not have a B.A. or higher. This estimate was then 
doubled based on the calculations and assumptions above for an estimate 
of 2,510 supervisory staff who do not currently have a B.A. or higher. 
Because we do not have turnover information on management staff, we 
then applied the average turnover rate for teachers and home visitors 
(17 percent) as a proxy, to the number of service managers without a 
B.A., in order to estimate the total number of managers without a BA 
that would turn-over each year (accounting for those who acquired a BA 
in prior years, through year ten).
    Then, in order to determine the anticipated salary increase for 
managers with a B.A,, we averaged the current salaries for family 
services, health, and disabilities managers from the PIR ($44,583) and 
found the difference between this salary and the average salary of 
education coordinators ($50,252) who are currently required to have a 
B.A. to estimate the average increase in salary for new managers with a 
B.A. ($5,669). We then inflated this additional salary by one-third to 
account for fringe benefits (we assumed no additional overhead) which 
is $7,540. We then applied this difference to the number of staff 
affected annually. Further, we applied the average proportion of 
management staff salaries' borne by Head Start (67.8%) to find the cost 
borne by Head Start and the cost borne by other parties in years one 
through ten.

           Bachelor's Degree for New Management Staff: Costs Borne by Head Start and by Other Parties
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Family service supervisors without BA or      Inflated for other     Estimated annual     Estimated increase
                    higher                        service areas (2)       turnover rate           in salary
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,255.........................................                 2,510                   17%                $7,540
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Cost to society     Costs borne by HS  Costs borne by other
                                                                                                         parties
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 1........................................            $3,219,482            $2,182,809            $1,036,673
Year 2........................................             5,865,941             3,977,108             1,888,833
Year 3........................................             8,135,412             5,515,809             2,619,603
Year 4........................................            10,027,894             6,798,912             3,228,982
Year 5........................................            11,543,388             7,826,417             3,716,971
Year 6........................................            12,870,387             8,726,123             4,144,265
Year 7........................................            13,820,398             9,370,230             4,450,168
Year 8........................................            14,770,409            10,014,338             4,756,072
Year 9........................................            15,524,386            10,525,534             4,998,852
Year 10.......................................            16,089,869            10,908,931             5,180,938
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mentor Coaching
    In this rule, we require programs to have a system of professional 
development in place that includes an intensive coaching strategy for 
teachers. As described in further detail in the discussion of the rule 
for Sec.  1302.92(d), this change will ensure teaching staff receive 
effective professional development, based on a growing body of research 
demonstrating the effectiveness of intensive professional development 
for improving teacher practices in early care and education

[[Page 61389]]

settings 157 158 159 and research demonstrating that such 
strategies support improved teacher practice in the classroom and an 
increase in classroom quality.160 161 This provision also 
gives programs some flexibility to identify the education staff that 
would benefit most from this form of intensive professional development 
and direct their efforts accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \157\ Buysse, V., & Wesley, P.W. (2005). Consultation in Early 
Childhood Settings. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing.
    \158\ Tout, K., Halle, T., Zaslow, M., & Starr, R. (2009). 
Evaluation of the Early Childhood Educator Professional Development 
Program: Final Report: Report prepared for the U.S. Department of 
Education.
    \159\ Zaslow, M., Tout, K., Halle, T., Vick, J., & Lavelle, B. 
(2010). Towards the identification of features of effective 
professional development for early childhood educators: A review of 
the literature. Report prepared for the U.S. Department of 
Education.
    \160\ Isner, T., Tout, K., Zaslow, M., Soli, M., Quinn, K., 
Rothenberg, L., & Burkhauser, M. (2011). Coaching in early care and 
education programs and Quality Rating and Improvement Systems 
(QRIS): Identifying promising features. Child Trends.
    \161\ Lloyd, C.M., & Modlin, E.L. (2012). Coaching as a key 
component in teachers' professional development: Improving classroom 
practices in Head Start settings. Administration for Children and 
Families.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are various ways that programs can secure the services of 
mentor coaches in order to meet this requirement. For example, grantees 
could hire a full-time mentor coach(es), mentor coaches could work part 
time in multiple programs, or geographically defined consortiums could 
be created to enable grantees to access the services of mentor coaches. 
However, for the purposes of this estimate, we use a caseload of one 
coach per 15 teachers or teaching teams, and an overall salary 
comparable to that of an education manager ($50,252 from PIR), doubled 
for fringe benefits and overhead, which is estimated at $100,504 for 
each mentor coach. We assumed a caseload of 15 teachers based on a 
review of the literature that suggests caseloads vary across coaching 
models but that full-time coaches, on average, usually reported 
caseloads ranging from 13 to 22, though some coaches had much higher or 
much lower caseloads.162 163 164 We then calculated the 
total number of mentor coaches needed to support all education staff by 
using 62,495 teachers (the number of lead Head Start and Early Head 
Start teachers) as a proxy for the total number of teachers and 
teaching teams that would receive mentor coaching. We estimated the 
cost of providing 4,238 coaches for 63,566 teachers or teaching teams 
at $425,935,952. We then assume that programs will utilize their 
flexibility to identify education staff or teaching teams who would 
most benefit from this type of professional development. We believe 
that while the proportion of teachers and teaching teams receiving 
coaching will vary by program, overall this will result in 
approximately one-third of teaching staff receiving intensive coaching 
on average. Therefore, our final estimate for the cost of the 
requirement is $141,978,651.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \162\ Howard, E.C., Rankin, V.E., Fishman, M., Hawkinson, L.E., 
McGroder, S.M., Helsel, F.K., et al. (2013). The Descriptive Study 
of the Head Start Early Learning Mentor Coach Initiative. OPRE 
Report #2014-5a; Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human 
Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of 
Planning, Research and Evaluation.
    \163\ Isner, Tout, Zaslow, Soli, Quinn, Rothenberg and 
Burkhauser (2011). Coaching in Early Care and Education Programs and 
Quality Rating and Improvement Systems (QRIS): Identifying Promising 
Features.www.childtrends.org/wp.../2011-35CoachingQualityImprovement.pdf.
    \164\ Yoshikawa, H., Weiland, C., Brooks-Gunn, J., Burchinal, 
M.R., Espinosa, L.M., Gormley, W.T., . . . & Zaslow, M.J. (2013). 
Investing in our future: The evidence base on preschool education. 
Ann Arbor, MI: Society for Research in Child Development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the lack of data regarding the quality and scope of coaching 
strategies programs may currently be using, we do not give any credit 
for programs that may already utilize mentor coaches in this estimate. 
Further, we acknowledge that this estimate may be an underestimate if 
Congress appropriates the necessary additional funds to support 
increased duration of Head Start and Early Head Start programs because 
additional teaching staff will need to be hired to support the 
transition of double session slots to full school day and full school 
year slots. We estimate that an additional 3,906 teachers would need to 
be hired to transition all programs from double sessions, which would 
be associated with an additional cost of $8,723,452 and a new total 
cost of $150,702,102. However, this estimate may be an overestimate if 
the rule is fully implemented without additional funding and the 
Secretary does not exercise the discretion to reduce the duration 
requirements because the number of teachers would not increase. 
Therefore, a reasonable assumption for calculating this estimate is to 
use the status quo as the basis of the total number of education staff 
who may receive mentor coaching.
    These costs will be realized in year two and annually thereafter.

                                   Mentor Coaching: Costs Borne by Head Start
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Number of
  Mentor coach salary, fringe and overhead      teachers and      Number of       Estimate for   Estimate for \1/
                                               FCC providers       coaches        all teachers    3\ of teachers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$100,504....................................          63,566            4,238     $425,935,952     $141,978,651
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Curriculum and Assessment Provisions
    This rule includes several provisions to improve curriculum and 
assessments. We analyzed costs associated with the following specific 
requirements: Improving curriculum in Sec.  1302.32(a)(1); monitoring 
the fidelity of curriculum implementation in Sec.  1302.32(a)(2); 
language assessment in home language and English for all dual language 
learners in Sec.  1302.33(c)(2), and opportunities for parents to 
participate in a parenting curriculum in Sec.  1302.51(b). We analyzed 
savings associated with the removal of Head Start designed IEPs from 
part 1308 of the previous standards.
Improving Curriculum
    In this rule, we include several provisions intended to improve the 
quality of curricula that programs select in Sec.  1302.32(a)(1). 
Specifically, these new provisions will require programs to critically 
analyze the curricula they use to determine whether they are 
appropriately aligned with and sufficiently content-rich to support 
growth in the domains outlined in the Head Start Early Learning 
Outcomes Framework: Ages Birth to Five. This change will ensure all 
programs select and implement curricula with the key qualities that 
research suggests are critical to promoting child 
outcomes.165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 For some

[[Page 61390]]

programs, these new provisions may require purchasing new curricula, or 
purchasing curricular add-ons or enhancements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \165\ Clements, D.H., & Sarama, J. (2008). Experimental 
Evaluation of the Effects of a Research-Based Preschool Mathematics 
Curriculum. American Educational Research Journal, 45(2), 443-494.
    \166\ Starkey, P., Klein, A., & Wakeley, A. (2004). Enhancing 
young children's mathematical knowledge through a pre-kindergarten 
mathematics intervention. Special issue on Early Learning in Math 
and Science, 19(1), 99-120.
    \167\ Bierman, K.L., Domitrovich, C.E., Nix, R.L., Gest, S.D., 
Welsh, J.A., Greenberg, M.T., . . . Gill, S. (2008). Promoting 
Academic and Social-Emotional School Readiness: The Head Start REDI 
Program. Child Development, 79(6), 1802-1817.
    \168\ Clements, D.H. (2007). Curriculum research: Toward a 
framework for ``Research-based Curricula''. Journal for Research in 
Mathematics Education, 38(1), 35-70.
    \169\ Fantuzzo, J.W., Gadsden, V.L., & McDermott, P.A. (2011). 
An integrated curriculum to improve mathematics, language, and 
literacy for Head Start children. American Educational Research 
Journal, 48, 763-793.
    \170\ Lonigan, C.J., Farver, J.M., Phillips, B.M., & Clancy-
Menchetti, J. (2011). Promoting the development of preschool 
children's emergent literacy skills: A randomized evaluation of a 
literacy-focused curriculum and two professional development models. 
Reading and Writing, 24, 305-337.
    \171\ Preschool Curriculum Evaluation Research Consortium 
(2008). Effects of preschool curriculum programs on school readiness 
(NCER 2008-2009). Washington, DC: National Center for Education 
Research, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of 
Education. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
    \172\ Wasik, B.A., Bond, M.A., & Hindman, A.H. (2006). The 
effects of a language and literacy intervention on Head Start 
children and teachers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 63-74.
    \173\ Riggs, N.R., Greenberg, M.T., Kusch[eacute], C.A., & 
Pentz, M.A. (2006). The mediational role of neurocognition in the 
behavioral outcomes of a social-emotional prevention program in 
elementary school students: Effects of the PATHS curriculum. 
Prevention Science, 7, 91-102.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to estimate the cost associated with these provisions, we 
assumed that education managers would need to allocate an additional 
thirty hours of analysis and planning time. We estimated the average 
hourly rate from the average annual salary of education managers and 
determined the total cost per manager for thirty hours. We then 
multiplied the cost by the total number of all programs to find a total 
cost to society of $1,477,847. We then found the cost borne by Head 
Start ($1,056,660) by applying the proportion of education manager 
salaries borne by Head Start funds of 71.5 percent, and then found the 
cost borne by other parties ($421,187). In addition, we estimated the 
cost of a curricular enhancement to be $4,500 for a three year multi-
site license. We know that most programs routinely upgrade their 
curriculum or purchase a new curriculum. For this cost estimate, we 
assumed an average of two-thirds of programs (1,346) would identify the 
need to purchase additional curricular enhancements, and multiplied 
that number of programs by the average cost of an enhancement to 
estimate its total cost ($12,114,000). We then summed the cost of 
managerial time and curricular enhancements ($13,591,847). Since most 
licensing will be for three years, we assumed grantees will conduct a 
curriculum assessment process every three years and divided the cost by 
three. This results in an estimated annual cost of improving curriculum 
of $4,530,616, and the annual cost borne by Head Start is $4,390,220 
with an annual cost borne by other parties of $140,396. These costs 
will be realized in year two and annually thereafter.

                                          Improving Curriculum: Costs Borne by Head Start and by Other Parties
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Avg. ed       Cost of 30       Number of    Estimated cost   Costs borne by   Costs borne by
                                                        manager salary       hours         programs       to society       Head Start     other parties
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional Staff Time.................................         $50,252         $724.79           2,039      $1,477,847       $1,056,660         $421,187
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Avg. cost of       Number of          66% of  Estimated cost
                                                           enhancement        programs        programs      to society
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Curricular Enhancement................................          $9,000           2,039           1,346     $12,114,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                        Estimated cost   Costs borne by   Costs borne by
                                                                                                            to society       Head Start    other parties
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.............................................  ..............  ..............  ..............     $13,591,847      $13,170,660         $421,187
                                                       -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Annual Total..................................  ..............  ..............  ..............       4,530,616        4,390,220          140,396
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Monitoring Fidelity of Curriculum Implementation
    In addition to the curriculum quality requirements described in the 
previous section, this rule also requires in Sec.  1302.32(a)(2) that 
programs provide adequate supervision and regular monitoring of 
curriculum use to ensure effective curriculum implementation, which is 
critical to reaping the benefits of using high quality curricula 
described above. 174 175
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \174\ Lieber, J., Butera, G., Hanson, M., Palmer, S., Horn, E., 
Czaja, C., . . . & Odom, S. (2009). Factors that influence the 
implementation of a new preschool curriculum: Implications for 
professional development. Early Education and Development, 20(3), 
456-481.
    \175\ Landry, S.H., Anthony, J.L., Swank, P.R., & Monseque-
Bailey, P. (2009). Effectiveness of comprehensive professional 
development for teachers of at-risk preschoolers. Journal of 
Educational Psychology, 101(2), 448.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to estimate the cost associated with this provision, we 
researched the cost of curriculum fidelity kits, which help programs 
assess how well their teachers are implementing a particular curricula 
through planned activities. At present, few curricula offer such a kit. 
However, based on those that are available, we assessed the average 
cost of an implementation tool kit at $50. We then multiplied that 
estimate by the number of programs to find the total cost of this 
provision. We did not estimate additional staff time, because 
monitoring and staff supervision was required in the previous rule and 
individualization of this information is included in our mentor 
coaching estimate. Using this method, we estimate the cost of fidelity 
tools for all programs to be $101,950. However, in response to 
comments, we modified the requirement in the final rule to provide 
additional flexibility for programs to determine how well their 
curriculum is being implemented. Therefore, we assume approximately 
one-third of programs will use a fidelity tool and estimate the total 
cost of this requirement to be $33,983. These costs will be realized in 
year two and annually thereafter.

[[Page 61391]]



                   Monitoring Fidelity of Curriculum Implementation: Costs Borne by Head Start
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Estimated cost for   Estimated cost of
       Avg. cost of implementation tool kit         Number of programs      all programs         requirement
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$50..............................................               2,039             $101,950              $33,983
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assessments for Dual Language Learners
    In this rule, we also codify best practice in assessing dual 
language learners (DLL) in Sec.  1302.33(c)(2) by requiring programs to 
administer language assessments to dual language learners in both 
English and their home language, as needed, either directly or through 
interpreters. These requirements will ensure that screening and 
assessment data is collected in both languages to ensure a more 
complete understanding of these children's knowledge, skills and 
abilities.\176\ In order to estimate the costs associated with this 
proposal, we first determined the number of DLLs across Head Start and 
Early Head Start by assuming all children who speak a language other 
than English in the home are DLLs. We then determined the proportion of 
DLL children who speak Spanish in the home and the number of children 
who speak other languages. For the purposes of this estimate, we assume 
that all DLLs who speak Spanish in the home will receive a direct 
assessment in Spanish, and for all DLLs who speak any language other 
than Spanish in the home will be assessed through an interpreter. For 
Spanish-speaking DLLs (265,209 children), we assumed the average cost 
of a Spanish-language assessment tool-kit (using the most frequently 
reported assessment as our proxy) is $200 and the average cost per pack 
of 25 assessment forms is $50. We determined the total number of tool-
kits needed by finding the number of programs serving at least one 
Spanish-speaking child (1,651). We determined the number of packs of 
assessment forms needed by dividing the total number of Spanish-
speaking children by 25 (10,610). We then multiplied the cost of the 
tool-kit by the number of programs and the cost of the assessment forms 
by the number of children and summed them to find the total cost of 
this provision for children who can be directly assessed. For DLLs 
speaking languages other than Spanish (56,658 children), we found the 
average hourly rate for an interpreter from the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics and assumed two hours for each assessment. Finally, we 
doubled this hourly wage to account for fringe and overhead ($46.08) 
even though we assume that programs will utilize the services of 
interpreters on a case-by-case basis rather than employing them as 
program staff. We then multiplied that cost by the number of non-
Spanish-speaking DLLs to find the cost of this provision for children 
who need to be assessed through an interpreter. Finally, we summed 
these two estimates to produce a total cost estimate for the provision: 
$3,471,519. These costs will be realized in year two and annually 
thereafter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \176\ Barrueco, S., Lopez, M., Ong, C., & Lozano, P. (2012). 
Assessing Spanish-English bilingual preschoolers: A guide to best 
approaches and measures. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

                                            Assessments for Dual Language Learners: Costs Borne by Head Start
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Avg. cost of Spanish    Avg. cost of      Number of    Number of form
                          Type of DLL                                   assessment           25 forms        programs          packs      Estimated cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spanish-speaking...............................................                     $200             $50           1,651          10,610        $860,700
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Avg. hourly wage           Cost/                                  Estimated cost
                                                                         for interpreter      assessment        Number of children
                                                                     inflated for fringe
                                                                            and overhead
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other..........................................................                   $46.08          $92.16              56,658                  $5,221,638
                                                                ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total......................................................  .......................  ..............                                       6,082,338
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Screenings for Children With IEPs and IFSPs
    In Sec.  1302.33(a)(3) of the NPRM, we explicitly stated Head Start 
programs were not required to perform initial developmental screenings 
for children who enter the program with a current IEP or IFSP. However, 
in response to public comments expressing concern about this provision, 
it has been removed from the final rule and we have reinstated the 
existing requirement that programs must perform initial developmental 
screenings for all children, including those with a current IEP or 
IFSP. Therefore, we do not have estimates associated with this 
provision.
Removal of Head Start-Specific IEPs
    The reauthorization of the Head Start Act in 2007 removed 
previously held authority for Head Start programs to create their own 
IEPs for children with disabilities. As a result, no programs currently 
create their own IEPs for children. Prior to 2007, Head Start programs 
frequently created such IEPs at great cost to programs. In accordance 
with OMB Circular A-4, we estimate the cost/savings associated with all 
new provisions in this final rule, including the removal of this 
authority and the extensive regulatory requirements that accompany it 
in part 1308 of the previous rule.
    In order to estimate the savings associated with the removal of 
these provisions, we first estimated the number of children in the 
2004-2005 program year whose IEP was created by Head Start, which was 
the last year in which the PIR collected this data. PIR data from that 
year indicate 14,758 children had IEPs but were not eligible for 
services under IDEA. We assumed, at a minimum, that the IEPs for all of 
these children were created through the Head Start process. In order to 
estimate the cost of an IEP, we first assumed 2 hours of staff time for 
both the Education Manager and the Disabilities Coordinator. We also 
assumed 4 hours

[[Page 61392]]

of Special Education Specialist consultant work, at $50 per hour on 
average. We then multiplied this staff time by the number of IEPs. We 
also researched the cost of a multi-disciplinary evaluation and 
estimated, based on a sample of state estimates, the cost per IEP to be 
$2,500 on average. We multiplied this cost by the number of IEPs and 
then added it to the estimated cost of staff time to determine our 
total cost savings to Head Start for this policy change at $41,180,576. 
The entire cost savings associated with the removal of Head Start-
specific IEPs is considered a transfer, because these costs will be 
borne by other parties, leading to a net cost to society of zero 
dollars. The transfer of these costs will be realized in year one and 
annually thereafter.

                                    Removal of Head Start-Specific IEPs: Cost Savings to Head Start and Transfer Cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                           Cost savings
                                                           Cost/hour for      Cost of     Number of IEPs   borne by head   Transfer cost    Net cost to
                                                               staff       consultation                        start                          society
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Staff/Consultant Time...................................          $90.39            $200          14,758      $4,285,576      $4,285,576              $0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Cost of evaluation                Number    Cost savings   Transfer cost        Net cost
                                                                                                 of IEPs        borne by                      to society
                                                                                                              head start
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Multi-disciplinary Evaluation...........................              $2,500                      14,758     $36,895,000     $36,895,000              $0
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................................                                  ..............      41,180,576      41,180,576               0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Parenting Curriculum
    This rule includes a requirement in Sec.  1302.51(b) that programs 
provide parents with opportunities to participate in a parenting 
curriculum. The NPRM proposed this requirement but the Regulatory 
Impact Analysis in the NPRM did not account for any costs associated 
with the requirement. We have added this cost estimate in response to 
comments that suggested we should acknowledge the costs associated with 
providing these opportunities to parents here.
    In order to estimate the costs associated with this provision, we 
researched the cost of parenting curricula online and found an average 
cost of $1,087 for program-level materials and $14.25 per parent 
booklet. We then estimated that programs would provide opportunities 
such that one-third of parents would participate in a parenting 
curriculum, which assuming one parent per child is 318,751 parent 
participants. We then found the total program-level cost to be 
$2,216,393 and the total parent-level cost to be $4,542,202, for a 
total cost of $6,758,595. However, given recent data \177\ that 
suggests that 41% of Head Start and Early Head Start parents already 
participate in parenting classes, we reduce this estimate by 40% for a 
total cost of $4,055,157.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \177\ Auger, A. (2015). Child Care and Community Services: 
Characteristics of Service Use and Effects on Parenting and the Home 
Environment, Ph.D. dissertation. University of California-Irvine 
School of Education.

                                              Parenting Curriculum
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Participating
    Average program-level cost of curriculum         Number of     Average cost   parents  (one-    Total cost
                                                     programs       per parent        third)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$1,087..........................................           2,039          $14.25         318,751      $6,758,595
Reduced by 40%..................................  ..............  ..............  ..............       4,055,157
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Administrative/Managerial Provisions
    This rule includes several provisions to improve important 
managerial and administrative responsibilities, and to reduce 
unnecessary administrative burden. We analyzed costs associated with 
the following specific requirements: Memoranda of understanding in 
Sec.  1302.53(b)(1); background checks in Sec.  1302.90(b); mediation 
and arbitration of disputes between the governing body and policy 
council in Sec.  1301.6; data management requirements in Sec.  
1302.53(b)(2) and (3), participation in Quality Rating Improvement 
Systems and participation in State longitudinal data systems in Sec.  
1302.53. We analyzed savings associated with the following specific 
requirements: Removal of annual audits; removal of delegate appeal 
process at the federal level; clarification of the facilities 
application process in Sec.  1303.40; revision of community needs 
assessment in Sec.  1302.11(b)(1); and revision of managerial planning 
in Sec.  1302.101(b).
Memoranda of Understanding (MOU)
    This rule includes a new requirement that programs establish formal 
agreements with the local entity responsible for publicly funded 
preschool in Sec.  1302.32. This change reflects a provision of the Act 
that requires MOUs and has been in effect since 2008. Nonetheless, per 
the OMB Circular Requirements for Regulatory Impact Analysis, we must 
estimate the costs associated with the provision, as though no programs 
have implemented the statutory change.
    In order to estimate the costs associated with meeting this new 
requirement, we first estimated that establishing an MOU with such 
entities will require approximately 2 hours of management time, based 
on grantee experience implementing similar MOUs. To estimate the cost 
of that time, we multiplied the average hourly salary of all management 
positions by 2. We then multiplied that cost by the total number of 
programs. Using this method, we estimated the total cost associated 
with this requirement to be $90,185. We then estimated the proportion 
of the estimated cost borne by Head Start by applying the average 
proportion of these management wages borne by Head Start

[[Page 61393]]

(68.2 percent), and found $61,506 is borne by Head Start and the 
remaining $28,679 is borne by other parties. This may be an over-
estimate of cost given that one purpose of the MOU is to better 
coordinate and share local resources, which may lead to savings, 
associated with implementation of the MOU. These costs will be realized 
in year one only.

                                       Memoranda of Understanding: Costs Borne by Head Start and by Other Parties
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Avg. cost of
              Avg. wage for 2 hours of management time                wage borne  by     Number of        Estimated     Costs borne  by  Costs borne  by
                                                                        Head Start        programs        total cost       Head Start     other  parties
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$44.23.............................................................          $30.23            2,039          $90,185          $61,506          $28,679
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Criminal Background Checks
    This rule includes two new provisions that strengthen the 
requirements programs currently must meet with regard to criminal 
background checks for staff in Sec.  1302.90(b). These changes will 
provide alignment across federal programs about the importance and key 
characteristics of comprehensive background checks, which are critical 
to ensuring child safety in all early care and education settings. 
Specifically, the first provision requires programs perform both a 
state and FBI criminal background check on all new employees prior to 
hire, whereas the previous rule only required programs to perform one 
of the two checks. The second provision requires programs to renew 
criminal background checks for all employees once every five years. The 
FBI estimates the average cost of a criminal background check is $30. 
The cost of state background checks varies significantly, with some 
states charging more than $30. However, some states cover costs of the 
checks for early care providers and other states reduce costs for a 
combined FBI and state check. Therefore, we assume $50 to be the 
average cost of both the FBI and state background check, together, 
based on information from the Office of Child Care's CCDF State Plans, 
in producing our cost estimate. We also assume a $5 cost for checks of 
Child Abuse and Neglect registries. The national sex offender registry 
can be checked online, free of charge.
    We considered both monetary costs and opportunity costs when 
estimating the cost of the first provision. To estimate the monetary 
cost of requiring both FBI and state background checks for new hires, 
we used the average turnover rate of teachers and home visitors from 
the PIR data (17 percent) and applied it to all staff to estimate the 
average number of new hires due to turnover per year. We then 
multiplied the number of new hires (36,438) by the average cost of the 
FBI background check ($30) to estimate the cost associated with this 
provision ($1,275,330).
    In addition to these monetary costs, we also estimated the 
opportunity cost for new employees prior to hire to meet this 
requirement. This represents the value of time (measured as forgone 
earnings) of a prospective employee during the time, they spend to 
complete a background check. To calculate the opportunity cost, we 
averaged the hourly wage for a teacher and an assistant teacher of 
$15.35, multiplied it by 1.5 hours for the estimated time it would 
take, and multiplied that by the average number of new hires due to 
turnover per year. We estimate the total opportunity cost for this 
provision to be $838,985.
    To estimate the cost of the second provision, we estimated the 
number of staff that would need a background check renewal every five 
years by dividing the total number of staff for all grantees by 5. Then 
we multiplied the cost of a full background check ($55) by number of 
staff needing a background check renewal per year (48,584) for a total 
cost of $2,672,120.
    In addition, we estimated the cost associated with administrative 
staff time to process each additional background check. To calculate 
this, we used the applicable number of staff that would need additional 
background checks per year both through renewal and additional checks 
as staff turnover (85,022) and divided that number by 6 assuming each 
application will take approximately 10 minutes to process. This 
provided an estimate for the number of hours that administrative staff 
time to process additional background checks (12,265) annually. 
Finally, we multiplied the number of hours by the hourly wage of an 
administrative assistant, which we assumed to be the same rate as 
teacher assistants ($11.99), to estimate the total cost of processing 
at $169,898.
    Using this method, we estimate the total monetary costs associated 
with the background check provisions to be $4,117,348 and the total 
opportunity cost to be $838,985. These costs will be realized in year 
two and annually thereafter.

                              Criminal Background Checks: Costs Borne by Head Start
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Avg. cost of    Total number     Applicable
                    Provision                          check         of staff          staff      Estimated cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initial Comprehensive Background Check..........             $35         242,918          36,438      $1,275,330
5-year Renewal..................................              55         242,918          48,584       2,672,120
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Hourly wage      Applicable       Number of  Estimated cost
                                                                           staff           hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Staff time to process checks....................          $11.99          85,022          14,170        $169,898
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................  ..............  ..............  ..............       4,117,348
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 61394]]


                                  Criminal Background Checks: Opportunity Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Avg. hourly      Estimated      Total wage      Applicable
            Provision                  wage       time in  hours       cost            staff      Estimated cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FBI and State Check.............          $15.35             1.5          $23.03          36,438        $838,985
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............        $838,985
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mediation and Arbitration
    The rule includes a requirement in Sec.  1301.6(b) and (c) that 
agencies unable to resolve impasses through their own decision-making 
process must participate in a formal process of mediation. If agencies 
do not reach a resolution with a mediator, they must pursue arbitration 
and the arbitrator's decision is final. We assume few grantees will 
reach an impasse and fewer grantees will be unable to resolve the 
impasse with their own decision-making process. For purposes of 
estimating the costs of these provisions, we assume one percent of 
programs, or 20 programs, will pursue mediation--likely an 
overestimate--and ten percent of those, or 2 programs, will go on to 
pursue arbitration. According to data from the National Arbitration 
Association, the costs of mediation vary but are significantly lower 
than arbitration. They cite the costs of arbitration services range 
from $200 to $700 per hour. To estimate the cost, we average the hourly 
cost and assume $450 per hour. The National Arbitration Association 
also states that arbitration usually takes no more than two weeks. 
Therefore, we assume 80 hours at $450 per hour for three programs for a 
total cost of $72,000. For mediation, we assume half the cost of 
arbitration (both hourly rate ($225) and length of time (40 hours)), 
which is consistent with estimates we saw elsewhere. We assumed 20 
programs would pursue mediation for a total cost of $261,000. The total 
for these two provisions is $333,000. These costs will be realized in 
year one and annually thereafter.

                              Mediation and Arbitration: Costs Borne by Head Start
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Avg. hourly      Number of       Number of
                    Provision                          cost            hours         programs     Estimated cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mediation.......................................            $225              40              20        $261,000
Arbitration.....................................            $450              80               2          72,000
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................  ..............  ..............  ..............         333,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Removal of Annual Audits
    This rule eliminates the separate audit requirement for Head Start 
programs in the previous standards in Sec.  1301.12 in favor of 
aligning with the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles 
and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance, 2 CFR part 
200). This change will eliminate unnecessary burden on small grantees 
and the Office of Head Start. The Omni Circular requires a Single Audit 
of entities if their total federal expenditures exceed $750,000. As a 
result of this $750,000 threshold, there are 18 grantees that will no 
longer be required to have an audit. Using an estimate of $17,000 per 
audit per the suggestion of regional grants management staff who 
oversee audit procedures, we estimate a savings of $306,000. These 
costs will be realized in year one and annually thereafter.

       Removal of Annual Audits: Cost Savings Borne by Head Start
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Number of     Estimated
               Cost per audit                   programs       savings
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$17,000.....................................           18      $306,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Parent Committees
    We received comments expressing concern about the removal of the 
requirement that agencies establish parent committees. As a result, we 
restored this requirement in the final rule. Therefore, there are no 
monetary or opportunity cost savings associated with the removal of 
parent committees in the final rule.
Delegate Appeals
    This rule aligns with section 641A(d) of the Act, by only requiring 
grantees to establish procedures for a delegate agency to appeal a 
defunding decision, which the Act established. As a result, we 
eliminate the process by which current delegates can appeal grantee 
decisions to HHS, as outlined in Sec.  1303.21. This change will 
eliminate unnecessary burden on grantees and the Office of Head Start. 
To estimate the savings associated with the removal of this process, we 
determined the number of delegate appeals that have occurred across 
ACF's 12 regions over two years (25) and then divided that number by 
two to find the average number of appeals annually (12.5). We obtained 
an estimate from a grantee on the costs of their individual appeal 
($66,691) and multiplied it by two to factor in both the cost to the 
grantee and the delegate agency of the appeal process. We then divided 
that total by two based on the assumption that half of the costs are 
spent on the HHS phase of the appeal, which we removed. We then 
multiplied the average cost by the average number of appeals per year 
(12.5) to arrive at the annual savings. We estimate savings of $833,638 
because of this change. These savings will be realized in year one and 
annually thereafter.

           Delegate Appeals: Cost Savings Borne by Head Start
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Number of
 Average savings  from removal  of HHS phase     delegate      Estimated
                 per appeal                    appeals/year     savings
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$66,691.....................................           12.5    $833,638
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Clarification of Facilities Application Process
    This rule reorders the application requirements for funds to 
purchase, construct or renovate facilities to align with typical 
project development in Sec.  1303.40. In doing so, we anticipate 
savings associated with grantees who are likely to identify unfeasible 
projects

[[Page 61395]]

more quickly prior to soliciting costly professional advice or 
unnecessary testing (e.g. environmental), referred to as soft costs. To 
estimate the savings associated with these revisions, we assumed a per 
project cost for facilities projects of $500,000, based on our 
experience with facilities costs.
    Since the savings would come from the soft costs that grantees 
incur at the beginning of a project--which under our reordered 
application process could be avoided for projects that grantees realize 
more quickly are not fundable--we assume that approximately 30 percent 
of the average per project costs, or $150,000 are for soft costs. Our 
data systems do not capture the number of applications for facility 
projects each year, so as a proxy, we used the total number of 
facilities with federal interest for the past 11 years, which is the 
timeframe for which we have data, with that total (4,051) divided by 11 
for the number of facilities with federal interest per year (368). 
Based on historical data, we then estimate that 8 percent of the 368 
facilities with federal interest (29 facilities projects) submit un-
fundable applications annually. As a result, we then multiplied the 
$150,000 in estimated soft costs by 29 projects to determine the 
savings that would result if those grantees realized the unfeasibility 
of their projects earlier and never spent those funds. We estimate the 
total savings associated with these revisions to total $4,350,000. 
These costs will be realized in year one and annually thereafter.

                Clarification of Facilities Application Process: Cost Savings Borne by Head Start
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Facilities  with       Unfundable
  Avg. cost of facility project      Avg. ``soft''    federal  interest/       facility       Estimated  savings
                                         costs               year         applications/ year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$500,000........................           $150,000                 368                  29          $4,350,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Community Assessment
    This rule also includes provisions that change the previous 
requirement for programs to conduct full community assessments from 
every three years to every five years in Sec.  1302.11(b)(1). This 
change will streamline the community assessment process and eliminate 
unnecessary burden on grantees and the Office of Head Start. We 
estimated the current cost of the community assessment and assumed a 
reduction in costs of 40 percent, based on the change from three to 
five years. To determine the average cost of a community assessment, we 
incorporated grantee feedback about both the frequency with which they 
choose to perform the assessment internally versus hiring consultants, 
and the average cost, in staff time and consultant fees, respectively 
of those assessments. From this feedback, we assumed 75 percent of 
programs (1,529) perform their community assessments using Head Start 
staff, while the remaining 25 percent (510) hire consultants.
    We estimated the costs associated with Head Start staff time for 75 
percent of programs by calculating the average hourly wage of the 
entire management team (for the director, education manager, health 
services manager, family services manager and disabilities coordinator 
combined), and assumed 40 hours of the entire management team's time to 
complete the assessment ($4,965). Note, this is likely an overestimate 
because many programs do not have discrete managers for each service 
type. We then multiplied the cost of these 40 hours by the number of 
programs using Head Start staff to complete their assessments for a 
total estimated cost to complete the assessment of $7,591,485. We then 
divided this cost by 3 to get the previous annual cost ($2,530,495) and 
by 5 to get the new annual cost ($1,518,297) and found the difference 
to determine the total annual savings for this approach ($1,012,198).
    We estimated the costs associated with consultants for 25 percent 
of programs by the average cost for a consultant to perform the 
community assessment at $6,000 and assumed an additional 10 hours of 
the management team's time to support the completion of the assessment 
($1,241). We then multiplied these costs by the number of programs who 
choose to hire consultants for their community assessment for a total 
estimated cost to complete the assessment of $3,692,910. We then 
divided this cost by 3 to get the previous annual cost ($1,230,970) and 
by 5 to get the new annual cost ($738,582) and found the difference to 
determine the total annual savings for this approach ($492,388). 
Finally, we summed the savings from these approaches to find the 
estimated the savings for this policy change to be $1,504,586. We then 
applied the proportion of management staff salaries paid for with Head 
Start funds of 67.9 percent to find the total estimated savings borne 
by Head Start of $1,152,558 and the estimated savings borne by other 
parties of $352,028. These cost savings will be realized in year one 
and annually thereafter.

                                       Community Assessment: Cost Savings Borne by Head Start and by Other Parties
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                 Cost
                                                                                                                    Difference      Cost       savings
                     Option                           Cost      Number of    Total cost    Previous    New annual     (total      savings      borne by
                                                                 programs                annual cost      cost       savings)     borne by      other
                                                                                                                                 head start    parties
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
External:
    Staff time..................................       $1,241          510     $632,910     $210,970     $126,582      $84,388      $57,324      $27,064
    Consult Time................................        6,000          510    3,060,000    1,020,000      612,000      408,000      408,000  ...........
Internal:
    Staff time..................................        4,965        1,529    7,591,485    2,530,495    1,518,297    1,012,198      687,234      324,964
                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total...................................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........    1,504,586    1,152,558      352,028
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 61396]]

Managerial Planning
    This rule includes two new provisions that lessen the 
administrative planning burden on programs by reducing the number and 
prescriptiveness of planning processes that are required in Sec.  
1302.101(b). Specifically, the first provision reduces current planning 
topics from four in the previous rule (education, health, family and 
community partnerships, and program design and management) to two. The 
second provision significantly reduces the prescriptiveness of the 
disabilities services plan and as a result significantly reduces the 
costs associated with the requirement for that planning.
    In order to estimate the costs associated with the first provision, 
we assumed the four plans required in the existing rule took 
approximately two weeks of the education manager's time to develop. Our 
proposed provision would reduce the number of required plans by half. 
As a result, we assume one week of the education manager's salary as 
cost savings for each program. Then we multiplied this salary by the 
number of programs to estimate the savings associated with this 
provision. Further, we applied the proportion of the education 
manager's salary paid for with Head Start funds (71.5 percent) to 
determine the cost savings to Head Start and the cost savings borne by 
other parties. For the second provision, we assumed the disabilities 
service plan as outlined in the previous rule took an average of one 
week of the disabilities coordinator's time. We also assume that the 
changes to this provision will result in an 80 percent decrease in 
burden, and as such, estimate the cost savings per program to be 80 
percent of the disabilities coordinator's average weekly wage. We then 
find estimated cost savings associated with this provision both to Head 
Start and to other parties by multiplying this amount by the total 
number of programs and applying the proportion of disabilities 
coordinator's salaries paid for with Head Start funds (64.9 percent). 
Finally, we sum these two cost savings to find the total estimated cost 
savings for this policy change to be $3,341,921, the total cost savings 
borne by Head Start to be $2,298,905, and the total cost savings borne 
by other parties to be $1,043,016. These costs will be realized in year 
one and annually thereafter.

                                       Managerial Planning: Cost Savings Borne by Head Start and by Other Parties
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                           Cost savings    Cost savings
                          Cost                            Cost of  staff   Savings  per      Number of       Estimated    borne by  head     borne by
                                                            time/ week        program        programs      cost savings        start      other  parties
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduction of Plans......................................            $966  ..............           2,039      $1,969,674      $1,408,317        $561,357
Revision of Disabilities Plan...........................             841            $673           2,039       1,372,247         890,588         481,659
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................................  ..............  ..............  ..............       3,341,921       2,298,905       1,043,016
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Data Management
    This rule includes several new requirements related to data 
management, privacy, and data governance in Sec.  1302.53(b)(2) and 
(3), Sec.  1302.101(b)(4), and part 1303, subpart C. Specifically, 
these provisions require that programs establish procedures related to 
the availability, usability, integrity, and security of data and 
communicate, cooperate, and share information among agencies and their 
community partners. For the purposes of estimating the costs of these 
provisions, we focus on three major elements: Designing and 
implementing a program-wide coordinated approach to data management and 
sharing data with other programs and systems through parental consent 
and memoranda of understanding.
    First, we estimated the cost to programs of designing and 
implementing a program-wide coordinated approach to data management. We 
assumed one full day (eight hours) of planning time, using a cumulative 
hourly wage of $123.81 for management staff for all 2,039 programs. 
This resulted in a cost of $2,019,589. We then applied the proportion 
of management salaries paid for with Head Start funds (67.9 percent) to 
estimate the total cost borne by Head Start and the costs borne by 
other parties for this provision. We estimate the total cost to Head 
Start to be $1,371,301 and the cost to other parties to be $648,288.
    Second, we estimated the cost of sharing data in order to 
coordinate with other programs and systems. We assumed these costs 
entail costs associated with Head Start staff time requesting parental 
consent to share data and establishing Memoranda of Understanding 
(MOU). We assume that the parental consent process would be performed 
by family services workers; however, since we do not have PIR data on a 
family service worker's hourly wage, we averaged the hourly wage of 
Head Start teachers and assistant teachers as a proxy for the family 
service worker wage ($15.35). To calculate the cost of the parental 
consent process, we further assumed that each consent process would 
take 20 minutes of the family service workers' time and divided that 
hourly wage by three to arrive at the cost of each parental consent 
($5.12). Then, we multiplied the cost per consent by the number of 
parents from the PIR (988,923), for an estimated cost of $5,063,286.
    We also estimated the cost of the MOU process for all programs. To 
do so, we averaged the hourly wages of management staff and assumed an 
average of three MOUs per program. We chose three MOUs based on the 
assumption that most programs would have an MOU with an educational 
agency, a local social services agency, and some other community 
partner. We assumed two hours of a management staff time per MOU. We 
used an average hourly wage for managers of $24.76 and multiplied it by 
two hours per each of three MOUs for an estimated cost of $148.56 per 
program. Then we multiplied this cost by the total number of programs 
(2,039) for an estimated cost of $302,914 for the MOU process. We then 
applied the proportion of management salaries paid for with Head Start 
funds (67.9 percent) to estimate the total cost borne by Head Start and 
the total cost borne by other parties for the MOU process. The cost 
borne by Head Start is $205,680, and the cost borne by other parties is 
$97,234.
    In sum, the total estimated cost of this provision is $7,385,789, 
the total estimated cost borne by Head Start is $6,643,811, and the 
total estimated cost borne by other parties is $741,978. These costs 
will be realized in year two and annually thereafter.
    In addition to monetary costs, we also estimated the opportunity 
cost associated with parents' time spent

[[Page 61397]]

completing the parental consent process. To calculate this opportunity 
cost, we use foregone wages as an estimate for the value of parents' 
time. This represents the value of their time when they participate in 
an additional home visit rather than working. Because Head Start 
families are primarily families from low-income backgrounds, we used 
the federal minimum wage and assumed twenty minutes of time for one 
parent from each family served (988,923 according to 2015 PIR data) to 
meet this requirement. Therefore, we estimate the opportunity cost 
associated with this provision to be $2,393,194. This cost will be 
realized in year two and annually thereafter.

                         Data Management: Costs Borne by Head Start and by Other Parties
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Number of
                                   Cost of staff     program/          Total      Costs borne by  Costs borne by
                                       time          families     estimated cost    head start     other parties
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coordinated Approach............         $990.48           2,039      $2,019,589      $1,374,845        $644,744
Consent Process.................            5.12         988,923       5,063,286       5,063,286  ..............
MOU Process.....................         $148.56           2,039         302,914         205,680          97,234
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................  ..............  ..............       7,385,789       6,643,811         741,978
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                        Data Management: Opportunity Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Value of
                                                   parent time/      Number of      Time spent      Opportunity
                                                       hour           parents       per parent         cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consent Process.................................           $7.25         988,923      20 minutes        $914,216
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................  ..............  ..............  ..............       2,393,194
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Participation in Quality Rating Improvement Systems
    This rule includes a new requirement that programs participate in 
their State's Quality Rating and Improvement System if it meets several 
indicators described in Sec.  1302.53, including that the State accepts 
Head Start monitoring data as evidence that programs meet requirements 
to be assigned a rating in the State's tiered system. As a result, we 
estimate costs associated with both management staff time spent 
determining whether their state QRIS meets the indicators which would 
trigger participation and management staff time spent preparing 
monitoring reports and filling out paperwork to file with the State. We 
also estimate a cost to States associated with reviewing Head Start 
program documentation and assigning a rating to each program. While we 
acknowledge that there may be additional costs to Head Start and other 
parties associated with Head Start programs who seek to move up within 
a state's tiered system, for example by opting to participate in 
observational ratings such as the Early Childhood Environmental Rating 
Scale (ECERS), programs are not required to do so by this provision and 
we do not have data to support a reasonable assumption of how many 
programs would choose to do so. Therefore we have not estimated these 
costs here. Further, we assume that programs that choose to participate 
in such activities to move up within a state's system would do so in 
order to reap benefits such as increased subsidy reimbursement rates or 
access to professional development opportunities, which would, from the 
program's perspective, offset the costs involved. (From the perspective 
of society as a whole, changes in reimbursement amounts are transfers, 
increased resources devoted to professional development are costs, and 
any improved outcomes for Head Start students that result from the 
professional development are benefits.)
    In order to calculate the costs associated with each program 
determining whether the QRIS in their State meets the indicators, we 
assumed eight hours of assessment time for the entire management team, 
using a cumulative hourly wage of $124.13 for management staff for all 
2,039 programs. This resulted in a cost of $2,024,809. We then applied 
the proportion of management salaries paid for with Head Start funds 
(67.9 percent) to estimate the total cost borne by Head Start and the 
costs borne by other parties for this provision. We estimate the total 
cost to Head Start to be $1,367,272 and the cost to other parties to be 
$657,537.
    Then to estimate the cost of program participation in QRIS in 
states that meet the indicators described in Sec.  1302.53, we first 
assumed that the Program Director and the Education Manager (whose 
hourly wage is a total of $59.82, $40.28 of which is borne by Head 
Start and $19.55 of which is borne by other parties) in programs 
participating in QRIS would spend 16 hours (or two full days) preparing 
monitoring reports and filling out paperwork to file with the State. 
This calculation results in an estimated cost borne by Head Start of 
$644.42 per program and an estimated cost borne by other parties of 
$312.73 per program. Then, to estimate the cost per year, we had to 
make assumptions about what percent of programs would be in States that 
meet the described in Sec.  1302.53. Although we do not think most 
States currently meet these indicators, we assume that States who want 
Head Start programs to participate in QRIS will make adjustments to 
their systems over time to meet the indicators such that the Head Start 
performance standards require participation. Therefore, we assumed that 
25% of programs would participate in the first year this requirement is 
in place (2017/2018), 50% would participate five years after the 
requirement is in place (2022/2023) and that by 2025/2026 75% of 
programs would participate. To estimate the cost in each year, we 
multiplied the number of programs participating (510 in 2017/2018, 
1,020 in 2022/2023, and 1,529 in 2025/2026). This results in costs 
borne by Head Start of $328,656 in 2017/2018, $657,311 in 2022/2023, 
and $985,323 in 2025/2026; and costs borne by other parties of $159,493 
in 2017/2018, $318,985 in 2022/2023, and $478,165 in 2025/2026.
    Then, we further assume additional costs borne by other parties, in 
costs to the State associated with reviewing Head Start program 
documentation and assigning a rating to each program. In

[[Page 61398]]

order to estimate these costs, we assumed 8 hours of administrative 
staff time using the average hourly wage for administrative assistants 
from the Bureau of Labor Statistics 2015 data ($17.55) for a cost of 
$140.40 per program participating in QRIS. We then applied this cost 
per program to the number of programs participating in each year as 
described above to find the cost borne by States to be $71,569 in 2017/
2018, $143,138 in 2022/2023, and $214,707 in 2025/2026.
    In sum, the total costs associated with meeting this requirement 
which are borne by Head Start programs are $1,695,928 in 2017/2018, 
$2,024,583 in 2022/2023, and $2,352,595 in 2025/2026. Finally, the 
total costs associated with meeting this requirement which are borne by 
other parties are $888,598 in 2017/2018, $1,119,660 in 2022/2023, and 
$1,350,409 in 2025/2026.

                                          Participation in QRIS: Costs Borne by Head Start and by Other Parties
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Cost of staff                                     Costs borne  by
                                                                         time per        Number of          Total         head  start    Costs borne  by
                                                                         program          programs     estimated  cost      (67.9%)       other  parties
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Determining Participation..........................................         $993.04            2,039       $2,024,809       $1,367,272         $657,537
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                          Participation in QRIS: Costs Borne by Head Start and by Other Parties
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Estimated cost for  25%   Estimated cost for  50%   Estimated cost for  75%
                                                    Cost of                        of programs               of programs               of programs
                                                  staff  time   Number of  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      per        programs     To  Head    To  other     To  Head    To  other     To  Head    To  other
                                                    program                    Start       parties       Start       parties       Start       parties
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HS Management Staff for Participating Programs..      $957.15        2,039     $328,656     $159,493     $657,311     $318,985     $985,323     $478,165
State Administrative Staff......................      $140.40        2,039          n/a      $71,569          n/a     $143,138          n/a     $214,707
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                          Participation in QRIS: Costs Borne by Head Start and by Other Parties
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Year 2       Year 3       Year 4       Year 5       Year 6       Year 7       Year 8       Year 9      Year 10
                                      2017-2018    2018-2019    2019-2020    2020-2021    2021-2022    2022-2023    2023-2024    2024-2025    2025-2026
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Costs to Head Start..........   $1,695,928   $1,695,928   $1,695,928   $1,695,928   $1,695,928   $2,024,583   $2,024,583   $2,024,583   $2,352,595
Total Costs to Other Parties.......      888,598      888,598      888,598      888,598      888,598    1,119,660    1,119,660    1,119,660    1,350,409
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Participation in State Longitudinal Data Systems
    This rule includes a new requirement in Sec.  1302.53 that programs 
should participate in State longitudinal data systems if they can 
participate and benefit in a similar fashion to other early childhood 
programs. As a result of the conditions for participation to be 
required, we estimate costs associated with both management staff time 
spent determining whether they should participate in State longitudinal 
data systems and qualified staff (such as a data analyst or the 
Education Manager) time spent preparing program data to be shared with 
the State. We also estimate a cost to States associated with 
integrating Head Start data into the state system. While we acknowledge 
that the cost of maintaining State longitudinal data systems can be 
costly to States, there is no evidence to suggest that States have 
passed these costs on to programs that contribute their data to the 
system. In this estimate, we have not estimated costs to Head Start 
programs associated with any fee for participation. If States began to 
pass these maintenance costs on to participating programs the costs 
presented below would represent an underestimate of the actual costs to 
Head Start programs and an equal-magnitude overestimate of the costs to 
other parties.
    In order to calculate the costs associated with each program 
determining whether the to participate in State longitudinal data 
systems, we assumed four hours of assessment time for the entire 
management team, using a cumulative hourly wage of $124.13 for 
management staff for all 2,039 programs. This resulted in a cost of 
$1,012,404. We then applied the proportion of management salaries paid 
for with Head Start funds (67.9 percent) to estimate the total cost 
borne by Head Start and the costs borne by other parties for this 
provision. We estimate the total cost to Head Start to be $683,636 and 
the cost to other parties to be $328,768.
    Then to estimate the cost of program participation in State 
longitudinal data systems, we first assumed that staff with 
qualifications and a salaries equivalent to the Education Manager, who 
may or may not be the Education Manager (whose hourly wage is a total 
of $24.16, $17.27 of which is borne by Head Start and $6.89 of which is 
borne by other parties) in programs participating in State longitudinal 
data systems would spend 40 hours (or one full week) preparing program 
data to be shared with the State. This calculation results in an 
estimated cost borne by Head Start of $690.97 per program and an 
estimated cost borne by other parties of $275.42 per program. Then, to 
estimate the cost per year, we had to make assumptions about what 
percent of programs would participate. Given the costly nature of 
maintaining State longitudinal data systems for States, and the 
scarcity of grant funds to support these activities, we have assumed 
only a small proportion of programs will be in States who have 
longitudinal data systems that meet the conditions described in Sec.  
1302.53 the first year this requirement is in place. Further, we assume 
only modest growth in the proportion of programs in such States over 
time. Therefore, we assumed that 10% of programs would participate in 
the first year this requirement is in place (2017/2018), 20% would 
participate five years after the requirement is in place (2022/2023) 
and that by 2025/2026 30% of programs would participate. To estimate 
the cost in each year, we multiplied the number of programs 
participating (204 in 2017/2018, 408 in 2022/2023, and 612 in 2025/
2026). This results in costs borne by Head Start of $140,957 in 2017/
2018, $281,914 in

[[Page 61399]]

2022/2023, and $422,871 in 2025/2026; and costs borne by other parties 
of $56,186 in 2017/2018, $112,371 in 2022/2023, and $168,557 in 2025/
2026.
    Then, we further assume additional costs borne by other parties, in 
costs to the State associated with integrating Head Start data into the 
state system. In order to estimate these costs, we assumed 4 hours of 
administrative staff time using the average hourly wage for 
administrative assistants from the Bureau of Labor Statistics 2015 data 
($17.55) for a cost of $70.20 per program participating in State 
longitudinal data systems. We then applied this cost per program to the 
number of programs participating in each year as described above to 
find the cost borne by States to be $14.314 in 2017/2018, $28,628 in 
2022/2023, and $42,941 in 2025/2026.
    In sum, the total costs associated with meeting this requirement 
which are borne by Head Start programs are $824,593 in 2017/2018, 
$965,550 in 2022/2023, and $1,106,507 in 2025/2026. Finally, the total 
costs associated with meeting this requirement which are borne by other 
parties are $399,268 in 2017/2018, $469,767 in 2022/2023, and $540,267 
in 2025/2026.

                            Participation in State Longitudinal Data Systems: Costs Borne by Head Start and by Other Parties
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Cost of  staff                                    Costs borne  by
                                                                        time  per        Number of          Total         head  start    Costs borne  by
                                                                         program          programs     estimated  cost      (67.9%)       other  parties
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Determining Participation..........................................         $496.52            2,039       $1,012,404         $683,636         $328,768
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                            Participation in State Longitudinal Data Systems: Costs Borne by Head Start and by Other Parties
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Estimated cost for  10%   Estimated cost for  20%   Estimated cost for  30%
                                                    Cost of                        of programs               of programs               of programs
                                                  staff  time   Number of  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      per        programs     To Head      To other     To Head      To other     To Head      To other
                                                    program                    Start       parties       Start       parties       Start       parties
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HS Management Staff for Participating Programs..      $690.97        2,039     $140.957      $56,186     $281,914     $112,371     $422,871     $168,557
State Administrative Staff......................        70.20        2,039          n/a       14,314          n/a       28,628          n/a       42,941
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                            Participation in State Longitudinal Data Systems: Costs Borne by Head Start and by Other Parties
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Year 2 2017- Year 3 2018- Year 4 2019- Year 5 2020- Year 6 2021- Year 7 2022- Year 8 2023- Year 9 2024-   Year 10
                                         2018         2019         2020         2021         2022         2023         2024         2025      2025-2026
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Costs to Head Start..........     $824,593     $824,593     $824,593     $824,593     $824,593     $965,550     $965,550     $965,550   $1,106,507
Total Costs to Other Parties.......      399,268      399,268      399,268      399,268      399,268      469,767      469,767      469,767      540,267
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Implementation of Changes in the Program Performance Standards
    This rule includes numerous changes to Head Start's Program 
Performance Standards. As a result, we have included provisions in 
Sec.  1302.103 that require programs to develop a program-wide approach 
to prepare for and implement these changes, in order to ensure their 
effectiveness. In order to estimate the cost associated with these 
provisions, we estimated the costs associated with Head Start staff 
time by calculating the average hourly wage of the entire management 
team (for the director, education manager, health services manager, 
family services manager, and disabilities coordinator combined), and 
assumed 40 hours of the entire management team's time to develop the 
approach ($4,965). Note, this is likely an overestimate because many 
programs do not have discrete managers for each service type. Using 
this method we estimate the total cost of this provision at 
$10,123,635. We then applied the average proportion of management 
salaries paid for with Head Start funds (67.9 percent) to estimate the 
total cost borne by Head Start ($6,873,948) and the total cost borne by 
other parties ($3,249,687) for planning.
    Further, we expect there will be costs associated with printing and 
distribution of hardcopies of the standards to every grantee. We 
estimate the cost of printing and distribution will be $75,000, based 
on the cost associated with printing and distributing the new Head 
Start Early Learning Outcomes Framework: Birth to Five, which was 
similar in length and was distributed to the same entities at a cost of 
$75,000. Including this cost, the total estimated cost of 
implementation planning is $10,198,635, the cost borne by Head Start is 
$6,948,948 and the cost borne by other parties is $3,249,687. We then 
divided the cost borne by Head Start and the cost borne by other 
parties in half, because we believe implementation planning will be 
spread across two years. Therefore, these costs will be realized in 
years one and two only.

                                         Implementation Planning: Costs Borne by Head Start and by Other Parties
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Hourly rate                                                                        Annual costs
                                                             of        Cost 40 of     Number of     Estimated     Estimated   Annual costs    borne by
                                                         management       hours       programs        cost        cost per      borne by        other
                                                            team                                                    year       Head Start      parties
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Management Time.......................................       $124.13        $4,965         2,039   $10,123,635    $5,061,818    $3,436,974    $1,624,843
Printing and Distribution.............................  ............  ............  ............        75,000        32,500        32,500             0
                                                       -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.............................................  ............  ............  ............    10,198,635     5,099,318     3,474,474     1,624,843
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 61400]]

3. Benefits Analysis
    Overall, the policies included in this final rule are designed to 
strengthen Head Start quality, improve child outcomes, and increase the 
return on taxpayer dollars. As discussed in more detail in the preamble 
for this final rule, these policies will improve teaching practices, 
through implementation of content-rich curriculum, effective use of 
assessment data, and strong professional development. These 
improvements are central to our effort to ensure every child in Head 
Start receives high quality early learning experiences that will build 
the skills they need to succeed in school and beyond. In order to 
maximize the effectiveness of Head Start and yield a high rate of 
return on investment, we believe it is essential to pair these 
improvements to the early learning experiences provided by Head Start 
with increases in program duration.
    In this section, as part of our full regulatory analysis, we 
describe our expectation that this rule will result in a greater return 
on the federal investment in Head Start and outline our rationale. To 
do so, we first consider long-standing economic analysis of the return 
on investment through benefits to society of high quality early 
education and summarize the research linking the most costly 
provisions--extending program duration--to the expectation for 
increased return on investment. Then, we describe the expected effect 
of the final rule on society by exploring the benefits of the quality 
and duration improvements on children enrolled in Head Start and their 
parents and the potential opportunity costs for children who might not 
have access to Head Start in the future, as well as other unquantified 
benefits. Further, we discuss the implications of both Congressional 
and Secretarial actions on the costs and benefits of this rule to 
society as a whole. Finally, we provide estimates of additional federal 
funding needed for overtime, adjusted for cost of living increases, to 
support the full implementation of this rule and we estimate the 
potential slot loss and education staff job loss that may arise from 
this rule if the service duration policies described in part 1302, 
subpart B, are fully implemented without adequate additional funds.
Return on Investment in Early Childhood
    There is no question that high-quality early learning programs 
yield significant benefits to children and society.\178\ Early learning 
programs provide a unique opportunity to intervene and support 
children's development during a period in which learning and growth is 
at its most rapid.179 180 181 Early learning programs have 
short and long term effects on children's math, reading and behavior 
skills, can reduce grade retention, teen pregnancy, and the need for 
special education services, and in the long-term can increase lifetime 
earnings and reduce 
crime.182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 
Numerous evaluations of both small-scale and large-scale early 
education programs demonstrate that the benefits to children and our 
society outweigh the financial costs of funding these programs. Studies 
examining the return on investment for early learning programs find a 
range of levels for positive returns. For example, the Perry Preschool 
project, a two-year early learning intervention for children from low-
income families, netted approximately 7-10 dollars back for every 
dollar spent on the program, with a baseline estimate of 
$8.60.194 195 Most of these financial benefits came from 
later reductions in crime. Evaluations of the Chicago Child-Parent 
Center program (CPC) also show benefits from medium and long-term 
positive effects. When CPC participants reach age 21, analyses 
demonstrates that one and a half years of CPC preschool participation 
yielded a return for society of $7.10. In comparison to preschool 
children who did not participate in CPC, the preschool participants had 
lower rates of special education placement and grade retention and a 
higher rate of high school completion. They also had lower rates of 
juvenile arrests and lower arrest rates for a violent offense.\196\ A 
recent analysis by some of the country's premier child development and 
early intervention experts conclude universal pre-kindergarten returns 
$3-5 in benefits for every dollar spent.\197\ Nobel Prize winning 
economist James Heckman concludes that educational interventions in the 
first five years of life show much greater benefits than later 
interventions.\198\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \178\ Heckman, J.J., Moon, S.H., Pinto, R., Savelyev, P.A., & 
Yavitz, A. (2010). The rate of return to the HighScope Perry 
Preschool Program. Journal of Public Economics, 94, 114-128.
    \179\ National Scientific Council on the Developing Child 
(2007). The Timing and Quality of Early Experiences Combine to Shape 
Brain Architecture: Working Paper No. 5. Retrieved from 
www.developingchild.harvard.edu
    \180\ Anda R.F., Felitti V.J., Bremner J.D., Walker J.D., 
Whitfield C., Perry, B.D., Dube, S.R., & Giles, W.H. (2006). The 
enduring effects of abuse and related adverse experiences in 
childhood. A convergence of evidence from neurobiology and 
epidemiology. European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical 
Neuroscience, 256(3), 174-186.
    \181\ National Scientific Council on the Developing Child 
(2010). Early Experiences Can Alter Gene Expression and Affect Long-
Term Development: Working Paper No. 10. Cambridge, MA: Author.
    \182\ Aikens, N., Kopack Klein, A., Tarullo, L., & West, J. 
(2013). Getting Ready for Kindergarten: Children's Progress During 
Head Start. FACES 2009 Report. OPRE Report 2013-21a. Washington, DC: 
Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for 
Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
    \183\ Schweinhart, L.J., Montie, J., Xiang, Z., Barnett, W.S., 
Belfield, C.R., & Nores, M. (2005). Lifetime effects: The HighScope 
Perry Preschool study through age 40. Ypsilanti, MI: HighScope 
Press.
    \184\ Barnett, W.S., & Hustedt, J.T. (2005). Head start's 
lasting benefits. Infants & Young Children, 18(1), 16-24.
    \185\ Yoshikawa, H., Weiland, C., Brooks-Gunn, J., Burchinal, 
M., . . . Zaslow, M. (2013). Investing in our future: The evidence 
base on preschool education. Foundation for Child Development. New 
York, NY.
    \186\ Camilli, G., Vargas, S., Ryan, S., & Barnett, W.S. (2010). 
Meta-analysis of the effects of early education interventions on 
cognitive and social development. The Teachers College Record, 112, 
579-620.
    \187\ Wong, V.C., Cook, T.D., Barnett, W.S., & Jung, K. (2008). 
An effectiveness-based evaluation of five state prekindergarten 
programs. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 27, 122-154.
    \188\ Reynolds, A.J. (2000). Success in early intervention: The 
Chicago Child-Parent Centers. Lincoln, Nebraska: University of 
Nebraska Press.
    \189\ Schweinhart, L.J., Montie, J., Xiang, Z., Barnett, W.S., 
Belfield, C.R., & Nores, M. (2005). Lifetime effects: The HighScope 
Perry Preschool study through age 40. Ypsilanti, MI: HighScope 
Press.
    \190\ Gormley, W., Gayer, T., Phillips, D.A., & Dawson, B. 
(2005). The effects of universal Pre-K on cognitive development. 
Developmental Psychology, 41, 872-884.
    Campbell, F.A., Ramey, C.T., Pungello, E., Sparling, J., & 
Miller-Johnson, S. (2002). Early childhood education: Young adult 
outcomes from the Abecedarian project. Applied Developmental 
Science, 6, 42-57.
    \191\ Weiland, C., & Yoshikawa, H. (2013). Impacts of a 
prekindergarten program on children's mathematics, language, 
literacy, executive function, and emotional skills. Child 
Development, 84, 2112-2130.
    \192\ Peisner-Feinberg, E.S., Schaaf, J.M., LaForett, D.R., 
Hildebrandt, L.M., & Sideris, J. (2014). Effects of Georgia's 
Pre[hyphen]K Program on children's school readiness skills: Findings 
from the 2012-2013 evaluation study. Chapel Hill: The University of 
North Carolina, FPG Child Development Institute.
    \193\ The Council of Economic Advisers. (December, 2014). The 
Economics of Early Childhood Investments. Washington, DC: Authors
    \194\ Heckman, J.J., Moon, S.H., Pinto, R., Savalyev, P.A. & 
Yavitz, A. (2010). The Rate of Return to the High/Scope Perry 
Preschool Program. Journal of Public Economics, 94(1-2), 114-128.
    \195\ The Council of Economic Advisers. (December, 2014). The 
Economics of Early Childhood Investments. Washington, DC: Authors.
    \196\ Reynolds, A.J., Temple, J.A., Robertson, D.L., Mann, E.A. 
(2002). Age 21 Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Title I Chicago Child-
Parent Centers. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 24(4), 
267-303.
    \197\ Yoshikawa, H., Weiland, C., Brooks-Gunn, J., Burchinal, 
M., . . . Zaslow, M. (2013). Investing in our future: The evidence 
base on preschool education. Foundation for Child Development.
    \198\ Heckman, J.J., Moon, S.H., Pinto, R., Savelyev, P.A., & 
Yavitz, A. (2010). The rate of return to the HighScope Perry 
Preschool Program. Journal of Public Economics, 94, 114-128.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 61401]]

    Taken together, this research suggests that participation in early 
learning programs can help support optimal child development, 
particularly for children from low-income families, with benefits for 
society lasting well into adulthood. However, early learning programs 
must be sufficiently high quality to reap these benefits. The 
congressionally mandated, randomized control trial study of Head 
Start's impact did not show lasting effects on the outcomes measured 
beyond the end of the Head Start program years.\199\ However, recent 
reanalysis of data from the Head Start Impact Study suggests that those 
programs that were high-quality had greater effects on children, 
providing further confidence in the benefits of participation in high-
quality Head Start programs.\200\ In addition, based on monitoring 
data, including Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS), and 
findings from FACES and the Head Start Impact Study, we also know that 
there is significant variance in quality among Head Start 
programs.201 202 203 Further, longer program duration may 
allow more Head Start parents to work, which would have benefits to 
Head Start children and to society.204 205 In order for Head 
Start to achieve its mission to be an effective tool in supporting 
children's success in kindergarten and beyond, and for society to reap 
the full benefits of this investment, every Head Start program is 
providing high quality services that will promote strong and lasting 
child outcomes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \199\ Puma, M., Bell, S., Cook, R., Heid, C., Broene, P., 
Jenkins, F., & Downer, J. (2012). Third grade follow-up to the Head 
Start impact study final report. US Department of Health and Human 
Services Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation.
    \200\ Walters, C. (2014). Inputs in the production of early 
childhood human capital: Evidence from Head Start. Working paper. 
http://eml.berkeley.edu/~crwalters/papers/HS_2_2014.pdf
    \201\ Office of Head Start (2014). A National Overview of 
Grantee CLASS(TM) Scores in 2013. Washington, DC: Office of Head 
Start, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of 
Health and Human Services.
    \202\ Aikens, N., Kopack Klein, A., Tarullo, L., & J. West. 
(2013). Getting Ready for Kindergarten: Children's Progress During 
Head Start. FACES 2009 Report. OPRE Report 2013-21a. Washington, DC: 
Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for 
Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
    \203\ Puma, M., Bell, S., Cook, R., Heid, C., Broene, P., 
Jenkins, F., & Downer, J. (2012). Third grade follow-up to the Head 
Start impact study final report. US Department of Health and Human 
Services Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation.
    \204\ Huston, A.C., Duncan, G.J., McLoyd, V.C., Crosby, D.A., 
Ripke, M.N., Weisner, T.S., & Eldred, C.A. (2005). Impacts on 
children of a policy to promote employment and reduce poverty for 
low-income parents: new hope after 5 years. Developmental 
psychology, 41(6), 902.
    \205\ Huston, A.C., Duncan, G.J., Granger, R., Bos, J., McLoyd, 
V., Mistry, R., . . . & Ventura, A. (2001). Work-based antipoverty 
programs for parents can enhance the school performance and social 
behavior of children. Child Development, 318-336.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Review of Research on Early Education Duration
    The Secretary's Advisory Committee recommended Head Start look to 
``optimize dosage,'' and our new requirements will ensure Head Start 
programs become more aligned with state pre-kindergarten programs that 
have shown strong effects over time.206 207 For example, 
North Carolina pre-kindergarten, which is offered to lower income 
families and operates 6.5 hours per day and 180 days per year, 
demonstrates strong effects. Children who attend the program make gains 
in language, literacy, math, general knowledge and social skills. At 
the end of 3rd grade, children from low-income families who had 
attended state pre-kindergarten scored higher on math assessments than 
children from low income families who did not attend. Moreover, 
children who are dual language learners make gains at even faster rates 
than other children.\208\ New Jersey's state pre-kindergarten, which 
operates between 6-10 hours per day and 180-245 days per year shows 
significant impacts for child learning. Children who attend New Jersey 
pre-kindergarten show improvements in language, print awareness, and 
math at kindergarten entry, 1st grade, and 2nd grade. Gains still exist 
in language arts, literacy, math, and science at 4th and 5th grade. 
They also show a 40 percent decrease in grade retention and a 31 
percent decrease in special education placement.\209\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \206\ Weiland, C., & Yoshikawa, H. (2013). Impacts of a 
prekindergarten program on children's mathematics, language, 
literacy, executive function, and emotional skills. Child 
Development, 84, 2112-2130.
    \207\ Barnett, W.S., Jung, K., Youn, M.J., and Frede, E.C. 
(2013). Abbott Preschool Program Longitudinal Effects Study: Fifth 
Grade Follow-Up. National Institute for Early Education Research 
Rutgers--The State University of New Jersey.
    \208\ Peisner-Feinberg, E.S., Schaaf, J.M., LaForett, D. R., 
Hildebrandt, L.M., & Sideris, J. (2014). Effects of Georgia's Pre-K 
Program on children's school readiness skills: Findings from the 
2012-2013 evaluation study. Chapel Hill: The University of North 
Carolina, FPG Child Development Institute.
    \209\ Barnett, W.S., Jung, K., Youn, M.J., and Frede, E.C. 
(2013). Abbott Preschool Program Longitudinal Effects Study: Fifth 
Grade Follow-Up. National Institute for Early Education Research 
Rutgers--The State University of New Jersey.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other states with service duration consistent with our minimum 
annual hours find strong results for children. For example, Georgia 
pre-kindergarten, which operates 6.5 hours per day and typically runs 
180 days per year, finds medium to large effects on children's 
language, literacy, and math skills at kindergarten entry.\210\ Tulsa 
pre-kindergarten also shows strong effects for children in language and 
math skills. This program operates 180 days per year and is mainly a 
full-day program for low-income children. There is some evidence that 
full-day attendance in Tulsa supports better outcomes for low income 
and minority children.\211\ Boston pre-kindergarten, which also 
operates for a full school day and school year, demonstrates large 
effects on children's language and math skills.\212\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \210\ Peisner-Feinberg, E. S., Schaaf, J.M., LaForett, D. R., 
Hildebrandt, L.M., & Sideris, J. (2014). Effects of Georgia's Pre-K 
Program on children's school readiness skills: Findings from the 
2012-2013 evaluation study. Chapel Hill: The University of North 
Carolina, FPG Child Development Institute.
    \211\ Gormley, G.T., Gayer, T., Phillips, D., & Dawson, B. 
(2005). The effects of universal pre-k on cognitive development. 
Developmental Psychology, 4(6), 872-884.
    \212\ Weiland, C., & Yoshikawa, H. (2013). Impacts of a 
prekindergarten program on children's mathematics, language, 
literacy, executive function, and emotional skills. Child 
Development, 84, 2112-2130.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Only a small amount of research with young children has been able 
to isolate the impact of service duration on child learning, but what 
does exist links increasing the length of the program day and program 
year to improved children's outcomes. For example, a randomized control 
study in which one group of children attended pre-kindergarten for 8 
hours per day for 45 weeks and another group of children attended the 
same program for 2.5-3 hours per day for 41 weeks found that by the 
spring of kindergarten, the children who had attended full-day pre-
kindergarten had improved almost twice as much on vocabulary and math 
skills compared to the children who attended half day.\213\ Research 
with children in child care settings found 30 hours of participation 
each week to be necessary for low and middle income children to see 
stronger learning outcomes.\214\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \213\ Robin, K.B., Frede, E.C., Barnett, W.S. (2006). Is More 
Better? The Effects of Full-Day vs. Half-Day Preschool on Early 
School Achievement. NIEER Working Paper.
    \214\ Loeb, S., Bridges, M., Bassok, D., Fuller, B., Rumberger, 
R., (2005). How much is too much? The influence of preschool centers 
on children's social and cognitive development. Working paper. 
National Bureau Of Economic Research.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, research on effective teaching practices for children at 
risk of school difficulties also support the need for full-day 
operation. A meta-analysis of pre-kindergarten programs found that 
those that focused on intentional teaching and small group and one-to-
one interactions had larger impacts on

[[Page 61402]]

child outcomes.\215\ It is very difficult for a half-day program to 
provide sufficient time for teachers to conduct learning activities and 
intentional instruction in small group and one-on-one interactions in 
the areas of skill development experts believe are important to later 
school success.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \215\ Camilli, G., Vargas, S., Ryan, S., & Barnett, W.S. (2010). 
Meta-analysis of the effects of early education interventions on 
cognitive and social development. Teachers College Record, 112(3), 
579-620.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Researchers believe meaningful skill development in language, 
literacy, and math requires intentional, frequent, and specific methods 
of instruction and teacher-child interactions. These types of 
interactions are often complex, require a variety of types of 
interactions and intensities, and for many children in Head Start, need 
to be conducted in small groups to allow sufficient individualized 
scaffolding and skill development.\216\ Experts believe math curriculum 
and instruction must support development of broad and deep mathematical 
thinking and knowledge, including development of abstract thought and 
reasoning.\217\ Targeted instruction and small group activities are 
teaching practices that are particularly important to include for 
supporting the learning of children who are behind.218 219 
Language and literacy experts believe teachers must take an active role 
in supporting language and literacy development for children at risk of 
reading difficulties. That requires systematic and explicit instruction 
to foster vocabulary breadth and depth. Research with toddlers and 
preschool age children also finds that greater exposure to rich 
vocabulary enrichment allows for better scaffolding that can lead to 
improved language and literacy.220 221 As such, experts 
recommend in addition to integration into group learning and free play, 
language and literacy instruction should be explicitly structured and 
sequenced in 15-20 minutes small group session at least three times per 
week.\222\ Math experts have similar time estimates for supporting 
adequate high quality learning experiences.223 224
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \216\ Justice, L.M., Mcginty, A., Cabell, S.Q., Kilday, C.R., 
Knighton, K., & Huffman, G. (2010). Language and literacy curriculum 
supplement for preschoolers who are academically at risk: A 
feasibility study. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in 
Schools, 41, 161-178.
    \217\ Ginsburg, H.P., Ertle, B., & Presser, A.L. (2014). Math 
curriculum and instruction for young children. Chapter 16 in 
Handbook of Response to Intervention in Early Childhood, Buysee, V., 
& Peisner-Feinberg, E. (Eds.). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes 
Publishing.
    \218\ Buysse, V., Peisner-Feinber, E.S., Saikakou, E., & 
LaForett, D.R. (2014). Recognition & response: A model of response 
to Intervention to promote academic learning in early education. 
Chapter 5 in Handbook of Response to Intervention in Early 
Childhood, Buysee, V., & Peisner-Feinberg, E. (Eds.). Baltimore: 
Paul H. Brookes Publishing.
    \219\ Justice, L.M., McGinty, A., Cabell, S.Q., Kilday, C.R., 
Knighton, K., & Huffman, G. (2010). Language and literacy curriculum 
supplement for preschoolers who are academically at risk: A 
feasibility study. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in 
Schools, 41, 161-178.
    \220\ Harris, Golinkoff, & Hirsh-Pasell (2011). Lessons for the 
Crib for the Classroom: How Children Really Learn Vocabulary. In 
Handbook of Early Literacy Research, Vol 3. Ed by D. Dickinson and 
S. Neuman (NY: Guilford). 49-65.
    \221\ Dickinson, D.K., Flushman, T.R., & Freiberg, J.B. (2009). 
Learning, reading, and classroom supports: Where we are and where we 
need to be going. In B. Richards, M.H. Daller, D.D. Malvern, P. 
Meara, J. Milton, & Trefers-Daller (Eds.). Vocabulary Studies in 
First and Second Language Acquisition: The Interface Between Theory 
and Application. (pp. 23-38). Hampshire, England: Palgrave-McMillan.
    \222\ Curenton, S.M., Justice, L.M., Zucker, T.A., & McGinty, 
A.S. (2014). Language and literacy curriculum and instruction. 
Chapter 15 in in Handbook of Response to Intervention in Early 
Childhood, Buysee, V., & Peisner-Feinberg, E. (Eds.). Baltimore: 
Paul H. Brookes Publishing.
    \223\ Clements, D.H., Sarama, J., Wolfe, C.B., & Spitler, M.E. 
(2012). Longitudinal evaluation of a scale-up model for teaching 
mathematics with trajectories and technologies: persistence of 
effects in the third. American Educational Research Journal.
    \224\ Clements, D.H., & Sarama, J., (2008). Experimental 
evaluation of the effects of a research-based preschool mathematics 
curriculum. American Educational Research Journal, 45(2), 443-494.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Research on summer learning loss demonstrates the importance of 
extending the minimum days of operation in Head Start. Research on 
reading skills found high-income students gained skills over summer 
break, middle-income students maintained their skill level, and 
children from lower income families lost skills.\225\ Experts conclude 
the average student loses one month worth of skills and development 
over the summer break.\226\ The amount of learning loss is even greater 
for children from low income families who may not have as much access 
to educational resources and experiences during the summer and who are 
already behind their more advantaged peers and need extra time to learn 
skills and strengthen development.227 228 229 230 231 This 
pattern is also true for the youngest children in elementary school. 
Analysis of the ECLS finds that children from families with higher 
incomes learn more over the summer between kindergarten and 1st grade 
than do children from families with lower incomes.\232\ In fact, 
researchers believe the effects of summer learning loss for children 
from low-income families is cumulative and that the disparity in summer 
gains and losses over the first four summers of elementary school is 
greater than the differential between children from high and low income 
families at school entry.\233\ Experts also conclude summer learning 
loss in elementary school predicts poor academic achievement in high 
school.\234\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \225\ Benson, J., & Borman, G.D. (2010). Family, Neighborhood, 
and School Settings Across Seasons: When Do Socioeconomic Context 
and Racial Composition Matter for the Reading Achievement Growth of 
Young Children? Teacher's College Record, 112(5), 1338-1390.
    \226\ Sloan McCombs, J. et al., (2011). Making Summer Count. How 
Summer Programs Can Boost Children's Learning. Santa Monica, Calif.: 
RAND Corporation.
    \227\ Alexander, K.L., Entwisle D.R., & Olson L.S. (2007). 
Lasting consequences of the summer learning gap. American 
Sociological Review, 72, 167-180.
    \228\ Ibid.
    \229\ Sloan McCombs, J. et al., (2011). Making Summer Count. How 
Summer Programs Can Boost Children's Learning. Santa Monica, Calif.: 
RAND Corporation.
    \230\ Allington, R.L. & McGill-Franzen, A. (2003). The Impact of 
Summer Setback on the Reading Achievement Gap. The Phi Delta Kappan, 
85(1), 68-75.
    \231\ Fairchild, R. & Noam, G. (Eds.) (2007). Summertime: 
Confronting Risks, Exploring Solutions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/
Wiley.
    \232\ Burkam, D.T., Ready, D.D., Lee, V.E. & LoGerfo, L.F. 
(2004). Social-Class Differences in Summer Learning Between 
Kindergarten and First Grade: Model Specification and Estimation. 
Sociology of Education, 77, 1-3
    \233\ Alexander, K.L., Entwisle D.R., & Olson L.S. (2007). 
Lasting consequences of the summer learning gap. American 
Sociological Review, 72, 167-180.
    \234\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Research on attendance also finds exposure to additional learning 
time is important for skill development.235 236 Research 
with elementary school children has shown an increase in school 
attendance predicted improved reading scores.\237\ A recent study of 
preschool attendance in Chicago found that even when accounting for 
children's skill level at the beginning of preschool, attendance 
predicted better academic outcomes at the end of preschool and beyond 
and that attendance was most beneficial for children starting preschool 
with the lowest skills. Children who missed more preschool had lower 
math, letter recognition, and social-emotional skills and were also 
rated as lower on work habits by their teachers.\238\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \235\ Logan, J.A.R., Piasta, S.B., Justice, L.M., 
Schatschneider, C., & Petrill, S. (2011). Children's Attendance 
Rates and Quality of Teacher-Child Interactions in At-Risk Preschool 
Classrooms: Contribution to Children's Expressive Language Growth. 
Child & Youth Forum 40(6), 457-477.
    \236\ Hubbs-Tait, L., McDonald Culp, A., Huey E., Culp, R., 
Starost, H., & Hare, C. (2002). Relation of Head Start attendance to 
children's cognitive and social outcomes: moderation by family risk. 
Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 17, 539-558.
    \237\ Lamdin, D.J. (1996). Evidence of student attendance as an 
independent variable in education production functions. Journal of 
Educational Research, 89(3), 155-162.
    \238\ Ehrlich, S.B., Gwynne, J.A. . . . Sorice, E. (2014). 
Preschool Attendance in Chicago Public Schools: Relationships with 
Learning Outcomes and Reasons for Absences. University of Chicago 
Consortium on Chicago School Research. Research Report.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 61403]]

    In sum, providing high-quality early education is not a simple 
task. Standards must be high to create learning environments that allow 
teachers to facilitate effective early learning experiences and support 
must be provided that continuously builds teachers' skills and 
knowledge. Taken together this research clearly indicates previous Head 
Start minimums for program operations are inadequate to achieve the 
results researchers and economists have shown are possible. Although 
the evidence does not point to a particular threshold for the length of 
the day or length of the year that is necessary to ensure positive 
child outcomes, the research is clear that children will benefit from 
more exposure to early learning experiences than our previous minimums 
provide.
Costs and Benefits to Society
    It is our expectation that this rule will be implemented with 
sufficient funds to avoid slot loss resulting from costs associated 
with this rule. In FY 2016, Congress appropriated $294 million 
specifically to increase service duration for Early Head Start and Head 
Start programs, which cover some of the costs of the duration 
requirements in this final rule. The President's FY 2017 Budget 
includes a request for an additional $292 million. Collectively these 
funds would allow all programs to increase service duration so that at 
least 50 percent of their Head Start center-based slots and 100 percent 
of their Early Head Start center-based slots would meet the respective 
new minimums of 1,020 and 1,380 annual hours by August 1, 2018, as 
required in this rule. Congress would need to appropriate additional 
funds to support the full implementation of the Head Start center-based 
service duration requirement by February 1, 2020, the date by which the 
Secretary will decide whether to lower the percentage of slots required 
to increase duration based on an assessment of the availability of 
sufficient appropriations to mitigate substantial slot loss. If fully 
funded, this rule would result in a significant increase in the quality 
of Head Start and the associated benefits of Head Start participation 
for all children. Ample research, also discussed above, demonstrates 
the potential for early education programs to produce large returns on 
investment to society through benefits associated with short and long 
term effects on children's math, reading and behavior skills; reduced 
grade retention, teen pregnancy, need for special education services, 
crime, and delinquency; and increased lifetime 
earnings.239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 
This research, coupled with research indicating the importance of 
adequate duration in early learning programs, would suggest that 
extending program duration and increasing program quality will result 
in additional benefits for any child enrolled in a Head Start program 
that does not already meet or exceed the bar set for program quality in 
this rule. The relative size of these additional benefits will likely 
vary from program to program and it is not possible for this analysis 
to quantify the precise benefit. Additionally, if the rule is fully 
implemented with adequate funding, there may be benefits associated 
with additional teacher jobs, higher staff salaries, and increased 
support for parental work. Finally, this rule increases clarity of Head 
Start requirements which should lead to greater compliance, which 
should in turn, result in improved child safety and stronger child and 
family outcomes. However, it is also not possible for this analysis to 
quantify these benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \239\ Aikens, N., Kopack Klein, A., Tarullo, L., & West, J. 
(2013). Getting Ready for Kindergarten: Children's Progress During 
Head Start. FACES 2009 Report. OPRE Report 2013-21a. Washington, DC: 
Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for 
Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
    \240\ Schweinhart, L.J., Montie, J., Xiang, Z., Barnett, W.S., 
Belfield, C.R., & Nores, M. (2005). Lifetime effects: The HighScope 
Perry Preschool study through age 40. Ypsilanti, MI: HighScope 
Press.
    \241\ Barnett, W.S., & Hustedt, J.T. (2005). Head start's 
lasting benefits. Infants & Young Children, 18(1), 16-24.
    \242\ Yoshikawa, H., Weiland, C., Brooks-Gunn, J., Burchinal, 
M., Zaslow, M. (2013). Investing in our future: The evidence base on 
preschool education. Foundation for Child Development. New York, NY.
    \243\ Camilli, G., Vargas, S., Ryan, S., & Barnett, W.S. (2010). 
Meta-analysis of the effects of early education interventions on 
cognitive and social development. The Teachers College Record, 112, 
579-620.
    \244\ Wong, V.C., Cook, T.D., Barnett, W.S., & Jung, K. (2008). 
An effectiveness-based evaluation of five state prekindergarten 
programs. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 27, 122-154.
    \245\ Reynolds, A.J. (2000). Success in early intervention: The 
Chicago Child-Parent Centers. Lincoln, Nebraska: University of 
Nebraska Press.
    \246\ Schweinhart, L.J., Montie, J., Xiang, Z., Barnett, W.S., 
Belfield, C.R., & Nores, M. (2005). Lifetime effects: The HighScope 
Perry Preschool study through age 40. Ypsilanti, MI: HighScope 
Press.
    \247\ Gormley, W., Gayer, T., Phillips, D.A., & Dawson, B. 
(2005). The effects of universal Pre-K on cognitive development. 
Developmental Psychology, 41, 872-884.
    Campbell, F.A., Ramey, C.T., Pungello, E., Sparling, J., & 
Miller-Johnson, S. (2002). Early childhood education: Young adult 
outcomes from the Abecedarian project. Applied Developmental 
Science, 6, 42-57.
    \248\ Weiland, C., & Yoshikawa, H. (2013). Impacts of a 
prekindergarten program on children's mathematics, language, 
literacy, executive function, and emotional skills. Child 
Development, 84, 2112-2130.
    \249\ Peisner-Feinberg, E.S., Schaaf, J.M., LaForett, D.R., 
Hildebrandt, L.M., & Sideris, J. (2014). Effects of Georgia's 
Pre[hyphen]K Program on children's school readiness skills: Findings 
from the 2012-2013 evaluation study. Chapel Hill: The University of 
North Carolina, FPG Child Development Institute.
    \250\ The Council of Economic Advisers. (December, 2014). The 
Economics of Early Childhood Investments. Washington, DC: Authors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the Secretary exercises this authority, the final rule would 
result in a smaller benefit to society than the fully funded rule, 
because fewer children would benefit from greater exposure to high-
quality early learning experiences. However, if the Secretary does not 
exercise this authority, this rule could result in a decrease of as 
many as 123,000 slots, depending upon appropriations and whether 
programs are able to absorb any costs of the rule within their current 
operating budgets. This slot loss has costs to society because fewer 
children will have access to Head Start in the future; although these 
costs have been estimated in preceding portions of this regulatory 
impact analysis, the quantification does not account for the relative 
size of these potential costs, which likely vary from program to 
program and from child to child (perhaps most notably in the form of 
diminishing returns to Head Start exposure). Additionally, if the rule 
is fully implemented without adequate funding, there may be costs 
associated with job loss, however it is not possible for this analysis 
to quantify them.
    Further, this cost to society may be mitigated by the availability 
of other early learning programs, given findings from the Head Start 
Impact Study that indicate a wide range of early childhood education 
utilization among children who do not have access to Head Start.\251\ 
In this case, determining how the loss of slots impacts society depends 
on how benefits differ between Head Start and the alternative early 
childhood education programs. Among children whose future Head Start 
slots are eliminated, children who enroll in alternative early 
childhood education programs of similar quality would not experience a 
loss of benefits, while children who enroll in programs of lower 
quality or no program at all would experience lost benefits. To be 
sure, quality and affordable early learning programs for poor families 
are limited and there is significant unmet need. A

[[Page 61404]]

reduction in Head Start slots may is unlikely to not be fully absorbed 
by other programs given that other early learning programs are not 
universally available to all children and these programs only currently 
serve a fraction of the eligible population. The total benefit to 
society of the rule would depend upon the relative size of the benefits 
to children who receive greater exposure to high-quality early learning 
experiences compared to the lost benefits for children who no longer 
have access to Head Start.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \251\ Puma, M., Bell, S., Cook, R., Heid, C., Broene, P., 
Jenkins, F., & Downer, J. (2012). Third grade follow-up to the Head 
Start impact study final report. US Department of Health and Human 
Services Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Continuing to operate under widely varying minimums for program 
duration, in the face of the mounting evidence provided here, limits 
Head Start's overall effectiveness and undermines Head Start's mission. 
This rule is designed to ensure every child in Head Start receives the 
highest quality program. The requirements to extend program duration 
are inextricably linked to reaping the full range of benefits that 
researchers and economists have demonstrated are possible.
Implications of Congressional and Secretarial Actions
    The costs of this rule vary over the next ten years of 
implementation based upon compliance dates and staff turnover. In FY 
2016, Congress appropriated $294 million to pay for programs to 
increase service duration. As a result and as explained throughout this 
analysis, the costs associated with increasing the service duration 
requirements in this rule are reduced. Further, the President's FY 2017 
Budget requests an additional $292 million to further support quality 
improvements. If Congress provides additional resources in FY 2017 and 
beyond, the costs associated with this rule would be borne, in part or 
whole, by the federal government rather than by Head Start programs. In 
this scenario, there may not be any slot loss associated with the 
requirements in this rule. Rather, the full additional potential 
benefits of higher quality services would be realized for all children 
who attend Head Start.
    In the table below, we have estimated the amounts Congress would 
need to appropriate in order to support the full implementation of the 
requirements to increase Head Start center-based program duration. Note 
that we have assumed Early Head Start center-based duration will be 
fully funded using the FY 2016 appropriation for expansion of program 
duration. In order to capture the full cost of the Head Start center-
based requirements over time, we have adjusted the necessary funding 
levels to account for cost of living increases as forecasted in the OMB 
Economic Assumptions for MSR. As the table demonstrates, in order to 
fully support the requirements to increase program duration, Congress 
would need to appropriate $264 million in FY 2018 or earlier to support 
the 50% requirement and an additional $711 million in FY 2020 or 
earlier to support the 100% requirement.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                           Appropriation
                                                                                                          Cost of policy      needed,       Additional
                                                                                                          (less the FY16   adjusted for   appropriation,
                                                                                       Secretarial       appropriation),     COLAs (in     adjusted for
                                      Appropriation year       Effective date      determination  date        before        addition to   COLAs (if $264
                                                                                                          adjustment for       FY16         received by
                                                                                                         COLAs (million)  appropriation)      FY2018)
                                                                                                                             (million)       (million)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
50% Requirement for HS CB programs  Fiscal Year 2018.....  August 1, 2019.......  February 1, 2018.....             $245            $264  ..............
100% Requirement for HS CB          Fiscal Year 2020.....  August 1, 2021.......  February 1, 2020.....              866             975            $711
 programs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If Congress does not appropriate adequate funds, Sec.  
1302.21(c)(3) of the final rule gives the Secretary the authority to 
reduce the requirements for service duration based on an assessment of 
what available funds can support. In this scenario, as in the scenario 
where adequate funds are appropriated, there would be no slot or 
teacher job loss associated with the duration requirements in this 
rule.
    However, if the Secretary does not exercise this authority, the 
duration requirements in this rule could result in a decrease of as 
many as 107,762 slots slots (full estimate described below), depending 
upon appropriations and whether programs are able to absorb any costs 
of the rule within their current operating budgets. This slot loss has 
costs to society because fewer children will have access to Head Start 
in the future. The total benefit to society of the rule would depend 
upon the relative size of the benefits to children who receive greater 
exposure to high-quality early learning experiences compared to the 
lost benefits for children who no longer have access to Head Start. 
Both Congressional and Secretarial decisions have important 
implications for the number of children served by the program and the 
characteristics of the program.
    Although we are unable to quantify the associated costs and 
benefits that would arise from these implementation scenarios, it is 
important to keep these factors in mind as we consider both the 
societal costs and savings and the cost-benefit analysis of this final 
rule.
Potential Slot Loss
    In order to estimate slot loss as programs adjust their budgets in 
the absence of additional funding, we first determined the proportion 
of current funded enrollment that are Head Start slots (83.8 percent) 
and Early Head Start slots (16.2 percent), respectively. We then 
applied this proportion to the total monetary cost associated with this 
rule, in each out-year, in FY 2016 dollars, and divided the cost that 
would be borne in Head Start slots by the average cost per slot for 
Head Start in FY 2015 ($8,035) and the cost that will be borne in Early 
Head Start by the average cost per slot for Early Head Start in FY 2015 
($12,189), which is inclusive of the cost per child for Early Head 
Start-Child Care Partnerships. We use FY 2015 average costs because it 
is the most recent year for which we have final data. In this case, we 
did not inflate the Head Start cost per child to incorporate teacher 
salary increases or additional service hours because we believe the 
current cost per child is the best indicator for the number of slots 
programs would need to cut to absorb new costs. We also assumed that 
the additional $294 million appropriated in FY 2016 will fully fund 
Early Head Start duration ($30,878,060) and support some proportion of 
all Head Start grantees slots serving children for 1,020 hours.
    Without additional funding, the net costs of this rule borne by 
Head Start, if fully implemented could be

[[Page 61405]]

associated with a reduction in slots (number of children served) of as 
many as 123,614 by year ten. However, it is important to note that we 
believe these are overestimates of the actual potential slot loss, 
because many of the costs estimated in this section, aside from the 
increases in duration, represent changes in how programs will use 
existing funds rather than additional new costs that would result in 
slot loss. As stated earlier, this slot loss would not occur if the 
Secretary exercises discretion provided in the rule to reduce the 
duration requirements or if sufficient appropriations are provided by 
Congress to support the policy. This would also be an overestimate if 
Congress appropriates additional funds to support the full 
implementation of this rule or if the Secretary exercises the authority 
to reduce the service duration requirements.
    The table below describes the share of costs in years one through 
ten borne by Head Start and Early Head Start programs and the potential 
slot loss associated with those costs in each year. Costs vary by year 
based upon effective dates of individual provisions and whether those 
costs are one-time or ongoing.

                                               Potential Slot Loss
     [If Congress does not appropriate sufficient funding in future years and the Secretary does not use the
                    discretion provided in the Final Rule to lower the duration requirements]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Year 1 2016/    Year 2 2017/    Year 3 2018/    Year 4 2019/    Year 5 2020/
                                          2017 *          2018 *          2019 *          2020 *          2021 *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Share of Costs, Including FY 2016 Funding Appropriated for Duration Increases
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HS..............................              $0    $105,964,210    $188,593,130    $350,403,218    $455,190,660
EHS.............................               0      28,673,236      44,646,846      28,503,144      48,760,382
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Potential Slot Loss
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HS..............................               0          13,188          23,471          43,610          56,651
EHS.............................               0           2,352           3,663           2,338           4,000
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total...........................               0          15,540          27,134          45,948          60,651
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Year 6 2021/    Year 7 2022/    Year 8 2023/    Year 9 2024/   Year 10 2025/
                                          2022 *          2023 *          2024 *          2025 *          2026 *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Share of Costs Including FY 2016 Funding Appropriated for Duration Increases
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HS..............................    $971,741,327    $972,486,346    $973,835,238    $974,263,621    $974,050,651
EHS.............................      28,655,562      28,799,587      29,060,351      29,143,165      29,101,994
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Potential Slot Loss
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HS..............................         120,939         121,031         121,199         121,252         121,226
EHS.............................           2,351           2,363           2,384           2,391           2,388
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................         123,289         123,394         123,583         123,643         123,614
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Year ranges refer Head Start program years, which for these estimates, begin on August 1st of each year and
  end on or before July 31st.
** The costs and slot loss estimates in this table take into account the $294 million appropriated for increased
  duration, and assume that this funding is applied beginning in Year 3 for Early Head Start and Year 4 for Head
  Start, when the initial duration requirement would be effective, and is maintained throughout the ten year
  window. This table also assumes that the share of HS and EHS slots is stable over time.

Potential Education Staff Job Loss
    In order to estimate the total potential number of education staff 
jobs that may be lost if a slot reduction occurs as a result of full 
policy implementation without additional funding, we first reduced the 
costs of the rule borne by Head Start by the cost of eliminating the 
option for double sessions for Head Start and Early Head Start. Double 
session programs typically have the same teacher operate a morning and 
afternoon session with different groups of children. Therefore, we 
assume double session teachers would not lose their jobs, even if fewer 
children are served in those programs because they would teach one 
group of children for a longer session. We also assumed that the 
additional $294 million appropriated in FY 2016 will fully fund Early 
Head Start center-based duration increase (estimated at $30,878,060). 
To determine the costs borne by Head Start (not including duration) 
that may be associated with education staff job loss for Early Head 
Start, we subtracted center-based duration costs from the total costs 
borne by Early Head Start programs ($59,980,054), which is $29,101,994.
    In order to estimate the education staff job loss for Head Start 
that would be associated with costs borne by Head Start programs, we 
assumed that an equal distribution of double session and non-double 
session Head Start center-based slots will be increased using 
supplemental duration funds out of the FY 2016 appropriation of $294 
million which will support all grantees providing 1,020 hours for at 
least one-third of their slots. Based on this assumption, we divided 
the $263,121,940 appropriated in FY 2016 for duration (less the cost of 
the Early Head Start center-based duration increase) by two, which is 
$131,560,970. We then subtracted the $131,560,970 from the non-double 
session Head Start share of the total costs ($652,809,539) to find the 
cost of non-double session slots not supported by FY 2016 
appropriations, which is $521,248,569. Then, we divided the 
$521,248,569 for Head Start by the average cost per child for Head 
Start, or $8,035, and the non-duration costs for Early Head Start 
($29,101,994) by the average cost per slot for Early Head Start, or 
$12,189, to find the number of slots in Head Start (64,872) and Early 
Head Start (2,388) associated with these costs.

[[Page 61406]]

    Then, to account for education staff to child ratios and caseloads 
that differ by the program option and the age of the child, we applied 
current percentages from the Program Information Report (PIR) for the 
proportion of Head Start slots that are center-based, home-based, and 
other program options (including family child care, locally designed, 
and combination programs), which are 96 percent, 2.2 percent, and 1.8 
percent respectively. These proportions result in 62,277 Head Start 
center-based slots, 1,427 home-based, and 1,168 other program option 
slots, assuming programs would reduce center-based, home-based, and 
other program options proportionately in the face of insufficient 
funds. Finally, we applied the proportion of three- versus four- year 
olds in Head Start from the PIR to find 27,679 three-year-old and 
34,599 four-year old center-based slots.
    We also applied the proportion of Early Head Start slots that are 
center-based, home-based/pregnant women, and other program options 
(including family child care, locally designed, and combination 
programs), 47 percent, 48 percent, and 5 percent respectively, to 
calculate that there would be 1,122 Early Head Start center-based 
slots, 1,146 home-based/pregnant women slots, and 119 other program 
option slots, assuming programs would reduce center-based, home-based/
pregnant women, and other program options proportionately in the face 
of insufficient funds. Finally, we applied the appropriate education 
staff to child ratios and caseloads for center-based program options by 
age, home-based, other program options to determine the total number of 
Head Start and Early Head Start education staff jobs that would 
potentially be lost.
    If fully implemented without additional funding, this rule could 
result in a reduction of as many as 7,372 education staff jobs by year 
ten.
4. Accounting Statement--Table of Quantified Costs, and Transfers
    As required by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular 
A-4, we have prepared an accounting statement table showing the 
classification of the impacts associated with implementation of this 
final rule. We decided to use a 10-year window for this regulatory 
impact analysis. As required by OMB, we discount costs at 3 percent and 
7 percent and have included total present value as well as annualized 
value of these estimates in our analyses below.
    We also include costs borne by other parties, opportunity costs and 
cost transfer, separate from costs borne by Head Start, here, because 
they impact the total cost to society of the rule.

                                        Summary of Costs and Discounting
                                                  [In millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Year 1 2016/    Year 2 2017/    Year 3 2018/    Year 4 2019/    Year 5 2020/
                                            2017            2018            2019            2020            2021
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs Borne by Head Start,                 $(46)            $135            $264            $673            $798
 excluding duration funding
 appropriated beginning in FY
 2016...........................
Net Costs Borne by Head Start,              (46)             135             264             379             504
 including duration funding
 appropriated beginning in FY
 2016...........................
Costs Borne by Other Parties....              42              45              44              44              45
Opportunity Costs...............             0.5               4               4               4               4
Costs to Society (Undiscounted),             (3)             183             312             721             847
 excluding duration funding
 appropriated beginning in FY
 2016...........................
3% Discount.....................             (3)             178             294             660             752
7% Discount.....................             (3)             171             272             589             646
Costs to Society (Undiscounted),             (3)             183             312             427             553
 including duration funding
 appropriated beginning in FY
 2016...........................
3% Discount.....................             (3)             178             294             391             491
7% Discount.....................             (3)             171             272             349             422
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Year 6 2021/    Year 7 2022/    Year 8 2023/    Year 9 2024/   Year 10 2025/
                                            2022            2023            2024            2025            2026
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs Borne by Head Start,                $1,294          $1,295          $1,297          $1,297          $1,297
 excluding duration funding
 appropriated beginning in FY
 2016...........................
Net Costs Borne by Head Start,             1,000           1,001           1,003           1,003           1,003
 including duration funding
 appropriated beginning in FY
 2016...........................
Costs Borne by Other Parties....              45              46              46              47              46
Opportunity Costs...............               4               4               4               4               4
Cost to Society (Undiscounted),            1,344           1,345           1,347           1,348           1,348
 excluding duration funding
 appropriated beginning in FY
 2016...........................
3% Discount.....................           1,159           1,126           1,095           1,064           1,033
7% Discount.....................             958             896             839             784             733
Costs to Society (Undiscounted),           1,050           1,051           1,053           1,053           1,053
 including duration funding
 appropriated beginning in FY
 2016...........................
3% Discount.....................             905             880             856             832             808
7% Discount.....................             748             700             656             613             573
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Year ranges refer Head Start program years, which for these estimates, begin on August 1st of each year and
  end on or before July 31st.
** Note these costs do not include the potential lost benefits of children who may no longer have access to Head
  Start or the impact on children who attend other early education programs.

    In total, we estimate the 10-year present value of the costs 
associated with new requirements in this final rule to be $7,358 
million when discounted at 3 percent, and $5,886 million when 
discounted at 7 percent before accounting for the $294 million in 
funding Congress has provided in FY 2016 to expand duration. We 
estimate

[[Page 61407]]

the annualized costs of new requirements in this final rule to be $838 
million when discounted at 3 percent, and $783 million when discounted 
at 7 percent before accounting for the $294 million in funding Congress 
has provided in FY 2016 to expand duration. As noted, Congress 
appropriated $294 million in FY 2016 to increase the duration of Early 
Head Start and Head Start programs. Thus, a substantial share of the 
costs in this rule will be absorbed by this funding. Accounting for the 
funding Congress has already provided in FY 2016 to increase duration, 
we estimate the 10-year present value of the costs to be $5,632 million 
when discounted at 3 percent, and $4,502 when discounted at 7 percent. 
The annualized costs of new requirements in this final rule, when 
taking into these amounts already appropriated for duration, would be 
$641 million when discounted at 3 percent and $599 million when 
discounted at 7 percent.

                                   Costs to Society Discounted and Annualized
                                                  [In millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Annualized  (years 1-10)              10 year total
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Discounted 3%   Discounted 7%   Discounted 3%   Discounted 7%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost to Society, excluding duration funding                 $838            $783          $7,358          $5,886
 appropriated beginning in FY 2016..............
Cost to Society, including duration funding                  641             599           5,632           4,502
 appropriated beginning in FY 2016..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Distributional Effects
    As part of our regulatory analysis, we considered whether the final 
rule will disproportionately benefit or harm a particular 
subpopulation. If adequate funds are not appropriated, the final rule 
has the potential to result in a reduction in the number of children 
being served by Head Start and an improvement in quality for the much 
larger group of low-income children who continue to participate. We do 
not expect the children who may lose access to Head Start if the 
funding is not provided to be systematically different in terms of 
meaningful subpopulations from the children who will be receiving 
greater benefits from higher quality services. We also acknowledge that 
if adequate funds are not appropriated, as many as 7,372 teachers, 
assistant teachers, and home visitors could no longer be employed. 
Again, while these teachers would be economically harmed, the remaining 
110,933 teachers, assistant teachers, and home visitors whose 
employment is not terminated, should receive pay increases because of 
working longer hours and longer program years. We do not expect the 
teachers who are no longer employed to be systematically different in 
terms of meaningful subpopulations from the teachers who will see 
increased pay because of this rule.
    We also considered whether there would be a differential impact of 
the final rule, specifically the requirements to increase duration, on 
either children or teachers based upon geographic location or tribal 
affiliation. While we found significant variation at the state level 
with regard to the proportion of slots that provide 1,020 annual hours 
in Head Start and 1,380 annual hours in Early Head Start, there are no 
systematic differences based on the region of the country (e.g., North 
vs. South; Midwest vs. West, etc.). Further, if the rule is fully 
implemented, some children in every state will benefit from increased 
duration. We also found no systematic differences between tribal 
programs and non-tribal programs with regard to meeting the new 
minimums.
6. Regulatory Alternatives
    As part of our full regulatory analysis, we have considered several 
regulatory alternatives, which we outline below. Specifically, we have 
considered alternatives to the policy changes we have determined to be 
our largest cost-drivers: Extension of Head Start center-based program 
duration and mentor coaching. We consider alternatives to these policy 
changes by analyzing the effect of the net cost in dollars, slots, and 
education staff jobs of making no change to the existing rule, as well 
as other more costly policy changes. In fact, the requirements in this 
rule for Head Start center-based duration represent an alternative to 
the requirements proposed in the NPRM. Justifications for the policies 
set by this rule are embedded throughout the discussion of comments 
received. However, we do provide additional rationale for not opting to 
propose or finalize the more costly regulatory alternatives in this 
section.
Extension of Head Start Center-Based Program Duration
    The rule requires Head Start center-based programs to provide a 
minimum of 1,020 annual hours for all children by August 1, 2021, but 
gives the Secretary authority to reduce this requirement to mitigate 
slot loss from the duration requirements in the event that Congress 
does not appropriate adequate funds to support the policy. As described 
in great detail above, these requirements will increase the amount of 
instructional time in Head Start programs, which research suggests is 
critical to reaping the full benefits of the other quality improvements 
in the rule.252 253 In our cost analysis, we estimated the 
cost of the Head Start center-based duration requirement, if fully 
implemented to be $1,128,990,485. Once the expected proportion of the 
FY 2016 appropriation to increase program duration in Head Start is 
applied, the cost of these requirements is $865,868,544. These 
requirements are associated with a potential loss of between 0 and 
107,762 slots and between 0 and 5,475 education staff jobs, depending 
upon appropriations and Secretarial action. As part of our full 
regulatory analysis, we considered three alternatives to this policy 
change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \252\ Weiland, C., & Yoshikawa, H. (2013). Impacts of a 
prekindergarten program on children's mathematics, language, 
literacy, executive function, and emotional skills. Child 
Development, 84, 2112-2130.
    \253\ Barnett, W.S., Jung, K., Youn, M.J., and Frede, E.C. 
(2013). Abbott Preschool Program Longitudinal Effects Study: Fifth 
Grade Follow-Up. National Institute for Early Education Research 
Rutgers--The State University of New Jersey.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, we considered the alternative of making no change to our 
previous minimums, thus eliminating the associated cost of 
$865,868,544. Using the methodology enumerated above, making no change 
to this policy would be associated with up to 107,762 fewer slots lost 
and 5,475 fewer education

[[Page 61408]]

staff no longer employed. However, not making this change would also 
prevent the significant predicted increase in impacts on child outcomes 
we have described in the Benefits Analysis section. We believe that 
strong child outcomes are best fostered through high-quality early 
education programs that provide at least a full school day and full 
school year of services and that children are best served if Head Start 
programs continue to move toward this goal and there is ample research 
that points to increased duration in achieving positive child outcomes. 
254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 Therefore we 
have not included this alternative in the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \254\ Lee, V. E., Burkam, D. T., Ready, D. D., Honigman, J., & 
Meisels, S. J. (2006). Full-Day versus Half-Day Kindergarten: In 
Which Program Do Children Learn More? American Journal of Education, 
112(2), 163-208.
    \255\ Walston, J.T., and West, J. (2004). Full-day and Half-day 
Kindergarten in the United States: Findings from the Early Childhood 
Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 1998-99 (NCES 2004-078). 
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education 
Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
    \256\ Sloan McCombs, J. et al., (2011). Making Summer Count. How 
Summer Programs Can Boost Children's Learning. Santa Monica, Calif.: 
RAND Corporation.
    \257\ Downey, D.B., von Hippel, P.T. & Broh, B.A. (2004). Are 
Schools the Great Equalizer? Cognitive Inequality During the Summer 
Months and the School Year. American Sociological Review, 69(5), 
613-635.
    \258\ Ehrlich, S.B., Gwynne, J.A., . . . Sorice, E. (2014). 
Preschool Attendance in Chicago Public Schools: Relationships with 
Learning Outcomes and Reasons for Absences. University of Chicago 
Consortium on Chicago School Research. Research Report.
    \259\ Peisner-Feinberg, E. S., Schaaf, J. M., LaForett, D. R., 
Hildebrandt, L.M., & Sideris, J. (2014). Effects of Georgia's Pre-K 
Program on children's school readiness skills: Findings from the 
2012-2013 evaluation study. Chapel Hill: The University of North 
Carolina, FPG Child Development Institute.
    \260\ Barnett, W.S., Jung, K., Youn, M.J., and Frede, E.C. 
(2013). Abbott Preschool Program Longitudinal Effects Study: Fifth 
Grade Follow-Up. National Institute for Early Education Research 
Rutgers--The State University of New Jersey.
    \261\ Gormley, G.T., Gayer, T., Phillips, D., & Dawson, B. 
(2005). The effects of universal pre-k on cognitive development. 
Developmental Psychology, 4(6), 872-884.
    \262\ Weiland, C., & Yoshikawa, H. (2013). Impacts of a 
prekindergarten program on children's mathematics, language, 
literacy, executive function, and emotional skills. Child 
Development, 84, 2112-2130.
    \263\ Walters, C. R. (2015). Inputs in the Production of Early 
Childhood Human Capital: Evidence from Head Start, American Economic 
Journal: Applied Economics, 7(4), 76-102.
    \264\ Yoshikawa, H., Weiland, C., Brooks-Gunn, J., Burchinal, 
M.R., Espinosa, L.M., Gormley, W.T., Ludwig, J., Magnuson, K.A., 
Phillips, D., & Zaslow, M.J. (2013). Investing in Our Future: The 
Evidence Base on Preschool Education. Policy Brief. Foundation for 
Child Development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also considered the alternative proposed in the NPRM to extend 
the minimum Head Start year to 180 days and the Head Start day to 6 
hours. Using the same method employed in our original cost analysis in 
the NPRM. We updated the original cost analysis by using 2015 data, 
inflating for missing GABI data, and inflating by 20% to reflect 
changes made to the final rule cost estimate in response to comments 
that account for fringe benefits and remove the assumption that 
additional administrative costs will not be necessary to support 
increased duration). These changes provide comparable estimates for 
weighing the potential impacts of regulatory alternatives. Using this 
method, the total costs of this alternative (NPRM proposal) would be $ 
1,308,629,691. Once the expected proportion of the FY 2016 
appropriation to increase program duration in Head Start is applied, 
the cost of these requirements is $1,045,507,751. These costs would 
result in a total of 130,119 slots lost and 10,392 education staff no 
longer employed as a result of this provision alone. The additional 
associated costs of this alternative, compared to the requirements in 
the final rule, would be $179,639,207, which would result in as many as 
22,357 additional slots lost and 4,917 additional education staff no 
longer employed.
    Again, research clearly demonstrates that strong child outcomes are 
best fostered through high-quality early education programs that 
provide at least a full school day and full school year of services, 
however, research does not specify a threshold for this 
effect.265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 Given 
this, we believe it is important to allow programs to design a variety 
of different schedules within the minimum requirements that meet the 
specific needs of their families, communities, and staff. We believe 
the flexibility of the annual hours, rather than the specified hours 
per day and days per year of this regulatory alternative will allow 
programs to address many of the concerns that were raised in the 
comments, such as alignment of the summer break with the local 
education agency's calendar, the availability of facilities, the 
continuation of partnerships, and state licensing requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \265\ Lee, V. E., Burkam, D. T., Ready, D. D., Honigman, J., & 
Meisels, S. J. (2006). Full-Day versus Half-Day Kindergarten: In 
Which Program Do Children Learn More? American Journal of Education, 
112(2), 163-208.
    \266\ Walston, J.T., and West, J. (2004). Full-day and Half-day 
Kindergarten in the United States: Findings from the Early Childhood 
Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 1998-99 (NCES 2004-078). 
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education 
Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
    \267\ Sloan McCombs, J. et al., (2011). Making Summer Count. How 
Summer Programs Can Boost Children's Learning. Santa Monica, Calif.: 
RAND Corporation.
    \268\ Downey, D.B., von Hippel, P.T. & Broh, B.A. (2004). Are 
Schools the Great Equalizer? Cognitive Inequality During the Summer 
Months and the School Year. American Sociological Review, 69(5), 
613-635.
    \269\ Ehrlich, S.B., Gwynne, J.A., . . . Sorice, E. (2014). 
Preschool Attendance in Chicago Public Schools: Relationships with 
Learning Outcomes and Reasons for Absences. University of Chicago 
Consortium on Chicago School Research. Research Report.
    \270\ Peisner-Feinberg, E. S., Schaaf, J. M., LaForett, D. R., 
Hildebrandt, L.M., & Sideris, J. (2014). Effects of Georgia's Pre-K 
Program on children's school readiness skills: Findings from the 
2012-2013 evaluation study. Chapel Hill: The University of North 
Carolina, FPG Child Development Institute.
    \271\ Barnett, W.S., Jung, K., Youn, M.J., and Frede, E.C. 
(2013). Abbott Preschool Program Longitudinal Effects Study: Fifth 
Grade Follow-Up. National Institute for Early Education Research 
Rutgers--The State University of New Jersey.
    \272\ Gormley, G.T., Gayer, T., Phillips, D., & Dawson, B. 
(2005). The effects of universal pre-k on cognitive development. 
Developmental Psychology, 4(6), 872-884.
    \273\ Weiland, C., & Yoshikawa, H. (2013). Impacts of a 
prekindergarten program on children's mathematics, language, 
literacy, executive function, and emotional skills. Child 
Development, 84, 2112-2130.
    \274\ Walters, C. R. (2015). Inputs in the Production of Early 
Childhood Human Capital: Evidence from Head Start, American Economic 
Journal: Applied Economics, 7(4), 76-102.
    \275\ Yoshikawa, H., Weiland, C., Brooks-Gunn, J., Burchinal, 
M.R., Espinosa, L.M., Gormley, W.T., Ludwig, J., Magnuson, K.A., 
Phillips, D., & Zaslow, M.J. (2013). Investing in Our Future: The 
Evidence Base on Preschool Education. Policy Brief. Foundation for 
Child Development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, we considered the alternative of requiring Head Start 
center-based programs to provide a minimum of 1,020 annual hours for 
all children by August 1, 2021, but not giving the Secretary authority 
to reduce this requirement to mitigate slot loss in the event that 
adequate funds to support the policy are not appropriated. This policy 
would guarantee, in the event that Congress does not appropriate 
adequate funds to support the policy, at least some children would lose 
access to Head Start and some education staff would no longer be 
employed by Head Start.
    However, the negative effects of implementing this model in such a 
way that could lead to significant reductions in the number of children 
and families served by Head Start programs, may outweigh the benefits. 
Therefore, we specify an incremental timeline and process for grantees 
to shift their programs to provide at least a full school day and a 
full school year of services to all preschoolers in center-based 
settings, which will allow programs to extend their service duration 
models thoughtfully. Further, we gave the Secretary the discretion to

[[Page 61409]]

lower the required percentage of funded enrollment slots for which 
grantees must offer 1,020 annual hours of planned class operations to 
the percentage the Secretary estimates available appropriations can 
support. This balances the important policy goal of providing all 
preschoolers with a full school day and a full school year of services 
in Head Start with the disruption and potential slot loss such a policy 
might create in the absence of sufficient funding in a way that this 
regulatory alternative would not.
    We believe the policy set by this final rule represents a balance 
between empowering Head Start programs to ensure all Head Start 
children receive enough high quality early learning experiences to 
improve their outcomes, and ensuring as many children from low-income 
families as possible are served by Head Start.

                            Regulatory Alternatives: Head Start Center-Based Duration
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            100% to 1,020 for
                                                                                Head Start
                                          Status quo      NPRM proposal *      Center-based        Final rule
                                                                               without Sec.
                                                                                authority
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs Borne by Head Start, excluding                  0     $1,308,629,691     $1,128,990,485     $1,128,990,485
 FY 2016 duration funding...........
Costs Borne by Head Start, including  .................      1,045,507,751        865,868,544        865,868,544
 FY 2016 duration funding...........
Slot Loss...........................                  0            130,119            107,762          0-107,762
Job Loss............................                  0             10,392              5,475            0-5,475
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Note the NPRM proposal cost estimate has been inflated to reflect changes made to the final rule cost estimate
  that account for fringe benefits and remove the assumption that additional administrative costs will not be
  necessary to support increased duration.

Mentor Coaching
    In this rule, we require programs to have a system of professional 
development in place that includes an intensive coaching strategy. As 
with our other largest cost drivers, as part of our full regulatory 
analysis, we considered two alternatives to this policy change. 
Specifically, we considered the alternative of not requiring mentor 
coaches for any teaching staff, thus eliminating the associated cost of 
$141,978,651. This alternative would be associated with 16,694 fewer 
slots potentially lost and 1,902 fewer educations staff potentially no 
longer employed. However, a growing body of research demonstrates the 
effectiveness of intensive professional development for improving 
teacher practices in early care and education settings 
276 277 278 and that such strategies support improved 
teacher practice in the classroom and an increase in classroom 
quality.279 280 This alternative would not allow children to 
reap the benefits of higher quality early learning programs, through 
improved teaching practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \276\ Buysse, V., & Wesley, P. W. (2005). Consultation in Early 
Childhood Settings. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing.
    \277\ Tout, K., Halle, T., Zaslow, M., & Starr, R. (2009). 
Evaluation of the Early Childhood Educator Professional Development 
Program: Final Report: Report prepared for the U.S. Department of 
Education.
    \278\ Zaslow, M., Tout, K., Halle, T., Vick, J., & Lavelle, B. 
(2010). Towards the identification of features of effective 
professional development for early childhood educators: A review of 
the literature. Report prepared for the U.S. Department of 
Education.
    \279\ Isner, T., Tout, K., Zaslow, M., Soli, M., Quinn, K., 
Rothenberg, L., & Burkhauser, M. (2011). Coaching in early care and 
education programs and Quality Rating and Improvement Systems 
(QRIS): Identifying promising features. Child Trends.
    \280\ Lloyd, C. M., & Modlin, E. L. (2012). Coaching as a key 
component in teachers' professional development: Improving classroom 
practices in Head Start settings. Administration for Children and 
Families.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also considered the alternative of requiring mentor coaches for 
all teaching staff, rather than allowing programs to allocate mentor 
coaches to the teachers who need intensive professional development, 
most (an estimated one-third of all teaching staff). Using the same 
method employed in our original cost analysis, the additional 
associated costs of this alternative would be $425,935,952 total or 
$283,957,301 more than our final policy, which would result in 50,083 
total or 33,389 additional slots potentially lost and 5,707 total or 
3,805 additional education staff potentially no longer employed. As 
described in previous sections, we strongly believe that more 
intensive, focused professional development is critical to improving 
teaching quality and thereby increasing impacts on child outcomes. 
However, we believe it would be inefficient to mandate that every 
teacher receive intensive individualized coaching when local 
professional development needs may need to be met.
    Our requirement will achieve our goal of improving teacher 
practices by targeting teachers most in need of coaching to improve 
their teaching practices while still maintaining local flexibility for 
individualized professional development.

                                    Regulatory Alternatives: Mentor Coaching
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Final rule
                                                           Status quo (no    Coaching for all  (coaching for one-
                                                             coaching)           teachers           third of
                                                                                                   teachers)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost...................................................                  0       $425,935,952       $141,978,651
Potential slot loss....................................                  0             50,083             16,694
Potential job loss.....................................                  0              5,707              1,902
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 61410]]

c. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) \281\ was enacted to avoid 
imposing unfunded federal mandates on state, local, and tribal 
governments, or on the private sector. Most of UMRA's provisions apply 
to proposed and final rules for which a general notice of proposed 
rulemaking was published, and that include a federal mandate that may 
result in expenditures by state, local, or tribal governments, in the 
aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more (adjusted 
annually for inflation) in any one year. The current threshold after 
adjustment for inflation is $146 million, using the most current (2015) 
implicit price deflator for the gross domestic product. This final rule 
does not impose unfunded mandates on state, local, and tribal 
governments, or on the private sector.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \281\ 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 1999

    Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act of 1999 requires federal agencies to determine whether a policy or 
regulation may negatively affect family well-being. If the agency 
determines a policy or regulation negatively affects family well-being, 
then the agency must prepare an impact assessment addressing seven 
criteria specified in the law. This rule does not have any impact on 
the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, 
we concluded it was not necessary to prepare a family policymaking 
assessment.\282\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \282\ Public Law 105-277.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

e. Federalism Assessment Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132 requires federal agencies to consult with 
state and local government officials if they develop regulatory 
policies with federalism implications. Federalism is rooted in the 
belief that issues that are not national in scope or significance are 
most appropriately addressed by the level of government close to the 
people. This final rule does not have substantial direct impact on the 
states, on the relationship between the federal government and the 
states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 
of Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this final rule does 
not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation 
of a federalism summary impact statement.

f. Congressional Review

    The Congressional Review Act (CRA) allows Congress to review 
``major'' rules issued by federal agencies before the rules take 
effect.\283\ The CRA defines a major rule as one that has resulted or 
is likely to result in (1) an annual effect on the economy of $100 
million or more; (2) a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, 
individual industries, federal, state or local government agencies, or 
geographic regions; or (3) significant adverse effects on competition, 
employment, investment, productivity, or innovation, or on the ability 
of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based 
enterprises in domestic and export markets.\284\ This regulation is a 
major rule because it will likely result in an annual effect of more 
than $100 million on the economy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \283\ 5 U.S.C. 802(a).
    \284\ 5 U.S.C. Chapter 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

g. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), P.L. 104-13, minimizes 
government imposed burden on the public. In keeping with the notion 
that government information is a valuable asset, it also is intended to 
improve the practical utility, quality, and clarity of information 
collected, maintained, and disclosed.
    Regulations at 5 CFR part 1320 implemented the provisions of the 
PRA and Sec.  1320.3 of this part defines a ``collection of 
information,'' ``information,'' and ``burden.'' A ``collection of 
information'' is broadly defined and includes any requirement or 
request for persons to collect, maintain, or publicly disclose 
information. ``Information'' is defined in as any statement or estimate 
of fact or opinion, regardless of form or format, whether numerical, 
graphic, or narrative form, and whether oral or maintained on paper, 
electronic or other media. ``Burden'' means the total time, effort, or 
financial resources expended by persons to collect, maintain, or 
disclose information. Burden includes actions for the purposes of 
information request such as reviewing instructions, acquiring and using 
technology and systems, adjusting the existing ways to comply with any 
previously applicable instructions and requirements, completing and 
reviewing the collection of information, and transmitting the 
information. The PRA only counts as burden the net additional burden 
needed to comply with information request. Time, effort, and resources 
to collect information that would be incurred by persons in the normal 
course of their activities are excluded from the burden.
    Section 1320.11(f) of 5 CFR part 1320 requires an agency to explain 
in the final rule how information collections proposed in an NPRM 
respond to any comments received or the reasons such comments were 
rejected. We did not receive any comments directly related to 
information collections we proposed in the NPRM. Therefore, we did not 
make any changes here.
    Below, we describe information collections and their burden 
estimates:
Title: Head Start Grants Administration
    Description: We require information collections related to the 
protection for the privacy of child records. We require programs to 
collect parents' written consent before they disclose personally 
identifiable information from a child's records. We require programs to 
notify parents annually of their rights described in Sec. Sec.  1303.20 
through 1303.24 and of applicable definitions in part 1305. We also 
require programs to maintain, with each child record, information on 
all individuals, agencies, or organizations that have obtained access 
to personal identifiable information from child records.
Title: Head Start Performance Standards
    Description: We require a new information collection to codify best 
practice in assessing dual language learners. Specifically, we require 
programs to administer language assessments to dual language learners 
in both English and their home language, either directly or through 
interpreters.
    We also strengthen background check procedures to require state/
tribal or federal criminal background checks, as well as clearance 
through available child abuse and neglect and sex offender registries. 
This requirement is consistent with the Office of Child Care's 
requirement to minimize burden on programs that operate with both Head 
Start and Child Care Development Funds. This increases the record-
keeping burden related to criminal record checks.
    Description of Respondents and Burden Estimate: The total annual 
burden hours estimated is 1,019,473 hours. For some items, we 
calculated burden hours for individual children and families, for other 
items, we calculated burden hours for staff.
    The table below lists burden hour estimates and indicates our bases 
for these estimations. See the Regulatory

[[Page 61411]]

Impact Analysis section for cost estimations.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Number of
   Information collection       OMB Control      Number of     responses per  Average burden per   Total burden
                                    No.         respondents     respondent         response            hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Annual Reporting Burden Estimates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
N/A.........................             N/A             N/A             N/A  N/A...............             N/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Annual Recording Keeping Burden Estimates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Head Start Grants
 Administration:
    Sec.   1303.22, 1303.24        0970-0423     988,923 (F)               1  20 minutes........         329,641
     Parental Consent,
     Annual Notice, and
     Recordkeeping of PII
     Disclosure.
Head Start Performance
 Standards:
    Sec.   1302.33 Language        0970-0148     332,651 (C)               1  2 hours...........         665,302
     Assessments of Dual
     Language Learners.
Head Start Performance
 Standards:
    Sec.   1302.90                 0970-0148      73,591 (S)               1  20 minutes........          24,530
     Background Checks.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Annual Third-Party Disclosure Burden Estimates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
N/A.........................             N/A             N/A             N/A  N/A...............             N/A
                                                                                                 ---------------
    Total Burden Hours......  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..................       1,019,473
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Key: C = Children, F = Families, S = Staff.

    For informational purposes, currently approved collections of 
information that will no longer be required are described below:
     Head Start Grants Administration. This rule removed 
certain requirements for grantee agencies including the submission of 
audits, accounting systems certifications, and provisions applicable to 
personnel management.
     Appeal Procedures for Head Start. Grantees and Current or 
Prospective Delegate Agencies--This rule removed the appeal procedures 
by delegate agencies that came from denials or failure to act by 
grantees. It also removed the appeal procedures by a grantee of a 
suspension continuing for more than 30 days.
     Head Start Program Performance Standards. Numerous record-
keeping requirements were removed which will result in a decrease in 
burden, i.e. documentation of the level of effort undertaken to 
establish community partnerships, written records of roles and 
responsibilities for each governing body members, the annual written 
and approval of plans for implementation services for each program 
area, provisions applicable to personnel management, and record-keeping 
and sharing of a set of community services and resources.
     Purchase, Construction and Major Renovation of Head Start 
Facilities. We removed some requirements that involved collection of 
information that will result in a reduction in burden, including the 
submission of drawings and specifications, costs related to 
installation of modular unit, statement of procurement procedure for 
modular units, and obtaining an independent analysis of the cost 
comparison.

Tribal Consultation Statement

    The Office of Head Start conducts an average of 5 Tribal 
Consultations each year for those tribes operating Head Start and Early 
Head Start. The consultations are held in geographic areas across the 
country--Southwest, Northwest, Midwest (Northern and Southern), and 
Eastern. The consultations are often held in conjunction with other 
tribal meetings or conferences, to ensure the opportunity for most of 
the 150 tribes served through OHS to be able to attend, and voice their 
concerns and issues for their HS/EHS programs. A report is completed 
after each consultation, and then a final report is compiled and 
submitted to the Secretary at the end of the year, summarizing the 
consultations. For the past several years, the primary issues raised 
have been around Head Start requirements which are the subject of this 
regulation and ensuring tribes have sufficient funding to meet those 
requirements. Language and culture are also a primary topic, 
particularly Head Start supporting efforts to preserve and revitalize 
language within each tribe, which is specifically addressed in this 
final rule. Teacher credentials, and, Monitoring, and fiscal issues 
were also common themes across the consultations, which have allowed us 
to gather valuable information that informed the development of this 
rule. Through the notice and comment process we also received comments 
from tribal communities, including form the National Indian Head Start 
Directors Association which informed the development of this final 
rule.

List of Subjects

45 CFR Part 1301

    Education of disadvantaged.

45 CFR Part 1302

    Education of disadvantaged, Grant programs--social programs, 
Homeless, Immunization, Migrant labor, Individuals with disabilities, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Indians, Health care, Oral 
health, Mental health programs, Nutrition, Safety, Maternal and child 
health, Volunteers.

45 CFR Part 1303

    Administrative practice and procedure, Education of disadvantaged, 
Grant programs--social programs, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Privacy, Real property, acquisition, Individuals with 
disabilities, Transportation, Motor vehicles.

45 CFR Part 1304

    Education of disadvantaged, Grant programs--social programs, 
Designation renewal system, Scholarships and fellowships, Indians.

45 CFR Part 1305

    Definitions.


[[Page 61412]]


    Approved: June 10, 2016.
Mark H. Greenberg,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Children and Families.
Sylvia M. Burwell,
Secretary.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, under the authority at 
42 U.S.C. 9801 et seq., subchapter B of 45 CFR chapter XIII is revised 
to read as follows:

SUBCHAPTER B--THE ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, HEAD START 
PROGRAM

PART 1300--[Reserved]

PART 1301--PROGRAM GOVERNANCE

PART 1302--PROGRAM OPERATIONS

PART 1303--FINANCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS

PART 1304--FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

PART 1305--DEFINITIONS

PART 1300--[Reserved]

PART 1301--PROGRAM GOVERNANCE

Sec.
1301.1 Purpose.
1301.2 Governing body.
1301.3 Policy council and policy committee.
1301.4 Parent committees.
1301.5 Training.
1301.6 Impasse procedures.

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 9801 et seq.


Sec.  1301.1  In general.

    An agency, as defined in part 1305 of this chapter, must establish 
and maintain a formal structure for program governance that includes a 
governing body, a policy council at the agency level and policy 
committee at the delegate level, and a parent committee. Governing 
bodies have a legal and fiscal responsibility to administer and oversee 
the agency's Head Start and Early Head Start programs. Policy councils 
are responsible for the direction of the agency's Head Start and Early 
Head Start programs.


Sec.  1301.2  Governing body.

    (a) Composition. The composition of a governing body must be in 
accordance with the requirements specified at section 642(c)(1)(B) of 
the Act, except where specific exceptions are authorized in the case of 
public entities at section 642(c)(1)(D) of the Act. Agencies must 
ensure members of the governing body do not have a conflict of 
interest, pursuant to section 642(c)(1)(C) of the Act.
    (b) Duties and responsibilities. (1) The governing body is 
responsible for activities specified at section 642(c)(1)(E) of the 
Act.
    (2) The governing body must use ongoing monitoring results, data on 
school readiness goals, other information described in Sec.  1302.102, 
and information described at section 642(d)(2) of the Act to conduct 
its responsibilities.
    (c) Advisory committees. (1) A governing body may establish 
advisory committees as it deems necessary for effective governance and 
improvement of the program.
    (2) If a governing body establishes an advisory committee to 
oversee key responsibilities related to program governance, it must:
    (i) Establish the structure, communication, and oversight in such a 
way that the governing body continues to maintain its legal and fiscal 
responsibility for the Head Start agency; and,
    (ii) Notify the responsible HHS official of its intent to establish 
such an advisory committee.


Sec.  1301.3  Policy council and policy committee.

    (a) Establishing policy councils and policy committees. Each agency 
must establish and maintain a policy council responsible for the 
direction of the Head Start program at the agency level, and a policy 
committee at the delegate level. If an agency delegates operational 
responsibility for the entire Head Start or Early Head Start program to 
one delegate agency, the policy council and policy committee may be the 
same body.
    (b) Composition. (1) A program must establish a policy council in 
accordance with section 642(c)(2)(B) of the Act, or a policy committee 
at the delegate level in accordance with section 642(c)(3) of the Act, 
as early in the program year as possible. Parents of children currently 
enrolled in each program option must be proportionately represented on 
the policy council and on the policy committee at the delegate level.
    (2) The program must ensure members of the policy council, and of 
the policy committee at the delegate level, do not have a conflict of 
interest pursuant to sections 642(c)(2)(C) and 642(c)(3)(B) of the Act. 
Staff may not serve on the policy council or policy committee at the 
delegate level except parents who occasionally substitute as staff. In 
the case of tribal grantees, this exclusion applies only to tribal 
staff who work in areas directly related to or which directly impact 
administrative, fiscal, or programmatic issues.
    (c) Duties and responsibilities. (1) A policy council is 
responsible for activities specified at section 642(c)(2)(D) of the 
Act. A policy committee must approve and submit to the delegate agency 
its decisions in each of the following areas referenced at section 
642(c)(2)(D)(i) through (vii) of the Act.
    (2) A policy council, and a policy committee at the delegate level, 
must use ongoing monitoring results, data on school readiness goals, 
other information described in Sec.  1302.102, and information 
described in section 642(d)(2) of the Act to conduct its 
responsibilities.
    (d) Term. (1) A member will serve for one year.
    (2) If the member intends to serve for another year, s/he must 
stand for re-election.
    (3) The policy council, and policy committee at the delegate level, 
must include in its bylaws how many one-year terms, not to exceed five 
terms, a person may serve.
    (4) A program must seat a successor policy council, or policy 
committee at the delegate level, before an existing policy council, or 
policy committee at the delegate level, may be dissolved.
    (e) Reimbursement. A program must enable low-income members to 
participate fully in their policy council or policy committee 
responsibilities by providing, if necessary, reimbursements for 
reasonable expenses incurred by the low-income members.


Sec.  1301.4  Parent committees.

    (a) Establishing parent committees. A program must establish a 
parent committee comprised exclusively of parents of currently enrolled 
children as early in the program year as possible. This committee must 
be established at the center level for center-based programs and at the 
local program level for other program options. When a program operates 
more than one option, parents may choose to have a separate committee 
for each option or combine membership. A program must ensure that 
parents of currently enrolled children understand the process for 
elections to the policy council or policy committee and other 
leadership opportunities.
    (b) Requirements of parent committees. Within the parent committee 
structure, a program may determine the best methods to engage families 
using strategies that are most effective in their community, as long as

[[Page 61413]]

the program ensures the parent committee carries out the following 
minimum responsibilities:
    (1) Advise staff in developing and implementing local program 
policies, activities, and services to ensure they meet the needs of 
children and families;
    (2) Have a process for communication with the policy council and 
policy committee; and
    (3) Within the guidelines established by the governing body, policy 
council or policy committee, participate in the recruitment and 
screening of Early Head Start and Head Start employees.


Sec.  1301.5  Training.

    An agency must provide appropriate training and technical 
assistance or orientation to the governing body, any advisory committee 
members, and the policy council, including training on program 
performance standards and training indicated in Sec.  1302.12(m) to 
ensure the members understand the information they receive and can 
effectively oversee and participate in the programs in the Head Start 
agency.


Sec.  1301.6  Impasse procedures.

    (a) To facilitate meaningful consultation and collaboration about 
decisions of the governing body and the policy council, each agency's 
governing body and policy council jointly must establish written 
procedures for resolving internal disputes between the governing board 
and policy council in a timely manner that include impasse procedures. 
These procedures must:
    (1) Demonstrate that the governing body considers proposed 
decisions from the policy council and that the policy council considers 
proposed decisions from the governing body;
    (2) If there is a disagreement, require the governing body and the 
policy council to notify the other in writing why it does not accept a 
decision; and,
    (3) Describe a decision-making process and a timeline to resolve 
disputes and reach decisions that are not arbitrary, capricious, or 
illegal.
    (b) If the agency's decision-making process does not result in a 
resolution and an impasse continues, the governing body and policy 
council must select a mutually agreeable third party mediator and 
participate in a formal process of mediation that leads to a resolution 
of the dispute.
    (c) For all programs except American Indian and Alaska Native 
programs, if no resolution is reached with a mediator, the governing 
body and policy council must select a mutually agreeable arbitrator 
whose decision is final.

PART 1302--PROGRAM OPERATIONS

Sec.
1302.1 Overview.
Subpart A--Eligibility, Recruitment, Selection, Enrollment, and 
Attendance
1302.10 Purpose.
1302.11 Determining community strengths, needs, and resources.
1302.12 Determining, verifying, and documenting eligibility.
1302.13 Recruitment of children.
1302.14 Selection process.
1302.15 Enrollment.
1302.16 Attendance.
1302.17 Suspension and expulsion.
1302.18 Fees.
Subpart B--Program Structure
1302.20 Determining program structure.
1302.21 Center-based option.
1302.22 Home-based option.
1302.23 Family child care option.
1302.24 Locally-designed program option variations.
Subpart C--Education and Child Development Program Services
1302.30 Purpose.
1302.31 Teaching and the learning environment.
1302.32 Curricula.
1302.33 Child screenings and assessments.
1302.34 Parent and family engagement in education and child 
development services.
1302.35 Education in home-based programs.
1302.36 Tribal language preservation and revitalization.
Subpart D--Health Program Services
1302.40 Purpose.
1302.41 Collaboration and communication with parents.
1302.42 Child health status and care.
1302.43 Oral health practices.
1302.44 Child nutrition.
1302.45 Child mental health and social and emotional well-being.
1302.46 Family support services for health, nutrition, and mental 
health.
1302.47 Safety practices.
Subpart E--Family and Community Engagement Program Services
Subpart F--Additional Services for Children With Disabilities
1302.60 Full participation in program services and activities.
1302.61 Additional services for children.
1302.62 Additional services for parents.
1302.63 Coordination and collaboration with the local agency 
responsible for implementing IDEA.
Subpart G--Transition Services
1302.70 Transitions from Early Head Start.
1302.71 Transitions from Head Start to kindergarten.
1302.72 Transitions between programs.
Subpart H--Services to Enrolled Pregnant Women
1302.80 Enrolled pregnant women.
1302.81 Prenatal and postpartum information, education, and 
services.
1302.82 Family partnership services for enrolled pregnant women.
Subpart I--Human Resources Management
1302.90 Personnel policies.
1302.91 Staff qualification and competency requirements.
1302.92 Training and professional development.
1302.93 Staff health and wellness.
1302.94 Volunteers.
Subpart J--Program Management and Quality Improvement
1302.100 Purpose.
1302.101 Management system.
1302.102 Achieving program goals.
1302.103 Implementation of program performance standards.

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 9801 et seq.


Sec.  1302.1  Overview.

    This part implements these statutory requirements in Sections 641A, 
645, 645A, and 648A of the Act by describing all of the program 
performance standards that are required to operate Head Start, Early 
Head Start, American Indian and Alaska Native and Migrant or Seasonal 
Head Start programs. The part covers the full range of operations from 
enrolling eligible children and providing program services to those 
children and their families, to managing programs to ensure staff are 
qualified and supported to effectively provide services. This part also 
focuses on using data through ongoing program improvement to ensure 
high-quality service. As required in the Act, these provisions do not 
narrow the scope or quality of services covered in previous 
regulations. Instead, these regulations raise the quality standard to 
reflect science and best practices, and streamline and simplify 
requirements so programs can better understand what is required for 
quality services.

Subpart A--Eligibility, Recruitment, Selection, Enrollment, and 
Attendance


Sec.  1302.10  Purpose.

    This subpart describes requirements of grantees for determining 
community strengths, needs and resources as well as recruitment areas. 
It contains requirements and procedures for the eligibility 
determination, recruitment, selection, enrollment and attendance of 
children and explains the policy concerning the charging of fees.


Sec.  1302.11  Determining community strengths, needs, and resources.

    (a) Service area. (1) A program must propose a service area in the 
grant application and define the area by county or sub-county area, 
such as a municipality, town or census tract or

[[Page 61414]]

jurisdiction of a federally recognized Indian reservation.
    (i) A tribal program may propose a service area that includes areas 
where members of Indian tribes or those eligible for such membership 
reside, including but not limited to Indian reservation land, areas 
designated as near-reservation by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 
provided that the service area is approved by the tribe's governing 
council, Alaska Native Villages, Alaska Native Regional Corporations 
with land-based authorities, Oklahoma Tribal Statistical Areas, and 
Tribal Designated Statistical Areas where federally recognized Indian 
tribes do not have a federally established reservation.
    (ii) If the tribe's service area includes any area specified in 
paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section, and that area is also served by 
another program, the tribe may serve children from families who are 
members of or eligible to be members of such tribe and who reside in 
such areas as well as children from families who are not members of the 
tribe, but who reside within the tribe's established service area.
    (2) If a program decides to change the service area after ACF has 
approved its grant application, the program must submit to ACF a new 
service area proposal for approval.
    (b) Community wide strategic planning and needs assessment 
(community assessment). (1) To design a program that meets community 
needs, and builds on strengths and resources, a program must conduct a 
community assessment at least once over the five-year grant period. The 
community assessment must use data that describes community strengths, 
needs, and resources and include, at a minimum:
    (i) The number of eligible infants, toddlers, preschool age 
children, and expectant mothers, including their geographic location, 
race, ethnicity, and languages they speak, including:
    (A) Children experiencing homelessness in collaboration with, to 
the extent possible, McKinney-Vento Local Education Agency Liaisons (42 
U.S.C. 11432 (6)(A));
    (B) Children in foster care; and
    (C) Children with disabilities, including types of disabilities and 
relevant services and resources provided to these children by community 
agencies;
    (ii) The education, health, nutrition and social service needs of 
eligible children and their families, including prevalent social or 
economic factors that impact their well-being;
    (iii) Typical work, school, and training schedules of parents with 
eligible children;
    (iv) Other child development, child care centers, and family child 
care programs that serve eligible children, including home visiting, 
publicly funded state and local preschools, and the approximate number 
of eligible children served;
    (v) Resources that are available in the community to address the 
needs of eligible children and their families; and,
    (vi) Strengths of the community.
    (2) A program must annually review and update the community 
assessment to reflect any significant changes including increased 
availability of publicly-funded pre-kindergarten- (including an 
assessment of how the pre-kindergarten available in the community meets 
the needs of the parents and children served by the program, and 
whether it is offered for a full school day), rates of family and child 
homelessness, and significant shifts in community demographics and 
resources.
    (3) A program must consider whether the characteristics of the 
community allow it to include children from diverse economic 
backgrounds that would be supported by other funding sources, including 
private pay, in addition to the program's eligible funded enrollment. A 
program must not enroll children from diverse economic backgrounds if 
it would result in a program serving less than its eligible funded 
enrollment.


Sec.  1302.12  Determining, verifying, and documenting eligibility.

    (a) Process overview. (1) Program staff must:
    (i) Conduct an in-person interview with each family, unless 
paragraph (a)(2) of this section applies;
    (ii) Verify information as required in paragraphs (h) and (i) of 
this section; and,
    (iii) Create an eligibility determination record for enrolled 
participants according to paragraph (k) of this section.
    (2) Program staff may interview the family over the telephone if an 
in-person interview is not possible or convenient for the family.
    (3) If a program has an alternate method to reasonably determine 
eligibility based on its community assessment, geographic and 
administrative data, or from other reliable data sources, it may 
petition the responsible HHS official to waive requirements in 
paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section.
    (b) Age requirements. (1) For Early Head Start, except when the 
child is transitioning to Head Start, a child must be an infant or a 
toddler younger than three years old.
    (2) For Head Start, a child must:
    (i) Be at least three years old or, turn three years old by the 
date used to determine eligibility for public school in the community 
in which the Head Start program is located; and,
    (ii) Be no older than the age required to attend school.
    (3) For Migrant or Seasonal Head Start, a child must be younger 
than compulsory school age by the date used to determine public school 
eligibility for the community in which the program is located.
    (c) Eligibility requirements. (1) A pregnant woman or a child is 
eligible if:
    (i) The family's income is equal to or below the poverty line; or,
    (ii) The family is eligible for or, in the absence of child care, 
would be potentially eligible for public assistance; including TANF 
child-only payments; or,
    (iii) The child is homeless, as defined in part 1305; or,
    (iv) The child is in foster care.
    (2) If the family does not meet a criterion under paragraph (c)(1) 
of this section, a program may enroll a child who would benefit from 
services, provided that these participants only make up to 10 percent 
of a program's enrollment in accordance with paragraph (d) of this 
section.
    (d) Additional allowances for programs. (1) A program may enroll an 
additional 35 percent of participants whose families do not meet a 
criterion described in paragraph (c) of this section and whose incomes 
are below 130 percent of the poverty line, if the program:
    (i) Establishes and implements outreach, and enrollment policies 
and procedures to ensure it is meeting the needs of eligible pregnant 
women, children, and children with disabilities, before serving 
pregnant women or children who do not meet the criteria in paragraph 
(c) of this section; and,
    (ii) Establishes criteria that ensure pregnant women and children 
eligible under the criteria listed in paragraph (c) of this section are 
served first.
    (2) If a program chooses to enroll participants who do not meet a 
criterion in paragraph (c) of this section, and whose family incomes 
are between 100 and 130 percent of the poverty line, it must be able to 
report to the Head Start regional program office:
    (i) How it is meeting the needs of low-income families or families 
potentially eligible for public assistance, homeless children, and 
children in foster care, and include local demographic data on these 
populations;
    (ii) Outreach and enrollment policies and procedures that ensure it 
is meeting

[[Page 61415]]

the needs of eligible children or pregnant women, before serving over-
income children or pregnant women;
    (iii) Efforts, including outreach, to be fully enrolled with 
eligible pregnant women or children;
    (iv) Policies, procedures, and selection criteria it uses to serve 
eligible children;
    (v) Its current enrollment and its enrollment for the previous 
year;
    (vi) The number of pregnant women and children served, 
disaggregated by the eligibility criteria in paragraphs (c) and (d)(1) 
of this section; and,
    (vii) The eligibility criteria category of each child on the 
program's waiting list.
    (e) Additional allowances for Indian tribes. (1) Notwithstanding 
paragraph (c)(2) of this section, a tribal program may fill more than 
10 percent of its enrollment with participants who are not eligible 
under the criteria in paragraph (c) of this section, if:
    (i) The tribal program has served all eligible pregnant women or 
children who wish to be enrolled from Indian and non-Indian families 
living within the approved service area of the tribal agency;
    (ii) The tribe has resources within its grant, without using 
additional funds from HHS intended to expand Early Head Start or Head 
Start services, to enroll pregnant women or children whose family 
incomes exceed low-income guidelines or who are not otherwise eligible; 
and,
    (iii) At least 51 percent of the program's participants meet an 
eligibility criterion under paragraph (c)(1) of this section.
    (2) If another program does not serve the approved service area, 
the program must serve all eligible Indian and non-Indian pregnant 
women or children who wish to enroll before serving over-income 
pregnant women or children.
    (3) A program that meets the conditions of this paragraph (e) must 
annually set criteria that are approved by the policy council and the 
tribal council for selecting over-income pregnant women or children who 
would benefit from program services.
    (4) An Indian tribe or tribes that operates both an Early Head 
Start program and a Head Start program may, at its discretion, at any 
time during the grant period involved, reallocate funds between the 
Early Head Start program and the Head Start program in order to address 
fluctuations in client populations, including pregnant women and 
children from birth to compulsory school age. The reallocation of such 
funds between programs by an Indian tribe or tribes during a year may 
not serve as a basis for any reduction of the base grant for either 
program in succeeding years.
    (f) Migrant or Seasonal eligibility requirements. A child is 
eligible for Migrant or Seasonal Head Start, if the family meets an 
eligibility criterion in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section; and 
the family's income comes primarily from agricultural work.
    (g) Eligibility requirements for communities with 1,000 or fewer 
individuals. (1) A program may establish its own criteria for 
eligibility provided that it meets the criteria outlined in section 
645(a)(2) of the Act.
    (2) No child residing in such community whose family is eligible 
under criteria described in paragraphs (c) through (f) of this section, 
may be denied an opportunity to participate in the program under the 
eligibility criteria established under this paragraph (g).
    (h) Verifying age. Program staff must verify a child's age 
according to program policies and procedures. A program's policies and 
procedures cannot require families to provide documents that confirm a 
child's age, if doing so creates a barrier for the family to enroll the 
child.
    (i) Verifying eligibility. (1) To verify eligibility based on 
income, program staff must use tax forms, pay stubs, or other proof of 
income to determine the family income for the relevant time period.
    (i) If the family cannot provide tax forms, pay stubs, or other 
proof of income for the relevant time period, program staff may accept 
written statements from employers, including individuals who are self-
employed, for the relevant time period and use information provided to 
calculate total annual income with appropriate multipliers.
    (ii) If the family reports no income for the relevant time period, 
a program may accept the family's signed declaration to that effect, if 
program staff describes efforts made to verify the family's income, and 
explains how the family's total income was calculated or seeks 
information from third parties about the family's eligibility, if the 
family gives written consent. If a family gives consent to contact 
third parties, program staff must adhere to program safety and privacy 
policies and procedures and ensure the eligibility determination record 
adheres to paragraph (k)(2) of this section.
    (iii) If the family can demonstrate a significant change in income 
for the relevant time period, program staff may consider current income 
circumstances.
    (2) To verify whether a family is eligible for, or in the absence 
of child care, would be potentially eligible for public assistance, the 
program must have documentation from either the state, local, or tribal 
public assistance agency that shows the family either receives public 
assistance or that shows the family is potentially eligible to receive 
public assistance.
    (3) To verify whether a family is homeless, a program may accept a 
written statement from a homeless services provider, school personnel, 
or other service agency attesting that the child is homeless or any 
other documentation that indicates homelessness, including 
documentation from a public or private agency, a declaration, 
information gathered on enrollment or application forms, or notes from 
an interview with staff to establish the child is homeless; or any 
other document that establishes homelessness.
    (i) If a family can provide one of the documents described in this 
paragraph (i)(3), program staff must describe efforts made to verify 
the accuracy of the information provided and state whether the family 
is eligible because they are homeless.
    (ii) If a family cannot provide one of the documents described in 
this paragraph (i)(3) to prove the child is homeless, a program may 
accept the family's signed declaration to that effect, if, in a written 
statement, program staff describe the child's living situation that 
meets the definition of homeless in part 1305 of this chapter.
    (iii) Program staff may seek information from third parties who 
have firsthand knowledge about a family's living situation, if the 
family gives written consent. If the family gives consent to contact 
third parties, program staff must adhere to program privacy policies 
and procedures and ensure the eligibility determination record adheres 
to paragraph (k) of this section.
    (4) To verify whether a child is in foster care, program staff must 
accept either a court order or other legal or government-issued 
document, a written statement from a government child welfare official 
that demonstrates the child is in foster care, or proof of a foster 
care payment.
    (j) Eligibility duration. (1) If a child is determined eligible 
under this section and is participating in a Head Start program, he or 
she will remain eligible through the end of the succeeding program year 
except that the Head Start program may choose not to enroll a child 
when there are compelling reasons for the child not to remain in Head 
Start, such as when there is a change in the child's family income and 
there is a child with a greater need for Head Start services.

[[Page 61416]]

    (2) Children who are enrolled in a program receiving funds under 
the authority of section 645A of the Act remain eligible while they 
participate in the program.
    (3) If a child moves from an Early Head Start program to a Head 
Start program, program staff must verify the family's eligibility 
again.
    (4) If a program operates both an Early Head Start and a Head Start 
program, and the parents wish to enroll their child who has been 
enrolled in the program's Early Head Start, the program must ensure, 
whenever possible, the child receives Head Start services until 
enrolled in school, provided the child is eligible.
    (k) Records. (1) A program must keep eligibility determination 
records for each participant and ongoing records of the eligibility 
training for staff required by paragraph (m) of this section. A program 
may keep these records electronically.
    (2) Each eligibility determination record must include:
    (i) Copies of any documents or statements, including declarations, 
that are deemed necessary to verify eligibility under paragraphs (h) 
and (i) of this section;
    (ii) A statement that program staff has made reasonable efforts to 
verify information by:
    (A) Conducting either an in-person, or a telephone interview with 
the family as described under paragraph (a)(1)(i) or (a)(2) of this 
section; and,
    (B) Describing efforts made to verify eligibility, as required 
under paragraphs (h) through (i) of this section; and, collecting 
documents required for third party verification that includes the 
family's written consent to contact each third party, the third 
parties' names, titles, and affiliations, and information from third 
parties regarding the family's eligibility.
    (iii) A statement that identifies whether:
    (A) The family's income is below income guidelines for its size, 
and lists the family's size;
    (B) The family is eligible for or, in the absence of child care, 
potentially eligible for public assistance;
    (C) The child is a homeless child or the child is in foster care;
    (D) The family was determined to be eligible under the criterion in 
paragraph (c)(2) of this section; or,
    (E) The family was determined to be eligible under the criterion in 
paragraph (d)(1) of this section.
    (3) A program must keep eligibility determination records for those 
currently enrolled, as long as they are enrolled, and, for one year 
after they have either stopped receiving services; or are no longer 
enrolled.
    (l) Program policies and procedures on violating eligibility 
determination regulations. A program must establish written policies 
and procedures that describe all actions taken against staff who 
intentionally violate federal and program eligibility determination 
regulations and who enroll pregnant women and children that are not 
eligible to receive Early Head Start or Head Start services.
    (m) Training on eligibility. (1) A program must train all governing 
body, policy council, management, and staff who determine eligibility 
on applicable federal regulations and program policies and procedures. 
Training must, at a minimum:
    (i) Include methods on how to collect complete and accurate 
eligibility information from families and third party sources;
    (ii) Incorporate strategies for treating families with dignity and 
respect and for dealing with possible issues of domestic violence, 
stigma, and privacy; and,
    (iii) Explain program policies and procedures that describe actions 
taken against staff, families, or participants who attempt to provide 
or intentionally provide false information.
    (2) A program must train management and staff members who make 
eligibility determinations within 90 days of hiring new staff.
    (3) A program must train all governing body and policy council 
members within 180 days of the beginning of the term of a new governing 
body or policy council.
    (4) A program must develop policies on how often training will be 
provided after the initial training.


Sec.  1302.13  Recruitment of children.

    In order to reach those most in need of services, a program must 
develop and implement a recruitment process designed to actively inform 
all families with eligible children within the recruitment area of the 
availability of program services, and encourage and assist them in 
applying for admission to the program. A program must include specific 
efforts to actively locate and recruit children with disabilities and 
other vulnerable children, including homeless children and children in 
foster care.


Sec.  1302.14  Selection process.

    (a) Selection criteria. (1) A program must annually establish 
selection criteria that weigh the prioritization of selection of 
participants, based on community needs identified in the community 
needs assessment as described in Sec.  1302.11(b), and including family 
income, whether the child is homeless, whether the child is in foster 
care, the child's age, whether the child is eligible for special 
education and related services, or early intervention services, as 
appropriate, as determined under the Individuals with Disabilities 
Education Act (IDEA) (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.) and, other relevant 
family or child risk factors.
    (2) If a program serves migrant or seasonal families, it must 
select participants according to criteria in paragraph (a)(1) of this 
section, and give priority to children whose families can demonstrate 
they have relocated frequently within the past two-years to pursue 
agricultural work.
    (3) If a program operates in a service area where Head Start 
eligible children can enroll in high-quality publicly funded pre-
kindergarten for a full school day, the program must prioritize younger 
children as part of the selection criteria in paragraph (a)(1) of this 
section. If this priority would disrupt partnerships with local 
education agencies, then it is not required. An American Indian and 
Alaska Native or Migrant or Seasonal Head Start program must consider 
whether such prioritization is appropriate in their community.
    (4) A program must not deny enrollment based on a disability or 
chronic health condition or its severity.
    (b) Children eligible for services under IDEA. (1) A program must 
ensure at least 10 percent of its total funded enrollment is filled by 
children eligible for services under IDEA, unless the responsible HHS 
official grants a waiver.
    (2) If the requirement in paragraph (b)(1) of this section has been 
met, children eligible for services under IDEA should be prioritized 
for the available slots in accordance with the program's selection 
criteria described in paragraph (a) of this section.
    (c) Waiting lists. A program must develop at the beginning of each 
enrollment year and maintain during the year a waiting list that ranks 
children according to the program's selection criteria.


Sec.  1302.15  Enrollment.

    (a) Funded enrollment. A program must maintain its funded 
enrollment level and fill any vacancy as soon as possible. A program 
must fill any vacancy within 30 days.
    (b) Continuity of enrollment. (1) A program must make efforts to 
maintain enrollment of eligible children for the following year.

[[Page 61417]]

    (2) Under exceptional circumstances, a program may maintain a 
child's enrollment in Head Start for a third year, provided that family 
income is verified again. A program may maintain a child's enrollment 
in Early Head Start as described in Sec.  1302.12(j)(2).
    (3) If a program serves homeless children or children in foster 
care, it must make efforts to maintain the child's enrollment 
regardless of whether the family or child moves to a different service 
area, or transition the child to a program in a different service area, 
as required in Sec.  1302.72(a), according to the family's needs.
    (c) Reserved slots. If a program determines from the community 
assessment there are families experiencing homelessness in the area, or 
children in foster care that could benefit from services, the program 
may reserve one or more enrollment slots for pregnant women and 
children experiencing homelessness and children in foster care, when a 
vacancy occurs. No more than three percent of a program's funded 
enrollment slots may be reserved. If the reserved enrollment slot is 
not filled within 30 days, the enrollment slot becomes vacant and then 
must be filled in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section.
    (d) Other enrollment. Children from diverse economic backgrounds 
who are funded with other sources, including private pay, are not 
considered part of a program's eligible funded enrollment.
    (e) State immunization enrollment requirements. A program must 
comply with state immunization enrollment and attendance requirements, 
with the exception of homeless children as described in Sec.  
1302.16(c)(1).
    (f) Voluntary parent participation. Parent participation in any 
program activity is voluntary, including consent for data sharing, and 
is not required as a condition of the child's enrollment.


Sec.  1302.16  Attendance.

    (a) Promoting regular attendance. A program must track attendance 
for each child.
    (1) A program must implement a process to ensure children are safe 
when they do not arrive at school. If a child is unexpectedly absent 
and a parent has not contacted the program within one hour of program 
start time, the program must attempt to contact the parent to ensure 
the child's well-being.
    (2) A program must implement strategies to promote attendance. At a 
minimum, a program must:
    (i) Provide information about the benefits of regular attendance;
    (ii) Support families to promote the child's regular attendance;
    (iii) Conduct a home visit or make other direct contact with a 
child's parents if a child has multiple unexplained absences (such as 
two consecutive unexplained absences); and,
    (iv) Within the first 60 days of program operation, and on an 
ongoing basis thereafter, use individual child attendance data to 
identify children with patterns of absence that put them at risk of 
missing ten percent of program days per year and develop appropriate 
strategies to improve individual attendance among identified children, 
such as direct contact with parents or intensive case management, as 
necessary.
    (3) If a child ceases to attend, the program must make appropriate 
efforts to reengage the family to resume attendance, including as 
described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section. If the child's 
attendance does not resume, then the program must consider that slot 
vacant. This action is not considered expulsion as described in Sec.  
1302.17.
    (b) Managing systematic program attendance issues. If a program's 
monthly average daily attendance rate falls below 85 percent, the 
program must analyze the causes of absenteeism to identify any 
systematic issues that contribute to the program's absentee rate. The 
program must use this data to make necessary changes in a timely manner 
as part of ongoing oversight and correction as described in Sec.  
1302.102(b) and inform its continuous improvement efforts as described 
in Sec.  1302.102(c).
    (c) Supporting attendance of homeless children. (1) If a program 
determines a child is eligible under Sec.  1302.12(c)(1)(iii), it must 
allow the child to attend for up to 90 days or as long as allowed under 
state licensing requirements, without immunization and other records, 
to give the family reasonable time to present these documents. A 
program must work with families to get children immunized as soon as 
possible in order to comply with state licensing requirements.
    (2) If a child experiencing homelessness is unable to attend 
classes regularly because the family does not have transportation to 
and from the program facility, the program must utilize community 
resources, where possible, to provide transportation for the child.


Sec.  1302.17  Suspension and expulsion.

    (a) Limitations on suspension. (1) A program must prohibit or 
severely limit the use of suspension due to a child's behavior. Such 
suspensions may only be temporary in nature.
    (2) A temporary suspension must be used only as a last resort in 
extraordinary circumstances where there is a serious safety threat that 
cannot be reduced or eliminated by the provision of reasonable 
modifications.
    (3) Before a program determines whether a temporary suspension is 
necessary, a program must engage with a mental health consultant, 
collaborate with the parents, and utilize appropriate community 
resources--such as behavior coaches, psychologists, other appropriate 
specialists, or other resources--as needed, to determine no other 
reasonable option is appropriate.
    (4) If a temporary suspension is deemed necessary, a program must 
help the child return to full participation in all program activities 
as quickly as possible while ensuring child safety by:
    (i) Continuing to engage with the parents and a mental health 
consultant, and continuing to utilize appropriate community resources;
    (ii) Developing a written plan to document the action and supports 
needed;
    (iii) Providing services that include home visits; and,
    (iv) Determining whether a referral to a local agency responsible 
for implementing IDEA is appropriate.
    (b) Prohibition on expulsion. (1) A program cannot expel or 
unenroll a child from Head Start because of a child's behavior.
    (2) When a child exhibits persistent and serious challenging 
behaviors, a program must explore all possible steps and document all 
steps taken to address such problems, and facilitate the child's safe 
participation in the program. Such steps must include, at a minimum, 
engaging a mental health consultant, considering the appropriateness of 
providing appropriate services and supports under section 504 of the 
Rehabilitation Act to ensure that the child who satisfies the 
definition of disability in 29 U.S.C. 705(9)(b) of the Rehabilitation 
Act is not excluded from the program on the basis of disability, and 
consulting with the parents and the child's teacher, and:
    (i) If the child has an individualized family service plan (IFSP) 
or individualized education program (IEP), the program must consult 
with the agency responsible for the IFSP or IEP to ensure the child 
receives the needed support services; or,
    (ii) If the child does not have an IFSP or IEP, the program must 
collaborate, with parental consent, with the local agency responsible 
for implementing IDEA to determine the child's eligibility for 
services.

[[Page 61418]]

    (3) If, after a program has explored all possible steps and 
documented all steps taken as described in paragraph (b)(2) of this 
section, a program, in consultation with the parents, the child's 
teacher, the agency responsible for implementing IDEA (if applicable), 
and the mental health consultant, determines that the child's continued 
enrollment presents a continued serious safety threat to the child or 
other enrolled children and determines the program is not the most 
appropriate placement for the child, the program must work with such 
entities to directly facilitate the transition of the child to a more 
appropriate placement.


Sec.  1302.18  Fees.

    (a) Policy on fees. A program must not charge eligible families a 
fee to participate in Head Start, including special events such as 
field trips, and cannot in any way condition an eligible child's 
enrollment or participation in the program upon the payment of a fee.
    (b) Allowable fees. (1) A program must only accept a fee from 
families of enrolled children for services that are in addition to 
services funded by Head Start, such as child care before or after 
funded Head Start hours. A program may not condition a Head Start 
child's enrollment on the ability to pay a fee for additional hours.
    (2) In order to support programs serving children from diverse 
economic backgrounds or using multiple funding sources, a program may 
charge fees to private pay families and other non-Head Start enrolled 
families to the extent allowed by any other applicable federal, state 
or local funding sources.

Subpart B--Program Structure


Sec.  1302.20  Determining program structure.

    (a) Choose a program option. (1) A program must choose to operate 
one or more of the following program options: Center-based, home-based, 
family child care, or an approved locally-designed variation as 
described in Sec.  1302.24. The program option(s) chosen must meet the 
needs of children and families based on the community assessment 
described in Sec.  1302.11(b). A Head Start program serving preschool-
aged children may not provide only the option described in Sec.  
1302.22(a) and (c)(2).
    (2) To choose a program option and develop a program calendar, a 
program must consider in conjunction with the annual review of the 
community assessment described in Sec.  1302.11(b)(2), whether it would 
better meet child and family needs through conversion of existing slots 
to full school day or full working day slots, extending the program 
year, conversion of existing Head Start slots to Early Head Start slots 
as described in paragraph (c) of this section, and ways to promote 
continuity of care and services. A program must work to identify 
alternate sources to support full working day services. If no 
additional funding is available, program resources may be used.
    (b) Comprehensive services. All program options must deliver the 
full range of services, as described in subparts C, D, E, F, and G of 
this part, except that Sec. Sec.  1302.30 through 1302.32 and Sec.  
1302.34 do not apply to home-based options.
    (c) Conversion. (1) Consistent with section 645(a)(5) of the Head 
Start Act, grantees may request to convert Head Start slots to Early 
Head Start slots through the re-funding application process or as a 
separate grant amendment.
    (2) Any grantee proposing a conversion of Head Start services to 
Early Head Start services must obtain policy council and governing body 
approval and submit the request to their regional office.
    (3) With the exception of American Indian and Alaska Native 
grantees as described in paragraph (c)(4) of this section, the request 
to the regional office must include:
    (i) A grant application budget and a budget narrative that clearly 
identifies the funding amount for the Head Start and Early Head Start 
programs before and after the proposed conversion;
    (ii) The results of the community assessment demonstrating how the 
proposed use of funds would best meet the needs of the community, 
including a description of how the needs of eligible Head Start 
children will be met in the community when the conversion takes places;
    (iii) A revised program schedule that describes the program 
option(s) and the number of funded enrollment slots for Head Start and 
Early Head Start programs before and after the proposed conversion;
    (iv) A description of how the needs of pregnant women, infants, and 
toddlers will be addressed;
    (v) A discussion of the agency's capacity to carry out an effective 
Early Head Start program in accordance with the requirements of section 
645A(b) of the Head Start Act and all applicable regulations;
    (vi) Assurances that the agency will participate in training and 
technical assistance activities required of all Early Head Start 
grantees;
    (vii) A discussion of the qualifications and competencies of the 
child development staff proposed for the Early Head Start program, as 
well as a description of the facilities and program infrastructure that 
will be used to support the new or expanded Early Head Start program;
    (viii) A discussion of any one-time funding necessary to implement 
the proposed conversion and how the agency intends to secure such 
funding; and,
    (ix) The proposed timetable for implementing this conversion, 
including updating school readiness goals as described in subpart J of 
this part.
    (4) Consistent with section 645(d)(3) of the Act, any American 
Indian and Alaska Native grantee that operates both an Early Head Start 
program and a Head Start program may reallocate funds between the 
programs at its discretion and at any time during the grant period 
involved, in order to address fluctuations in client populations. An 
American Indian and Alaska Native program that exercises this 
discretion must notify the regional office.
    (d) Source of funding. A program may consider hours of service that 
meet the Head Start Program Performance Standards, regardless of the 
source of funding, as hours of planned class operations for the 
purposes of meeting the Head Start and Early Head Start service 
duration requirements in this subpart.


Sec.  1302.21  Center-based option.

    (a) Setting. The center-based option delivers the full range of 
services, consistent with Sec.  1302.20(b). Education and child 
development services are delivered primarily in classroom settings.
    (b) Ratios and group size. (1) Staff-child ratios and group size 
maximums must be determined by the age of the majority of children and 
the needs of children present. A program must determine the age of the 
majority of children in a class at the start of the year and may adjust 
this determination during the program year, if necessary. Where state 
or local licensing requirements are more stringent than the teacher-
child ratios and group size specifications in this section, a program 
must meet the stricter requirements. A program must maintain 
appropriate ratios during all hours of program operation, except:
    (i) For brief absences of a teaching staff member for no more than 
five minutes; and,
    (ii) During nap time, one teaching staff member may be replaced by 
one staff member or trained volunteer who does not meet the teaching 
qualifications required for the age.

[[Page 61419]]

    (2) An Early Head Start or Migrant or Seasonal Head Start class 
that serves children under 36 months old must have two teachers with no 
more than eight children, or three teachers with no more than nine 
children. Each teacher must be assigned consistent, primary 
responsibility for no more than four children to promote continuity of 
care for individual children. A program must minimize teacher changes 
throughout a child's enrollment, whenever possible, and consider mixed 
age group classes to support continuity of care.
    (3) A class that serves a majority of children who are three years 
old must have no more than 17 children with a teacher and teaching 
assistant or two teachers. A double session class that serves a 
majority of children who are three years old must have no more than 15 
children with a teacher and teaching assistant or two teachers.
    (4) A class that serves a majority of children who are four and 
five years old must have no more than 20 children with a teacher and a 
teaching assistant or two teachers. A double session class that serves 
a majority of children who are four and five years old must have no 
more than 17 children with a teacher and a teaching assistant or two 
teachers.

                               Table to Sec.   1302.21(b)--Center-Based Group Size
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4 and 5 year olds......................................  No more than 20 children enrolled in any class.
                                                         No more than 17 children enrolled in any double session
                                                          class.
3 year olds............................................  No more than 17 children enrolled in any class.
                                                         No more than 15 children enrolled in any double session
                                                          class.
Under 3 years old......................................  No more than 8 or 9 children enrolled in any class,
                                                          depending on the number of teachers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (c) Service duration--(1) Early Head Start. (i) By August 1, 2018, 
a program must provide 1,380 annual hours of planned class operations 
for all enrolled children.
    (ii) A program that is designed to meet the needs of young parents 
enrolled in school settings may meet the service duration requirements 
in paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section if it operates a center-based 
program schedule during the school year aligned with its local 
education agency requirements and provides regular home-based services 
during the summer break.
    (2) Head Start. (i) Until a program is operating all of its Head 
Start center-based funded enrollment at the standard described in 
paragraph (c)(2)(iv) or (v) of this section, a program must provide, at 
a minimum, at least 160 days per year of planned class operations if it 
operates for five days per week, or at least 128 days per year if it 
operates four days per week. Classes must operate for a minimum of 3.5 
hours per day.
    (ii) Until a program is operating all of its Head Start center-
based funded enrollment at the standard described in paragraph 
(c)(2)(iv) or (v) of this section, if a program operates a double 
session variation, it must provide classes for four days per week for a 
minimum of 128 days per year and 3.5 hours per day. Each double session 
class staff member must be provided adequate break time during the 
course of the day. In addition, teachers, aides, and volunteers must 
have appropriate time to prepare for each session together, to set up 
the classroom environment, and to give individual attention to children 
entering and leaving the center.
    (iii) By August 1, 2019, a program must provide 1,020 annual hours 
of planned class operations over the course of at least eight months 
per year for at least 50 percent of its Head Start center-based funded 
enrollment.
    (iv) By August 1, 2021, a program must provide 1,020 annual hours 
of planned class operations over the course of at least eight months 
per year for all of its Head Start center-based funded enrollment.
    (v) A Head Start program providing fewer than 1,020 annual hours of 
planned class operations or fewer than eight months of service is 
considered to meet the requirements described in paragraphs (c)(2)(iii) 
and (iv) of this section if its program schedule aligns with the annual 
hours required by its local education agency for grade one and such 
alignment is necessary to support partnerships for service delivery.
    (3) Secretarial determination. (i) On or before February 1, 2018, 
the Secretary may lower the required percentage described in paragraph 
(c)(2)(iii) of this section, based on an assessment of the availability 
of sufficient funding to mitigate a substantial reduction in funded 
enrollment; and,
    (ii) On or before February 1, 2020, the Secretary may lower the 
required percentage described in paragraph (c)(2)(iv) of this section, 
based on an assessment of the availability of sufficient funding to 
mitigate a substantial reduction in funded enrollment.
    (4) Extension. If an extension is necessary to ensure children 
enrolled in the program on November 7, 2016 are not displaced from the 
Early Head Start or Head Start program, a program may request a one-
year extension from the responsible HHS official of the requirements 
outlined in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2)(iii) of this section.
    (5) Exemption for Migrant or Seasonal Head Start programs. A 
Migrant or Seasonal program is not subject to the requirements 
described in Sec.  1302.21(c)(1) or (2), but must make every effort to 
provide as many days and hours of service as possible to each child and 
family.
    (6) Calendar planning. A program must:
    (i) Plan its year using a reasonable estimate of the number of days 
during a year that classes may be closed due to problems such as 
inclement weather; and,
    (ii) Make every effort to schedule makeup days using existing 
resources if hours of planned class operations fall below the number 
required per year.
    (d) Licensing and square footage requirements. (1) The facilities 
used by a program must meet state, tribal, or local licensing 
requirements, even if exempted by the licensing entity. When state, 
tribal, or local requirements vary from Head Start requirements, the 
most stringent provision takes precedence.
    (2) A center-based program must have at least 35 square feet of 
usable indoor space per child available for the care and use of 
children (exclusive of bathrooms, halls, kitchen, staff rooms, and 
storage places) and at least 75 square feet of usable outdoor play 
space per child.
    (3) A program that operates two or more groups within an area must 
ensure clearly defined, safe divisions to separate groups. A program 
must ensure such spaces are learning environments that facilitate the 
implementation of the requirements in subpart C of this part. The 
divisions must limit noise transfer from one group to another to 
prevent disruption of an effective learning environment.


Sec.  1302.22  Home-based option.

    (a) Setting. The home-based option delivers the full range of 
services, consistent with Sec.  1302.20(b), through

[[Page 61420]]

visits with the child's parents, primarily in the child's home and 
through group socialization opportunities in a Head Start classroom, 
community facility, home, or on field trips. For Early Head Start 
programs, the home-based option may be used to deliver services to some 
or all of a program's enrolled children. For Head Start programs, the 
home-based option may only be used to deliver services to a portion of 
a program's enrolled children.
    (b) Caseload. A program that implements a home-based option must 
maintain an average caseload of 10 to 12 families per home visitor with 
a maximum of 12 families for any individual home visitor.
    (c) Service duration--(1) Early Head Start. By August 1, 2017, an 
Early Head Start home-based program must:
    (i) Provide one home visit per week per family that lasts at least 
an hour and a half and provide a minimum of 46 visits per year; and,
    (ii) Provide, at a minimum, 22 group socialization activities 
distributed over the course of the program year.
    (2) Head Start. A Head Start home-based program must:
    (i) Provide one home visit per week per family that lasts at least 
an hour and a half and provide a minimum of 32 visits per year; and,
    (ii) Provide, at a minimum, 16 group socialization activities 
distributed over the course of the program year.
    (3) Meeting minimum requirements. A program that implements a home-
based option must:
    (i) Make up planned home visits or scheduled group socialization 
activities that were canceled by the program, and to the extent 
possible attempt to make up planned home visits canceled by the family, 
when this is necessary to meet the minimums described in paragraphs 
(c)(1) and (2) of this section; and,
    (ii) Not replace home visits or scheduled group socialization 
activities for medical or social service appointments for the purposes 
of meeting the minimum requirements described in paragraphs (c)(1) and 
(2) of this section.
    (d) Safety requirements. The areas for learning, playing, sleeping, 
toileting, preparing food, and eating in facilities used for group 
socializations in the home-based option must meet the safety standards 
described in Sec.  1302.47(1)(ii) through (viii).


Sec.  1302.23  Family child care option.

    (a) Setting. The family child care program option delivers the full 
range of services, consistent with Sec.  1302.20(b). Education and 
child development services are primarily delivered by a family child 
care provider in their home or other family-like setting. A program may 
choose to offer the family child care option if:
    (1) The program has a legally binding agreement with one or more 
family child care provider(s) that clearly defines the roles, rights, 
and responsibilities of each party, or the program is the employer of 
the family child care provider, and ensures children and families 
enrolled in this option receive the full range of services described in 
subparts C, D, E, F, and G of this part; and,
    (2) The program ensures family child care homes are available that 
can accommodate children and families with disabilities.
    (b) Ratios and group size. (1) A program that operates the family 
child care option where Head Start children are enrolled must ensure 
group size does not exceed the limits specified in this section. If the 
family child care provider's own children under the age of six are 
present, they must be included in the group size.
    (2) When there is one family child care provider, the maximum group 
size is six children and no more than two of the six may be under 24 
months of age. When there is a provider and an assistant, the maximum 
group size is twelve children with no more than four of the twelve 
children under 24 months of age.
    (3) One family child care provider may care for up to four children 
younger than 36 months of age with a maximum group size of four 
children, and no more than two of the four children may be under 18 
months of age.
    (4) A program must maintain appropriate ratios during all hours of 
program operation. A program must ensure providers have systems to 
ensure the safety of any child not within view for any period. A 
program must make substitute staff and assistant providers available 
with the necessary training and experience to ensure quality services 
to children are not interrupted.
    (c) Service duration. Whether family child care option services are 
provided directly or via contractual arrangement, a program must ensure 
family child care providers operate sufficient hours to meet the child 
care needs of families and not less than 1,380 hours per year.
    (d) Licensing requirements. A family child-care provider must be 
licensed by the state, tribal, or local entity to provide services in 
their home or family-like setting. When state, tribal, or local 
requirements vary from Head Start requirements, the most stringent 
provision applies.
    (e) Child development specialist. A program that offers the family 
child care option must provide a child development specialist to 
support family child care providers and ensure the provision of quality 
services at each family child care home. Child development specialists 
must:
    (1) Conduct regular visits to each home, some of which are 
unannounced, not less than once every two weeks;
    (2) Periodically verify compliance with either contract 
requirements or agency policy;
    (3) Facilitate ongoing communication between program staff, family 
child care providers, and enrolled families; and,
    (4) Provide recommendations for technical assistance and support 
the family child care provider in developing relationships with other 
child care professionals.


Sec.  1302.24  Locally-designed program option variations.

    (a) Waiver option. Programs may request to operate a locally-
designed program option, including a combination of program options, to 
better meet the unique needs of their communities or to demonstrate or 
test alternative approaches for providing program services. In order to 
operate a locally-designed program option, programs must seek a waiver 
as described in this section and must deliver the full range of 
services, consistent with Sec.  1302.20(b), and demonstrate how any 
change to their program design is consistent with achieving program 
goals in subpart J of this part.
    (b) Request for approval. A program's request to operate a locally-
designed variation may be approved by the responsible HHS official 
through the end of a program's current grant or, if the request is 
submitted through a grant application for an upcoming project period, 
for the project period of the new award. Such approval may be revoked 
based on progress toward program goals as described in Sec.  1302.102 
and monitoring as described in Sec.  1304.2.
    (c) Waiver requirements. (1) The responsible HHS official may waive 
one or more of the requirements contained in Sec.  1302.21(b), 
(c)(1)(i), and (c)(2)(iii) and (iv); Sec.  1302.22(a) through (c); and 
Sec.  1302.23(b) and (c), but may not waive ratios or group size for 
children under 24 months. Center-based locally-designed options must 
meet the minimums described in section 640(k)(1) of the Act for center-
based programs.
    (2) If the responsible HHS official determines a waiver of group 
size for center-based services would better meet

[[Page 61421]]

the needs of children and families in a community, the group size may 
not exceed the limits below:
    (i) A group that serves children 24 to 36 months of age must have 
no more than ten children; and,
    (ii) A group that serves predominantly three-year-old children must 
have no more than twenty children; and,
    (iii) A group that serves predominantly four-year-old children must 
have no more than twenty-four children.
    (3) If the responsible HHS official approves a waiver to allow a 
program to operate below the minimums described in Sec.  
1302.21(c)(2)(iii) or (iv), a program must meet the requirements 
described in Sec.  1302.21(c)(2)(i), or in the case of a double session 
variation, a program must meet the requirements described in Sec.  
1302.21(c)(2)(ii).
    (4) In order to receive a waiver under this section, a program must 
provide supporting evidence that demonstrates the locally-designed 
variation effectively supports appropriate development and progress in 
children's early learning outcomes.
    (5) In order to receive a waiver of service duration, a program 
must meet the requirement in paragraph (c)(4) of this section, provide 
supporting evidence that it better meets the needs of parents than the 
applicable service duration minimums described in Sec.  1302.21(c)(1) 
and (c)(2)(iii) and (iv), Sec.  1302.22(c), or Sec.  1302.23(c), and 
assess the effectiveness of the variation in supporting appropriate 
development and progress in children's early learning outcomes.
    (d) Transition from previously approved program options. If, before 
November 7, 2016, a program was approved to operate a program option 
that is no longer allowable under Sec. Sec.  1302.21 through 1302.23, a 
program may continue to operate that model until July 31, 2018.

Subpart C--Education and Child Development Program Services


Sec.  1302.30  Purpose.

    All programs must provide high-quality early education and child 
development services, including for children with disabilities, that 
promote children's cognitive, social, and emotional growth for later 
success in school. A center-based or family child care program must 
embed responsive and effective teacher-child interactions. A home-based 
program must promote secure parent-child relationships and help parents 
provide high-quality early learning experiences. All programs must 
implement a research-based curriculum, and screening and assessment 
procedures that support individualization and growth in the areas of 
development described in the Head Start Early Learning Outcomes 
Framework: Ages Birth to Five and support family engagement in 
children's learning and development. A program must deliver 
developmentally, culturally, and linguistically appropriate learning 
experiences in language, literacy, mathematics, social and emotional 
functioning, approaches to learning, science, physical skills, and 
creative arts. To deliver such high-quality early education and child 
development services, a center-based or family child care program must 
implement, at a minimum, the elements contained in Sec. Sec.  1302.31 
through 1302.34, and a home-based program must implement, at a minimum, 
the elements in Sec. Sec.  1302.33 and 1302.35.


Sec.  1302.31  Teaching and the learning environment.

    (a) Teaching and the learning environment. A center-based and 
family child care program must ensure teachers and other relevant staff 
provide responsive care, effective teaching, and an organized learning 
environment that promotes healthy development and children's skill 
growth aligned with the Head Start Early Learning Outcomes Framework: 
Ages Birth to Five, including for children with disabilities. A program 
must also support implementation of such environment with integration 
of regular and ongoing supervision and a system of individualized and 
ongoing professional development, as appropriate. This includes, at a 
minimum, the practices described in paragraphs (b) through (e) of this 
section.
    (b) Effective teaching practices. (1) Teaching practices must:
    (i) Emphasize nurturing and responsive practices, interactions, and 
environments that foster trust and emotional security; are 
communication and language rich; promote critical thinking and problem-
solving; social, emotional, behavioral, and language development; 
provide supportive feedback for learning; motivate continued effort; 
and support all children's engagement in learning experiences and 
activities;
    (ii) Focus on promoting growth in the developmental progressions 
described in the Head Start Early Learning Outcomes Framework: Ages 
Birth to Five by aligning with and using the Framework and the 
curricula as described in Sec.  1302.32 to direct planning of organized 
activities, schedules, lesson plans, and the implementation of high-
quality early learning experiences that are responsive to and build 
upon each child's individual pattern of development and learning;
    (iii) Integrate child assessment data in individual and group 
planning; and,
    (iv) Include developmentally appropriate learning experiences in 
language, literacy, social and emotional development, math, science, 
social studies, creative arts, and physical development that are 
focused toward achieving progress outlined in the Head Start Early 
Learning Outcomes Framework: Ages Birth to Five.
    (2) For dual language learners, a program must recognize 
bilingualism and biliteracy as strengths and implement research-based 
teaching practices that support their development. These practices 
must:
    (i) For an infant or toddler dual language learner, include 
teaching practices that focus on the development of the home language, 
when there is a teacher with appropriate language competency, and 
experiences that expose the child to English;
    (ii) For a preschool age dual language learner, include teaching 
practices that focus on both English language acquisition and the 
continued development of the home language; or,
    (iii) If staff do not speak the home language of all children in 
the learning environment, include steps to support the development of 
the home language for dual language learners such as having culturally 
and linguistically appropriate materials available and other evidence-
based strategies. Programs must work to identify volunteers who speak 
children's home language/s who could be trained to work in the 
classroom to support children's continued development of the home 
language.
    (c) Learning environment. A program must ensure teachers implement 
well-organized learning environments with developmentally appropriate 
schedules, lesson plans, and indoor and outdoor learning experiences 
that provide adequate opportunities for choice, play, exploration, and 
experimentation among a variety of learning, sensory, and motor 
experiences and:
    (1) For infants and toddlers, promote relational learning and 
include individualized and small group activities that integrate 
appropriate daily routines into a flexible schedule of learning 
experiences; and,
    (2) For preschool age children, include teacher-directed and child-
initiated activities, active and quiet learning activities, and 
opportunities for

[[Page 61422]]

individual, small group, and large group learning activities.
    (d) Materials and space for learning. To support implementation of 
the curriculum and the requirements described in paragraphs (a), (b), 
(c), and (e) of this section a program must provide age-appropriate 
equipment, materials, supplies and physical space for indoor and 
outdoor learning environments, including functional space. The 
equipment, materials and supplies must include any necessary 
accommodations and the space must be accessible to children with 
disabilities. Programs must change materials intentionally and 
periodically to support children's interests, development, and 
learning.
    (e) Promoting learning through approaches to rest, meals, routines, 
and physical activity. (1) A program must implement an intentional, age 
appropriate approach to accommodate children's need to nap or rest, and 
that, for preschool age children in a program that operates for 6 hours 
or longer per day provides a regular time every day at which preschool 
age children are encouraged but not forced to rest or nap. A program 
must provide alternative quiet learning activities for children who do 
not need or want to rest or nap.
    (2) A program must implement snack and meal times in ways that 
support development and learning. For bottle-fed infants, this approach 
must include holding infants during feeding to support socialization. 
Snack and meal times must be structured and used as learning 
opportunities that support teaching staff-child interactions and foster 
communication and conversations that contribute to a child's learning, 
development, and socialization. Programs are encouraged to meet this 
requirement with family style meals when developmentally appropriate. A 
program must also provide sufficient time for children to eat, not use 
food as reward or punishment, and not force children to finish their 
food.
    (3) A program must approach routines, such as hand washing and 
diapering, and transitions between activities, as opportunities for 
strengthening development, learning, and skill growth.
    (4) A program must recognize physical activity as important to 
learning and integrate intentional movement and physical activity into 
curricular activities and daily routines in ways that support health 
and learning. A program must not use physical activity as reward or 
punishment.


Sec.  1302.32  Curricula.

    (a) Curricula. (1) Center-based and family child care programs must 
implement developmentally appropriate research-based early childhood 
curricula, including additional curricular enhancements, as appropriate 
that:
    (i) Are based on scientifically valid research and have 
standardized training procedures and curriculum materials to support 
implementation;
    (ii) Are aligned with the Head Start Early Learning Outcomes 
Framework: Ages Birth to Five and, as appropriate, state early learning 
and development standards; and are sufficiently content-rich to promote 
measurable progress toward development and learning outlined in the 
Framework; and,
    (iii) Have an organized developmental scope and sequence that 
include plans and materials for learning experiences based on 
developmental progressions and how children learn.
    (2) A program must support staff to effectively implement curricula 
and at a minimum monitor curriculum implementation and fidelity, and 
provide support, feedback, and supervision for continuous improvement 
of its implementation through the system of training and professional 
development.
    (b) Adaptation. A program that chooses to make significant 
adaptations to a curriculum or a curriculum enhancement described in 
paragraph (a)(1) of this section to better meet the needs of one or 
more specific populations must use an external early childhood 
education curriculum or content area expert to develop such significant 
adaptations. A program must assess whether the adaptation adequately 
facilitates progress toward meeting school readiness goals, consistent 
with the process described in Sec.  1302.102(b) and (c). Programs are 
encouraged to partner with outside evaluators in assessing such 
adaptations.


Sec.  1302.33  Child screenings and assessments.

    (a) Screening. (1) In collaboration with each child's parent and 
with parental consent, a program must complete or obtain a current 
developmental screening to identify concerns regarding a child's 
developmental, behavioral, motor, language, social, cognitive, and 
emotional skills within 45 calendar days of when the child first 
attends the program or, for the home-based program option, receives a 
home visit. A program that operates for 90 days or less must complete 
or obtain a current developmental screening within 30 calendar days of 
when the child first attends the program.
    (2) A program must use one or more research-based developmental 
standardized screening tools to complete the screening. A program must 
use as part of the screening additional information from family 
members, teachers, and relevant staff familiar with the child's typical 
behavior.
    (3) If warranted through screening and additional relevant 
information and with direct guidance from a mental health or child 
development professional a program must, with the parent's consent, 
promptly and appropriately address any needs identified through:
    (i) Referral to the local agency responsible for implementing IDEA 
for a formal evaluation to assess the child's eligibility for services 
under IDEA as soon as possible, and not to exceed timelines required 
under IDEA; and,
    (ii) Partnership with the child's parents and the relevant local 
agency to support families through the formal evaluation process.
    (4) If a child is determined to be eligible for services under 
IDEA, the program must partner with parents and the local agency 
responsible for implementing IDEA, as appropriate, and deliver the 
services in subpart F of this part.
    (5) If, after the formal evaluation described in paragraph 
(a)(3)(i) of this section, the local agency responsible for 
implementing IDEA determines the child is not eligible for early 
intervention or special education and related services under IDEA, the 
program must:
    (i) Seek guidance from a mental health or child development 
professional to determine if the formal evaluation shows the child has 
a significant delay in one or more areas of development that is likely 
to interfere with the child's development and school readiness; and,
    (ii) If the child has a significant delay, partner with parents to 
help the family access services and supports to help address the 
child's identified needs.
    (A) Such additional services and supports may be available through 
a child's health insurance or it may be appropriate for the program to 
provide needed services and supports under section 504 of the 
Rehabilitation Act if the child satisfies the definition of disability 
in 29 U.S.C. 705(9)(b) of the Rehabilitation Act, to ensure that the 
child who satisfies the definition of disability in 29 U.S.C. 705(9)(b) 
of the Rehabilitation Act is not excluded from the program on the basis 
of disability.

[[Page 61423]]

    (B) A program may use program funds for such services and supports 
when no other sources of funding are available.
    (b) Assessment for individualization. (1) A program must conduct 
standardized and structured assessments, which may be observation-based 
or direct, for each child that provide ongoing information to evaluate 
the child's developmental level and progress in outcomes aligned to the 
goals described in the Head Start Early Learning Child Outcomes 
Framework: Ages Birth to Five. Such assessments must result in usable 
information for teachers, home visitors, and parents and be conducted 
with sufficient frequency to allow for individualization within the 
program year.
    (2) A program must regularly use information from paragraph (b)(1) 
of this section along with informal teacher observations and additional 
information from family and staff, as relevant, to determine a child's 
strengths and needs, inform and adjust strategies to better support 
individualized learning and improve teaching practices in center-based 
and family child care settings, and improve home visit strategies in 
home-based models.
    (3) If warranted from the information gathered from paragraphs 
(b)(1) and (2) of this section and with direct guidance from a mental 
health or child development professional and a parent's consent, a 
program must refer the child to the local agency responsible for 
implementing IDEA for a formal evaluation to assess a child's 
eligibility for services under IDEA.
    (c) Characteristics of screenings and assessments. (1) Screenings 
and assessments must be valid and reliable for the population and 
purpose for which they will be used, including by being conducted by 
qualified and trained personnel, and being age, developmentally, 
culturally and linguistically appropriate, and appropriate for children 
with disabilities, as needed.
    (2) If a program serves a child who speaks a language other than 
English, a program must use qualified bilingual staff, contractor, or 
consultant to:
    (i) Assess language skills in English and in the child's home 
language, to assess both the child's progress in the home language and 
in English language acquisition;
    (ii) Conduct screenings and assessments for domains other than 
language skills in the language or languages that best capture the 
child's development and skills in the specific domain; and,
    (iii) Ensure those conducting the screening or assessment know and 
understand the child's language and culture and have sufficient skill 
level in the child's home language to accurately administer the 
screening or assessment and to record and understand the child's 
responses, interactions, and communications.
    (3) If a program serves a child who speaks a language other than 
English and qualified bilingual staff, contractors, or consultants are 
not able to conduct screenings and assessments, a program must use an 
interpreter in conjunction with a qualified staff person to conduct 
screenings and assessments as described in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through 
(iii) of this section.
    (4) If a program serves a child who speaks a language other than 
English and can demonstrate that there is not a qualified bilingual 
staff person or interpreter, then screenings and assessments may be 
conducted in English. In such a case, a program must also gather and 
use other information, including structured observations over time and 
information gathered in a child's home language from the family, for 
use in evaluating the child's development and progress.
    (d) Prohibitions on use of screening and assessment data. The use 
of screening and assessment items and data on any screening or 
assessment authorized under this subchapter by any agent of the federal 
government is prohibited for the purposes of ranking, comparing, or 
otherwise evaluating individual children for purposes other than 
research, training, or technical assistance, and is prohibited for the 
purposes of providing rewards or sanctions for individual children or 
staff. A program must not use screening or assessments to exclude 
children from enrollment or participation.


Sec.  1302.34  Parent and family engagement in education and child 
development services.

    (a) Purpose. Center-based and family child care programs must 
structure education and child development services to recognize 
parents' roles as children's lifelong educators, and to encourage 
parents to engage in their child's education.
    (b) Engaging parents and family members. A program must offer 
opportunities for parents and family members to be involved in the 
program's education services and implement policies to ensure:
    (1) The program's settings are open to parents during all program 
hours;
    (2) Teachers regularly communicate with parents to ensure they are 
well-informed about their child's routines, activities, and behavior;
    (3) Teachers hold parent conferences, as needed, but no less than 
two times per program year, to enhance the knowledge and understanding 
of both staff and parents of the child's education and developmental 
progress and activities in the program;
    (4) Parents have the opportunity to learn about and to provide 
feedback on selected curricula and instructional materials used in the 
program;
    (5) Parents and family members have opportunities to volunteer in 
the class and during group activities;
    (6) Teachers inform parents, about the purposes of and the results 
from screenings and assessments and discuss their child's progress;
    (7) Teachers, except those described in paragraph (b)(8) of this 
section, conduct at least two home visits per program year for each 
family, including one before the program year begins, if feasible, to 
engage the parents in the child's learning and development, except that 
such visits may take place at a program site or another safe location 
that affords privacy at the parent's request, or if a visit to the home 
presents significant safety hazards for staff; and,
    (8) Teachers that serve migrant or seasonal families make every 
effort to conduct home visits to engage the family in the child's 
learning and development.


Sec.  1302.35  Education in home-based programs.

    (a) Purpose. A home-based program must provide home visits and 
group socialization activities that promote secure parent-child 
relationships and help parents provide high-quality early learning 
experiences in language, literacy, mathematics, social and emotional 
functioning, approaches to learning, science, physical skills, and 
creative arts. A program must implement a research-based curriculum 
that delivers developmentally, linguistically, and culturally 
appropriate home visits and group socialization activities that support 
children's cognitive, social, and emotional growth for later success in 
school.
    (b) Home-based program design. A home-based program must ensure all 
home visits are:
    (1) Planned jointly by the home visitor and parents, and reflect 
the critical role of parents in the early learning and development of 
their children, including that the home visitor is able to effectively 
communicate with the parent, directly or through an interpreter;

[[Page 61424]]

    (2) Planned using information from ongoing assessments that 
individualize learning experiences;
    (3) Scheduled with sufficient time to serve all enrolled children 
in the home and conducted with parents and are not conducted when only 
babysitters or other temporary caregivers are present;
    (4) Scheduled with sufficient time and appropriate staff to ensure 
effective delivery of services described in subparts D, E, F, and G of 
this part through home visiting, to the extent possible.
    (c) Home visit experiences. A program that operates the home-based 
option must ensure all home visits focus on promoting high-quality 
early learning experiences in the home and growth towards the goals 
described in the Head Start Early Learning Outcomes Framework: Ages 
Birth to Five and must use such goals and the curriculum to plan home 
visit activities that implement:
    (1) Age and developmentally appropriate, structured child-focused 
learning experiences;
    (2) Strategies and activities that promote parents' ability to 
support the child's cognitive, social, emotional, language, literacy, 
and physical development;
    (3) Strategies and activities that promote the home as a learning 
environment that is safe, nurturing, responsive, and language- and 
communication- rich;
    (4) Research-based strategies and activities for children who are 
dual language learners that recognize bilingualism and biliteracy as 
strengths, and:
    (i) For infants and toddlers, focus on the development of the home 
language, while providing experiences that expose both parents and 
children to English; and,
    (ii) For preschoolers, focus on both English language acquisition 
and the continued development of the home language; and,
    (5) Follow-up with the families to discuss learning experiences 
provided in the home between each visit, address concerns, and inform 
strategies to promote progress toward school readiness goals.
    (d) Home-based curriculum. A program that operates the home-based 
option must:
    (1) Ensure home-visiting and group socializations implement a 
developmentally appropriate research-based early childhood home-based 
curriculum that:
    (i) Promotes the parent's role as the child's teacher through 
experiences focused on the parent-child relationship and, as 
appropriate, the family's traditions, culture, values, and beliefs;
    (ii) Aligns with the Head Start Early Learning Outcomes Framework: 
Ages Birth to Five and, as appropriate, state early learning standards, 
and, is sufficiently content-rich within the Framework to promote 
measurable progress toward goals outlined in the Framework; and,
    (iii) Has an organized developmental scope and sequence that 
includes plans and materials for learning experiences based on 
developmental progressions and how children learn.
    (2) Support staff in the effective implementation of the curriculum 
and at a minimum monitor curriculum implementation and fidelity, and 
provide support, feedback, and supervision for continuous improvement 
of its implementation through the system of training and professional 
development.
    (3) If a program chooses to make significant adaptations to a 
curriculum or curriculum enhancement to better meet the needs of one or 
more specific populations, a program must:
    (i) Partner with early childhood education curriculum or content 
experts; and,
    (ii) Assess whether the adaptation adequately facilitates progress 
toward meeting school readiness goals consistent with the process 
described in Sec.  1302.102(b) and (c).
    (4) Provide parents with an opportunity to review selected 
curricula and instructional materials used in the program.
    (e) Group socialization. (1) A program that operates the home-based 
option must ensure group socializations are planned jointly with 
families, conducted with both child and parent participation, occur in 
a classroom, community facility, home or field trip setting, as 
appropriate.
    (2) Group socializations must be structured to:
    (i) Provide age appropriate activities for participating children 
that are intentionally aligned to school readiness goals, the Head 
Start Early Learning Outcomes Framework: Ages Birth to Five and the 
home-based curriculum; and,
    (ii) Encourage parents to share experiences related to their 
children's development with other parents in order to strengthen 
parent-child relationships and to help promote parents understanding of 
child development;
    (3) For parents with preschoolers, group socializations also must 
provide opportunities for parents to participate in activities that 
support parenting skill development or family partnership goals 
identified in Sec.  1302.52(c), as appropriate and must emphasize peer 
group interactions designed to promote children's social, emotional and 
language development, and progress towards school readiness goals, 
while encouraging parents to observe and actively participate in 
activities, as appropriate.
    (f) Screening and assessments. A program that operates the home-
based option must implement provisions in Sec.  1302.33 and inform 
parents about the purposes of and the results from screenings and 
assessments and discuss their child's progress.


Sec.  1302.36  Tribal language preservation and revitalization.

    A program that serves American Indian and Alaska Native children 
may integrate efforts to preserve, revitalize, restore, or maintain the 
tribal language for these children into program services. Such language 
preservation and revitalization efforts may include full immersion in 
the tribal language for the majority of the hours of planned class 
operations. If children's home language is English, exposure to English 
as described in Sec.  1302.31(b)(2)(i) and (ii) is not required.

Subpart D--Health Program Services


Sec.  1302.40  Purpose.

    (a) A program must provide high-quality health, oral health, mental 
health, and nutrition services that are developmentally, culturally, 
and linguistically appropriate and that will support each child's 
growth and school readiness.
    (b) A program must establish and maintain a Health Services 
Advisory Committee that includes Head Start parents, professionals, and 
other volunteers from the community.


Sec.  1302.41  Collaboration and communication with parents.

    (a) For all activities described in this part, programs must 
collaborate with parents as partners in the health and well-being of 
their children in a linguistically and culturally appropriate manner 
and communicate with parents about their child's health needs and 
development concerns in a timely and effective manner.
    (b) At a minimum, a program must:
    (1) Obtain advance authorization from the parent or other person 
with legal authority for all health and developmental procedures 
administered through the program or by contract or agreement, and, 
maintain written documentation if they refuse to give authorization for 
health services; and,

[[Page 61425]]

    (2) Share with parents the policies for health emergencies that 
require rapid response on the part of staff or immediate medical 
attention.


Sec.  1302.42  Child health status and care.

    (a) Source of health care. (1) A program, within 30 calendar days 
after the child first attends the program or, for the home-based 
program option, receives a home visit, must consult with parents to 
determine whether each child has ongoing sources of continuous, 
accessible health care--provided by a health care professional that 
maintains the child's ongoing health record and is not primarily a 
source of emergency or urgent care--and health insurance coverage.
    (2) If the child does not have such a source of ongoing care and 
health insurance coverage or access to care through the Indian Health 
Service, the program must assist families in accessing a source of care 
and health insurance that will meet these criteria, as quickly as 
possible.
    (b) Ensuring up-to-date child health status. (1) Within 90 calendar 
days after the child first attends the program or, for the home-based 
program option, receives a home visit, with the exceptions noted in 
paragraph (b)(3) of this section, a program must:
    (i) Obtain determinations from health care and oral health care 
professionals as to whether or not the child is up-to-date on a 
schedule of age appropriate preventive and primary medical and oral 
health care, based on: The well-child visits and dental periodicity 
schedules as prescribed by the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, 
and Treatment (EPSDT) program of the Medicaid agency of the state in 
which they operate, immunization recommendations issued by the Centers 
for Disease Control and Prevention, and any additional recommendations 
from the local Health Services Advisory Committee that are based on 
prevalent community health problems;
    (ii) Assist parents with making arrangements to bring the child up-
to-date as quickly as possible; and, if necessary, directly facilitate 
provision of health services to bring the child up-to-date with parent 
consent as described in Sec.  1302.41(b)(1).
    (2) Within 45 calendar days after the child first attends the 
program or, for the home-based program option, receives a home visit, a 
program must either obtain or perform evidence-based vision and hearing 
screenings.
    (3) If a program operates for 90 days or less, it has 30 days from 
the date the child first attends the program to satisfy paragraphs 
(b)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (4) A program must identify each child's nutritional health needs, 
taking into account available health information, including the child's 
health records, and family and staff concerns, including special 
dietary requirements, food allergies, and community nutrition issues as 
identified through the community assessment or by the Health Services 
Advisory Committee.
    (c) Ongoing care. (1) A program must help parents continue to 
follow recommended schedules of well-child and oral health care.
    (2) A program must implement periodic observations or other 
appropriate strategies for program staff and parents to identify any 
new or recurring developmental, medical, oral, or mental health 
concerns.
    (3) A program must facilitate and monitor necessary oral health 
preventive care, treatment and follow-up, including topical fluoride 
treatments. In communities where there is a lack of adequate fluoride 
available through the water supply and for every child with moderate to 
severe tooth decay, a program must also facilitate fluoride 
supplements, and other necessary preventive measures, and further oral 
health treatment as recommended by the oral health professional.
    (d) Extended follow-up care. (1) A program must facilitate further 
diagnostic testing, evaluation, treatment, and follow-up plan, as 
appropriate, by a licensed or certified professional for each child 
with a health problem or developmental delay, such as elevated lead 
levels or abnormal hearing or vision results that may affect child's 
development, learning, or behavior.
    (2) A program must develop a system to track referrals and services 
provided and monitor the implementation of a follow-up plan to meet any 
treatment needs associated with a health, oral health, social and 
emotional, or developmental problem.
    (3) A program must assist parents, as needed, in obtaining any 
prescribed medications, aids or equipment for medical and oral health 
conditions.
    (e) Use of funds. (1) A program must use program funds for the 
provision of diapers and formula for enrolled children during the 
program day.
    (2) A program may use program funds for professional medical and 
oral health services when no other source of funding is available. When 
program funds are used for such services, grantee and delegate agencies 
must have written documentation of their efforts to access other 
available sources of funding.


Sec.  1302.43  Oral health practices.

    A program must promote effective oral health hygiene by ensuring 
all children with teeth are assisted by appropriate staff, or 
volunteers, if available, in brushing their teeth with toothpaste 
containing fluoride once daily.


Sec.  1302.44  Child nutrition.

    (a) Nutrition service requirements. (1) A program must design and 
implement nutrition services that are culturally and developmentally 
appropriate, meet the nutritional needs of and accommodate the feeding 
requirements of each child, including children with special dietary 
needs and children with disabilities. Family style meals are encouraged 
as described in Sec.  1302.31(e)(2).
    (2) Specifically, a program must:
    (i) Ensure each child in a program that operates for fewer than six 
hours per day receives meals and snacks that provide one third to one 
half of the child's daily nutritional needs;
    (ii) Ensure each child in a program that operates for six hours or 
more per day receives meals and snacks that provide one half to two 
thirds of the child's daily nutritional needs, depending upon the 
length of the program day;
    (iii) Serve three- to five-year-olds meals and snacks that conform 
to USDA requirements in 7 CFR parts 210, 220, and 226, and are high in 
nutrients and low in fat, sugar, and salt;
    (iv) Feed infants and toddlers according to their individual 
developmental readiness and feeding skills as recommended in USDA 
requirements outlined in 7 CFR parts 210, 220, and 226, and ensure 
infants and young toddlers are fed on demand to the extent possible;
    (v) Ensure bottle-fed infants are never laid down to sleep with a 
bottle;
    (vi) Serve all children in morning center-based settings who have 
not received breakfast upon arrival at the program a nourishing 
breakfast;
    (vii) Provide appropriate healthy snacks and meals to each child 
during group socialization activities in the home-based option;
    (viii) Promote breastfeeding, including providing facilities to 
properly store and handle breast milk and make accommodations, as 
necessary, for mothers who wish to breastfeed during program hours, and 
if necessary, provide referrals to lactation consultants or counselors; 
and,
    (ix) Make safe drinking water available to children during the 
program day.
    (b) Payment sources. A program must use funds from USDA Food, 
Nutrition,

[[Page 61426]]

and Consumer Services child nutrition programs as the primary source of 
payment for meal services. Early Head Start and Head Start funds may be 
used to cover those allowable costs not covered by the USDA.


Sec.  1302.45  Child mental health and social and emotional well-being.

    (a) Wellness promotion. To support a program-wide culture that 
promotes children's mental health, social and emotional well-being, and 
overall health, a program must:
    (1) Provide supports for effective classroom management and 
positive learning environments; supportive teacher practices; and, 
strategies for supporting children with challenging behaviors and other 
social, emotional, and mental health concerns;
    (2) Secure mental health consultation services on a schedule of 
sufficient and consistent frequency to ensure a mental health 
consultant is available to partner with staff and families in a timely 
and effective manner;
    (3) Obtain parental consent for mental health consultation services 
at enrollment; and,
    (4) Build community partnerships to facilitate access to additional 
mental health resources and services, as needed.
    (b) Mental health consultants. A program must ensure mental health 
consultants assist:
    (1) The program to implement strategies to identify and support 
children with mental health and social and emotional concerns;
    (2) Teachers, including family child care providers, to improve 
classroom management and teacher practices through strategies that 
include using classroom observations and consultations to address 
teacher and individual child needs and creating physical and cultural 
environments that promote positive mental health and social and 
emotional functioning;
    (3) Other staff, including home visitors, to meet children's mental 
health and social and emotional needs through strategies that include 
observation and consultation;
    (4) Staff to address prevalent child mental health concerns, 
including internalizing problems such as appearing withdrawn and 
externalizing problems such as challenging behaviors; and,
    (5) In helping both parents and staff to understand mental health 
and access mental health interventions, if needed.
    (6) In the implementation of the policies to limit suspension and 
prohibit expulsion as described in Sec.  1302.17.


Sec.  1302.46  Family support services for health, nutrition, and 
mental health.

    (a) Parent collaboration. Programs must collaborate with parents to 
promote children's health and well-being by providing medical, oral, 
nutrition and mental health education support services that are 
understandable to individuals, including individuals with low health 
literacy.
    (b) Opportunities. (1) Such collaboration must include 
opportunities for parents to:
    (i) Learn about preventive medical and oral health care, emergency 
first aid, environmental hazards, and health and safety practices for 
the home including health and developmental consequences of tobacco 
products use and exposure to lead, and safe sleep;
    (ii) Discuss their child's nutritional status with staff, including 
the importance of physical activity, healthy eating, and the negative 
health consequences of sugar-sweetened beverages, and how to select and 
prepare nutritious foods that meet the family's nutrition and food 
budget needs;
    (iii) Learn about healthy pregnancy and postpartum care, as 
appropriate, including breastfeeding support and treatment options for 
parental mental health or substance abuse problems, including perinatal 
depression;
    (iv) Discuss with staff and identify issues related to child mental 
health and social and emotional well-being, including observations and 
any concerns about their child's mental health, typical and atypical 
behavior and development, and how to appropriately respond to their 
child and promote their child's social and emotional development; and,
    (v) Learn about appropriate vehicle and pedestrian safety for 
keeping children safe.
    (2) A program must provide ongoing support to assist parents' 
navigation through health systems to meet the general health and 
specifically identified needs of their children and must assist 
parents:
    (i) In understanding how to access health insurance for themselves 
and their families, including information about private and public 
health insurance and designated enrollment periods;
    (ii) In understanding the results of diagnostic and treatment 
procedures as well as plans for ongoing care; and,
    (iii) In familiarizing their children with services they will 
receive while enrolled in the program and to enroll and participate in 
a system of ongoing family health care.


Sec.  1302.47  Safety practices.

    (a) A program must establish, train staff on, implement, and 
enforce a system of health and safety practices that ensure children 
are kept safe at all times. A program should consult Caring for our 
Children Basics, available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/ecd/caring_for_our_children_basics.pdf, for additional 
information to develop and implement adequate safety policies and 
practices described in this part.
    (b) A program must develop and implement a system of management, 
including ongoing training, oversight, correction and continuous 
improvement in accordance with Sec.  1302.102, that includes policies 
and practices to ensure all facilities, equipment and materials, 
background checks, safety training, safety and hygiene practices and 
administrative safety procedures are adequate to ensure child safety. 
This system must ensure:
    (1) Facilities. All facilities where children are served, including 
areas for learning, playing, sleeping, toileting, and eating are, at a 
minimum:
    (i) Meet licensing requirements in accordance with Sec. Sec.  
1302.21(d)(1) and 1302.23(d);
    (ii) Clean and free from pests;
    (iii) Free from pollutants, hazards and toxins that are accessible 
to children and could endanger children's safety;
    (iv) Designed to prevent child injury and free from hazards, 
including choking, strangulation, electrical, and drowning hazards, 
hazards posed by appliances and all other safety hazards;
    (v) Well lit, including emergency lighting;
    (vi) Equipped with safety supplies that are readily accessible to 
staff, including, at a minimum, fully-equipped and up-to-date first aid 
kits and appropriate fire safety supplies;
    (vii) Free from firearms or other weapons that are accessible to 
children;
    (viii) Designed to separate toileting and diapering areas from 
areas for preparing food, cooking, eating, or children's activities; 
and,
    (ix) Kept safe through an ongoing system of preventative 
maintenance.
    (2) Equipment and materials. Indoor and outdoor play equipment, 
cribs, cots, feeding chairs, strollers, and other equipment used in the 
care of enrolled children, and as applicable, other equipment and 
materials meet standards set by the Consumer Product Safety Commission 
(CPSC) or the American Society for Testing and Materials, International 
(ASTM). All equipment and materials must at a minimum:
    (i) Be clean and safe for children's use and are appropriately 
disinfected;

[[Page 61427]]

    (ii) Be accessible only to children for whom they are age 
appropriate;
    (iii) Be designed to ensure appropriate supervision of children at 
all times;
    (iv) Allow for the separation of infants and toddlers from 
preschoolers during play in center-based programs; and,
    (v) Be kept safe through an ongoing system of preventative 
maintenance.
    (3) Background checks. All staff have complete background checks in 
accordance with Sec.  1302.90(b).
    (4) Safety training--(i) Staff with regular child contact. All 
staff with regular child contact have initial orientation training 
within three months of hire and ongoing training in all state, local, 
tribal, federal and program-developed health, safety and child care 
requirements to ensure the safety of children in their care; including, 
at a minimum, and as appropriate based on staff roles and ages of 
children they work with, training in:
    (A) The prevention and control of infectious diseases;
    (B) Prevention of sudden infant death syndrome and use of safe 
sleeping practices;
    (C) Administration of medication, consistent with standards for 
parental consent;
    (D) Prevention and response to emergencies due to food and allergic 
reactions;
    (E) Building and physical premises safety, including identification 
of and protection from hazards, bodies of water, and vehicular traffic;
    (F) Prevention of shaken baby syndrome, abusive head trauma, and 
child maltreatment;
    (G) Emergency preparedness and response planning for emergencies;
    (H) Handling and storage of hazardous materials and the appropriate 
disposal of biocontaminants;
    (I) Appropriate precautions in transporting children, if 
applicable;
    (J) First aid and cardiopulmonary resuscitation; and,
    (K) Recognition and reporting of child abuse and neglect, in 
accordance with the requirement at paragraph (b)(5) of this section.
    (ii) Staff without regular child contact. All staff with no regular 
responsibility for or contact with children have initial orientation 
training within three months of hire; ongoing training in all state, 
local, tribal, federal and program-developed health and safety 
requirements applicable to their work; and training in the program's 
emergency and disaster preparedness procedures.
    (5) Safety practices. All staff and consultants follow appropriate 
practices to keep children safe during all activities, including, at a 
minimum:
    (i) Reporting of suspected or known child abuse and neglect, 
including that staff comply with applicable federal, state, local, and 
tribal laws;
    (ii) Safe sleep practices, including ensuring that all sleeping 
arrangements for children under 18 months of age use firm mattresses or 
cots, as appropriate, and for children under 12 months, soft bedding 
materials or toys must not be used;
    (iii) Appropriate indoor and outdoor supervision of children at all 
times;
    (iv) Only releasing children to an authorized adult, and;
    (v) All standards of conduct described in Sec.  1302.90(c).
    (6) Hygiene practices. All staff systematically and routinely 
implement hygiene practices that at a minimum ensure:
    (i) Appropriate toileting, hand washing, and diapering procedures 
are followed;
    (ii) Safe food preparation; and,
    (iii) Exposure to blood and body fluids are handled consistent with 
standards of the Occupational Safety Health Administration.
    (7) Administrative safety procedures. Programs establish, follow, 
and practice, as appropriate, procedures for, at a minimum:
    (i) Emergencies;
    (ii) Fire prevention and response;
    (iii) Protection from contagious disease, including appropriate 
inclusion and exclusion policies for when a child is ill, and from an 
infectious disease outbreak, including appropriate notifications of any 
reportable illness;
    (iv) The handling, storage, administration, and record of 
administration of medication;
    (v) Maintaining procedures and systems to ensure children are only 
released to an authorized adult; and,
    (vi) Child specific health care needs and food allergies that 
include accessible plans of action for emergencies. For food allergies, 
a program must also post individual child food allergies prominently 
where staff can view wherever food is served.
    (8) Disaster preparedness plan. The program has all-hazards 
emergency management/disaster preparedness and response plans for more 
and less likely events including natural and manmade disasters and 
emergencies, and violence in or near programs.
    (c) A program must report any safety incidents in accordance with 
Sec.  1302.102(d)(1)(ii).

Subpart E--Family and Community Engagement Program Services


Sec.  1302.50  Family engagement.

    (a) Purpose. A program must integrate parent and family engagement 
strategies into all systems and program services to support family 
well-being and promote children's learning and development. Programs 
are encouraged to develop innovative two-generation approaches that 
address prevalent needs of families across their program that may 
leverage community partnerships or other funding sources.
    (b) Family engagement approach. A program must:
    (1) Recognize parents as their children's primary teachers and 
nurturers and implement intentional strategies to engage parents in 
their children's learning and development and support parent-child 
relationships, including specific strategies for father engagement;
    (2) Develop relationships with parents and structure services to 
encourage trust and respectful, ongoing two-way communication between 
staff and parents to create welcoming program environments that 
incorporate the unique cultural, ethnic, and linguistic backgrounds of 
families in the program and community;
    (3) Collaborate with families in a family partnership process that 
identifies needs, interests, strengths, goals, and services and 
resources that support family well-being, including family safety, 
health, and economic stability;
    (4) Provide parents with opportunities to participate in the 
program as employees or volunteers;
    (5) Conduct family engagement services in the family's preferred 
language, or through an interpreter, to the extent possible, and ensure 
families have the opportunity to share personal information in an 
environment in which they feel safe; and,
    (6) Implement procedures for teachers, home visitors, and family 
support staff to share information with each other, as appropriate and 
consistent with the requirements in part 1303, subpart C, of this 
chapter; FERPA; or IDEA, to ensure coordinated family engagement 
strategies with children and families in the classroom, home, and 
community.


Sec.  1302.51  Parent activities to promote child learning and 
development.

    (a) A program must promote shared responsibility with parents for 
children's early learning and development, and implement family 
engagement strategies that are designed

[[Page 61428]]

to foster parental confidence and skills in promoting children's 
learning and development. These strategies must include:
    (1) Offering activities that support parent-child relationships and 
child development including language, dual language, literacy, and bi-
literacy development as appropriate;
    (2) Providing parents with information about the importance of 
their child's regular attendance, and partner with them, as necessary, 
to promote consistent attendance; and,
    (3) For dual language learners, information and resources for 
parents about the benefits of bilingualism and biliteracy.
    (b) A program must, at a minimum, offer opportunities for parents 
to participate in a research-based parenting curriculum that builds on 
parents' knowledge and offers parents the opportunity to practice 
parenting skills to promote children's learning and development. A 
program that chooses to make significant adaptations to the parenting 
curriculum to better meet the needs of one or more specific populations 
must work with an expert or experts to develop such adaptations.


Sec.  1302.52  Family partnership services.

    (a) Family partnership process. A program must implement a family 
partnership process that includes a family partnership agreement and 
the activities described in this section to support family well-being, 
including family safety, health, and economic stability, to support 
child learning and development, to provide, if applicable, services and 
supports for children with disabilities, and to foster parental 
confidence and skills that promote the early learning and development 
of their children. The process must be initiated as early in the 
program year as possible and continue for as long as the family 
participates in the program, based on parent interest and need.
    (b) Identification of family strengths and needs. A program must 
implement intake and family assessment procedures to identify family 
strengths and needs related to the family engagement outcomes as 
described in the Head Start Parent Family and Community Engagement 
Framework, including family well-being, parent-child relationships, 
families as lifelong educators, families as learners, family engagement 
in transitions, family connections to peers and the local community, 
and families as advocates and leaders.
    (c) Individualized family partnership services. A program must 
offer individualized family partnership services that:
    (1) Collaborate with families to identify interests, needs, and 
aspirations related to the family engagement outcomes described in 
paragraph (b) of this section;
    (2) Help families achieve identified individualized family 
engagement outcomes;
    (3) Establish and implement a family partnership agreement process 
that is jointly developed and shared with parents in which staff and 
families review individual progress, revise goals, evaluate and track 
whether identified needs and goals are met, and adjust strategies on an 
ongoing basis, as necessary, and;
    (4) Assign staff and resources based on the urgency and intensity 
of identified family needs and goals.
    (d) Existing plans and community resources. In implementing this 
section, a program must take into consideration any existing plans for 
the family made with other community agencies and availability of other 
community resources to address family needs, strengths, and goals, in 
order to avoid duplication of effort.


Sec.  1302.53  Community partnerships and coordination with other early 
childhood and education programs.

    (a) Community partnerships. (1) A program must establish ongoing 
collaborative relationships and partnerships with community 
organizations such as establishing joint agreements, procedures, or 
contracts and arranging for onsite delivery of services as appropriate, 
to facilitate access to community services that are responsive to 
children's and families' needs and family partnership goals, and 
community needs and resources, as determined by the community 
assessment.
    (2) A program must establish necessary collaborative relationships 
and partnerships, with community organizations that may include:
    (i) Health care providers, including child and adult mental health 
professionals, Medicaid managed care networks, dentists, other health 
professionals, nutritional service providers, providers of prenatal and 
postnatal support, and substance abuse treatment providers;
    (ii) Individuals and agencies that provide services to children 
with disabilities and their families, elementary schools, state 
preschool providers, and providers of child care services;
    (iii) Family preservation and support services and child protective 
services and any other agency to which child abuse must be reported 
under state or tribal law;
    (iv) Educational and cultural institutions, such as libraries and 
museums, for both children and families;
    (v) Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, nutrition assistance 
agencies, workforce development and training programs, adult or family 
literacy, adult education, and post-secondary education institutions, 
and agencies or financial institutions that provide asset-building 
education, products and services to enhance family financial stability 
and savings;
    (vi) Housing assistance agencies and providers of support for 
children and families experiencing homelessness, including the local 
educational agency liaison designated under section 722(g)(1)(J)(ii) of 
the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11431 et seq.);
    (vii) Domestic violence prevention and support providers; and,
    (viii) Other organizations or businesses that may provide support 
and resources to families.
    (b) Coordination with other programs and systems. A program must 
take an active role in promoting coordinated systems of comprehensive 
early childhood services to low-income children and families in their 
community through communication, cooperation, and the sharing of 
information among agencies and their community partners, while 
protecting the privacy of child records in accordance with subpart C of 
part 1303 of this chapter and applicable federal, state, local, and 
tribal laws.
    (1) Memorandum of understanding. To support coordination between 
Head Start and publicly funded preschool programs, a program must enter 
into a memorandum of understanding with the appropriate local entity 
responsible for managing publicly funded preschool programs in the 
service area of the program, as described in section 642(e)(5) of the 
Act.
    (2) Quality Rating and Improvement Systems. A program, with the 
exception of American Indian and Alaska Native programs, must 
participate in its state or local Quality Rating and Improvement System 
(QRIS) if:
    (i) Its state or local QRIS accepts Head Start monitoring data to 
document quality indicators included in the state's tiered system;
    (ii) Participation would not impact a program's ability to comply 
with the Head Start Program Performance Standards; and,

[[Page 61429]]

    (iii) The program has not provided the Office of Head Start with a 
compelling reason not to comply with this requirement.
    (3) Data systems. A program, with the exception of American Indian 
and Alaska Native programs unless they would like to and to the extent 
practicable, should integrate and share relevant data with state 
education data systems, to the extent practicable, if the program can 
receive similar support and benefits as other participating early 
childhood programs.
    (4) American Indian and Alaska Native programs. An American Indian 
and Alaska Native program should determine whether or not it will 
participate in the systems described in paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) of 
this section.

Subpart F--Additional Services for Children With Disabilities


Sec.  1302.60  Full participation in program services and activities.

    A program must ensure enrolled children with disabilities, 
including but not limited to those who are eligible for services under 
IDEA, and their families receive all applicable program services 
delivered in the least restrictive possible environment and that they 
fully participate in all program activities.


Sec.  1302.61  Additional services for children.

    (a) Additional services for children with disabilities. Programs 
must ensure the individualized needs of children with disabilities, 
including but not limited to those eligible for services under IDEA, 
are being met and all children have access to and can fully participate 
in the full range of activities and services. Programs must provide any 
necessary modifications to the environment, multiple and varied formats 
for instruction, and individualized accommodations and supports as 
necessary to support the full participation of children with 
disabilities. Programs must ensure all individuals with disabilities 
are protected from discrimination under and provided with all services 
and program modifications required by section 504 of the Rehabilitation 
Act (29 U.S.C. 794), the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. 
12101 et seq.), and their implementing regulations.
    (b) Services during IDEA eligibility determination. While the local 
agency responsible for implementing IDEA determines a child's 
eligibility, a program must provide individualized services and 
supports, to the maximum extent possible, to meet the child's needs. 
Such additional supports may be available through a child's health 
insurance or it may be appropriate or required to provide the needed 
services and supports under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act if 
the child satisfies the definition of disability in section 705(9)(b) 
of the Rehabilitation Act. When such supports are not available through 
alternate means, pending the evaluation results and eligibility 
determination, a program must individualize program services based on 
available information such as parent input and child observation and 
assessment data and may use program funds for these purposes.
    (c) Additional services for children with an IFSP or IEP. To ensure 
the individual needs of children eligible for services under IDEA are 
met, a program must:
    (1) Work closely with the local agency responsible for implementing 
IDEA, the family, and other service partners, as appropriate, to 
ensure:
    (i) Services for a child with disabilities will be planned and 
delivered as required by their IFSP or IEP, as appropriate;
    (ii) Children are working towards the goals in their IFSP or IEP;
    (iii) Elements of the IFSP or IEP that the program cannot implement 
are implemented by other appropriate agencies, related service 
providers and specialists;
    (iv) IFSPs and IEPs are being reviewed and revised, as required by 
IDEA; and,
    (v) Services are provided in a child's regular Early Head Start or 
Head Start classroom or family child care home to the greatest extent 
possible.
    (2) Plan and implement the transition services described in subpart 
G of this part, including at a minimum:
    (i) For children with an IFSP who are transitioning out of Early 
Head Start, collaborate with the parents, and the local agency 
responsible for implementing IDEA, to ensure appropriate steps are 
undertaken in a timely and appropriate manner to determine the child's 
eligibility for services under Part B of IDEA; and,
    (ii) For children with an IEP who are transitioning out of Head 
Start to kindergarten, collaborate with the parents, and the local 
agency responsible for implementing IDEA, to ensure steps are 
undertaken in a timely and appropriate manner to support the child and 
family as they transition to a new setting.


Sec.  1302.62  Additional services for parents.

    (a) Parents of all children with disabilities. (1) A program must 
collaborate with parents of children with disabilities, including but 
not limited to children eligible for services under IDEA, to ensure the 
needs of their children are being met, including support to help 
parents become advocates for services that meet their children's needs 
and information and skills to help parents understand their child's 
disability and how to best support the child's development;
    (2) A program must assist parents to access services and resources 
for their family, including securing adaptive equipment and devices and 
supports available through a child's health insurance or other 
entities, creating linkages to family support programs, and helping 
parents establish eligibility for additional support programs, as 
needed and practicable.
    (b) Parents of children eligible for services under IDEA. For 
parents of children eligible for services under IDEA, a program must 
also help parents:
    (1) Understand the referral, evaluation, and service timelines 
required under IDEA;
    (2) Actively participate in the eligibility process and IFSP or IEP 
development process with the local agency responsible for implementing 
IDEA, including by informing parents of their right to invite the 
program to participate in all meetings;
    (3) Understand the purposes and results of evaluations and services 
provided under an IFSP or IEP; and,
    (4) Ensure their children's needs are accurately identified in, and 
addressed through, the IFSP or IEP.


Sec.  1302.63  Coordination and collaboration with the local agency 
responsible for implementing IDEA.

    (a) A program must coordinate with the local agency responsible for 
implementing IDEA to identify children enrolled or who intend to enroll 
in a program that may be eligible for services under IDEA, including 
through the process described in Sec.  1302.33(a)(3) and through 
participation in the local agency Child Find efforts.
    (b) A program must work to develop interagency agreements with the 
local agency responsible for implementing IDEA to improve service 
delivery to children eligible for services under IDEA, including the 
referral and evaluation process, service coordination, promotion of 
service provision in the least restrictive appropriate community-based 
setting and reduction in dual enrollment which causes reduced time in a 
less restrictive setting, and transition services as children move from 
services provided under Part C of IDEA to services provided under Part 
B of IDEA and from preschool to kindergarten.

[[Page 61430]]

    (c) A program must participate in the development of the IFSP or 
IEP if requested by the child's parents, and the implementation of the 
IFSP or IEP. At a minimum, the program must offer:
    (1) To provide relevant information from its screenings, 
assessments, and observations to the team developing a child's IFSP or 
IEP; and,
    (2) To participate in meetings with the local agency responsible 
for implementing IDEA to develop or review an IEP or IFSP for a child 
being considered for Head Start enrollment, a currently enrolled child, 
or a child transitioning from a program.
    (d) A program must retain a copy of the IEP or IFSP for any child 
enrolled in Head Start for the time the child is in the program, 
consistent with the IDEA requirements in 34 CFR parts 300 and 303.

Subpart G--Transition Services


Sec.  1302.70  Transitions from Early Head Start.

    (a) Implementing transition strategies and practices. An Early Head 
Start program must implement strategies and practices to support 
successful transitions for children and their families transitioning 
out of Early Head Start.
    (b) Timing for transitions. To ensure the most appropriate 
placement and service following participation in Early Head Start, such 
programs must, at least six months prior to each child's third 
birthday, implement transition planning for each child and family that:
    (1) Takes into account the child's developmental level and health 
and disability status, progress made by the child and family while in 
Early Head Start, current and changing family circumstances and, the 
availability of Head Start, other public pre-kindergarten, and other 
early education and child development services in the community that 
will meet the needs of the child and family; and,
    (2) Transitions the child into Head Start or another program as 
soon as possible after the child's third birthday but permits the child 
to remain in Early Head Start for a limited number of additional months 
following the child's third birthday if necessary for an appropriate 
transition.
    (c) Family collaborations. A program must collaborate with parents 
of Early Head Start children to implement strategies and activities 
that support successful transitions from Early Head Start and, at a 
minimum, provide information about the child's progress during the 
program year and provide strategies for parents to continue their 
involvement in and advocacy for the education and development of their 
child.
    (d) Early Head Start and Head Start collaboration. Early Head Start 
and Head Start programs must work together to maximize enrollment 
transitions from Early Head Start to Head Start, consistent with the 
eligibility provisions in subpart A, and promote successful transitions 
through collaboration and communication.
    (e) Transition services for children with an IFSP. A program must 
provide additional transition services for children with an IFSP, at a 
minimum, as described in subpart F of this part.


Sec.  1302.71  Transitions from Head Start to kindergarten.

    (a) Implementing transition strategies and practices. A program 
that serves children who will enter kindergarten in the following year 
must implement transition strategies to support a successful transition 
to kindergarten.
    (b) Family collaborations for transitions. (1) A program must 
collaborate with parents of enrolled children to implement strategies 
and activities that will help parents advocate for and promote 
successful transitions to kindergarten for their children, including 
their continued involvement in the education and development of their 
child.
    (2) At a minimum, such strategies and activities must:
    (i) Help parents understand their child's progress during Head 
Start;
    (ii) Help parents understand practices they use to effectively 
provide academic and social support for their children during their 
transition to kindergarten and foster their continued involvement in 
the education of their child;
    (iii) Prepare parents to exercise their rights and responsibilities 
concerning the education of their children in the elementary school 
setting, including services and supports available to children with 
disabilities and various options for their child to participate in 
language instruction educational programs; and,
    (iv) Assist parents in the ongoing communication with teachers and 
other school personnel so that parents can participate in decisions 
related to their children's education.
    (c) Community collaborations for transitions. (1) A program must 
collaborate with local education agencies to support family engagement 
under section 642(b)(13) of the Act and state departments of education, 
as appropriate, and kindergarten teachers to implement strategies and 
activities that promote successful transitions to kindergarten for 
children, their families, and the elementary school.
    (2) At a minimum, such strategies and activities must include:
    (i) Coordination with schools or other appropriate agencies to 
ensure children's relevant records are transferred to the school or 
next placement in which a child will enroll, consistent with privacy 
requirements in subpart C of part 1303 of this chapter;
    (ii) Communication between appropriate staff and their counterparts 
in the schools to facilitate continuity of learning and development, 
consistent with privacy requirements in subpart C of part 1303 of this 
chapter; and,
    (iii) Participation, as possible, for joint training and 
professional development activities for Head Start and kindergarten 
teachers and staff.
    (3) A program that does not operate during the summer must 
collaborate with school districts to determine the availability of 
summer school programming for children who will be entering 
kindergarten and work with parents and school districts to enroll 
children in such programs, as appropriate.
    (d) Learning environment activities. A program must implement 
strategies and activities in the learning environment that promote 
successful transitions to kindergarten for enrolled children, and at a 
minimum, include approaches that familiarize children with the 
transition to kindergarten and foster confidence about such transition.
    (e) Transition services for children with an IEP. A program must 
provide additional transition services for children with an IEP, at a 
minimum, as described in subpart F of this part.


Sec.  1302.72  Transitions between programs.

    (a) For families and children who move out of the community in 
which they are currently served, including homeless families and foster 
children, a program must undertake efforts to support effective 
transitions to other Early Head Start or Head Start programs. If Early 
Head Start or Head Start is not available, the program should assist 
the family to identify another early childhood program that meets their 
needs.
    (b) A program that serves children whose families have decided to 
transition them to other early education programs, including public 
pre-kindergarten, in the year prior to kindergarten entry must 
undertake strategies and activities described in Sec.  1302.71(b) and 
(c)(1) and (2), as practicable and appropriate.
    (c) A migrant or seasonal Head Start program must undertake efforts 
to

[[Page 61431]]

support effective transitions to other migrant or seasonal Head Start 
or, if appropriate, Early Head Start or Head Start programs for 
families and children moving out of the community in which they are 
currently served.

Subpart H--Services to Enrolled Pregnant Women


Sec.  1302.80  Enrolled pregnant women.

    (a) Within 30 days of enrollment, a program must determine whether 
each enrolled pregnant woman has an ongoing source of continuous, 
accessible health care--provided by a health care professional that 
maintains her ongoing health record and is not primarily a source of 
emergency or urgent care--and, as appropriate, health insurance 
coverage.
    (b) If an enrolled pregnant woman does not have a source of ongoing 
care as described in paragraph (a) of this section and, as appropriate, 
health insurance coverage, a program must, as quickly as possible, 
facilitate her access to such a source of care that will meet her 
needs.
    (c) A program must facilitate the ability of all enrolled pregnant 
women to access comprehensive services through referrals that, at a 
minimum, include nutritional counseling, food assistance, oral health 
care, mental health services, substance abuse prevention and treatment, 
and emergency shelter or transitional housing in cases of domestic 
violence.
    (d) A program must provide a newborn visit with each mother and 
baby to offer support and identify family needs. A program must 
schedule the newborn visit within two weeks after the infant's birth.


Sec.  1302.81  Prenatal and postpartum information, education, and 
services.

    (a) A program must provide enrolled pregnant women, fathers, and 
partners or other relevant family members the prenatal and postpartum 
information, education and services that address, as appropriate, fetal 
development, the importance of nutrition, the risks of alcohol, drugs, 
and smoking, labor and delivery, postpartum recovery, parental 
depression, infant care and safe sleep practices, and the benefits of 
breastfeeding.
    (b) A program must also address needs for appropriate supports for 
emotional well-being, nurturing and responsive caregiving, and father 
engagement during pregnancy and early childhood.


Sec.  1302.82  Family partnership services for enrolled pregnant women.

    (a) A program must engage enrolled pregnant women and other 
relevant family members, such as fathers, in the family partnership 
services as described in Sec.  1302.52 and include a specific focus on 
factors that influence prenatal and postpartum maternal and infant 
health.
    (b) A program must engage enrolled pregnant women and other 
relevant family members, such as fathers, in discussions about program 
options, plan for the infant's transition to program enrollment, and 
support the family during the transition process, where appropriate.

Subpart I--Human Resources Management


Sec.  1302.90  Personnel policies.

    (a) Establishing personnel policies and procedures. A program must 
establish written personnel policies and procedures that are approved 
by the governing body and policy council or policy committee and that 
are available to all staff.
    (b) Background checks and selection procedures. (1) Before a person 
is hired, directly or through contract, including transportation staff 
and contractors, a program must conduct an interview, verify 
references, conduct a sex offender registry check and obtain one of the 
following:
    (i) State or tribal criminal history records, including fingerprint 
checks; or,
    (ii) Federal Bureau of Investigation criminal history records, 
including fingerprint checks.
    (2) A program has 90 days after an employee is hired to complete 
the background check process by obtaining:
    (i) Whichever check listed in paragraph (b)(1) of this section was 
not obtained prior to the date of hire; and,
    (ii) Child abuse and neglect state registry check, if available.
    (3) A program must review the information found in each employment 
application and complete background check to assess the relevancy of 
any issue uncovered by the complete background check including any 
arrest, pending criminal charge, or conviction and must use Child Care 
and Development Fund (CCDF) disqualification factors described in 42 
U.S.C. 9858f(c)(1)(D) and 42 U.S.C. 9858f(h)(1) or tribal 
disqualifications factors to determine whether the prospective employee 
can be hired or the current employee must be terminated.
    (4) A program must ensure a newly hired employee, consultant, or 
contractor does not have unsupervised access to children until the 
complete background check process described in paragraphs (b)(1) 
through (3) of this section is complete.
    (5) A program must conduct the complete background check for each 
employee, consultant, or contractor at least once every five years 
which must include each of the four checks listed in paragraphs (b)(1) 
and (2) of this section, and review and make employment decisions based 
on the information as described in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, 
unless the program can demonstrate to the responsible HHS official that 
it has a more stringent system in place that will ensure child safety.
    (6) A program must consider current and former program parents for 
employment vacancies for which such parents apply and are qualified.
    (c) Standards of conduct. (1) A program must ensure all staff, 
consultants, contractors, and volunteers abide by the program's 
standards of conduct that:
    (i) Ensure staff, consultants, contractors, and volunteers 
implement positive strategies to support children's well-being and 
prevent and address challenging behavior;
    (ii) Ensure staff, consultants, contractors, and volunteers do not 
maltreat or endanger the health or safety of children, including, at a 
minimum, that staff must not:
    (A) Use corporal punishment;
    (B) Use isolation to discipline a child;
    (C) Bind or tie a child to restrict movement or tape a child's 
mouth;
    (D) Use or withhold food as a punishment or reward;
    (E) Use toilet learning/training methods that punish, demean, or 
humiliate a child;
    (F) Use any form of emotional abuse, including public or private 
humiliation, rejecting, terrorizing, extended ignoring, or corrupting a 
child;
    (G) Physically abuse a child;
    (H) Use any form of verbal abuse, including profane, sarcastic 
language, threats, or derogatory remarks about the child or child's 
family; or,
    (I) Use physical activity or outdoor time as a punishment or 
reward;
    (iii) Ensure staff, consultants, contractors, and volunteers 
respect and promote the unique identity of each child and family and do 
not stereotype on any basis, including gender, race, ethnicity, 
culture, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or family 
composition;
    (iv) Require staff, consultants, contractors, and volunteers to 
comply with program confidentiality policies

[[Page 61432]]

concerning personally identifiable information about children, 
families, and other staff members in accordance with subpart C of part 
1303 of this chapter and applicable federal, state, local, and tribal 
laws; and,
    (v) Ensure no child is left alone or unsupervised by staff, 
consultants, contractors, or volunteers while under their care.
    (2) Personnel policies and procedures must include appropriate 
penalties for staff, consultants, and volunteers who violate the 
standards of conduct.
    (d) Communication with dual language learners and their families. 
(1) A program must ensure staff and program consultants or contractors 
are familiar with the ethnic backgrounds and heritages of families in 
the program and are able to serve and effectively communicate, either 
directly or through interpretation and translation, with children who 
are dual language learners and to the extent feasible, with families 
with limited English proficiency.
    (2) If a majority of children in a class or home-based program 
speak the same language, at least one class staff member or home 
visitor must speak such language.


Sec.  1302.91  Staff qualifications and competency requirements.

    (a) Purpose. A program must ensure all staff, consultants, and 
contractors engaged in the delivery of program services have sufficient 
knowledge, training and experience, and competencies to fulfill the 
roles and responsibilities of their positions and to ensure high-
quality service delivery in accordance with the program performance 
standards. A program must provide ongoing training and professional 
development to support staff in fulfilling their roles and 
responsibilities.
    (b) Early Head Start or Head Start director. A program must ensure 
an Early Head Start or Head Start director hired after November 7, 
2016, has, at a minimum, a baccalaureate degree and experience in 
supervision of staff, fiscal management, and administration.
    (c) Fiscal officer. A program must assess staffing needs in 
consideration of the fiscal complexity of the organization and 
applicable financial management requirements and secure the regularly 
scheduled or ongoing services of a fiscal officer with sufficient 
education and experience to meet their needs. A program must ensure a 
fiscal officer hired after November 7, 2016, is a certified public 
accountant or has, at a minimum, a baccalaureate degree in accounting, 
business, fiscal management, or a related field.
    (d) Child and family services management staff qualification 
requirements--(1) Family, health, and disabilities management. A 
program must ensure staff responsible for management and oversight of 
family services, health services, and services to children with 
disabilities hired after November 7, 2016, have, at a minimum, a 
baccalaureate degree, preferably related to one or more of the 
disciplines they oversee.
    (2) Education management. As prescribed in section 648A(a)(2)(B)(i) 
of the Act, a program must ensure staff and consultants that serve as 
education managers or coordinators, including those that serve as 
curriculum specialists, have a baccalaureate or advanced degree in 
early childhood education or a baccalaureate or advanced degree and 
equivalent coursework in early childhood education with early education 
teaching experience.
    (e) Child and family services staff--(1) Early Head Start center-
based teacher qualification requirements. As prescribed in section 
645A(h) of the Act, a program must ensure center-based teachers that 
provide direct services to infants and toddlers in Early Head Start 
centers have a minimum of a Child Development Associate (CDA) 
credential or comparable credential, and have been trained or have 
equivalent coursework in early childhood development with a focus on 
infant and toddler development.
    (2) Head Start center-based teacher qualification requirements. (i) 
The Secretary must ensure no less than fifty percent of all Head Start 
teachers, nationwide, have a baccalaureate degree in child development, 
early childhood education, or equivalent coursework.
    (ii) As prescribed in section 648A(a)(3)(B) of the Act, a program 
must ensure all center-based teachers have at least an associate's or 
bachelor's degree in child development or early childhood education, 
equivalent coursework, or otherwise meet the requirements of section 
648A(a)(3)(B) of the Act.
    (3) Head Start assistant teacher qualification requirements. As 
prescribed in section 648A(a)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act, a program must 
ensure Head Start assistant teachers, at a minimum, have a CDA 
credential or a state-awarded certificate that meets or exceeds the 
requirements for a CDA credential, are enrolled in a program that will 
lead to an associate or baccalaureate degree or, are enrolled in a CDA 
credential program to be completed within two years of the time of 
hire.
    (4) Family child care provider qualification requirements. (i) A 
program must ensure family child care providers have previous early 
child care experience and, at a minimum, are enrolled in a Family Child 
Care CDA program or state equivalent, or an associate's or 
baccalaureate degree program in child development or early childhood 
education prior to beginning service provision, and for the credential 
acquire it within eighteen months of beginning to provide services.
    (ii) By August 1, 2018, a child development specialist, as required 
for family child care in Sec.  1302.23(e), must have, at a minimum, a 
baccalaureate degree in child development, early childhood education, 
or a related field.
    (5) Center-based teachers, assistant teachers, and family child 
care provider competencies. A program must ensure center-based 
teachers, assistant teachers, and family child care providers 
demonstrate competency to provide effective and nurturing teacher-child 
interactions, plan and implement learning experiences that ensure 
effective curriculum implementation and use of assessment and promote 
children's progress across the standards described in the Head Start 
Early Learning Outcomes Framework: Ages Birth to Five and applicable 
state early learning and development standards, including for children 
with disabilities and dual language learners, as appropriate.
    (6) Home visitors. A program must ensure home visitors providing 
home-based education services:
    (i) Have a minimum of a home-based CDA credential or comparable 
credential, or equivalent coursework as part of an associate's or 
bachelor's degree; and,
    (ii) Demonstrate competency to plan and implement home-based 
learning experiences that ensure effective implementation of the home 
visiting curriculum and promote children's progress across the 
standards described in the Head Start Early Learning Outcomes 
Framework: Ages Birth to Five, including for children with disabilities 
and dual language learners, as appropriate, and to build respectful, 
culturally responsive, and trusting relationships with families.
    (7) Family services staff qualification requirements. A program 
must ensure staff who work directly with families on the family 
partnership process hired after November 7, 2016, have within eighteen 
months of hire, at a minimum, a credential or certification in social 
work, human services, family services, counseling or a related field.

[[Page 61433]]

    (8) Health professional qualification requirements. (i) A program 
must ensure health procedures are performed only by a licensed or 
certified health professional.
    (ii) A program must ensure all mental health consultants are 
licensed or certified mental health professionals. A program must use 
mental health consultants with knowledge of and experience in serving 
young children and their families, if available in the community.
    (iii) A program must use staff or consultants to support nutrition 
services who are registered dieticians or nutritionists with 
appropriate qualifications.
    (f) Coaches. A program must ensure coaches providing the services 
described in Sec.  1302.92(c) have a minimum of a baccalaureate degree 
in early childhood education or a related field.


Sec.  1302.92  Training and professional development.

    (a) A program must provide to all new staff, consultants, and 
volunteers an orientation that focuses on, at a minimum, the goals and 
underlying philosophy of the program and on the ways they are 
implemented.
    (b) A program must establish and implement a systematic approach to 
staff training and professional development designed to assist staff in 
acquiring or increasing the knowledge and skills needed to provide 
high-quality, comprehensive services within the scope of their job 
responsibilities, and attached to academic credit as appropriate. At a 
minimum, the system must include:
    (1) Staff completing a minimum of 15 clock hours of professional 
development per year. For teaching staff, such professional development 
must meet the requirements described in section 648A(a)(5) of the Act.
    (2) Training on methods to handle suspected or known child abuse 
and neglect cases, that comply with applicable federal, state, local, 
and tribal laws;
    (3) Training for child and family services staff on best practices 
for implementing family engagement strategies in a systemic way, as 
described throughout this part;
    (4) Training for child and family services staff, including staff 
that work on family services, health, and disabilities, that builds 
their knowledge, experience, and competencies to improve child and 
family outcomes; and,
    (5) Research-based approaches to professional development for 
education staff, that are focused on effective curricula 
implementation, knowledge of the content in Head Start Early Learning 
Outcomes Framework: Ages Birth to Five, partnering with families, 
supporting children with disabilities and their families, providing 
effective and nurturing adult-child interactions, supporting dual 
language learners as appropriate, addressing challenging behaviors, 
preparing children and families for transitions (as described in 
subpart G of this part), and use of data to individualize learning 
experiences to improve outcomes for all children.
    (c) A program must implement a research-based, coordinated coaching 
strategy for education staff that:
    (1) Assesses all education staff to identify strengths, areas of 
needed support, and which staff would benefit most from intensive 
coaching;
    (2) At a minimum, provides opportunities for intensive coaching to 
those education staff identified through the process in paragraph 
(c)(1) of this section, including opportunities to be observed and 
receive feedback and modeling of effective teacher practices directly 
related to program performance goals;
    (3) At a minimum, provides opportunities for education staff not 
identified for intensive coaching through the process in paragraph 
(c)(1) of this section to receive other forms of research-based 
professional development aligned with program performance goals;
    (4) Ensures intensive coaching opportunities for the staff 
identified through the process in paragraph (c)(1) of this section 
that:
    (i) Align with the program's school readiness goals, curricula, and 
other approaches to professional development;
    (ii) Utilize a coach with adequate training and experience in adult 
learning and in using assessment data to drive coaching strategies 
aligned with program performance goals;
    (iii) Provide ongoing communication between the coach, program 
director, education director, and any other relevant staff; and,
    (iv) Include clearly articulated goals informed by the program's 
goals, as described in Sec.  1302.102, and a process for achieving 
those goals; and,
    (5) Establishes policies that ensure assessment results are not 
used to solely determine punitive actions for staff identified as 
needing support, without providing time and resources for staff to 
improve.
    (d) If a program needs to develop or significantly adapt their 
approach to research-based professional development to better meet the 
training needs of education staff, such that it does not include the 
requirements in paragraph (c) of this section, the program must partner 
with external early childhood education professional development 
experts. A program must assess whether the adaptation adequately 
supports staff professional development, consistent with the process 
laid out in subpart J of this part.


Sec.  1302.93  Staff health and wellness.

    (a) A program must ensure each staff member has an initial health 
examination and a periodic re-examination as recommended by their 
health care provider in accordance with state, tribal, or local 
requirements, that include screeners or tests for communicable 
diseases, as appropriate. The program must ensure staff do not, because 
of communicable diseases, pose a significant risk to the health or 
safety of others in the program that cannot be eliminated or reduced by 
reasonable accommodation, in accordance with the Americans with 
Disabilities Act and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.
    (b) A program must make mental health and wellness information 
available to staff regarding health issues that may affect their job 
performance, and must provide regularly scheduled opportunities to 
learn about mental health, wellness, and health education.


Sec.  1302.94  Volunteers.

    (a) A program must ensure regular volunteers have been screened for 
appropriate communicable diseases in accordance with state, tribal or 
local laws. In the absence of state, tribal or local law, the Health 
Services Advisory Committee must be consulted regarding the need for 
such screenings.
    (b) A program must ensure children are never left alone with 
volunteers.

Subpart J--Program Management and Quality Improvement


Sec.  1302.100   Purpose.

    A program must provide management and a process of ongoing 
monitoring and continuous improvement for achieving program goals that 
ensures child safety and the delivery of effective, high-quality 
program services.


Sec.  1302.101  Management system.

    (a) Implementation. A program must implement a management system 
that:
    (1) Ensures a program, fiscal, and human resource management 
structure that provides effective management and oversight of all 
program areas and fiduciary responsibilities to enable delivery of 
high-quality services in all of

[[Page 61434]]

the program services described in subparts C, D, E, F, G, and H of this 
part;
    (2) Provides regular and ongoing supervision to support individual 
staff professional development and continuous program quality 
improvement;
    (3) Ensures budget and staffing patterns that promote continuity of 
care for all children enrolled, allow sufficient time for staff to 
participate in appropriate training and professional development, and 
allow for provision of the full range of services described in subparts 
C, D, E, F, G, and H of this part; and,
    (4) Maintains an automated accounting and record keeping system 
adequate for effective oversight.
    (b) Coordinated approaches. At the beginning of each program year, 
and on an ongoing basis throughout the year, a program must design and 
implement program-wide coordinated approaches that ensure:
    (1) The training and professional development system, as described 
in Sec.  1302.92, effectively supports the delivery and continuous 
improvement of high-quality services;
    (2) The full and effective participation of children who are dual 
language learners and their families, by:
    (i) Utilizing information from the program's community assessment 
about the languages spoken throughout the program service area to 
anticipate child and family needs;
    (ii) Identifying community resources and establishing ongoing 
collaborative relationships and partnerships with community 
organizations consistent with the requirements in Sec.  1302.53(a); 
and,
    (iii) Systematically and comprehensively addressing child and 
family needs by facilitating meaningful access to program services, 
including, at a minimum, curriculum, instruction, staffing, 
supervision, and family partnerships with bilingual staff, oral 
language assistance and interpretation, or translation of essential 
program materials, as appropriate.
    (3) The full and effective participation of all children with 
disabilities, including but not limited to children eligible for 
services under IDEA, by providing services with appropriate facilities, 
program materials, curriculum, instruction, staffing, supervision, and 
partnerships, at a minimum, consistent with section 504 of the 
Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act; and,
    (4) The management of program data to effectively support the 
availability, usability, integrity, and security of data. A program 
must establish procedures on data management, and have them approved by 
the governing body and policy council, in areas such as quality of data 
and effective use and sharing of data, while protecting the privacy of 
child records in accordance with subpart C of part 1303 of this chapter 
and applicable federal, state, local, and tribal laws.


Sec.  1302.102  Achieving program goals.

    (a) Establishing program goals. A program, in collaboration with 
the governing body and policy council, must establish goals and 
measurable objectives that include:
    (1) Strategic long-term goals for ensuring programs are and remain 
responsive to community needs as identified in their community 
assessment as described in subpart A of this part;
    (2) Goals for the provision of educational, health, nutritional, 
and family and community engagement program services as described in 
the program performance standards to further promote the school 
readiness of enrolled children;
    (3) School readiness goals that are aligned with the Head Start 
Early Learning Outcomes Framework: Ages Birth to Five, state and tribal 
early learning standards, as appropriate, and requirements and 
expectations of schools Head Start children will attend, per the 
requirements of subpart B of part 1304 of this part; and,
    (4) Effective health and safety practices to ensure children are 
safe at all times, per the requirements in Sec. Sec.  1302.47, 
1302.90(b) and (c), 1302.92(c)(1), and 1302.94 and part 1303, subpart 
F, of this chapter.
    (b) Monitoring program performance--(1) Ongoing compliance 
oversight and correction. In order to ensure effective ongoing 
oversight and correction, a program must establish and implement a 
system of ongoing oversight that ensures effective implementation of 
the program performance standards, including ensuring child safety, and 
other applicable federal regulations as described in this part, and 
must:
    (i) Collect and use data to inform this process;
    (ii) Correct quality and compliance issues immediately, or as 
quickly as possible;
    (iii) Work with the governing body and the policy council to 
address issues during the ongoing oversight and correction process and 
during federal oversight; and,
    (iv) Implement procedures that prevent recurrence of previous 
quality and compliance issues, including previously identified 
deficiencies, safety incidents, and audit findings.
    (2) Ongoing assessment of program goals. A program must effectively 
oversee progress towards program goals on an ongoing basis and annually 
must:
    (i) Conduct a self-assessment that uses program data including 
aggregated child assessment data, and professional development and 
parent and family engagement data as appropriate, to evaluate the 
program's progress towards meeting goals established under paragraph 
(a) of this section, compliance with program performance standards 
throughout the program year, and the effectiveness of the professional 
development and family engagement systems in promoting school 
readiness;
    (ii) Communicate and collaborate with the governing body and policy 
council, program staff, and parents of enrolled children when 
conducting the annual self-assessment; and,
    (iii) Submit findings of the self-assessment, including information 
listed in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section to the responsible HHS 
official.
    (c) Using data for continuous improvement. (1) A program must 
implement a process for using data to identify program strengths and 
needs, develop and implement plans that address program needs, and 
continually evaluate compliance with program performance standards and 
progress towards achieving program goals described in paragraph (a) of 
this section.
    (2) This process must:
    (i) Ensure data is aggregated, analyzed and compared in such a way 
to assist agencies in identifying risks and informing strategies for 
continuous improvement in all program service areas;
    (ii) Ensure child-level assessment data is aggregated and analyzed 
at least three times a year, including for sub-groups, such as dual 
language learners and children with disabilities, as appropriate, 
except in programs operating fewer than 90 days, and used with other 
program data described in paragraph (c)(2)(iv) of this section to 
direct continuous improvement related to curriculum choice and 
implementation, teaching practices, professional development, program 
design and other program decisions, including changing or targeting 
scope of services; and,
    (iii) For programs operating fewer than 90 days, ensures child 
assessment data is aggregated and analyzed at least twice during the 
program operating period, including for subgroups, such as dual 
language learners and children with disabilities, as appropriate, and

[[Page 61435]]

used with other program data described in paragraph (c)(2)(iv) of this 
section to direct continuous improvement related to curriculum choice 
and implementation, teaching practices, professional development, 
program design and other program decisions, including changing or 
targeting scope of services;
    (iv) Use information from ongoing monitoring and the annual self-
assessment, and program data on teaching practice, staffing and 
professional development, child-level assessments, family needs 
assessments, and comprehensive services, to identify program needs, and 
develop and implement plans for program improvement; and,
    (v) Use program improvement plans as needed to either strengthen or 
adjust content and strategies for professional development, change 
program scope and services, refine school readiness and other program 
goals, and adapt strategies to better address the needs of sub-groups.
    (d) Reporting. (1) A program must submit:
    (i) Status reports, determined by ongoing oversight data, to the 
governing body and policy council, at least semi-annually;
    (ii) Reports, as appropriate, to the responsible HHS official 
immediately or as soon as practicable, related to any significant 
incidents affecting the health and safety of program participants, 
circumstances affecting the financial viability of the program, 
breaches of personally identifiable information, or program involvement 
in legal proceedings, any matter for which notification or a report to 
state, tribal, or local authorities is required by applicable law, 
including at a minimum:
    (A) Any reports regarding agency staff or volunteer compliance with 
federal, state, tribal, or local laws addressing child abuse and 
neglect or laws governing sex offenders;
    (B) Incidents that require classrooms or centers to be closed for 
any reason;
    (C) Legal proceedings by any party that are directly related to 
program operations; and,
    (D) All conditions required to be reported under Sec.  1304.12, 
including disqualification from the Child and Adult Care Food Program 
(CACFP) and license revocation.
    (2) Annually, a program must publish and disseminate a report that 
complies with section 644(a)(2) of the Act and includes a summary of a 
program's most recent community assessment, as described in Sec.  
1302.11(b), consistent with privacy protections in subpart C of part 
1303 of this chapter.
    (3) If a program has had a deficiency identified, it must submit, 
to the responsible HHS official, a quality improvement plan as required 
in section 641A(e)(2) of the Act.


Sec.  1302.103  Implementation of program performance standards.

    (a) A current program as of November 7, 2016, must implement a 
program-wide approach for the effective and timely implementation of 
the changes to the program performance standards, including the 
purchase of materials and allocation of staff time, as appropriate.
    (b) A program's approach to implement the changes included in parts 
1301 through 1304 of this chapter must ensure adequate preparation for 
effective and timely service delivery to children and their families 
including, at a minimum, review of community assessment data to 
determine the most appropriate strategy for implementing required 
program changes, including assessing any changes in the number of 
children who can be served, as necessary, the purchase of and training 
on any curriculum, assessment, or other materials, as needed, 
assessment of program-wide professional development needs, assessment 
of staffing patterns, the development of coordinated approaches 
described in Sec.  1302.101(b), and the development of appropriate 
protections for data sharing; and children enrolled in the program on 
November 7, 2016 are not displaced during a program year and that 
children leaving Early Head Start or Head Start at the end of the 
program year following November 7, 2016 as a result of any slot 
reductions received services described in Sec. Sec.  1302.70 and 
1302.72 to facilitate successful transitions to other programs.

PART 1303--FINANCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS

Sec.
1303.1 Overview.
Subpart A--Financial Requirements
1303.2 Purpose.
1303.3 Other requirements.
1303.4 Federal financial assistance, non-federal match, and waiver 
requirements.
1303.5 Limitations on development and administrative costs.
Subpart B--Administrative Requirements
1303.10 Purpose.
1303.11 Limitations and prohibitions.
1303.12 Insurance and bonding.
Subpart C--Protections for the Privacy of Child Records
1303.20 Establishing procedures.
1303.21 Program procedures--applicable confidentiality provisions.
1303.22 Disclosures with, and without, parental consent.
1303.23 Parental rights.
1303.24 Maintaining records.
Subpart D--Delegation of Program Operations
1303.30 Grantee responsibility and accountability.
1303.31 Determining and establishing delegate agencies.
1303.32 Evaluations and corrective actions for delegate agencies.
1303.33 Termination of delegate agencies.
Subpart E--Facilities
1303.40 Purpose.
1303.41 Approval of previously purchased facilities.
1303.42 Eligibility to purchase, construct, and renovate facilities.
1303.43 Use of grant funds to pay fees.
1303.44 Applications to purchase, construct, and renovate 
facilities.
1304.45 Cost-comparison to purchase, construct, and renovate 
facilities.
1303.46 Recording and posting notices of federal interest.
1303.47 Contents of notices of federal interest.
1303.48 Grantee limitations on federal interest.
1303.49 Protection of federal interest in mortgage agreements.
1303.50 Third party leases and occupancy arrangements.
1303.51 Subordination of the federal interest.
1303.52 Insurance, bonding, and maintenance.
1303.53 Copies of documents.
1303.54 Record retention.
1303.55 Procurement procedures.
1303.56 Inspection of work.
Subpart F--Transportation
1303.70 Purpose.
1303.71 Vehicles.
1303.72 Vehicle operation.
1303.73 Trip routing.
1303.74 Safety procedures.
1303.75 Children with disabilities.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9801 et seq.


Sec.  1303.1  Overview.

    Section 641A of the Act requires that the Secretary modify as 
necessary program performance standards including administrative and 
financial management standards (section 641A(a)(1)(C)). This part 
specifies the financial and administrative requirements of agencies. 
Subpart A of this part outlines the financial requirements consistent 
with sections 640(b) and 644(b) and (c) of the Act. Subpart B of this 
part specifies the administrative requirements consistent with sections 
644(a)(1), 644(e), 653, 654, 655, 656, and 657A of the Act. Subpart C 
of this part implements the statutory provision at section 641A(b)(4) 
of the Act that directs the Secretary to ensure the confidentiality of 
any personally

[[Page 61436]]

identifiable data, information, and records collected or maintained. 
Subpart D of this part prescribes regulations for the operation of 
delegate agencies consistent with Section 641(A)(d). Subpart E of this 
part implements the statutory requirements in Section 644(c), (f) and 
(g) related to facilities. Subpart F prescribes regulations on 
transportation consistent with section 640(i) of the Act.

Subpart A--Financial Requirements


Sec.  1303.2  Purpose.

    This subpart establishes regulations applicable to program 
administration and grants management for all grants under the Act.


Sec.  1303.3  Other requirements.

    The following chart includes HHS regulations that apply to all 
grants made under the Act:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Cite                                 Title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
45 CFR part 16..............  Department grant appeals process.
45 CFR part 30..............  HHS Standards and Procedures for Claims
                               collection.
45 CFR part 46..............  Protection of human subjects.
45 CFR part 75..............  Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost
                               Principles, and Audit Requirements for
                               Federal Awards.
45 CFR part 80..............  Nondiscrimination under programs receiving
                               federal assistance through the Department
                               of Health and Human Services--
                               Effectuation of title VI and VII of the
                               Civil Rights Act of 1964.
45 CFR part 81..............  Practice and procedure for hearings under
                               part 80.
45 CFR part 84..............  Nondiscrimination on the basis of handicap
                               in federally assisted programs.
45 CFR part 87..............  Equal treatment for faith based
                               organizations.
2 CFR part 170..............  FFATA Sub-award and executive
                               compensation.
2 CFR 25.110................  CCR/DUNS requirement.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec.  1303.4  Federal financial assistance, non-federal match, and 
waiver requirements.

    In accordance with section 640(b) of the Act, federal financial 
assistance to a grantee will not exceed 80 percent of the approved 
total program costs. A grantee must contribute 20 percent as non-
federal match each budget period. The responsible HHS official may 
approve a waiver of all or a portion of the non-federal match 
requirement on the basis of the grantee's written application submitted 
for the budget period and any supporting evidence the responsible HHS 
official requires. In deciding whether to grant a waiver, the 
responsible HHS official will consider the circumstances specified at 
section 640(b) of the Act and whether the grantee has made a reasonable 
effort to comply with the non-federal match requirement.


Sec.  1303.5  Limitations on development and administrative costs.

    (a) Limitations. (1) Costs to develop and administer a program 
cannot be excessive or exceed 15 percent of the total approved program 
costs. Allowable costs to develop and administer a Head Start program 
cannot exceed 15 percent of the total approved program costs, which 
includes both federal costs and non-federal match, unless the 
responsible HHS official grants a waiver under paragraph (b) of this 
section that approves a higher percentage in order to carry out the 
purposes of the Act.
    (2) To assess total program costs and determine whether a grantee 
meets this requirement, the grantee must:
    (i) Determine the costs to develop and administer its program, 
including the local costs of necessary resources;
    (ii) Categorize total costs as development and administrative or 
program costs;
    (iii) Identify and allocate the portion of dual benefits costs that 
are for development and administration;
    (iv) Identify and allocate the portion of indirect costs that are 
for development and administration versus program costs; and,
    (v) Delineate all development and administrative costs in the grant 
application and calculate the percentage of total approved costs 
allocated to development and administration.
    (b) Waivers. (1) The responsible HHS official may grant a waiver 
for each budget period if a delay or disruption to program services is 
caused by circumstances beyond the agency's control, or if an agency is 
unable to administer the program within the 15 percent limitation and 
if the agency can demonstrate efforts to reduce its development and 
administrative costs.
    (2) If at any time within the grant funding cycle, a grantee 
estimates development and administration costs will exceed 15 percent 
of total approved costs, it must submit a waiver request to the 
responsible HHS official that explains why costs exceed the limit, that 
indicates the time period the waiver will cover, and that describes 
what the grantee will do to reduce its development and administrative 
costs to comply with the 15 percent limit after the waiver period.

Subpart B--Administrative Requirements


Sec.  1303.10  Purpose.

    A grantee must observe standards of organization, management, and 
administration that will ensure, so far as reasonably possible, that 
all program activities are conducted in a manner consistent with the 
purposes of the Act and the objective of providing assistance 
effectively, efficiently, and free of any taint of partisan political 
bias or personal or family favoritism.


Sec.  1303.11  Limitations and prohibitions.

    An agency must adhere to sections 644(e), 644(g)(3), 653, 654, 655, 
656, and 657A of the Act. These sections pertain to union organizing, 
the Davis-Bacon Act, limitations on compensation, nondiscrimination, 
unlawful activities, political activities, and obtaining parental 
consent.


Sec.  1303.12  Insurance and bonding.

    An agency must have an ongoing process to identify risks and have 
cost-effective insurance for those identified risks; a grantee must 
require the same for its delegates. The agency must specifically 
consider the risk of accidental injury to children while participating 
in the program. The grantee must submit proof of appropriate coverage 
in its initial application for funding. The process of identifying 
risks must also consider the risk of losses resulting from fraudulent 
acts by individuals authorized to disburse Head Start funds. Consistent 
with 45 CFR part 75, if the agency lacks sufficient coverage to protect 
the federal government's interest, the agency must maintain adequate 
fidelity bond coverage.

Subpart C--Protections for the Privacy of Child Records


Sec.  1303.20  Establishing procedures.

    A program must establish procedures to protect the confidentiality 
of any

[[Page 61437]]

personally identifiable information (PII) in child records.


Sec.  1303.21  Program procedures--applicable confidentiality 
provisions.

    (a) If a program is an educational agency or institution that 
receives funds under a program administered by the Department of 
Education and therefore is subject to the confidentiality provisions 
under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), then it 
must comply with those confidentiality provisions of FERPA instead of 
the provisions in this subpart.
    (b) If a program serves a child who is referred to, or found 
eligible for services under, IDEA, then a program must comply with the 
applicable confidentiality provisions in Part B or Part C of IDEA to 
protect the PII in records of those children, and, therefore, the 
provisions in this subpart do not apply to those children.


Sec.  1303.22  Disclosures with, and without, parental consent.

    (a) Disclosure with parental consent. (1) Subject to the exceptions 
in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, the procedures to protect 
PII must require the program to obtain a parent's written consent 
before the program may disclose such PII from child records.
    (2) The procedures to protect PII must require the program to 
ensure the parent's written consent specifies what child records may be 
disclosed, explains why the records will be disclosed, and identifies 
the party or class of parties to whom the records may be disclosed. The 
written consent must be signed and dated.
    (3) ``Signed and dated written consent'' under this part may 
include a record and signature in electronic form that:
    (i) Identifies and authenticates a particular person as the source 
of the electronic consent; and,
    (ii) Indicates such person's approval of the information.
    (4) The program must explain to the parent that the granting of 
consent is voluntary on the part of the parent and may be revoked at 
any time. If a parent revokes consent, that revocation is not 
retroactive and therefore it does not apply to an action that occurred 
before the consent was revoked.
    (b) Disclosure without parental consent but with parental notice 
and opportunity to refuse. The procedures to protect PII must allow the 
program to disclose such PII from child records without parental 
consent if the program notifies the parent about the disclosure, 
provides the parent, upon the parent's request, a copy of the PII from 
child records to be disclosed in advance, and gives the parent an 
opportunity to challenge and refuse disclosure of the information in 
the records, before the program forwards the records to officials at a 
program, school, or school district in which the child seeks or intends 
to enroll or where the child is already enrolled so long as the 
disclosure is related to the child's enrollment or transfer.
    (c) Disclosure without parental consent. The procedures to protect 
PII must allow the program to disclose such PII from child records 
without parental consent to:
    (1) Officials within the program or acting for the program, such as 
contractors and subrecipients, if the official provides services for 
which the program would otherwise use employees, the program determines 
it is necessary for Head Start services, and the program maintains 
oversight with respect to the use, further disclosure, and maintenance 
of child records, such as through a written agreement;
    (2) Officials within the program, acting for the program, or from a 
federal or state entity, in connection with an audit or evaluation of 
education or child development programs, or for enforcement of or 
compliance with federal legal requirements of the program; provided the 
program maintains oversight with respect to the use, further 
disclosure, and maintenance of child records, such as through a written 
agreement, including the destruction of the PII when no longer needed 
for the purpose of the disclosure, except when the disclosure is 
specifically authorized by federal law or by the responsible HHS 
official;
    (3) Officials within the program, acting for the program, or from a 
federal or state entity, to conduct a study to improve child and family 
outcomes, including improving the quality of programs, for, or on 
behalf of, the program, provided the program maintains oversight with 
respect to the use, further disclosure, and maintenance of child 
records, such as through a written agreement, including the destruction 
of the PII when no longer needed for the purpose of the disclosure;
    (4) Appropriate parties in order to address a disaster, health or 
safety emergency during the period of the emergency, or a serious 
health and safety risk such as a serious food allergy, if the program 
determines that disclosing the PII from child records is necessary to 
protect the health or safety of children or other persons;
    (5) Comply with a judicial order or lawfully issued subpoena, 
provided the program makes a reasonable effort to notify the parent 
about all such subpoenas and court orders in advance of the compliance 
therewith, unless:
    (i) A court has ordered that neither the subpoena, its contents, 
nor the information provided in response be disclosed;
    (ii) The disclosure is in compliance with an ex parte court order 
obtained by the United States Attorney General (or designee not lower 
than an Assistant Attorney General) concerning investigations or 
prosecutions of an offense listed in 18 U.S.C. 2332b(g)(5)(B) or an act 
of domestic or international terrorism as defined in 18 U.S.C. 2331.
    (iii) A parent is a party to a court proceeding directly involving 
child abuse and neglect (as defined in section 3 of the Child Abuse 
Prevention and Treatment Act (42 U.S.C. 5101)) or dependency matters, 
and the order is issued in the context of that proceeding, additional 
notice to the parent by the program is not required; or,
    (iv) A program initiates legal action against a parent or a parent 
initiates legal action against a program, then a program may disclose 
to the court, also without a court order or subpoena, the child records 
relevant for the program to act as plaintiff or defendant.
    (6) The Secretary of Agriculture or an authorized representative 
from the Food and Nutrition Service to conduct program monitoring, 
evaluations, and performance measurements for the Child and Adult Care 
Food Program under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act or 
the Child Nutrition Act of 1966, if the results will be reported in an 
aggregate form that does not identify any individual: Provided, that 
any data collected must be protected in a manner that will not permit 
the personal identification of students and their parents by other than 
the authorized representatives of the Secretary of Agriculture and any 
PII must be destroyed when the data are no longer needed for program 
monitoring, evaluations, and performance measurements;
    (7) A caseworker or other representative from a state, local, or 
tribal child welfare agency, who has the right to access a case plan 
for a child who is in foster care placement, when such agency is 
legally responsible for the child's care and protection, under state or 
tribal law, if the agency agrees in writing to protect PII, to use 
information from the child's case plan for specific purposes intended 
of addressing the child's needs, and to

[[Page 61438]]

destroy information that is no longer needed for those purposes; and,
    (8) Appropriate parties in order to address suspected or known 
child maltreatment and is consistent with applicable federal, state, 
local, and tribal laws on reporting child abuse and neglect.
    (d) Written agreements. When a program establishes a written 
agreement with a third party, the procedures to protect such PII must 
require the program to annually review and, if necessary, update the 
agreement. If the third party violates the agreement, then the program 
may:
    (1) Provide the third party an opportunity to self-correct; or,
    (2) Prohibit the third party from access to records for a set 
period of time as established by the programs governing body and policy 
council.
    (e) Annual notice. The procedures to protect PII must require the 
program to annually notify parents of their rights in writing described 
in this subpart and applicable definitions in part 1305 of this 
chapter, and include in that notice a description of the types of PII 
that may be disclosed, to whom the PII may be disclosed, and what may 
constitute a necessary reason for the disclosure without parental 
consent as described in paragraph (c) of this section.
    (f) Limit on disclosing PII. A program must only disclose the 
information that is deemed necessary for the purpose of the disclosure.


Sec.  1303.23  Parental rights.

    (a) Inspect record. (1) A parent has the right to inspect child 
records.
    (2) If the parent requests to inspect child records, the program 
must make the child records available within a reasonable time, but no 
more than 45 days after receipt of request.
    (3) If a program maintains child records that contain information 
on more than one child, the program must ensure the parent only 
inspects information that pertains to the parent's child.
    (4) The program shall not destroy a child record with an 
outstanding request to inspect and review the record under this 
section.
    (b) Amend record. (1) A parent has the right to ask the program to 
amend information in the child record that the parent believes is 
inaccurate, misleading, or violates the child's privacy.
    (2) The program must consider the parent's request and, if the 
request is denied, render a written decision to the parent within a 
reasonable time that informs the parent of the right to a hearing.
    (c) Hearing. (1) If the parent requests a hearing to challenge 
information in the child record, the program must schedule a hearing 
within a reasonable time, notify the parent, in advance, about the 
hearing, and ensure the person who conducts the hearing does not have a 
direct interest in its outcome.
    (2) The program must ensure the hearing affords the parent a full 
and fair opportunity to present evidence relevant to the issues.
    (3) If the program determines from evidence presented at the 
hearing that the information in the child records is inaccurate, 
misleading, or violates the child's privacy, the program must either 
amend or remove the information and notify the parent in writing.
    (4) If the program determines from evidence presented at the 
hearing that information in the child records is accurate, does not 
mislead, or otherwise does not violate the child's privacy, the program 
must inform the parent of the right to place a statement in the child 
records that either comments on the contested information or that 
states why the parent disagrees with the program's decision, or both.
    (d) Right to copy of record. The program must provide a parent, 
free of charge, an initial copy of child records disclosed to third 
parties with parental consent and, upon parent request, an initial copy 
of child records disclosed to third parties, unless the disclosure was 
for a court that ordered neither the subpoena, its contents, nor the 
information furnished in response be disclosed.
    (e) Right to inspect written agreements. A parent has the right to 
review any written agreements with third parties.


Sec.  1303.24  Maintaining records.

    (a) A program must maintain child records in a manner that ensures 
only parents, and officials within the program or acting on behalf of 
the program have access, and such records must be destroyed within a 
reasonable timeframe after such records are no longer needed or 
required to be maintained.
    (b) A program must maintain, with the child records, for as long as 
the records are maintained, information on all individuals, agencies, 
or organizations to whom a disclosure of PII from the child records was 
made (except for program officials and parents) and why the disclosure 
was made. If a program uses a web-based data system to maintain child 
records, the program must ensure such child records are adequately 
protected and maintained according to current industry security 
standards.
    (c) If a parent places a statement in the child record, the program 
must maintain the statement with the contested part of the child record 
for as long as the program maintains the record and, disclose the 
statement whenever it discloses the portion of the child record to 
which the statement relates.

Subpart D--Delegation of Program Operations


Sec.  1303.30  Grantee responsibility and accountability.

    A grantee is accountable for the services its delegate agencies 
provide. The grantee supports, oversees and ensures delegate agencies 
provide high-quality services to children and families and meet all 
applicable Head Start requirements. The grantee can only terminate a 
delegate agency if the grantee shows cause why termination is necessary 
and provides a process for delegate agencies to appeal termination 
decisions. The grantee retains legal responsibility and authority and 
bears financial accountability for the program when services are 
provided by delegate agencies.


Sec.  1303.31  Determining and establishing delegate agencies.

    (a) If a grantee enters into an agreement with another entity to 
serve children, the grantee must determine whether the agreement meets 
the definition of ``delegate agency'' in section 637(3) of the Act.
    (b) A grantee must not award a delegate agency federal financial 
assistance unless there is a written agreement and the responsible HHS 
official approves the agreement before the grantee delegates program 
operations.


Sec.  1303.32  Evaluations and corrective actions for delegate 
agencies.

    A grantee must evaluate and ensure corrective action for delegate 
agencies according to section 641A(d) of the Act.


Sec.  1303.33  Termination of delegate agencies.

    (a) If a grantee shows cause why termination is appropriate or 
demonstrates cost effectiveness, the grantee may terminate a delegate 
agency's contract.
    (b) The grantee's decision to terminate must not be arbitrary or 
capricious.
    (c) The grantee must establish a process for defunding a delegate 
agency, including an appeal of a defunding decision and must ensure the 
process is fair and timely.

[[Page 61439]]

    (d) The grantee must notify the responsible HHS official about the 
appeal and its decision.

Subpart E--Facilities


Sec.  1303.40  Purpose.

    This subpart prescribes what a grantee must establish to show it is 
eligible to purchase, construct and renovate facilities as outlined in 
section 644(c), (f) and (g) of the Act. It explains how a grantee may 
apply for funds, details what measures a grantee must take to protect 
federal interest in facilities purchased, constructed or renovated with 
grant funds, and concludes with other administrative provisions. This 
subpart applies to major renovations. It only applies to minor 
renovations and repairs, when they are included with a purchase 
application and are part of purchase costs.


Sec.  1303.41  Approval of previously purchased facilities.

    If a grantee purchased a facility after December 31, 1986, and 
seeks to use grant funds to continue to pay purchase costs for the 
facility or to refinance current indebtedness and use grant funds to 
service the resulting debt, the grantee may apply for funds to meet 
those costs. The grantee must submit an application that conforms to 
requirements in this part and in the Act to the responsible HHS 
official. If the responsible HHS official approves the grantee's 
application, Head Start funds may be used to pay ongoing purchase 
costs, which include principal and interest on approved loans.


Sec.  1303.42  Eligibility to purchase, construct, and renovate 
facilities.

    (a) Preliminary eligibility. (1) Before a grantee can apply for 
funds to purchase, construct, or renovate a facility under Sec.  
1303.44, it must establish that:
    (i) The facility will be available to Indian tribes, or rural or 
other low-income communities;
    (ii) The proposed purchase, construction or major renovation is 
within the grantee's designated service area; and,
    (iii) The proposed purchase, construction or major renovation is 
necessary because the lack of suitable facilities in the grantee's 
service area will inhibit the operation of the program.
    (2) If a program applies to construct a facility, that the 
construction of such facility is more cost-effective than the purchase 
of available facilities or renovation.
    (b) Proving a lack of suitable facilities. To satisfy paragraph 
(a)(1)(iii) of this section, the grantee must have a written statement 
from an independent real estate professional familiar with the 
commercial real estate market in the grantee's service area, that 
includes factors considered and supports how the real estate 
professional determined there are no other suitable facilities in the 
area.


Sec.  1303.43  Use of grant funds to pay fees.

    A grantee may submit a written request to the responsible HHS 
official for reasonable fees and costs necessary to determine 
preliminary eligibility under Sec.  1303.42 before it submits an 
application under Sec.  1303.44. If the responsible HHS official 
approves the grantee's application, the grantee may use federal funds 
to pay fees and costs.


Sec.  1303.44  Applications to purchase, construct, and renovate 
facilities.

    (a) Application requirements. If a grantee is preliminarily 
eligible under Sec.  1303.42 to apply for funds to purchase, construct, 
or renovate a facility, it must submit to the responsible HHS official:
    (1) A statement that explains the anticipated effect the proposed 
purchase, construction or renovation has had or will have on program 
enrollment, activities and services, and how it determined what the 
anticipated effect would be;
    (2) A deed or other document showing legal ownership of the real 
property where facilities activity is proposed, legal description of 
the facility site, and an explanation why the location is appropriate 
for the grantee's service area;
    (3) Plans and specifications for the facility, including square 
footage, structure type, the number of rooms the facility will have or 
has, how the rooms will be used, where the structure will be positioned 
or located on the building site, and whether there is space available 
for outdoor play and for parking;
    (4) Certification by a licensed engineer or architect that the 
facility is, or will be upon completion, structurally sound and safe 
for use as a Head Start facility and that the facility complies, or 
will comply upon completion, with local building codes, applicable 
child care licensing requirements, the accessibility requirements of 
the Americans with Disabilities Act, section 504 of the Rehabilitation 
Act of 1973, the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, and the 
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966;
    (5) A description of proposed renovations or repairs to make the 
facility suitable for program activities, and plans and specification 
that describe the facility after renovation or repair;
    (6) A proposed schedule that details when the grantee will acquire, 
renovate, repair and occupy the facility;
    (7) An estimate by a licensed independent certified appraiser of 
the facility's fair market value after proposed purchase and associated 
repairs and renovations construction, or major renovation is completed 
is required for all facilities activities except for major renovations 
to leased property;
    (8) The cost comparison described in Sec.  1303.45;
    (9) A statement that shows what share of the purchase, 
construction, or major renovation will be paid with grant funds and 
what the grantee proposes to contribute as a nonfederal match to the 
purchase, construction or major renovation;
    (10) A statement from a lender, if a grantee applies to use Head 
Start funds to continue purchase on a facility or refinance existing 
debt on a facility that indicates the lender is willing to comply with 
Sec.  1303.49;
    (11) The terms of any proposed or existing loan(s) related to 
purchase, construction or major renovation of the facility, including 
copies of any funding commitment letters, mortgages, promissory notes, 
potential security agreements to be entered into, information on all 
other sources of funding, construction or major renovation, and any 
restrictions or conditions imposed by other funding sources;
    (12) A Phase I environmental site assessment that describes the 
environmental condition of the proposed facility site and any 
structures on the site;
    (13) A description of the efforts by the grantee to coordinate or 
collaborate with other providers in the community to seek assistance, 
including financial assistance, prior to the use of funds under this 
section; and,
    (14) Any additional information the responsible HHS official may 
require.
    (b) Additional requirements for leased properties. (1) If a grantee 
applies to renovate leased property, it must submit to the responsible 
HHS official information described in paragraph (a) of this section, a 
copy of the existing or proposed lease agreement, and the landlord or 
lessor's consent.
    (2) If a grantee applies to purchase a modular unit it intends to 
site on leased property or on other property the grantee does not own, 
the grantee must submit to the responsible HHS official information 
described in paragraph (a) of this section and a copy of the

[[Page 61440]]

proposed lease or other occupancy agreement that will allow the grantee 
access to the modular unit for at least 15 years.
    (c) Non-federal match. Any non-federal match associated with 
facilities activities becomes part of the federal share of the 
facility.


Sec.  1303.45  Cost-comparison to purchase, construct, and renovate 
facilities.

    (a) Cost comparison. (1) If a grantee proposes to purchase, 
construct, or renovate a facility, it must submit a detailed cost 
estimate of the proposed activity, compare the costs associated with 
the proposed activity to other available alternatives in the service 
area, and provide any additional information the responsible HHS 
official requests. The grantee must demonstrate that the proposed 
activity will result in savings when compared to the costs that would 
be incurred to acquire the use of an alternative facility to carry out 
program.
    (2) In addition to requirements in paragraph (a)(1) of this 
section, the grantee must:
    (i) Identify who owns the property;
    (ii) List all costs related to the purchase, construction, or 
renovation;
    (iii) Identify costs over the structure's useful life, which is at 
least 20 years for a facility that the grantee purchased or constructed 
and at least 15 years for a modular unit the grantee renovated, and 
deferred costs, including mortgage balloon payments, as costs with 
associated due dates; and,
    (iv) Demonstrate how the proposed purchase, construction, or major 
renovation is consistent with program management and fiscal goals, 
community needs, enrollment and program options and how the proposed 
facility will support the grantee as it provides quality services to 
children and families.
    (b) Continue purchase or refinance. To use funds to continue 
purchase on a facility or to refinance an existing indebtedness, the 
grantee must compare the costs of continued purchase against the cost 
of purchasing a comparable facility in the service area over the 
remaining years of the facility's useful life. The grantee must 
demonstrate that the proposed activity will result in savings when 
compared to the cost that would be incurred to acquire the use of an 
alternative facility to carry out the program.
    (c) Multi-purpose use. If the grantee intends to use a facility to 
operate a Head Start program and for another purpose, it must disclose 
what percentage of the facility will be used for non-Head Start 
activities, along with costs associated with those activities, in 
accordance with applicable cost principles.


Sec.  1303.46  Recording and posting notices of federal interest.

    (a) Survival of federal interest. A grantee that receives funds 
under this subpart must file notices of federal interest as set forth 
in paragraph (b) of this section. Federal interest cannot be defeated 
by a grantee's failure to file a notice of federal interest.
    (b) Recording notices of federal interest. (1) If a grantee uses 
federal funds to purchase real property or a facility, excluding 
modular units, appurtenant to real property, it must record a notice of 
federal interest in the official real property records for the 
jurisdiction where the facility is or will be located. The grantee must 
file the notice of federal interest as soon as it uses Head Start funds 
to either fully or partially purchase a facility or real property where 
a facility will be constructed or as soon as it receives permission 
from the responsible HHS official to use Head Start funds to continue 
purchase on a facility.
    (2) If a grantee uses federal funds in whole or in part to 
construct a facility, it must record the notice of federal interest in 
the official real property records for the jurisdiction in which the 
facility is located as soon as it receives the notice of award to 
construct the facility.
    (3) If a grantee uses federal funds to renovate a facility that it, 
or a third party owns, the grantee must record the notice of federal 
interest in the official real property records for the jurisdiction in 
which the facility is located as soon as it receives the notice of 
award to renovate the facility.
    (4) If a grantee uses federal funds in whole or in part to purchase 
a modular unit or to renovate a modular unit, the grantee must post the 
notice of federal interest, in clearly visible locations, on the 
exterior of the modular unit and inside the modular unit.


Sec.  1303.47  Contents of notices of federal interest.

    (a) Facility and real property a grantee owns. A notice of federal 
interest for a facility, other than a modular unit, and real property 
the grantee owns or will own, must include:
    (1) The grantee's correct legal name and current mailing address;
    (2) A legal description of the real property;
    (3) Grant award number, amount and date of initial facilities 
funding award or initial use of base grant funds for ongoing purchase 
or mortgage payments;
    (4) A statement that the notice of federal interest includes funds 
awarded in grant award(s) and any Head Start funds subsequently used to 
purchase, construct or to make major renovations to the real property;
    (5) A statement that the facility and real property will only be 
used for purposes consistent with the Act and applicable Head Start 
regulations;
    (6) A statement that the facility and real property will not be 
mortgaged or used as collateral, sold or otherwise transferred to 
another party, without the responsible HHS official's written 
permission;
    (7) A statement that the federal interest cannot be subordinated, 
diminished, nullified or released through encumbrance of the property, 
transfer of the property to another party or any other action the 
grantee takes without the responsible HHS official's written 
permission;
    (8) A statement that confirms that the agency's governing body 
received a copy of the notice of federal interest prior to filing and 
the date the governing body was provided with a copy; and,
    (9) The name, title, and signature of the person who drafted the 
notice.
    (b) Facility leased by a grantee. (1) A notice of federal interest 
for a leased facility, excluding a modular unit, on land the grantee 
does not own, must be recorded in the official real property records 
for the jurisdiction where the facility is located and must include:
    (i) The grantee's correct legal name and current mailing address;
    (ii) A legal description of affected real property;
    (iii) The grant award number, amount and date of initial funding 
award or initial use of base grant funds for major renovation;
    (iv) Acknowledgement that the notice of federal interest includes 
any Head Start funds subsequently used to make major renovations on the 
affected real property;
    (v) A statement the facility and real property will only be used 
for purposes consistent with the Act and applicable Head Start 
regulations; and,
    (vi) A lease or occupancy agreement that includes the required 
information from paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (v) of this section may 
be recorded in the official real property records for the jurisdiction 
where the facility is located to serve as a notice of federal interest.
    (2) If a grantee cannot file the lease or occupancy agreement 
described in paragraph (b)(1)(vi) of this section in the official real 
property records for the jurisdiction where the facility is located, it 
may file an abstract. The abstract must include the names and addresses 
of

[[Page 61441]]

parties to the lease or occupancy agreement, terms of the lease or 
occupancy agreement, and information described in paragraphs (a)(1) 
through (9) of this section.
    (c) Modular units. A notice of federal interest on a modular unit 
the grantee purchased or renovated must be visible and clearly posted 
on the exterior of the modular and inside the modular and must include:
    (1) The grantee's correct legal name and current mailing address;
    (2) The grant award number, amount and date of initial funding 
award or initial use of base grant funds to purchase or renovate;
    (3) A statement that the notice of federal interest includes any 
Head Start funds subsequently used for major renovations to the modular 
unit;
    (4) A statement that the facility and real property will only be 
used for purposes consistent with the Act and applicable Head Start 
regulations;
    (5) A statement that the modular unit will not be mortgaged or used 
as collateral, sold or otherwise transferred to another party, without 
the responsible HHS official's written permission;
    (6) A statement that the federal interest cannot be subordinated, 
diminished, nullified or released through encumbrance of the property, 
transfer to another party, or any other action the grantee takes 
without the responsible HHS official's written permission;
    (7) A statement that the modular unit cannot be moved to another 
location without the responsible HHS official's written permission;
    (8) A statement that confirms that the agency's governing body has 
received a copy of the filed notice of federal interest and the date 
the governing body was provided with a copy; and,
    (9) The name, title, and signature of the person who completed the 
notice for the grantee agency.


Sec.  1303.48  Grantee limitations on federal interest.

    (a) A grantee cannot mortgage, use as collateral for a credit line 
or for other loan obligations, or, sell or transfer to another party, a 
facility, real property, or a modular unit it has purchased, 
constructed or renovated with Head Start funds, without the responsible 
HHS official's written permission.
    (b) A grantee must have the responsible HHS official's written 
permission before it can use real property, a facility, or a modular 
unit subject to federal interest for a purpose other than that for 
which the grantee's application was approved.


Sec.  1303.49  Protection of federal interest in mortgage agreements.

    (a) Any mortgage agreement or other security instrument that is 
secured by real property or a modular unit constructed or purchased in 
whole or in part with federal funds or subject to renovation with 
federal funds must:
    (1) Specify that the responsible HHS official can intervene in case 
the grantee defaults on, terminates or withdraws from the agreement;
    (2) Designate the responsible HHS official to receive a copy of any 
notice of default given to the grantee under the terms of the agreement 
and include the regional grants management officer's current address;
    (3) Include a clause that requires any action to foreclose the 
mortgage agreement or security agreement be suspended for 60 days after 
the responsible HHS official receives the default notice to allow the 
responsible HHS official reasonable time to respond;
    (4) Include a clause that preserves the notice of federal interest 
and the grantee's obligation for its federal share if the responsible 
HHS official fails to respond to any notice of default provided under 
this section;
    (5) Include a statement that requires the responsible HHS official 
to be paid the federal interest before foreclosure proceeds are paid to 
the lender, unless the official's rights under the notice of federal 
interest have been subordinated by a written agreement in conformance 
with Sec.  1303.51;
    (6) Include a clause that gives the responsible HHS official the 
right to cure any default under the agreement within the designated 
period to cure the default; and,
    (7) Include a clause that gives the responsible HHS official the 
right to assign or transfer the agreement to another interim or 
permanent grantee.
    (b) A grantee must immediately notify the responsible HHS official 
of any default under an agreement described in paragraph (a) of this 
section.


Sec.  1303.50  Third party leases and occupancy arrangements.

    (a) After November 7, 2016, if a grantee receives federal funds to 
purchase, construct or renovate a facility on real property the grantee 
does not own or to purchase or renovate a modular unit on real property 
the grantee does not own, the grantee must have a lease or other 
occupancy agreement of at least 30 years for purchase or construction 
of a facility and at least 15 years for a major renovation or placement 
of a modular unit.
    (b) The lease or occupancy agreement must:
    (1) Provide for the grantee's right of continued use and occupancy 
of the leased or occupied premises during the entire term of the lease;
    (2) Designate the regional grants management officer to receive a 
copy of any notice of default given to the grantee under the terms of 
the agreement and include the regional grants management officer's 
current address;
    (3) Specify that the responsible HHS official has the right to cure 
any default under the lease or occupancy agreement within the 
designated period to cure default; and,
    (4) Specify that the responsible HHS official has the right to 
transfer the lease to another interim or replacement grantee.


Sec.  1303.51  Subordination of the federal interest.

    Only the responsible HHS official can subordinate federal interest 
to the rights of a lender or other third party. Subordination 
agreements must be in writing and the mortgage agreement or security 
agreement for which subordination is requested must comply with Sec.  
1303.49. When the amount of federal funds already contributed to the 
facility exceeds the amount to be provided by the lender seeking 
subordination, the federal interest may only be subordinated if the 
grantee can show that funding is not available without subordination of 
the federal interest.


Sec.  1303.52  Insurance, bonding, and maintenance.

    (a) Purpose. If a grantee uses federal funds to purchase or 
continue purchase on a facility, excluding modular units, the grantee 
must obtain a title insurance policy for the purchase price that names 
the responsible HHS official as an additional loss payee.
    (b) Insurance coverage. (1) If a grantee uses federal funds to 
purchase or continue purchase on a facility or modular unit the grantee 
must maintain physical damage or destruction insurance at the full 
replacement value of the facility, for as long as the grantee owns or 
occupies the facility.
    (2) If a facility is located in an area the National Flood 
Insurance Program defines as high risk, the grantee must maintain flood 
insurance for as long as the grantee owns or occupies the facility.
    (3) A grantee must submit to the responsible HHS official, within 
10 days after coverage begins, proof of insurance coverage required 
under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.

[[Page 61442]]

    (c) Maintenance. A grantee must keep all facilities purchased or 
constructed in whole or in part with Head Start funds in good repair in 
accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, rules 
and regulations, including Head Start requirements, zoning 
requirements, building codes, health and safety regulations and child 
care licensing standards.


Sec.  1303.53  Copies of documents.

    A grantee must submit to the responsible HHS official, within 10 
days after filing or execution, copies of deeds, leases, loan 
instruments, mortgage agreements, notices of federal interest, and 
other legal documents related to the use of Head Start funds for 
purchase, construction, major renovation, or the discharge of any debt 
secured by the facility.


Sec.  1303.54  Record retention.

    A grantee must retain records pertinent to the lease, purchase, 
construction or renovation of a facility funded in whole or in part 
with Head Start funds, for as long as the grantee owns or occupies the 
facility, plus three years.


Sec.  1303.55  Procurement procedures.

    (a) A grantee must comply with all grants management regulations, 
including specific regulations applicable to transactions in excess of 
the current simplified acquisition threshold, cost principles, and its 
own procurement procedures, and must provide, to the maximum extent 
practical, open and full competition.
    (b) A grantee must obtain the responsible HHS official's written 
approval before it uses Head Start funds, in whole or in part, to 
contract construction or renovation services. The grantee must ensure 
these contracts are paid on a lump sum fixed-price basis.
    (c) A grantee must obtain prior written approval from the 
responsible HHS official for contract modifications that would change 
the scope or objective of a project or would materially alter the 
costs, by increasing the amount of grant funds needed to complete the 
project.
    (d) A grantee must ensure all construction and renovation contracts 
paid, in whole or in part with Head Start funds contain a clause that 
gives the responsible HHS official or his or her designee access to the 
facility, at all reasonable times, during construction and inspection.


Sec.  1303.56  Inspection of work.

    The grantee must submit to the responsible HHS official a final 
facility inspection report by a licensed engineer or architect within 
30 calendar days after the project is completed. The inspection report 
must certify that the facility complies with local building codes, 
applicable child care licensing requirements, is structurally sound and 
safe for use as a Head Start facility, complies with the access 
requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act, section 504 of the 
Rehabilitation Act, and the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, and 
complies with National Historic Preservation Act of 1966.

Subpart F--Transportation


Sec.  1303.70  Purpose.

    (a) Applicability. This rule applies to all agencies, including 
those that provide transportation services, with the exceptions and 
exclusions provided in this section, regardless of whether such 
transportation is provided directly on agency owned or leased vehicles 
or through arrangement with a private or public transportation 
provider.
    (b) Providing transportation services. (1) If a program does not 
provide transportation services, either for all or a portion of the 
children, it must provide reasonable assistance, such as information 
about public transit availability, to the families of such children to 
arrange transportation to and from its activities, and provide 
information about these transportation options in recruitment 
announcements.
    (2) A program that provides transportation services must make 
reasonable efforts to coordinate transportation resources with other 
human services agencies in its community in order to control costs and 
to improve the quality and the availability of transportation services.
    (3) A program that provides transportation services must ensure all 
accidents involving vehicles that transport children are reported in 
accordance with applicable state requirements.
    (c) Waiver. (1) A program that provides transportation services 
must comply with all provisions in this subpart. A Head Start program 
may request to waive a specific requirement in this part, in writing, 
to the responsible HHS official, as part of an agency's annual 
application for financial assistance or amendment and must submit any 
required documentation the responsible HHS official deems necessary to 
support the waiver. The responsible HHS official is not authorized to 
waive any requirements with regard to children enrolled in an Early 
Head Start program. A program may request a waiver when:
    (i) Adherence to a requirement in this part would create a safety 
hazard in the circumstances faced by the agency; and,
    (ii) For preschool children, compliance with requirements related 
to child restraint systems at Sec. Sec.  1303.71(d) and 1303.72(a)(1) 
or bus monitors at Sec.  1303.72(a)(4) will result in a significant 
disruption to the program and the agency demonstrates that waiving such 
requirements is in the best interest of the children involved.
    (2) The responsible HHS official is not authorized to waive any 
requirements of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) made 
applicable to any class of vehicle under 49 CFR part 571.


Sec.  1303.71  Vehicles.

    (a) Required use of schools buses or allowable alternative 
vehicles. A program, with the exception of transportation services to 
children served under a home-based option, must ensure all vehicles 
used or purchased with grant funds to provide transportation services 
to enrolled children are school buses or allowable alternate vehicles 
that are equipped for use of height- and weight-appropriate child 
restraint systems, and that have reverse beepers.
    (b) Emergency equipment. A program must ensure each vehicle used in 
providing such services is equipped with an emergency communication 
system clearly labeled and appropriate emergency safety equipment, 
including a seat belt cutter, charged fire extinguisher, and first aid 
kit.
    (c) Auxiliary seating. A program must ensure any auxiliary seating, 
such as temporary or folding jump seats, used in vehicles of any type 
providing such services are built into the vehicle by the manufacturer 
as part of its standard design, are maintained in proper working order, 
and are inspected as part of the annual inspection required under 
paragraph (e)(2)(i) of this section.
    (d) Child restraint systems. A program must ensure each vehicle 
used to transport children receiving such services is equipped for use 
of age-, height- and weight-appropriate child safety restraint systems 
as defined in part 1305 of this chapter.
    (e) Vehicle maintenance. (1) A program must ensure vehicles used to 
provide such services are in safe operating condition at all times.
    (2) The program must:
    (i) At a minimum, conduct an annual thorough safety inspection of 
each vehicle through an inspection program licensed or operated by the 
state;
    (ii) Carry out systematic preventive maintenance on vehicles; and,

[[Page 61443]]

    (iii) Ensure each driver implements daily pre-trip vehicle 
inspections.
    (f) New vehicle inspection. A program must ensure bid announcements 
for school buses and allowable alternate vehicles to transport children 
in its program include correct specifications and a clear statement of 
the vehicle's intended use. The program must ensure vehicles are 
examined at delivery to ensure they are equipped in accordance with the 
bid specifications and that the manufacturer's certification of 
compliance with the applicable FMVSS is included with the vehicle.


Sec.  1303.72  Vehicle operation.

    (a) Safety. A program must ensure:
    (1) Each child is seated in a child restraint system appropriate to 
the child's age, height, and weight;
    (2) Baggage and other items transported in the passenger 
compartment are properly stored and secured, and the aisles remain 
clear and the doors and emergency exits remain unobstructed at all 
times;
    (3) Up-to-date child rosters and lists of the adults each child is 
authorized to be released to, including alternates in case of 
emergency, are maintained and no child is left behind, either at the 
classroom or on the vehicle at the end of the route; and,
    (4) With the exception of transportation services to children 
served under a home-based option, there is at least one bus monitor on 
board at all times, with additional bus monitors provided as necessary.
    (b) Driver qualifications. A program, with the exception of 
transportation services to children served under a home-based option, 
must ensure drivers, at a minimum:
    (1) In states where such licenses are granted, have a valid 
Commercial Driver's License (CDL) for vehicles in the same class as the 
vehicle the driver will operating; and,
    (2) Meet any physical, mental, and other requirements as necessary 
to perform job-related functions with any necessary reasonable 
accommodations.
    (c) Driver application review. In addition to the applicant review 
process prescribed Sec.  1302.90(b) of this chapter, a program, with 
the exception of transportation services to children served under a 
home-based option, must ensure the applicant review process for drivers 
includes, at minimum:
    (1) Disclosure by the applicant of all moving traffic violations, 
regardless of penalty;
    (2) A check of the applicant's driving record through the 
appropriate state agency, including a check of the applicant's record 
through the National Driver Register, if available;
    (3) A check that drivers qualify under the applicable driver 
training requirements in the state or tribal jurisdiction; and,
    (4) After a conditional employment offer to the applicant and 
before the applicant begins work as a driver, a medical examination, 
performed by a licensed doctor of medicine or osteopathy, establishing 
that the individual possesses the physical ability to perform any job-
related functions with any necessary accommodations.
    (d) Driver training. (1) A program must ensure any person employed 
as a driver receives training prior to transporting any enrolled child 
and receives refresher training each year.
    (2) Training must include:
    (i) Classroom instruction and behind-the-wheel instruction 
sufficient to enable the driver to operate the vehicle in a safe and 
efficient manner, to safely run a fixed route, to administer basic 
first aid in case of injury, and to handle emergency situations, 
including vehicle evacuation, operate any special equipment, such as 
wheelchair lifts, assistance devices or special occupant restraints, 
conduct routine maintenance and safety checks of the vehicle, and 
maintain accurate records as necessary; and,
    (ii) Instruction on the topics listed in Sec.  1303.75 related to 
transportation services for children with disabilities.
    (3) A program must ensure the annual evaluation of each driver of a 
vehicle used to provide such services includes an on-board observation 
of road performance.
    (e) Bus monitor training. A program must train each bus monitor 
before the monitor begins work, on child boarding and exiting 
procedures, how to use child restraint systems, completing any required 
paperwork, how to respond to emergencies and emergency evacuation 
procedures, how to use special equipment, child pick-up and release 
procedures, how to conduct and pre- and post-trip vehicle checks. Bus 
monitors are also subject to staff safety training requirements in 
Sec.  1302.47(b)(4) of this chapter including Cardio Pulmonary 
Resuscitation (CPR) and first aid.


Sec.  1303.73  Trip routing.

    (a) A program must consider safety of the children it transports 
when it plans fixed routes.
    (b) A program must also ensure:
    (1) The time a child is in transit to and from the program must not 
exceed one hour unless there is no shorter route available or any 
alternative shorter route is either unsafe or impractical;
    (2) Vehicles are not loaded beyond maximum passenger capacity at 
any time;
    (3) Drivers do not back up or make U-turns, except when necessary 
for safety reasons or because of physical barriers;
    (4) Stops are located to minimize traffic disruptions and to afford 
the driver a good field of view in front of and behind the vehicle;
    (5) When possible, stops are located to eliminate the need for 
children to cross the street or highway to board or leave the vehicle;
    (6) Either a bus monitor or another adult escorts children across 
the street to board or leave the vehicle if curbside pick-up or drop 
off is impossible; and,
    (7) Drivers use alternate routes in the case of hazardous 
conditions that could affect the safety of the children who are being 
transported, such as ice or water build up, natural gas line breaks, or 
emergency road closing.


Sec.  1303.74  Safety procedures.

    (a) A program must ensure children who receive transportation 
services are taught safe riding practices, safety procedures for 
boarding and leaving the vehicle and for crossing the street to and 
from the vehicle at stops, recognition of the danger zones around the 
vehicle, and emergency evacuation procedures, including participating 
in an emergency evacuation drill conducted on the vehicle the child 
will be riding.
    (b) A program that provides transportation services must ensure at 
least two bus evacuation drills in addition to the one required under 
paragraph (a) of this section are conducted during the program year.


Sec.  1303.75  Children with disabilities.

    (a) A program must ensure there are school buses or allowable 
alternate vehicles adapted or designed for transportation of children 
with disabilities available as necessary to transport such children 
enrolled in the program. This requirement does not apply to the 
transportation of children receiving home-based services unless school 
buses or allowable alternate vehicles are used to transport the other 
children served under the home-based option by the grantee. Whenever 
possible, children with disabilities must be transported in the same 
vehicles used to transport other children enrolled in the Head Start or 
Early Head Start program.
    (b) A program must ensure special transportation requirements in a 
child's IEP or IFSP are followed, including special pick-up and drop-
off

[[Page 61444]]

requirements, seating requirements, equipment needs, any assistance 
that may be required, and any necessary training for bus drivers and 
monitors.

PART 1304--FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

Subpart A--Monitoring, Suspension, Termination, Denial of Refunding, 
Reduction in Funding, and Their Appeals
Sec.
1304.1 Purpose.
1304.2 Monitoring.
1304.3 Suspension with notice.
1304.4 Emergency suspension without advance notice.
1304.5 Termination and denial of refunding.
1304.6 Appeal for prospective delegate agencies.
1304.7 Legal fees.
Subpart B--Designation Renewal
1304.10 Purpose and scope.
1304.11 Basis for determining whether a Head Start agency will be 
subject to an open competition.
1304.12 Grantee reporting requirements concerning certain 
conditions.
1304.13 Requirements to be considered for designation for a five-
year period when the existing grantee in a community is not 
determined to be delivering a high-quality and comprehensive Head 
Start program and is not automatically renewed.
1304.14 Tribal government consultation under the Designation Renewal 
System for when an Indian Head Start grant is being considered for 
competition.
1304.15 Designation request, review and notification process.
1304.16 Use of CLASS: Pre-K instrument in the Designation Renewal 
System.
Subpart C--Selection of Grantees Through Competition
1304.20 Selection among applicants.
Subpart D--Replacement of American Indian and Alaska Native Grantees
1304.30 Procedure for identification of alternative agency.
1304.31 Requirements of alternative agency.
1304.32 Alternative agency--prohibition.
Subpart E--Head Start Fellows Program
1304.40 Purpose.
1304.41 Fellows Program.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9801 et seq.

Subpart A--Monitoring, Suspension, Termination, Denial of 
Refunding, Reduction in Funding, and Their Appeals


Sec.  1304.1  Purpose.

    (a) Section 641A(c) of the Act requires the Secretary to monitor 
whether a grantee meets program governance, program operations, and 
financial and administrative standards described in this regulation and 
to identify areas for improvements and areas of strength as part of the 
grantee's ongoing self-assessment process. This subpart focuses on the 
monitoring process. It discusses areas of noncompliance, deficiencies, 
and corrective action through quality improvement plans.
    (b) Section 646(a) of the Act requires the Secretary to prescribe 
procedures for notice and appeal for certain adverse actions. This 
subpart establishes rules and procedures to suspend financial 
assistance to a grantee, deny a grantee's application for refunding, 
terminate, or reduce a grantee's assistance under the Act when the 
grantee improperly uses federal funds or fails to comply with 
applicable laws, regulations, policies, instructions, assurances, terms 
and conditions or, if the grantee loses its legal status or financial 
viability. This subpart does not apply to reductions to a grantee's 
financial assistance based on chronic under-enrollment procedures at 
section 641A(h) of the Act or to matters described in subpart B. This 
subpart does not apply to any administrative action based upon any 
violation, or alleged violation, of title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 
1964. Except as otherwise provided for in this subpart, the appeals and 
processes in this subpart will be governed by the Departmental Appeals 
Board regulations at 45 CFR part 16.


Sec.  1304.2  Monitoring.

    (a) Areas of noncompliance. If a responsible HHS official 
determines through monitoring, pursuant to section 641(A)(c)(1) and (2) 
of the Act, that a grantee fails to comply with any of the standards 
described in parts 1301, 1302, and 1303 of this chapter, the official 
will notify the grantee promptly in writing, identify the area of 
noncompliance, and specify when the grantee must correct the area of 
noncompliance.
    (b) Deficiencies. If the Secretary determines that a grantee meets 
one of the criteria for a deficiency, as defined in section 637(2)(C) 
of the Act, the Secretary shall inform the grantee of the deficiency. 
The grantee must correct the deficiency pursuant to section 
641A(e)(1)(B) of the Act, as the responsible HHS official determines.
    (c) Quality improvement plans. If the responsible HHS official does 
not require the grantee to correct a deficiency immediately as 
prescribed under section 641A(e)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, the grantee must 
submit to the official, for approval, a quality improvement plan that 
adheres to section 641A(e)(2)(A) of the Act.


Sec.  1304.3   Suspension with notice.

    (a) Grounds to suspend financial assistance with notice. If a 
grantee breaches or threatens to breach any requirement stated in 
Sec. Sec.  1304.3 through 1304.5, the responsible HHS official may 
suspend the grantee's financial assistance, in whole or in part, after 
it has given the grantee notice and an opportunity to show cause why 
assistance should not be suspended.
    (b) Notice requirements. (1) The responsible HHS official must 
notify the grantee in writing that ACF intends to suspend financial 
assistance, in whole or in part. The notice must:
    (i) Specify grounds for the suspension;
    (ii) Include the date suspension will become effective;
    (iii) Inform the grantee that it has the opportunity to submit to 
the responsible HHS official, at least seven days before suspension 
becomes effective, any written material it would like the official to 
consider, and to inform the grantee that it may request, in writing, no 
later than seven days after the suspension notice was mailed, to have 
an informal meeting with the responsible HHS official;
    (iv) Invite the grantee to voluntarily correct the deficiency; and,
    (v) Include a copy of this subpart.
    (2) The responsible HHS official must promptly transmit the 
suspension notice to the grantee. The notice becomes effective when the 
grantee receives the notice, when the grantee refuses delivery, or when 
the suspension notice is returned to sender unclaimed.
    (3) The responsible HHS official must send a copy of the suspension 
notice to any delegate agency whose actions or whose failures to act 
substantially caused or contributed to the proposed suspension. The 
responsible HHS official will inform the delegate agency that it is 
entitled to submit written material to oppose the suspension and to 
participate in the informal meeting, if one is held. In addition, the 
responsible HHS official may give notice to the grantee's other 
delegate agencies.
    (4) After the grantee receives the suspension notice, it has three 
days to send a copy of the notice to delegate agencies that would be 
financially affected by a suspension.
    (c) Opportunity to show cause. The grantee may submit to the 
responsible HHS official any written material to show why financial 
assistance should not be suspended. The grantee may also request, in 
writing, to have an informal meeting with the responsible HHS official. 
If the grantee requests an informal meeting, the responsible HHS 
official must schedule the meeting within seven days after the grantee 
receives the suspension notice.

[[Page 61445]]

    (d) Extensions. If the responsible HHS official extends the time or 
the date by which a grantee has to make requests or to submit material, 
it must notify the grantee in writing.
    (e) Decision. (1) The responsible HHS official will consider any 
written material presented before or during the informal meeting, as 
well as any proof the grantee has adequately corrected what led to 
suspension, and will render a decision within five days after the 
informal meeting. If no informal meeting is held, the responsible HHS 
official will render a decision within five days after it receives 
written material from all concerned parties.
    (2) If the responsible HHS official finds the grantee failed to 
show cause why ACF should not suspend financial assistance, the 
official may suspend financial assistance, in whole or in part, and 
under terms and conditions as he or she deems appropriate.
    (3) A suspension must not exceed 30 days, unless the conditions 
under section 646(a)(5)(B) are applicable or the grantee requests the 
suspension continue for an additional period of time and the 
responsible HHS official agrees.
    (4) The responsible HHS official may appoint an agency to serve as 
an interim grantee to operate the program until the grantee's 
suspension is lifted, or as otherwise provided under section 
646(a)(5)(B) of the Act.
    (f) Obligations incurred during suspension. New obligations the 
grantee incurs while under suspension are not allowed unless the 
responsible HHS official expressly authorizes them in the suspension 
notice or in an amendment to the suspension notice. Necessary and 
otherwise allowable costs which the grantee could not reasonably avoid 
during the suspension period will be allowed if they result from 
obligations the grantee properly incurred before suspension and not in 
anticipation of suspension or termination. The responsible HHS official 
may allow third-party in-kind contributions applicable to the 
suspension period to satisfy cost sharing or matching requirements.
    (g) Modify or rescind suspension. The responsible HHS official may 
modify or rescind suspension at any time, if the grantee can 
satisfactorily show that it has adequately corrected what led to 
suspension and that it will not repeat such actions or inactions. 
Nothing in this section precludes the HHS official from imposing 
suspension again for additional 30 day periods if the cause of the 
suspension has not been corrected.


Sec.  1304.4  Emergency suspension without advance notice.

    (a) Grounds to suspend financial assistance without advance notice. 
The responsible HHS official may suspend financial assistance, in whole 
or in part, without prior notice and an opportunity to show cause if 
there is an emergency situation, such as a serious risk for substantial 
injury to property or loss of project funds, a federal, state, or local 
criminal statute violation, or harm to staff or participants' health 
and safety.
    (b) Emergency suspension notification requirements. (1) The 
emergency suspension notification must:
    (i) Specify the grounds for the suspension;
    (ii) Include terms and conditions of any full or partial 
suspension;
    (iii) Inform that grantee it cannot make or incur any new 
expenditures or obligations under suspended portion of the program; 
and,
    (iv) Advise that within five days after the emergency suspension 
becomes effective, the grantee may request, in writing, an informal 
meeting with the responsible HHS official to show why the basis for the 
suspension was not valid and should be rescinded and that the grantee 
has corrected any deficiencies.
    (2) The responsible HHS official must promptly transmit the 
emergency suspension notification to the grantee that shows the date of 
receipt. The emergency suspension becomes effective upon delivery of 
the notification or upon the date the grantee refuses delivery, or upon 
return of the notification unclaimed.
    (3) Within two workdays after the grantee receives the emergency 
suspension notification, the grantee must send a copy of the notice to 
delegate agencies affected by the suspension.
    (4) The responsible HHS official must inform affected delegate 
agencies that they have the right to participate in the informal 
meeting.
    (c) Opportunity to show cause. If the grantee requests an informal 
meeting, the responsible HHS official must schedule a meeting within 
five workdays after it receives the grantee's request. The suspension 
will continue until the grantee has been afforded such opportunity and 
until the responsible HHS official renders a decision. Notwithstanding 
provisions in this section, the responsible HHS official may proceed to 
deny refunding or to initiate termination proceedings at any time even 
though the grantee's financial assistance has been suspended in whole 
or in part.
    (d) Decision. (1) The responsible HHS official will consider any 
written material presented before or during the informal meeting, as 
well as any proof the grantee has adequately corrected what led to 
suspension, and render a decision within five work days after the 
informal meeting.
    (2) If the responsible HHS official finds the grantee failed to 
show cause why suspension should be rescinded, the responsible HHS 
official may continue the suspension, in whole or in part, and under 
the terms and conditions specified in the emergency suspension 
notification.
    (3) A suspension must not exceed 30 days, unless the conditions 
under section 646(a)(5)(B) are applicable or the grantee requests the 
suspension to continue for an additional period of time and the 
responsible HHS official agrees.
    (4) The responsible HHS official may appoint an agency to serve as 
an interim grantee to operate the program until either the grantee's 
emergency suspension is lifted or a new grantee is selected.
    (e) Obligations incurred during suspension. Any new obligations the 
grantee incurs during the suspension period will not be allowed unless 
the responsible HHS official expressly authorizes them in the 
suspension notice or in an amendment to the suspension notice. 
Necessary and otherwise allowable costs which the grantee could not 
reasonably avoid during the suspension period will be allowed if those 
costs result from obligations properly incurred before suspension and 
not in anticipation of suspension, denial of refunding or termination. 
The responsible HHS official may allow third-party in-kind 
contributions applicable to the suspension period to satisfy cost 
sharing or matching requirements.
    (f) Modify or rescind suspension. The responsible HHS official may 
modify or rescind suspension at any time, if the grantee can 
satisfactorily show that is has adequately corrected what led to the 
suspension and that it will not repeat such actions or inactions. 
Nothing in this section precludes the HHS official from imposing 
suspension again for additional 30 day periods if the cause of the 
suspension has not been corrected.


Sec.  1304.5  Termination and denial of refunding.

    (a) Grounds to terminate financial assistance or deny a grantee's 
application for refunding. (1) A responsible HHS official may terminate 
financial assistance in whole or in part

[[Page 61446]]

to a grantee or deny a grantee's application for refunding.
    (2) The responsible HHS official may terminate financial assistance 
in whole or in part, or deny refunding to a grantee for any one or for 
all of the following reasons:
    (i) The grantee is no longer financially viable;
    (ii) The grantee has lost the requisite legal status or permits;
    (iii) The grantee has failed to timely correct one or more 
deficiencies as defined in the Act;
    (iv) The grantee has failed to comply with eligibility 
requirements;
    (v) The grantee has failed to comply with the Head Start grants 
administration or fiscal requirements set forth in 45 CFR part 1303;
    (vi) The grantee has failed to comply with requirements in the Act;
    (vii) The grantee is debarred from receiving federal grants or 
contracts; or
    (viii) The grantee has failed to abide by any other terms and 
conditions of its award of financial assistance, or any other 
applicable laws, regulations, or other applicable federal or state 
requirements or policies.
    (b) Notice requirements. (1) The responsible HHS official will 
notify the grantee and such notice will:
    (i) Include the legal basis for termination or adverse action as 
described in paragraph (a) of this section;
    (ii) Include factual findings on which the action is based or 
reference specific findings in another document that form the basis for 
termination or denial of refunding;
    (iii) Cite to any statutory provisions, regulations, or policy 
issuances on which ACF relies for its determination;
    (iv) Inform the grantee that it may appeal the denial or 
termination within 30 days to the Departmental Appeals Board, that the 
appeal will be governed by 45 CFR part 16, except as otherwise provided 
in the Head Start appeals regulations, that a copy of the appeal must 
sent to the responsible HHS official, and that it has the right to 
request and receive a hearing, as mandated under section 646 of the 
Act;
    (v) Inform the grantee that only its board of directors, or an 
official acting on the board's behalf can appeal the decision;
    (vi) Name the delegate agency, if the actions of that delegate are 
the basis, in whole or in part, for the proposed action; and,
    (vii) Inform the grantee that the appeal must meet requirements in 
paragraph (c) of this section; and, that if the responsible HHS 
official fails to meet requirements in this paragraph, the pending 
action may be dismissed without prejudice or remanded to reissue it 
with corrections.
    (2) The responsible HHS official must provide the grantee as much 
notice as possible, but must notify the grantee no later than 30 days 
after ACF receives the annual application for refunding, that it has 
the opportunity for a full and fair hearing on whether refunding should 
be denied.
    (c) Grantee's appeal. (1) The grantee must adhere to procedures and 
requirements for appeals in 45 CFR part 16, file the appeal with the 
Departmental Appeals Board, and serve a copy of the appeal on the 
responsible HHS official who issued the termination or denial of 
refunding notice. The grantees must also serve a copy of its appeal on 
any affected delegate.
    (2) Unless funding has been suspended, funding will continue while 
a grantee appeals a termination decision, unless the responsible HHS 
official renders an adverse decision, or unless the current budget 
period is expired. If the responsible HHS official has not rendered a 
decision by the end of the current budget period, the official will 
award the grantee interim funding until a decision is made or the 
project period ends.
    (d) Funding during suspension. If a grantee's funding is suspended, 
the grantee will not receive funding during the termination 
proceedings, or at any other time, unless the action is rescinded or 
the grantee's appeal is successful.
    (e) Interim and replacement grantees. The responsible HHS official 
may appoint an interim or replacement grantee as soon as a termination 
action is affirmed by the Departmental Appeals Board.
    (f) Opportunity to show cause. (1) If the Departmental Appeals 
Board sets a hearing for a proposed termination or denial of refunding 
action, the grantee has five workdays to send a copy of the notice it 
receives from the Departmental Appeals Board, to all delegate agencies 
that would be financially affected by termination and to each delegate 
agency identified in the notice.
    (2) The grantee must send to the Departmental Appeals Board and to 
the responsible HHS official a list of the delegate agencies it 
notified and the dates when it notified them.
    (3) If the responsible HHS official initiated proceedings because 
of a delegate agency's activities, the official must inform the 
delegate agency that it may participate in the hearing. If the delegate 
agency chooses to participate in the hearing, it must notify the 
responsible HHS official in writing within 30 days of the grantee's 
appeal. If any other delegate agency, person, agency or organization 
wishes to participate in the hearing, it may request permission to do 
so from the Departmental Appeals Board.
    (4) If the grantee fails to appear at the hearing, without good 
cause, the grantee will be deemed to have waived its right to a hearing 
and consented to have the Departmental Appeals Board make a decision 
based on the parties' written information and argument.
    (5) A grantee may waive the hearing and submit written information 
and argument for the record, within a reasonable period of time to be 
fixed by the Departmental Appeals Board.
    (6) The responsible HHS official may attempt, either personally or 
through a representative, to resolve the issues in dispute by informal 
means prior to the hearing.
    (g) Decision. The Departmental Appeals Board's decision and any 
measure the responsible HHS official takes after the decision is fully 
binding upon the grantee and its delegate agencies, whether or not they 
actually participated in the hearing.


Sec.  1304.6  Appeal for prospective delegate agencies.

    (a) Appeal. If a grantee denies, or fails to act on, a prospective 
delegate agency's funding application, the prospective delegate may 
appeal the grantee's decision or inaction.
    (b) Process for prospective delegates. To appeal, a prospective 
delegate must:
    (1) Submits the appeal, including a copy of the funding 
application, to the responsible HHS official within 30 days after it 
receives the grantee's decision; or within 30 days after the grantee 
has had 120 days to review but has not notified the applicant of a 
decision; and,
    (2) Provide the grantee with a copy of the appeal at the same time 
the appeal is filed with the responsible HHS official.
    (c) Process for grantees. When an appeal is filed with the 
responsible HHS official, the grantee must respond to the appeal and 
submit a copy of its response to the responsible HHS official and to 
the prospective delegate agency within 30 work days.
    (d) Decision. (1) The responsible HHS official will sustain the 
grantee's decision, if the official determines the grantee did not act 
arbitrarily, capriciously, or otherwise contrary to law, regulation, or 
other applicable requirements.
    (2) The responsible HHS official will render a written decision to 
each party within a reasonable timeframe. The

[[Page 61447]]

official's decision is final and not subject to further appeal.
    (3) If the responsible HHS official finds the grantee did act 
arbitrarily, capriciously, or otherwise contrary to law, regulation, or 
other applicable requirements, the grantee will be directed to 
reevaluate their applications.


Sec.  1304.7  Legal fees.

    (a) An agency is not authorized to charge to its grant legal fees 
or other costs incurred to appeal terminations, reductions of funding, 
or denials of applications of refunding decisions.
    (b) If a program prevails in a termination, reduction, or denial of 
refunding decision, the responsible HHS official may reimburse the 
agency for reasonable and customary legal fees, incurred during the 
appeal, if:
    (1) The Departmental Appeals Board overturns the responsible HHS 
official's decision;
    (2) The agency can prove it incurred fees during the appeal; and,
    (3) The agency can prove the fees incurred are reasonable and 
customary.

Subpart B--Designation Renewal


Sec.  1304.10  Purpose and scope.

    The purpose of this subpart is to set forth policies and procedures 
for the designation renewal of Head Start and Early Head Start 
programs. It is intended that these programs be administered 
effectively and responsibly; that applicants to administer programs 
receive fair and equitable consideration; and that the legal rights of 
current Head Start and Early Head Start grantees be fully protected. 
The Designation Renewal System is established in this part to determine 
whether Head Start and Early Head Start agencies deliver high-quality 
services to meet the educational, health, nutritional, and social needs 
of the children and families they serve; meet the program and financial 
requirements and standards described in section 641A(a)(1) of the Head 
Start Act; and qualify to be designated for funding for five years 
without competing for such funding as required under section 641(c) of 
the Head Start Act with respect to Head Start agencies and pursuant to 
section 645A(b)(12) and (d) with respect to Early Head Start agencies. 
A competition to select a new Head Start or Early Head Start agency to 
replace a Head Start or Early Head Start agency that has been 
terminated voluntarily or involuntarily is not part of the Designation 
Renewal System established in this Part, and is subject instead to the 
requirements of Sec.  1304.20.


Sec.  1304.11  Basis for determining whether a Head Start agency will 
be subject to an open competition.

    A Head Start or Early Head Start agency shall be required to 
compete for its next five years of funding whenever the responsible HHS 
official determines that one or more of the following seven conditions 
existed during the relevant time period covered by the responsible HHS 
official's review under Sec.  1304.15:
    (a) An agency has been determined by the responsible HHS official 
to have one or more deficiencies on a single review conducted under 
section 641A(c)(1)(A), (C), or (D) of the Act in the relevant time 
period covered by the responsible HHS official's review under Sec.  
1304.15.
    (b) An agency has been determined by the responsible HHS official 
based on a review conducted under section 641A(c)(1)(A), (C), or (D) of 
the Act during the relevant time period covered by the responsible HHS 
official's review under Sec.  1304.15 not to have:
    (1) After December 9, 2011, established program goals for improving 
the school readiness of children participating in its program in 
accordance with the requirements of section 641A(g)(2) of the Act and 
demonstrated that such goals:
    (i) Appropriately reflect the ages of children, birth to five, 
participating in the program;
    (ii) Align with the Birth to Five Head Start Child Outcomes 
Framework, state early learning guidelines, and the requirements and 
expectations of the schools, to the extent that they apply to the ages 
of children, birth to five, participating in the program and at a 
minimum address the domains of language and literacy development, 
cognition and general knowledge, approaches toward learning, physical 
well-being and motor development, and social and emotional development;
    (iii) Were established in consultation with the parents of children 
participating in the program.
    (2) After December 9, 2011, taken steps to achieve the school 
readiness goals described under paragraph (b)(1) of this section 
demonstrated by:
    (i) Aggregating and analyzing aggregate child-level assessment data 
at least three times per year (except for programs operating less than 
90 days, which will be required to do so at least twice within their 
operating program period) and using that data in combination with other 
program data to determine grantees' progress toward meeting its goals, 
to inform parents and the community of results, and to direct 
continuous improvement related to curriculum, instruction, professional 
development, program design and other program decisions; and,
    (ii) Analyzing individual ongoing, child-level assessment data for 
all children birth to age five participating in the program and using 
that data in combination with input from parents and families to 
determine each child's status and progress with regard to, at a 
minimum, language and literacy development, cognition and general 
knowledge, approaches toward learning, physical well-being and motor 
development, and social and emotional development and to individualize 
the experiences, instructional strategies, and services to best support 
each child.
    (c) An agency has been determined during the relevant time period 
covered by the responsible HHS official's review under Sec.  1304.15:
    (1) After December 9, 2011, to have an average score across all 
classrooms observed below the following minimum thresholds on any of 
the three CLASS: Pre-K domains from the most recent CLASS: Pre-K 
observation:
    (i) For the Emotional Support domain the minimum threshold is 4;
    (ii) For the Classroom Organization domain, the minimum threshold 
is 3;
    (iii) For the Instructional Support domain, the minimum threshold 
is 2;
    (2) After December 9, 2011, to have an average score across all 
classrooms observed that is in the lowest 10 percent on any of the 
three CLASS: Pre-K domains from the most recent CLASS: Pre-K 
observation among those currently being reviewed unless the average 
score across all classrooms observed for that CLASS: Pre-K domain is 
equal to or above the standard of excellence that demonstrates that the 
classroom interactions are above an exceptional level of quality. For 
all three domains, the ``standard of excellence'' is a 6.
    (d) An agency has had a revocation of its license to operate a Head 
Start or Early Head Start center or program by a state or local 
licensing agency during the relevant time period covered by the 
responsible HHS official's review under Sec.  1304.15, and the 
revocation has not been overturned or withdrawn before a competition 
for funding for the next five-year period is announced. A pending 
challenge to the license revocation or restoration of the license after 
correction of the violation shall not affect application of this 
requirement after the competition for funding for the next five-year 
period has been announced.
    (e) An agency has been suspended from the Head Start or Early Head 
Start program by ACF during the relevant time period covered by the 
responsible

[[Page 61448]]

HHS official's review under Sec.  1304.16 and the suspension has not 
been overturned or withdrawn. If there is a pending appeal and the 
agency did not have an opportunity to show cause as to why the 
suspension should not have been imposed or why the suspension should 
have been lifted if it had already been imposed under this part, the 
agency will not be required to compete based on this condition. If an 
agency has received an opportunity to show cause, the condition will be 
implemented regardless of appeal status.
    (f) An agency has been debarred from receiving federal or state 
funds from any federal or state department or agency or has been 
disqualified from the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) any 
time during the relevant time period covered by the responsible HHS 
official's review under Sec.  1304.15 but has not yet been terminated 
or denied refunding by ACF. (A debarred agency will only be eligible to 
compete for Head Start funding if it receives a waiver described in 2 
CFR 180.135.)
    (g) An agency has been determined within the twelve months 
preceding the responsible HHS official's review under Sec.  1304.15 to 
be at risk of failing to continue functioning as a going concern. The 
final determination is made by the responsible HHS official based on a 
review of the findings and opinions of an audit conducted in accordance 
with section 647 of the Act; an audit, review or investigation by a 
state agency; a review by the National External Audit Review (NEAR) 
Center; or an audit, investigation or inspection by the Department of 
Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General.


Sec.  1304.12  Grantee reporting requirements concerning certain 
conditions.

    (a) Head Start agencies must report in writing to the responsible 
HHS official within 30 working days of December 9, 2011, if the agency 
has had a revocation of a license to operate a center by a state of 
local licensing entity during the period between June 12, 2009, and 
December 9, 2011.
    (b) Head Start agencies must report in writing to the responsible 
HHS official within 10 working days of occurrence any of the following 
events following December 9, 2011:
    (1) The agency has had a revocation of a license to operate a 
center by a state or local licensing entity.
    (2) The agency has filed for bankruptcy or agreed to a 
reorganization plan as part of a bankruptcy settlement.
    (3) The agency has been debarred from receiving federal or state 
funds from any federal or state department or agency or has been 
disqualified from the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP).
    (4) The agency has received an audit, audit review, investigation 
or inspection report from the agency's auditor, a state agency, or the 
cognizant federal audit agency containing a determination that the 
agency is at risk for ceasing to be a going concern.


Sec.  1304.13  Requirements to be considered for designation for a 
five-year period when the existing grantee in a community is not 
determined to be delivering a high-quality and comprehensive Head Start 
program and is not automatically renewed.

    In order to compete for the opportunity to be awarded a five-year 
grant, an agency must submit an application to the responsible HHS 
official that demonstrates that it is the most qualified entity to 
deliver a high-quality and comprehensive Head Start or Early Head Start 
program. The application must address the criteria for selection listed 
at section 641(d)(2) of the Act for Head Start. Any agency that has had 
its Head Start or Early Head Start grant terminated for cause in the 
preceding five years is excluded from competing in such competition for 
the next five years. A Head Start or Early Head Start agency that has 
had a denial of refunding, as defined in 45 CFR part 1305, in the 
preceding five years is also excluded from competing.


Sec.  1304.14  Tribal government consultation under the Designation 
Renewal System for when an Indian Head Start grant is being considered 
for competition.

    (a) In the case of an Indian Head Start or Early Head Start agency 
determined not to be delivering a high-quality and comprehensive Head 
Start or Early Head Start program, the responsible HHS official will 
engage in government-to-government consultation with the appropriate 
tribal government or governments for the purpose of establishing a plan 
to improve the quality of the Head Start program or Early Head Start 
program operated by the Indian Head Start or Indian Early Head Start 
agency.
    (1) The plan will be established and implemented within six months 
after the responsible HHS official's determination.
    (2) Not more than six months after the implementation of that plan, 
the responsible HHS official will reevaluate the performance of the 
Indian Head Start or Early Head Start agency.
    (3) If the Indian Head Start or Early Head Start agency is still 
not delivering a high-quality and comprehensive Head Start or Early 
Head Start program, the responsible HHS official will conduct an open 
competition to select a grantee to provide services for the community 
currently being served by the Indian Head Start or Early Head Start 
agency.
    (b) A non-Indian Head Start or Early Head Start agency will not be 
eligible to receive a grant to carry out an Indian Head Start program, 
unless there is no Indian Head Start or Early Head Start agency 
available for designation to carry out an Indian Head Start or Indian 
Early Head Start program.
    (c) A non-Indian Head Start or Early Head Start agency may receive 
a grant to carry out an Indian Head Start program only until such time 
as an Indian Head Start or Indian Early Head Start agency in such 
community becomes available and is designated pursuant to this part.


Sec.  1304.15  Designation request, review and notification process.

    (a) Grantees must apply to be considered for Designation Renewal.
    (1) For the transition period, each Head Start or Early Head Start 
agency wishing to be considered to have their designation as a Head 
Start or Early Head Start agency renewed for a five year period without 
competition shall request that status from ACF within six months of 
December 9, 2011.
    (2) After the transition period, each Head Start or Early Head 
Start agency wishing to be considered to have their designation as a 
Head Start or Early Head Start agency renewed for another five year 
period without competition shall request that status from ACF at least 
12 months before the end of their five year grant period or by such 
time as required by the Secretary.
    (b) ACF will review the relevant data to determine if one or more 
of the conditions under Sec.  1304.11 were met by the Head Start and 
Early Head Start agency's program:
    (1) During the first year of the transition period, ACF shall 
review the data on each Head Start and Early Head Start agency to 
determine if any of the conditions under Sec.  1304.11(a) or (d) 
through (g) were met by the agency's program since June 12, 2009.
    (2) During the remainder of the transition period, ACF shall review 
the data on each Head Start and Early Head Start agency still under 
grants with indefinite project periods and for whom ACF has relevant 
data on all of the conditions in Sec.  1304.11(a) through (g) to 
determine if any of the conditions under Sec.  1304.11(a) or (d) 
through (g) were met by the agency's program since June 12, 2009, or if 
the conditions under Sec.  1304.11(b) or (c) existed in the agency's 
program since December 9, 2011.

[[Page 61449]]

    (3) Following the transition period, ACF shall review the data on 
each Head Start and Early Head Start agency in the fourth year of the 
grant to determine if any of the conditions under Sec.  1304.11 existed 
in the agency's program during the period of that grant.
    (c) ACF will give notice to grantees on Designation Renewal System 
status, except as provided in Sec.  1304.14:
    (1) During the first year of the transition period, ACF shall give 
written notice to all grantees meeting any of the conditions under 
Sec.  1304.11(a) or (d) through (g) since June 12, 2009, by certified 
mail return receipt requested or other system that establishes the date 
of receipt of the notice by the addressee, stating that the Head Start 
or Early Head Start agency will be required to compete for funding for 
an additional five-year period, identifying the conditions ACF found, 
and summarizing the basis for the finding. All grantees that do not 
meet any of the conditions under Sec.  1304.11(a) or (d) through (g) 
will remain under indefinite project periods until the time period 
described under paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
    (2) During the remainder of the transition period, ACF shall give 
written notice to all grantees still under grants with indefinite 
project periods and on the conditions in Sec.  1304.11(a) through (g) 
by certified mail return receipt requested or other system that 
establishes the date of receipt of the notice by the addressee stating 
either:
    (i) The Head Start or Early Head Start agency will be required to 
compete for funding for an additional five-year period because ACF 
finds that one or more conditions under Sec.  1304.11(a) through (g) 
has been met during the relevant time period described in paragraph (b) 
of this section, identifying the conditions ACF found, and summarizing 
the basis for the finding; or
    (ii) That such agency has been determined on a preliminary basis to 
be eligible for renewed funding for five years without competition 
because ACF finds that none of the conditions under Sec.  1304.11 have 
been met during the relevant time period described in paragraph (b) of 
this section. If prior to the award of that grant, ACF determines that 
the grantee has met one of the conditions under Sec.  1304.11 during 
the relevant time period described in paragraph (b) of this section, 
this determination will change and the grantee will receive notice 
under paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section that it will be required to 
compete for funding for an additional five-year period.
    (3) Following the transition period, ACF shall give written notice 
to all grantees at least 12 months before the expiration date of a Head 
Start or Early Head Start agency's then current grant by certified mail 
return receipt requested or other system that establishes the date of 
receipt of the notice by the addressee, stating:
    (i) The Head Start or Early Head Start agency will be required to 
compete for funding for an additional five-year period because ACF 
finds that one or more conditions under Sec.  1304.11 were met by the 
agency's program during the relevant time period described in paragraph 
(b) of this section, identifying the conditions ACF found, and 
summarizing the basis for the finding; or,
    (ii) That such agency has been determined on a preliminary basis to 
be eligible for renewed funding for five years without competition 
because ACF finds that none of the conditions under Sec.  1304.11 have 
been met during the relevant time period described in paragraph (b) of 
this section. If prior to the award of that grant, ACF determines that 
the grantee has met one of the conditions under Sec.  1304.11 during 
the relevant time period described in paragraph (b) of this section, 
this determination will change and the grantee will receive notice 
under paragraph (c)(3)(i) of this section that it will be required to 
compete for funding for an additional five-year period.


Sec.  1304.16  Use of CLASS: Pre-K instrument in the Designation 
Renewal System.

    Except when all children are served in a single classroom, ACF will 
conduct observations of multiple classes operated by the grantee based 
on a random sample of all classes and rate the conduct of the classes 
observed using the CLASS: Pre-K instrument. When the grantee serves 
children in its program in a single class, that class will be observed 
and rated using the CLASS: Pre-K instrument. The domain scores for that 
class will be the domain scores for the grantee for that observation. 
After the observations are completed, ACF will report to the grantee 
the scores of the classes observed during the CLASS: Pre-K observations 
in each of the domains covered by the CLASS: Pre-K instrument. ACF will 
average CLASS: Pre-K instrument scores in each domain for the classes 
operated by the agency that ACF observed to determine the agency's 
score in each domain.

Subpart C--Selection of Grantees Through Competition


Sec.  1304.20  Selection among applicants.

    (a) In selecting an agency to be designated to provide Head Start, 
Early Head Start, Migrant or Seasonal Head Start or tribal Head Start 
or Early Head Start services, the responsible HHS official will 
consider the applicable criteria at Section 641(d) of the Head Start 
Act and any other criteria outlined in the funding opportunity 
announcement.
    (b) In competitions to replace or potentially replace a grantee the 
responsible HHS official will also consider the extent to which the 
applicant supports continuity for participating children, the community 
and the continued employment of effective, well qualified personnel.
    (c) In competitions to replace or potentially replace a current 
grantee, the responsible HHS official will give priority to applicants 
that have demonstrated capacity in providing effective, comprehensive, 
and well-coordinated early childhood education and development services 
and programs to children and their families.

Subpart D--Replacement of American Indian and Alaska Native 
Grantees


Sec. 1304.30  Procedure for indentification of alternative agency.

    (a) An Indian tribe whose Head Start grant has been terminated, 
relinquished, designated for competition or which has been denied 
refunding as a Head Start agency, may identify an alternate agency and 
request the responsible HHS official to designate such agency as an 
alternative agency to provide Head Start services to the tribe if:
    (1) The tribe was the only agency that was receiving federal 
financial assistance to provide Head Start services to members of the 
tribe; and,
    (2) The tribe would be otherwise precluded from providing such 
services to its members because of the termination or denial of 
refunding.
    (b)(1) The responsible HHS official, when notifying a tribal 
grantee of the intent to terminate financial assistance or deny its 
application for refunding, or its designation for competition must 
notify the grantee that it may identify an agency and request that the 
agency serve as the alternative agency in the event that the grant is 
terminated or refunding denied, or the grant is not renewed without 
competition.
    (2) The tribe must identify the alternate agency to the responsible 
HHS official in writing.
    (3) The responsible HHS official will notify the tribe, in writing, 
whether the alternative agency proposed by the tribe is found to be 
eligible for Head Start funding and capable of operating a Head Start 
program. If the alternative agency identified by the tribe is not an 
eligible agency capable of operating a Head Start

[[Page 61450]]

program, the tribe will have 15 days from the date of the sending of 
the notification to that effect from the responsible HHS official to 
identify another agency and request that the agency be designated. The 
responsible HHS official will notify the tribe in writing whether the 
second proposed alternate agency is found to be an eligible agency 
capable of operating the Head Start program.
    (4) If the tribe does not identify an eligible, suitable 
alternative agency, a grantee will be designated under these 
regulations.
    (c) If the tribe appeals a termination of financial assistance or a 
denial of refunding, it will, consistent with the terms of Sec.  
1304.5, continue to be funded pending resolution of the appeal. 
However, the responsible HHS official and the grantee will proceed with 
the steps outlined in this regulation during the appeal process.
    (d) If the tribe does not identify an agency and request that the 
agency be appointed as the alternative agency, the responsible HHS 
official will seek a permanent replacement grantee under these 
regulations.


Sec.  1304.31  Requirements of alternative agency.

    The agency identified by the Indian tribe must establish that it 
meets all requirements established by the Head Start Act and these 
requirements for designation as a Head Start grantee and that it is 
capable of conducting a Head Start program. The responsible HHS 
official, in deciding whether to designate the proposed agency, will 
analyze the capacity and experience of the agency according to the 
criteria found in section 641(d) of the Head Start Act and Sec.  
1304.20.


Sec.  1304.32  Alternative agency--prohibition.

    (a) No agency will be designated as the alternative agency pursuant 
to this subpart if the agency includes an employee who:
    (1) Served on the administrative or program staff of the Indian 
tribal grantee described under section 646(e)(1)(A) of the Act; and
    (2) Was responsible for a deficiency that:
    (i) Relates to the performance standards or financial management 
standards described in section 641A(a)(1) of the Act; and,
    (ii) Was the basis for the termination of assistance under section 
646(e)(1)(A) of the Act or denial of refunding described in Sec.  
1304.4.
    (b) The responsible HHS official shall determine whether an 
employee was responsible for a deficiency within the meaning and 
context of this section.

Subpart E--Head Start Fellows Program


Sec.  1304.40  Purpose.

    As provided in section 648A(d) of the Act, the Head Start Fellows 
Program is designed to enhance the ability of Head Start Fellows to 
make significant contributions to Head Start and to other child 
development and family services programs.


Sec.  1304.41  Fellows Program.

    (a) Selection. An applicant must be working on the date of 
application in a local Head Start program or otherwise working in the 
field of child development and family services. The qualifications of 
the applicants for Head Start Fellowship positions will be 
competitively reviewed.
    (b) Placement. Head Start Fellows may be placed in the Head Start 
national and regional offices; local Head Start agencies and programs; 
institutions of higher education; public or private entities and 
organizations concerned with services to children and families; and 
other appropriate settings.
    (c) Restrictions. A Head Start Fellow who is not an employee of a 
local Head Start agency or program may only be placed in the national 
or regional offices within the Department of Health and Human Services 
that administer Head Start or local Head Start agencies. Head Start 
Fellows shall not be placed in any agency whose primary purpose, or one 
of whose major purposes is to influence federal, state or local 
legislation.
    (d) Duration. Head Start Fellowships will be for terms of one year, 
and may be renewed for a term of one additional year.
    (e) Status. For the purposes of compensation for injuries under 
chapter 81 of title 5, United States Code, Head Start Fellows shall be 
considered to be employees, or otherwise in the service or employment, 
of the federal government. Head Start Fellows assigned to the national 
or regional offices within the Department of Health and Human Services 
shall be considered employees in the Executive Branch of the federal 
government for the purposes of chapter 11 of title 18, United States 
Code, and for the purposes of any administrative standards of conduct 
applicable to the employees of the agency to which they are assigned.

PART 1305--DEFINITIONS

Sec.
1305.1 Purpose.
1305.2 Terms.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9801 et seq.


Sec.  1305.1  Purpose.

    The purpose of this part is to define terms for the purposes of 
this subchapter.


Sec.  1305.2  Terms.

    For the purposes of this subchapter, the following definitions 
apply:

    ACF means the Administration for Children and Families in the 
Department of Health and Human Services.
    Act means the Head Start Act, Sec. 635 et seq., Public Law 97-
35, 95 Stat. 499-511 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. Section 9801, 
et seq.).
    Agency means the body that receives the Head Start grant.
    Aggregate child-level assessment data means the data collected 
by an agency on the status and progress of the children it serves 
that have been combined to provide summary information about groups 
of children enrolled in specific classes, centers, home-based or 
other options, groups or settings, or other groups of children such 
as dual language learners, or to provide summary information by 
specific domains of development.
    Allowable alternate vehicle means a vehicle designed for 
carrying eleven or more people, including the driver, that meets all 
the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards applicable to school 
buses, except 49 CFR 571.108 and 571.131.
    Budget period means the interval of time, into which a multi-
year period of assistance (project period) is divided for budgetary 
and funding purposes.
    Case plan is defined as presented in 42 U.S.C. 675(1) which, in 
summary, is a written document that must include a number of 
specified items including, but is not limited to, a plan for safe 
and proper care of the child in foster care placement, health 
records, and a plan for ensuring the educational stability of the 
child in foster care.
    Child-level assessment data means the data collected by an 
agency on an individual child from one or more valid and reliable 
assessments of a child's status and progress, including but not 
limited to direct assessment, structured observations, checklists, 
staff or parent report measures, and portfolio records or work 
samples.
    Child records means records that:
    (1) Are directly related to the child;
    (2) Are maintained by the program, or by a party acting for the 
program; and
    (3) Include information recorded in any way, such as print, 
electronic, or digital means, including media, video, image, or 
audio format.
    Child restraint system means any device designed to restrain, 
seat, or position children that meets the current requirements of 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, Child Restraint 
Systems, 49 CFR 571.213, for children in the weight category 
established under the regulation, or any device designed to 
restrain, seat, or position children, other than a Type I seat belt 
as defined at 49 CFR 571.209, for children not in the weight 
category currently established by 49 CFR 571.213.

[[Page 61451]]

    Child with a disability is defined in the same manner as 
presented in the Head Start Act, 42 U.S.C. 9801.
    CLASS: Pre-K means The Classroom Assessment Scoring System 
(CLASS). The CLASS is an observational instrument that assesses 
classroom quality in preschool through third grade classrooms. This 
tool meets the requirements described in 641(c)(1)(D) and 
641A(c)(2)(F) of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9836(c)(1)(D) and 
9836a(c)(2)(F)). The CLASS assesses three domains of classroom 
experience: Emotional Support, Classroom Organization, and 
Instructional Support.
    (1) Emotional Support measures children's social and emotional 
functioning in the classroom, and includes four dimensions: Positive 
Climate, Negative Climate, Teacher Sensitivity and Regard for 
Student Perspectives. Positive Climate addresses the emotional 
connection, respect, and enjoyment demonstrated between teachers and 
children and among children. Negative Climate addresses the level of 
expressed negativity such as anger, hostility, or aggression 
exhibited by teachers and/or children in the classroom. Teacher 
Sensitivity addresses teachers' awareness of and responsivity to 
children's academic and emotional concerns. Regard for Student 
Perspectives addresses the degree to which teachers' interactions 
with children and classroom activities place an emphasis on 
children's interests, motivations, and points of view.
    (2) Classroom Organization measures a broad array of classroom 
processes related to the organization and management of children's 
behavior, time, and attention in the classroom. It includes three 
dimensions: Behavior Management, Productivity, and Instructional 
Learning Formats. Behavior Management addresses how effectively 
teachers monitor, prevent, and redirect behavior. Productivity 
addresses how well the classroom runs with respect to routines and 
the degree to which teachers organize activities and directions so 
that maximum time can be spent on learning activities. Instructional 
Learning Formats addresses how teachers facilitate activities and 
provide interesting materials so that children are engaged and 
learning opportunities are maximized.
    (3) Instructional Support measures the ways in which teachers 
implement curriculum to effectively support cognitive and language 
development. It includes three dimensions: Concept Development, 
Quality of Feedback, and Language Modeling. Concept Development 
addresses how teachers use instructional discussions and activities 
to promote children's higher order thinking skills in contrast to a 
focus on rote instruction. Quality of Feedback addresses how 
teachers extend children's learning through their responses to 
children's ideas, comments, and work. Language Modeling addresses 
the extent to which teachers facilitate and encourage children's 
language.
    (4) Assessments with the CLASS involve observation-based 
measurement of each dimension on a seven point scale. A score 
ranging from 1 (minimally characteristic) to 7 (highly 
characteristic) is given for each dimension and represents the 
extent to which that dimension is characteristic of that classroom. 
Relevant dimension scores are used to calculate each domain score.
    Commercial Driver's License (CDL) means a license issued by a 
state or other jurisdiction, in accordance with the standards 
contained in 49 CFR part 383, to an individual which authorizes the 
individual to operate a class of commercial motor vehicles.
    Construction means new buildings, and excludes renovations, 
alterations, additions, or work of any kind to existing buildings.
    Continuity of care means Head Start or Early Head Start services 
provided to children in a manner that promotes primary caregiving 
and minimizes the number of transitions in teachers and teacher 
assistants that children experience over the course of the day, 
week, program year, and to the extent possible, during the course of 
their participation from birth to age three in Early Head Start and 
in Head Start.
    Deficiency is defined in the same manner as presented in the 
Head Start Act, 42 U.S.C. 9801.
    Delegate agency is defined in the same manner as presented in 
the Head Start Act, 42 U.S.C. 9801.
    Development and administrative costs mean costs incurred in 
accordance with an approved Head Start budget which do not directly 
relate to the provision of program component services, including 
services to children with disabilities, as set forth and described 
in the Head Start program performance standards (45 CFR part 1304).
    Disclosure means to permit access to or the release, transfer, 
or other communication of PII contained in child records by any 
means, including oral, written, or electronic means, to any party 
except the party identified as the party that provided or created 
the record.
    Double session variation means a center-based option that 
employs a single teacher to work with one group of children in the 
morning and a different group of children in the afternoon.
    Dual benefit costs mean costs incurred in accordance with an 
approved Head Start budget which directly relate to both development 
and administrative functions and to the program component services, 
including services to children with disabilities, as set forth and 
described in the Head Start program performance standards (45 CFR 
part 1304).
    Dual language learner means a child who is acquiring two or more 
languages at the same time, or a child who is learning a second 
language while continuing to develop their first language. The term 
``dual language learner'' may encompass or overlap substantially 
with other terms frequently used, such as bilingual, English 
language learner (ELL), Limited English Proficient (LEP), English 
learner, and children who speak a Language Other Than English 
(LOTE).
    Early Head Start agency means a public or private non-profit or 
for-profit entity designated by ACF to operate an Early Head Start 
program to serve pregnant women and children from birth to age 
three, pursuant to Section 645A(e) of the Head Start Act.
    Enrolled (or any variation of) means a child has been accepted 
and attended at least one class for center-based or family child 
care option or at least one home visit for the home-based option.
    Enrollment year means the period of time, not to exceed twelve 
months, during which a Head Start program provides center or home-
based services to a group of children and their families.
    Facility means a structure, such as a building or modular unit, 
appropriate for use in carrying out a Head Start program and used 
primarily to provide Head Start services, including services to 
children and their families, or for administrative purposes or other 
activities necessary to carry out a Head Start program.
    Family means all persons living in the same household who are 
supported by the child's parent(s)' or guardian(s)' income; and are 
related to the child's parent(s) or guardian(s) by blood, marriage, 
or adoption; or are the child's authorized caregiver or legally 
responsible party.
    Federal interest is a property right which secures the right of 
the federal awarding agency to recover the current fair market value 
of its percentage of participation in the cost of the facility in 
the event the facility is no longer used for Head Start purposes by 
the grantee or upon the disposition of the property. When a grantee 
uses Head Start funds to purchase, construct or renovate a facility, 
or make mortgage payments, it creates a federal interest. The 
federal interest includes any portion of the cost of purchase, 
construction, or renovation contributed by or for the entity, or a 
related donor organization, to satisfy a matching requirement.
    Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) means the 
National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration's standards for 
motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment (49 CFR part 571) 
established under section 30111 of Title 49, United States Code.
    Financial viability means that an organization is able to meet 
its financial obligations, balance funding and expenses and maintain 
sufficient funding to achieve organizational goals and objectives.
    Fixed route means the established routes to be traveled on a 
regular basis by vehicles that transport children to and from Head 
Start or Early Head Start program activities, and which include 
specifically designated stops where children board or exit the 
vehicle.
    Foster care means 24-hour substitute care for children placed 
away from their parents or guardians and for whom the state agency 
has placement and care responsibility. This includes, but is not 
limited to, placements in foster family homes, foster homes of 
relatives, group homes, emergency shelters, residential facilities, 
child-care institutions, and pre-adoptive homes. A child is in 
foster care in accordance with this definition regardless of whether 
the foster care facility is licensed and payments are made by the 
state or local agency for the care of the child, whether adoption 
subsidy payments are being made prior to the finalization of an 
adoption, or whether there is federal matching of any payments that 
are made.
    Full-working-day means not less than 10 hours of Head Start or 
Early Head Start services per day.

[[Page 61452]]

    Funded enrollment means the number of participants which the 
Head Start grantee is to serve, as indicated on the grant award.
    Going concern means an organization that operates without the 
threat of liquidation for the foreseeable future, a period of at 
least 12 months.
    Grantee means the local public or private non-profit agency or 
for-profit agency which has been designated as a Head Start agency 
under 42 U.S.C. 9836 and which has been granted financial assistance 
by the responsible HHS official to operate a Head Start program.
    Head Start agency means a local public or private non-profit or 
for-profit entity designated by ACF to operate a Head Start program 
to serve children age three to compulsory school age, pursuant to 
section 641(b) and (d) of the Head Start Act.
    Head Start Early Learning Outcomes Framework: Ages Birth to Five 
means the Head Start Early Learning Outcomes Framework: Ages Birth 
to Five, which describes the skills, behaviors, and knowledge that 
programs must foster in all children. It includes five central 
domains: Approaches to Learning; Social and Emotional Development; 
Language and Literacy; Cognition; and Perceptual, Motor, and 
Physical Development. These central domains are broken into five 
domains for infants and toddlers and seven domains for preschoolers. 
Infant and Toddler domains are Approaches to Learning; Social and 
Emotional Development; Language and Communication; Cognition; and 
Perceptual, Motor, and Physical Development. Preschool domains are 
Approaches to Learning; Social and Emotional Development; Language 
and Communication; Literacy; Mathematics Development; Scientific 
Reasoning; and Perceptual, Motor, and Physical Development. Domains 
are divided into sub-domains with goals that describe broad skills, 
behaviors, and concepts that are important for school success. 
Developmental progressions describe the skills, behaviors and 
concepts that children may demonstrate as they progress. As 
described in the Head Start Act, the Framework is central to program 
operations that promote high-quality early learning environments (42 
U.S.C. 9832(21)(G)(iv)(II)(aa), 42 U.S.C. 9835(o), 42 U.S.C. 
9836(d)(2)(C), 42 U.S.C. 9836a(g)(2)(A), 42 U.S.C. 9837(f)(3)(E), 42 
U.S.C. 9837a(a)(3), 42 U.S.C. 9837a(a)(14), 42 U.S.C. 
9837b(a)(2)(B)(iii), 42 U.S.C. 9837b(a)(4)(A)(i), and 42 U.S.C. 
9837b(a)(4)(B)(iii)).
    Homeless children means the same as homeless children and youths 
in Section 725(2) of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act at 
42 U.S.C. 11434a(2).
    Home visitor means the staff member in the home-based program 
option assigned to work with parents to provide comprehensive 
services to children and their families through home visits and 
group socialization activities.
    Hours of planned class operations means hours when children are 
scheduled to attend. Professional development, training, 
orientation, teacher planning, data analysis, parent-teacher 
conferences, home visits, classroom sanitation, and transportation 
do not count toward the hours of planned class operations.
    Income means gross cash income and includes earned income, 
military income (including pay and allowances, except those 
described in Section 645(a)(3)(B) of the Act), veteran's benefits, 
Social Security benefits, unemployment compensation, and public 
assistance benefits. Additional examples of gross cash income are 
listed in the definition of ``income'' which appears in U.S. Bureau 
of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P-60-185 
(available at https://www2.census.gov/prod2/popscan/p60-185.pdf).
    Indian Head Start agency means a program operated by an Indian 
tribe (as defined by the Act) or designated by an Indian tribe to 
operate on its behalf.
    Indian tribe is defined in the same manner as presented in the 
Head Start Act, 42 U.S.C. 9801.
    Individualized Education Program is defined in the same manner 
as presented in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 
U.S.C. 1400 et seq.).
    Individualized Family Service Plan is defined in the same manner 
as presented in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 
U.S.C. 1400 et seq.).
    Legal status means the existence of an applicant or grantee as a 
public agency or organization under the law of the state in which it 
is located, or existence as a private nonprofit or for-profit agency 
or organization as a legal entity recognized under the law of the 
state in which it is located. Existence as a private non-profit 
agency or organization may be established under applicable state or 
federal law.
    Local agency responsible for implementing IDEA means the early 
intervention service provider under Part C of IDEA and the local 
educational agency under Part B of IDEA.
    Major renovation means any individual or collection renovation 
that has a cost equal to or exceeding $250,000. It excludes minor 
renovations and repairs except when they are included in a purchase 
application.
    Migrant family means, for purposes of Head Start eligibility, a 
family with children under the age of compulsory school attendance 
who changed their residence by moving from one geographic location 
to another, either intrastate or interstate, within the preceding 
two years for the purpose of engaging in agricultural work and whose 
family income comes primarily from this activity.
    Migrant or Seasonal Head Start Program means:
    (1) With respect to services for migrant farm workers, a Head 
Start program that serves families who are engaged in agricultural 
labor and who have changed their residence from one geographic 
location to another in the preceding 2-year period; and,
    (2) With respect to services for seasonal farmworkers, a Head 
Start program that serves families who are engaged primarily in 
seasonal agricultural labor and who have not changed their residence 
to another geographic location in the preceding 2-year period.
    Minor renovation means improvements to facilities, which do not 
meet the definition of major renovation.
    Modular unit means a portable prefabricated structure made at 
another location and moved to a site for use by a Head Start grantee 
to carry out a Head Start program, regardless of the manner or 
extent to which the modular unit is attached to underlying real 
property.
    National Driver Register means the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration's automated system for assisting state driver 
license officials in obtaining information regarding the driving 
records of individuals who have been denied licenses for cause; had 
their licenses denied for cause, had their licenses canceled, 
revoked, or suspended for cause, or have been convicted of certain 
serious driving offenses.
    Parent means a Head Start child's mother or father, other family 
member who is a primary caregiver, foster parent or authorized 
caregiver, guardian or the person with whom the child has been 
placed for purposes of adoption pending a final adoption decree.
    Participant means a pregnant woman or child who is enrolled in 
and receives services from a Head Start, an Early Head Start, a 
Migrant or Seasonal Head Start, or an American Indian and Alaska 
Native Head Start program.
    Personally identifiable information (PII) means any information 
that could identify a specific individual, including but not limited 
to a child's name, name of a child's family member, street address 
of the child, social security number, or other information that is 
linked or linkable to the child.
    Program means a Head Start, Early Head Start, migrant, seasonal, 
or tribal program, funded under the Act and carried out by an 
agency, or delegate agency, to provide ongoing comprehensive child 
development services.
    Program costs mean costs incurred in accordance with an approved 
Head Start budget which directly relate to the provision of program 
component services, including services to children with 
disabilities, as set forth and described in the Head Start Program 
Performance Standards (45 CFR part 1304).
    Purchase means to buy an existing facility, including outright 
purchase, down payment or through payments made in satisfaction of a 
mortgage or other loan agreement, whether principal, interest or an 
allocated portion principal and/or interest. The use of grant funds 
to make a payment under a capital lease agreement, as defined in the 
cost principles, is a purchase subject to these provisions. Purchase 
also refers to an approved use of Head Start funds to continue 
paying the cost of purchasing facilities or refinance an existing 
loan or mortgage beginning in 1987.
    Real property means land, including land improvements, 
buildings, structures and all appurtenances thereto, excluding 
movable machinery and equipment.
    Recruitment area means that geographic locality within which a 
Head Start program seeks to enroll Head Start children and families. 
The recruitment area can be the

[[Page 61453]]

same as the service area or it can be a smaller area or areas within 
the service area.
    Relevant time period means:
    (1) The 12 months preceding the month in which the application 
is submitted; or
    (2) During the calendar year preceding the calendar year in 
which the application is submitted, whichever more accurately 
reflects the needs of the family at the time of application.
    Repair means maintenance that is necessary to keep a Head Start 
facility in working condition. Repairs do not add significant value 
to the property or extend its useful life.
    Responsible HHS official means the official of the Department of 
Health and Human Services who has authority to make grants under the 
Act.
    School readiness goals mean the expectations of children's 
status and progress across domains of language and literacy 
development, cognition and general knowledge, approaches to 
learning, physical well-being and motor development, and social and 
emotional development that will improve their readiness for 
kindergarten.
    School bus means a motor vehicle designed for carrying 11 or 
more persons (including the driver) and which complies with the 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards applicable to school buses.
    Service area means the geographic area identified in an approved 
grant application within which a grantee may provide Head Start 
services.
    Staff means paid adults who have responsibilities related to 
children and their families who are enrolled in programs.
    State is defined in the same manner as presented in the Head 
Start Act, 42 U.S.C. 9801.
    Termination of a grant or delegate agency agreement means 
permanent withdrawal of the grantee's or delegate agency's authority 
to obligate previously awarded grant funds before that authority 
would otherwise expire. It also means the voluntary relinquishment 
of that authority by the grantee or delegate agency. Termination 
does not include:
    (1) Withdrawal of funds awarded on the basis of the grantee's or 
delegate agency's underestimate of the unobligated balance in a 
prior period;
    (2) Refusal by the funding agency to extend a grant or award 
additional funds (such as refusal to make a competing or 
noncompeting continuation renewal, extension or supplemental award);
    (3) Withdrawal of the unobligated balance as of the expiration 
of a grant; and
    (4) Annulment, i.e., voiding of a grant upon determination that 
the award was obtained fraudulently or was otherwise illegal or 
invalid from its inception.
    Total approved costs mean the sum of all costs of the Head Start 
program approved for a given budget period by the Administration for 
Children and Families, as indicated on the Financial Assistance 
Award. Total approved costs consist of the federal share plus any 
approved non-federal match, including non-federal match above the 
statutory minimum.
    Transition period means the three-year time period after 
December 9, 2011, on the Designation Renewal System during which ACF 
will convert all of the current continuous Head Start and Early Head 
Start grants into five-year grants after reviewing each grantee to 
determine if it meets any of the conditions under Sec.  1304.12 of 
this chapter that require recompetition or if the grantee will 
receive its first five-year grant non-competitively.
    Transportation services means the planned transporting of 
children to and from sites where an agency provides services funded 
under the Head Start Act. Transportation services can involve the 
pick-up and discharge of children at regularly scheduled times and 
pre-arranged sites, including trips between children's homes and 
program settings. The term includes services provided directly by 
the Head Start and Early Head Start grantee or delegate agency and 
services which such agencies arrange to be provided by another 
organization or an individual. Incidental trips, such as 
transporting a sick child home before the end of the day, or such as 
might be required to transport small groups of children to and from 
necessary services, are not included under the term.
    Verify or any variance of the word means to check or determine 
the correctness or truth by investigation or by reference.

[FR Doc. 2016-19748 Filed 9-1-16; 11:15 am]
 BILLING CODE 4184-01-P