[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 222 (Monday, November 20, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 80818-80908]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-25038]



[[Page 80817]]

Vol. 88

Monday,

No. 222

November 20, 2023

Part II





Department of Health and Human Services





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





 Administration for Children and Families





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





45 CFR Parts 1301, 1302, 1303, et al.





Supporting the Head Start Workforce and Consistent Quality Programming; 
Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 88 , No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 80818]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Administration for Children and Families

45 CFR Parts 1301, 1302, 1303, 1304, and 1305

RIN 0970-AD01


Supporting the Head Start Workforce and Consistent Quality 
Programming

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: We propose to add new requirements to the Head Start Program 
Performance Standards (HSPPS) to support and stabilize the Head Start 
workforce, including requirements for wages and benefits, breaks for 
staff, and enhanced supports for staff health and wellness. We also 
propose to enhance several existing requirements and add new 
requirements to promote consistent quality of services across Head 
Start programs. This includes proposed enhancements to requirements for 
mental health services to better integrate these services into every 
aspect of programs as well as elevate the role of mental health 
consultation to support the well-being of children, families, and 
staff. Enhancements are also proposed in the areas of family service, 
worker family assignments, identifying and meeting community needs, 
ensuring child safety, services for pregnant women and people, and 
alignment with State early childhood systems. Finally, we propose minor 
clarifications to existing standards to promote better transparency and 
clarity of understanding for grant recipients.

DATES: Consideration will be given to comments received on or before 
January 19, 2024.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by [docket number and/or 
RIN number] by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Head Start, Attention: Director of Policy 
and Planning, 330 C Street SW, 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20201.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name 
and docket number or Regulatory Information Number (RIN) for this 
rulemaking. All comments received will be posted without change to 
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 
provided.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lindsey Hutchison, Office of Head 
Start, Division of Planning, Oversight, and Policy, 202-205-8539, 
[email protected]. Telecommunications Relay users may dial 711 
first.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Statutory Authority To Issue NPRM
III. Section-by-Section Discussion of Proposed Changes
    Definition of Head Start and Related Terms (Sec.  1305.2)
    Workforce Supports: Staff Wages (Sec.  1302.90)
    The Need for Wage Requirements
    Progress to Pay Parity for Head Start Education Staff With 
Elementary School Education Staff
    Pay Scale for All Staff
    Minimum Pay Requirement
    Wage Comparability Across Head Start Preschool and Early Head 
Start
    Staff for Whom Wage Standards Apply
    Workforce Supports: Staff Benefits (Sec.  1302.90)
    Workforce Supports: Staff Wellness (Sec.  1302.93)
    Workforce Supports: Employee Engagement (Sec. Sec.  1302.92, 
1302.101)
    Mental Health Services (Subpart D; Subpart H; Subpart I)
    1302 Subpart A--Eligibility, Recruitment, Selection, Enrollment, 
and Attendance
    1302 Subpart D--Health Program Services
    Sec.  1302.40 Purpose
    Sec.  1302.41 Collaboration and Communication With Parents
    Sec.  1302.42 Child Health Status and Care
    Sec.  1302.45 Child Mental Health and Social and Emotional Well-
Being
    Sec.  1302.46 Family Support Services for Health, Nutrition, and 
Mental Health
    1302 Subpart H--Services to Enrolled Pregnant Women and People
    1302 Subpart I--Human Resources Management
    Sec.  1302.91 Staff Qualification and Competency Requirements
    Sec.  1302.93 Staff Health and Wellness
    Modernizing Head Start's Engagement With Families (Sec. Sec.  
1302.11; 1302.13; 1302.15; 1302.34; 1302.50)
    Community Assessment (Sec.  1302.11)
    Adjustment for Excessive Housing Costs for Eligibility 
Determination (Sec.  1302.12)
    Migrant and Seasonal Head Start Eligibility (Sec.  1302.12)
    Transportation & Other Barriers to Enrollment and Attendance 
(Sec. Sec.  1302.14; 1302.16)
    Serving Children With Disabilities (Sec.  1302.14)
    Ratios in Center-Based Early Head Start Programs (Sec.  1302.21)
    Center-Based Service Duration for Early Head Start (Sec.  
1302.21)
    Center-Based Service Duration for Head Start Preschool 
(Sec. Sec.  1302.21; 1302.24)
    Ratios in Family Child Care Settings (Sec.  1302.23)
    Safety Practices (Sec.  1302.47)
    Preventing and Addressing Lead Exposure (Sec.  1302.48)
    Lead in Water
    Lead in Paint
    Notification
    Conflicting Requirements
    Family Service Worker Family Assignments (Sec.  1302.52)
    Participation in Quality Rating and Improvement Systems (Sec.  
1302.53)
    Services to Enrolled Pregnant Women and People (Sec.  1302.80; 
Sec.  1302.82)
    Standards of Conduct (Sec.  1302.90)
    Staff Training To Support Child Safety (Sec. Sec.  1302.92; 
1302.101)
    Incident Reporting (Sec.  1302.102)
    Facilities Valuation (Sec.  1303.44)
    Definition of Income (Sec.  1305.2)
    Definition of Federal Interest and Major Renovations (Sec.  
1305.2)
    Definition of the Poverty Line (Sec.  1305.2)
    Effective Dates
    Removal of Outdated Sections
    Compliance With Sec. 641A(a)(2) of the Act
    Severability
IV. Regulatory Process Matters
    Regulatory Flexibility Act
    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    Federalism Assessment Executive Order 13132
    Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 1999
    Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
V. Regulatory Impact Analysis
    Introduction and Summary
    A. Introduction
    B. Summary of Benefits, Costs, and Transfers
    Preliminary Economic Analysis of Impacts
    A. Analytic Approach
    B. Baseline: Budget, Staffing, and Slots
    Baseline Budget Scenario
    Baseline Scenario for Staffing, Wages, and Enrollment
    Connecting Baseline Uncertainty With Differing Estimates of 
Regulatory Effects
    C. Workforce Supports: Staff Wages and Staff Benefits
    Wage-Parity Targets
    Disaggregation of Wage-Parity Policy Implementation Costs
    Impact of the Minimum Pay Requirement
    Impact on Expenditures Through Wage Compression
    Overall Impacts of Wage Parity on Expenditures, Holding Benefits 
Constant
    Expenditures Associated With Fringe Benefits
    Disaggregation of Fringe Benefit Estimates
    Discussion of Uncertainty
    D. Workforce Supports: Staff Wellness--Staff Breaks
    E. Family Service Worker Family Assignments
    F. Mental Health Services
    G. Preventing and Addressing Lead Exposure
    Lead in Water
    Lead-Based Paint
    H. Administrative Costs
    I. Timing of Impacts
    J. Sensitivity Analysis--Potential Enrollment Reductions
    K. Alternative Policy Scenario: Required Retirement

[[Page 80819]]

    L. Non-Quantified Impacts of Certain Elements of the Proposed 
Rule
    Estimated Impact of Relevant Provisions on Slot Loss
    Expected Impact of Preventing and Addressing Lead Exposure 
(Sec.  1302.48)
    Additional Impact of Workforce Supports: Staff Wages and 
Benefits (Sec.  1302.90)
    Estimated Impact of Mental Health Services (Sec.  1302 Subpart 
D; Subpart H; Subpart I)
    Estimated Impact of Modernizing Engagement With Families (Sec.  
1302.11; Sec.  1302.13; Sec.  1302.15; Sec.  1302.34; Sec.  1302.50)
    Estimated Impact of Community Assessments (Sec.  1302.11)
    Estimated Impact of Adjustment for Excessive Shelter Costs for 
Eligibility Determination (Sec.  1302.12)
    Estimated Impact of Migrant and Seasonal Head Start Eligibility 
(Sec.  1302.12)
    Estimated Impact of Serving Children With Disabilities (Sec.  
1302.14)
    Expected Benefits of Ratios in Center-Based Early Head Start 
Programs (Sec.  1302.21)
    Expected Benefits of Center-Based Service Duration for Early 
Head Start (Sec.  1302.21)
    Expected Benefits of Family Service Worker Family Assignments 
(Sec.  1302.52)
    Expected Benefits of Participation in Quality Rating and 
Improvement Systems (Sec.  1302.53)
    Expected Benefits of Services to Enrolled Pregnant People (Sec.  
1302.80; Sec.  1302.82)
    Expected Benefits of Standards of Conduct (Sec.  1302.90)
    Expected Benefits of Staff Training To Support Child Safety 
(Sec.  1302.92; Sec.  1302.101)
    Expected Benefits of Definition of Income (Sec.  1305.2)
    Initial Small Entity Analysis
    A. Description and Number of Affected Small Entities
    B. Description of the Potential Impacts of the Rule on Small 
Entities
    C. Alternatives To Minimize the Burden on Small Entities

I. Background

    The Federal Head Start program provides early education and other 
comprehensive services to children birth to age 5 and during pregnancy 
in center- and home-based settings across the country. Since its 
inception in 1965, Head Start has been a leader in providing high-
quality services that support the development of children from low-
income families, helping them enter kindergarten more prepared to 
succeed in school and in life. Evidence continues to support the 
positive outcomes for children and families who participate in and 
graduate from Head Start programs.\1\ The most essential component to 
accomplishing Head Start's mission of providing high-quality early 
childhood education and comprehensive services is the workforce of 
approximately 260,000 staff \2\ that provide the services to children 
and families each day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Deming, D. (2009). Early Childhood Intervention and Life-
Cycle Skill Development: Evidence from Head Start. American Economic 
Journal: Applied Economics, 1:3, 111-134.; Lipscomb, S.T., Pratt, 
M.E., Schmitt, S.A., Pears, K.C., and Kim, H.K. (2013). School 
readiness is children living in non-parental care: Impacts of Head 
Start. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 31 (1), 28-37.
    \2\ Source: Head Start 2022 Program Information Report (PIR).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, due to a severe nationwide staffing shortage, Head Start 
grant recipients across the country are struggling to retain and hire 
qualified staff to fully enroll classrooms. Early educators provide a 
critical foundation for children to learn and develop \3\ and 
positively impact children's outcomes.\4\ Strong, stable relationships 
between young children and educators are the key to promoting early 
development. If programs cannot retain high-quality staff, these 
relationships are disrupted and outcomes for children and families are 
negatively impacted.\5\ Currently, Head Start programs across the 
nation are experiencing a severe staff shortage with turnover at its 
highest point in two decades.\6\ For Head Start classroom teachers, the 
rate of turnover has more than doubled over the past decade.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Burchinal, M., Zaslow, M., & Tarullo, L. (eds.) (2016). 
Quality thresholds, features, and dosage in early care and 
education: Secondary data analyses of child outcomes. Monographs of 
the Society for Research in Child Development. 81(2).
    \4\ Choi, Y., Horm, D., Jeon, S. & Ryu, D. (2019). Do Stability 
of Care and Teacher-Child Interaction Quality Predict Child Outcomes 
in Early Head Start?, Early Education and Development, 30:3, 337-
356.
    \5\ Hamre, B., Hatfield, B., Pianta, R., Jamil, F. (2013). 
Evidence for General and Domain-Specific Elements of Teacher-Child 
Interactions: Associations with Preschool Children's Development. 
Child Development, 85:3; Grunewald, R., Nunn, R., Palmer, V. (2022). 
Examining teacher turnover in early care and education. Federal 
Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.
    \6\ Source: Head Start 2022 PIR.
    \7\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Low wages and poor benefits--despite increased expectations and 
requirements for staff--are a key driver of rapidly increasing staff 
turnover among Head Start teachers and staff. Since 2010, the share of 
Head Start Preschool teachers with a bachelor's degree increased 
substantially, but inflation-adjusted salaries for these teachers 
decreased by 2 percent.\8\ Research indicates that well compensated 
early childhood teachers and staff have lower turnover rates and 
provide higher quality services.\9\ For decades, the Head Start program 
has been subsidized by low paid workers committed to the mission; and 
the absence of clear Federal requirements for staff compensation has 
allowed this practice to continue. Urgent regulatory action is needed 
to stabilize the workforce and ensure the Head Start program can 
continue to fulfill its mission to promote strong outcomes for children 
and families. The background context and need for this regulatory 
action is expanded on further in the following paragraphs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Source: Head Start 2010-2022 PIR.
    \9\ Bassok, D., Doromal, J., Michie, M., & Wong, V. (2021). The 
Effects of Financial Incentives on Teacher Turnover in Early 
Childhood Settings: Experimental Evidence from Virginia. 
EdPolicyWorks at the University of Virginia.; Whitebook, M., Howes, 
C., & Phillips, D. (2014). Worthy Work, STILL Unlivable Wages: The 
Early Childhood Workforce 25 Years after the National Child Care 
Staffing Study. Center for the Study of Child Care Employment. 
https://cscce.berkeley.edu/publications/report/worthy-work-still-unlivable-wages/.; Whitebook, M., Sakai, L., Gerber, E., & Howes, C. 
(2001). Then & Now: Changes in Child Care Staffing, 1994-2000. 
Washington, DC: Center for the Child Care Workforce and Institute of 
Industrial Relations, University of California, Berkeley. https://cscce.berkeley.edu/publications/report/then-and-now-changes-in-child-care-saffing-1994-2000/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Through the Improving Head Start for School Readiness Act of 2007 
(the 2007 Reauthorization), which amended the Head Start Act (the Act), 
Congress required the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to 
ensure children and families receive the highest quality Head Start 
services possible. In line with this, Congress mandated HHS to revise 
the Head Start Program Performance Standards (HSPPS). Through the 2007 
Reauthorization, Congress also made a number of changes to increase 
qualifications and other requirements for staff, particularly education 
staff. This proposed rule responds to the mandate to revise and improve 
the HSPPS in the Act and makes additional revisions to the HSPPS that 
were finalized in 2016.
    The HSPPS, first published in the 1970s, are the foundation on 
which programs design and deliver high-quality, comprehensive services 
to children and their families. The HSPPS set forth the requirements 
local grant recipients must meet to support the cognitive, social, 
emotional, and healthy development of children enrolled in the program. 
They include requirements to provide education, health, mental health, 
nutrition, and family and community engagement services, as well as 
requirements for local program governance and Federal administration of 
the program. In response to requirements in the 2007 Reauthorization, 
HHS conducted a major revision of the performance standards, through a 
final rule published in 2016. In line with statutory requirements, the 
2016 overhaul of the

[[Page 80820]]

performance standards updated and enhanced program requirements to 
reflect the latest science on child development, while also 
streamlining requirements where possible, to promote stronger 
transparency and support programs to deliver more efficient and 
effective services.
    While the 2016 revision to the HSPPS gave careful attention to the 
type and quality of early education and comprehensive services to be 
provided to children and their families, as well as requirements for 
training, professional development, and qualifications for staff, other 
supports for the Head Start workforce were not included. Indeed, the 
2007 Reauthorization and the 2016 revision to the HSPPS resulted in 
enhanced requirements and responsibilities for program staff, but 
lacked specific requirements for staff pay, benefits, and other 
supports for staff wellness necessary to sustain a workforce that could 
implement those quality provisions. For instance, while qualifications 
for Head Start preschool teachers have increased dramatically over the 
past decade (52 percent nationwide had a bachelor's degree in 2010 
compared to 71 percent in 2022), inflation-adjusted salary for these 
teachers decreased by 2 percent during this timeframe, from $39,912 in 
2010 to $39,096 in 2022.\10\ Given the increased expectations and 
requirements for these staff positions without corresponding increases 
in wages, it is unsurprising that turnover among classroom teachers as 
well as other staff positions has increased markedly over the past 
decade.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Source: Head Start 2022 PIR.
    \11\ Source: Head Start 2010-2022 PIR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For decades, Head Start staff--particularly frontline staff whose 
daily job responsibilities include working directly with children and 
families--have received low, stagnant wages, poor benefits, and 
inadequate supports for health and wellness. Research demonstrates that 
low wages in the early care and education (ECE) sector are a critical 
driver of staff turnover.\12\ Frontline Head Start staff do important 
and difficult jobs to promote the development of children participating 
in Head Start and provide individualized supports to families. A strong 
relationship between a child and their early educator provides the 
foundation for all learning and development in ECE settings.\13\ 
Stability and continuity in these relationships are important for high-
quality care and for supporting positive developmental outcomes for 
children.\14\ Conversely, a higher rate of turnover among ECE staff is 
associated with lower quality services and care, as well as poorer 
developmental outcomes for children.\15\ For instance, research has 
demonstrated that turnover among early childhood educators is linked to 
worse cognitive and social developmental outcomes in children birth to 
age 5.\16\ Given this, the unprecedented rate of turnover and staff 
vacancies programs are currently experiencing is concerning and 
threatens the stability of the national Head Start program and the 
quality of services it provides, which are a critical resource for 
hundreds of thousands of families annually.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Whitebook, M., Philipps, D., & Howes, C. (2014). Worthy 
work, still unlivable wages: The early childhood workforce 25 years 
after the national child care staffing study. Center for the Study 
of Child Care Employment.
    \13\ Lippard, C.L., La Paro, K.M., Rouse, H.L., Crosby, D.A. 
(2018). A closer look at teacher-child relationships and classroom 
emotional context in preschool. Child Youth Care Forum, 47, 1-21.; 
Sabol, T.J. & Pianta, R.C. (2012). Recent Trends in Research on 
Teacher-Child Relationships. Attachment and Human Development, 
14(3), 213-231.
    \14\ Pianta, R. & Stuhlman, M.W. (2019). Teacher-child 
relationships and children's success in the first years of school. 
School Psychology Review, 33(3), 444-458; Ros Pilarz, A. & Hill, 
H.D. (2014). Unstable and multiple child care arrangements and young 
children's behavior. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 29(4), 471-
483; Tran, H. & Winsler, A.W. (2011). Teacher and center stability 
and school readiness among low-income, ethnically diverse children 
in subsidized, center-based child care. Children and Youth Services 
Review, 33(11), 2241-2252.
    \15\ Hale-Jinks, C., Knopf, H., & Kemple, K. (2006). Tackling 
teacher turnover in childcare: Understanding causes and 
consequences, identifying solutions. Childhood Education, 82, 219-
226.
    \16\ Hale-Jinks, Knopf, & Kemple (2006). Tackling teacher 
turnover in childcare: Understanding causes and consequences, 
identifying solutions. Childhood Education, 82, 219-226.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Head Start and ECE programs nationwide have faced increasing rates 
of staff turnover, a situation that has been exacerbated drastically by 
the COVID-19 pandemic. While high staff turnover rates are an issue for 
the entire ECE sector in the United States, HHS has the authority and 
opportunity to address the systemic problems driving high turnover in 
Head Start, and this NPRM proposes policies to address these issues. In 
2022, turnover across all staff positions was 19 percent, marking the 
highest rate of turnover in Head Start in over two decades, and a 
drastic jump from 13.5 percent in 2019 (prior to the COVID-19 
pandemic). While turnover rates were exacerbated by the labor market 
conditions during the pandemic, the workforce challenges in Head Start 
remain intractable even after some other industries have regained pre-
pandemic employment levels. Because Head Start serves the children and 
families most in need, it is critical the workforce is well-positioned 
to be stable as communities recover from the pandemic and during and 
after future emergencies. Thus, the changes in this proposed regulation 
are necessary in both the long and short terms. The staffing crisis 
faced by programs across the nation is an untenable situation for the 
future of Head Start. This proposed regulation is urgently needed to 
establish clearer requirements for programs to support and stabilize 
their workforce, while also serving those children and families most in 
need of Head Start services. The challenges faced by the workforce--and 
the need for Federal guardrails in the form of additional regulations--
are described in additional detail in the subsequent section, Workforce 
Supports: Staff Wages.
    This NPRM will also propose new or enhanced standards to promote 
more consistent implementation of quality services in other 
programmatic areas. Enhancements and clarifications to existing 
standards are proposed in the following areas: family service worker 
caseloads; procedures for identifying and meeting community needs, 
including consideration of transportation as a possible barrier to 
children's attendance; ensuring child safety; services for pregnant 
women and people; and better aligning with State early childhood 
systems. We also propose enhancements to requirements for mental health 
services to integrate mental health more fully into every aspect of 
program services, as well as elevate the role of mental health 
consultation to support the well-being of children, families, and 
staff. Existing requirements in the performance standards in these 
areas are broad and flexible and have contributed to wide variation in 
the quality of the implementation of those standards. For instance, 
some programs have many families (e.g., more than 100 \17\) assigned to 
one family service worker, which reduces the quality of services 
provided to each family. Many programs have also made decisions to cut 
transportation services as a primarily budgetary decision, resulting in 
families in need of services no longer being able to attend the 
program. Within constrained budgets, programs must make difficult 
choices about where to invest funds as they strive to provide high-
quality Head Start services to as many eligible children as possible. 
Programs often make decisions aimed at

[[Page 80821]]

enrolling as many children and families as possible and sometimes 
accomplish this by cutting back on critical areas of services. The 
enhancements proposed in this NPRM will promote more consistent 
implementation of program services across a variety of areas, 
ultimately improving outcomes for enrolled children and their families.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Source: Head Start 2022 PIR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, since the inception of the 2016 revision to the 
performance standards, the Administration for Children and Families 
(ACF) received feedback about areas where standards have not been 
implemented as intended in the field, or areas where standards are not 
clear. Therefore, this proposed regulation will also enhance and 
clarify standards across a variety of areas, codify certain essential 
best practices, and/or streamline processes for programs implementing 
the standards, with the goal of further improving the quality of 
services.
    Finally, the changes proposed to the HSPPS are necessary to 
maintain the quality of the Head Start program and respond to the 
current early childhood landscape which has changed dramatically since 
the HSPPS were first published in the 1970s and even since the 2016 
overhaul of the HSPPS. As discussed elsewhere, Head Start workforce 
compensation has not kept pace with inflation or with rising wages in 
other industries. Further, post-pandemic workforce recovery has been 
slow and mental and behavioral health issues have risen among children 
and adults. Head Start programs must adapt and evolve to continue 
leading the sector in quality programing for children and families. 
These factors together suggest that regulatory action is warranted and 
necessary. As explained in detail in this section and throughout the 
NPRM, stronger workforce supports are necessary to meet the purpose of 
the Act of promoting school readiness for low-income children. See 42 
U.S.C. 9831. The Act authorizes the Secretary to modify the program 
performance standards as necessary, and while the proposals here retain 
flexibility and discretion that Head Start programs are accustomed to, 
it is evident by the lagging compensation and other workforce supports 
that additional guardrails are necessary to maintain quality. Head 
Start's standards have historically provided a benchmark for high-
quality early childhood programs. This NPRM affirms that higher wages 
and benefits are a key driver of quality in early childhood.
    Establishing the new or enhanced standards described below--
particularly for the workforce--will promote higher-quality services 
for children in Head Start programs across the country and are 
necessary to ensure there is a stable workforce to maintain consistent 
operations. There will be a substantial cost associated with enacting 
the proposed standards at current Head Start funded enrollment levels. 
However, ACF asserts that the policy proposals in this NPRM are 
necessary for the Head Start program to continue to operate effectively 
and meet its mission. ACF understands that as a result of these 
necessary reforms, one potential impact could be a reduction in Head 
Start slots in some programs in order to ensure the quality of services 
delivered. The NPRM proposals contain some ability to mitigate the 
magnitude of slot loss by providing a longer implementation timeline 
for the proposed wage requirements (see a further discussion on this in 
the section on Workforce Supports: Wage Requirements). While slot loss 
is a difficult trade-off, a number of programs are already reducing 
slots because they are forced to close classrooms due to a severe 
shortage of qualified staff. The current staffing shortage needs to be 
addressed quickly, as it is imperative that programs be able to retain 
qualified staff in order to provide high-quality services to children 
and prepare them for success in elementary school and beyond.\18\ 
Failure to act would threaten the ability for Head Start to continue to 
recruit and retain effective staff and thereby deliver high-quality 
services. This action carefully balances the ability of programs to 
maintain staffing with the goal to serve as many children as possible, 
while helping stabilize the Head Start program long-term. Further, the 
establishment of new or enhanced expectations in program quality 
through the proposed standards described in this NPRM will provide a 
better foundation for more consistent implementation of high-quality 
services and provide an opportunity for future Congressional 
investments in quality improvement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Barr, A., & Gibbs, C.R. (2002). Breaking the Cycle? 
Intergenerational Effects of an Antipoverty Program in Early 
Childhood. Journal of Political Economy, 130.; Bauer, L., & 
Schanzenbach, D. (2016). The Long-Term Impact of the Head Start 
Program. The Hamilton Project, The Brookings Institution.; Deming, 
D. (2009). Early Childhood Intervention and Life-Cycle Skill 
Development: Evidence from Head Start. American Economic Journal: 
Applied Economics, 111-134. Montialoux, C. (2016). Revisiting the 
impact of Head Start. IRLE: Institute for Research on Labor and 
Employment. University of California: Berkeley; Phillips, D., 
Gormley, W., & Anderson, S. (2016). The Effects of Tulsa's CAP Head 
Start Program on Middle-School Academic Outcomes and Progress. 
Developmental Psychology 52(8), 1247-61.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Statutory Authority To Issue NPRM

    We publish this NPRM under the authority granted to the Secretary 
of Health and Human Services by sections 640(a)(5)(A)(i) and (B)(viii), 
641A, 645, 645A, 648A, and 653 of the Act (42 U.S.C. 9835, 9836a, 9840, 
9840a, 9843a, and 9848), as amended by the Improving Head Start for 
School Readiness Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110-134). Under these sections, 
the Secretary is required to establish performance standards and other 
regulations for Head Start and Early Head Start programs. Specifically, 
the Act requires the Secretary to ``. . . modify, as necessary, program 
performance standards by regulation applicable to Head Start agencies 
and programs . . .'' \19\ and explicitly directs the Secretary to 
prescribe eligibility standards, establish staff qualification goals, 
and assure the comparability of wages. This rule meets the statutory 
requirements Congress put forth in its 2007 bipartisan reauthorization 
of the Head Start and addresses Congress's mandate that called for the 
Secretary to review and revise the performance standards. As discussed 
throughout the preamble, the performance standards in this proposed 
rule build upon field knowledge and experience to codify best practices 
and ensure Head Start programs deliver high-quality education and 
comprehensive services to the children and families they serve. The 
Secretary has determined that the modifications to performance 
standards contained in this regulation are appropriate and needed to 
effectuate the goals of the performance standards and the purposes of 
the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See section 641A(a)(1) and (2) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Section-by-Section Discussion of Proposed Changes

Definition of Head Start and Related Terms (Sec.  1305.2)

    Section 1305.2 establishes definitions for key terms used 
throughout the HSPPS. These include terms to define programs that 
operate Head Start services, including Early Head Start Agency, Head 
Start Agency, and Program. We begin by explaining proposed changes to 
clarify these terms and definitions used to describe Head Start and 
Early Head Start programs. Our proposed changes will also promote more 
consistent use of these terms throughout the HSPPS and in sub-
regulatory policy guidance and training and technical assistance (TTA) 
materials developed by ACF. The proposed revised terms and definitions 
described in this section are also used throughout

[[Page 80822]]

the rest of the preamble to describe other proposed changes, where 
applicable.
    First, the term Head Start, which is not currently defined in Sec.  
1305.2, is used inconsistently throughout the current HSPPS, sometimes 
in reference to a program that serves children ages three to compulsory 
school age and other times in reference to any type of program 
authorized under the Act. Consequently, this inconsistency is also 
present throughout sub-regulatory policy and TTA documents published by 
ACF. In some cases, a footnote is used to denote that the term Head 
Start refers to programs including Head Start, Early Head Start, and 
Migrant or Seasonal Head Start (MSHS). In other cases, the phrase 
``Head Start and Early Head Start'' is used to represent all types of 
programs. This inconsistency may be challenging for those who are new 
to Head Start and troublesome for the field in the general. ACF 
recognizes the need for consistent and clear terminology in this area.
    Therefore, we propose to use the term Head Start as an umbrella 
term that represents all program types authorized under the Act. We 
propose to add to Sec.  1305.2 a definition for Head Start that states 
that Head Start refers to any program authorized under the Head Start 
Act. Furthermore, we propose to add to Sec.  1305.2 a definition for 
Head Start Preschool so that programs that provide services to children 
from age three to compulsory school age will be referred to as Head 
Start Preschool (HSP). In order to maintain consistency across 
definitions of program types, we also propose adding a definition of 
Early Head Start that refers to a program that serves pregnant women 
and children from birth to age three.
    We propose two other definitional changes to align with the revised 
terms above. First, we propose to revise the current definition of 
Program by striking ``a Head Start'' and adding ``any funded Head Start 
Preschool;'' striking ``migrant, seasonal, or'' and replacing with 
``Migrant or Seasonal Head Start;'' and striking the word ``program'' 
and adding ``or other program authorized'' after the comma.
    Furthermore, we propose to revise the definition of Head Start 
Agency to add the word ``Preschool'' after ``Head Start'' and replace 
the words after ``program'' with ``, an Early Head Start program, or 
Migrant or Seasonal Head Start program pursuant to the Head Start 
Act.'' We further propose to update the usage of these terms as they 
are used throughout the HSPPS.
    We propose to remove the term Early Head Start Agency. We further 
propose a nomenclature change of ``grantee'' to ``grant recipient''. We 
do not propose any changes to other relevant terms including Agency, 
Delegate Agency, Indian Head Start Agency, and Migrant or Seasonal Head 
Start Program.
    We believe that these revised definitions will provide more clear 
and consistent terminology when referring to the various program types 
authorized by the Act and to the entirety of Head Start. Distinguishing 
Head Start Preschool from Head Start is intended to improve 
comprehension for both experienced and novice readers of the HSPPS and 
will codify the colloquial use of the term Head Start.
    Note that ACF will not consider comments regarding changes to the 
HSPPS that purely reflect the updated usage of these terms, such as 
those throughout Part 1304 Subpart B--Designation Renewal.

Workforce Supports: Staff Wages (Sec.  1302.90)

    Section 1302.90 outlines requirements for personnel policies, 
including the establishment of personnel policies and procedures, 
background check procedures, standards of conduct, and communication 
with dual language learners. In this section, we propose the addition 
of a new paragraph (e) that outlines four areas of proposed 
requirements for wages for Head Start staff. First, we describe 
requirements for programs to make progress to pay parity with 
kindergarten to third grade teachers, for Head Start education staff 
who work directly with children as part of their daily job 
responsibilities. Head Start programs will demonstrate progress to 
parity by ensuring that Head Start educators are paid at a rate that is 
at least comparable to preschool teachers in public school settings. 
Second, we describe requirements to establish or enhance a salary 
scale, wage ladder, or other pay structure that applies to all staff in 
the program and incorporates the requirements for pay for education 
staff. Third, we describe requirements that all staff must receive a 
salary that is sufficient to cover basic costs of living in their 
geographic area, including those at the lowest end of the pay 
structure. Lastly, we describe requirements to affirm and emphasize 
that the requirements for progress to pay parity should also promote 
comparability of wages across Head Start Preschool and Early Head Start 
staff positions. Taken together, implementing this set of standards 
will stabilize and strengthen Head Start programs across the country by 
ensuring competitive wages that will promote recruitment and retention 
of qualified staff and support delivery of high-quality education and 
comprehensive services for children and families. These proposed 
standards will also support more equitable, fair wages for a workforce 
that is largely comprised of women and people of color.
    In addition to the authority to modify all program performance 
standards, the Head Start Act mandates that programs provide 
compensation that is adequate to attract and retain qualified staff to 
enhance program quality. See 42 U.S.C. 9836A(a) and 42 U.S.C. 
9835(a)(5)(i). Section 653 of the Head Start Act, 42 U.S.C. 9848 
directs the Secretary to encourage Head Start agencies to provide 
compensation according to salary scales that are based on training and 
experience. This section also directs the Secretary to take such 
actions as are necessary to assure that compensation is not in excess 
of the average rate of compensation paid in the area where the program 
is carried out to a substantial number of persons providing 
substantially comparable services as well as See 42 U.S.C. 9848. 
Historically, the Office of Head Start has seen very few instances of 
excessive compensation for staff, especially for education staff, as 
evidenced in data from the Program Information Report (PIR). Nothing in 
these proposed regulations is expected to result in the excess 
compensation described by Congress in this section. In rare cases, 
there may be some risk that positions of leadership are paid salaries 
in excess of compensation paid to similar positions. This risk should 
be addressed with a program's wage scale. However, this limit is not 
intended to suppress wages, because, as discussed herein, underpaid 
staff is a pervasive issue. This section makes it clear that staff 
salaries should be comparable to compensation in other comparable 
services, including consideration of salaries paid to elementary school 
staff. The proposed requirements will help programs design their staff 
compensation packages and salary scales while still allowing programs 
some flexibility to determine what works best for their program.
The Need for Wage Requirements
    The main goals of Head Start programs are to support the 
development of children from low-income families and to promote 
economic self-sufficiency for families through the delivery of high-
quality comprehensive services. Head Start's critical mission is 
carried out every day by the staff working with children and families. 
Strong, stable relationships between children and their early educators 
provide the foundation for

[[Page 80823]]

children to learn and develop.\20\ Indeed, research indicates that 
high-quality interactions between staff and children in ECE settings 
relate to stronger developmental outcomes for children.\21\ Conversely, 
high turnover among ECE staff is related to lower quality education and 
care and poorer outcomes for enrolled children.\22\ But, as described 
previously, Head Start programs nationwide are experiencing a severe 
shortage of staff across a variety of positions, particularly for those 
that provide direct services to children and families. The staffing 
crisis is a result of a confluence of factors, including persistently 
low, stagnant wages, particularly for frontline staff; a lack of 
comprehensive benefits; and insufficient supports for staff health and 
wellness, despite increased need for staff to be more qualified, more 
competent, and bear more complex job responsibilities. Urgent action 
and change are needed to stabilize the Head Start workforce to ensure 
the future viability of Head Start programs nationwide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Lippard, C.L., La Paro, K.M., Rouse, H.L., Crosby, D.A. 
(2018). A closer look at teacher-child relationships and classroom 
emotional context in preschool. Child Youth Care Forum, 47, 1-21; 
Sabol, T.J. & Pianta, R.C. (2012). Recent Trends in Research on 
Teacher-Child Relationships. Attachment and Human Development, 
14(3), 213-231.
    \21\ Nguyen, T., Ansari, A., Pianta, R., Whittaker, J.V., 
Vitiello, V.E., & Ruzek, E. (2020). The classroom relational 
environment and children's early development in preschool. Social 
Development, 00, 1-21; Pearlman, M., Falenchuk, O., Fletcher, B., 
McMullen, E., Beyene, J., & Shah, P. (2016). A Systematic Review and 
Meta-Analysis of a Measure of Staff/Child Interaction Quality (the 
Classroom Assessment Scoring System) in Early Childhood Education 
and Care Settings and Child Outcomes, PLOS ONE 11 (12).
    \22\ Bassok, D., Markowitz, A.J., Bellows, L., Sadowski, K. 
(2021). New Evidence on Teacher Turnover in Early Childhood. 
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 43(1), 172-180; 
Phillips, D., Austin, L.J.E., & Whitebook, M. (2016). The Early Care 
and Education Workforce. The Future of Children, 26(2), 139-158.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The qualifications, expectations, and responsibilities of Head 
Start staff have significantly increased over the past decade, first 
with the reauthorization of the Head Start Act in 2007 and then with 
the revisions to the HSPPS finalized in 2016. This increase in 
expectations and responsibilities is largely a reflection of advancing 
science in child development, particularly research on birth to 5 as an 
important period for brain development and as a critical foundation on 
which all later development builds.\23\ Relatedly, our understanding of 
what an early educator needs to know and do in order to effectively 
promote child development during this period has also advanced. A 
notable report from the National Academies for Science, Engineering, 
and Medicine provided a framework for knowledge and competencies that 
early educators need, grounded in the latest science on child 
development.\24\ A subsequent report from the National Academies 
highlighted the importance of a highly qualified ECE workforce that is 
well compensated with appropriate professional development supports and 
career opportunities, in order to provide high quality services to 
children and families.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 
(2015). Transforming the Workforce for Children Birth Through Age 8: 
A Unifying Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies 
Press.; National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. (2000). 
From Neurons to Neighborhoods: The Science of Early Childhood 
Development. Committee on Integrating the Science of Early Childhood 
Development. Jack P. Shonkoff and Deborah A. Phillips, eds. Board on 
Children, Youth, and Families, Commission on Behavioral and Social 
Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
    \24\ Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 
(2015). Transforming the Workforce for Children Birth Through Age 8: 
A Unifying Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
    \25\ National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 
(2018). Transforming the Financing of Early Care and Education. 
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, these increased expectations, qualifications, and 
requirements have not been followed by increases in compensation. As a 
result, average wages have remained low and stagnant for years, 
particularly for staff who work directly with children and families as 
their primary job responsibility. From 2010 to 2022, the share of Head 
Start Preschool teachers with a bachelor's degree increased from 52 
percent to 71 percent, but inflation-adjusted salaries for these 
teachers decreased by 2 percent during this timeframe, with an average 
teacher salary of just $39,096 in 2022 compared to $39,912 in 2010.\26\ 
By comparison, in 2022, the average salaries for a preschool teacher in 
a school-based setting and a kindergarten teacher were $53,200 and 
$65,120, respectively.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Source: Head Start 2010-2022 PIR.
    \27\ U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Occupational Employment 
and Wages. May 2022. 25-2012 Kindergarten Teachers, Except Special 
Education. https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes252012.htm; U.S. 
Bureau of Labor Statistics. Occupational Employment and Wages. May 
2022. 25-2011 Preschool Teachers, Except Special Education. https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes252011.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This is a persistent issue not just for Head Start, but also for 
the broader early childhood field. ECE as a field is comprised 
primarily of women--including a large share of women of color--doing 
work that has been historically uncompensated and led to today's 
workforce being undervalued and underpaid.\28\ Additionally, ACF 
administrative data indicates that just over 60 percent of Head Start 
education staff (i.e., teachers, assistant teachers, home visitors, and 
family child care providers) are people of color.\29\ It is critical to 
maintain and strengthen the incredible diversity of our workforce while 
we seek to fix the historic problem of a reliance on staff committed to 
the mission of early care and education that has led to an underpaid 
workforce today. This is especially important since Head Start programs 
serve a large share of children of color and there are benefits when 
program staff reflect the communities they serve.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Whitebook, M., Philipps, D., & Howes, C. (2014). Worthy 
work, still unlivable wages: The early childhood workforce 25 years 
after the national child care staffing study. Center for the Study 
of Child Care Employment; U.S. Department of Labor (2022). Bearing 
the cost: How overrepresentation in undervalued jobs disadvantaged 
women during the pandemic. https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/WB/media/BearingTheCostReport.pdf.
    \29\ Source: Head Start 2021 PIR.
    \30\ Downer, J.T., Goble, P., Myers, S.S., & Pianta, R.C. 
(2016). Teacher-child racial/ethnic match within pre-kindergarten 
classrooms and children's early school adjustment. Early Childhood 
Research Quarterly, 37, 26-38.; Markowitz, A., Bassok, D., & 
Grissom, J.A. (2020). Teacher-child racial/ethnic match and parental 
engagement with Head Start. American Educational Research Journal, 
57(5), 2132-2174.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to low compensation, Head Start staff often report 
insufficient supports for their health and wellness. Even prior to the 
pandemic, many Head Start programs reported challenges with increasing 
rates of staff stress and burnout, which is a common experience 
throughout ECE programs. See the section in this NPRM on Workforce 
Supports: Staff Wellness for a fuller discussion on the poor physical 
and mental health experienced by Head Start and other ECE staff, as 
well as proposed new standards for supports to address these issues.
    Taken together, low wages and benefits for demanding work, and high 
rates of stress and burnout, are causing qualified staff to leave for 
higher paid positions with better benefits in public schools or to 
leave the early childhood field entirely (e.g., retail, service, food 
industries).\31\ The turnover rate for Head Start classroom teachers 
doubled over the past decade, from 11 percent in 2010 to an alarming 22 
percent in 2022.\32\ As a point of comparison, in 2019, turnover for 
preschool teachers in school-based

[[Page 80824]]

settings was about 7.7 percent.\33\ This situation has also been 
exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, during which staff continued to 
do their utmost to support children and families despite high 
uncertainty and widespread closure of many aspects of the economy 
across the country. Across all Head Start staff positions, between 2019 
and 2022 turnover jumped by an unprecedented 41 percent, from 13.5 
percent to 19 percent.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ National Head Start Association (NHSA). (2023). An Update 
on Head Start's Ongoing Workforce Crisis. Washington, DC: NHSA.
    \32\ Source: Head Start 2022 PIR.
    \33\ Grunewald, R., Nunn, R., Palmer, V. (2022). Examining 
teacher turnover in early care and education. Federal Reserve Bank 
of Minneapolis.
    \34\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Overall, these turnover rates are sobering and have grim 
implications for the viability of Head Start if they are not addressed. 
Given these rates of turnover, it is unsurprising that many programs 
are unable to reach full enrollment and/or are impeded from providing 
high-quality services to enrolled children and families. Inadequate and 
unstable staffing prevents programs from opening all classrooms, 
conducting home visits, providing family services, or providing 
transportation services. In April 2022, about two-thirds of Head Start 
programs reported experiencing significant enrollment challenges and 
half of those programs reported that staffing shortages contributed to 
those challenges, which resulted in many classroom closures.\35\ 
Furthermore, in a 2022 survey of 900 Head Start programs staff 
conducted by the National Head Start Association, 85 percent of 
respondents indicated staff turnover was higher than in a typical 
program year. Almost all respondents (90 percent) said staff shortages 
forced their programs to close classrooms either permanently or 
temporarily. Over half (57 percent) of respondents said compensation is 
the number one reason staff are leaving Head Start programs.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ Source: Head Start program monthly enrollment data reported 
internally to OHS. Note that the percent of programs experiencing 
staffing challenges is likely higher since it was not explicitly 
requested that programs report this information.
    \36\ National Head Start Association (NHSA). (2022). Confronting 
Head Start's Workforce Crisis. Washington, DC: NHSA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a November 2022 survey conducted by ACF on a random sample of 
Head Start grant recipients, the majority reported experiencing 
shortages with teaching positions (85 percent), assistant teaching 
positions (86 percent), bus drivers (70 percent), and home visitor 
positions (60 percent).\37\ At least half of those recipients described 
the staff shortage as very severe for teachers (59 percent), bus 
drivers (53 percent), and assistant teachers (50 percent).\38\ These 
shortages were forcing the closure of a large portion of classrooms for 
the majority of respondents, with nearly half reporting difficulty 
keeping up to a quarter of their classrooms open and another 16 percent 
reporting difficult keeping up to half of their classrooms open.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Source: OHS administered survey on background checks and 
the workforce. Percentages exclude positions reported as not 
applicable.
    \38\ In the survey, recipients were instructed that ``high'' or 
very severe indicates the staffing shortage is a severe problem for 
that position. For example, there are several staff vacancies and/or 
relatively high turnover, impacting enrollment to a great extent; 
there are concerns that these issues cannot be resolved within the 
next few months.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This problem is not unique to Head Start, as a recent study in 
North Carolina found that the most common reason staff leave the early 
childhood workforce in the State is to make more money.\39\ Indeed, a 
large body of research indicates that low wages in the field of ECE are 
a strong driver of turnover among staff. And some research indicates 
that low wages are in fact the strongest determinant of staff turnover, 
with the lowest paid early educators being twice as likely to leave 
their jobs compared to the highest paid early educators.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ Child Care Services Association, 2020. 
childcareservices.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/CCSA_2020_TchrTurnover_Brief_Final_Interactive-FINAL.pdf.
    \40\ Caven, M., Khanani, N., Zhang, X., & Parker, C. E. (2021). 
Center-and program-level factors associated with turnover in the 
early childhood education workforce (REL 2021-069). U.S. Department 
of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for 
Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational 
Laboratory Northeast & Islands.; Whitebook, M., Howes, C., & 
Phillips, D. (2014). Worthy Work, STILL Unlivable Wages: The Early 
Childhood Workforce 25 Years after the National Child Care Staffing 
Study. Center for the Study of Child Care Employment. https://cscce.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/publications/ReportFINAL.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Each staff position in a program is critical to the mission and 
vision of Head Start, and to the delivery of high-quality services. As 
summarized previously, strong, stable relationships between young 
children and their teachers and caregivers provide a critical 
foundation for children to learn and develop.\41\ If programs cannot 
retain high-quality education staff, these relationships are disrupted 
and outcomes for children and families are negatively impacted.\42\ 
Research indicates that stable early care and education and strong 
teacher-child relationships positively influence children's 
outcomes.\43\ In addition, family services staff in Head Start programs 
play a critical role of engaging and supporting economic stability of 
families (see the section on Family Service Worker Family Assignments 
for a further discussion on the critical role of these staff). Further, 
capable, consistent leadership and management staff are necessary to 
support a high functioning work environment that is positive and 
welcoming for both direct service staff and children and families. Bus 
drivers, janitors, and cooks are needed to ensure other important 
aspects of Head Start services are provided in a high-quality manner, 
including safe transportation, clean environments, and nutritious meals 
for children. Without a workforce at all levels that is stable, well-
compensated, and supported, Head Start is not able to fully meet its 
mission of closing the achievement gap and preparing young children 
from low-income families for entry into kindergarten. Head Start staff 
work with children that need a range of developmental supports to 
ensure their success and preparedness for school. In order to break the 
cycle of poverty for children in Head Start, it is critical that the 
key change agents in this process (the staff) are compensated 
appropriately and supported in achieving their mission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ Burchinal, M., Zaslow, M., & Tarullo, L. (eds.) (2016). 
Quality thresholds, features, and dosage in early care and 
education: Secondary data analyses of child outcomes. Monographs of 
the Society for Research in Child Development. 81(2).
    \42\ Hamre, B., Hatfield, B., Pianta, R., Jamil, F. (2013). 
Evidence for General and Domain-Specific Elements of Teacher-Child 
Interactions: Associations with Preschool Children's Development. 
Child Development, 85:3; Grunewald, R., Nunn, R., Palmer, V. (2022). 
Examining teacher turnover in early care and education. Federal 
Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.
    \43\ Choi, Y., Horm, D., Jeon, S. & Ryu, D. (2019). Do Stability 
of Care and Teacher-Child Interaction Quality Predict Child Outcomes 
in Early Head Start?, Early Education and Development, 30:3, 337-
356.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To promote the retention of talented staff at all levels of the 
program, fill vacancies in a sustainable manner, keep classrooms open, 
provide the highest quality services, and ultimately promote strong 
outcomes for enrolled children and their families, staff must receive 
compensation (wages and benefits) that better reflects their experience 
and qualification and the value and importance of their critical work, 
as well as necessary staff wellness supports.\44\ Compensation must be 
competitive with other local employers that draw qualified staff away 
from

[[Page 80825]]

Head Start, including local school districts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ 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.; Rhodes, H., & Huston, A. (2012). Building the Workforce Our 
Youngest Children Deserve. Social Policy Report. Volume 26, Number 
1. Society for Research in Child Development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There is a clear need for better guardrails in the form of strong 
Federal requirements in this area. While ACF strongly values local 
flexibility and has historically allowed for substantial local 
flexibility in many areas of service delivery, in other areas, the 
HSPPS are quite prescriptive about what all programs must do. One area 
in which flexibility is most prominent is in what ACF currently 
requires for the workforce, including wages, benefits, and other 
supports for health and wellness. For instance, currently, the HSPPS do 
not require wage targets or include other compensation requirements for 
Head Start programs, and national program data show that Head Start 
grant recipients have historically prioritized serving more children 
over increasing wages for qualified education staff to be comparable to 
similar industries that compete for these staff, particularly 
elementary schools. This is not because programs do not value their 
staff or want to compensate them fairly.
    Without additional appropriations, programs would have to serve 
fewer children to achieve the necessary cost savings to fund increases 
in staff compensation. Faced with this difficult decision to either 
increase staff compensation or serve the same number or more children, 
Head Start grant recipients have, in general, chosen to serve the same 
or more children and have chosen to rely on a mission-committed 
workforce--largely women of color--to bear the cost of this decision. 
In the fall of 2022, ACF published an information memorandum (IM) 
encouraging programs to consider restructuring their programs, 
including reducing the number of children served if needed, in order to 
permanently increase staff compensation. Since the release of this IM, 
many programs have responded to this guidance and taken initial steps 
to improve wages; however, despite this, compensation for Head Start 
staff still falls far below that in the public education sector. It is 
clear that regulatory action is needed in order to provide Head Start 
staff with appropriate compensation and stabilize the program long-
term.
    The proposed changes to workforce supports will provide clarity to 
Head Start grant recipients that, in the absence of additional 
appropriations, slot loss is an acceptable tradeoff in order to improve 
staff compensation and other supports. Without required compensation 
targets at the Federal level, severe inequities in the pay of these 
workers will likely persist. This fact jeopardizes the ability of Head 
Start programs to provide high-quality services and promote strong 
outcomes for children and results in classrooms being closed due to 
staffing shortages.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ Source: Head Start program monthly enrollment data reported 
internally to OHS. Note that the percent of programs experiencing 
staffing challenges is likely higher since it was not explicitly 
requested that programs report this information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In other words, failure to address the current severe inequities in 
pay would likely also have a negative impact on the number of children 
served due to ongoing and worsening staffing shortages. The proposed 
regulations in this area will promote consistent expectations in staff 
pay and once implemented, will substantially increase the ability of 
programs to recruit and retain qualified staff.
    Even at the expense of serving more children in the absence of 
additional appropriations, these changes are necessary for Head Start 
programs to enable the children that are served to reach their full 
potential and attain school readiness. A stable, well-qualified 
workforce is fundamental to providing high-quality Head Start services 
to children and families.
    We recognize there will be costs associated with enacting the 
proposed standards at current Head Start funded enrollment levels, 
however, we note that the number of children currently served in Head 
Start is well below the funded enrollment level, primarily due to 
closed classrooms because programs cannot find qualified staff. While 
programs may need to reduce their funded slots to better reflect their 
enrollment levels, we expect that many programs will be able to 
redirect portions of their budget to wage increases and other 
requirements. As described in this section, we propose a 7-year ramp-up 
for the full implementation of the new wage requirements. This will 
allow ample time for programs to prepare for implementation. Due to the 
long implementation timeline, reductions in the number of children 
served would not be realized immediately or soon after the effective 
date of a final rule and would only occur in future years in the 
absence of additional funding. We understand funded slot loss is a 
difficult trade-off to consider, but a number of programs are already 
requesting and enacting slot reductions due to closed classrooms that 
are a result of staffing challenges, and programs are often proposing 
to reinvest these cost savings into better wage and other supports for 
staff. The current staffing challenges and inequities that Head Start 
is facing make it imperative to act now to establish these requirements 
that are critical to set the Head Start program on the pathway to 
stabilizing their workforce that can allow for continued high quality 
operations of this program.
    The following four sections go into more detail on the proposed 
standards to establish this pathway which include requirements for: (1) 
progress to pay parity for Head Start education staff with elementary 
school education staff (Sec.  1302.90(e)(2); (2) pay scale for all 
staff (Sec.  1302.90(e)(1)); (3) minimum pay standard Sec.  
1302.90(e)(3); and (4) wage comparability across Head Start Preschool 
and Early Head Start Sec.  1302.90(e)(4).
Progress To Pay Parity for Head Start Education Staff With Elementary 
School Education Staff
    We intentionally begin with a discussion of the proposed standards 
in new paragraph Sec.  1302.90(e)(2), Progress to pay parity for 
education staff with elementary school staff, as the rationale for 
these standards sets the foundation for the rest of the proposed wage 
standards. This set of proposed standards requires programs to make 
progress towards achieving pay parity for Head Start education staff 
with kindergarten through third grade teachers by providing these staff 
with wages that are at least comparable to those paid to public school 
preschool teachers. These proposed standards require programs to take 
into account staff responsibilities, qualifications, and experience 
when determining these wages. In the context of these standards, Head 
Start education staff refers to those staff who work directly with 
children as part of their daily job responsibilities, including lead 
teachers, assistant teachers, home visitors and family child care 
providers. There is a body of research evidence to indicate that 
increasing compensation can help with retention of ECE teachers. 
Studies of the broader ECE field indicate strategies to improve 
compensation for ECE professionals can improve employment stability for 
teachers and reduce turnover (and vice versa, with lower wages linked 
to higher turnover).\46\ For

[[Page 80826]]

instance, a recent randomized controlled trial study in Virginia found 
that financial incentives (i.e., bonuses) for early educators of up to 
$1,500 reduced teacher turnover by 11 percentage points, with even 
stronger impacts for educators with the lowest levels of 
compensation.\47\ Other research demonstrates that programs that have 
better compensated staff also have lower turnover and provide higher 
quality services to children.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ Bassok, D., Doromal, J., Michie, M., & Wong, V. (2021). The 
Effects of Financial Incentives on Teacher Turnover in Early 
Childhood Settings: Experimental Evidence from Virginia. 
EdPolicyWorks at the University of Virginia.; Caven, M., Khanani, 
N., Zhang, X., & Parker, C.E. (2021). Center-and program-level 
factors associated with turnover in the early childhood education 
workforce (REL 2021-069). U.S. Department of Education, Institute of 
Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and 
Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Northeast & 
Islands.
    \47\ Bassok et al. (2021).
    \48\ Whitebook, M., Howes, C., & Phillips, D. (2014). Worthy 
Work, STILL Unlivable Wages: The Early Childhood Workforce 25 Years 
after the National Child Care Staffing Study. Center for the Study 
of Child Care Employment. https://cscce.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/publications/ReportFINAL.pdf.; Whitebook, M., Sakai, L., 
Gerber, E., & Howes, C. (2001). Then & Now: Changes in Child Care 
Staffing, 1994-2000. Washington, DC: Center for the Child Care 
Workforce and Institute of Industrial Relations, University of 
California, Berkeley. https://cscce.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/publications/Then-and-Now.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several states, cities, and localities are implementing targeted 
efforts to strengthen wages for early educators. For instance, San 
Francisco is newly investing up to $60 million annually to 
significantly raise wages for educators in eligible ECE programs in the 
city. The investment will raise annual salaries by anywhere from $8,000 
to $30,000 and by 2025, the city aims to ensure all early educators in 
eligible programs are earning at least $28 per hour.\49\ Further, 
through the formation of the Early Childhood Educator Equitable 
Compensation Task Force, the District of Columbia recently developed a 
pay scale for all early educators in DC that will promote pay parity 
for early educators with elementary teachers, with gradations within 
the pay scaled based on job role, credentials, and experience.\50\ 
Additionally, New Mexico created two programs to support the early 
childhood workforce. In 2021, New Mexico created a $1,500 incentive 
payment plan in recognition of pandemic recovery efforts.\51\ Later, in 
2022, New Mexico began a new initiative where child care providers are 
able to apply for funding to increase their staff wages $3 per hour for 
all staff, and raise the wage floor to $15 per hour for new teachers 
and $20 per hour for lead teachers.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ Retrieved from: https://sfdec.org/mayor-breed-announces-landmark-pay-raise-initiative-for-early-educators-in-city-funded-programs/.
    \50\ Early Educator Equitable Compensation Task Force. (March 
2022). Final Report of the Early Educator Equitable Compensation 
Task Force. Washington, DC. Retrieved from: https://lims.dccouncil.gov/downloads/LIMS/49122/Introduction/RC24-0154-Introduction.pdf.
    \51\ New Mexico Early Childhood Education and Care Department. 
(2021). Child Care Workers in New Mexico Eligible for $1,500 
Incentive Payments. https://www.nmececd.org/2021/11/01/child-care-workers-in-new-mexico-eligible-for-1500-incentive-payments/.
    \52\ New Mexico Early Childhood Education and Care Department. 
(2022) Gov. Lujan Grisham announces historic pay increase for early 
childhood workforce. https://www.nmececd.org/2022/10/11/gov-lujan-grisham-announces-historic-pay-increase-for-early-childhood-workforce/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are four provisions to the proposed Sec.  1302.90(e)(2). We 
begin with a proposed standard, Sec.  1302.90(e)(2)(i) that requires 
programs to make progress towards pay parity for Head Start and Early 
Head Start teachers with kindergarten through 3rd grade teachers by 
providing wages that are at least comparable with preschool teachers in 
the local public schools. The proposed standard requires a program to 
make measurable progress towards pay parity for Head Start teachers 
with kindergarten through third grade teachers. To demonstrate progress 
to pay parity, by August 1, 2031, a program must ensure each Head Start 
teacher receives an annual salary that is at least comparable to the 
annual salary paid to preschool teachers in public school settings in 
the program's local or neighboring school district, adjusted for 
responsibilities, qualifications, and experience. A program may provide 
annual salaries comparable to a neighboring school district if the 
salaries are higher than a program's local school district. We 
recognize there are many nuances to this proposed standard, and we 
further explain our intent in the following paragraphs.
    First, the standard states that a program must make measurable 
progress towards pay parity for Head Start teachers with kindergarten 
through 3rd grade teachers. Teachers in these elementary grades perform 
similar duties and have similar responsibilities in supporting young 
children's learning and development--in other words, they provide 
similar services--as teachers in Head Start programs. It is widely 
understood in the fields of child development and education that the 
`early childhood' developmental stage encompasses birth through age 
8.\53\ Indeed, a recent well-regarded report from the Institute of 
Medicine and National Research Council provides a framework and 
foundation for supporting the workforce that educates and works with 
children from birth through age 8.\54\ The report emphasizes that this 
developmental time period should be supported holistically by 
supporting the diverse workforce that works with this age group across 
sectors. Typically, children are 8 years old when they enter 3rd grade, 
which aligns with our reference point in the proposed standard for 
programs to make progress towards pay parity for Head Start teachers 
with public school teachers through 3rd grade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ American Academy of Pediatrics. (2023). Early childhood. 
https://www.aap.org/en/patient-care/early-childhood/; Hyson, M., & 
Tomlinson, H.B. (2014). The early years matter: Education, care, and 
the well-being of children, birth to 8. Washington, DC: National 
Association for the Education of Young Children and Teachers College 
Press.
    \54\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Despite the similar roles and responsibilities of Head Start 
teachers and elementary teachers both working with children in early 
childhood, these educators have stark differences in average pay. For 
instance, in 2022 average pay was approximately: $39,096 for Head Start 
Preschool teachers and $32,373 for Early Head Start teachers,\55\ as 
compared to $53,200 for preschool teachers in school-based settings and 
$65,120 for public school kindergarten teachers.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ Source: Head Start 2022 PIR.
    \56\ U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Occupational Employment 
and Wages. May 2022. 25-2012 Kindergarten Teachers, Except Special 
Education. https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes252012.htm; U.S. 
Bureau of Labor Statistics. Occupational Employment and Wages. May 
2022. 25-2011 Preschool Teachers, Except Special Education. https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes252011.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This represents alarming pay gaps for Head Start Preschool teachers 
and Early Head Start teachers compared to both kindergarten teachers 
and school-based preschool teachers. Furthermore, as discussed 
previously, many Head Start teachers are highly skilled and 
credentialed; 71 percent of Head Start Preschool teachers and 23 
percent of Early Head Start teachers have at least a bachelor's degree. 
Further, 94 percent of Head Start Preschool teachers and 45 percent of 
Early Head Start teachers have at least an associate degree.\57\ Head 
Start programs often report that they compete with public schools to 
retain teachers, particularly those with bachelor's degrees, as they 
are well qualified to work in elementary school settings. In fact, Head 
Start programs in multiple school districts across the country have 
anecdotally reported to ACF that public schools are intentionally 
recruiting their most qualified Head Start teachers. Therefore, the 
first part of this standard sets the goal of making progress toward pay 
parity for Head Start educators with elementary school educators by

[[Page 80827]]

narrowing the pay gap between these groups. The proposed standard also 
requires ``measurable progress'' towards pay parity, which is discussed 
further below in the context of proposed Sec.  1302.90(e)(2)(iv). 
Finally, this language also aligns with section 653(a) of the Act, 
which requires that program staff are not paid in excess of the average 
rate of compensation in the area where the program is carried out to a 
substantial number of persons providing comparable services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ Source: Head Start 2022 PIR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Next, assuming publication of a final rule in 2024, this standard 
provides approximately a 7-year implementation window for programs to 
meet this requirement by August 2031, aligning with the approximate 
start of a new program year. We believe this 7-year window is necessary 
to allow programs sufficient time to thoughtfully plan and prepare for 
implementation of this standard, without impacting currently enrolled 
students. We recognize it will require significant effort on the part 
of programs to establish and revise their pay structures to align with 
these proposed requirements (and a requirement to establish or update 
an overall pay structure is discussed further in the next section). The 
7-year implementation timeline also creates an opportunity for future 
potential Congressional investment in Head Start.
    However, we recognize that there are a range of possible options 
regarding the effective dates for the proposed standards to improve 
staff wages. We request public comment on our proposed effective date 
for this standard for progress to pay parity for Head Start teachers.
    Next, the proposed standard (Sec.  1302.90(e)(2)(i)) clarifies that 
programs must demonstrate they are making progress to pay parity by 
ensuring that the salary paid to Head Start Preschool and Early Head 
Start teachers is at least comparable to the salary paid to preschool 
teachers in public school settings. The goal of this phrasing is to 
clarify that, in order to demonstrate sufficient progress on pay parity 
for Head Start teachers with kindergarten through third grade teachers, 
programs must ensure Head Start teachers receive wages that are, on 
average, comparable with those paid to preschool teachers in elementary 
and secondary schools, who are educating young children. This standard 
serves as a progress marker towards ultimately achieving full pay 
parity for Head Start teachers with kindergarten through third grade 
teachers. As noted previously, preschool teachers in school-based 
settings earn an average annual salary of $53,200,\58\ which is $14,000 
more than the average salary of $39,096 for Head Start Preschool 
teachers and nearly $21,000 more than the average salary of $32,373 for 
Early Head Start teachers.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Occupational Employment 
and Wages. May 2022. 25-2011 Preschool Teachers, Except Special 
Education. https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes252011.htm.
    \59\ Source: Head Start 2022 PIR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The target comparison of preschool teachers in public school 
settings is intended to represent substantial progress towards parity 
with K-third grade public school elementary teachers. Specifically, we 
intend the benchmark of preschool teacher annual salaries in public 
school settings to represent about 90% of the amount of kindergarten 
teacher annual salaries, for those with comparable qualifications.\60\ 
Achieving wages for Head start teachers that are at least comparable to 
salaries for preschool teachers in school-based settings will provide a 
significant boost in wages for this well-qualified but underpaid 
workforce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ This analysis uses BLS average annual salaries as wage 
targets. However, since the BLS national average for kindergarten 
teacher salaries ($65,120) includes all kindergarten teachers, of 
which approximately half have a master's degree or higher, adjust 
this annual salary to reflect the target salary for a teacher with a 
bachelor's degree ($58,608) guided by salary differences observed in 
National Center for Education Statistics data (https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/ntps/). The BLS reported annual salary for preschool teacher 
in school settings ($53,200) is therefore approximately 90% of the 
annual salary for kindergarten teachers with a bachelor's degree 
($58,608).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Next, the proposed standard, Sec.  1302.90(e)(2)(i), states that 
wages for Head Start teachers should be comparable to preschool 
teachers in school-based settings in the program's local school 
district. However, research indicates that teachers in public schools 
that serve a high proportion of children living in poverty are paid 
significantly lower on average compared to teachers in low-poverty 
schools.\61\ To avoid unintentionally suppressing wage growth of Head 
Start teachers by requiring a comparison to public school teachers in 
only one school district, who may be underpaid, we include an 
additional sentence in Sec.  1302.90(e)(2)(i) that allows a program to 
provide annual salaries comparable to a neighboring school district if 
the salaries are higher than a program's local school district. This 
sentence intentionally allows a Head Start program the flexibility to 
consider salaries of preschool teachers in public schools across 
multiple school districts in their geographic area when determining 
what benchmark to use for teacher salaries, if those school districts 
offer higher salaries. We recognize some programs may be located in 
geographic areas where there is not a sufficient number of preschool 
teachers in public schools in their local or neighboring school 
district to benchmark to, in terms of comparable wages. Below, we 
discuss proposed Sec.  1302.90(e)(2)(iii) that describes what programs 
should do in these instances, to develop an appropriate wage 
comparison. We request comment on any barriers that Head Start programs 
may face in identifying a comparable population of school-based 
preschool teachers for the purposes of benchmarking wages and whether 
the options described below for an alternative method to benchmark to 
preschool wages are sufficient to overcome any potential challenges. We 
also request comment on whether the benchmark of annual salaries paid 
to public school preschool teachers is an accurate reflection of 
approximately 90% of annual salaries paid to kindergarten teachers with 
comparable qualifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ Garcia, E., & Weiss, E. (2019). Low relative pay and high 
incidence of moonlighting play a role in the teacher shortage, 
particularly in high-poverty schools. The third report in `The 
Perfect Storm in the Teacher Labor Market' series. Washington, DC: 
Economic Policy Institute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the proposed standard, Sec.  1302.90(e)(2)(i), requires a 
program to consider responsibilities, qualifications, and experience of 
the teachers when determining salaries. This aligns with 
recommendations from ECE research experts, which suggest that wages for 
the ECE workforce should be reflective of job role, experience, and 
education.\62\ This portion of the proposed standard acknowledges that 
responsibilities and expectations of a job position should be a key 
factor in determining wages. In general, an individual in a given 
position with a more advanced degree or credential should be 
compensated more than an individual in the same position with a lower 
degree or credential, all other factors being equal. However, degrees 
or credentials are not the only important factor to consider when 
determining salaries. Experience is also key, particularly in the field 
of ECE where many teachers have years of experience, but may have never 
attained a bachelor's degree, for instance.\63\ Further, research 
indicates that degrees are not the only thing that matters for

[[Page 80828]]

determining teaching quality in ECE; experience and other supports such 
as professional development, coaching, and training, are also 
critically important for high quality teaching.\64\ Therefore, the 
proposed standard elevates the importance of considering an 
individual's experience when establishing wages, in addition to 
qualifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ https://cscce.berkeley.edu/workforce-index-2020/state-policies-to-improve-early-childhood-educator-jobs/early-childhood-educator-workforce-policies/compensation-financial-relief/.
    \63\ Kini, T. & Podolsky, A. (2016). Does Teaching Experience 
Increase Teacher Effectiveness? A Review of the Research. Palo Alto: 
Learning Policy Institute. Retrieved from: https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/does-teaching-experience-increase-teacher-effectiveness-review-research.
    \64\ Kini, T. & Podolsky, A. (2016). Does Teaching Experience 
Increase Teacher Effectiveness? A Review of the Research. Palo Alto: 
Learning Policy Institute. Retrieved from: https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/does-teaching-experience-increase-teacher-effectiveness-review-research; Yoshikawa, H., 
Weiland, C., Brooks-Gunn, J., Burchinal, M., Espinosa, L., Gormley, 
W.T., Ludwig, J., Magnuson, K., Phillips, D., & Zaslow, M. (October, 
2013). Investing in our future: The evidence base on preschool. 
Society for Research in Child Development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We recognize that qualifications and experience intersect in 
complex ways when determining wages. For instance, we would expect that 
a teacher with a bachelors who is new to the ECE field would likely 
earn a higher wage than a teacher with an associate degree who is also 
new to the field. However, we would expect that a teacher with an 
associate degree and many years of experience in ECE may likely earn a 
higher wage than a teacher with a bachelor's degree who is brand new to 
the field. This is consistent with section 653 of the Act which 
encourages programs to consider experience when determining salaries. 
The phrasing of the proposed requirement provides flexibility to 
programs to determine how they consider responsibilities, 
qualifications and experience when determining salaries. Our goal here 
is to provide programs with flexibility to determine wages that make 
the most sense for their program structure, while also balancing 
experience and qualifications.
    Next, we turn to the second provision of Sec.  1302.90(e)(2). Here 
we propose a new standard in Sec.  1302.90(e)(2)(ii) that provides a 
deadline of August 1, 2031, for programs to make measurable progress 
towards pay parity for all other education staff who work directly with 
children as part of their daily job responsibilities. To demonstrate 
this, a program must provide these staff an annual salary that is at 
least comparable to salaries for Head Start teachers as described 
above, but adjusted for role, responsibilities, qualifications, and 
experience. This proposed standard is intended to apply to education 
staff other than lead teachers whose primary job is to work in 
classrooms or homes with children, including assistant teachers, home 
visitors, and family child care providers. Once implemented, this 
standard would significantly raise wages for these positions. We 
request public comment on whether there are other education staff 
positions besides these who work regularly with children to whom this 
standard should apply.
    To align with the prior standard on progress to pay parity that 
applies to Head Start teachers, this standard will also go into effect 
in August of 2031, approximately 7 years after publication of the final 
rule. We request public comment on our proposed effective date for this 
standard for progressing towards pay parity for Head Start education 
staff.
    The average salaries for these education staff are far below what 
they could earn with other employers and do not reflect the 
qualifications they hold or the important work they do. In 2022, 
average salaries for these education staff were as follows: $25,570 for 
assistant teachers; $38,510 for home visitors; and $40,902 for family 
child care providers.\65\ Meanwhile, 52 percent of home visitors have a 
bachelor's degree,\66\ and 88 percent of assistant teachers have at 
least a Child Development Associate (CDA) or comparable credential.\67\ 
These education staff provide critical services in classroom- and home-
based settings in Head Start programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ Source: Head Start 2022 PIR.
    \66\ Source: Head Start 2019 PIR; this was the last year of PIR 
that collected data on the number of home visitors with a bachelor's 
degree.
    \67\ Source: Head Start 2022 PIR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similar to lead teachers, without qualified staff in these 
positions, the quality and availability of classroom- and home-based 
services are impacted, which in turn negatively impacts outcomes for 
children. Home-based services in particular--through home visiting or 
family child care--are provided to a large share of infants and 
toddlers in Early Head Start. In addition, assistant teachers play 
critical roles in Head Start Preschool classrooms to support children's 
learning and development alongside lead teachers. As previously noted, 
all classroom staff, regardless of position, build strong relationships 
with children that are crucial to healthy child development and can be 
damaging when disrupted. Retaining assistant teachers is as beneficial 
to the program--and to the children enrolled--as retaining lead 
teachers. Further, promoting stronger wages for assistant teachers can 
help support career pathways so that they eventually may become lead 
teachers or take on other positions in programs. Therefore, in the 
context of these proposed standards, we expect that education staff 
with less experience or qualifications will still receive significant 
compensation increases, and that these increases will be reflective of 
the important jobs they perform.
    The phrasing of proposed standard Sec.  1302.90(e)(2)(ii) requires 
that a program provide an annual salary to these other education staff 
positions that is comparable to salaries described in the prior 
provision in proposed paragraph (e)(2)(i), but is adjusted for role, 
responsibilities, qualifications, and experience. As summarized 
previously, the intention of this phrasing is to acknowledge that 
education staff in different positions, with different qualifications, 
and/or with different experience may receive different levels of 
compensation, relative to lead teachers. However, it is our intention 
that salaries for these other education positions with varying 
qualifications and experience are not simply compared to and set at the 
same level as salaries for other potentially lower paid staff in 
school-based settings, such as teacher aides or paraprofessionals. 
Rather, salaries for Head Start teachers established under proposed 
Sec.  1302.90(e)(2)(i) should serve as an anchor for salaries for other 
education staff captured by the standard proposed in (e)(2)(ii). This 
is best described with a few concrete examples.
    For instance, a home visitor and a lead teacher could reasonably be 
considered to hold similar important responsibilities within the 
context of the Head Start program; both play a primary role in 
supporting the development of enrolled children. Therefore, if a home 
visitor holds a bachelor's degree and similar experience as a lead 
teacher with a bachelor's degree, the program should consider 
compensating this home visitor at a similar level as a lead teacher. 
However, if a home visitor holds an associate degree and a few years of 
experience, the program could reasonably compensate the home visitor at 
an amount below an experienced teacher with a bachelor's degree, with 
an expectation of salary growth as the home visitor gains experience. 
As another example, an assistant teacher and a lead teacher could be 
reasonably considered to hold different levels of responsibilities 
within the Head Start classroom. Therefore, a program could reasonably 
choose to compensate an assistant teacher with an associate degree 
below that for a lead teacher with an associate degree.
    Taken together, we do expect that wages will vary for education 
staff across the complex intersections of role, responsibilities, 
qualifications, and experience. However, it is also our

[[Page 80829]]

intention that programs ensure wage scales are not drastically 
different between education staff positions based solely on degrees or 
credentials held, particularly for positions that have the same or 
similar responsibilities in the program. Programs must also consider 
experience when determining pay for education staff.
    Next, we propose a new standard Sec.  1302.90(e)(2)(iii) that 
provides an allowance for programs to use an alternative method for 
determining the comparable preschool salaries in specific 
circumstances. More specifically, if there is not a sufficient number 
of comparable public school preschool teachers in the program's local 
or neighboring school district, this proposed standard allows a program 
to use an alternative method to implement the requirements in clause 
(i) and (ii) of Sec.  1302.90(e)(2) to determine appropriate comparison 
salaries. The alternative method must be approved by ACF. This standard 
acknowledges that some programs are located in areas which do not have, 
or have a small number of, preschool teachers in school-based settings 
in local or neighboring school districts. In these cases, we recognize 
that it may not be possible to obtain a reliable estimate of comparison 
salaries. Programs are still required to make measurable progress 
toward pay parity in such circumstances, but this standard allows for 
an alternative approach to anchor comparison salaries. The proposed 
standard would require programs to use an alternative method for 
determining comparison salaries, and this method must be approved by 
ACF. For instance, this could include using salaries from preschool 
teachers in school-based settings in a geographically and/or 
socioeconomically similar area. Or programs may consider increasing 
salaries to a specified percentage of kindergarten to third grade 
teacher salaries in the local school district. ACF may provide guidance 
on pre-approved alternative methods to facilitate implementation of 
this standard where applicable. We request comment on what type of 
guidance or technical assistance Head Start programs need to develop an 
alternative method in areas without school-based preschool teachers in 
local school districts.
    Finally, as referenced previously, ACF expects that programs will 
make measurable progress towards pay parity for Head Start education 
staff with kindergarten to third grade teachers. The fourth and final 
provision of Sec.  1302.90(e)(2) proposes a new standard that requires 
programs to examine their progress to pay parity by regularly tracking 
data on how wages paid to their education staff compare to wages paid 
to preschool through third grade teachers in their local or neighboring 
school district. The intention of this standard is for programs to 
regularly track and examine pay gaps between Head Start education staff 
and teachers in comparable settings. The comparison to preschool 
teachers serves as a way to track in alignment with the proposed 
standards on progress to pay parity as described above. Programs should 
capitalize on existing data sources to implement this requirement to 
track wage data. Many, if not all, programs have internal data which 
they can leverage to track wages paid to their education staff. 
Additionally, to track wages for preschool through third grade teachers 
in the local or neighboring school district, programs can leverage 
publicly available information from these settings. Programs may 
already have methods for obtaining this information as part of their 
wage comparability surveys, or through existing partnerships with local 
education agencies and local school-based preschool programs. Regular 
tracking would ideally occur on an annual basis at minimum so that 
programs are aware of their progress, or lack thereof, in closing pay 
gaps and can make necessary adjustments.
Pay Scale for All Staff
    Here we discuss the proposed changes to the new Sec.  
1302.90(e)(1), Pay scale. There has been growing interest in the field 
to implement wage ladders or pay scales that promote more competitive 
wages for the ECE workforce. As summarized previously, the District of 
Columbia (DC) recently developed a pay scale for all early educators in 
DC that will promote pay parity for early educators with elementary 
teachers, with gradations within the pay scaled based on job role, 
credentials, and experience.\68\ Alabama and a handful of other states 
have pushed forward to require pay parity for staff across all 
preschool programs in the State with K-3 elementary staff, including 
the same starting salary and salary schedule.\69\ A few cities, such as 
New York City and San Antonio, have also pushed forward with policies 
for pay parity for preschool staff with elementary staff.\70\ We 
propose three provisions to Sec.  1302.90(e)(1) to describe 
requirements for pay scales in Head Start programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ Early Educator Equitable Compensation Task Force. (March 
2022). Final Report of the Early Educator Equitable Compensation 
Task Force. Washington, DC. Retrieved from: https://lims.dccouncil.gov/downloads/LIMS/49122/Introduction/RC24-0154-Introduction.pdf.
    \69\ https://cscce.berkeley.edu/workforce-index-2020/state-policies-to-improve-early-childhood-educator-jobs/early-childhood-educator-workforce-policies/compensation-financial-relief/.
    \70\ CityHealth & NIEER (n.d.); McLean, C., Dichter, H., & 
Whitebook, M. (2017). Strategies in Pursuit of Pre-K Teacher 
Compensation Parity: Lessons From Seven States and Cities. Berkeley, 
CA: Center for the Study of Child Care Employment, University of 
California, Berkeley and New Brunswick, NJ: the National Institute 
for Early Education Research. Retrieved from https://cscce.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/publications/Strategies-in-Pursuit-of-Pre-K.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the first provision, Sec.  1302.90(e)(1)(i), we propose a new 
requirement that, by August 1, 2031, programs must implement a pay 
scale, salary scale, wage ladder, or other pay structure that applies 
to all staff in the program. This pay structure must incorporate the 
requirements in paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) of Sec.  1302.90(e) and 
promote salaries that are comparable to similar services in relevant 
industries in their geographic area. The pay structure must consider, 
at a minimum, responsibilities, qualifications, and experience relevant 
to the position, and schedule or hours worked. The intention of this 
standard is to ensure a program's pay structure promotes competitive 
wages for all staff in the program, in addition to education staff. The 
proposed Sec.  1302.90(e)(1)(i) contains many components; we explain 
each here in further detail.
    First, we intentionally structured this standard with the same 
implementation timeline--August 1, 2031--as the proposed standards for 
progress to pay parity for education staff, Sec.  1302.90(e)(2), that 
were described previously. We recognize it is critical for program 
planning and implementation purposes for these standards to go into 
effect within the same timeframe. We request public comment on our 
proposed effective date for this standard.
    Next, we specify that a program must develop or update a pay 
structure for program staff salaries. Since ACF believes the majority 
of programs already have a pay structure of some kind in place for 
employees, such as a pay scale, salary schedule, or wage ladder. In 
cases where a program does not have a pay structure in place, a program 
must establish one under this proposed requirement.
    For the majority of programs that already have an established pay 
structure, they must update it to reflect the requirements of the 
proposed Sec.  1302.90(e)(1)(i). Next, we specify that the program's 
pay structure must incorporate the requirements in newly proposed Sec.  
1302.90(e)(2), (e)(3), and (e)(4), as well as wages for all other staff

[[Page 80830]]

in the program. As summarized previously, proposed Sec.  1302.90(e)(2) 
outlines wage requirements for Head Start teachers and other education 
staff. Newly proposed paragraphs (e)(3) and (e)(4) are discussed in 
further detail in subsequent sections and encompass requirements for a 
pay floor and for wage comparability across Head Start Preschool and 
Early Head Start staff positions.
    The proposed Sec.  1302.90(e)(1)(i) specifies that the program's 
pay structure must promote salaries that are comparable to similar 
services in relevant industries. This phrasing is the main thrust of 
this proposed requirement. Overall, we intend for this standard to 
improve wages for a variety of staff positions in the program, in 
addition to improved wages for education staff specified in Sec.  
1302.90(e)(2). As discussed previously, education staff are not the 
only positions for which programs are struggling to recruit and retain 
staff. Programs report difficulty filling other positions including 
family services staff, bus drivers, janitors, cooks, mid-level 
managers, and center directors. While not all these staff necessarily 
leave Head Start due to low wages, many do. It is critical to retain 
high-quality staff across these positions in order to maintain a high 
functioning program.
    Therefore, ACF expects programs will thoroughly consider wages of 
comparable industries to assess whether and how wages for various 
positions in their program should be improved. For instance, a family 
services staff member who holds a bachelor's degree in social work or 
another related field could be considered to provide comparable 
services to a family outreach or engagement specialist in a public 
school setting. If a health services staff member holds a nursing 
degree, this staff member could be comparable to a nurse with a similar 
degree providing similar services in other healthcare settings. In 
addition, as programs consider how to restructure their pay scales to 
provide significantly higher raises for education staff as described in 
Sec.  1302.90(e)(2), we expect that wages for most other staff 
positions will need to be lifted as well, to avoid the unintended 
consequence of wage compression.
    Finally, in establishing or updating their pay scale, proposed 
Sec.  1302.90(e)(1)(i) requires that a program consider 
responsibilities, qualifications, and experience relevant to the 
position, as well as schedule or hours worked. We believe these factors 
are important to consider when establishing or updating a pay scale, 
for the same reasons as described previously for proposed Sec.  
1302.90(e)(2). Here we specify that the responsibilities, 
qualifications, and experience considered when establishing wages 
should be relevant to the position. This specification is meant to 
clarify that a program does not necessarily have to consider 
qualifications that are irrelevant to a given position, when 
determining wages. For instance, if a janitor holds a master's degree 
and the program determines this position does not require a degree, the 
program does not have to compensate that individual at a similar rate 
as other staff members in the program who hold master's degrees that 
are relevant to their job role and responsibilities.
    Next, we turn to the second provision of Sec.  1302.90(e)(1). Here 
we propose a new paragraph Sec.  1302.90(e)(1)(ii) that requires, after 
August 1, 2031, programs to review their pay structure at least once 
every 5 years to ensure it continues to provide competitive wages for 
staff reflective of the requirements described previously, without 
causing undue burden by requiring it more frequently. By requiring this 
at least once every 5 years, it is our intention that grant recipients 
can align this review of their pay structure with other planning and 
strategic activities as part of their 5-year grant cycle, if desired. 
We request public comment on our proposed effective date for this 
standard.
    In the third and final provision of Sec.  1302.90(e)(1), we propose 
a new paragraph that requires programs to ensure that staff salaries do 
not exceed the rate payable for level II of the Executive Schedule, 
which aligns with 42 U.S.C. 9848(b)(1). This provision reminds programs 
of the limitations on excessive compensation for the highest paid 
positions and ensures that salaries at the highest end of the pay scale 
are compliant with the limits described in the Act.
    Finally, we recognize programs may need training and technical 
assistance (TTA) support to revise their salary scale or pay structure. 
Materials are available that describe key components and considerations 
of a salary scale for ECE staff.\71\ Upon publication of a final rule, 
ACF will also be prepared to offer TTA supports to grant recipients. We 
invite public comment on what types of TTA supports programs will need 
to successfully implement the standards described here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ See for instance this resource on salary/wage scales for 
the ECE workforce: https://www.teachecnationalcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/CCSA_2021_Salary-Scale-White-Paper-FINAL.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Minimum Pay Requirement
    Here we discuss the proposed changes to the new Sec.  
1302.90(e)(3), Salary floor. We propose a new standard in Sec.  
1302.90(e)(3) that requires programs to establish a salary floor or 
minimum pay that is sufficient to cover basic costs of living in the 
geographic area. This standard is intended to ensure that all staff in 
the program earn a wage sufficient to cover their basic living needs. 
More specifically, the proposed standard requires that, by August 1, 
2031, a program must ensure the pay scale established or updated under 
Sec.  1302.90(e)(1)(i) provides all staff with a wage or salary that is 
generally sufficient to cover basic needs such as food, housing, 
utilities, medical costs, transportation, and taxes, or would be 
sufficient if the worker's hourly rate were paid according to a full-
time, full-year schedule. It is our intention that this standard 
targets those staff who currently receive the lowest wages in the 
program; this requirement will raise the pay for these staff. This 
could include aides, floaters, office staff, janitors, cooks, bus 
monitors, or other positions. This proposed standard contains multiple 
components each explained here in further detail.
    First, the proposed Sec.  1302.90(e)(3) specifies the same 
implementation timeline of August 1, 2031, as the other proposed wage 
requirements described in this section. We believe this will make it 
easier for programs to consider changes in wages holistically across 
these new requirements and provides programs ample time to plan for 
implementation. We request public comment on our proposed effective 
date for this standard.
    Next, the proposed standard specifies that the wage or salary 
structure established or updated under Sec.  1302.90(e)(1)(i) must 
provide all staff with a wage or salary that is generally sufficient to 
cover basic needs. With this language, we intend for programs to 
carefully consider costs of living in their local geographic area to 
cover basic needs, and what an individual should truly be earning to 
cover all of those costs. The language of the proposed standard further 
provides examples of basic needs which a full-time staff member's 
hourly wages or annual salary should be able to cover, no matter the 
job they work for the program, including food, housing, utilities, 
medical costs, transportation, and taxes. In most geographic areas of 
the country, ACF expects that, at a minimum, a sufficient wage under 
this provision would be equivalent to $15 per hour. We recognize that 
in some communities or

[[Page 80831]]

geographic areas, this floor may not be sufficient and may need to be 
adjusted to reflect higher costs of living. Further, programs would 
still be required to pay higher salaries when required by other 
sections of this NPRM.
    Finally, the proposed Sec.  1302.90(e)(3) specifies that the 
minimum pay or pay floor would be sufficient if the workers' hourly 
rate were paid according to a full-time, full-year schedule (or over 
2,080 hours per year). This phrasing of the proposed requirement is to 
recognize that not all staff are full-time employees of the program, 
and it allows the implementation of this standard for staff employed 
part time. The proposed standard is intended to convey that programs 
are not expected to pay wages to a part-time employee that, in total, 
would cover all costs of living. Rather, this phrasing conveys that the 
wage paid to a part-time employee would be sufficient to cover the 
costs of living if that employee worked full time for the program. To 
illustrate, consider an example of a program that has determined 
$35,000 per year is the appropriate salary floor for their area. It is 
not the expectation that all employees of that program earn at least 
$35,000 per year, regardless of how many hours they work. Instead, the 
program should calculate the hourly rate associated with their salary 
floor, $35,000 in this example, according to a full-time, full year 
schedule. A standard full-time employee works 2,080 hours per year 
(i.e., 40 hours per week for 52 weeks per year), which in this example 
corresponds to a minimum hourly rate of $16.83. As such, in our 
example, all employees of the program must earn at least $16.83 per 
hour.
    We recognize that programs may need support or guidance to 
determine what wages are necessary, at the minimum, to cover basic 
costs of living for staff. Upon publication of a final rule, ACF will 
provide grant recipients with TTA supports in this area. We also 
acknowledge that there are several possible ways and existing resources 
available to calculate and determine what wage is required to cover 
basic costs of living. We offer a few examples here. It is of note that 
these are examples only and should not be considered an endorsement by 
ACF of these specific calculators or tools. First, there are multiple 
nationally recognized tools or calculators to assist employers in 
making this kind of determination. One such tool is the Living Wage 
Calculator developed by experts at the Massachusetts Institute of 
Technology (MIT).\72\ Another is the Self-Sufficiency Standard 
developed by experts at the Center for Women's Welfare of the 
University of Washington.\73\ These types of publicly available 
calculators take into account a variety of costs for basic needs and 
how these costs vary by geographic area, to help determine an 
appropriate hourly wage sufficient to cover these costs. Some 
calculators provide estimates for different family sizes and 
structures, but it is not the intent of the proposed standard to 
require programs to pay a wage sufficient to cover basic needs for 
staff that is adjusted by family size or family structure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ Glasmeier, A.K. Living Wage Calculator. 2020. Massachusetts 
Institute of Technology. livingwage.mit.edu.
    \73\ The Center for Women's Welfare. The Self-Sufficiency 
Standard. University of Washington. https://selfsufficiencystandard.org/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Alternatively, programs who wish to calculate their own minimum pay 
estimates could consider looking to other reliable data sources to 
determine expected costs for different types of expenditures for their 
geographic area, such as the following publicly available alternatives. 
Examples of publicly available data include, but are not limited to: 
Housing costs could be approximated using Fair Market Rent estimates 
published annually by the U.S. Department for Housing and Urban 
Development (HUD); \74\ Food costs can be estimated using the USDA's 
food plan national average for adult food consumption; \75\ Health care 
costs can be estimated using estimates from the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics' (BLS) Consumer Expenditures Survey for average consumer 
costs for health insurance, medical services, drugs, and medical 
supplies; \76\ Transportation expenses can also be estimated using 
estimates from BLS Consumer Expenditures Survey for average consumer 
costs for cars and trucks, gas and oil, other vehicle expenses, and 
public transportation; \77\ Expenses for taxes can be estimated by 
calculating percentages based on required Federal and State taxes. 
Finally, a program could consider if they want to incorporate estimates 
for other important costs such as personal care products, apparel, 
basic supplies, broadband, and telephone services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/fmr.html#2023.
    \75\ https://www.fns.usda.gov/cnpp/usda-food-plans-cost-food-reports-monthly-reports.
    \76\ https://www.bls.gov/cex/.
    \77\ https://www.bls.gov/cex/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wage Comparability Across Head Start Preschool and Early Head Start
    Finally, now we turn to the last of the proposed changes on wages, 
new paragraph Sec.  1302.90(e)(4), Wage comparability for all ages 
served. Here, we propose a new standard that promotes wage 
comparability across Head Start Preschool and Early Head Start staff 
positions by requiring that the pay structure established or updated 
under Sec.  1302.90(e)(1)(i) does not differ by age of children served 
for similar program staff positions with similar qualifications and 
experience. Head Start Preschool and Early Head Start staff perform 
similar important roles and responsibilities to support the development 
of enrolled infants, toddlers, and preschoolers. In classroom settings, 
Early Head Start teachers must have at least a CDA credential or 
equivalent credential, with training or coursework in infant and 
toddler development (Sec.  1302.91(e)(1)). Head Start Preschool 
teachers must have at least an associate or bachelor's degree in child 
development or early childhood education or otherwise meet the 
requirements of section 648(a)(3)(B) of the Act (Sec.  
1302.91(e)(2)(ii)). The Act also requires that at least 50 percent of 
Head Start Preschool teachers nationwide have a bachelor's degree. We 
would expect that these differences in qualifications would result in 
different salaries or wages. However, a good share of Early Head Start 
teachers also hold a bachelors or higher degree (23 percent in 2022). 
Nonetheless, our administrative data from Head Start programs indicates 
a stark difference in average salaries between Head Start Preschool and 
Early Head Start teachers, even among those teachers with similar 
qualifications.
    In 2022, the average Early Head Start teacher with a bachelor's 
degree earned an annual salary of $37,805, compared to $40,041 for the 
average Head Start Preschool teacher with a bachelor's degree, a salary 
gap of just over $2,000 per year.\78\ For teachers with advanced 
degrees, the disparity is even greater; in 2022, these Head Start 
Preschool teachers earned on average 20 percent more in annual salary 
($51,162) compared to Early Head Start teachers ($42,761), a salary gap 
of over $8,000.\79\ This is a substantial gap in average salary between 
professionals holding the same qualifications and performing similar 
roles in supporting the learning and development of Head Start 
children. These disparities are common

[[Page 80832]]

in the field and lead to increased turnover.\80\ Anecdotally, ACF has 
received reports that programs find it more difficult to hire Early 
Head Start teachers than Head Start Preschool teachers. The proposed 
Sec.  1302.90(e)(4) will help close the wage gap between Early Head 
Start and Head Start Preschool teachers with similar degrees and 
promote stronger retention of Early Head Start teachers, thereby 
improving quality of services for enrolled infants and toddlers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ Source: Head Start 2021 PIR.
    \79\ Ibid.
    \80\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Staff for Whom Wage Standards Apply
    Taken together, the new standards for wage requirements proposed in 
this NPRM include requirements for (1) progress to pay parity for Head 
Start education staff with kindergarten through third grade elementary 
teachers by providing wages comparable to preschool teachers in school-
based settings, adjusted for responsibilities, qualifications, and 
experience ; (2) a pay scale that applies to all staff and promotes 
competitive wages across positions; (3) a minimum pay floor sufficient 
to cover basic costs of living; and (4) wage comparability across Head 
Start and Early Head Start positions for staff with similar 
qualifications and experience. We recognize that it must be clear for 
programs to which staff these newly proposed standards apply. It is our 
intention that these newly proposed standards improve wages for staff 
in the program who are either employees or contractors and who provide 
regular services for children and families in the program that are 
integral to program quality or functioning.
    First, we propose that these standards apply to staff who are 
employees of the Head Start program, whose salary is paid at least in 
part with Head Start funds, and whose regular job responsibilities 
include activities or services to support enrolled children and 
families. We invite public comment on this clarification of which staff 
the wages standards apply to, including any potential unintended 
consequences.
    Next, we summarize our expectations for how the proposed wage 
standards should apply to contracted staff. Contracted staff typically 
includes individuals who are not Head Start employees, with whom the 
program has contracted to provide an ongoing service (e.g., 
disabilities specialists and mental health professionals, bus drivers, 
etc.). We recognize that many individuals who provide critical services 
for Head Start programs do so through contracted services. We also 
recognize that for Early Head Start--Child Care Partnership grant 
recipients, many child care partners are funded through contracts or 
other mechanisms with the grant recipients. In the context of the new 
wage standards, we propose that, for contracted staff, language in the 
contract must provide for wages comparable to what the recipient 
organization would provide if they were the employer. Further, we 
propose to require that programs strongly encourage contractors to use 
the funding to increase salaries for their staff.
    We invite public comment on this expectation for how the wage 
standards apply to contractors or other partnership agreements, 
including any potential unintended consequences.
    Finally, we recognize that these proposed standards will have 
different ramifications for implementation within certain 
organizational structures or for certain types of agencies. For 
example, grant recipients with employee bargaining agreements and those 
in organizations with existing formal salary structures that extend 
beyond just Head Start staff, such as in community action agencies, may 
need to engage representatives of workers if they need to negotiate new 
collective bargaining agreements that increase wages for Head Start 
staff (or for specific groups of Head Start staff, such as teachers). 
We also recognize that many Tribal grant recipients may have pay 
structures already in place for Tribal employees that include staff 
beyond Head Start. We encourage all programs, not solely those with 
collective bargaining agreements, to engage Head Start staff as they 
work to meet these new proposed standards, both for wages and other 
proposed changes. ACF intends to provide TTA supports to understand 
options and strategies for implementing wage increases within the 
context of varied organizational structures and agency types.
    ACF recognizes that the proposed wage requirements are complex, and 
as discussed previously, may be experienced differently by different 
communities. We seek public comment on how any of the proposed wage 
requirements in this section may impact various communities. We 
specifically request public comment from the special populations served 
by Head Start, including American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) and 
MSHS programs and communities. We also specifically request comment 
from Head Start staff and their representatives, and other early 
childhood program providers.

Workforce Supports: Staff Benefits (Sec.  1302.90)

    Section 1302.90 outlines requirements for personnel policies, 
including the establishment of personnel policies and procedures, 
background check procedures, standards of conduct, and communication 
with dual language learners. In alignment with the newly proposed 
requirements in Sec.  1302.90(e) to improve wages for staff, we also 
propose a new paragraph (f) in this section that outlines requirements 
for grant recipients to provide benefits to staff. The proposed new 
standards require grant recipients to provide or facilitate access to 
health insurance for all staff; paid sick leave, and paid family leave 
for full-time staff; provide short-term behavioral health services for 
full-time staff for free or at minimal cost to them; and facilitate 
access to Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) and child care 
subsidies for eligible staff. We are also considering a requirement for 
recipients to provide retirement benefits to all full-time staff and we 
specifically request public comment on whether to add such a 
requirement in a final rule. This request for comment on a possible 
requirement for retirement benefits is discussed in further detail 
below. In the context of these proposed requirements, we propose to 
define ``full-time staff'' as those working 30 hours per week or more 
while the program is in session. For programs operating longer than a 
typical school year (e.g., year-round programs), we propose a 
requirement that such programs develop a policy for vacation or 
personal leave. Grant recipients are encouraged to consider and offer 
other benefits that may support staff recruitment and retention.
    First, we propose to add Sec.  1302.90(f)(1) as a lead in statement 
to define full-time staff as it applies to several proposed benefit 
requirements. Proposed (f)(1) defines full-time staff as those working 
30 or more hours per week during the program year. Next, we propose to 
add (f)(1)(i) which requires a program to provide or facilitate access 
to high-quality, affordable health insurance. This proposed standard 
would require grant recipients to either: (1) provide and contribute to 
employer-sponsored health insurance coverage, or (2) educate, connect, 
and facilitate the enrollment of employees in health insurance options 
in the Healthcare.gov Marketplace (Marketplace), the appropriate State-
specific health insurance marketplace, or Medicaid, for full-time 
staff. Employees are not obligated to accept employer-provided or 
employer-facilitated health insurance, such as those receiving

[[Page 80833]]

insurance coverage through a spouse or another manner. Through input 
from OHS regional office staff and members of the Head Start community, 
we are aware that, while many Head Start staff are already offered 
employer-sponsored health coverage, this coverage may still entail 
considerable out-of-pocket costs for staff. Thus, if grant recipients 
choose to offer employer-sponsored coverage, we encourage employers to 
provide an insurance plan that offers coverage similar to that offered 
by silver, gold, or platinum plans in the Marketplace.\81\ Definitions 
of affordable coverage, minimum value,\82\ and minimum essential health 
benefits \83\ are determined by the Affordable Care Act (ACA), and 
large Head Start grant recipients are already subject to the employer 
shared responsibility provisions in the ACA.\84\ Premium tax credits 
\85\ subsidize the cost of health insurance coverage in the Marketplace 
and are available to individuals in households with incomes up to 400 
percent of the Federal Poverty Guidelines. We anticipate most Head 
Start staff are currently eligible for these tax credits, and some may 
be eligible for Medicaid depending on their family size, household 
income, and the State in which they live. Because premium tax credit 
amounts vary with household income and household compositional changes, 
we also anticipate that as the wage requirements proposed in new 
paragraph (e) of this section are implemented, this would affect 
premium tax credit amounts or eligibility, as well as Medicaid 
eligibility, for some staff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ See the healthcare.gov website for a description of 
Marketplace plans and actuarial value: https://www.healthcare.gov/choose-a-plan/plans-categories/.
    \82\ See the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) website for more 
information on minimum value and affordability: https://www.irs.gov/affordable-care-act/employers/minimum-value-and-affordability.
    \83\ See healthcare.gov for a list of essential health benefits: 
https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/essential-health-benefits/.
    \84\ See the IRS website for more information on the employer 
shared responsibility provisions: https://www.irs.gov/affordable-care-act/employers/employer-shared-responsibility-provisions.
    \85\ See the healthcare.gov website for a description of premium 
tax credits and eligibility: https://www.healthcare.gov/lower-costs/save-on-monthly-premiums/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For part-time staff who work fewer than the 30 hour per week as 
defined above, we propose to require programs to facilitate the 
enrollment of these staff in health insurance options in the 
Marketplace or through Medicaid for which they may be eligible. 
Specifically, we propose to add new paragraph (f)(2) which requires a 
program to facilitate access to high-quality, affordable health 
insurance for each part-time staff member. That is, grant recipients 
would not be required to offer nor precluded from offering employer-
sponsored health insurance to part-time staff, but the proposed 
standard would require, at a minimum, that the grant recipient make 
part-time staff aware of potential benefits through premium tax credits 
for which they may be eligible and facilitate their connection to the 
Marketplace or Medicaid.
    Increasing Head Start staff access to and the quality of health 
insurance benefits is key to attracting and retaining skilled staff and 
to being competitive with other jobs. In March 2022, 73 percent of the 
civilian workforce had access to employer-sponsored healthcare benefits 
(88 percent of full-time workers and 23 percent of part-time workers), 
with employers paying on average 80 percent of premiums for employee 
coverage and 67 percent for family coverage.\86\ By comparison, in 
2019, only 27 percent of ECE workers in center-based settings had 
private health insurance through their own employer, while nearly all 
K-12 educators had employer-sponsored coverage.\87\ Nearly 16 percent 
of the ECE workforce lacked health insurance.\88\ As previously 
described, we are also aware that, while many Head Start staff may be 
offered employer-sponsored health coverage, it may not cover many 
health expenses, may not cover family members and/or may entail 
considerable out of pocket costs for staff. In order for Head Start 
programs to compete with other sectors that could potentially employ 
staff qualified for Head Start--including public schools--it is 
critical that Head Start programs offer or connect staff to quality, 
affordable health insurance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). (2022). Employee Benefits 
in the United States, March 2022. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ebs2.pdf.
    \87\ Rudich, J., Sugar, S., Chien, N., Peters, C., & Sommers, B. 
(2021, November). Assessing uninsured rates in early care and 
education workers. Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning 
and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 
https://www.aspe.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/557aff156a2eac8dd50b489172c7eac6/early-educators-uninsured-data-point.pdf?_ga=2.163634812.2117647616.1661871770-774747381.1611252684.
    \88\ Rudich et al. (2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on our analysis of OHS administrative data from grant 
recipients, we have determined that most recipients employ more than 50 
workers and are therefore subject to the ACA's shared responsibility 
for employers regarding health coverage, and many offer some level of 
health insurance or other employee benefits.\89\ We anticipate some 
implementation issues for small grant recipients with fewer than 50 
employees who do not currently offer or administer employer-sponsored 
benefits like health insurance. However, the proposed requirements as 
written allow recipients to facilitate full-time staff members' 
enrollment in health insurance options in the Marketplace, which helps 
the logistical difficulties of negotiating employee benefits plans with 
insurers, though we acknowledge that recipients may require technical 
assistance to connect with Navigators or other resources. The American 
Rescue Plan Act of 2021 and the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 \90\ 
increased the subsidies for purchasing private health insurance in the 
Marketplace available to those meeting income and other requirements, 
and grant recipients may choose to administer or contribute to 
employees' flexible spending accounts (FSAs) to defray out-of-pocket 
health care costs. When employees are covered by a health savings 
account (HSA)-eligible high-deductible health plan, grant recipients 
may choose to administer or contribute to employees' HSAs to defray 
out-of-pocket health care costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \89\ See https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2014/02/12/2014-03082/shared-responsibility-for-employers-regarding-health-coverage.
    \90\ See https://www.cms.gov/blog/inflation-reduction-act-tax-credits-improve-coverage-affordability-middle-income-americans#_ftnref6/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Next, we propose a new paragraph (f)(1)(ii) which requires that 
programs offer paid sick leave to full-time staff, based on an accrual 
system based on hours worked or by offering a number of days updated 
annually. At a minimum, the accrual must meet the standards set by 
State or local laws, if applicable. Paid leave due to illness or other 
reasons is a typical employer-sponsored benefit in the U.S. workforce. 
We do not propose a specific required number of days per year but seek 
comments on whether the standard should specify a minimum number of 
leave days or accrual rate.
    Paid sick leave for workers allows for recovery from personal 
illness or the time to care for ill family members, but employer-
provided paid sick leave is not universal and varies with worker wages. 
In March 2022, 79 percent of civilian workers had access to paid sick 
leave, 79 percent had paid holidays, and 77 percent had paid vacation 
leave, but just 40 percent of the lowest 10 percent of earners had 
access to paid sick leave compared to nearly all (96 percent) of

[[Page 80834]]

the top 10 percent of earners.\91\ Eighty-eight percent of full-time 
civilian workers had access to paid sick leave compared to just about 
half (51 percent) of part-time workers.\92\ Workers who lack paid sick 
leave are more likely to go to work while ill and to forgo medical care 
for themselves and their families,\93\ problems exacerbated by the 
pandemic. Having access to sick leave is particularly important for a 
workforce that directly cares for, teaches, and interacts with young 
children in group settings in which the spread of communicable illness 
is common.\94\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \91\ BLS. (2022). Table 6. Selected paid leave benefits: Access, 
March 2022.
    \92\ BLS. (2022). Table 6. Selected paid leave benefits: Access, 
March 2022. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ebs2.pdf.
    \93\ Schneider D. Paid sick leave in Washington State: Evidence 
on employee outcomes, 2016-2018. Am J Public Health. 
2020;110(4):499-504. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2019.305481; DeRigne LA, 
Stoddard-Dare P, Quinn L. Workers without paid sick leave less 
likely to take time off for illness or injury compared to those with 
paid sick leave. Health Aff. 2016;35(3):520-527. doi:10.1377/
hlthaff.2015.0965. Schenider, D., Harknett, K., & Vivas-Portillo, E. 
Olive Garden's expasion of paid sick leave during COVID-19 reduced 
the share of employees workign while sick. Health Aff. 
2021;40(8):1328-1336. https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/10.1377/hlthaff.2020.02320.
    \94\ Bradley, R. H. (2003). Child care and common communicable 
illnesses in children aged 37 to 54 months. Archives of Pediatric 
and Adolescent Medicine, 157(2), 196-200. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12580692/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Next, we propose a new paragraph (f)(1)(iii) which requires that 
programs offer job-protected periods of paid family leave to employees 
consistent with eligibility for and protections in the Family and 
Medical Leave Act (FMLA) of 1993 regardless of employer size. Or, if 
applicable, the proposed standard clarifies that programs should comply 
with requirements set by State or local laws for paid family leave. 
Periods of leave that are longer than the few days per year typically 
offered by paid sick leave may be needed during certain life events, 
including a serious illness for a staff member or their family members, 
or the birth of a child. A growing body of research shows that access 
to paid family leave improves maternal and child health and family 
economic well-being and increases father engagement and preventive care 
receipt.\95\ We intend for this requirement to apply to all programs, 
even those who are not covered by FMLA due to employer size (e.g., 
fewer than 50 employees). As such, we expect that the proposed paid 
family leave policy would apply for full-time employees in all Head 
Start programs, regardless of the number of employees in the program, 
who have had at least 12 months of tenure with their employer. The 
reason for the leave must be a qualifying reason under FMLA, regardless 
of whether the employer is covered by FMLA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \95\ Rossin-Slater, M., & Uniat, L. (2019). Paid family leave 
policies and Population Health. Health Affairs Brief. https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hpb20190301.484936/ Waldfogel, J., 
Doran, E., & Pac, J. (2019). Paid family and medical leave improves 
the well-being of children and families. SRCD Child Evidence Brief. 
https://www.srcd.org/research/paid-family-and-medical-leave-improves-well-being-children-and-families.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An estimated 29 percent of Head Start staff work in one of the 11 
states and the District of Columbia that have enacted paid family leave 
laws as of October 2022, though the requirements in these laws 
vary.\96\ In March 2022, more than one-quarter (29%) of primary and 
secondary, and special education teachers had access to paid family 
leave benefits through their employers,\97\ with others having access 
to State-sponsored public paid family leave programs.\98\ Employer-
provided paid family leave benefits are inequitably distributed in the 
workforce, with 34 percent of civilian workers in management, 
professional and related occupations having access, compared to 15 
percent of those in service occupations.\99\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \96\ See: https://www.nationalpartnership.org/our-work/resources/economic-justice/paid-leave/state-paid-family-leave-laws.pdf.
    \97\ BLS. (2022). National Compensation Survey: Employee 
Benefits in the United States, March 2022. Table 7: Leave benefits 
by occupational category, Civilian workers, March 2022. https://www.bls.gov/ebs/publications/september-2022-landing-page-employee-benefits-in-the-united-states-march-2022.htm.
    \98\ As of October 2022, paid family leave laws were in place in 
11 states and the District of Columbia. See: https://www.nationalpartnership.org/our-work/resources/economic-justice/paid-leave/state-paid-family-leave-laws.pdf.
    \99\ BLS. (2022). National Compensation Survey: Employee 
Benefits in the United States, March 2022. Table 7: Leave benefits 
by occupational category, Civilian workers, March 2022. https://www.bls.gov/ebs/publications/september-2022-landing-page-employee-benefits-in-the-united-states-march-2022.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FMLA entitles eligible workers to periods of unpaid, job-protected 
leave for up to 12 weeks per 12-month period for the birth, adoption, 
or foster care placement of a new child within one year of birth, 
adoption, or placement; to care for a spouse, child, or parent with a 
serious health condition; a serious health condition that makes the 
employee unable to perform the essential functions of his or her job; 
or a qualifying exigency arising out of the fact that the employee's 
spouse, son, daughter, or parent is a covered military member on 
covered active duty. Up to 26 weeks of leave is available for an 
employee to care for a covered servicemember with a serious injury or 
illness if the eligible employee is the servicemember's spouse, son, 
daughter, parent, or next of kin.\100\ To be eligible for FMLA, workers 
must work for a covered employer at a location with 50 or more 
employees within 75 miles; have worked 1,250 hours or more during the 
12 months prior to the start of leave; and have worked for the employer 
for 12 months or more before the start of leave.\101\ However, under 
this proposed new requirement, all Head Start programs, regardless of 
employer size, would be required to provide full-time staff that meet 
the employee eligibility requirements (i.e., have worked 1,250 hours or 
more during the 12 months prior to the start of leave; and have worked 
for the employer for 12 months or more before the start of leave) with 
partial or full wage replacement during qualifying periods of leave. We 
request comments on whether the reasons for leave or eligibility 
requirements, such as how long a staff member has been with an employer 
or employer size, should be modified for this proposed standard, or if 
aligning with FMLA is the best approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \100\ https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/fmla.
    \101\ U.S. Department of Labor. FMLA Frequently Asked Questions. 
https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/fmla/faq#3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Next, for programs whose program year lasts longer than a typical 
school year, we propose in new paragraph (f)(1)(iv) to require such 
programs offer full-time staff the accrual of paid vacation or personal 
leave commensurate with experience or time working at the program. In 
2022, 77 percent of civilian workers had paid vacation leave and 48 
percent had paid leave designated as personal leave. That year, only 21 
percent of primary and secondary teachers had paid vacation leave.\102\ 
But as noted by BLS,\103\ the majority of K-12 school districts 
function on a school year schedule (37-38 weeks per year) with regular 
breaks, as do many Head Start Preschool programs. However, most Early 
Head Start programs and some Head Start Preschool programs operate 
throughout the summer months as well, and these ``year-round'' program 
staff are not benefitting from a summer break. We believe these staff 
working on more of a year-round schedule should have the opportunity to 
accrue paid vacation leave, but we do not propose a specific

[[Page 80835]]

required number of days per year or accrual rate. We request comment on 
whether these requirements regarding paid vacation or personal leave 
are important for attracting and retaining qualified staff. We seek 
comments on whether the implementation of these requirements would lead 
to unintended consequences or unpredictable expenses, particularly in 
the case of paying out upon an employee leaving a program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \102\ BLS. (2022). National Compensation Survey: Employee 
Benefits in the United States, March 2022. Table 7: Leave benefits 
by occupational category, Civilian workers, March 2022. https://www.bls.gov/ebs/publications/september-2022-landing-page-employee-benefits-in-the-united-states-march-2022.htm.
    \103\ BLS. (2022). Employee Benefits in the United States, March 
2022. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ebs2.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Next, we propose to add new paragraph (f)(1)(v) which requires that 
employers offer access to short-term behavioral health services for 
full-time staff that entails minimal or no out-of-pocket costs for 
staff. We propose that these services include access to approximately 
three to five outpatient visits per year.\104\ The Paul Wellstone and 
Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 
requires that group health plans and health insurance coverage ensure 
that financial requirements and treatment limitations on mental health 
and substance-use disorder services are no more restrictive than the 
predominant financial requirements and treatment limitations applicable 
to medical and surgical health services, and that there are no 
financial requirements and treatment limitations applicable only with 
respect to mental health and substance use disorder services. Mental 
health and substance-use disorder services, including treatment such as 
counseling and psychotherapy, are also one category of the essential 
health benefits that health insurance issuers offering non-
grandfathered \105\ group or individual health insurance coverage 
(including health insurance coverage offered in the Marketplace) must 
cover without annual dollar caps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \104\ When offering access to the behavioral health services 
that would be required under these proposed rules, an employer 
should be aware that other provisions of law may apply to that 
arrangement. In general, the provision of medical care, including 
the provision of behavioral health services, could result in the 
arrangement being considered a group health plan subject to the 
relevant provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act 
(ERISA) that applies to group health plans, unless the arrangement 
qualifies as an excepted benefit. For an Employee Assistance Program 
(EAP) to qualify as an excepted benefit, the EAP must meet the 
requirements of 26 CFR 54.9831-1(c)(3)(vi); 29 CFR 
2590.732(c)(3)(vi) and 45 CFR 146.145(b)(3)(vi), including that the 
program may not provide significant benefits in the nature of 
medical care and that no employee premiums or contributions or cost-
sharing can be required as a condition of participation in the EAP. 
To the extent the arrangement that provides the behavioral health 
visits required under these proposed rules does not meet the 
requirements to qualify as an excepted benefit, the arrangement may 
be considered a group health plan subject to the requirements of 
Part 7 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).
    \105\ Section 1251 of the Affordable Care Act provides that 
grandfathered health plans are not subject to certain provisions of 
the Code, ERISA, and the PHS Act, as added by the Affordable Care 
Act, for as long as they maintain their status as grandfathered 
health plans. See 26 CFR 54.9815-1251; 29 CFR 2590.715-1251 and 45 
CFR 147.140. For a list of the market reform provisions applicable 
to grandfathered health plans under title XXVII of the PHS Act that 
the Affordable Care Act added or amended and that were incorporated 
into the Code and ERISA, visit https://www.dol.gov/sites/default/files/ebsa/laws-and-regulations/laws/affordable-care-act/for-employers-andadvisers/grandfathered-health-plans-provisions-summary-chart.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Even with health insurance, out-of-pocket expenses like high 
deductibles or copays may serve as barriers for individuals facing 
mental illness or symptoms for receiving care. In 2010, only 15 percent 
of private industry workers had a high deductible plan, compared to 45 
percent in 2018.\106\ In a 2020 nationally representative survey, among 
those reporting perceived unmet mental health care needs in the prior 
year, 46 percent reported that they could not afford the cost of 
treatment, 19 percent reported that their health insurance did not pay 
enough for mental health services, and 29 percent reported they did not 
know where to go for services.\107\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \106\ BLS. (2023). High deductible health plans and health 
savings accounts. https://www.bls.gov/ebs/factsheets/high-deductible-health-plans-and-health-savings-accounts.htm.
    \107\ Council of Economic Advisors. (2022, May). Reducing the 
economic burden of unmet mental health needs. The White House. 
https://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/written-materials/2022/05/31/reducing-the-economic-burden-of-unmet-mental-health-needs/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Research suggests that Head Start staff face a constellation of 
stressors, including financial stress and challenging behaviors in the 
classroom, which are in turn associated with poorer staff physical and 
psychological well-being, and may benefit from increased access to 
mental health care services. Head Start teachers experience high rates 
of health problems and depressive symptoms, with some studies finding 
that nearly one-third have depressive symptoms.\108\ A 2013 study in 
Pennsylvania found that Head Start teachers showed higher rates of poor 
or fair health, depressive symptoms, unhealthy days, and having three 
or more health conditions compared to women with similar 
backgrounds.\109\ The challenges surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic 
exacerbated stress and health problems among early childhood teachers. 
A study of ECE professionals conducted in summer 2020 in New York City 
found that 31 percent reported doctor-diagnosed anxiety and 23 percent 
reported doctor-diagnosed depressive symptoms.\110\ Another study of 
over 80,000 ECE professionals found that 47.5 percent screened positive 
for depression and 66.5 percent reported moderate to high stress 
levels, which was a higher prevalence of both depression and stress 
than among US adults overall in 2020.\111\ Further, research on Head 
Start programs has linked staff job stressors and poor mental health to 
lower-quality teacher-child interactions and teachers' behavioral 
management skills.\112\ In a sample of Head Start programs, teachers' 
depressive symptoms were associated with fewer gains in children's math 
skills across the year.\113\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \108\ Ibid.
    \109\ Whitaker, R., Becker, B., Herman, A., & Gooze, R. (2013). 
The physical and mental health of Head Start staff: The Pennsylvania 
Head Start staff wellness survey, 2012. Preventing chronic disease, 
10(1), 1-9.
    \110\ Kwon, K.-Ah., Ford, T.G., Tsotsoros, J., Randall, K., 
Malek-Lasater, A., & Kim, S.G. (2021). Challenges in working 
conditions and well-being of early childhood teachers by teaching 
modality during the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of 
Environmental Research and Public Health, 19, 4919.
    \111\ Elharake, J.A., Shafiq, M., Cobanoglu, A., Malik, A.A., 
Klotz, M., Humphries, J.E., . . . & Gilliam, W.S. (2022). Prevalence 
of Chronic Diseases, Depression, and Stress among US Child Care 
Professionals during the COVID-19 Pandemic. medRxiv, 2022-03.
    \112\ Li-Grining, C.L., Raver, C.C., Champion, K., Sardin, L., 
Metzger, M., & Jones, S.M. (2010). Understanding and improving 
classroom emotional climate and behavior management in the ``real 
world'': The role of Head Start teachers' psychosocial stressors. 
Early Education and Development, 21(1), 65-94.; Roberts, A., 
LoCasale-Crouch, J., Hamre, B., & DeCoster, J. (2016). Exploring 
Teachers' Depressive Symptoms, Interaction Quality, and Children's 
Social-Emotional Development in Head Start. Early Education and 
Development, 27(5), 642-654.; Whitaker, R.C., Dearth-Wesley, T., & 
Gooze, R.A. (2015). Workplace stress and the quality of teacher-
children relationships in Head Start. Early Childhood Research 
Quarterly, 30, 57-69.
    \113\ Jeon, S., Jeon, L., Lang, S. & Newell, K. (2021). Teacher 
depressive symptoms and child math achievement in Head Start: The 
roles of family-teacher relationships and approaches to learning. 
Child Development, 92(6), 2478-2495.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Access to free or low-cost short term mental health services is key 
to promoting staff well-being and children's development. Programs may 
use a variety of strategies to ensure staff facing mental health 
conditions or symptoms have access to short-term, affordable mental 
health treatment. Employers may do so through an employer-sponsored 
group health plan that provides short-term, outpatient behavioral 
health care at low out-of-pocket costs, or through an Employee 
Assistance Program (EAP) that qualifies as an excepted benefit and can 
refer and connect employees to mental health resources and providers. 
While we propose to require programs to cover approximately three to 
five outpatient visits, nothing in these rules prohibit a

[[Page 80836]]

program from providing additional visits.
    Next, we propose to add new paragraph (f)(3) which requires 
programs to connect staff members who are parents with affordable child 
care resources and information--including connections to child care 
resource and referral agencies if applicable--and to facilitate the 
enrollment of staff members who may be eligible in the child care 
subsidy program. The early childhood workforce, including Head Start 
staff, are disproportionately women of color,\114\ many of whom rely on 
child care for their own children. High-quality child care is expensive 
and difficult to find,\115\ particularly for infants and toddlers, but 
key to both promoting labor force participation and children's 
development.\116\ Child Care Resource and Referral (CCR&R) 
organizations and other child care consumer education organizations 
serve as resource hubs to connect families to high-quality, affordable 
child care through referrals and information on licensing, subsidies, 
and how to access services for children with disabilities.\117\ Head 
Start programs can ensure that staff members are aware of and connected 
to local CCR&Rs or other consumer education organizations in their 
communities. For each staff member who may be eligible for public child 
care assistance, a program should educate and facilitate application to 
and enrollment in the child care subsidy program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \114\ Coffey, M. (2022). Still underpaid and unequal: Early 
childhood educators face low pay and a worsening wage gap. Center 
for American Progress. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/still-underpaid-and-unequal/; Mayfield, W., & Cho, I. (2022). The 
National Workforce Registry Alliance 2021 Workforce Dataset: Early 
Childhood and School-age Workforce Trends, with a Focus on Racial/
Ethnic Equity. National Workforce Registry Alliance. https://www.registryalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/NWRA-2022-ECE-workforce-data-report-final.pdf ; Smith, L., McHenry, K., Morris, & 
Chong, H. (2021). Characteristics of the child care workforce. 
Bipartisan Policy Center. https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/characteristics-of-the-child-care-workforce/.
    \115\ Child Care Aware. (2022). 2021 Child Care Affordability. 
https://www.childcareaware.org/catalyzing-growth-using-data-to-change-child-care/#ChildCareAffordability.
    \116\ Chaudry, A., Morrissey, T.W., Weiland, C., & Yoshikawa, Y. 
(2021). Cradle to Kindergarten: A New plan to combat inequality, 2nd 
Edition. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
    \117\ https://www.childcareaware.org/about/child-care-resource-referral/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, we recognize that many Head Start staff members' own 
children may be eligible for Head Start services. Being able to enroll 
one's own child in an ECE program where that individual is also 
employed could be an important benefit to support recruitment and 
retention of staff. Therefore, we also propose to add a new paragraph 
(5) to Sec.  1302.14(a) Selection criteria that clarifies programs can 
choose to prioritize the enrollment of staff members' children through 
selection criteria. Section 1302.14(a) includes requirements for 
establishing selection criteria to weigh the prioritization of 
selection of participants for the program. The proposed standard in new 
paragraph (5) clarifies that programs can choose, as part of this 
process, to prioritize staff members' children. Programs are reminded 
that in order to be enrolled in a Head Start funded slot, such children 
would still need to be age eligible and meet an eligibility category 
described in Sec.  1302.12(c) or (d). We also note that as the wage 
requirements proposed in this NPRM are implemented, this would likely 
affect eligibility for some staff.
    Next, we propose a new paragraph (4) in Sec.  1302.90(f) that 
requires programs to facilitate access to Public Service Loan 
Forgiveness (PSLF), or other applicable student loan debt relief 
programs, for any Head Start staff who may have student loan debt. This 
includes timely certification of employment for the staff member. 
Evidence suggests that student loan debt is higher among the ECE 
workforce than the overall population. When combined with relatively 
low wages, this compounds economic hardship. According to a March 2022 
survey of approximately 2,500 ECE providers, 19 percent reported they 
had student debt, compared to 17 percent of the U.S. adult population 
overall, and 17 percent reported they carried debt for others.\118\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \118\ RAPID Survey, Student Debt in the Early Childhood 
Workforce, May 2022. Retrieved from: https://rapidsurveyproject.com/our-research/student-debt-in-the-early-childhood-workforce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The PSLF Program, administered by the U.S. Department of Education, 
is intended to encourage individuals to enter and continue in full-time 
public service employment by forgiving the remaining balance of their 
Direct loans after they satisfy public service and loan payment 
requirements. Many Head Start programs share information with staff 
about the PSLF program as well as other State or local student debt 
relief opportunities they may be eligible for as a staff recruitment 
and retention strategy that can reduce financial stress among staff. 
Individual borrowers who are eligible for PSLF must submit with their 
PSLF application a certification of qualifying employment which 
requires a signature from the employer. It is important that Head Start 
programs offer timely certification of employment to facilitate debt 
relief for Head Start staff. This proposed standard would require 
programs to facilitate access to PSLF and other available student debt 
relief by providing information about debt relief opportunities and 
offering timely certification of employment.
    Next, recognizing that there are other benefits that may enhance 
programs' ability to compete for skilled staff, we propose to require 
programs, at least once every 5 years, to assess and determine if their 
benefits package is adequate for recruiting and retaining full-time 
staff and competitive with benefits offered by local or neighboring 
school districts. The proposed standard specifies that programs may 
offer additional benefits to staff, including more enhanced health 
benefits, retirement savings plans, flexible savings accounts, or life, 
disability, and long-term care insurance. We propose to encourage 
programs to offer additional benefits to all staff based on the needs 
of their workforce. Additional benefits may include but are not limited 
to retirement, dental or vision benefits; subsidized health insurance 
for staff members' dependents; tax-exempt health, dependent care, or 
flexible spending accounts; or other benefits to staff such as life, 
long-term care, and disability insurance.
    Finally, ACF is considering adding retirement savings plans to the 
list of required benefits to be provided to full-time Head Start staff 
and specifically seeks public comment on whether to add an additional 
requirement for recipients to provide retirement savings benefits to 
full-time staff. Research indicates that the majority of public school 
teachers are offered some type of retirement or pension plan.\119\ And 
a study of ECE professionals in one State found that 80 percent were 
worried about their retirement savings.\120\ Providing retirement 
benefits may provide another mechanism for Head Start programs to 
recruit and retain staff. However, we also recognize that such a 
requirement could lead to additional slot loss in Head Start absent 
additional appropriations. We seek public comment on whether retirement 
savings benefits, ranging from employer assistance in establishing 
retirement accounts to more comprehensive benefits with employer 
matching

[[Page 80837]]

contributions, consistent with what public schools offer, should be 
required as an effective mechanism for staff recruitment and retention, 
especially when weighed against potential slot loss. Overall, we 
believe this set of employer-provided benefits is necessary to attract 
and retain a skilled, qualified workforce in Head Start programs. In 
general, as Head Start programs phase in wage increases and benefits, 
they should hold harmless existing benefits such that employees receive 
benefits that are at least as generous as their current benefits. ACF 
requests comment about the degree to which grant recipients are 
currently offering a set of high-quality benefits and the 
administrative difficulty or expense creating these benefits would 
entail. We also seek public comment on how any of the proposed benefit 
requirements in this section may impact various communities. We 
specifically request public comment from the special populations served 
by Head Start, including AIAN and MSHS programs and communities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \119\ BLS. (2022). Employee benefits in the United States. Table 
1. Retirement benefits: Access, participation, and take-up rates.
    \120\ Sakai, L. (2014). ``Economic Insecurity and Early 
Childhood Teaching.'' In Worthy Work, Still Unlivable Wages: The 
Early Childhood Workforce 25 Years after the National Child Care 
Staffing Study, edited by Marcy Whitebook, Deborah Phillips, and 
Carollee Howes, 41-54. Berkeley, CA: Center for the Study of Child 
Care Employment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Workforce Supports: Staff Wellness (Sec.  1302.93)

    Section 1302.93 outlines program requirements for promoting staff 
health and wellness, including that staff: have regular health 
examinations; do not pose a risk of exposing others in the program to 
communicable diseases; are provided access to mental health and 
wellness information, including opportunities to learn about these 
topics. However, these current standards lack critical requirements to 
promote staff physical and mental wellness on the job, including 
regular breaks during the workday and access to appropriate adult-size 
furniture in classrooms. We believe the proposed requirements described 
in this section, together with the proposed requirements described in 
the Subpart I--Human Resources Management subsection of the Mental 
Health Services section of this preamble, will provide much needed 
supports to reduce staff stress and burnout; improve the quality of 
interactions between teachers and children; and improve staff 
recruitment and retention. Importantly, improving staff retention will 
also contribute to a more positive, improved working environment for 
all staff.
    In this section we describe newly proposed requirements for grant 
recipients to provide a minimal level of regular breaks for staff as 
well as brief unscheduled `wellness breaks' for staff who work directly 
in classrooms with children to support stress management, improve well-
being, reduce turnover, and improve staff retention and the quality of 
services. We also propose a requirement for classroom staff to have 
access to appropriate adult-sized furniture in classrooms to support 
ergonomic health. These newly proposed provisions are consistent with 
the proposed requirements in new paragraphs (e) and (f) of Sec.  
1302.90 that support improved staff wages and benefits.
    First, we propose to add a new paragraph (c) to Sec.  1302.93 which 
outlines requirements for break times during work shifts. In new 
paragraph (c)(1)(i) we specify that a program must provide, for each 
staff member working a shift lasting between four and six hours, a 
minimum of one 15-minute break per shift. In new paragraph (c)(1)(ii), 
we specify that a program must provide, for each staff member working a 
shift lasting six hours or more, a minimum of one 30-minute break per 
shift. Newly proposed paragraph (c)(2) requires programs to comply with 
State laws or regulations that are more stringent for staff breaks, if 
applicable. The required breaks outlined in new paragraph (c)(1) are 
minimums, and programs may choose to provide staff with longer or more 
frequent breaks depending on the needs of staff, children, and their 
programs.
    For staff members who regularly work in classrooms with children, 
the breaks for staff described in (c)(1) will be subject to required 
staff-child ratios. However, in newly proposed paragraph (c)(3), we 
specify that during break times for classroom staff, one teaching staff 
member may be replaced by one staff member who does not meet the 
teaching qualifications required for the age, as long as this staff 
member has the necessary training and experience to ensure safety of 
children and minimal disruption to the quality of services. ACF expects 
that, for classroom staff, these regular breaks will be scheduled for 
periods that are least disruptive for classroom instruction or 
routines, such as during nap times, meals, or outside play periods and 
will be covered by staff who have completed the appropriate background 
checks.
    In addition, we propose to add new paragraph (c)(4), which requires 
a program to design and implement a systematic approach to ensure each 
staff member that works directly with children as part of their regular 
job responsibilities can have access to brief unscheduled wellness 
breaks of about 5 minutes as needed while ensuring child safety. ACF 
expects these unscheduled breaks to be brief, of approximately 5 
minutes in length. The safety of children is of the utmost importance 
to ACF, and we recognize this is a key priority for programs as well. 
By designing an intentional, systematic approach for brief `wellness' 
breaks, we think programs will be able to better support staff members 
who feel temporarily overwhelmed or stressed by the challenges of the 
position in the classroom or otherwise need a very brief break (e.g., 
to use the restroom or take an emergency phone call). It will allow 
staff the opportunity to briefly step away from an overwhelming 
situation, calm down as needed, and think through an appropriate 
approach to handling the given situation. We believe this can help 
prevent or reduce child incidents in classrooms. At the same time, 
careful attention should be given at the program level to allow for 
these brief wellness breaks while also promoting the safety of 
children. It is expected that the number of unscheduled breaks could 
vary daily, and it may be the case that on any given day individuals 
may not need unscheduled breaks whereas on other days they could need 
more. We request public comment on the length or ideal frequency of 
these brief wellness breaks.
    We also propose to add a new paragraph (d) to Sec.  1302.93 which 
requires programs to ensure staff have access to adult size furniture 
in classrooms. This could include, for instance, adult sized chairs or 
desks depending on what the classroom layout allows. This change was 
motivated by the data indicating that staff in Head Start programs 
experience work-related ergonomic pain. For example, a survey of Head 
Start teachers in Baltimore found that 80 percent reported 
musculoskeletal pain as a result of their work.\121\ In an Oklahoma 
sample of Head Start teachers, more than seven in ten (73 percent) Head 
Start staff reported work-related ergonomic pain, including in routine 
activities like diapering or stooping to pick up children.\122\ 
Additionally, nearly one-third reported neck pain (31 percent), one in 
four reported shoulder pain (26 percent), and over half reported back 
pain (56 percent).\123\ The proposed requirement for adult size 
furniture will support the physical health of teachers and aligns with 
ACF's goal of improving

[[Page 80838]]

and investing in staff health and wellness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \121\ The Happy Teacher Project. (2020). Strengthening Health, 
Wellness, and Psychosocial Environments in Head Start: Technical 
Report 2020. Johns Hopkins University and Oklahoma State University
    \122\ Kwon, K., Ford, T., Randall, K., Castle, S. (2021). Head 
Start Teacher Paradox: Working conditions, well-being, and classroom 
quality. The Happy Teacher Project: Johns Hopkins University and 
Oklahoma State University.
    \123\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Together, regularly scheduled breaks, brief unscheduled wellness 
breaks, and access to adult size furniture in classrooms will provide 
staff with more of the support they need to provide high-quality 
education and care to enrolled children. There are no Federal and few 
State or local laws regarding employers' offering of staff breaks. The 
work of ECE staff, including Head Start teachers, involves actively 
educating, caring for, and supervising young children, jobs that 
require the full attention of staff members and can be physically, 
mentally, and emotionally demanding, particularly if done for long 
shift periods. Prior research suggests that Head Start teachers have 
low or inconsistent access to regular or unscheduled breaks at work. 
For instance, in 2021, the Happy Teacher Project found that 62 percent 
of Head Start teachers have no designated breaks, compared to 44 
percent of the general ECE workforce.\124\ In another survey of Head 
Start teachers in Maryland, 85 percent reported there was no designated 
break time for staff (other than children's nap time) and 69 percent 
reported there were no consistent bathroom breaks for staff; 55 percent 
indicated that more daily breaks would improve overall well-being.\125\ 
In samples of ECE teachers, up to one-third have reported diseases such 
as urinary tract infections and high blood pressure at higher rates 
than in populations of similar sociodemographic composition.\126\ This 
research suggests some Head Start staff may work full-day shifts 
without adequate breaks to eat their own meals, attend to minor 
personal tasks, or take care of their own mental and physical well-
being.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \124\ Kwon, K., Ford, T., Randall, K., Castle, S. (2021). Head 
Start Teacher Paradox: Working conditions, well-being, and classroom 
quality. The Happy Teacher Project: Johns Hopkins University and 
Oklahoma State University.
    \125\ The Happy Teacher Project. (2020). Strengthening Health, 
Wellness, and Psychosocial Environments in Head Start: Technical 
Report 2020. Johns Hopkins University and Oklahoma State University.
    \126\ Kwon, K., et al., (2022). Neglected elements of a high-
quality early childhood workforce: Whole teacher well-being and 
working conditions. Early Childhood Education Journal, 50, 157-168.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The lack of access to breaks at work may be part of a constellation 
of workplace stressors faced by Head Start staff, which as described 
previously, includes financial stress and the significant 
responsibility entrusted to Head Start staff who are charged with 
supporting the most vulnerable children and families who face a myriad 
of challenges. Work climate and stressors are associated with teacher 
psychological well-being,\127\ and in turn, contribute to staff 
turnover.\128\ In the Baltimore survey, 43 percent of Head Start 
teachers surveyed reported an intention to leave the job.\129\ 
Additionally, as stated earlier, Head Start staff turnover in 2022 was 
the highest it has been in two decades. Staff turnover interrupts 
adult-child relationships and is associated with poorer child outcomes 
\130\ and increases the workloads and schedule changes for the teachers 
who remain.\131\ Among staff who remain in their jobs, work 
environments and physical and psychological well-being are associated 
with teachers' relationships with children and children's 
outcomes.\132\ In a study of ECE centers that included Head Start 
programs, lead and assistant teachers' work stress was associated with 
children's social and emotional outcomes, including anxiety-withdrawal 
and social competence.\133\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \127\ Jeon, L., & Ardeleau, K. (2020). Work climate in early 
care and education and teachers' stress: Indirect associations 
through emotion regulation. Early Education & Development, 31(7), 
1031-1051; Jeon, L., Buettner, C., & Grant, A. (2018). Early 
childhood teachers' psychological well-being: Exploring potential 
predictors of depression, stress, and emotional exhaustion. Early 
Education & Development, 29(1), 53-69.
    \128\ Grant, A., Jeon, L. & Buettner, C. (2019). Relating early 
childhood teachers' working conditions and wellbeing in their 
turnover intentions. Educational Psychology, 39(3), 294-312.
    \129\ The Happy Teacher Project. (2020). Strengthening Health, 
Wellness, and Psychosocial Environments in Head Start: Technical 
Report 2020. Johns Hopkins University and Oklahoma State University.
    \130\ Markowitz, A., & Bassok, D. (2018). Teacher turnover and 
child development in Head Start. Paper presented at the Association 
for Public Policy Analysis and Management Conference. U.S. 
Department of Health and Human Services & U.S. Department of 
Education. (2016).
    \131\ Cassidy, D.J., Lower, J.K., Kintner-Duffy, V.L., Hegde, 
A.V., & Shim, J. (2011). The day-to-day reality of teacher turnover 
in preschool classrooms: An analysis of classroom context and 
teacher, director, and parent perspectives. Journal of Research in 
Childhood Education, 25(1), 1-23.
    \132\ Jeon, L., Buettner, C., Grant, A., & Lang, S. (2019). 
Early childhood teachers' stress and children's social, emotional, 
and behavioral functioning. Journal of Applied Developmental 
Psychology, 61, 21-32.; Jeon, S., Jeon, L., Lang, S. & Newell, K. 
(2021). Teacher depressive symptoms and child math achievement in 
Head Start: The roles of family-teacher relationships and approaches 
to learning. Child Development, 92(6), 2478-2495.; The Happy Teacher 
Project (2020).; Smith, S., & Lawrence, S. (2019). Early Care and 
Education Teacher Well-Being: Associations with Children's 
Experience, Outcomes, and Workplace Conditions (Issue March). http://www.nccp.org/publications/pdf/text_1224.pdf.
    \133\ Jeon, L., Buettner, C., Grant, A., & Lang, S. (2019). 
Early childhood teachers' stress and children's social, emotional, 
and behavioral functioning. Journal of Applied Developmental 
Psychology, 61, 21-32.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Research suggests that early childhood teacher well-being was low 
prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, and that the pandemic exacerbated the 
workplace, financial, and other stressors among the ECE workforce, 
contributing to reductions in emotional well-being, physical health, 
and job commitment in the workforce.\134\ Further, research finds 
evidence of racial differences, such as higher rates of stress for 
Black teachers and higher rates of ergonomic pain for Latinx teachers 
for those teaching in-person when compared to their White counterparts, 
with implications for equity among a workforce that is 
disproportionately women of color.\135\ The pandemic also exacerbated 
the challenges in recruiting and retaining ECE staff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \134\ Hanno, E., Gardner, M., Jones, S., & Lesaux, N. (2022). An 
ecological perspective on early educator well-being at the start of 
the COVID-19 pandemic. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2022.02.002; Kwon, K., Ford, T., Tsotsoros, 
J., Randall, K., Malek-Lasater, A., & Kim, S. (2022). Challenges in 
working conditions and well-being of early childhood teachers by 
teaching modality during the COVID-19 pandemic. International 
Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19, 4919.; 
Markowitz, A., & Bassok, D. (2022). Understanding the well-being of 
early educators in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic: Lessons 
from Louisiana. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2022.05.001; Souto-Manning, M., & Melvin, S. 
(2022). Early childhood teachers of color in New York City: 
Heightened stress, lower quality of life, declining health, and 
compromised sleep amidst COVID-19. Early Childhood Research 
Quarterly, 60, 34-48.
    \135\ Kwon, K., Ford, T., Tsotsoros, J., Randall, K., Malek-
Lasater, A., & Kim, S. (2022). Challenges in working conditions and 
well-being of early childhood teachers by teaching modality during 
the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Environmental 
Research and Public Health, 19, 4919.; Souto-Manning, M., & Melvin, 
S. (2022). Early childhood teachers of color in New York City: 
Heightened stress, lower quality of life, declining health, and 
compromised sleep amidst COVID-19. Early Childhood Research 
Quarterly, 60, 34-48.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Each standard that ACF proposes in this section is responsive to 
research, survey data, and Head Start administrative and internal data 
which collectively demonstrate that more attention must be paid to 
educator wellness and well-being. Evidence from the field shows that 
early childhood educators' mental and physical health and well-being 
are often neglected or overlooked. One survey administered during the 
COVID-19 pandemic found that teachers ranked ``more daily breaks and 
paid leave'' in the top five items needed to support their well-
being.\136\ Other research prior to the pandemic in a national sample 
and one in Oklahoma

[[Page 80839]]

found that teachers rated breaks as fifth and second, respectively, as 
needs for their workplaces.\137\ ACF's proposed requirements in this 
section are intended to be responsive to these research findings and 
support Head Start staff well-being by ensuring they have access to 
regular, scheduled breaks, and to brief unscheduled breaks, which may 
be useful stress management strategies in infrequent circumstances when 
a teacher is feeling overwhelmed. Additionally, these proposed 
standards will strengthen supports for Head Start early educators 
during the on-going post-pandemic and long-term recovery of the 
workforce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \136\ Kwon, K., Ford, T., Tsotsoros, J., Randall, K., Malek-
Lasater, A., & Kim, S. (2022). Challenges in working conditions and 
well-being of early childhood teachers by teaching modality during 
the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Environmental 
Research and Public Health, 19, 4919.
    \137\ Kwon, K., Ford, T., Randall, K., Castle, S. (2021). Head 
Start Teacher Paradox: Working conditions, well-being, and classroom 
quality. The Happy Teacher Project: Johns Hopkins University and 
Oklahoma State University.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We seek public comment on how any of the proposed staff wellness 
requirements in this section may impact various communities. We 
specifically request public comment from the special populations served 
by Head Start, including AIAN and MSHS programs and communities.

Workforce Supports: Employee Engagement (Sec.  1302.92, Sec.  1302.101)

    Section 1302.101(a)(2) requires programs to implement a management 
system that provides regular and ongoing staff supervision to support 
individual professional development and continuous program quality 
improvement. Disengaged staff are not as emotionally committed to or 
proud of their work or organization, are less motivated, and are more 
eager to leave.\138\ Disengagement negatively affects the well-being of 
staff, the quality of their work, and the attitudes held toward 
children.\139\ Meaningful and effective employee engagement practices 
that promote clear roles and responsibilities are needed to improve the 
well-being of the workforce by helping identify and address job-related 
stress, burnout, and workload issues. These practices also empower the 
workforce, build respect in the workplace, and improve staff retention 
and overall job satisfaction. As such, we propose to revise this 
requirement to discourage staff supervision approaches that are 
primarily top-down by requiring programs to promote clear and 
reasonable roles and responsibilities for all staff with meaningful and 
effective employee engagement practices as part of their systematic 
approach to staff supervision. The changes proposed in this section are 
intended to be scaled to the size of the Head Start organization and 
are not anticipated to incur a large cost.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \138\ Gallup, I. State of the global workplace report. 
Gallup.com. https://www.gallup.com/workplace/349484/state-of-the-global-workplace-2022-report.aspx.
    \139\ Jennings, P.A., & Greenberg, M.T. (2009). The Prosocial 
Classroom: Teacher Social and Emotional Competence in Relation to 
Student and Classroom Outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 
79(1), 491-525. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308325693.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, in Sec.  1302.101(a)(2) we propose to strike 
``Provides regular and ongoing supervision to support individual staff 
professional development and continuous program improvement'' and 
replace it with ``Promotes clear and reasonable roles and 
responsibilities for all staff and provides regular and ongoing staff 
supervision with meaningful and effective employee engagement 
practices.''
    Meaningful and effective employee engagement practices will vary 
among programs, but examples include discussions of explicit and 
implicit expectations, recognition for high-quality work, open 
communication between management and staff, conducting and responding 
to workplace climate surveys, responding to feedback, working in 
partnership with staff to identify and ameliorate any barriers to high-
quality job performance that may exist including workload issues, 
formal and informal opportunities for discussions related to job 
satisfaction and performance, and having employee engagement inform 
professional development opportunities for staff. In general, these 
practices should aim to understand the expectations imposed on staff, 
identify and address barriers staff are experiencing in being able to 
fulfill their roles and responsibilities (e.g., filling multiple roles, 
job-related stressors impacting job performance, unclear roles and 
responsibilities), and recognize high-quality work.
    We also propose two revisions to Sec.  1302.92(b), which requires 
programs to implement a systematic approach to staff training and 
professional development, in order to integrate meaningful and 
effective employee engagement practices and professional development. 
First, in Sec.  1302.92(b) we propose to add the phrase ``and 
integrated with employee engagement practices in accordance with Sec.  
1302.101(a)(2).'' This revision builds on the proposed revision to 
Sec.  1302.101(a)(2) and is intended to ensure programs implement an 
approach to staff training and professional development that is 
designed to be informed by input from staff, identified barriers to job 
performance, and other employee engagement practices. Training and 
professional development opportunities are more effective in 
transferring to practice when staff are opting into the training and 
receive support from their supervisor in the process.\140\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \140\ Salamon, J., Blume D., Orosz G., Nagy T. (2021). The 
interplay between the level of voluntary participation and 
supervisor support on trainee motivation and transfer. Human 
Resource Development Quarterly Volume 32, Issue 4, pages 459-481. 
https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21428.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, we propose a change to Sec.  1302.92(b)(1). Currently, 
Sec.  1302.92(b)(1) requires that staff receive a minimum of 15 clock 
hours of professional development per year. For teaching staff, this 
professional development must meet the requirements described in 
section 648A(a)(5) of the Act, which specifies that the professional 
development must be high-quality, sustained, intensive, and classroom-
focused in order to have a lasting positive impact on classroom 
instruction and teacher performance. The program must also regularly 
evaluate the professional development for effectiveness. Section 
648A(f) of the Act requires programs to create, in consultation with an 
employee, a professional development plan for all full-time Head Start 
employees who provide direct services to children and requires that 
such plans are regularly evaluated for their impact on teacher and 
staff effectiveness. The agency and staff shall implement the plan to 
the extent feasible and practicable. Section 648A(f) of the Act has 
been implemented in practice through technical assistance and 
monitoring, but it has not been explicitly codified in the HSPPS. We 
propose to add new language to Sec.  1302.92(b)(1) that codifies the 
requirement in section 648A(f) of the Act for the creation of 
individual professional development plans. This proposed change is 
anticipated to be cost neutral and is not a policy change or a new or 
modified requirement, since programs have always been held to this 
statutory requirement in practice. Further, programs are currently able 
to use their professional development and training and technical 
assistance funds to help staff earn their credentials and degrees.
    We believe this proposed change is an important clarification as 
data from OHS monitoring findings show that programs are being cited 
for lacking professional development plans for their education staff. 
Indeed, analysis of internal data from fiscal year 2020-2022 reveals a 
top cited monitoring finding in OHS oversight reviews of programs was 
related to lack of appropriate

[[Page 80840]]

professional development plans for staff.\141\ Additionally, as 
described previously, since the onset of the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, 
many Head Start programs have had turnover in leadership and have 
suffered from on-going staffing shortages and vacancies in staff 
positions. The proposed addition to Sec.  1302.92(b)(1) will remind new 
program leaders of this important requirement for their program staff 
to support the professional development of their workforce. It can also 
help improve staff retention by leveraging an existing requirement 
intended to support staff growth and professional development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \141\ Data from narrative responses from monitoring reviews from 
fiscal years 2020-2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mental Health Services (Subpart D; Subpart H; Subpart I)

    Currently, programmatic requirements related to mental health 
appear in several areas of the standards, including Sec.  1302 Subpart 
A, Subpart D, Subpart H, and Subpart I. In this NPRM, we propose 
several changes to these sections of the HSPPS to enhance and clarify 
the importance of mental health services for Head Start children, 
families, and staff. Mental health and social-emotional well-being 
during early childhood are foundational for family well-being and 
children's healthy development and early learning and are associated 
with positive long-term outcomes.\142\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \142\ https://www.acf.hhs.gov/ecd/policy-guidance/dear-colleague-social-emotional-development-and-mental-health.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We know that social-emotional difficulties impact up to 20 percent 
of children under the age of 5, and that over half of mental health 
disorders begin before age 14.\143\ We also know that children and 
families experiencing poverty are more likely to encounter stressors 
linked to mental health challenges as well as experience barriers to 
accessing mental health services. Research findings specifically 
indicate that children and families living in high-poverty 
neighborhoods exhibit worse mental health outcomes compared to 
individuals living in low-poverty neighborhoods.\144\ Therefore, a 
focus on social determinants of health, or the conditions in which 
individuals live, work and play, can lead to better mental health 
outcomes and prevent future mental illness.\145\ Head Start programs 
are well positioned to support children and families experiencing 
poverty by strengthening the focus on mental health in the settings 
where children spend most of their day and where families are provided 
the services that they need to help their children succeed in school 
and in life.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \143\ National Research Council and Institute of Medicine 
Committee. Preventing mental, emotional, and behavioral disorders 
among young people: progress and possibilities. Washington, DC: 
National Academies Press; 2009.
    Brauner, C.B., & Stephens, C.B. (2006). Estimating the 
prevalence of early childhood serious emotional/behavioral 
disorders: Challenges and recommendations. Public health reports, 
121(3), 303-310.
    \144\ Leventhal, T., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2003). Moving to 
Opportunity: an Experimental Study of Neighborhood Effects on Mental 
Health. American Journal of Public Health 93(9). 1576-1582. doi: 
10.2105/ajph.93.9.1576.
    \145\ https://www.nami.org/Blogs/NAMI-Blog/August-2020/Ways-We-Can-Address-the-Social-Determinants-of-Mental-Health.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to children, the impact of poor adult mental health has 
also garnered national attention, including the importance of 
addressing mental health for the ECE workforce.\146\ In 2021, 57.8 
million adults (22.8 percent) were affected by mental illness and 46.3 
million (16.5 percent) of people aged 12 and older had a substance use 
disorder.\147\ We know that mental health of young children is 
intertwined with the mental health of the adults that care for them. We 
also know that early childhood experiences, like trusting relationships 
with caregivers in a stable, nurturing environment, aid in the 
development of skills that build resilience. Head Start is in a unique 
position to provide these experiences and extend them to the home 
environment. Fostering a child's relationship with adults in their life 
and providing them with the best environment to grow requires an 
intentional focus on both child and adult well-being. Head Start 
strives to do both.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \146\ Otten, J.J., Bradford, V.A., Stover, B., Hill, H.D., 
Osborne, C., Getts, K., & Seixas, N. (2019). The culture of health 
in early care and education: workers' wages, health, and job 
characteristics. Health affairs, 38(5), 709-720.
    \147\ Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. 
(2022). Key substance use and mental health indicators in the United 
States: Results from the 2021 National Survey on Drug Use and Health 
(HHS Publication No. PEP22-07-01-005, NSDUH Series H-57). Center for 
Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality, Substance Abuse and Mental 
Health Services Administration. https://www.samhsa.gov/data/report/2021-nsduh-annual-national-report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Changes to the HSPPS related to mental health are needed to 
leverage and build on Head Start's capacity to promote wellness and 
prevent future mental health challenges for Head Start children, 
families, and staff. The approach taken in this NPRM aligns with 
efforts across HHS \148\ to (1) increase mental health integration, 
coordination, and consultation in a range of settings outside 
traditional mental health service spaces; (2) create healthy 
environments that focus on promotion and prevention efforts across the 
lifespan; and (3) connect people to the care they need via an approach 
that engages high-risk populations in integrated mental health care 
through targeted outreach tailored to their needs.\149\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \148\ Working to ensure that all young children and their 
caregivers have access to high-quality resources that equitably 
support social-emotional development and mental health. U.S. 
Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children 
and Families, Early Childhood Development, 2022.
    \149\ https://aspe.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/4e2fff45d3f5706d35326b320ed842b3/roadmap-behavioral-health-integration.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed changes described here cut across multiple areas of 
the standards and serve to strengthen, clarify, and enhance existing 
Head Start requirements to highlight a comprehensive and integrated 
approach to elevate mental health across the entire Head Start program. 
Head Start programs are a conduit to mental health services for those 
most in need and are settings in which children spend a significant 
amount of time. With an emphasis on a holistic approach to healthy 
development, it stands to reason that the HSPPS should reflect the 
importance of this service in an integrated fashion. The proposed 
changes clarify what is meant by wellness promotion, affirm that mental 
health is included in health services provided in Head Start, 
strengthen language to integrate coordinating support for child and 
adult mental health, incorporate strengths-based language by reducing 
the focus on concerns or challenging behaviors related to mental health 
and adding a focus on supports and development of children, strengthen 
requirements to prevent and work towards eliminating all suspension and 
expulsions in Head Start programs, clarify expectations and 
responsibilities of the mental health consultant by aligning the 
definition of infant and early childhood mental health consultation 
with the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration 
(SAMHSA) and research in the field, and reduce barriers to obtaining 
mental health consultation services by clarifying staff qualifications 
and removing language that consent is needed by a parent as mental 
health consultants do not provide treatment.\150\ Implementation of 
these changes will involve both updates to existing practice

[[Page 80841]]

as well as new internal processes for programs. OHS will support 
programs as they implement these enhanced requirements through the 
robust Head Start training and technical assistance system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \150\ Mental health consultation is a prevention-based approach 
that teams a mental health professional with early care and 
education staff and families. This team works on ways to help 
promote the social and emotional development of the young children 
in their care.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1302 Subpart A--Eligibility, Recruitment, Selection, Enrollment, and 
Attendance
    Section 1302.17 describes Head Start's policies that severely limit 
suspension and prohibit expulsion due to a child's behavior. Data with 
nationally representative samples of State-funded prekindergarten 
programs, including Head Start programs, have found that over 10 
percent of preschool teachers expelled at least one preschooler in the 
previous year, which was three times the rate for K-12 students.\151\ 
Suspension and expulsion practices have long-lasting negative impacts 
for young children and their families, including on children's later 
school attendance, academics, and family stress. Additionally, research 
has well documented that disproportionalities exist in suspending or 
expelling students who are young boys of color, children with 
disabilities, and children who are dual language learners.\152\ For 
example, in the 2017-2018 school year there were about 2800 preschool 
suspensions, and African American boys received 43 percent of 
suspensions despite making up 18 percent of preschool enrollment.\153\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \151\ Gilliam, W.S. (2005). Prekindergarteners left behind: 
Expulsion rates in state prekindergarten systems. New York, NY: 
Foundation for Child Development.
    \152\ Horowitz, M. (2015). Early Childhood Suspension and 
Expulsion. Center on Enhancing Early Learning Outcomes (CEELO). 
Retrieved from: http://ceelo.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/ceelo_annotated_bib_expulsion_2015_08_final_web.pdf.
    \153\ U.S Department of Education Office for Civil Rights 
(2021). An overview of exclusionary discipline practices in public 
schools for the 2017-18 school year. See https://ocrdata.ed.gov/assets/downloads/crdc-exclusionary-school-discipline.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ACF has a focus on preventing use of suspension and expulsion in 
programs, and ensuring that any use of these disciplinary practices 
does not perpetuate disproportionalities across different groups of 
children, and many of the proposed changes to regulations codify this 
further. This NPRM retains the prohibition on expulsions and severe 
limitations on use of suspension, clarifying that suspension is a 
measure of last resort to allow the program time to put needed supports 
and accommodations in place. Additionally, several of the mental health 
related approaches proposed in this NPRM are targeted at building adult 
capacity to understand and respond to challenging behaviors associated 
with suspension/expulsion early and effectively, such as requiring 
staff to be trained to understand behavior and implement positive 
disciplinary strategies as well as effective implementation of mental 
health consultation.\154\ The proposed changes to the suspension and 
expulsion section of the standards are intended to further our efforts 
to reduce the use of suspension and expulsion and clarify terminology 
and expectations related to suspension and expulsion practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \154\ Perry, D.F., Holland, C., Darling-Kuria, N., & Nadiv, S. 
(2011). Challenging behavior from child care: The role of mental 
health consultation (32, pp. 4-11). Zero to Three.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, we propose to add broad definitions of suspension and 
expulsion to Sec.  1305.2 to provide clarity on which disciplinary 
practices are captured under these respective categories. The broader 
definitions proposed here align with Caring for our Children standards, 
which are developed in collaboration with experts and widely used in 
ECE settings, and the Head Start Center for Inclusion.\155\ We propose 
to define expulsion as the permanent removal of a child from the 
learning setting or a requirement that a child unenroll in a program. 
We propose to define suspension as the temporary removal of a child 
from the learning setting including all reductions in the amount of 
time a child may be in attendance of the regular group setting, either 
by requiring the child to cease attendance for a particular period of 
time or reducing the number of days or amount of time that a child may 
attend. Requiring a child to attend the program away from the other 
children in the regular group setting is included in this definition. 
Requiring the parent or the parent's designee to pick up a child for 
reasons other than illness or injury is also included in this 
definition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \155\ https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/children-disabilities/article/head-start-center-inclusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The goal of suspension should always be for the child to return to 
the least restrictive and most integrated educational environment 
safely and expediently. We do not provide guidelines for the specific 
length of time for suspensions because the appropriate time depends on 
many factors, such as the immediacy and severity of the safety concern 
and the complexity and availability of supports needed to facilitate 
the child's return to full participation. Suspensions should not be 
used indefinitely or repeatedly, and longer periods of suspension take 
away opportunities for children to develop the social and emotional 
skills that improve challenging behaviors in the long-term.\156\ 
Programs should use the temporary suspension period to actively 
collaborate with families, mental health professionals, the 
multidisciplinary team responsible for mental health and others to 
develop a coordinated plan and timeline for supporting the identified 
child and their family to return to full participation. Programs should 
also engage with the child and family, mental health professionals, 
multidisciplinary team responsible for mental health, and other 
relevant staff, regularly during the temporary suspension period to 
ensure that the child continues to be supported during this time, such 
as through home visitation or community services, and to provide 
regular check-ins on the program's progress in implementing the 
collaborative plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \156\ McCabe, L.A & Frede, E.C. (2007). Challenging behaviors 
and the role of preschool education. New Brunswick, NJ: National 
Institute for Early Education Research. Available: nieer.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/16.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The existing suspension standards in Sec.  1302.17(a) already 
include many of the components of the approach described above. 
However, we propose to add language to clarify the expectations of the 
steps that should be taken before a suspension can be determined to be 
necessary, and that a program needs to thoroughly document plans 
related to suspension similar to how they document plans related to 
transferring a child to a setting that can better meet their needs. By 
documenting suspension practices, we intend to be better positioned to 
assess how and when disproportionalities in the use of suspensions may 
be occurring across different groups of children. Specifically, we 
propose to modify Sec.  1302.17(a)(2) to say that a suspension must be 
used only as a resort where there is a serious safety threat that ``has 
not been'' reduced instead of ``cannot be'' reduced or eliminated to 
emphasize that the program should take active steps to attempt to 
reduce or eliminate the concern and demonstrate that these have not 
worked. Additionally, the current standard notes the provision of 
``reasonable modifications'' which we propose to change to 
``interventions and supports recommended by the mental health 
consultant'' to again emphasize that prior to a suspension being 
considered, it is expected that the program engages with the mental 
health consultant to apply and assess whether supports and 
interventions, such as use of visual aids or preferred seating, can 
have an impact. Finally, we add an additional phrase that reflects the

[[Page 80842]]

intended purpose of a temporary suspension, ``and the program needs 
time to put additional appropriate services in place.''
    In addition to the mental health consultant, we have added in Sec.  
1302.17(a)(3) that ``the multidisciplinary team responsible for mental 
health'' must also be part of the discussion before a program 
determines whether a temporary suspension is necessary. This new 
addition of a multidisciplinary team is discussed further in proposed 
changes to Sec.  1302.45 below.
    If a temporary suspension is deemed necessary by the program, we 
have added proposed language to 1302.17(a)(4) to clarify and strengthen 
existing standards regarding what a program must do to bring the child 
back to the program as expediently as possible. Specifically, we 
propose to add a statement to of Sec.  1302.17(a)(4) that states a 
program must explore all possible steps and document all steps taken to 
address the behavior(s) and supports needed to facilitate the child's 
safe reentry and continued participation in the program. In outlining 
these steps, we propose to strengthen existing language in Sec.  
1302.17(a)(4)(i) to (iii) to further clarify and enhance the actions a 
program must take to reengage the child in program services. First, we 
propose to revise Sec.  1302.17(a)(4)(i) by adding ``the 
multidisciplinary team responsible for mental health, and other 
appropriate staff'' to clarify that these are additional groups the 
program must continue to engage to support the child. Next, we propose 
to remove current Sec.  1302.17(a)(4)(ii), which requires a written 
plan to document action and supports, as this is now incorporated into 
new language proposed for Sec.  1302.17(a)(4), described previously. 
Next, we propose to redesignate Sec.  1302.17(a)(4)(iii) as Sec.  
1302.17(a)(4)(ii) and further enhance this requirement by adding 
language that clarifies that home visits could be one of multiple 
additional services for the child. The revised Sec.  1302.17(a)(4)(ii) 
reads ``Providing additional program supports and services, including 
home visits.'' Finally, we propose to redesignate Sec.  
1302.17(a)(4)(iv) as Sec.  1302.17(a)(4)(iii) and enhance this standard 
with additional language that requires coordination with a child's 
individual family service plan (IFSP) or individual education plan 
(IEP), if appropriate. In the rare instance the program is unable to 
meet the needs of a child while they are in the learning setting, our 
intent is that these changes will provide sufficient clarity on how to 
return a child quickly to program services with the correct supports in 
place.
    Furthermore, while Head Start prohibits expulsion, as stated in 
Sec.  1302.17(b), we do know there are instances where there is a more 
appropriate placement for a child. In those instances, it is imperative 
that the child is not unenrolled from the Head Start program without 
having a more appropriate placement to attend that is prepared to 
provide services immediately. Therefore, we propose to add additional 
language to the end of Sec.  1302.17(b)(3) to clarify that a program 
must work to directly facilitate the transition of the child to a more 
appropriate placement ``that can immediately enroll and provide 
services to the child.'' We also propose to add language to Sec.  
1302.17(b)(2) and (b)(3) to require that the multidisciplinary team 
responsible for mental health join in discussions of how to prevent an 
expulsion from occurring, as well as new language to require engagement 
of parents in Sec.  1302.17(b)(2). Taken together, we believe these 
changes will ensure that the child is surrounded by the appropriate 
care team that can make decisions in the best interest of the child. It 
is particularly important that we incorporate parents early on as we 
know that high expulsion rates are an indicator that we are not helping 
parents and caregivers to support the positive social and emotional 
development that is foundational for positive future outcomes.\157\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \157\ https://www.zerotothree.org/preventing-expulsion-from-preschool-and-child-care/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ACF seeks public comment on whether the proposed definitions for 
suspension and expulsion are appropriate, as well as on the process 
proposed in order to support programs in determining whether a 
temporary suspension is warranted.
1302 Subpart D--Health Program Services
    There are many barriers to mental health care, including 
stigmatization of mental health and concerns about availability of the 
behavioral health workforce.\158\ By strengthening promotion and 
prevention efforts throughout the standards, we are seeking to provide 
a strong social-emotional foundation for children by being more 
intentional about the integration of mental health supports across all 
aspects of the Head Start program. We intend to reinforce that mental 
health is integral to many other aspects of the Head Start system and 
propose regulatory changes that utilize preventive approaches to mental 
health in other comprehensive service areas, such as health and family 
engagement. If programs have conversations about mental health early 
and often, they can also identify children, families, and staff with 
specific needs and intervene before more time and resource intensive 
care becomes necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \158\ https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-23-105250.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Subpart D outlines the program requirements to support the 
provision of high-quality health, oral health, mental health, and 
nutrition services. We propose to change the name of this section from 
``Health Program Services'' to ``Health and Mental Health Program 
Services'' to include mental health more explicitly in the standards, 
affirm that mental health is a critical component of health, and to 
facilitate ease of access to standards that closely relate to mental 
health topics.
Sec.  1302.40 Purpose
    This section describes the overarching purpose of health and mental 
health program services in Head Start. In paragraph (b) we propose to 
replace ``Health Services Advisory Committee'' with ``Health and Mental 
Health Services Advisory Committee'' to include mental health more 
explicitly in this requirement. The proposed change will clarify that 
mental health should be represented in conversations about health needs 
and services, including in the advisory committee. The proposed change 
would carry throughout the proposed standards for consistency, 
including in Sec.  1302.42(b)(1)(i), Sec.  1302.43(b)(4), and Sec.  
1302.94(a).
Sec.  1302.41 Collaboration and Communication With Parents
    Section 1302.41 requires Head Start programs to collaborate with 
parents as partners in the health and well-being of their children and 
communicate timely with parents about their children's health needs and 
development concerns.
    Throughout Sec.  1302.41, we propose to add ``mental health'' 
wherever health is mentioned to clarify that mental health is an 
integral part of health. Incorporating mental health into conversations 
about a child's development and health normalizes and destigmatizes 
talking about mental health. These proposed regulatory changes are 
intended to increase conversations about mental health strengths and 
areas of concern early on with parents so that everyone has the 
information and tools to support the child's mental health across 
different settings, contributing to reducing barriers to accessing care 
and increasing

[[Page 80843]]

the chance that future mental illness will be prevented.
Sec.  1302.42 Child Health Status and Care
    Section 1302.42 describes the requirements of programs with respect 
to a child's health status and care, including the timelines by which 
programs must ensure a child has an ongoing source of continuous, 
accessible health care; determine if a child is up to date on a 
schedule of age-appropriate care; and obtain or perform evidence-based 
vision and hearing screenings. We propose two changes to this section.
    First, we know that many young children with mental health issues 
do not have them identified by the time they enter elementary 
school,\159\ and are therefore losing a critical opportunity to receive 
early interventions and supports. The current regulations only specify 
that programs should ensure that children are up to date with medical, 
developmental, and oral health care schedules. Regular screening for 
mental health concerns is also necessary to ensure children and 
families with needs are identified early so that they can access 
appropriate interventions. Therefore, in Sec.  1302.42 (b)(1)(i), we 
propose to add ``mental health'' to align with the purpose and intent 
of the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic and Treatment (EPSDT) 
benefit that provides comprehensive and preventive health care 
services, including mental health, for children who are enrolled in 
Medicaid.\160\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \159\ Glascoe, F.P. (2005). Screening for developmental and 
behavioral problems. Mental retardation and developmental 
disabilities research reviews, 11(3), 173-179.
    \160\ https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/benefits/early-and-periodic-screening-diagnostic-and-treatment/index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, in Sec.  1302.42 (b)(4), we propose to add ``relevant 
developmental or mental health concerns'' to clarify that when a 
program is identifying a child's nutritional health needs, that 
developmental and mental health concerns should also be considered. 
This proposed addition is intended to capture best practices in the 
field, which acknowledge that developmental and mental health factors 
such as sensory aversions and feeding disorders play a role in 
nutritional health.\161\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \161\ Zero to Three (2016). DC: 0-5: Diagnostic Classification 
of mental health and developmental disorders of infancy and early 
childhood. Washington, DC; American Psychiatric Association. 
Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM-5) 
American Psychiatric Pub; 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec.  1302.45 Child Mental Health and Social and Emotional Well-Being
    This section outlines what programs must do to support a culture 
that promotes children's mental health and outlines the scope of 
responsibilities of mental health consultants. For reasons stated at 
the outset of this section, Head Start has the capacity to reach people 
who are at higher risk for experiencing stressors and barriers to care 
and provide integrated preventive mental health supports into 
comprehensive services provided for the child and family. We propose 
numerous changes to Sec.  1302.45 to strengthen, clarify and enhance 
existing Head Start mental health requirements, including intentionally 
integrating more staff attuned to the mental health needs of children 
and families by requiring a multidisciplinary team responsible for 
mental health within the program. This multidisciplinary team is 
intended to both destigmatize mental health and increase the capacity 
and reach of the mental health consultant. Other proposed changes range 
from important revisions to language to proposed changes to the 
approach to service delivery. We describe each of these changes in 
turn.
    First, we propose to change the title of this section from ``Child 
mental health and social and emotional well-being'' to ``Supports for 
mental health and well-being.'' Research demonstrates that child well-
being is inextricably linked to adult well-being and in order to 
address child mental health, we need to address the mental health of 
caregivers as well, including both staff and parents.\162\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \162\ Wolicki SB, Bitsko RH, Cree RA, et al. Associations of 
mental health among parents and other primary caregivers with child 
health indicators: Analysis of caregivers, by sex--National Survey 
of Children's Health, 2016-2018, Adversity and Resilience Science: 
Journal of Research and Practice. Published online April 19, 2021. 
Lowry C, Stegeman I, Rauch F, Jani A. Modifying the school 
determinants of children's health. J R Soc Med. 2022;115(1):16-21. 
doi:10.1177/01410768211051718. Jeon L, Buettner CK, Grant AA, Lang 
SN. Early childhood teachers' stress and children's social, 
emotional, and behavioral functioning. Journal of Applied 
Developmental Psychology. 2019;61:21-32. doi: 10.1016/
j.appdev.2018.02.002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Next, we propose four changes in Sec.  1302.45(a). First, in the 
overarching requirement, we propose to change ``Wellness promotion'' to 
``Program-wide wellness supports'' to align with the new title of this 
section and to clarify that programs should provide wellness supports 
across the program. Second, we propose to remove ``children's'' in this 
section to clarify that program-wide wellness supports are intended to 
promote the wellness of both children and adults. Third, we also 
propose to add ``safety'' in the description of a program-wide culture 
because wellness is dependent on meeting basic needs, including safety, 
and because it aligns with language in other standards which refer to 
children's health and safety.\163\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \163\ SAMHSA (2016). Creating a Healthier Life: A Step-by-Step 
Guide to Wellness. Publication ID: SMA16-4958. Available online at 
https://store.samhsa.gov/product/Creating-a-Healthier-Life/SMA16-4958.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Fourth, to clarify what programs must do to support a program-wide 
culture that promotes mental health, social and emotional well-being, 
and overall health and safety, we add new guidance to Sec.  1302.45(a) 
that a program must ``have a multidisciplinary team responsible for 
mental health.'' In addition to integrating more people into the 
conversation to address mental health, the multidisciplinary team 
responsible for mental health is also intended to develop and implement 
mental health efforts and supports that are not related to 
consultation, and to facilitate communication across service areas and 
systems in Head Start. The formation of such a team also aligns with 
recommendations by infant and early childhood consultation experts to 
have a group that can provide strategic planning, guidance and 
coordination related to mental health.\164\ By requiring a 
multidisciplinary team focused on mental health, we also aim for mental 
health supports and interventions, which have the potential to be more 
sustainable in programs. Currently, if the program relies on a 
consultant to provide all mental health related services, issues such 
as the availability of the mental health workforce and turnover may 
have a larger impact on the continuation of quality services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \164\ Green, B. & Allen, M.D. (2012). Developing and 
Implementing a Program wide Vision for Effective Mental Health 
Consultation. Center for Early Childhood Mental Health Consultation. 
https://www.iecmhc.org/documents/CECMHC_AdministratorsToolkit.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Multidisciplinary means the involvement of two or more separate 
disciplines or professions that actively work in tandem with parents to 
provide supports for children and families.\165\ For example, a mental 
health team may be comprised of a family service worker, teacher, 
mental health manager, disability service coordinator, and health 
specialist. This list is not intended to be exhaustive, and the intent 
is for programs to have flexibility in determining the appropriate

[[Page 80844]]

composition of the multidisciplinary team. The rationale for this 
change is that providing program-wide wellness supports cannot rely on 
one individual such as a mental health consultant, and that many 
individuals working in Head Start already have expertise that can 
benefit program-wide wellness support efforts. Based on our experience 
overseeing the implementation of the Head Start program across the 
country, recipients that are most effective at supporting mental health 
create a team comprised of multiple individuals that may work with 
children, families, or staff in different capacities. We also want to 
acknowledge that many Head Start programs already have this practice in 
place in the form of case conferencing, which will facilitate the 
implementation of this practice as described in the proposed 
regulation. Furthermore, the establishment of a formal 
multidisciplinary team focused on mental health will support programs 
in the implementation of the other enhancements to mental health 
services described in this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \165\ For a federally accepted definition of 
`multidisciplinary,' see: https://sites.ed.gov/idea/regs/c/a/303.24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the changes to the overarching requirement in 
paragraph (a), we also propose changes and additions to the provisions 
for what activities are expected from the program-wide wellness 
supports, for a total of six provisions. The first provision, new Sec.  
1302.45(a)(1), describes that the multidisciplinary team responsible 
for mental health ``coordinates supports for adult mental health and 
well-being including engaging in nurturing and responsive relationships 
with families, engaging families in home visiting services, and 
promoting staff health and wellness, as described in Sec.  1302.93.'' 
We believe this language clarifies how a program most effectively 
addresses adult mental health.
    For the second provision, we propose to redesignate current Sec.  
1302.45(a)(1) to become Sec.  1302.45(a)(2) with the revised language 
describing that the multidisciplinary team's role is to ``coordinate'' 
as opposed to ``provide supports.'' We then propose language changes to 
describe what supports the team is responsible for coordinating, 
including supports for positive learning environments, supportive 
teacher practices and strategies to support children's mental health 
concerns. Specifically, we propose to remove ``effective classroom 
management'' since this specific term is less aligned with a strengths-
based approach and can contribute to stigma related to a child's 
behavior. Instead, we keep the broader strengths-based term of positive 
learning environments, as classroom management is one part of creating 
a positive learning environment, and the need to monitor and 
effectively respond to child behavior applies across program options. 
We also make clear that these positive learning environments are for 
``all children''. Finally, we propose to replace ``challenging 
behaviors'' with ``behavioral or mental health concerns'' to align with 
mental health language in other sectors that are less stigmatizing and 
more reflective of the concern programs are addressing within infant 
and early childhood mental health.
    We propose to remove the current Sec.  1302.45(a)(3), which states 
that ``a program must obtain parental consent for mental health 
consultation services at enrollment'' as this phrasing implies that 
mental health consultants provide treatment when, in fact, they provide 
consultation services, which do not require parental consent because 
the child is not directly receiving the service. Further, consistent 
with how programs communicate with parents about health and 
developmental services, we propose to include mental health services 
(which can include consultation services) in Sec.  1302.41(b)(1).
    For the third provision, in new paragraph Sec.  1302.45(a)(3), we 
propose to redesignate language from the current (a)(2) and further 
revise the language by replacing ``schedule of sufficient and 
consistent frequency'' with ``no less than once a month'' to specify, 
at a minimum, how often mental health consultation services should be 
provided in the program in order for partnerships with staff and 
families to be timely and effective. Experts from SAMHSA's Center of 
Excellence in Infant and Early Childhood Mental Health Consultation 
recommend that mental health consultation services should be provided 
at least every other week, though considerations such as the size of 
the program and availability of services in the community can also 
impact the suggested frequency of consultation.\166\ We recognize that 
a biweekly frequency may not be feasible for all programs at this time, 
particularly in the context of larger concerns about recruiting and 
retaining an adequate mental health workforce.\167\ Therefore, we 
propose a minimum monthly frequency for these services, which we 
believe provides a regular enough schedule of services to allow for 
opportunities to embed the consultant into the program and therefore 
provide more effective services. ACF specifically requests comment on 
this section regarding whether ``no less than once a month'' as a 
minimum frequency is appropriate to meet the mental health consultation 
needs of programs. We also add to new (a)(3) that the multidisciplinary 
team responsible for mental health ``examines the approach to mental 
health consultation on an annual basis to determine if it meets the 
needs of the program'' in order to provide continuous quality 
improvement to ensure that the systems set up in the program are 
meeting the mental health needs of adults and children in the program. 
Examples of ways programs may want to examine their approach could 
include determining whether the program size and needs are being met by 
the frequency of consultation services or whether the program needs to 
change who is targeted to receive consultation services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \166\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 
Administration for Children and Families, Office of Head Start, 
National Center on Parent, Family, and Community Engagement. (2019). 
Infant and Early Childhood Mental Health Consultation: Engaging with 
Families.
    \167\ https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-23-105250.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the fourth provision, we propose an entirely new Sec.  
1302.45(a)(4) that requires that the multidisciplinary team responsible 
for mental health ``ensures that all children receive adequate 
screening and appropriate follow up and the parent receives referrals 
about how to access services for potential social, emotional, 
behavioral, or other mental health concerns, as described in Sec.  
1302.33.'' This language clarifies the responsibility of the program to 
ensure screenings related to social and emotional milestones that 
impact mental health are completed or obtained from an appropriate 
provider. Additionally, the responsibility of the program is to ensure 
appropriate follow up and referral for necessary supports or services 
takes place, as warranted, which may be done in coordination with 
health and other early childhood systems.
    For the fifth provision, we propose an entirely new Sec.  
1302.45(a)(5) where we propose to add that the multidisciplinary team 
responsible for mental health must facilitate coordination and 
collaboration between mental health and other relevant program 
services, including education, disability, family engagement, and 
health services. We believe this language clarifies and emphasizes that 
mental health should be considered holistically along with physical 
health and requires a program-wide approach that includes coordinating 
across program services.
    Finally, the sixth provision in Sec.  1302.45(a) is a redesignation 
of an existing provision. We propose that the

[[Page 80845]]

current Sec.  1302.45(a)(4) be redesignated to new Sec.  1302.45(a)(6) 
to accommodate the changes described in the previous paragraphs.
    Next, we propose numerous changes to paragraph (b) of Sec.  1302.45 
and its provisions. We recognize there is an ongoing need to strengthen 
and build a more diverse behavioral health workforce. We also recognize 
that mental health consultants with specific early childhood expertise 
are particularly challenging for programs to identify and secure. To 
address this barrier and facilitate the implementation of the proposed 
enhancements to other mental health policies, the proposed regulation 
changes in Sec.  1302.91(e)(8)(ii), discussed later in this section, 
specifically allow programs to secure mental health consultation from 
professionals who are in the process of obtaining licensure and are 
under the supervision of a licensed mental health professional. We also 
include proposed language that reflects the existing literature on 
effective practices in infant and early childhood consultation.
    Together, the proposed changes in Sec.  1302.45(b) are intended to 
align the standards with best practices in infant and early childhood 
mental health consultation.\168\ Most notably, the changes are intended 
to require that programs focus consultation services on promotion and 
prevention efforts by broadening and building programmatic and adult 
capacity to support the mental health of the children for whom they 
care. We also add language in this section that clarifies expectations 
and responsibilities of the mental health consultant by aligning with 
the definition of the consultation model that appears in research as 
well as in other Federal entities such as the Substance Abuse and 
Mental Health Services Administration. We include general types of 
consultation services that can be leveraged within programs in the six 
provisions that follow. However, effective consultation occurs when 
there is ongoing collaboration between consultant and consultee and 
consideration of individualized strengths and needs.\169\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \168\ Duran, F. et al. (2009). What Works?: A Study of Effective 
Early Childhood Mental Health Consultation Programs. Washington, DC: 
Georgetown University Center for Child and Human Development.; 
Kaufmann, R. et al. (2012). Creating Practice-Based Principles for 
Effective Early Childhood Mental Health Consultation Services. 
Washington, DC: Georgetown University Center for Child and Human 
Development.
    \169\ Kaufmann, R., Perry, D., Irvine, M., Duran, F., Hepburn, 
K., & Bruno, A. (2012. Creating Practice-Based Principles for 
Effective Early Childhood Mental Health Consultation Services. 
Center for Child and Human Development, Georgetown University.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the first provision, Sec.  1302.45(b)(1), we add to the existing 
language to clarify a central type of mental health consultation with 
the program is focused on promotion and prevention of mental health 
concerns, in addition to identifying and supporting existing mental 
health concerns.
    For the second provision, Sec.  1302.45(b)(2), we propose several 
changes that clarify that mental health consultants can consult with 
any staff who work with children and families, which may include 
teachers, family child care providers, or home visitors, and describe 
the general goals of this type of consultation. This change aligns with 
our approach of ensuring that every adult who works with children can 
benefit from understanding and receiving supports related to mental 
health. First, we propose to replace ``teachers, including family child 
care providers'' with ``child and family services staff'' to clarify 
that mental health consultation can occur with any staff member who 
works with children and families. For example, some programs may 
determine with their consultant that they would like to increase 
consultation targeted at engaging home visitors, given that program's 
specific needs. We also propose to remove the phrase ``improve 
classroom management and supportive teacher practices'' to align with 
the clarification that mental health consultation is not solely focused 
on specific classroom or teaching practices. Next, we propose to 
replace ``through strategies that include using classroom observations 
and consultations to address teacher and individual child needs and 
creating physical and cultural environments'' with ``implement 
strategies that build nurturing and responsive relationships and create 
positive learning environments.'' We believe this language more clearly 
aligns with the intended role of a mental health consultant to help 
child and family staff implement strategies that will build strong 
relationships and positive learning environments, which should not be 
limited only to conducting observations. We also note that building 
positive learning environments may still include activities such as 
classroom management, supportive teacher practices, and creating 
positive physical and cultural environments. Our intention is to 
encourage flexibility and to acknowledge that there are many ways to 
build relationships and learning environments. Finally, we also propose 
to replace the phrase ``functioning'' with ``development of all 
children'' to specify that when working with infants and toddlers as 
well as preschoolers, the focus is on social and emotional development 
and creating environments and relationships that have the capacity to 
help young children grow in these foundational skills.
    In the third provision, Sec.  1302.45(b)(3), we propose to replace 
``other staff, including home visitors'' with ``staff who have contact 
with children'' to clarify that the mental health consultants can 
provide consultation to any staff that have contact with children as 
needed, including, for example, transportation staff or food services 
staff. Our rationale for this change is to elevate that any staff who 
have contact with children play an important role in promoting young 
children's mental health and wellness. We also propose to remove ``to 
meet children's mental health and social and emotional needs through 
strategies that include observation and consultation'' as mental health 
consultation is not a strategy of consultation. Instead, we propose to 
add the elements outlined in the current Sec.  1302.45(b)(4) to Sec.  
1302.45(b)(3), including the existing phrase ``prevalent child mental 
health concerns; internalizing problems such as appearing withdrawn and 
externalizing problems such as challenging behaviors'', which we 
propose to further revise. We propose to clarify what is meant by 
``addressing'' prevalent child mental health concerns in the current 
Sec.  1302.45(b)(4) by adding to Sec.  1302.45(b)(3) ``to understand 
and appropriately respond to.'' Finally, we propose to revise and 
expand what is meant by prevalent child mental health concerns by 
revising that phrase to ``prevalent child mental health concerns, 
including internalizing problems such as appearing withdrawn, 
externalizing problems such as behavioral concerns; and how exposure to 
trauma and substance use can influence risk''.
    In a new fourth provision, Sec.  1302.45(b)(4), we use language 
from the current Sec.  1302.45(b)(5) and propose to replace ``parents'' 
with ``families'' to expand with whom the consultant can provide 
consultation within a child's family unit. We also propose to add the 
phrase ``or supports'' to clarify that mental health consultation is 
not limited to accessing interventions. Furthermore, we propose to add 
``including in the event of a natural disaster or crisis'' to clarify 
that mental health consultants are vital in emergency, preparedness, 
response and recovery.
    Finally, the last provisions of 1302.45(b) are intended to 
highlight two

[[Page 80846]]

situations in which involving a mental health consultant is crucial. 
Expulsion and suspension, as reviewed previously, can have long-lasting 
impacts on stress and mental health of children and families and 
therefore Head Start has prohibited or severely limited these 
disciplinary practices. The proposed changes require the program to 
engage the mental health consultant so that supports and accommodations 
are in place to ensure children's safe and full participation in the 
program. Specifically, in the fifth provision, Sec.  1302.45(b)(5), we 
propose to use language from the current Sec.  1302.45(b)(6) and add 
``the program'' to clarify that implementation of policies to limit 
suspension and prohibit expulsion would occur in consultation with the 
program.
    Similarly, we recognize that child safety incidents can negatively 
impact the mental health of children and their families, as well as 
their relationships with the program. Therefore, we propose to add a 
sixth provision, Sec.  1302.45(b)(6), which requires a program to 
support the well-being of children and families involved in any 
significant child health, mental health, or safety incident described 
in Sec.  1302.102(d)(1)(ii). As health and safety are a part of well-
being, it falls within the role of a mental health consultant to ensure 
that the program, affected staff, child, and/or family members are 
connected to appropriate supports if an incident impacting a child's 
health and safety occurs.
Sec.  1302.46 Family Support Services for Health, Nutrition, and Mental 
Health
    Section 1302.46 requires programs to collaborate with families to 
promote children's health and well-being and describes what that 
collaboration must include. We propose several changes to this section. 
These proposed changes are intended to integrate the preventive 
approach to mental health into family support services by using more 
strengths-based language, providing opportunities to engage families in 
discussions about mental health even when there is not an identified 
problem, and ensuring the mental health of parents is also a function 
of family support services. First, in paragraph Sec.  
1302.46(b)(1)(iii), we propose to replace ``substance abuse problems'' 
with ``substance use concerns'' to use language that is person-centered 
and destigmatizing. We also propose to remove ``perinatal'' before 
``depression'' and add ``anxiety'' to provide a more comprehensive 
description of what is meant by common parent mental health concerns.
    Second, in Sec.  1302.46(b)(1)(iv), we propose to remove ``identify 
issues related to child mental health and social and emotional well-
being, including observations and any concerns about their child's 
mental health'' and replace it with ``information related to their 
child's mental health with staff, including.'' We believe that this 
language clarifies a strengths-based approach to mental health where 
parents are not expected to identify issues with child mental health 
and that the focus of collaboration with parents is to help them 
respond appropriately to their individual child.
    Third, in Sec.  1302.46(b)(2), we propose to add ``and mental 
health systems'' to clarify that a program must support parents' 
navigation of mental health systems in addition to the health system. 
The purpose of this change is to acknowledge that navigation of health 
and mental health systems may be complex for families served by Head 
Start. The intent is to clarify our expectation that Head Start 
programs assist families in navigating these systems, which will 
ultimately benefit the family beyond their time in Head Start. Finally, 
we also propose a new Sec.  1302.46(b)(2)(iv) that reads ``in providing 
information about how to access evidence-based mental health services 
for young children and their families, including referrals if 
appropriate'' to clarify what is meant by helping parents navigate the 
mental health system.
1302 Subpart H--Services to Enrolled Pregnant Women and People
    Section 1302.81 describes the prenatal and postpartum information, 
education, and services programs must provide enrolled pregnant women 
and people, fathers, and partners or other relevant family members. 
Perinatal mental health conditions are experienced in up to 20 percent 
of pregnancies and can have significant impacts on children and 
families.\170\ There is increasing recognition that depression is not 
the only mental health condition that can be exacerbated by or emerge 
during the perinatal period, and that mental health concerns can impact 
family members who are not pregnant.\171\ Therefore, we propose changes 
in Sec.  1302.81 that are intended to broaden the scope of awareness of 
the mental health information and education that may be helpful to 
provide to expectant families. Additionally, our proposed changes more 
explicitly recognize ties between social support and mental health and 
call for programs to ensure that social support is part of prenatal and 
post-natal services for enrolled families.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \170\ Howard, L.M., & Khalifeh, H. (2020). Perinatal mental 
health: a review of progress and challenges. World Psychiatry, 
19(3), 313-327.
    \171\ Rao, W.W., Zhu, X.M., Zong, Q.Q., Zhang, Q., Hall, B.J., 
Ungvari, G.S., & Xiang, Y.T. (2020). Prevalence of prenatal and 
postpartum depression in fathers: A comprehensive meta-analysis of 
observational surveys. Journal of affective disorders, 263, 491-499. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2019.10.030.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    More specifically, we propose four changes to Sec.  1302.81(a) to 
highlight potential services related to mental health and to promote 
language that is more inclusive of family members and social supports. 
First, we propose to remove the word ``relevant'' that currently 
precedes ``family members.'' This change is intended to be inclusive of 
different family compositions, clarify that any family member 
identified by the enrolled pregnant woman or person may be eligible to 
receive such information, and make clear that a program does not have 
to determine whether a family member is relevant. Second, we propose to 
revise the phrase ``benefits of breastfeeding'' to ``including 
breastfeeding'' and relocate it to earlier in the standard to clarify 
that this is a component of ``the importance of nutrition.'' The 
purpose of this change is to clarify that breastfeeding, in addition to 
other forms of healthy infant feeding, is one aspect of nutrition when 
programs are providing prenatal and postpartum information. We also 
propose in Sec.  1302.81(a) to move ``parental depression'' from the 
list of information, education, and services to a newly created 
paragraph Sec.  1302.81(b) focused on mental health, which is discussed 
in the following paragraph. We also propose to add ``and the benefits 
of substance use treatment'' to the list of topics. Finally, we propose 
to add ``mothers'' to the list of family members a program must provide 
information to, to be inclusive of women who have already given birth.
    We further propose to redesignate the current Sec.  1302.81(b) to 
Sec.  1302.81(c) and insert a new Sec.  1302.81(b). The proposed new 
Sec.  1302.81(b) requires programs to support pregnant women, mothers, 
fathers, partners, or other family members to access mental health 
services, including referrals, as appropriate, to address concerns 
including perinatal depression, anxiety, grief or loss, birth trauma, 
and substance use. This language captures common mental health concerns 
that can arise during the perinatal period.\172\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \172\ Maternal Mental Health Leadership Alliance. (July 2020). 
Maternal Mental Health Overview. Fact Sheet available on online at: 
www.mmhla.org/fact-sheets Maternal Mental Health Leadership 
Alliance. (June 2021). Dads and Depression. Fact Sheet available on 
online at: www.mmhla.org/fact-sheets.

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

[[Page 80847]]

    Finally, in redesignated Sec.  1302.81(c), we propose to add 
``pregnant women's'' after ``A program must also address'' to clarify 
whose needs are being addressed. We also propose to add ``social'' 
before emotional well-being to provide consistency with other language 
throughout the HSPPS. Finally, we propose to add ``partner, or other 
family member'' to clarify that programs must address the potential 
benefits of building supports and engagement with other family members 
in addition to fathers.
1302 Subpart I--Human Resources Management
Sec.  1302.91 Staff Qualification and Competency Requirements
    Section 1302.91 establishes the staff qualifications and 
competencies for all staff, consultants, and contractors engaged in the 
delivery of program services. We propose two changes in Sec.  
1302.91(e)(8)(ii) that pertain to mental health consultants and align 
with our goals of reducing barriers to securing consultants while 
maintaining effective consultation services. First, we propose to 
remove ``certified'' and replace it with ``under the supervision of a 
licensed'' to align with qualifications of mental health consultation 
in the field. Second, we propose to remove ``if available in the 
community.'' We believe that clarifying that mental health consultants 
can include individuals who are working under the supervision of 
another licensed individual will open avenues to a larger pool of 
mental health consultants to choose from and provide opportunities to 
build the mental health workforce in the ECE field. We also know that 
in recent years, access to telehealth services has expanded and overall 
use of telehealth modality for services has become more prevalent.\173\ 
Even if a consultant cannot be on site, teleconsultation services can 
be utilized to work with adults in the program. Finally, striking the 
``if available'' language is intended to emphasize that mental health 
consultation is vital to providing high quality comprehensive services 
in Head Start programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \173\ Chu, R.C., Peters, C., De Lew, N., and Sommers, B.D. State 
Medicaid Telehealth Policies Before and During the COVID-19 Public 
Health Emergency (Issue Brief No. HP-2021-17). Office of the 
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Department of 
Health and Human Services, July 2021. https://aspe.hhs.gov/reports/state-medicaid-telehealth-policies. Karimi, M., Lee, E.C., Couture, 
S.J., Gonzales, A.B., Grigorescu, V., Smith, S.R., De Lew, N., and 
Sommers, B.D. National Trends in Telehealth Use in 2021: Disparities 
in Utilization and Audio vs. Video Services. (Research Report No. 
HP-2022-04). Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and 
Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. February 
2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec.  1302.93 Staff Health and Wellness
    As described in the earlier section, Workforce Supports: Staff 
Wellness, Sec.  1302.93 outlines requirements of programs in the area 
of staff health and wellness with Sec.  1302.93(b) speaking 
specifically to mental health and wellness information for staff. We 
propose to expand on these requirements to align with the goals 
described in the earlier sections Workforce Supports: Staff Wellness 
and Workforce Supports: Employee Engagement. These changes are intended 
to further amplify the importance of an intentional focus on staff 
wellness to improve staff well-being, reduce burnout, and improve 
retention, as well as to promote high-quality services for children and 
families.
    Specifically, we propose to add a new Sec.  1302.93(e) that states 
that a program should cultivate a program-wide culture of wellness that 
empowers staff as professionals and supports staff to effectively 
accomplish their job responsibilities in a high-quality manner, in line 
with the requirement at Sec.  1302.101(a)(2). We believe this language 
clarifies that program-wide wellness supports extend to staff and that 
these supports include addressing program management such as 
implementing positive employee engagement practices, opportunities for 
training and professional development and ongoing supervisory 
support.\174\ Indeed, a recent report from the U.S. Surgeon General 
highlights the importance of employers focusing intentionally on the 
mental health and well-being of their employees. The report establishes 
a framework for workers' mental health with a focus on five essential 
areas including, creating connection and community in the workplace; 
protecting workers from physical and mental harm; providing intentional 
supports for work-life balance including paid leave; providing 
opportunities for growth and career advancement; and making employees 
feel valued in their roles in the workplace.\175\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \174\ https://www.cdc.gov/workplacehealthpromotion/planning/leadership.html; https://aspe.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/private/pdf/76661/rpt_wellness.pdf.
    \175\ U.S. Surgeon General. (2022). The U.S. Surgeon General's 
Framework for Workplace Mental Health & Well-Being. U.S. Department 
of Health and Human Services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Taken together, ACF believes the proposed changes discussed in the 
Mental Health Services section will greatly improve services for 
children, families, and staff. We seek public comment on how any of the 
proposed mental health requirements in this section may impact various 
communities. We specifically request public comment from the special 
populations served by Head Start, including AIAN and MSHS programs and 
communities.

Modernizing Head Start's Engagement With Families (Sec.  1302.11; Sec.  
1302.13; Sec.  1302.15; Sec.  1302.34; Sec.  1302.50)

    In Head Start's nearly 60-year history, programs have cultivated 
trust with the public. However, ACF acknowledges there are areas that 
could benefit from time-saving improvements and much-needed 
efficiencies. Below, we outline several areas in the HSPPS where we 
would like to draw specific attention to and elevate the need for 
programs to dedicate time, attention, and resources to making 
improvements in the efficiency of delivering services.
    Section 1302.11 describes the requirements programs must follow 
when completing their community needs assessment. ACF believes this is 
an area where we should require programs to identify the best and most 
efficient ways of communicating with families who are both currently 
enrolled and prospective families who might be eligible. Specifically, 
we propose a new (v) under Sec.  1302.11(b)(1) that requires programs 
to identify communication methods and modalities that best engage with 
prospective and enrolled families of all abilities. This ensures that 
programs will use the community needs assessment as a method to 
determine the optimal communication modalities (be it digital through 
text messaging software, improved websites, automated phone calls or 
phone lines that provide program updates, etc.) that families prefer.
    Second, Sec.  1302.13 outlines the requirements for recruiting 
children to a Head Start program. We propose to include specific 
language regarding the usage of modern technologies in the program's 
recruitment strategies, and we propose to include a specific phrase on 
reducing family burden during the enrollment process. We envision 
programs utilizing information they gather from current families to 
learn about ways they can reduce unnecessary paperwork during the 
enrollment process. We propose to require that Head Start programs 
examine their current enrollment processes and determine ways to 
streamline and improve their strategies. Specifically, we propose to 
edit Sec.  1302.13 to clarify that programs must use modern

[[Page 80848]]

technologies to encourage and assist families in applying for admission 
to the program, and to streamline the application and enrollment 
process, while ensuring families without access to technology have 
equitable access to the program.
    Section 1302.15 contains requirements related to enrolling new 
families into the Head Start program. We propose the addition of a new 
paragraph (g) that requires a user-friendly enrollment process. 
Programs must regularly examine their enrollment processes and 
implement any identified improvements to streamline the enrollment 
experience for families. This new provision would require programs to 
establish new procedures, or update current procedures, that are 
streamlined and efficient and keep the end-user in mind. This provision 
would also require programs to regularly update these procedures to 
keep up with latest innovative practices.
    Section 1302.34 describes parent and family engagement in education 
services. We propose to add a new subparagraph (9) to Sec.  1302.34(b) 
that clarifies that communication methods and modalities used by the 
program should be the best available for engaging families of all 
abilities, including currently enrolled families as well as prospective 
families. These changes would ensure that programs are consulting and 
engaging with current parents and families to be involved in the 
methods the program uses to communicate with both prospective families 
and enrolled families of all abilities. Parents and families may have 
suggestions for how to improve communication channels, methods or 
modalities, or for potential innovations. Head Start's customers are 
the children and families it serves. Including their voices in the 
creation of processes and communication streams is imperative to making 
improvements to efficiencies.
    The final section that we propose updates to is Sec.  1302.50, 
Family engagement. We propose to modify the purpose statement in Sec.  
1302.50(a) by adding a sentence at the end that states, ``This includes 
communicating with families in a format that is most accessible.'' This 
section of the HSPPS requires programs to serve both the child and 
their family in innovative two-generation approaches. Our proposed 
addition would require programs to also address communication methods 
and determine the most efficient and accessible format that families 
prefer and that may be necessary to address the needs of family members 
who have limited English proficiency or who are individuals with 
disabilities.
    We expect that many Head Start programs are already engaging in 
several of these strategies to improve their communication methods and 
reach families using the modalities and methods that are easiest for 
them, though some programs may need to make bigger changes to meet this 
proposed standard. However, overall, we anticipate minimal costs 
associated with this new requirement. Importantly, ACF would like to 
ensure that all programs are implementing these strategies equitably 
and universally. ACF recognizes that what works for one community may 
not work for another, so programs are tasked with the challenge of 
meeting the unique needs of the communities they serve. ACF seeks 
public comment on how the proposed requirements in this section may 
differentially impact different communities. We specifically request 
public comment from the special populations served by Head Start, 
including AIAN and MSHS programs and communities. Additionally, ACF 
requests comments on what new and innovative approaches or 
methodologies programs might use to fulfill this requirement, as well 
as potential costs associated with new approaches.

Community Assessment (Sec.  1302.11)

    Section 1302.11(b) requires Head Start programs to conduct a 
community assessment to design a program that meets community needs and 
builds on strengths and resources. The current requirement describes a 
broad and comprehensive assessment of community needs, strengths, and 
resources and specifies the minimum data Head Start programs must use 
in this process. The community assessment must be done at least once 
during a 5-year grant period with an annual update of significant 
changes.
    We recognize that many Head Start programs utilize the community 
assessment to inform the design of the program to a great extent. 
However, Head Start programs and others from the field have raised 
concerns with the requirements as currently written. First, the 
standards do not clearly articulate the purpose of the community 
assessment or the purpose and scope of the annual update. The 
requirement lists the data a program must collect and analyze without 
identifying the overarching goals of the endeavor. Second, there is 
concern that in some cases, programs approach the community assessment 
as an unnecessarily detailed community assessment with overly complex 
analytical methodologies. Third, some community members express concern 
about the cost of the requirement. These concerns are related; the cost 
can be particularly great, for example, if a program deploys time-
consuming surveys using complex analytical techniques. Additionally, 
some programs use program funds to hire demographers and analysts to 
conduct community assessments, which is not a concern in itself. 
However, the costs of this work could balloon if the scope of project 
is too exhaustive and complex and does not efficiently leverage 
existing available data. These concerns combined can cause costly 
barriers to some programs being able to use their community assessment 
data effectively to guide programmatic decisions as intended. Changes 
are proposed to this section to promote clarity on the intent of the 
community assessment, align with best practices, incorporate feedback 
from programs, and increase the effectiveness in how the community 
assessment is used to inform key aspects of program design and 
approach.
    In this section, we propose new language to be specific on the 
intended outcomes of the community assessment and requiring programs to 
be strategic in what data is collected and how it will be used to 
achieve those intended outcomes. This better reflects best practices to 
collect meaningful data and use it with purpose. We also propose new 
language to ensure programs assess readily available data on their 
community that provides usable information on the community for the 
grant recipient to design a program that meets the needs in the 
community. Altogether, these revisions direct programs to more 
effectively focus resources allocated to their community assessment on 
areas that matter most for program design, enrolling and serving the 
most in need in the community, what services are provided, and how or 
by whom families are served including which community strengths and 
resources are leveraged in service delivery.
    Specifically, we propose to split current Sec.  1302.11(b)(1) into 
two paragraphs in order to expand on the purpose of the community 
assessment before detailing the data that programs are required to 
collect and utilize. Section 1302.11(b)(1) has been revised to 
articulate the goals of the community assessment and is designed to 
clarify the purpose and intended outcomes of the community assessment. 
We propose to add a new (i) to (iv) which describe in more detail the 
objectives of community assessment which include: identifying who 
programs will serve and their

[[Page 80849]]

associated risk factors; how they will serve them in a manner that 
reflects their needs and diversity, while promoting equity, inclusion, 
and accessibility in service delivery; informing eligibility, 
recruitment, selection, enrollment and attendance (ERSEA) processes to 
prioritize the enrollment of those most in need of services; and 
identify strengths and resources in the community a program can 
leverage in service delivery.
    We propose to revise paragraph (b)(2) so that it contains mostly 
existing standards redesignated from current paragraph (b)(1) and 
continues to focus on what data a program is required to collect, but 
with a few revisions. We propose to revise (b)(2)(i) to be the stem of 
the requirement to collect relevant data on eligible children and 
expectant mothers. Additionally, we revise this clause to no longer 
specifically require counts of eligible children and expectant mothers 
including counts by their geographic location, race, ethnicity, and 
languages spoken for enumerated items that follow. This has been moved 
to a new item as described in the following paragraph. Upon moving it, 
it has been broadened in the stem to ``relevant demographic and other 
data about'' eligible children and expectant mothers. This change 
allows programs to make strategic decisions on what relevant 
demographic and other data to collect on eligible populations to meet 
the intended outcomes of their community assessment. Also, it 
challenges programs to consider what demographic and relevant data to 
collect beyond counts of eligible populations by geographic location, 
race, ethnicity, and languages spoken.
    We propose to add ``Children living in poverty'' as the first 
enumerated item to follow the revised clause in paragraph (b)(2) to 
promote clarity. Programs were already required to include data on 
children living in poverty in their community assessments since these 
children are considered ``eligible infants, toddlers, and preschool age 
children,'' but adding it to the list makes this more explicit. We 
propose to redesignate A, B and C from previous paragraph (b)(1) to 
follow the newly added item (A) in paragraph (b)(2). A new (E) is added 
to revised paragraph (b)(2) which includes the language from the 
current introductory clause in (b)(1)(i) which reads ``Geographic 
location, race, ethnicity and languages they speak.'' This specific 
language is pulled out to become (b)(2)(i)(E) to continue to highlight 
the importance of understanding these elements related to the diversity 
of populations most in need of services, which in turn can help promote 
equity, inclusion, and accessibility in service delivery as noted in 
the proposed new (b)(1)(ii).
    We do not propose any changes to the rest of the required list of 
factors programs must consider in redesignated Sec.  1302.11(b)(2)(ii)-
(vi). The only revisions to the list are the addition of the phrases 
``such as transportation needs'' in Sec.  1302.11(b)(ii) as an economic 
factor impacting well-being and ``especially transportation resources'' 
in Sec.  1302.11(b)(2)(v) to require programs to consider what 
resources are available in the community to address the needs of 
eligible children and families. The rationale for proposing to include 
transportation explicitly in the requirements for relevant data in the 
community assessment is because transportation remains a significant 
barrier for many of the hardest to serve families and impedes Head 
Start's mission. Access or lack of access to transportation plays a 
role in determining which families enroll in and attend Head Start 
programs. ACF wants to ensure transportation needs and resources are 
part of the data that informs a program's design and service delivery. 
A more extensive discussion of transportation is included in the 
Transportation and Other Barriers to Enrollment and Attendance section 
of this preamble.
    We propose to add a new paragraph (b)(3), which requires programs 
to have a strategic approach to determine what data to collect prior to 
conducting the community assessment and how to use the data acquired 
after conducting the community assessment in order to achieve the 
intended outcomes outlined in the newly proposed (b)(1). This proposed 
requirement helps address the concern that some programs use overly 
exhaustive approaches or using unnecessarily complex analytical 
techniques to assess their communities. This requirement intends to 
align with best practices and promote overall effectiveness of the 
community assessment to drive programmatic decision making.
    We also propose adding a new paragraph (b)(4) to require programs 
to identify certain data that would be unreasonably burdensome and 
costly to collect and consider using publicly or locally available data 
as a proxy instead. This proposed requirement addresses the cost and 
complexity some programs report in accessing certain data. For example, 
a program may determine it is unreasonable to collect data on the exact 
counts of children under the age of 6 experiencing homelessness due to 
the general difficulties and costliness in collecting accurate counts 
of populations experiencing homelessness.\176\ Although these counts 
may be helpful, the proposed requirement encourages this program to 
consider other available data that can be used as a proxy to meet the 
intended outcomes of the community assessment including how to 
prioritize the enrollment of populations experiencing homelessness in 
their community, in what areas of their community are they located, and 
what community strengths and resources can be leveraged to promote the 
delivery of program services to these populations. It is feasible to 
meet these intended outcomes without exact counts of children under the 
age of 6 experiencing homelessness using other available data such as 
location of homeless shelters, enrollment rates of children 
experiencing homelessness in schools, and through discussions with 
local community-based organizations that provide services to 
populations experiencing homelessness. Furthermore, programs may be 
able to leverage existing data collected in community health 
assessments conducted by local health departments \177\ and non-profit 
hospitals \178\ to support their own community assessments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \176\ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK218229/
#:~:text=Counting%20the%20homeless%20population%20is,of%20homelessnes
s%20for%20many%20individuals.
    \177\ https://www.naccho.org/programs/public-health-infrastructure/performance-improvement/community-health-assessment; 
https://phaboard.org/accreditation-recognition/reaccreditation/.
    \178\ https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/community-health-needs-assessment-for-charitable-hospital-organizations-section-501r3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We propose to redesignate paragraph (b)(2) to become (b)(5) and 
revise it to describe the purpose and goals of the annual review and 
update of the community assessment. There is a concern that the current 
annual update standard effectively requires a comprehensive update each 
year of the community assessment. The proposed requirement in 
redesignated and revised (b)(5) allows the program to determine where 
updates are needed based on areas where significant shifts in their 
community may have occurred that may impact their program design and 
service delivery, while also establishing that the annual update must 
consider how it can inform and support other relevant management and 
program improvement efforts as required in Sec.  1302 Subpart J. These 
revisions to the annual update are intended to ensure programs are 
strategic in their approach to the annual

[[Page 80850]]

update, which in turn can promote the effectiveness and usefulness of 
the update. Finally, we propose to redesignate paragraph (b)(3) to 
become (b)(6) without revisions to the regulatory text.
    Conducting the community assessment is a complex process and we 
want to understand whether these proposed revisions to Sec.  1302.11(b) 
will help address underlying challenges with the community assessment 
and whether they may cause any unintended consequences. Therefore, we 
are seeking public comment on the current development, utilization, and 
challenges of the community assessment as well as perceived impact of 
the changes proposed in this NPRM. ACF also seeks public comment on how 
the proposed requirements in this section may differentially impact 
different communities. We specifically request public comment from the 
special populations served by Head Start, including AIAN and MSHS 
programs and communities. We appreciate input that is specific and 
actionable. We also request public comment on whether any of the 
proposed revisions to the community assessment described in this NPRM 
will reduce program operational costs related to the community 
assessment.

Adjustment for Excessive Housing Costs for Eligibility Determination 
(Sec.  1302.12)

    Head Start is intended to promote the school readiness of children 
living in low-income households.\179\ However, many programs have 
expressed concern that Head Start eligibility criteria does not account 
for high cost of living in some areas across the country. Many families 
earn just above poverty wages, but more than 30 percent of their income 
goes to housing costs. In 2015, the Congressional Budget Office 
estimated that about 14 million households are eligible for housing 
assistance since they paid more than 30 percent of their income on 
housing, with some households paying more than 50 percent of their 
income on rent.\180\ Children whose families earn near-poverty level 
wages and who live in areas with a high-cost of living have fewer 
family resources remaining after paying for shelter costs, compared to 
families in lower-cost of living areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \179\ See the Head Start Act: https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/HS_Act_2007.pdf.
    \180\ Congressional Budget Office. (2015, September). Federal 
Housing Assistance for Low-income Households. https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/114th-congress-2015-2016/reports/50782-lowincomehousing-onecolumn.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    High housing cost burdens have increased for low- and moderate-
income renting households since the 1960s.\181\ Affordable housing 
costs have long been defined as costs that total 30 percent or less of 
a family's total gross income. The 30 percent threshold is an income 
standard that has been incorporated into laws for Federal housing 
assistance programs since the early 1980s. It has been a norm for 
defining housing affordability and is used by the U.S. Department of 
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) as a rent limit in the HOME 
Investment Partnerships Program for low-income rental units.\182\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \181\ https://www.huduser.gov/portal/pdredge/pdr-edge-featd-article-081417.html.
    \182\ Measuring Housing Affordability: Assessing the 30 Percent 
of Income Standard. https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/Harvard_JCHS_Herbert_Hermann_McCue_measuring_housing_affordability.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other means-tested programs that aim to serve those experiencing 
poverty, like SNAP, use an income adjustment to account for excessive 
housing costs.\183\ Adjusting income for housing expenses is an 
effective way to provide additional flexibility for families who are 
making above or near poverty wages, but face high housing costs, and 
would be eligible for Head Start if those disproportionally high 
housing costs were taken into account when determining eligibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \183\ Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. (2023, January). A 
Quick Guide to SNAP Eligibility and Benefits. https://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/11-18-08fa.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, we propose to revise Sec.  1302.12(i)(1) by adding a new 
(i) and (ii) to allow a program to adjust a family's income to account 
for excessive housing costs, when determining eligibility. We propose 
to redesignate current Sec.  1302.12(i)(1)(i) as clause (iii) and 
subsequent clauses are renumbered accordingly. Additionally, we propose 
to add a definition of ``housing expenses'' to Sec.  1305.2.
    Specifically, Sec.  1302.12(i)(1)(i) is a new stem to introduce the 
calculation of income and it states, ``The program must calculate total 
gross income using applicable sources of income.'' In a subsequent 
section of this NPRM, we described proposed clarifications to the 
definition of ``income'' in Sec.  1305.2. Proposed new clause, Sec.  
1302.12(i)(1)(ii) introduces the adjustment for housing expenses and 
states that a program may make an adjustment to a family's gross income 
calculation for the purposes of determining eligibility in order to 
account for excessive housing expenses. A program must use available 
bills, bank statements, and other relevant documentation provided by 
the family to calculate total annual housing expenses with appropriate 
multipliers. There are two additional subclauses (A) and (B) that 
describe how programs should adjust income to account for housing 
expenses. Specifically, (A) states that programs should determine if a 
family spends more than 30 percent of their total gross income on 
housing expenses, and (B) states that, if applicable, programs may 
reduce the total gross income by the amount spent in housing expenses 
above the 30 percent threshold to calculate the adjusted gross income 
for determining income eligibility.
    In addition, a new term for housing expenses in Sec.  1305.2 is 
proposed which means the total annual applicable expenses spent by the 
family on rent or mortgage payments, homeowner's or renter's insurance, 
utilities, interest, and taxes on the home. Utilities includes 
electricity, gas, water, sewer, and trash.
    To illustrate how income deductions would be calculated under these 
new proposed regulations, we describe the following example. If a 
family's annual gross income is $10,000 and they spend $5,000 on 
housing, their housing cost is 50 percent of their total gross income. 
Therefore, the percent of the family's income spent on housing is 20 
percent higher than the 30 percent threshold, and the family's total 
gross income can be adjusted down by an amount equal to 20 percent of 
annual gross income. This results in a $2,000 reduction. Therefore, 
instead of a total gross income of $10,000 that the program must 
consider for eligibility purposes, this family's total gross income 
would be $8,000 after application of proposed Sec.  1302.12(i)(1)(ii). 
ACF recognizes that programs do not need to calculate housing expenses 
for all families since many will still qualify for Head Start services 
based on income alone, or due to some other qualifying factor, 
including participation in SNAP or TANF. Therefore, the proposed 
regulatory language in (i)(1)(ii) indicates that a program ``may'' use 
available documents to calculate housing expenses.
    We propose to add the definition of ``housing expenses'' to provide 
clarity about what can be considered in the calculation of total 
housing costs including what utility costs can be taken into account. 
In considering what utilities to include in the definition, ACF used 
HUD regulatory guidance for utility allowances as a resource.\184\ The

[[Page 80851]]

HUD definition of utility allowances includes electricity, natural gas, 
propane, fuel oil, wood or coal, and water and sewage service, as well 
as garbage collection. Programs can use bills and expenses from one 
month to calculate the average expenses that a family has throughout 
the year. Further, programs should only be using bills for which 
families have paid for out of pocket. For example, housing vouchers, 
rental assistance, support from the Low Income Energy Assistance 
Program (LIHEAP), or other types of financial assistance should not be 
included in calculations of housing expenses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \184\ Utility Allowances. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 
Development. https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/
public_indian_housing/programs/ph/phecc/
allowances#:~:text=The%20utilities%20for%20which%20allowances,as%20we
ll%20as%20garbage%20collection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Programs should continue using their current methods of verifying 
eligibility based on tax forms, pay stubs, or other proof of income. 
These proposed regulatory changes would allow programs to also use 
bills, lease agreements, mortgage statements, and other documentation 
that shows housing and utility expenses.
    By including this income deduction calculation in eligibility 
determination for Head Start, ACF expects many programs to utilize this 
deduction calculation for families seeking eligibility. However, 
programs must adhere to their recruitment and selection criteria to 
ensure they prioritize enrollment for those who may benefit most from 
Head Start services. Specifically, all Head Start programs must 
continue to use their selection criteria to prioritize the enrollment 
of the families most in need of services as required in 45 CFR 1302.13. 
The sole purpose of this proposed rule is to allow programs to consider 
income deductions for the purposes of determining Head Start 
eligibility.
    ACF would like to invite comment on including a limit to the total 
amount in housing costs that can be deducted from a family's income. 
ACF is not concerned with high income families being enrolled in Head 
Start since families still must be income-eligible after accounting for 
high housing costs, and programs should continue prioritizing highest 
need families based on their selection criteria. However, we invite 
comments on whether there should be a dollar limit or percentage limit 
to how much is allowed to be deducted from income to account for 
housing costs. ACF seeks public comment on how the proposed 
requirements in this section may differentially impact different 
communities. We specifically request public comment from the special 
populations served by Head Start, including AIAN and MSHS programs and 
communities.

Migrant and Seasonal Head Start Eligibility (Sec.  1302.12)

    Section 1302.12(f) describes the eligibility requirements for 
enrollment in MSHS programs. Currently, to be eligible for MSHS, a 
family must demonstrate that their income comes primarily from 
agricultural labor which has been interpreted and implemented to mean a 
family's income must be more than 50 percent from agricultural work. 
This presents an additional challenge to MSHS programs in finding 
eligible families. It has become increasingly less common for 
agricultural work to be the primary source of an entire family's income 
as agricultural work has become less available or stable due to 
unpredicted weather events and due to higher pay in other industries. 
These changes impacting the agriculture industry have resulted in 
barriers to enrolling farmworker families in need of program services.
    To address this barrier, we propose to add language to Sec.  
1302.12(f) to add the policy that ``one family member is primarily 
engaged in agricultural employment'' rather than ``family's income 
comes primarily from agricultural work.'' A family must still meet an 
eligibility criterion for Head Start services under 45 CFR 1302.12(c) 
(i.e., living at or below the 100 percent poverty guideline, 
experiencing homelessness, receiving public assistance, or in foster 
care). However, due to challenges migrant families face in relocating 
often to seek agricultural work, MSHS programs must prioritize migrant 
families for selection as required in Sec.  1302.14(a)(2).
    Additionally, Sec.  1302.12(j) outlines the requirements related to 
the period of time a child remains eligible for Head Start and when 
program staff must verify the family's eligibility again before 
continuing services. In paragraph (2), specifically, the HSPPS notes 
that children who are enrolled in a program receiving funds under the 
authority of section 645A of the Act, which refers to the Early Head 
Start program, remain eligible while they participate in the program.
    The current standards do not specify eligibility duration related 
to the unique programs operated by MSHS. Current practice is that MSHS 
programs verify eligibility every two years. However, MSHS programs 
serve children from birth to school age and nearly half of MSHS 
enrollment consists of children under the age of three. Furthermore, 
many MSHS programs also receive Early Head Start funding.
    The existing requirement creates an inequity because infants and 
toddlers served in Early Head Start programs can receive services for 
the duration of the program, meaning until they turn three and age out 
of the program, whereas the MSHS family is no longer considered 
eligible for the program after two years. Therefore, the young children 
of agricultural workers are not provided the same potential duration of 
services as infants and toddlers served by Early Head Start.
    To address this inequity and extend the same opportunity to MSHS 
infants and toddlers that is available to infants and toddlers served 
through an Early Head Start grant, we propose to add a paragraph to 
address eligibility duration for infants and toddlers participating in 
MSHS programs. Specifically, we propose to add a new paragraph (5) to 
existing Sec.  1302.12(j). The new language clarifies that MSHS 
programs can serve infants and toddlers for 3 years, consistent with 
the requirement in Sec.  1302.12(j)(2) that children participating in 
Early Head Start are eligible for the duration of the program. We 
believe this new language will correct this inequity and promote 
continuity for families served by MSHS and reduce paperwork for 
families and programs.

Transportation & Other Barriers to Enrollment and Attendance (Sec.  
1302.14; Sec.  1302.16)

    Sections 1302.14 and 1302.16 address the requirements for the 
selection process and attendance, two key components of ERSEA. Section 
1302.14 outlines the current requirements for programs' selection of 
eligible children. It currently specifies that programs must annually 
develop selection criteria, based on community needs identified in the 
community needs assessment, for how they will prioritize the selection 
of eligible children. It also requires that a program ensure at least 
10 percent of its total funded enrollment is filled by children 
eligible for services under IDEA unless a wavier is granted throughout 
the program year once the assessments are completed. Finally, it 
requires that programs maintain a waitlist. Section 1302.16 outlines 
the requirements of programs in the area of attendance. It articulates 
what programs must do to support regular attendance, to manage 
systematic program attendance issues, and to support attendance for 
children who are homeless.
    Through the course of implementing these provisions and discussions 
with constituents, ACF believes strongly that these requirements do not 
adequately reflect the importance of acknowledging barriers to 
enrollment and attendance,

[[Page 80852]]

which is a critical part of selecting children for participation and 
ensuring they can attend regularly. There are many barriers that may 
impede enrollment or attendance in Head Start programs even after a 
child is selected. These barriers include, but are not limited to, 
transportation access, affordability and reliability challenges, 
particularly for individuals with disabilities; demands of family life 
(e.g., balancing work and school schedules, housing instability, caring 
for sick or disabled relatives); or hours and schedules that are not 
flexible enough to meet a family's needs (e.g., additional child care 
needed to enable attendance at programs that do not operate for a full 
work day).
    We expand here on the example of transportation because of concerns 
that transportation to local programs remains a significant barrier for 
many of the hardest to serve families and impedes Head Start's mission. 
The decision to cut or reduce transportation services is often part of 
a difficult budget decision-making process to free up funds for other 
rising program costs. For instance, in an analysis of Head Start 
Preschool and Early Head Start grants across the county, the average 
cost of a bus is about $90,000, or roughly $2,500 per seat. This cost 
excludes the cost of bus drivers and ongoing bus maintenance. As a 
result, Head Start programs nationally provide transportation to only 
20 percent of enrolled children, more than 100,000 fewer children as 
compared to a decade ago.\185\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \185\ Source: Head Start 2010-2020 PIR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, about 70 
percent of low-income families with children ages 5 to 14 take a school 
bus to school.\186\ The Consumer Expenditure Survey (CE), administered 
by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), found that households spent an 
average of $9,826 on transportation in 2020--the second largest 
household expenditure category after housing. And low-income households 
spend a much higher proportion of their income on transportation 
expenses than non-low-income households. In 2021, the average household 
with an income equal to or below $24,127 spent nearly a third of their 
income, 26.9 percent, on transportation. To compare, households with an 
income equal to or above $129,534 spent an average of 10.4 percent on 
transportation.\187\ Having better clarity on this particular barrier 
and providing more targeted transportation assistance, if possible, 
allows these households to use their limited funds for other essential 
expenses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \186\ Ibid. Note: Uniform data on the population of children 
under five taking a bus or other ECE transportation services is not 
collected by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics.
    \187\ U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of 
Transportation Statistics, Transportation Economic Trends, available 
at www.bts.gov/product/transportation-economic-trends.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Research has shown that transportation is linked to economic 
mobility and documented links between poor public transit access and 
higher rates of unemployment.\188\ Additionally, accessing public 
transportation can be challenging and less reliable for low-income 
communities, the same communities in which many eligible families are 
located and are most in need of reliable public transportation.\189\ We 
propose new language in Sec.  1302.14 and Sec.  1302.16 to require 
programs to consider barriers to enrollment and attendance. In Sec.  
1302.14 Selection, we propose to add a new paragraph (d) to require 
programs to use data from the selection process to understand why 
children selected for the program do not enroll or attend. We 
specifically name transportation in the proposed language as one such 
barrier. We propose to amend paragraph Sec.  1302.16 Attendance by 
adding Sec.  1302.16(a)(2)(v) to require programs to examine barriers 
to regular attendance. Given the centrality of transportation as a 
barrier to reaching children and families, we again name access to 
transportation in the proposed language, and require programs to, if 
possible, provide or facilitate transportation if needed. Note that we 
also explicitly include transportation in Sec.  1302.11 on the 
community assessment to ensure that transportation needs and resources 
are part of the community wide strategic planning and needs assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \188\ Chetty, R., Hendren, N., Kline, P., & Saez, E. (2014). 
Where is the land of opportunity? The geography of intergenerational 
mobility in the United States. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 
129(4), 1553-1623.; Kaufman, S., Moss, M.L., Tyndall, J., & 
Hernandez, J. (2014). Mobility, economic opportunity and New York 
City neighborhoods. NYU Wagner Research Paper, (2598566).
    \189\ Stern, A., Stacy, C., Blagg, K., Su, Y., Noble, E., 
Rainer, M., & Ezike, R. (2020). Access to Opportunity through 
Equitable Transportation. Available at: https://www.urban.org/research/publication/access-opportunity-through-equitable-transportation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The objective of the proposed changes to these requirements is to 
ensure programs are using their data to understand the factors that 
impede Head Start enrollment and participation in their service area, 
and ultimately, equip programs with more data to inform continuous 
improvement of service delivery as described in Sec.  1302.102(c). We 
propose to specifically require programs to consider transportation as 
a barrier to enrollment and attendance because of its significance in 
determining which children can enroll and participate in Head Start. In 
tandem with proposed revisions in Sec.  1302.11(b) and Sec.  
1302.16(a)(2), strengthening our HSPPS to increase transportation 
services to more children will help to provide more educational 
opportunity while also addressing these inequities. We believe these 
proposed changes will promote the thoughtful use of the community 
assessment, selection process, and attendance process to inform 
responsive program design, and ultimately, ensure children who would 
benefit most from Head Start services are identified, enrolled, and 
supported in attendance. With the additional data required in these 
sections, Head Start programs can better meet their current families' 
needs and help to make services more accessible to future families. ACF 
seeks public comment on how the proposed requirements in this section 
may differentially impact different communities. We specifically 
request public comment from the special populations served by Head 
Start, including AIAN and MSHS programs and communities.

Serving Children With Disabilities (Sec.  1302.14)

    Section 1302.14 outlines the requirements for selecting eligible 
children for participation in the Head Start program. Paragraph (b) of 
this section requires a program to ensure at least 10 percent of its 
total funded enrollment is filled by children eligible for services 
under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) unless the 
responsible HHS official grants a waiver.
    Though Sec.  1302.14(b) reads ``funded enrollment,'' section 
640(d)(1) in the Act states the percentage of children with 
disabilities (eligible under IDEA) is based on ``the number of children 
actually enrolled,'' rather than the funded enrollment. ACF has 
received feedback from various interested groups that this error has 
caused confusion among programs because the Act and the HSPPS state 
different requirements.
    To address this inconsistency, we propose to change ``funded'' to 
``actual'' in 1304(b)(1) so the HSPPS are consistent with the Act. This 
change will clarify the requirement and address the confusion caused by 
the discrepancy.
    We encourage all Head Start programs to recruit and enroll as many 
children who are eligible for IDEA services as possible. The 10 percent 
requirement is

[[Page 80853]]

meant to be a floor rather than a ceiling for serving children who 
would benefit from the program. ACF strongly encourages Head Start 
programs to maximize services to children with disabilities who will 
benefit from the program's strong focus on inclusive early childhood 
settings. Early intervention and access to available services through 
Head Start provides children with disabilities with supports that can 
positively impact their education and well-being over the long term. 
Through partnerships with State and local education agencies, Head 
Start plays an important role in identifying children with disabilities 
or developmental delays and referring families to services and follow-
up care.
    Head Start programs are required to design and implement a 
coordinated approach that ensures the full and effective participation 
of all children with disabilities and their families (45 CFR 
1302.101(b)(3)). The long-standing collaboration between ACF and the 
U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs 
(OSEP) seeks to ensure young children with disabilities are served in 
high-quality early childhood programs, including Head Start programs. 
This requires ongoing partnerships between the Individuals with 
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Part C early intervention and Part B, 
section 619 preschool special education programs and Head Start 
programs.
    During the return to in-person services in 2022, OHS and OSEP 
issued a joint letter \190\ to reiterate important policies and 
practices related to providing services to young children with 
disabilities. The joint letter (1) reminds programs of requirements 
under Part B of the IDEA to provide special education and related 
services to eligible preschool-aged children with disabilities, (2) 
promotes collaboration at the State and local program level to meet 
requirements, and (3) provides resources to assist Head Start and other 
providers in creating effective memoranda of understanding for 
coordinating the implementation of high-quality programs for all 
children.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \190\ Letter can be found at this link: https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/local-early-childhood-partnerships/press-release/encouraging-idea-collaboration-between-state-agencies-local-agencies-head-start-programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ratios in Center-Based Early Head Start Programs (Sec.  1302.21)

    This section establishes requirements for staff-child ratios and 
group sizes for center-based Head Start Preschool, Early Head Start, 
and Migrant or Seasonal Head Start classes. The current standards at 
Sec.  1302.21(b)(1) require staff-child ratios and group size maximums 
to be determined by the age of the majority of children in a class. The 
age of majority of the children is generally determined at the start of 
the year but may be adjusted during the program year if needed. Where 
State or local licensing requirements are more stringent, then staff-
child ratios and group size specifications must meet the stricter 
requirements.
    Further, Sec.  1302.21(b)(2) requires that classrooms that serve 
children under 36 months old must have two teachers with no more than 
eight children, or three teachers with no more than nine children. The 
current standards in paragraph (b)(2) also emphasize that each teacher 
serving children under 36 months must be assigned consistent, primary 
responsibility for no more than four children to promote continuity of 
care for individual children. A program must also minimize teacher 
changes throughout a child's enrollment and consider mixed age group 
classes to support continuity of care.
    However, we propose to add a new standard that encourages programs 
to use a lower teacher-child ratio of no more than three children to 
every teacher for classrooms where the majority of children are infants 
under 12 months. Specifically, we propose to add the following new 
sentence after the second sentence in Sec.  1302.21(b)(2), that states 
that programs are encouraged to establish a lower teacher to child 
ratio for the youngest children they serve, provided that it does not 
jeopardize continuity of care for children. As the premier ECE provider 
in the United States, Head Start sets an example for early childhood 
programs nationwide. Head Start programs are known for providing high-
quality early childhood services. Furthermore, a warm, responsive 
relationship between an infant and caregiver is a crucial foundation 
for infants to learn and develop. A lower teacher-child ratio can 
support the establishment of this strong, secure relationship and allow 
for more individualized attention between the infant and teacher. A 
lower ratio of one teacher to three infants also aligns with the 
National Resource Center for Health and Safety in Child Care and Early 
Education recommendations for center-based programs with classrooms 
where the majority of children are under 12 months old.\191\ Further, 
research indicates that, generally, lower teacher-child ratios in ECE 
classrooms relate to higher classroom quality and stronger child 
outcomes.\192\ This proposed revision takes into consideration research 
findings and recommendations and encourages programs to consider 
reducing teacher-child ratios for their youngest classrooms, to provide 
the highest quality care and learning opportunities for infants 
enrolled in Head Start.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \191\ American Academy of Pediatrics, American Public Health 
Association, & National Resource Center for Health and Safety in 
Child Care and Early Education. (2020). Caring for Our Children 
(CFOC) online standards database. National Resource Center for 
Health and Safety in Child Care and Early Education. https://nrckids.org/CFOC.
    \192\ Bowne, J.B., Magnuson, K.A., Schindler, H.S., Duncan, 
G.J., & Yoshikawa, H. (2017). A Meta-Analysis of Class Sizes and 
Ratios in Early Childhood Education Programs: Are Thresholds of 
Quality Associated With Greater Impacts on Cognitive, Achievement, 
and Socioemotional Outcomes? Educational Evaluation and Policy 
Analysis, 39(3), 407-428. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373716689489; 
Xue, Y., Atkins-Burnett, S., Vogel, C., and Cannon, J. (2022). 
Teacher-Child Relationship Quality and Beyond: Unpacking Quality in 
Early Head Start Classrooms in 2018. OPRE Report 2022-122. 
Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, 
Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health 
and Human Services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We further clarify that this proposed change is an encouragement 
for programs and should not be interpreted as a new ratio requirement 
for classrooms very young children. We recognize that a lower teacher-
child ratio will likely be challenging for some programs to implement 
during the current staffing shortage. We further emphasize that the 
requirements in Sec.  1302.21(b)(2) on promoting continuity of care by 
minimizing teacher changes throughout a child's enrollment in Head 
Start, and doing so through mixed age classrooms, is still of top 
priority. ACF understands that implementing different ratio 
requirements for different age groups in Early Head Start can be 
challenging and antithetical to continuity of care (e.g., if children 
need to switch classrooms after their first birthday). This can be 
challenging when programs are also trying to ensure that teacher-child 
relationships are stable across a child's early years in a program. ACF 
intentionally prioritizes continuity of care especially for younger 
children and programs should continue to create policies that support 
strong teacher-child relationships. ACF invites public comment on 
possible costs associated with lowering ratios for the youngest 
children served, for programs that may choose to do so.
    We would also like to understand the potential implications of 
lowering ratio requirements for the youngest classrooms, particularly 
for children 12 months old or younger. According to 2020 State 
licensing standards, there are three states that have a ratio of one

[[Page 80854]]

teacher to three children for infants 12 months old or younger.\193\ 
ACF is interested in applying this reduced teacher-child ratio 
requirement for classrooms where the majority of children are 12 months 
old or younger. We invite public comment on such a possible change, as 
well as possible costs associated with such a change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \193\ https://childcareta.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/public/center_licensing_trends_brief_2020_final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Center-Based Service Duration for Early Head Start (Sec.  1302.21)

    Section 1302.21(c)(1)(i) requires Early Head Start center-based 
programs to provide 1,380 annual hours of planned class operations for 
all enrolled children. It has been a long-standing expectation of ACF 
that EHS programs provide continuous services, which we have 
interpreted as full-day, full-year services. Therefore, while not 
explicitly stated, the intent of the Early Head Start 1,380 hours 
requirement for center-based service duration is for programs to 
provide full-day, full-year services. Research on full-day and full-
year programs suggests children in poverty benefit from longer exposure 
to high-quality early learning programs than what is provided by part-
day and/or part-year programs.\194\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \194\ 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.; Wasik, B.A., & Snell, E.K. (2019). Synthesis of 
preschool dosage: How quantity, quality, and content impact child 
outcomes. In A.J. Reynolds & J.A. Temple (Eds.), Sustaining early 
childhood learning gains: Program, school, and family influences 
(pp. 31-51). Cambridge University Press.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, the standard does not explicitly require a minimum number 
of weeks per year over which the 1,380 hours should be provided. 
Therefore, we propose to add a phrase to Sec.  1302.21(c)(1)(i) to 
clarify that the 1,380 hours of planned class operations for children 
in EHS should occur across a minimum of 46 weeks per year. Based on our 
experiences implementing the current requirement, we believe most 
programs are already operating year-round; however, a small number of 
programs may be operating less than a full year and we would like to 
promote full-year services for infants and toddlers in EHS. However, we 
are also aware that specifying the requirement as at least 46 weeks per 
year may have unintended consequences, such as programs moving to part-
day services or reducing their weeks per year to 46 to align with a new 
requirement. Therefore, we request comment on these possible unintended 
consequences as well as on other ways we can ensure EHS services are 
full-day and full-year as intended, while still providing flexibility 
to programs in developing their program schedules. ACF also seeks 
public comment on how the proposed requirements in this section may 
differentially impact different communities. We specifically request 
public comment from the special populations served by Head Start, 
including AIAN and MSHS programs and communities. Finally, we also 
invite comment on how such a change would impact service delivery and 
any challenges that may be associated with meeting a revised standard, 
including the implementation timeframe.

Center-Based Service Duration for Head Start Preschool (Sec.  1302.21; 
Sec.  1302.24)

    Section 1302.21 establishes the program structure standards that 
are required to operate Head Start Preschool, Early Head Start, 
American Indian and Alaska Native, and Migrant or Seasonal Head Start 
center-based program options. This includes standards for ratios and 
group size, service duration, and licensing and square footage. In this 
section, we propose seven technical corrections to existing provisions 
in Sec.  1302.21(c)(1) through (6) to remove outdated text and improve 
readability of these standards. We do not propose any change in policy 
to these existing standards.
    First, in Sec.  1302.21, we propose to revise paragraph (c)(1)(i) 
by removing the phrase ``By August 1, 2018.'' That date has already 
passed and does not add any substance to that paragraph.
    Second, we propose to revise paragraph (c)(2)(i) by adding the 
phrase ``Service Duration for at Least 45 Percent'' as a subheading. We 
remove the phrase ``Until a program is operating all of its Head Start 
center-based funded enrollment at the standard described in paragraph 
(c)(2)(iv) or (c)(2)(v)'' and replace it with ``A program must provide 
1,020 annual hours of planned class operation over the course of at 
least eight months per year for at least 45 percent of its Head Start 
Preschool center-based funded enrollment,'' which reflects the current 
requirement. We also propose to amend paragraph (c)(2)(i) by removing 
the language that details the minimum number of hours per day and days 
per year a program must operate for any child (``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'') and moving that language into a new 
paragraph (ii). We also propose to add the phrase ``Service Duration 
for Remaining Slots'' as a subheading to the new paragraph (ii).
    Third, we propose to redesignate existing paragraph (c)(2)(ii) as 
paragraph (c)(2)(iii) and revise the redesignated paragraph (c)(2)(iii) 
by adding the phrase ``Double session'' as a subheading. In 
redesignated paragraph (c)(2)(iii) we also propose to remove the 
language ``Until a program is operating all of its Head Start center-
based funded enrollment at the standard described in paragraph 
(c)(2)(iv) or (c)(2)(v) of this section, if a program operates'' and 
instead begin that paragraph with ``Double session variation must,'' to 
improve readability. In addition, we propose to remove the term 
``aides'' from the third sentence of redesignated paragraph (c)(2)(iii) 
and replace that term with ``assistants.'' We propose the term 
``assistant'' as this term more accurately reflects this staff role in 
Head Start Preschool classrooms and aligns with other requirements for 
preschool classrooms to have at least a teacher and teacher assistant 
in each classroom.
    Fourth, we propose to remove existing paragraphs (c)(2)(iii) and 
(iv), which describe the two-part phase in for the outdated 100-percent 
service duration requirement. The 100-percent service duration 
requirement \195\ was effectively eliminated when the Secretary lowered 
the Head Start center-based service duration requirement from 100 
percent to 45 percent in a Federal Register notice, 85 FR 5332.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \195\ This requirement would have required all Head Start 
programs to provide at least 1,020 annual hours of service for all 
(100 percent) of their center-based preschool slots.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Fifth, we propose to redesignate existing paragraph (c)(2)(v) as 
new paragraph (iv). We propose to revise the redesignated paragraph 
(iv) by adding ``Special Provision for Alignment with Local Education 
Agency'' as a subheading to make this section easier for the public to 
read. We also propose to update cross-references to existing paragraphs 
by replacing the phrase ``paragraphs (c)(2)(iii) and (iv)'' with 
``paragraph (c)(2)(i)'' to align with the proposed revisions described 
previously.
    Sixth, we propose to eliminate paragraph (c)(3) since the 
provisions in this paragraph are outdated; the Secretary already 
exercised authority to lower the Head Start center-based service 
duration requirements and the dates have passed.\196\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \196\ https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/01/30/2020-00635/secretarial-determination-to-lower-head-start-center-based-service-duration-requirements; https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/01/19/2018-00897/secretarial-determination-to-lower-head-start-center-based-service-duration-requirement.

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

[[Page 80855]]

    Lastly, we propose to remove paragraph (c)(4) because the November 
7, 2016, date mentioned in that standard has passed and the standard is 
no longer applicable. We propose to redesignate existing paragraph 
(c)(5) ``Exemption for Migrant or Seasonal Head Start programs'' as the 
new paragraph (3) and redesignate existing paragraph (6) ``Calendar 
planning'' as the new paragraph (4).
    Section 1302.24 describes locally designed program option 
variations, including waiver requirements. We propose to make updates 
in this section to align with the proposed updates for center-based 
service duration in Sec.  1302.21. Specifically, in paragraph (c)(1) we 
propose to remove the reference to ``(c)(2)(iii) and (iv)'' and replace 
it with ``(c)(2)(i).'' In paragraph (c)(3) we propose to remove the 
reference to ``(c)(2)(iii) or (iv)'' and update it with ``(c)(2)(i).'' 
In paragraph (c)(3) we also propose to remove the reference to 
``(c)(2)(i)'' and update it with ``(c)(2)(ii).'' Finally, at the end of 
the sentence in paragraph (c)(3), we propose to remove the reference to 
``(c)(2)(ii)'' and update it with ``(c)(2)(iii).'' In paragraph (c)(5) 
we propose to remove the reference to ``(c)(2)(iii) and (iv)'' and 
replace it with ``(c)(2)(i).'' Finally, we propose to remove paragraph 
(d) ``Transition from previously approved program options'' because the 
November 7, 2016, date mentioned in that standard has passed and the 
standard is no longer applicable.

Ratios in Family Child Care Settings (Sec.  1302.23)

    Family child care is an important component of a robust state mixed 
delivery early care and education system that supports flexibility and 
choice for parents. Families may prefer a home-based option for various 
reasons, including meeting their cultural or scheduling needs, offering 
a smaller family like setting, or enabling younger and older siblings 
to be served in the same location. For families who opt for a home-
based program for their children, Head Start services provided within a 
family child care option can help to ensure services are high-quality 
and include supports such as professional development and technical 
assistance to home-based providers. Section 1302.23(b) lays out the 
provider to child ratio and group size requirements for programs that 
operate a family child care option with enrolled Head Start children. 
Paragraph (b) requires a grant recipient that operates this option to 
maintain a group size of no more than six children in mixed age 
groupings with no more than two of those children under age 24 months 
with one family child care provider. And a provider may have no more 
than four children in a grouping of children under age 36 months with 
no more than two of those children under age 18 months.
    We believe that these standards for the family child care option 
demonstrate a commitment to quality; however, we recognize that the 
wording of the existing standards has led to confusion among grant 
recipients, particularly in understanding the difference between the 
standards for groupings that include older children and those that 
serve only infants and toddlers. It was our intent during the initial 
drafting of the standards that an acceptable grouping of infants and 
toddlers should be smaller than a mixed age grouping of children that 
includes preschool or older children. However, we received feedback 
from the field that the current standards are unclear.
    Based on this input, we propose to make clarifying revisions to the 
current standard. Specifically, Sec.  1302.23(b)(2) as written 
establishes the maximum group size of six children with no more than 
two children under the age of 24 months of age with one provider but 
does not reference the age makeup allowances for the rest of the group. 
The language at Sec.  1302.23(b)(3) references an acceptable ratio and 
group size of one provider with up to four children younger than age 36 
months with no more than two of the four children under 18 months of 
age. Taken together the two standards Sec.  1302.23(b)(2) and (3) are 
not sufficiently distinct. Therefore, we propose to amend Sec.  
1302.23(b)(2) to clarify that the maximum group size with one provider 
and six children, with no more than two under 24 months of age, refers 
to a mixed age grouping that includes preschool children (e.g., 
children over the age of 36 months). Specifically, we propose to add 
the header ``Mixed Age with Preschoolers'' to paragraph Sec.  
1302.23(b)(2) and add the following language to the first sentence 
after the phrase ``family child care provider'': ``with a mixed-age 
group of children that includes children over 36 months of age.'' 
Similarly, we propose to clarify Sec.  1302.23(b)(3) by adding the 
header ``Infants and Toddlers Only'', and deleting ``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 replacing it 
with ``When there is one family child care provider with a group of 
children that are all under 36 months of age, the maximum group size is 
four children.''
    ACF believes these fixes will not alter the substance of the 
regulation but will provide much needed clarity to Head Start programs 
with a family child care option while acknowledging the importance of 
maintaining ratios and group sizes that facilitate high-quality 
interactions and support children's safety and development.
    In making these clarifying revisions, we noted that the standards 
in Sec.  1302.23(b)(2) allow for an increased group size when both a 
family child care provider and an assistant provider are present. 
However, the role of ``family child care assistant provider'' is not 
defined and is not addressed in the staff qualifications and competency 
requirements outlined in Sec.  1302.91(e)(5) for child and family 
services staff.
    We believe that all adults who provide direct services to children 
regardless of setting should have appropriate, training, knowledge, and 
experience that will enable them to support children's development 
through effective teaching practices and nurturing adult-child 
interactions. As a model for high quality early childhood supports and 
services, Head Start programs must ensure that providers have the 
necessary skills to ensure quality programming that will lead to 
positive outcomes for children and families. Therefore, we propose to 
amend the second sentence of Sec.  1302.23(b)(2) by removing the phrase 
``When there is a provider and an assistant provider'' and replacing it 
with the phrase ``When there are two providers.'' We believe this 
change will help ensure that large mixed-age groups (of up to twelve 
children) in family child care settings are supported by qualified 
family child care providers. In addition, for consistency and clarity, 
we propose to strike the phrase ``and assistant providers'' from the 
final sentence of Sec.  1302.23(b)(4) to emphasize that programs must 
ensure any staff who may have primary responsibility for children have 
the necessary training and experience to ensure quality services are 
not interrupted.
    We invite comment on the potential impact of removing these two 
references to ``assistant provider'' in the family child care option 
and the requirement that all family child care providers meet the 
qualification requirements. We seek comment specifically from family 
child care programs that currently employ assistant providers. ACF also 
seeks public comment from the special populations served by Head Start,

[[Page 80856]]

including AIAN and MSHS programs and communities.

Safety Practices (Sec.  1302.47)

    Section 1302.47 establishes expectations for Head Start programs to 
ensure basic health and safety measures are taken for the protection of 
all children. Here, we propose changes to Sec.  1302.47(b), which 
requires programs to implement a system of management, training, and 
oversight to ensure safe practices in a list of areas in order to 
ensure child safety. In the years of implementing these requirements 
since the 2016 revision of the HSPPS, grant recipients and other 
interested parties have raised questions about these requirements and 
to whom they apply. Given how critical child safety is in Head Start 
programs, it is imperative that we are as clear as possible and that 
our requirements reflect current best practices and terminology. In 
this section, we propose to clarify expected safety practices related 
to child health, mental health, and safety incidents. More 
specifically, the proposed requirements specify that any adult working 
in Head Start is responsible for safety practices and more precisely 
define safety practices by including the existing minimum Federal 
standard for abuse and neglect, clarifying that children should be 
supervised at all times, and drawing attention to the relevant 
paragraphs of the Standards of Conduct.
    We propose to remove from Sec.  1302.47(b)(5) the phrase ``staff 
and consultants'' and replace it with ``staff, consultants, 
contractors, and volunteers.'' This revision is intended to clarify 
that Head Start contractors and volunteers, in addition to staff and 
consultants, should be aware of and are expected to follow safety 
practices. The proposed change will clarify that all individuals 
working in Head Start must be aware of and responsible for child safety 
practices.
    Section 1302.47(b)(5)(i) describes the safety practice of reporting 
suspected or known child abuse and neglect. We propose to add the 
phrase ``as defined by the Federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment 
Act (CAPTA) (42 U.S.C. 5101 note).'' The proposed change will clarify 
the definition of child abuse and neglect that is aligned with existing 
Federal statute, CAPTA, which states that ``the term `child abuse and 
neglect' means, at a minimum, any recent act or failure to act on the 
part of a parent or caretaker, which results in death, serious physical 
or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation (including sexual abuse 
as determined under section 111), or an act or failure to act which 
presents an imminent risk of serious harm.'' The Federal definition is 
a minimum standard and programs must also comply with State, local, and 
Tribal laws, which may have additional stipulations related to defining 
child abuse and neglect and other requirements for mandated reporting. 
If there are discrepancies between Federal and State, local, and Tribal 
laws, programs should comply with the more stringent regulation.
    In Sec.  1302.47(b)(5)(iii), appropriate supervision of children is 
described as a safety practice. We propose to remove the phrase 
``indoor and outdoor.'' This proposed change clarifies that appropriate 
supervision of children is expected at all times and aligns with Caring 
for Our Children guidelines.\197\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \197\ Caring for our Children. (2022). Chapter 2.2 Supervision 
and Discipline. National Resource Center for Health and Safety in 
Child Care and Early Education, Department of Health and Human 
Services. Available online at https://nrckids.org/cfoc/database/2.2.0.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Next, in Sec.  1302.47(b)(5)(v), the standards of conduct in Sec.  
1302.90(c) are referenced as a safety practice. We propose to add the 
designation ``(ii)'' to the citation to clarify that Sec.  
1302.47(b)(5)(v) references the specific standards of conduct that are 
related to staff behavior that could be reasonably suspected to 
negatively impact children, which are described in Sec.  
1302.90(c)(ii). This addition would also reduce redundancies since 
supervision and reporting of suspected or known child abuse and neglect 
are listed as stand-alone safety practices as well as embedded in 
subparagraphs of the broader standards of conduct. Further discussion 
of child safety, which is of the utmost importance to Head Start 
programs, can be found in the sections of this preamble titled 
Standards of Conduct and Staff Training to Support Child Safety.
    Lastly, we propose to add a clause to the end of Sec.  
1302.47(b)(1)(ii), ``including lead consistent with Sec.  1302.48'', to 
align with the changes discussed in the following section of this 
preamble.
    ACF seeks public comment on how the proposed requirements in this 
section may differentially impact different communities. We 
specifically request public comment from the special populations served 
by Head Start, including AIAN and MSHS programs and communities.

Preventing and Addressing Lead Exposure (Sec.  1302.48)

    In this section, we propose new requirements on preventing and 
addressing lead exposure through water and lead-based paint in Head 
Start facilities. Protecting children from exposure to lead is 
important to promote lifelong good health, as there is no safe level of 
lead, especially for the ages of children Head Start serves. Even low 
levels of lead in blood have been shown to affect learning, ability to 
pay attention, and academic achievement.\198\ These requirements 
together will help prevent and address lead exposure for children in 
settings used to provide Head Start program services by ensuring 
programs test for and remediate lead hazards on a regular basis. 
Specifically, we propose to add a new section Sec.  1302.48 to Subpart 
D Health and Mental Health Program Services that includes four 
paragraphs: paragraph (a) contains proposed requirements to prevent and 
address lead exposure through water, paragraph (b) contains proposed 
requirements to prevent and address lead exposure through paint, 
paragraph (c) contains proposed requirements to ensure public 
notification of test results and remediation actions as an outcome of 
paragraphs (a) and (b), and paragraph (d) contains a requirement that, 
should applicable State or local laws or regulations have more 
stringent requirements for lead testing or remediation, programs should 
comply with the more stringent requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \198\ See https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/prevention/health-
effects.htm#:~:text=Lead%20exposure%20occurs%20when%20a,Slowed%20grow
th%20and%20development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lead in Water
    Paragraph (a) of Sec.  1302.48 introduces new proposed requirements 
to address lead in water from water fixtures used for human consumption 
(see proposed definition for water fixtures used for human consumption 
in Sec.  1305.2). These include requirements on sampling and testing 
for lead in water from such fixtures, the frequency of testing, 
detectable lead level that requires remediation action, and 
requirements on point-of-use (POU) devices for reducing lead levels. 
This regulation is supportive of ongoing efforts across the Federal 
Government that is addressing lead in water in early care and education 
settings.\199\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \199\ Dear Colleague Letter on Funding to Test for and Address 
Lead in Water in Early Care and Education Settings. (2023). https://www.acf.hhs.gov/ecd/policy-guidance/dear-colleague-letter-funding-test-and-address-lead-water-early-care-and.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As specified in paragraph (a), these requirements only apply to 
Head Start facilities constructed before 2014 and where lead service 
lines, plumbing, or fixtures may still exist. The year 2014 is selected 
as it aligns with the effective

[[Page 80857]]

date of the Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act which established 
that any pipe, pipe fitting, plumbing fitting, and fixture installed, 
manufactured, or imported for new construction is lead-free at a 
weighted lead content average of less than or equal to 0.25 percent 
\200\ We also recognize some older facilities have all lead service 
lines, plumbing, and fixtures removed and replaced, and we do not 
intend to impose unnecessary burden on testing for lead in water for 
programs operating in such facilities. If a program operates in a 
facility constructed prior to 2014 and can demonstrate that all of 
these lead-based facility features no longer exist, then requirements 
in paragraph (a) do not apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \200\ See https://www.epa.gov/sdwa/use-lead-free-pipes-fittings-fixtures-solder-and-flux-drinking-water.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We propose in paragraph (a)(1) that programs sample and test water 
for lead from such fixtures on an annual basis. This requirement is to 
ensure programs test for lead in water to catch and address lead 
contamination on a regular schedule. A sample test is a snapshot of the 
lead level taken at the time it was collected. Lead levels at a fixture 
or within a building have been shown to vary over time. Factors that 
contribute to this variability include water chemistry, hydraulics, 
lead plumbing sources, and water consumption patterns.\201\ Regularly 
scheduled testing and routine maintenance are essential to reducing 
lead in drinking water.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \201\ Triantafyllidou S, Burkhardt J, Tully J, et al. 
Variability and sampling of lead (Pb) in drinking water: Assessing 
potential human exposure depends on the sampling protocol. Environ 
Int. 2021;146:106259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2020.106259.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Annual monitoring of lead levels in water can provide information 
to the program on potential changes in the lead levels, the ongoing 
effectiveness of remediation or treatment efforts, and detection of 
lead levels that need to be addressed. We recognize that how frequently 
programs should test is dependent on a variety of factors including the 
age of the facility and plumbing, characteristics of plumbing 
infrastructure, water quality, prior lead testing and results, and 
remediation efforts implemented.\202\ To provide flexibility to test 
less frequently when reasonable, we propose that a program may choose 
to only test water from a proportion of fixtures each year with 
governing body approval. If a program decides to use this flexibility, 
they must still ensure that all water fixtures used for human 
consumption are tested at least once every 5 years. For example, a 
program will meet this requirement if they decide to test one-fifth and 
a different set of their water fixtures each year since this would 
result in all water fixtures being tested within a 5-year timeframe. 
This flexibility is proposed to allow programs to weigh the variety of 
factors discussed earlier when determining the frequency of testing, 
while still ensuring all water fixtures are tested within at least a 5-
year window.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \202\ See https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/prevention/sources/water.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We propose in paragraph (a)(2) that programs sample and test water 
fixtures used for human consumption following remediation actions to 
address detectable lead or following a change to the water profile (see 
proposed definition for change in water profile in Sec.  1305.2). This 
proposed requirement adds an additional layer of protection to the 
requirements in the prior clause on frequency of testing to ensure 
testing occurs on water fixtures following an event that has a high 
likelihood of impacting the lead level in water used for human 
consumption. Additionally, testing following remediation actions to 
address detectable lead supports programs in meeting the other proposed 
requirements in paragraphs (a)(5) through (7).
    We propose in paragraph (a)(3) that all samples must be collected 
by an individual who is adequately trained to collect samples for lead 
testing. We recognize that most programs will need to train an 
individual to collect samples. Programs should leverage available 
trainings and technical assistance, including resources developed by 
the EPA 3Ts for Reducing Lead in Drinking Water in Schools and Child 
Care Facilities--A Training, Testing and Taking Action Approach (3Ts) 
program, to ensure the individual is adequately trained to collect 
samples. A trained individual should understand how to conduct a 2-step 
sampling procedure (i.e., a first draw sample and flush sample), ensure 
water remained stationary in the plumbing system of the facility for at 
least 8 but no more than 18 hours \203\ prior to collecting the sample 
when appropriate, ensure samples are collected at correct volumes, and 
how to have the sample delivered to a laboratory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \203\ U.S. EPA 3Ts Program--Lead Sample Collection field Guide 
for Schools and Child Care Facilities; EPA 816-F-22-009, July 2022 
at https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-07/US%20EPA%203Ts%20Lead%20Sample%20Collection%20Field%20Guide%20For%20Schools%20and%20Child%20Care%20Facilities_508.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We propose in paragraph (a)(4) that all samples are analyzed for 
lead by a laboratory that is certified by EPA or the State, territory, 
or Tribe for testing lead in drinking water. The resource, ``Contact 
Information for Certification Programs and Certified Laboratories for 
Drinking Water'' is readily available for programs to find EPA 
certified laboratories by State: https://www.epa.gov/dwlabcert/contact-information-certification-programs-and-certified-laboratories-drinking-water. This requirement ensures the entity conducting the lead level 
test is following EPA Federal standards on testing to promote 
consistent and high-quality results.
    We propose in clause paragraphs (a)(5) and (6) that, together, 
programs are required to restrict access to water fixtures used for 
human consumption within 24 hours of determining the water has a lead 
sample result at or above 5 parts per billion, provide notice in a 
timely manner to parents of children who may have consumed the water, 
and access to these water fixtures is not allowed for human consumption 
until lead sample results indicate the water fixture is below 5 parts 
per billion following remediation actions. Ways to restrict access can 
include closing the water supply valve to the fixture or placing a sign 
that the water cannot be consumed. The 24-hour timeframe for 
restricting access was selected to provide a reasonable timeframe for 
the program to take action to restrict access and prevent any exposure 
to the identified source of lead. The 5 parts per billion level 
requiring remediation action was selected for several reasons, 
including that it aligns with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 
lead level limit \204\ in bottled water and the NSF/ANSI 53 
certification for POU devices.\205\ While not explicitly stated in the 
regulatory text, OHS encourages programs to notify parents of children 
who may have consumed water within 24 hours if feasible, and not later 
than 10 business days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \204\ See https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/bottled-water-everywhere-keeping-it-safe.
    \205\ See https://www.nsf.org/news/drinking-water-treatment-units-stricter-requirements-lead-reduction-cert.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We understand that there is no safe lead level for children and 
therefore we propose in paragraph (a)(7) a requirement that programs 
still consider taking remediation actions to address water fixtures 
used for human consumption with detectable lead below 5 parts per 
billion with the goal to lower the lead level as low as practicable. 
This proposed requirement promotes a shared health goal of no 
detectable lead in water, while recognizing that there

[[Page 80858]]

may be challenges achieving such a goal.
    As part of these proposed requirements, programs have the 
flexibility in determining which remediation steps to take when 
addressing elevated lead levels in water, including the use of POU 
\206\ devices on water fixtures, replacement of plumbing materials 
including pipes and fixtures, or a combination of these and other 
approaches. Programs can determine which remediation actions \207\ to 
take based on various factors including the options and resources 
available to them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \206\ U.S. EPA Consumer Tool for Identifying POU Drinking Water 
Filters Certified to Reduce Lead at https://www.epa.gov/water-research/consumer-tool-identifying-pou-drinking-water-filters-certified-reduce-lead.
    \207\ For details specific to remediation, go to EPA 3Ts 
guidance at https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/3ts-reducing-lead-drinking-water#mod6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We propose in paragraph (a)(8) that when programs decide to use POU 
devices to address lead in water, that programs must appropriately use 
and maintain POU devices that reduce lead levels as tested and 
certified by a third party according to NSF/ANSI Standards for lead 
reduction. Programs should follow manufacturer instructions to 
appropriately maintain POU devices, which would include replacing 
filters in a timely manner and ensuring replacement filters also comply 
with NSF/ANSI standards. Currently, NSF/ANSI Standard 53 for Drinking 
Water Treatment Units is the nationally recognized standard for 
evaluating and certifying POU devices for the reduction of lead in 
drinking water.\208\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \208\ See https://www.nsf.org/consumer-resources/articles/standards-water-treatment-systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA implements safe drinking water in partnership with states, 
Tribes, and water system operators. EPA regulates public water systems 
(PWSs) in accordance with the Safe Drinking Water Act. EPA's Lead and 
Copper Rule establishes requirements for PWSs to address lead in 
drinking water. Most Head Start facilities are served by PWSs. Even 
when water entering a facility meets all Federal and State public 
health standards for lead, internal building plumbing and fixtures may 
contribute to sources of lead in drinking water, particularly those 
installed prior to the EPA 1986 Lead Ban.\209\ Another significant 
source of lead localized to the Head Start building can occur through 
the main service line if it is a lead service line. This is why it is 
important that programs test for and remediate detectable lead in water 
within Head Start facilities. We recognize that a few programs may be 
using privately owned water systems. If this privately owned water 
system has at least 15 service connections or serves at least 25 people 
per day for 60 days of the year, it is considered a public water system 
and would be regulated by EPA.\210\ If the facility does not meet this 
definition, then the system is not regulated by EPA. The owners of 
these systems are responsible for the safety of their water, and it is 
important Head Start programs in these rare circumstances take steps to 
understand the overall quality of their water and to also remediate 
exceedances of the 5 parts per billion lead level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \209\ Use of Lead Free Pipes, Fittings, Fixtures, Solder, and 
Flux for Drinking Water--Final ``Lead Free'' Rule at https://www.epa.gov/sdwa/use-lead-free-pipes-fittings-fixtures-solder-and-flux-drinking-water.
    \210\ See https://www.epa.gov/dwreginfo/information-about-public-water-systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In implementing these requirements, ACF encourages programs to 
refer to the EPA voluntary program: 3Ts available at https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/3ts-reducing-lead-drinking-water. The purpose of this program is to assist states, schools, and 
child care facilities with implementing their own testing and 
remediation programs, developing a plan, conducting outreach, and 
taking action to address elevated levels of lead. Further, programs may 
be able to utilize funding available from the Bipartisan Infrastructure 
Act to cover some of the costs associated with lead testing and 
remediation.
Lead in Paint
    Paragraph (b) introduces new requirements on preventing and 
addressing lead exposure in paint, with its associated exposures from 
lead in dust and lead in soil, in facilities constructed before 1978 
and in facilities where lead-based paint may exist, including 
appropriate abatement actions, and the frequency of re-assessing lead-
based paint hazards following abatement.
    We propose to limit requirements associated with paragraph (b) to 
programs operating in facilities constructed prior to 1978 and where 
lead-based paint may still exist. The year 1978 is when the Federal 
Government banned the consumer use of lead-based paint, and this 
requirement targets the risk associated with facilities constructed 
prior to this date.\211\ However, we recognize that there are 
facilities constructed prior to 1978 where lead paint has been 
completely removed (e.g., through major renovation or studs-out 
remodel), or that were constructed without lead paint. If a program 
operates in a facility constructed prior to 1978 and is able to 
demonstrate that lead-based paint no longer exists, then requirements 
in paragraph (b) do not apply. We propose in paragraph (b)(1) that 
programs work with a risk assessor who is certified by either the EPA 
or by a State, territory, or Tribe with an EPA-authorized lead-based 
paint certification program to inspect for lead-based paint and assess 
for lead-based paint hazards. Of rooms in Head Start facilities 
undergoing an evaluation, we assume approximately 43.8% would be 
identified as potentially having a lead-based paint hazard requiring 
abatement.\212\ We understand this value may be an overestimate since 
it is based on a study covering pre-1978 child care centers, and we 
request public comment on whether there is a better assumption that can 
be applied regarding the percent of rooms in Head Start facilities that 
may require abatement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \211\ See https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/prevention/sources/paint.htm.
    \212\ https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/HH/documents/AHHS_II_Lead_Findings_Report_Final_29oct21.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We propose in paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) that programs immediately 
restrict access to identified lead hazards until abatement actions are 
completed by a lead abatement contractor certified by the EPA or State, 
territory, or Tribal agency (see proposed definition for abatement in 
section 1305.2). These provisions aim to minimize risk of lead exposure 
for children, while maintaining flexibility for programs to determine 
appropriate lead abatement strategies that best meet local program 
needs and available resources, in consultation with certified lead 
abatement experts and contractors.
    Lead is naturally present in soil, but we recognize that deposits 
from leaded gasoline, exterior lead-based paint, and industrial sources 
may contribute to concerning levels of lead in the soil surrounding a 
program, especially in urban areas with historic use of leaded paint or 
leaded gasoline, and in rural areas where there was heavy pesticide use 
for agriculture.\213\ Lead does not biodegrade over time and remains in 
soil for a long time.\214\ Although there are no proposed requirements 
to explicitly address lead in soil, the requirements in this paragraph 
may

[[Page 80859]]

result in hazardous levels of lead in soil to be identified and 
addressed through inspections of lead-paint hazards and associated 
abatement efforts. Additionally, we encourage programs to consider the 
risk of lead in their soil, and take any steps needed to ensure any 
bare soil where children play is non-toxic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \213\ See https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-10/documents/lead-in-soil-aug2020.pdf.
    \214\ Urban-Soil Pedogenesis Drives Contrasting Legacies of Lead 
from Paint and Gasoline in City Soil,'' Anna M. Wade, Daniel D. 
Richter, Christopher B. Craft, Nancy Y. Bao, Paul R. Heine, Mary C. 
Osteen and Kevin G. Tan; May 21, 2021, Environmental Science & 
Technology. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c00546.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We propose in paragraph (b)(4) that following the conclusion of any 
abatement actions, those facilities that have lead-based paint or lead-
based paint hazards as determined by the initial inspection and risk 
assessment, would have a certified risk assessor reassess for lead-
based paint hazards at least once every 2 years unless two 
reassessments conducted two years apart identify no lead-based paint 
hazards, indicating the quality of the ongoing lead-based paint 
maintenance of the facility. Two years is selected as it aligns with 
the Lead Safe Housing Rule recommendation for reevaluation of HUD-
assisted properties (24 CFR 35.1355(b)(4)). Further, allowing a program 
to no longer reassess every 2 years when two reassessments conducted 2 
years apart identify no lead-based paint hazards is intended to remove 
unnecessary burden of reassessments when the risk of lead-based paint 
hazards to re-emerge is low. However, programs are encouraged to 
visually monitor for potential deterioration of lead abatement measures 
on an ongoing basis, including looking for any peeling or chipping 
paint. We request comment on whether we should require regular visual 
inspections.
    We request comment on whether the dust-lead hazards should be 
specified or referenced to EPA established clearance levels and whether 
the reassessment process proposed following abatements of lead-based 
paint hazards should be modified such that a reassessment is required 
if the EPA promulgates more stringent abatement requirements that take 
effect following the two reassessments envisioned by this proposal's 
regulatory text.
Notification
    In paragraph (c), we propose requirements that programs provide 
notification of lead testing results and remediation actions to 
parents, caregivers, and staff to promote transparency and raise 
awareness. Additionally, notification of results and actions to 
parents, caregivers, and program staff can help build community trust 
and engagement and demonstrate a commitment to children's health and 
safety. While the proposed provision does not provide a specific 
timeframe for notification, EPA's 3T's program encourages beginning 
communication \215\ before testing begins and ongoing throughout the 
testing process. We encourage programs to consider leveraging existing 
methods of communication already established throughout the program 
year. For example, if there is suspicion that a child may have been 
exposed to lead, programs should encourage parents to talk to their 
child's healthcare provider about completing the appropriate blood lead 
tests. We also encourage programs to consider a notification schedule 
and approach that is appropriate for their community. Notifications 
must be translated and interpreted for families with limited English 
proficiency, in alignment with Sec.  1302.90(d)(1) and consistent with 
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Programs also must provide 
effective communication to individuals with disabilities about lead 
testing results and remediation actions, consistent with the 
Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \215\ US EPA 3Ts communication templates can be found at https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/3ts-reducing-lead-drinking-water#mod1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conflicting Requirements
    As with many areas of the HSPPS, there may be situations in which 
the HSPPS differ somewhat from State or local laws or regulations. In 
those cases, it is standard practice that programs adhere to the more 
stringent requirement. In paragraph (d) we propose a requirement that 
specifically states that programs should comply with the more stringent 
requirement, should State or local laws or regulations differ from the 
requirements described in paragraphs (a) through (c). We note that we 
interpret this standard to apply to each specific aspect of these 
requirements. For example, if a State requires licensed programs to 
have a more stringent action level when lead is identified in water but 
a less stringent standard for testing frequency, a program should use 
the more stringent action level required by the State and the more 
stringent testing frequency required by the proposed standard in HSPPS.
    We welcome all public comments on the proposed requirements to 
prevent and address lead exposure through water and paint (including 
associated dust and soil exposures). We are specifically interested in 
public comment on the issues programs have experienced with previously 
addressing harmful lead exposure in water or paint, whether the 
proposed flexibilities are helpful or if additional flexibility is 
needed, and the action level requiring remediation for lead in water, 
as well as any areas that are particularly unclear.
    We did not propose any requirements to specifically target lead in 
soil, since we believe this will be captured through proposed 
requirements on lead-paint inspections and through programs determining 
when it is necessary to test lead in their soil (e.g., programs testing 
bare soil accessible for children to play in since they are in an urban 
area near older buildings that currently or previously contained lead 
paint). We were concerned that lead in soil testing and remediation 
requirements would cause too much undue burden and by not including 
them, we aim to ensure programs have flexibility in their approaches to 
determining and addressing lead in soil hazards.
    Finally, ACF seeks public comment on how the proposed requirements 
in this section may differentially impact different communities. We 
specifically request public comment from the special populations served 
by Head Start, including AIAN and MSHS programs and communities.

Family Service Worker Family Assignments (Sec.  1302.52)

    Since its inception in 1965, Head Start has been a leader in anti-
poverty, two generation early childhood programming focused on school 
readiness, family well-being, and family and community engagement. 
Section 1302.52 outlines the requirements for family partnership 
services, the foundational and central process by which staff engage 
with each family of enrolled children. This section describes the 
required components of the family partnership process: the intake and 
family assessment procedures to identify family strengths and needs 
related to family engagement outcomes; what must occur as part of 
individualizing family partnership services; and the need to consider 
existing plans and community resources to support families in order to 
ensure that families can take full advantage of services for which they 
are eligible and promote coordination across service providers. This 
section also describes what is needed to individualize family 
partnership services and how staff must collaborate with families to 
identify needs, interests, and individualized family goals. Head Start 
staff who partner with families play a critical role in helping 
families achieve their goals and aspirations for themselves and for 
their children.
    Family well-being is one of the greatest predictors of school

[[Page 80860]]

readiness.\216\ Many families of all backgrounds in the U.S. face 
various challenges, such as unemployment, poverty, high housing costs, 
food insecurity, community violence, limited education, and poor 
health. Each of these alone can cause family stress and negatively 
impact family well-being. When combined, these negative effects on 
family well-being and child outcomes can be even greater.\217\ The Head 
Start workforce that supports families provides many of the 
comprehensive services that reflect Head Start's focus not only on the 
health and development of young children, but the well-being and 
leadership of their families.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \216\ Chazan-Cohen, R., Raikes, H., Brooks-Gunn, J., Ayoub, C., 
Pan, B.A., Kisker, E.E., . . . Fuligni, A.S. (2009). Low-income 
children's school readiness: Parent contributions over the first 
five years. Early Education & Development, 20(6), 958-977. Duncan 
G.J. & Magnuson, K.A., (2005). Can family socioeconomic resources 
account for racial and ethnic test score gaps? The Future of 
Children, 15(1). Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1602661 
Fantuzzo, J., Leboeuf, W., Brumley, B., & Perlman, S. (2013). A 
population-based inquiry of homeless episode characteristics and 
early educational well-being. Children and Youth Services Review, 
35(6), 966-972. Mistry, R.S., Benner, A.D., Biesanz, J.C., Clark, 
S.L., & Howes, C. (2010). Family and social risk, and parental 
investments during the early childhood years as predictors of low-
income children's school readiness outcomes. Early Childhood 
Research Quarterly, 25(4), 432-449. Ryu, J.H., & Bartfeld, J.S. 
(2012). Household food insecurity during childhood and subsequent 
health status: The Early Childhood Longitudinal Study--Kindergarten 
Cohort. American Journal of Public Health, 102(11), e50-e55.
    \217\ Brooks-Gunn, J., Duncan, G.J., & Maritato, N. (1999). Poor 
families, poor outcomes: The well-being of children and youth. In 
G.J. Duncan & J. BrooksGunn (Eds.), Consequences of growing up poor 
(pp. 1-17). New York: Russell Sage Foundation; Vernon-Feagans, L., & 
Cox, M. (2012). I. Poverty, rurality, parenting, and risk: An 
introduction. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child 
Development, 78(5), 1-23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When Head Start staff that provide family services have high family 
assignments, which are sometimes referred to as caseloads, they may 
feel overwhelmed and experience burnout, which in turn negatively 
impacts the quality of family services. Data from Head Start's 
technical assistance trainings shows that high family assignments and 
being asked to take on additional responsibilities beyond the job 
description are often accompanied by expressions of job frustration and 
dissatisfaction among staff who work directly with families. Further, 
OHS regional offices have reported that when cost savings are needed, 
programs will first look to personnel budgets by decreasing family 
service positions. This can lead to larger family assignments for 
remaining staff and less stability in staffing for family support 
services in Head Start, which may decrease the quality of services. 
Many family services staff with higher family assignments share with 
OHS that they have too many family assignments to meaningfully and 
consistently address supports for family wellbeing, parenting, and 
family engagement around children's early learning and education. 
Though there is not much literature on the family engagement specialist 
caseload experience, research on home visiting demonstrates that 
stressors in caseload management relate to diminished engagement with 
participants that could negatively impact the participant 
experience.\218\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \218\ Alitz, P., Geary, S., Birriel, P., Sayi, T., Ramakrishnan, 
R., Balogun, O., . . . Marshall, J. (2018). Work-Related Stressors 
Among Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting (MIECHV) 
Home Visitors: A Qualitative Study. Maternal and Child Health 
Journal, 22, 62-69.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Research from related fields shows that high family assignments 
compromise workers' ability to provide effective services to families. 
High family assignments also exacerbate already high levels of staff 
burnout and turnover.\219\ Further, program leaders describe family 
assignments as a major challenge. In a 2019 National TTA study of Head 
Start programs, Family and Community Services Managers, who oversee 
family services staff, cited their top two program challenges as (1) 
workload/family assignments being too large for staff and (2) families 
faced so many challenges that staff were not able to support families 
as well as they would like.\220\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \219\ Boston Children's Hospital. (2012). Family connections. 
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for 
Children and Families, Office of Head Start. Retrieved from https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/introduction-to-family-connections.pdf; Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2016, 
July). Caseload and workload management. Retrieved from https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubPDFs/case_work_management.pdf; Howes, C., 
Phillips, D.A., & Whitebook, M. (1992). Thresholds of Quality: 
Implications for the Social Development of Children in Center-Based 
Child Care. Child Development, 63(2), 449-460.; Social Work Policy 
Institute. (2010, January). High caseloads: How do they impact 
delivery of health and human services? Retrieved from http://www.socialworkpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/r2p-cw-caseload-swpi-1-10.pdf.
    \220\ Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department 
of Health and Human Services. (2022). Survey of Head Start Grantees 
on Training and Technical Assistance. [Unpublished data analyses].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ACF has sought various ways to support the family services 
workforce. For example, ACF established the National Center on Parent, 
Family and Community Engagement (NC PFCE) in 2010. The NC PFCE 
developed research-based resources, including a set of family services 
competencies which articulate best practices in family assignment 
limits. NC PFCE also conducted hundreds of trainings to assist Head 
Start programs with implementing these best practices. Additionally, to 
improve workloads for staff working directly with families, in the 2016 
revisions to the HSPPS, ACF added Sec.  1302.52(c)(4) ``Assign staff 
and resources based on the urgency and intensity of identified family 
needs and goals.'' Despite these efforts, we have seen little change to 
family assignment ratios across time, as evidenced by our own Head 
Start Program Information Report (PIR) data.
    According to the PIR for program year 2021, 50 percent of programs 
had one staff partnering with 40 or more families. Of those programs, 
21 percent had family assignments of one staff to 40-50 families; 16 
percent had family assignments of one staff to 50-60 families; seven 
percent had family assignments of one staff to 60-75 families; and six 
percent of programs had family assignments of one staff to 75-200+ 
families. Based on these data, there is a wide range of family 
assignments across our programs, therefore we feel it is necessary to 
establish a standardized family assignment requirement.
    Section 648A(c)(2) of the Act provides ACF with the authority to 
review and if necessary, revise, requirements related to family 
assignments, as suggested by best practice, to improve the quality and 
effectiveness of staff providing services to families. We believe the 
research in this field coupled with our own PIR data and feedback we 
received from programs indicates a strong need for clearer standards 
for management of family assignments. We propose an additional 
provision in Sec.  1302.52 Family Partnership Services, (d) Approaches 
to Family Services.
    We propose to add this section to address the long-standing problem 
of overly high family assignments for many family services staff. We 
recommend this change to promote consistent, reasonable family 
assignments for staff who work directly with families in the family 
partnership process. We believe this change will improve the quality of 
support that family support services provide and improve their own 
well-being as well.
    For these reasons, we propose to insert a new section (d) 
Approaches to family services to 1302.52 Family Partnerships. In 
(d)(1), we propose minor edits for alignment with the new section and 
to emphasize the family-centered nature of the process by including 
language that specifies both family interests and family needs. Next,

[[Page 80861]]

we propose a new (d)(2) that requires programs to ensure the planned 
number of families assigned to work with individual family services 
staff is no greater than 40, unless a program can demonstrate higher 
family assignments provide high quality family and community engagement 
services and maintain reasonable staff workload as described in (d)(3).
    There are no research-based assignment ratios to adopt from other 
fields that are aligned enough in job description with this unique 
early childhood workforce. Therefore, we propose a maximum of 40 
families per family services staff member, considering the large 
variation in families' interests, needs, goals and the variation of 
families' engagement with their programs.
    We include an implementation date of two years from an estimated 
date of a final rule because we recognize the degree of change required 
by programs will vary depending on programs' current family assignment 
systems and procedures. This proposal could mean substantial change for 
some programs and little to no change for others. In fact, 2021 PIR 
data reveals that approximately 50 percent of programs have staff 
family assignments that are 40 families or less. It should be noted 
that the proposed maximum is intended for programs with higher than 40 
assignments per staff to lower their family assignment ratios. The 
proposed maximum is not meant to bring programs with lower assignment 
numbers up to 40. Programs who have already established best practices 
at lower staff: family ratios are encouraged to continue these 
responsive family services.
    In addition to the proposed family assignment maximum, we propose 
to include language in a new (d)(3) to allow for program designs that 
best meet the needs of the program and community, based on community 
and family assessment data. We include this language recognizing that 
programs may need the flexibility to design family and community 
engagement services in ways that are preventative and responsive to 
emerging family and community needs.
    Finally, we also propose a requirement for effective and meaningful 
employee engagement practices that include opportunities for staff to 
discuss and address workload-related issues. We propose this language 
to promote such practices to address the negative impact of family 
services workload factors, such as the stress of unofficial job duties 
and lack of clear job expectations can have on staff wellness, job 
satisfaction, and providing high-quality services.
    ACF seeks input from the public on the benefits and challenges of 
implementing a family assignment cap of 40 families per family service 
worker, using a phased in approach over a period of 3 years from the 
publication date of a final rule. To better understand programs' 
specific experiences, ACF is also seeking programs' feedback on the 
benefits and challenges of implementing family assignments between 30 
and 40 per individual staff and the same for implementing family 
assignments between 40 and 50 per individual staff. Finally, ACF also 
seeks public comment on how the proposed requirements in this section 
may differentially impact different communities. We specifically 
request public comment from the special populations served by Head 
Start, including AIAN and MSHS programs and communities.

Participation in Quality Rating and Improvement Systems (Sec.  1302.53)

    Section 1302.53 establishes the requirements for Head Start 
programs to participate in State quality rating and improvement systems 
(QRIS). With the exception of American Indian and Alaska Native 
programs, each Head Start program must currently participate in its 
State QRIS if three conditions are met--its State or local QRIS accepts 
Head Start monitoring data to document quality indicators included in 
the State's tiered system; participation would not impact a program's 
ability to comply with the HSPPS; and the program has not provided ACF 
with a compelling reason not to comply with this requirement.
    A QRIS is a systemic approach to assess, improve, and communicate 
the level of quality in early and school-age care and education 
programs within a State or locality. These accountability systems unify 
standards, evaluate and report quality to the public, and provide 
supports and incentives for improvement.\221\ These systems award 
quality ratings to programs that meet a set of criteria as defined by 
the QRIS. Criteria Head Start programs must meet to enter the QRIS and 
maintain participation vary greatly by State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \221\ Bipartisan Policy Center. (2018). Creating an integrated 
efficient early care and education system to support children and 
families: A state-by-state analysis. https://bipartisanpolicy.org/report/ece-administration-state-by-state/; Warner-Richter M. (2016, 
February 9). Promoting quality improvement in early care and 
education. Child Trends. https://www.childtrends.org/promoting-quality-improvement-in-early-care-and-education; Tout, K., Friese, 
S., Starr, R. & Hirilall, A. (2018). Understanding and Measuring 
Program Engagement in Quality Rating and Improvement Systems. OPRE 
Research Brief #2018-84. Washington, DC: Office of Planning, 
Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, 
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    QRIS can be an important mechanism for coordinating and aligning 
various programs into a broader statewide system of early care and 
education. Participation by Head Start and other programs into a QRIS 
can provide continuity, alignment of standards and a common means by 
which families can understand and make decisions among which program 
options are best for their family. As states continue to move in the 
direction of more streamlined, coordinated early care and education 
systems that are easier for families to navigate, Head Start 
participation in QRIS can serve to ensure that Head Start programs are 
part of these statewide coordination efforts and that eligible families 
consider Head Start alongside other options in the QRIS.
    Currently, 41 states have statewide QRIS (Florida has three local 
QRIS). Of these 41 states with statewide QRIS, 27 states require at 
least some types of programs (generally licensed programs and programs 
receiving child care subsidy funds) to participate in the system. In 15 
States, Head Start programs are required by the State to participate in 
the QRIS, either as a function of licensing or receiving subsidy funds, 
or through reciprocity agreements or alternate pathways that bring Head 
Start programs into the system automatically.\222\ Fourteen states have 
fully voluntary systems in which programs are not required to 
participate regardless of licensure status or receipt of child care 
subsidies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \222\ Build Initiative & Child Trends. (2021). A Catalog and 
Comparison of Quality Improvement Systems [Data System]. Retrieved 
from https://qualitycompendium.org/ on September 29, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    State QRIS are structured very differently across states, and 
participation may be required for all types or some types of programs 
or may be voluntary for all programs. In states with voluntary QRIS, 
participation rates average 40 percent for licensed center-based 
programs. While at least some Head Start programs participate in QRIS 
even within voluntary systems, states may require a broad range of 
documentation for entry into the QRIS, as well as additional 
assessments, monitoring visits, or reviews. These requirements, along 
with periodic revisions to aspects of a State's QRIS \223\ may impact a 
Head Start program's ability to participate in the system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \223\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We recognize the importance of quality improvements and encourage 
Head Start programs to continue their

[[Page 80862]]

participation in these important quality improvement efforts. Many Head 
Start grant recipients receive funds from Head Start as well as other 
early childhood funding streams. Participating in QRIS and other State 
and local quality initiatives can help drive quality across a program. 
At the same time, ACF wants to ensure that QRIS requirements are not 
duplicative of Head Start requirements, thus requiring a program to 
undergo the same process multiple times. Nor does ACF want Head Start 
programs to draw resources away from other early childhood programs 
that do not have access to resources provided through ACF and are in 
greater need of support from State and local resources that support 
quality. Based on findings from an analysis of current State QRIS 
systems and their evolutions, and input from ACF regional staff and 
Head Start Collaboration Offices who support coordination among Head 
Start programs and State systems, we propose to revise the language at 
Sec.  1302.53(b)(2) to clarify that Head Start programs should 
participate in QRIS to the extent practicable if the State system has 
strategies in place to support their participation. These proposed 
changes recognize that QRIS systems differ significantly across states 
and continue to evolve rapidly. Substantive changes to QRIS may require 
additional burden on programs in the form of revised processes and 
potentially additional or different documentation, as well as possible 
duplication of monitoring and assessment processes. These proposed 
changes are intended to allow Head Start programs to focus their 
resources on activities that are most likely to support quality 
services for children and families. For programs in states where the 
QRIS does not have strategies in place to support Head Start 
participation, does not accept existing documentation for 
participation, or that would in any way impact a program's ability to 
comply with the HSPPS, staff effort and program resources may be better 
directed at other activities. However, ACF notes that Head Start 
programs currently participating in their State QRIS are encouraged to 
continue to do so.
    We propose further to eliminate the three conditions for 
participation in the State QRIS as written in the current standards at 
Sec.  1302.53(b)(2)(i)-(iii), as we believe these conditions 
unnecessarily require the Head Start grant recipient to document 
individual circumstances that support or impede participation in the 
system. By eliminating these specific conditions and substituting 
language that emphasizes the State strategies for Head Start 
participation in general, we believe Head Start grant recipients, along 
with Head Start Collaboration Offices and OHS regional staff, can 
collectively encourage the evolution of State systems like QRIS to 
better receive Head Start programs.
    In paragraph (b)(2), we propose to replace ``must'' with ``should'' 
in the overarching requirement. We propose to add ``to the extent 
practicable, if a State or local QRIS has a strategy to support Head 
Start participation without requiring programs to duplicate existing 
documentation from Office of Head Start oversight.'' We believe this 
change will clarify for programs that there is an expectation from ACF 
that they participate in the QRIS if the system has a strategy that 
will support Head Start participation. Strategies may include 
reciprocal agreements or alternate pathways, as well as mandatory 
requirements for Head Start programs to participate. Some Head Start 
programs may be required to participate if they receive other funds or 
are licensed as a child care program. The change further emphasizes 
that ACF does not expect programs to duplicate documentation efforts 
that are required for Head Start oversight purposes in order to 
participate in the QRIS. We also propose to delete paragraphs (b)(2)(i) 
through (iii) in this section in their entirety which delineate the 
current conditions for QRIS participation.
    The current standards include the State's acceptance of Head Start 
monitoring data, which continues to be a barrier to participation in 
some states. We believe that eliminating these criteria will lessen the 
documentation required on individual circumstances for participating or 
not participating in a QRIS, but rather would help programs examine 
their State's QRIS as a State system and better understand Head Start's 
overall role in that broader system. ACF still strongly supports the 
central requirement that programs should participate in a QRIS to the 
extent practicable as this standard provides programs with an important 
lever for participating in a State's high-quality mixed delivery ECE 
system and in accessing State quality improvement efforts where 
participation pathways and strategies exist. Participation in the QRIS 
also serves as an important mechanism in some states to assist families 
in recognizing quality program options that can include Head Start 
programs. Head Start programs must maintain a high level of quality, 
and it is important that parents understand the services offered in 
Head Start.

Services to Enrolled Pregnant Women and People (Sec.  1302.80; Sec.  
1302.82)

    Section 1302.80 describes the services programs must provide to 
enrolled pregnant women and people. It requires programs to: assess 
whether enrolled pregnant women and people have access to an ongoing 
source of health care and health insurance, and if not, to facilitate 
their access to such care and insurance; facilitate access to 
comprehensive services; and schedule a visit with each newborn and 
their mother or birthing parent within two weeks after the newborn's 
birth, to identify family needs and offer support (referred to as the 
``newborn visit'').
    Women and people receiving Head Start services face social 
determinants of health that may impact their prenatal and postpartum 
outcomes. Early postpartum intervention is key to preventing and 
addressing maternal health-related challenges.\224\ Postpartum support 
and intervention can identify and address issues such as postpartum 
depression, intimate partner violence, and physical health issues that 
occur during pregnancy. The period after childbirth is critical to 
assess the child care, health, and mental health needs of mothers and 
families. In fact, over half of maternal deaths occur between 1 week 
and 1 year after birth, most of which are preventable.\225\ Early Head 
Start programs are critical in addressing the maternal mortality crisis 
and other maternal-health related challenges as they are positioned to 
provide postpartum support by ensuring the required newborn visit 
provides intentional opportunities for collaboration, intervention, and 
support.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \224\ Firoz, T., McCaw-Binns, A., Filippi, V., Magee, L.A., 
Costa, M.L., Cecatti, J.G., Barreix, M., Adanu, R., Chou, D., & Say, 
L. (2018), A framework for healthcare interventions to address 
maternal morbidity. Int J Gynecol Obstet, 141: 61-68. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.12469.
    \225\ Trost SL, Beauregard J, Njie F, et al. Pregnancy-Related 
Deaths: Data from Maternal Mortality Review Committees in 36 US 
States, 2017-2019. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention, US Department of Health and Human Services; 2022.; 
Petersen EE, Davis NL, Goodman D, et al. Vital Signs: Pregnancy-
Related Deaths, United States, 2011-2015, and Strategies for 
Prevention, 13 States, 2013-2017. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 
2019;68:423-429. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6818e1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Paragraph (d) in this section focuses on the required newborn 
visit. We propose to revise paragraph (d) by adding a new sentence to 
the end of the paragraph that requires the newborn visit to include a 
discussion of postpartum mental and physical health, infant health, and 
support for basic needs. We believe this language will clarify for 
programs what areas--at a

[[Page 80863]]

minimum--should be included as part of the newborn visit. This 
requirement is intended to reflect the minimum requirements for the 
newborn visit. Programs may choose to include other areas of assessment 
or support based on the needs of both parent and newborn. The proposed 
requirement is intended to clarify requirements and provide consistency 
in topics covered during the newborn visit.
    Section 645A(a) of the Act authorizes funding for Early Head Start 
programs to provide services that encompass the full range of the 
family's needs, from pregnancy through a child's third birthday, to 
promote the child's development and move the parents toward self-
sufficiency. Early Head Start programs are not required to enroll 
expectant families, but many choose to do so. If an Early Head Start 
program chooses to enroll pregnant women and people, they must identify 
the total number of pregnant women and people they anticipate serving 
each program year in the grant application, provide high-quality 
prenatal and postnatal education, and help them access comprehensive 
prenatal services.
    However, currently, Early Head Start programs are not explicitly 
required in regulation to track and record interactions with pregnant 
women and people. Moreover, programs are not currently required to 
detail and record the services they provide enrolled pregnant women and 
people as well as the services received from community partners or 
providers. Although programs are not required to do so, generally, 
programs do track and record this information. However, there is 
significant variation in format and level of detail across programs, 
which often makes it difficult to verify actual enrollment numbers and 
challenging for OHS to understand the services provided to pregnant 
women and people.
    Early Head Start programs with identified slots to serve pregnant 
women and people are responsible for creating a system of care that 
supports the well-being of mothers, parents, and newborns. This 
includes tracking and documenting services a pregnant woman or person 
receives, including those received via referrals to community partners, 
to the extent practical, in order to identify how to best be responsive 
to the needs of the enrolled pregnant woman and people. Information 
captured about individual services provided to pregnant women and 
people is essential because it can be used to validate the use of 
Federal funds to serve pregnant women and people and to inform ongoing 
conversations program staff have with a pregnant woman or person about 
their needs before and after the baby is born.\226\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \226\ See ACF-IM-HS-22-02, Documenting Services to Enrolled 
Pregnant Women, https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/policy/im/acf-im-hs-22-02.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As such, we also propose to amend Sec.  1302.80 by adding a new 
paragraph (e). The goal of new paragraph (e) is to enhance program 
accountability by requiring programs to track and record information on 
service delivery for enrolled pregnant women and people. We believe 
this proposed standard will enhance program accountability by requiring 
programs to verify the number of pregnant women and people they serve 
along with details on the services received.
    Head Start PIR data from FY 2022 \227\ reveals that most pregnant 
parents that enroll in Early Head Start services do so during their 
second and third trimesters. Early prenatal care is key for optimal 
outcomes for pregnant women and newborns.\228\ We believe all Head 
Start programs are in unique positions to support pregnant women and 
people, including staff working in programs, by identifying, 
understanding, and addressing barriers to healthy pregnancies. This 
begins by understanding the impact systemic racism has on the maternal 
health outcomes of women of color,\229\--particularly African American 
or Black and AIAN women--as many women of color and their children are 
served in Head Start programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \227\ Source: Head Start 2022 PIR.
    \228\ Novoa, C. (2020). Ensuring Healthy Births Through Prenatal 
Support Innovations From Three Models. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/ensuring-healthy-births-prenatal-support/.
    \229\ Bornstein, E., Eliner, Y., Chervenak, F. A., & 
Gr[uuml]nebaum, A. (2020). Racial Disparity in Pregnancy Risks and 
Complications in the US: Temporal Changes during 2007-2018. Journal 
of clinical medicine, 9(5), 1414.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the Office of Minority Health and Health Equity, 
pregnancy-related death impacts Black women at higher rates than White 
women.\230\ Data from 2021 shows that the maternal mortality rate for 
non-Hispanic Black women was over twice the rate for non-Hispanic White 
women.\231\ There are also disparities in maternal mortality for Native 
Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander (NHOPI) and AIAN populations.\232\ 
Inadequate access to quality health care, systemic racism, and 
disparities in social determinants of health may contribute to 
disparities in healthy pregnancy and birth outcomes for many pregnant 
women and people from racial and ethnic minority groups.\233\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \230\ Office of Minority Health & Health Equity (OMHHE). April 
2022. https://www.cdc.gov/healthequity/features/maternal-mortality/index.html.
    \231\ Hoyert DL. Maternal mortality rates in the United States, 
2021. NCHS Health E-Stats. 2023. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.15620/cdc:1246.
    \232\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers of 
Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease 
Prevention and Health Promotion, Division of Reproductive Health. 
Pregnancy Mortality Surveillance System: Trends in pregnancy-related 
mortality ratio by race/ethnicity: 2017-2019. https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/maternal-mortality/pregnancy-mortality-surveillance-system.htm.
    \233\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Newborn babies are also impacted by systemic racism. Infant 
mortality data show that African American or Black, NHOPI, and AIAN 
babies are dying at higher rates in the U.S. than other racial or 
ethnic groups.\234\ Head Start programs are positioned to address 
racial gaps in maternal mortality, morbidity, and infant deaths by 
customizing services for the pregnant women and people they serve based 
on the needs of their community.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \234\ Ely DM, Driscoll AK. Infant mortality in the United 
States, 2019: Data from the period linked birth/infant death file. 
National Vital Statistics Reports; vol 70 no 14. Hyattsville, MD: 
National Center for Health Statistics. 2021. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.15620/cdc:111053.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To help programs better understand and address barriers a pregnant 
woman or person may have to a healthy pregnancy and childbirth, we 
further propose to amend Sec.  1302.80 by adding a new paragraph (f). 
The new paragraph requires programs to identify and reduce barriers to 
healthy pregnancy outcomes for enrolled pregnant women and people based 
on the information and data collected on this population. The goal is 
also to help reduce racial inequities in maternal and infant morbidity 
\235\ and mortality. This proposed paragraph states, ``The program must 
provide services that help reduce barriers to healthy maternal and 
birthing outcomes for each family, including services that address 
disparities across racial and ethnic groups, and use data on enrolled 
pregnant women to inform program services.'' We believe this new 
paragraph will ensure programs customize prenatal and postnatal 
services to help improve outcomes and contribute to the reduction of 
racial inequities in maternal and infant morbidity and mortality. 
Programs should use data and information collected from referrals and 
general case management to inform and individualize services. 
Documentation of services should include a summary of

[[Page 80864]]

interactions with the pregnant woman or person through case notes, 
strengths and needs assessment, referrals and the results of the 
referrals to community partners, and information from the family 
partnership agreement and any relevant community partnership 
agreements. The program should examine this information and data for 
any barriers that prevent pregnant women and people from having healthy 
pregnancies and birth outcomes. Plans may include approaches developed 
with the Health Services Advisory Committee and community partners to 
help address or reduce identified barriers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \235\ Maternal morbidity describes any short- or long-term 
health problems that result from being pregnant and giving birth. 
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (June 
2021). https://www.nichd.nih.gov/health/topics/maternal-morbidity-mortality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Next, we discuss proposed revisions to Sec.  1302.82. In general, 
this section highlights that, as with all other families, enrolled 
pregnant women and people should receive the family partnership 
services described in Sec.  1302.52 Family partnership services. 
However, Sec.  1302.82 clarifies that these services should be 
explicitly directed toward their prenatal and postpartum care needs. 
This section also describes requirements to support the enrollment of 
the newborn into a program as appropriate.
    Programs are not currently required to use a curriculum in the 
provision of services to pregnant women and people, nor are there any 
requirements for the type of curriculum if one is used. However, if a 
curriculum is used, it should be responsive to the needs of the 
population served. As such, programs opting to use a maternal health 
curriculum should consider the needs of the pregnant women and people 
in their program. If used, the curriculum should provide information 
that increases the knowledge of pregnant women or people and their 
support system. Those who attend maternal health courses with their 
partners are more likely to attend postpartum visits and had higher 
positive maternal health behaviors.\236\ It is imperative that any 
selected curriculum be responsive to the cultures and context of the 
communities served.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \236\ Britta C. Mullany, S Becker, MJ Hindin, The impact of 
including husbands in antenatal health education services on 
maternal health practices in urban Nepal: results from a randomized 
controlled trial, Health Education Research, 22(2), April 2007, 
Pages 166-176.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, we propose to revise paragraph (a) in Sec.  1302.82 by 
adding language to clarify that if a program chooses to use a 
curriculum with pregnant women and people, they should select a 
curriculum that focuses on maternal and child health. We believe this 
will improve maternal and child outcomes by helping to reduce 
prematurity and low birth weight, as well as support increased 
initiation and continuation of breastfeeding and other healthy infant 
feeding.
    ACF seeks public comment on how the proposed requirements in this 
section may differentially impact different communities. We 
specifically request public comment from the special populations served 
by Head Start, including AIAN and MSHS programs and communities.

Standards of Conduct (Sec.  1302.90)

    Section 1302.90(c) establishes the standards of conduct for all 
staff, consultants, contractors, and volunteers, which are part of a 
program's personnel policies. Given how critical child safety is in 
Head Start programs, we propose revisions to these requirements to 
ensure we are as clear as possible and that our requirements reflect 
current best practices and more precise terminology.
    The proposed revisions to this section would align definitions 
related to child maltreatment with other Federal resources. We propose 
this alignment to facilitate understanding of staff responsibilities 
related to child health, mental health, and safety incidents. 
Additionally, the proposed revisions would underscore typical 
responsibilities of mandated reporters \237\ of child abuse and 
neglect, which applies to all Head Start staff. These responsibilities 
include reporting when an individual ``suspects or has reason to 
believe that a child has been abused or neglected,'' or when a reporter 
has knowledge of or observes ``conditions that would reasonably result 
in harm to the child.'' \238\ The proposed changes further clarify that 
reports must include suspected or known incidents perpetrated by Head 
Start staff before they have been verified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \237\ ``Mandated'' reporter or reporting refers to statutory 
requirements related to mandatory reporting of suspected instances 
of child abuse and neglect by individuals as applicable under State 
law and in accordance with the Federal Child Abuse Prevention and 
Treatment Act (CAPTA), 42 U.S.C. 5106a(b)(2)(B)(i).
    \238\ Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2019). Mandatory 
reporters of child abuse and neglect. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 
Department of Health and Human Services, Children's Bureau.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, we propose to redefine and reorganize provisions related to 
the prohibition of child maltreatment or endangerment in Sec.  
1302.90(c)(1)(ii). First, in Sec.  1302.90(c)(1)(ii) we propose to 
remove the phrase ``do not maltreat or endanger the health or safety of 
children, including at a minimum, that staff must not'' and replace it 
with ``do not engage in behaviors that would be reasonably suspected to 
negatively impact the health, mental health, or safety of children, 
including at a minimum.'' We believe the proposed revisions set a 
higher yet reasonable standard for staff conduct to include prohibition 
of behaviors that have the potential to negatively impact children. We 
believe removing the word ``maltreat'' from this paragraph and instead 
providing clearer definitions and examples of maltreatment in the 
subsection that follows will provide greater clarification about 
expectations. The inclusion of children's mental health as a potential 
area of impact is proposed to underscore that a behavior does not have 
to cause physical harm to a child to be of notable concern for a 
child's well-being. This understanding is consistent with research and 
guidance in the field of child maltreatment.\239\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \239\ Leeb R.T., Paulozzi L., Melanson C., Simon T., Arias I. 
(2008). Child Maltreatment Surveillance: Uniform Definitions for 
Public Health and Recommended Data Elements, Version 1.0. Atlanta 
(GA): Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center 
for Injury Prevention and Control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    More specifically, under Sec.  1302.90(c)(1)(ii), we propose to 
remove paragraphs (A) through (I) in their entirety and to replace 
these with paragraphs (A) through (D), each of which specifies a 
category of potential child abuse or neglect including a definition and 
specific examples. First in new paragraph (A) we define corporal 
punishment or physically abusive behavior as the intentional use of 
physical force that results in, or has the potential to result in, 
physical injury. Examples in the definition include, but are not 
limited to, hitting, kicking, shaking, biting, forcibly moving, 
restraining, force feeding, or dragging a child. Next in new paragraph 
(B) we define sexually abusive behavior as any completed or attempted 
sexual act, sexual contact, or exploitation. Examples in the definition 
include, but are not limited to, behaviors such as inappropriate 
touching, inappropriate filming, or exposing a child to other sexual 
activities. Next in new paragraph (C) we define emotionally harmful or 
abusive behavior as behaviors that harm a child's self-worth or 
emotional well-being or behaviors that are insensitive to the child's 
developmental needs. Examples in the definition include, but are not 
limited to, using isolation as discipline, exposing a child to public 
or private humiliation, or name calling, shaming, intimidating, or 
threatening a child. Finally, in new paragraph (D) we define neglectful 
behavior as the failure to meet a child's basic physical and emotional 
needs including access to food, education, medical care, appropriate 
supervision by an adequate caregiver, and safe physical and

[[Page 80865]]

emotional environments. Examples in the definition include, but are not 
limited to, withholding food as punishment or refusing to change soiled 
diapers as punishment. These proposed categories, definitions, and 
examples of potential child maltreatment are adapted from the CDC 
resources, Child Maltreatment Surveillance: Uniform Definitions for 
Public Health and Recommended Data Elements \240\ and an online Fast 
Facts review of child abuse and neglect prevention.\241\ The CDC 
resources were established through extensive consultation with experts 
to recommend consistent terminology related to potential child 
maltreatment. By providing definitions, we intend to clarify that 
adults in Head Start programs may not engage in any behavior that may 
have potential to negatively impact children. The examples are intended 
to provide more concrete information for clarification but are not an 
exhaustive list. The proposed paragraphs (A) through (D) retain some 
examples from the current standards that have been of particular 
concern to early child care settings according to internal data. 
Namely, we retained behaviors related to corporal punishment, public or 
private humiliation, and feeding and toileting practices as punishment 
in the examples. Forcibly moving and restraining are included as 
examples because they are also harmful to children's well-being.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \240\ Leeb RT, Paulozzi L, Melanson C, Simon T, Arias I. Child 
Maltreatment Surveillance: Uniform Definitions for Public Health and 
Recommended Data Elements, Version 1.0. Atlanta (GA): Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury 
Prevention and Control; 2008.
    \241\ Fortson B, Klevens J, Merrick M, Gilbert L, Alexander S. 
(2016). Preventing Child Abuse and Neglect: A Technical Package for 
Policy, Norm, and Programmatic Activities. Atlanta, GA: National 
Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention. Available online at https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/childabuseandneglect/fastfact.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, under Sec.  1302.90(c)(1), we propose to add a new 
paragraph (c)(1)(iii) that clarifies the requirement to ensure staff, 
consultants, contractors, and volunteers report reasonably suspected or 
known incidents of child abuse and neglect, as defined by the Federal 
Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) (42 U.S.C. 5101 note) 
\242\ and in compliance with Federal, State, local, and Tribal laws. We 
believe that including this provision in the standards of conduct will 
bring attention to existing requirements that all staff are mandated 
reporters of suspected incidents of child abuse and neglect, even in 
the absence of definitive proof and even in instances in which the 
reporting staff member did not directly engage in or witness the 
alleged behavior. The Federal definition in CAPTA provides a minimum 
standard that ``the term `child abuse and neglect' means, at a minimum, 
any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker, 
which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual 
abuse or exploitation (including sexual abuse as determined under 
section 111), or an act or failure to act which presents an imminent 
risk of serious harm.'' Programs must also comply with State, local, 
and Tribal laws, which may have additional stipulations related to 
defining child abuse and neglect and other requirements for mandated 
reporting. If there are differences between Federal and State, local, 
and Tribal laws, programs should comply with the more stringent 
regulation. As a result of this proposed new paragraph (iii), we 
propose to redesignate in Sec.  1302.90(c)(1) current paragraphs in 
(iii), (iv), and (v) as paragraphs (iv), (v), and (vi), respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \242\ 42 U.S.C. 5106g. Available online at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2017-title42/html/USCODE-2017-title42-chap67.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In redesignated Sec.  1302.90(c)(1)(iv), formerly Sec.  
1302.90(c)(1)(iii), we propose to remove the phrase ``child and 
family'' and replace it with ``each individual.'' This proposed change 
to ensure staff are included is aligned with efforts to promote well-
being and safety across Head Start and increase the supportive and 
responsive relationships among staff.
    Finally, the requirement in Standards of Conduct for staff at 
redesignated paragraph Sec.  1302.90(c)(1)(vi), formerly Sec.  
1302.90(c)(1)(v), underscores that children cannot be left alone or 
unsupervised by staff, consultants, contractors, or volunteers under 
their care. However, as it is currently written, the language can be 
erroneously interpreted to mean that a child may be left solely under 
the supervision of volunteers. ACF has been clear that this is not 
allowed, and Sec.  1302.94(b) states that ``a program must ensure 
children are never left alone with volunteers.'' For this reason, we 
propose to update the provision at Sec.  1302.90(c)(1)(vi).
    Specifically, we propose to remove the phrase ``by staff, 
consultants, contractors, or volunteers while under their care'' in 
paragraph (v). The stem of Sec.  1302.90 (c)(1) reads ``a program must 
ensure all staff, consultants, contractors, and volunteers abide by the 
program's standards of conduct that:'' and effectively captures the 
applicable subjects of the requirement without allowing for alternative 
inaccurate interpretations of the requirement. This update to the 
language is not a policy change but rather clarifies the long-standing 
requirement to prevent any misinterpretation and to bring it into full 
alignment with requirement Sec.  1302.94(b).
    ACF seeks public comment on how the proposed requirements in this 
section may differentially impact different communities. We 
specifically request public comment from the special populations served 
by Head Start, including AIAN and MSHS programs and communities.

Staff Training To Support Child Safety (Sec.  1302.92; Sec.  1302.101)

    As described in the earlier section on Workforce Supports: Employee 
Engagement, Sec.  1302.92 establishes requirements for staff training 
and professional development. Specifically, Sec.  1302.92(b) requires 
programs to establish and implement systematic approaches to training 
and professional development in key areas. We know Head Start programs 
are experiencing a workforce shortage and the continued effects of the 
pandemic, both of which place significant stress on staff.\243\ We also 
know that higher caregiver stress and lower quality caregiver-child 
relationships can be risk factors for child abuse and neglect, and that 
prevention of child abuse and neglect often relies on strategies to 
reduce caregiver stress, increase caregiver supports, and foster higher 
quality caregiver-child relationships.\244\ Ongoing training to build 
and apply staff knowledge of child development and positive guidance or 
other developmentally appropriate behavior strategies are critical 
components of reducing caregiver stress and associated risks in ECE 
settings.\245\ Given the potential harm that any single incident may 
pose to children, families, and staff, we believe that providing ample

[[Page 80866]]

opportunities to learn and practice safety skills is essential to 
preventing incidents. This emphasis is of utmost importance to the Head 
Start population since younger children are more likely to be victims 
of child abuse and neglect.\246\ In this section, we propose revisions 
and an addition to emphasize training and professional development 
related to child safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \243\ Elharake JA, Shafiq M, Cobanoglu A, Malik AA, Klotz M, 
Humphries JE, et al. Prevalence of Chronic Diseases, Depression, and 
Stress Among US Childcare Professionals During the COVID-19 
Pandemic. Prev Chronic Dis 2022;19:220132. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5888/pcd19.220132. NAEYC, ``NAEYC Pandemic Surveys,'' February 
2022. https://www.naeyc.org/pandemic-surveys.
    \244\ Fortson, B.L., Klevens, J., Merrick, M.T., Gilbert, L.K., 
& Alexander, S.P. (2016). Preventing child abuse and neglect: A 
technical package for policy, norm, and programmatic activities. 
Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Daly & Dowd (1992), 
Characteristics of effective, harm free environments for children in 
out of home care, Child Welfare, 71(6):487-96.
    \245\ Koralek, D. (1992). Caregivers of young children: 
Preventing and responding to child maltreatment. U.S. National 
Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, Department of Health and Human 
Services. Available online at https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/142411NCJRS.pdf.
    \246\ U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Administration 
for Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth and 
Families, Children's Bureau. (2022). Child Maltreatment 2020. 
Available from https://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb/data-research/child-maltreatment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Sec.  1302.92(b)(2), we propose to add a requirement that 
mandated reporter training is conducted on an annual basis. We believe 
that more frequent training will support staff in recognizing potential 
child abuse and neglect and understanding their legal responsibility as 
a mandated reporter. Many states do not require mandated reporter 
trainings \247\ but all Head Start staff are mandated reporters 
regardless of whether they work directly with children and, as 
previously noted, young children are a particularly vulnerable 
population. We believe this proposed policy change will create more 
equitable opportunities for staff to understand and discuss their 
ethical and legal responsibilities. The greater frequency of training 
would also allow programs to offer staff advanced training 
opportunities on areas of local importance or greater complexity, such 
as culturally responsive practices in reporting, issues related to 
disproportionate reporting, and information about at-risk populations, 
as well as emphasize the importance of child safety in Head Start. We 
also add language to clarify expectations with more precise language in 
this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \247\ Lee, J. & Weigensberg, E. (2022). ``How Do Laws and 
Policies for Reporting Child Abuse and Neglect Vary Across States?'' 
OPRE Report #2022-165. Washington, D.C.: Office of Planning, 
Research, and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, 
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, training and professional development related to using 
positive strategies to support children is only required for education 
staff, per Sec.  1302.92(b)(5). Yet, all staff are required to use 
positive strategies to support children according to existing standards 
of conduct, per Sec.  1302.90(c)(1)(i), and ongoing training and 
professional development is an effective strategy for preventing child 
maltreatment.\248\ As such, under this section, we propose to add a new 
paragraph as Sec.  1302.92(b)(3) which will require annual training on 
positive strategies to understand and support children's social and 
emotional development, including the implementation of tools for 
preventing and managing challenging behavior. We also believe enhancing 
use of positive strategies among all staff will have the added benefit 
of increasing opportunities for peer support as appropriate. We are 
prescribing general areas of focus but allowing for programs to select 
approaches so that programs may fulfill this requirement in ways that 
are responsive to their community needs and cultural practices. As a 
result of this proposed addition, we further propose to redesignate 
current paragraphs (3), (4), and (5) of Sec.  1302.92(b) to (4), (5), 
and (6), respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \248\ National Center for Community-Based Child Abuse Prevention 
(CBCAP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also propose a revision to Sec.  1302.101 which establishes 
management responsibilities governed by a system that enables the 
delivery of the high-quality services. ACF is aware that there has been 
inconsistent implementation of required reporting procedures.\249\ In 
order to promote consistent implementation of paragraph (a)(5), we 
propose to add a new clause to Sec.  1302.101(a)(5) to require a system 
that ensures that all staff are trained to implement reporting 
procedures in Sec.  1302.102 (d)(1)(ii). By requiring that programs 
provide training on reporting procedures, we anticipate that staff will 
have greater familiarity with and understanding of institutional 
reporting procedures. Additionally, with an implementation system in 
place, ACF may more easily provide guidance on what steps should be 
taken to ensure that staff report incidents appropriately.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \249\ OIG Final Report: ACF Should Improve Oversight of Head 
Start To Better Protect Children's Safety, OEI-BL-19-00560.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Incident Reporting (Sec.  1302.102)

    Section 1302.102 outlines the requirements that programs establish 
program goals and a process for monitoring program performance, 
including how programs use data and report out to the governing body 
and policy council. Paragraph (d) of Sec.  1302.102 establishes 
required reports that programs must submit for monitoring and oversight 
purposes, and Sec.  1302.102(d)(1)(ii) specifically addresses required 
incident reports.
    In the years of implementing these provisions since the 2016 
revision of the HSPPS, it is evident that child incidents are not 
always reported to the OHS Regional Office or are not reported in a 
timely manner. The importance of reporting child incidents to OHS 
cannot be overstated. We propose several changes to Sec.  
1302.102(d)(1)(ii) to make clear and strengthen the reporting 
requirements associated with child health and safety incidents.
    Section 1302.102(d)(1)(ii) introduces general requirements related 
to when and to whom incident reports should be submitted and specifies 
types of situations that require incident reports. We make two changes 
to Sec.  1302.102(d)(1)(ii). First, we propose to remove the phrase 
``as soon as practicable'' and replace it with ``no later than 3 
business days following the incident'' to clarify the timeline by which 
programs are expected to make reports. The timeline of three business 
days more closely aligns our institutional reporting practices with 
child welfare reporting practices, which often require reports to be 
filed within 48 hours of learning of a suspected incident. Shortening 
the timeline will allow for earlier processing and monitoring of 
reports, and for more expedient access to technical assistance or other 
supports for programs when needed.
    Our second proposed change is to add two new paragraphs to Sec.  
1302.102(d)(1)(ii) to clarify reportable incidents. First, the new 
Sec.  1302.102(d)(1)(ii)(A) describes one type of reportable incident 
as any significant incident that affects the health, mental health, or 
safety of a child that occurs in a setting where Head Start services 
are provided and that involve either a Head Start adult or Head Start 
child, as further defined below. This change clarifies that mental 
health incidents are included in significant incidents and that only 
those incidents that occur in settings where Head Start services are 
provided, such as a Head Start program, playground, or transportation 
utilized by a Head Start program, are reportable to OHS. This 
definition is intentionally broad and intended to capture any setting 
for which Head Start funding is used. The following two new sub-
paragraphs clarify who must be involved in the incident in order for it 
to be reportable to OHS. Reportable incidents include those that 
involve either (I) a staff member, contractor, volunteer, or other 
adult that participates in either a Head Start program or a classroom 
at least partially funded by Head Start, regardless of whether the 
child receives Head Start services; or (II) a child that receives 
services fully or partially funded by Head Start or a child that 
participates in a classroom at least partially funded by Head Start.
    The proposed change is intended to expand incidents that are 
reportable to Head Start to include more individuals

[[Page 80867]]

than the current standard. However, incidents that do not meet both of 
these conditions: (1) a child incident that occurs in a setting where 
Head Start services are provided and (2) that involves a person 
described by either Sec.  1302.102(d)(1)(ii)(A)(I) or Sec.  
1302.102(d)(1)(ii)(A)(II), would be beyond the scope of what is 
reportable to OHS. We note that these incidents may still be reportable 
to other agencies, such as child care licensing agencies.
    We retain the language in the current standard describing another 
type of reportable incident in the new Sec.  1302.102(d)(1)(ii)(B), 
which pertains to circumstances affecting the financial viability of 
the program; breaches of personally identifiable information, or 
program involvement in legal proceedings; or any matter for which 
notification or a report to State, Tribal, or local authorities is 
required by applicable law.
    Additional proposed language also requires programs to report other 
health, mental health, or safety incidents of concern to Head Start 
that are not explicitly named in the sections that follow. The 
following subsections of redesignated Sec.  1302.102(d)(1)(iii) 
describe minimum expectations for situations that require an incident 
report to be submitted. We propose several changes to further clarify 
and strengthen incident reporting requirements. We note that some of 
the changes describe situations that are currently expected to require 
incident reports. However, our goal in including them explicitly in the 
list of minimally reportable incidents is to make this expectation 
clear and facilitate navigation and understanding of the OHS reporting 
requirements.
    First, we propose to add ``mandated'' to Sec.  
1302.102(d)(1)(iii)(A) to provide clarification that any incidents 
involving mandated reporter responsibilities should be reported to Head 
Start as well as the appropriate State, local, or Tribal authority, 
independent of the status of investigation or outcome of such reports.
    Second, in Sec.  1302.102(d)(1)(iii)(B) we propose to remove ``for 
any reason'' and replace it with ``except for circumstances such as 
natural disasters that interfere with program operations.'' This 
revision is intended to account for circumstances where it may be 
unsafe or unreasonable to expect a program to report center closings 
within the proposed revised timeline in Sec.  1302.102(d)(1)(ii) 
especially if communication channels are not operable.
    Next, we propose to add three new paragraphs (E), (F), and (G) to 
Sec.  1302.102(d)(1)(iii) to better describe the types of incidents 
that should be reported to OHS. First, we propose a requirement that 
programs report any suspected or known violations of Standards of 
Conduct under Sec.  1302.90(c)(ii). The standards of conduct, described 
in the earlier section, Standards of Conduct, outline behaviors that 
staff must not engage in that would be reasonably suspected to 
negatively impact the health, mental health, and safety of children. 
Therefore, the addition of Sec.  1302.102(d)(1)(iii)(E) is intended to 
clarify that programs must submit incident reports for any violations 
of Head Start standards of conduct in Sec.  1302.90(c)(ii), even if 
those violations do not require a mandated report under State, Tribal, 
or local law.
    The second addition to incidents that should be reported to OHS is 
significant health or safety incidents related to suspected or known 
lack of supervision or lack of preventative maintenance in Sec.  
1302.102(d)(1)(iii)(F). This addition is intended to clarify that 
programs must submit reports for significant incidents that may be 
associated with reasonably suspected or known lack of appropriate 
supervision or failure to carry out reasonably expected maintenance, 
such as maintenance of playground equipment. We acknowledge that some 
incidents involving injuries to children may be unintentional and 
unavoidable. Therefore, we wish to provide clarity about which health 
and safety incidents should be reported to OHS. We consider significant 
incidents in these cases to be those that result in serious injury or 
harm to a child, specifically incidents that require hospitalization or 
emergency room care, such as a broken bone; severe sprain; chipped or 
cracked teeth; head trauma; deep cuts; contusions or lacerations; or 
animal bites. In addition, we would like to clarify that lack of 
supervision while in the care of program staff includes leaving a child 
unsupervised anywhere on the grounds of a Head Start facility, such as 
in a classroom, bathroom, or on a playground, as well as outside the 
facility, such as in a parking lot, on a nearby street, on a bus, or 
during another program-approved transportation or excursion. Including 
these types of incidents in what is reportable to Head Start allows us 
to expedite access to technical assistance or other supports, as 
needed, to address systemic issues that impact children's health and 
safety.
    The third addition of Sec.  1302.102(d)(1)(iii)(G) describes any 
unauthorized release of a child as a reportable incident and is 
intended to ensure that programs submit reports for incidents involving 
the unauthorized release of children. Unauthorized release occurs when 
a child is released from a Head Start facility, bus, or other approved 
program transportation to a person without the permission or 
authorization of a parent or legal guardian and whose identity had not 
been verified by photo identification. This addition codifies 
expectations outlined in ACF-IM-HS-22-07 and aligns with Caring for Our 
Children standards.\250\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \250\ Caring for our Children. (2022). Chapter 9.2: Policies. 
National Resource Center for Health and Safety in Child Care and 
Early Education, Department of Health and Human Services. Available 
online at https://nrckids.org/CFOC/Database/9.2.4.8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, we propose to revise the title for Sec.  1302.102 
``Achieving Program Goals'' to read ``Program Goals, Continuous 
Improvement, and Reporting,'' to clarify the contents of this section 
and further improve ease of navigation.
    ACF seeks public comment on how the proposed requirements in this 
section may differentially impact different communities. We 
specifically request public comment from the special populations served 
by Head Start, including AIAN and MSHS programs and communities.

Facilities Valuation (Sec.  1303.44)

    Section 1303.44(a)(7) establishes that if a grant recipient is 
preliminarily eligible under Sec.  1303.42 to apply for funds to 
purchase, construct, or renovate a facility, the recipient must submit 
to the responsible HHS official, among other requirements, an estimate 
by a licensed independent certified appraiser of the facility's fair 
market value.
    Fair market value can take many forms; this depends on the purpose 
or intended use of the valuation. Appraisers generally rely on three 
methods of establishing real estate value, which complies with the 
Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) and local 
guidelines: sales approach, cost approach, and income approach. Sales 
approach compares the sales price of comparable facilities, and it 
accounts for the price at sale of the facility. Cost approach evaluates 
the cost to reproduce or replace an equivalent facility, and it 
accounts for the acquisition cost of the land, construction expense, 
and depreciation of the property. Income approach estimates the value 
based on income potential of an equivalent facility.

[[Page 80868]]

    Applications under this section include applications for 
constructions, purchase, and significant renovation to facilities. 
Based on a review of applications to purchase, construct, or renovate 
facilities, the cost approach to valuation is most relevant.
    The sales approach can be problematic since many facility projects 
show large discrepancies in sales valuation and total project cost, 
particularly as real property sales prices depend heavily on the 
locality of the property. Sales valuation does not account for the 
large cost needed to ready the property for its intended use.
    Sales approach can be relevant for certain proposed facility 
projects, but when relevant, it is already covered by other required 
activities under Sec.  1303. Specifically, recipients are required to 
compare the cost associated with the proposed action to other available 
alternatives in the service area, pursuant to Sec.  1303.45. 
Requirements under Sec.  1303.45 discover the actual purchase cost of 
comparable alternate facilities in the service area and therefore the 
sales approach valuation remains less relevant to require in paragraph 
(7) of Sec.  1303.44(a).
    Head Start facilities are woven into the fabric of communities they 
serve as highly valued, safe spaces for children and families. This is 
especially important as Head Start programs are often located in low-
income communities and geographic areas with a high concentration of 
poverty. Programs are often also located in communities with more 
people of color as people of color are more likely than their white 
counterparts to live in low-income neighborhoods. For instance, in 
2020, about 14 percent of people of color lived in high-poverty 
neighborhoods, compared to about 4 percent of White people.\251\ Head 
Start programs are known to invigorate their communities including the 
development of strong partnerships with many local community-based 
organizations.\252\ As such, it is essential that Head Start programs 
receive accurate valuation of facility project costs to ensure 
responsible acquisition of facilities continues in communities in need.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \251\ National Equity Analysis. (2020). Neighborhood poverty: 
All neighborhoods should be communities of opportunity. Retrieved 
from: https://nationalequityatlas.org/indicators/Neighborhood_poverty.
    \252\ Phillips, D. A. & Cabrera, N. J. (eds.) (1996). Beyond the 
Blueprint: Direction for Research on Head Start's Families. 
Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these reasons, we propose to eliminate from Sec.  1303.44(a)(7) 
the term ``fair market'' and replace it with the term ``cost'' because 
the cost valuation is most relevant in determining fair cost of a 
facility acquisition action under this section. This will assist the 
awarding agency in making determinations on proposed project costs and 
fair market costs.
    We welcome any additional public comments on the 45 CFR 1303 
process and associated requirements. We specifically request public 
comment from the special populations served by Head Start, including 
AIAN and MSHS programs and communities.

Definition of Income (Sec.  1305.2)

    The current HSPPS definition lists several types of income sources 
that could be included in the calculation of gross income and 
references additional sources that can be found in a lengthy document 
from the Census Bureau. The current definition has caused confusion 
regarding what should be included in income calculations. We propose to 
revise the definition of income to make it up to date, clear, and less 
burdensome to implement. The proposed language provides a clear and 
finite list of what is considered income. It also provides 
clarification on what is not considered income as it relates to 
military income and refundable tax credits and public assistance. These 
changes are to ensure programs can more easily identify an applicants' 
income. This will also promote consistent interpretation on what to 
include in calculating income across programs.
    Specifically, we proposed to strike the current definition: 
``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).
    We propose to replace the definition and define income as gross 
income that only includes wages, business income, veteran's benefits, 
Social Security benefits, unemployment compensation, alimony, pension 
or annuity payments, gifts that exceed the threshold for taxable 
income, and military income (excluding special pay for a member subject 
to hostile fire or imminent danger under 37 U.S.C. 310 or any basic 
allowance for housing under 37 U.S.C. 403 including housing acquired 
under the alternative authority under 10 U.S.C. 169 or any related 
provision of law). The revised definition is clear that gross income 
only includes sources of income provided in the definition; it does not 
include refundable tax credits nor any forms of public assistance.
    As mentioned previously, the current HSPPS definition includes a 
link to a 250+ page Census Bureau document from 1992. We believe the 
definition and reference to the document are outdated and complicated 
for programs to utilize. We propose to remove the current reference to 
this dated Census report and replace the definition with a finite 
number of income sources and remove the reference to the Census Bureau 
report. The proposed revision includes many sources of income from the 
definition in the Census Bureau document currently cited.
    The proposed language removes the term ``cash'' from ``gross cash 
income'' in recognition that most income is not provided in the form of 
cash. The word ``only'' is proposed before ``includes'' to clearly 
define a finite list of sources considered income for Head Start 
purposes. Further the proposal replaces the term ``earned income'' with 
more specific terms ``wages,'' and ``business income.'' Business income 
includes income obtained from rental properties, as defined by the 
Internal Revenue Service.\253\ We also do not propose to include 
``dividends'' or ``capital gains'' to avoid unnecessary burden in 
requesting this information from families since we believe it unlikely 
Head Start applicants would have such sources of income that would make 
them ineligible for Head Start, and these terms may be difficult to 
understand and cause confusion to families during the eligibility 
determination process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \253\ See: https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc407.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We remove ``public assistance'' from the definition because if a 
family is receiving SNAP, TANF, or SSI, then they are already eligible 
for Head Start. Removing this source of income reduces the 
administrative burden of calculating income from such sources. The 
current referenced Census Bureau document includes ``regular 
contributions from others not living in the household,'' which we do 
not include in the proposal. We interpret this to mean money received 
periodically to assist the family in meeting basic needs. We do not 
believe one-time or periodic gifts should be counted as income for Head 
Start eligibility purposes, especially since it may not be relied upon 
as a regular source of income. We have determined that these payments 
should be considered gifts and therefore not

[[Page 80869]]

taxable until they reach the IRS threshold for gifts which is $17,000 
for 2023 and updated on an annual basis. Therefore, we propose to 
include ``gifts that exceed the threshold for taxable income'' as a 
source of income.
    To facilitate the implementation of the exclusions from military 
pay specified by the Head Start Act, we detail the exclusions from 
military pay as designated in the statute rather than referencing it. 
We propose this to allow programs and families to determine what counts 
as income through the definition in the regulations.
    We clarify that gross income only includes sources of income 
provided in the definition, and does not include refundable tax credits 
nor any forms of public assistance, to be explicit that this is a 
finite list of sources of income and call out two common other sources 
of income that might be inadvertently considered to be added. Although 
the finite list does not include refundable tax credits, we are 
concerned that programs may include it as part of the ``wages'' 
category. We believe this makes it clear that the tax credits commonly 
received by Head Start applicants such as the Earned Income Tax Credit 
and the Child Tax Credit are not included as part of calculated income. 
Furthermore, the finite list of sources of income intentionally 
precludes any other emergency or temporary forms of income or 
assistance from being included in calculations of income for 
eligibility purposes, such as the enhanced unemployment insurance that 
was available during the COVID-19 pandemic.
    All the revisions proposed together simplify the definition of 
income and clarify how it will be implemented consistently across 
programs when determining income eligibility for Head Start. We seek 
public comment on this definition so that we ensure this is the most 
accurate and streamlined definition. We also specifically request 
public comment from the special populations served by Head Start, 
including AIAN and MSHS programs and communities.

Definition of Federal Interest and Major Renovations (Sec.  1305.2)

    ACF has received questions that suggest our definitions of Major 
Renovation and Federal Interest are too imprecise and consequently lead 
to Head Start grant recipients misinterpreting and inconsistently 
applying the definitions when filing an official Notice of Federal 
Interest (NOFI). In this section, we propose technical fixes and 
additional clarifying language to address common questions. The 
proposed changes do not substantively change the meaning of the 
definitions, but rather clarify issues that have arisen since the 
implementation of the 2016 revisions to the HSPPS. ACF believes these 
minor revisions encourage recipients to maintain safe and updated 
facilities.
    First, we propose changes to the definition of Major Renovation. We 
propose to address a typo in the definition--the term, ``collection 
renovation''--and in amending this minor error, we offer some 
additional text to improve understanding. Furthermore, we add 
additional text to clarify that separate renovation activities only 
equate to a major renovation if (1) they have a cost equal to or 
exceeding $250,000, (2) the renovation activities are intended to occur 
concurrently or consecutively, or altogether address a specific part or 
feature of a facility, and (3) per Sec.  1303.44, certification from a 
licensed, independent architect or engineer indicates that the 
repair(s) adds significant value to the real property to be repaired or 
extends its useful life. If these three conditions are met, the group 
of renovations should be understood as a Major Renovation.
    We understand that grant recipients have been misinterpreting the 
definition of Major Renovation to include multiple renovation 
activities on the same facility that have a cost equal to or exceeding 
$250,000. To help clarify, ACF is providing the following common 
examples:
     A recipient completes a minor renovation to install a new 
roof at $150,000. The next year, the recipient replaced all the windows 
at a cost of $50,000. The year after that, the recipient re-surfaced 
the parking lot for $75,000. While this was always the case, under this 
clarified definition, it is clearer that the unrelated renovation 
project activities in this example do not equate to a Major Renovation.
     A recipient replaces the roof of one of their facilities 
for $200,000. Two years later, the recipient replaces the same 
facility's HVAC units for additional $200,000. These renovation 
activities are not considered a collective group of facility renovation 
activities because the project activities are not intended to occur 
concurrently or consecutively, or altogether address a specific part or 
feature of a facility, and thus, they are not considered a Major 
Renovation.
     In 1 year, a recipient repairs the roofs of two different 
centers totaling $300,000, each for $150,000. Since these are separate 
centers, they are not related to the same facility and therefore, the 
collective renovation activities are not considered a Major Renovation.
     A recipient replaces part of their roof at one of their 
facilities for $200,000. Two years later, the recipient replaces 
another part of the same roof for $200,000. In this instance, whether 
the roof repairs are considered a Major Renovation depends. While these 
collective renovation activities address a specific part or feature of 
a facility, and are greater than the $250,000 threshold, the 
expenditure may not add significant value to the real property. In 
advance of commencing the proposed roof repairs, the recipient must 
submit a certification from a licensed, independent architect or 
engineer indicating whether the expenditure identified as repairs adds 
significant value to the real property to be repaired or extends its 
useful life. If the required certification is not provided, the 
activity will be classified as a Major Renovation and compliance with 
part 1303, subpart E of the HSPPS is required.
     In 1 year, a recipient repairs the roof, replaces the HVAC 
system, repaints walls, and renovates a bathroom, totaling $350,000. 
These collective renovation activities are greater than the $250,000 
threshold and are occurring concurrently or consecutively to address a 
specific part or feature of a facility, so they are likely related. 
However, the expenditure may or may not add significant value to the 
real property so whether the repairs are considered a Major Renovation 
depends. In advance of commencing the renovations, the recipient must 
submit a certification from a licensed, independent architect or 
engineer indicating whether the expenditure adds significant value to 
the real property to be repaired or extends its useful life. If the 
required certification is not provided, the activity will be classified 
as a Major Renovation and compliance with part 1303, subpart E is 
required.
    We propose technical fixes to the definition of Federal Interest to 
address confusion with respect to the type of facility activities that 
result in Federal interest and what satisfies the non-Federal matching 
requirement. Specifically, the proposed additional language, in tandem 
with the proposed definition for Major Renovation, clarifies the 
distinction between repairs and minor renovations versus purchase, 
construction and major renovations under Sec.  1303, the latter of 
which do result in a Federal interest. This proposed definition also 
clarifies that the non-Federal match, which is separate from the base 
grant non-Federal match, is only intended to include the

[[Page 80870]]

non-Federal match associated with the facility activity funded under 
subpart E. In sum, these changes are not substantive changes to the 
definition itself but rather provide clarification on how Federal 
interest works.
    Together, these proposed specified conditions to the definition of 
Major Renovation, and clarification proposed to the definition of 
Federal Interest, ultimately seek to ensure recipients understand when 
a group of renovations would require filing of a NOFI.

Definition of the Poverty Line (Sec.  1305.2)

    In this section, we propose to add to Sec.  1305.2 a definition for 
the term Poverty line that is currently used in Sec.  1302.12 paragraph 
(c) and (d) on income eligibility to clarify and codify existing 
practice. This is only intended to codify the working definition for 
poverty line, including the existing practice that the HHS poverty 
guidelines set for the contiguous-states-and-DC also apply to Puerto 
Rico and U.S. Territories. The HHS poverty guidelines are used to 
determine income eligibility in Head Start and align with requirements 
in the Head Start Act set by Congress. The requirements in the Head 
Start Act are set by statute and cannot be changed through regulation. 
Therefore, we cannot consider public comments regarding changes to the 
poverty line.

Effective Dates

    The current Head Start Program Performance Standards remain in 
effect until this NPRM becomes final. We propose for all changes in 
this NPRM to become effective 60 days after it is published as a final 
rule in the Federal Register, unless otherwise noted in this section. 
For section 1302.48(a), (b), and (c), while the effective date is upon 
publication of final rule, programs will not be monitored on the new 
regulatory requirements until 1 year after publication of the final 
rule to give programs additional time to adjust to the new regulatory 
requirements.
    Programs may require more time to implement several proposed 
sections in this NPRM. Therefore, we propose a 1-year delay in 
implementation deadline for the proposed revisions to the following 
sections: Sec.  1302.11(b); 1302.14(d); 1302.16(a)(2)(v); the changes 
made to remove ``assistant provider'' in 1302.23(b); 1302.45(a); 
1302.82(a); and 1302.93(d).
    The following sections also have longer implementation timelines, 
outlined below:
     Sec.  1302.52(d)(2): 3 years after publication of final 
rule;
     Sec.  1302.80(e) Enrolled pregnant women: 120 days after 
publication of final rule;
     Sec.  1302.80(f) Enrolled pregnant women: 180 days after 
publication of final rule;
     Sec.  1302.90(e)(1), (e)(2)(i) and (ii), (e)(3) and 
(e)(4): Staff wages: Effective August 1, 2031;
     Sec.  1302.90(f) Staff benefits: 2 years after publication 
of final rule;
     Sec.  1302.93(c) Staff Health and Wellness: 3 years after 
publication of final rule.
    We request public comment on all of these proposed effective dates, 
including whether this is sufficient time for programs to implement the 
proposed changes and any possible unintended consequences.

Removal of Outdated Sections

    The current HSPPS contain regulatory language associated with the 
last overhaul of the standards, published through a final rule in 2016. 
We propose to remove two sections of the standards that refer to the 
implementation timeline of those changes, which has since passed and 
therefore these sections are no longer relevant. The first section to 
be removed is Sec.  1302.103 Implementation of program performance 
standards. The second is the term Transition Period, which is defined 
under Sec.  1305.2. These changes do not represent substantive policy 
changes.

Compliance With Sec. 641A(a)(2) of the Act

    We sought extensive input to develop this NPRM. We collaborated and 
consulted with many policy and programmatic expert staff in OHS, ACF's 
Office of Child Care, and ACF's Office of Early Childhood Development. 
Several staff, particularly in OHS, are former Head Start program 
directors, family service workers, teachers, home visitors, etc. and 
have extensive on the ground knowledge of Head Start program 
operations. We also consulted extensively with OHS regional staff who 
directly oversee and support Head Start grants and program operations 
as their primary job responsibility. We held multiple listening and 
input sessions with these regional office staff to identify the most 
challenging aspects of Head Start policy and programmatic requirements 
for grant recipients. We also sought their feedback on proposed 
policies we were considering for the NPRM. We intentionally consulted 
with OHS staff that oversee Migrant and Seasonal Head Start and Tribal 
Head Start programs, to learn about specific challenges and 
considerations for these programs. Similarly, we met with members of 
the OHS Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility Commission to 
discuss possible equity implications of the proposed changes. We 
consulted with experts in early childhood development including staff 
in ACF's Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation. These staff hold 
research expertise in a wide range of early childhood issues relevant 
to Head Start. Additionally, we reviewed many research reports on a 
variety of topics, including NAS reports on the workforce. Taken 
together, our consultation with all of these groups and sources allowed 
provided us with relevant data points and advice on how to promote 
quality across all Head Start settings.
    Furthermore, over the past several years since the last revision of 
the HSPPS (finalized in 2016), OHS has held many webinars for grant 
recipients on a variety of policy and programmatic topics, including 
the workforce, eligibility, mental health, child health and safety, and 
more. OHS has also given multiple presentations on key policy and 
program issues at Head Start relevant conferences, including those 
organized by the National Head Start Association. During these webinars 
and conference presentations, grant recipient participants often ask 
questions and provide input regarding challenges with implementing 
various aspects of program requirements, including for different types 
of child and family populations and in different types of geographic 
settings. This allows OHS the opportunity to gain critical on-the-
ground understanding of areas where the standards are confusing and 
could be made clearer, particularly since the 2016 revisions. We also 
regularly hear from Tribal leaders at OHS's annual Tribal 
consultations. In addition, in consultation with our OHS training and 
technical assistance experts, we considered the types of technical 
assistance requested by and provided to Head Start agencies and 
programs. We also reviewed findings from monitoring reports to glean 
more insights into where grant recipients struggle the most with 
implementing requirements. We also recently fielded a survey of grant 
recipients (November 2022) which provided real time information on 
workforce challenges programs are experiencing. Lastly, ACF asserts 
that the revisions to the HSPPS proposed in this NPRM will not result 
in the elimination of or any reduction in quality, scope, or types of 
health, educational, parental involvement, nutritional, social, or 
other services

[[Page 80871]]

required to be provided under the standards that were in effect when 
the Head Start Act was last reauthorized in 2007.

Severability

    To the extent that any portion of the requirements arising from the 
rule once it becomes final is declared invalid by a court, HHS intends 
for all other parts of the final rule that are capable of operating in 
the absence of the specific portion that has been invalidated to remain 
in effect.

IV. Regulatory Process Matters

    We have examined the impacts of the proposed rule under Executive 
Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, Executive Order 13132, the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), and the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). Executive Orders 12866 and 
13563 direct us to assess all benefits, costs, and transfers of 
available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to 
select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including 
potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other 
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity).
    Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive 
Order 14094, defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as an action 
that is likely to result in a rule: (1) Having an annual effect on the 
economy of $200 million or more, or adversely affecting in a material 
way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, 
jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, 
territorial, or Tribal governments or communities; (2) creating a 
serious inconsistency or otherwise interfering with an action taken or 
planned by another agency; (3) materially altering the budgetary 
impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the 
rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raising legal or 
policy issues for which centralized review would meaningfully further 
the President's priorities or the principles set forth in Executive 
Order 12866, as specifically authorized in a timely manner by the 
Administrator of OIRA in each case. This proposed rule is a significant 
rule and the Regulatory Impact Analysis for this proposed rule 
identifies economic impacts that exceed the threshold for significance 
under Section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) requires us to 
analyze regulatory options that would minimize any significant impact 
of a rule on small entities. Because the proposed rule, if finalized, 
would result in increased expenditures by Head Start programs that 
exceed HHS's default threshold, we have initially determined that the 
proposed rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, section 
202(a)) requires us to prepare a written statement, which includes 
estimates of anticipated impacts, before proposing ``any rule that 
includes any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by 
State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the 
private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for 
inflation) in any one year.'' The current threshold after adjustment 
for inflation is $177 million, using the most current (2022) Implicit 
Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic Product. This proposed rule would 
likely result in expenditures that meet or exceed this amount.

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 proposed rule will 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 action does not 
have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a 
federalism summary impact statement.

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. ACF believes it is not necessary to 
prepare a family policymaking assessment, see Public Law 105-277, 
because the action it takes in this proposed rule will not have any 
impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., 
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.
    The PRA requires that agencies obtain OMB approval, which includes 
issuing an OMB number and expiration date, before requesting most types 
of information from the public. 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.'' PRA defines ``information'' 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 (5 CFR 1320.3(h)). This includes requests 
for information to be sent to the government, such as forms, written 
reports and surveys, recordkeeping requirements, and third-party or 
public disclosures (5 CFR 1320.3(c)). ``Burden'' means the total time, 
effort, or financial resources expended by persons to collect, 
maintain, or disclose information.
    This NPRM establishes new recordkeeping requirements under the PRA. 
Under this NPRM, Head Start grant recipients will be required to keep 
and maintain records related to salary wage scales and staff benefits, 
improvements to community assessment, documentation related to lead 
exposure, among several other requirements. In addition, changes to 
policies proposed in the NPRM may result in changes to existing 
information collections approved under the PRA, including the 
information collection for the existing program performance standards, 
the Program Information Report (PIR), applicable collections in the 
Head Start Enterprise Systems (HSES), and other information 
collections. ACF invites public comments concerning changes to existing 
or new information collections that may be necessary as a result of 
this NPRM, including on practical utility and burden.
    The HSPPS are covered already by an existing OMB control number 
0970-0148. This OMB control number already

[[Page 80872]]

covers burden associated with updating personnel policies and 
documenting eligibility. The below table outlines the burden of 
complying with the proposed standards in this NPRM. These estimated 
burden hours represent the additional burden to be added to this 
existing information collection. We estimate the burden at the 
appropriate level depending on the given information collection, 
specified in the table below (program, family, or enrollee level). In 
2022, there were 3,000 Head Start programs across the country.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20NO23.000

V. Regulatory Impact Analysis

Introduction and Summary

A. Introduction
    We have examined the impacts of the proposed rule under Executive 
Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, Executive Order 14094, the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), and the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). Executive Orders 12866 and 
13563 direct us to assess all benefits, costs, and transfers of 
available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to 
select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including 
potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other 
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). This analysis identifies 
economic impacts that exceed the threshold for significance under 
Section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 
14094.
    The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires us to analyze regulatory 
options that would minimize any significant impact of a rule on small 
entities. Because the proposed rule, if finalized, would result in 
increased expenditures by Head Start programs that exceed HHS's default 
threshold, we have initially determined that the proposed rule will 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.
    No unfunded mandates would be imposed by this proposed rule. The 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (section 202(a)) requires us to 
prepare a written statement, which includes estimates of anticipated 
impacts, before proposing ``any rule that includes any Federal mandate 
that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of 
$100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one 
year.'' The current threshold after adjustment for inflation is $177 
million, using the most current (2022) Implicit Price Deflator for the 
Gross Domestic Product. This proposed rule would not likely result in 
unfunded expenditures that meet or exceed this amount.

B. Summary of Benefits, Costs, and Transfers

    The most likely impacts of the proposed provisions depend, in large 
part, on funds available to Head Start programs; for example, the 
proposals to increase remuneration per teacher would have bigger 
aggregate effects to the extent that Head Start entities employ more 
teachers. Historically, Congress has funded Head Start at levels that 
exceed inflation. During the ten-year period between 2010 and 2020, 
Head Start appropriations grew by 25 percent, after accounting for 
inflation.\254\ Some of the past increase in appropriations was in 
response to new initiatives in Head Start, such as the creation of 
Early Head Start-Child Care Partnerships and other quality initiatives. 
It is possible that this trend continues and Head Start appropriations 
will increase in response to the quality improvements under the 
proposed rule. In such a case, the regulation's effects

[[Page 80873]]

manifest themselves as expenditures by taxpayers.\255\ By contrast, if 
a comparison of the hypothetical futures with and without the rule is 
not characterized by a difference in Head Start appropriations or by 
such a difference that is not prompted by this proposal, then rule-
induced spending would instead be shifted within Head Start.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \254\ If future Head Start appropriations designated for 
expansion grow at similar rates --for reasons that are independent 
of this proposal--then estimates reflecting growth at or below the 
rate of inflation (such as what appears in this regulatory impact 
analysis) would have a tendency toward understating effects.
    \255\ Some of the expenditures would, from a society-wide 
perspective, be categorized as costs and others would be transfers 
to Head Start entities and participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One form that such shifting could take relates to enrollment, so it 
is important to distinguish between the various benchmarks for 
enrollment that were used for this analysis. Head Start programs 
receive funding for a specific number of slots (funded enrollment). 
Historically there has been little difference between funded enrollment 
and actual enrollment,\256\ which represents the number of children who 
are actually enrolled in the Head Start programs. However, in recent 
years, Head Start programs have experienced significant and persistent 
under-enrollment where the number of children actually served is far 
less than the number of funded slots, due in large part to widespread 
staffing shortages. As Head Start programs work to improve their actual 
enrollment levels, many are also requesting reductions in their funded 
enrollment. Head Start programs are trying to right-size their funded 
enrollment to match their community needs, staffing realities, and 
fiscal constraints. It is difficult, if not impossible, to predict the 
net impacts of these ongoing efforts in years to come.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \256\ Here we use the term actual enrollment to represent the 
average number of children enrolled in Head Start programs while 
programs were in session throughout the year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As such, assessing whether the rule's effects would manifest 
themselves as enrollment reductions is especially challenging. In 
theory Head Start programs could attempt to stretch their existing 
budgets to provide the same number of funded enrollment slots while 
also complying with the new requirements by choosing to not spend 
funding on optional activities. However, OHS believes that programs 
have long stretched their funding as far as is possible and are 
unlikely to have many optional activities available to drop.\257\ 
Moreover, the difference between funded and actual enrollment also 
generates uncertainty regarding the magnitude of regulatory effects; 
for example, if Head Start entities use excess funding for teacher 
bonuses, the estimates, below, of rule-induced effects on teacher 
remuneration would have some tendency toward overstatement (even as the 
form of the remuneration is changing from bonuses to salaries, fringe 
benefits or changes in working conditions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \257\ Even if this were the case, OHS asserts that this is 
unlikely to meaningfully impact the quality of services provided to 
children, as the necessary components of high-quality services are 
required under the Head Start Program Performance Standards, and 
could not be dropped from program offerings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OHS has taken the approach of estimating all effects based on the 
projected FY2023 funded enrollment of 755,074, which is the highest 
enrollment level, funded or actual, possible absent additional 
appropriations specifically designated for expansion.
    Using the current funded enrollment as a starting point, this 
analysis shows that the costs associated with the NPRM, when fully 
phased in after 7 years as currently proposed, can be mostly paid for 
by reducing enrollment levels to the FY2023 actual enrollment, leading 
to a funded enrollment level decline from 755,074 to 644,374.
    As compared to the current enrollment level of about 650,000, this 
represents about a 1 percent reduction from the current number of 
children served. In other words, implementation of these proposed 
regulatory changes would be a de minimis impact on actual enrollment. 
With additional appropriations--in excess of cost of living adjustments 
to keep pace with inflation--Head Start could avoid reducing funded 
enrollment below current actual enrollment. This analysis includes 
estimates of the necessary appropriations needed under the proposed 
policy to serve 650,000 children, which reflects the estimated FY2023 
actual enrollment. Sometimes the narrative description of this (same) 
analysis will be framed as estimating the increases in expenditures 
that would enable full implementation of this proposed rule without 
reducing funded enrollment below projected FY2023 funded enrollment 
levels.
    The largest elements of the proposed rule relate to staff wages and 
benefits for the Head Start workforce. To fully implement the staff 
wage provisions, including the wage-parity targets, minimum pay 
requirement, and impacts associated with wage compression, expenditures 
on wages \258\ would need to increase by about $1.0 billion (reported 
in nominal dollars) in 2030 and then maintained annually through a 
cost-of-living adjustment. In that same year, the expenditures on staff 
benefits, which include the policy to increase fringe benefits, would 
require about an additional $932 million, with further increases in 
line with wage growth. Also, in 2030, we identify the annual 
expenditures to fully implement the following provisions: staff breaks 
about $118 million; family service worker family assignments, $210 
million; and mental health supports, $152 million. We also quantify 
expenditures associated with preventing and addressing lead exposure 
and expenditures associated with program administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \258\ The additional benefits expenditures associated with 
increased wages under the wage policy at the baseline fringe rate of 
24% are included in the estimated benefits expenditures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In total, we estimate that full implementation would require an 
increase in expenditures of about $2.4 billion in 2030 assuming no 
reductions in the current funded enrollment level of 755,074, with 
further increases that are consistent with impacts tied to wage growth. 
Over a 10-year time horizon, which covers for the timeline that the 
proposed policies would take effect, we estimate annualized 
expenditures of $1.6 billion under a 3% discount rate or $1.5 billion 
under a 7% discount rate. In addition to calculating the expenditures 
necessary to fully implement the proposed rule, this analysis also 
considers a scenario of no additional funding above baseline funding 
levels (i.e., funding increasing over time, to account for inflation 
but not in response to this regulatory proposal). Under this scenario, 
we estimate that Head Start programs would need to reduce the total 
number of funded slots available by about 15% compared to projected 
FY2023 funded enrollment, or 1% from estimated FY2023 actual enrollment 
in 2030, to fully implement the proposed rule. Table 1 reports the 
summary of expenditures of the proposed rule, reported in constant 2023 
dollars and nominal dollars.

[[Page 80874]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20NO23.001

    We request comment on our estimates of benefits, costs, and 
transfers of this proposed rule. OHS specifically requests comment on 
how spending patterns when under enrolled may be different if funded 
enrollment were reduced and the possible impact on programs if spending 
were redirected towards the policies in this proposed rule.

Preliminary Economic Analysis of Impacts

A. Analytic Approach
    In conducting this analysis, we began by identifying the most 
consequential impacts that would likely occur under the proposed rule, 
if finalized. We identify expenditures associated with increases in 
staff wages and staff benefits for the Head Start workforce as the 
largest potential impact and devote significant attention to those 
effects. We also identify and monetize expenditures associated with 
staff breaks, expenditures associated with hiring additional family 
service workers, expenditures associated with the increased workload 
required to provide mental health supports, expenditures associated 
with preventing and addressing lead exposure, and expenditures 
associated with administrative implementation costs. We qualitatively 
discuss other impacts of the proposed rule.
    For the purposes of this analysis, we assume that the proposed 
rule, if it is finalized, will be published and begin to take effect 
before the 2024-2025 program year. To simplify the narrative, we 
describe effects occurring in that program year as occurring in `2024.' 
We adopt a time horizon of analysis of ten years, covering the period 
2024 through 2033.
    This analysis adopts a baseline forecast that assumes Federal 
appropriations grow at a constant rate of inflation in fiscal years 
2026 through 2033, with slower growth during fiscal years 2024 and 
2025.
    All analyses provided here were completed using national level 
estimations. In our main analysis, we estimate the increases in Federal 
appropriations needed to fulfill the goals of the proposed rule while 
also maintaining the size of the Head Start workforce consistent with 
the projected FY2023 funded enrollment level of 755,074 slots. We also 
present a sensitivity analysis that explores how the rule's effects 
would manifest themselves if there are no increases in Federal 
appropriations above baseline (or such increases occur but not in 
response to this regulatory proposal and/or the increased 
appropriations could not be used to support the policies in the 
proposed rule). For this scenario, we report the likely reductions in 
funded enrollment, and associated reductions in the size of the Head 
Start workforce, under the proposed rule. We also report the likely 
reductions in funded enrollment compared to the estimated FY2023 actual 
enrollment under the proposed rule.
    In general, we have rounded total cost estimates but have not 
rounded itemized cost estimates for transparency and reproducibility of 
the estimation process. These unrounded itemized cost estimates should 
not be interpreted as representing a particular degree of precision.
B. Baseline: Budget, Staffing, and Slots
Baseline Budget Scenario
    We measure the impacts of the rule against a common budget baseline 
forecast that assumes Federal appropriations grow at a constant rate of 
inflation in fiscal years 2026 through 2033, with slower growth during 
fiscal years 2024 and 2025. We adopt 2.3% for the rate of inflation for 
each year in the time horizon, matching an economic assumption in the 
President's Budget for Fiscal Year 2024.\259\ Across all years, we 
assume that the cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) for Head Start staff- 
the portion of Head Start that goes towards operations awards, will 
match the 2.3% rate of inflation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \259\ Office of Management and Budget. ``Analytical 
Perspectives, Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2024.'' 
Table 2-1 Economic Assumptions. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/spec_fy2024.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In FY2023, Head Start appropriations totaled $11,996,820,000.\260\ 
About 97% of these appropriations, $11.6 billion, will go towards 
operations awards; and from these operations awards, about 75% \261\ 
will go towards personnel costs, or about $8.7 billion. Compared to 
FY2023, we assume that FY2024

[[Page 80875]]

appropriations will increase to account for inflation for operations 
awards, but will not increase for other spending categories. Compared 
to FY2024, we assume that FY2025 appropriations will again increase to 
account for inflation for operations awards, with a 1% increase for 
other spending categories. Thus, we anticipate that total 
appropriations will increase by 2.22% in FY2024, 2.26% in FY2025, and 
2.3% in all future years. Table B1 reports the appropriations and 
funding breakdowns in nominal dollars over the time horizon of our 
analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \260\ H.R. 2617--Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023. https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/olab/fy-2024-congressional-justification.pdf.
    \261\ Budget data submitted to the Office of Head Start for 
FY2022, which is the most recent data available at the time this 
analysis was prepared, showed that about 74% of operations awards 
were allocated to personnel costs. In this analysis, we assume a 
majority share of the savings from the projected reduction in funded 
enrollment from FY2022 to FY2023 will go towards personnel costs, 
and will therefore increase the overall share of operations awards 
allocated to personnel costs to about 75%.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20NO23.002

Baseline Scenario for Staffing, Wages, and Enrollment
    This analysis adopts one scenario covering projections of staffing, 
wages, and enrollment at Head Start programs. This baseline scenario 
assumes long-run staffing, wages, and enrollment that are consistent 
with those projected for FY 2023, based on patterns observed in FY2022.
    This analysis assumes that all programs are fully enrolled, and 
that actual enrollment is consistent with funded enrollment. Therefore, 
the analysis does not distinguish between funded slots that are 
actually filled with enrolled families and funded slots that are 
vacant. These assumptions introduce uncertainty into the analysis, 
creating some tendency toward overestimation of effects (a tendency 
that would partially be mitigated by a number of decisions, for example 
if Head Start entities use excess funds, in the baseline, for teacher 
bonuses).\262\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \262\ For completeness, we also note that Head Start funding 
increases at greater than the rate of inflation (for reasons 
independent of this regulation being proposed) would lead to effects 
being underestimated in this analysis, if that funding is designated 
for expansion. For exploration not of overall magnitude of effects 
but instead related to the form they take, please see the 
sensitivity analysis below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We again note that this estimation does not account for the under-
enrollment that Head Start programs are currently facing. In 2023, Head 
Start programs are projected to be funded to serve 755,074 children; 
however, OHS estimates only about 650,000 children and families are 
actually being served. Many Head Start programs are requesting 
reductions to their funded enrollment, even while they continue to work 
to improve their enrollment. As this situation is unprecedented, it is 
nearly impossible to predict both funded and actual enrollment levels 
in future years.
    As such, OHS first estimates costs by using the FY2023 funded 
enrollment of 755,074 which represents the funding needed to implement 
the proposed rule and maintain current funded enrollment, or the 
maximum appropriations needed to fully implement the proposed rule. 
Using the cost per slot determined by this estimate, we also describe 
the necessary appropriations needed to maintain funded slots to serve 
650,000 children, which reflects the FY2023 actual enrollment. 
Relatedly, we also provide estimates of the reduction in the total 
number of funded slots in a scenario where no additional funding is 
provided (or funding increases occur but not in response to this 
proposal), compared to both projected FY2023 funded enrollment and to 
estimated FY2023 actual enrollment.
    Our baseline scenario is informed by staffing levels, credentials, 
wage rates, and enrollment figures from Program Information Report 
(PIR) data covering 2022,\263\ with a few adjustments. The PIR contains 
program-level counts of teachers, assistant teachers, home visitors, 
and family child care providers, each disaggregated by type of 
credential. For teachers and assistant teachers, we observe the 
following credential categories: advanced degree, baccalaureate degree 
(BA), associate degree (AA), Child Development Associate (CDA) 
credential, and no credential. For home visitors and family child care 
providers, we observe whether staff holds a credential, but not the 
type of credential. We make the following adjustments to the raw 2022 
PIR data:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \263\ https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/data-ongoing-monitoring/article/program-information-report-pir.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) We adjust the counts of each role-credential combination to 
account for a small share of staff without any credential information, 
which is less than 0.3% of total staff. For simplicity, we assume that 
the credentials of staff without this information are distributed in 
proportion with the observed credentials of other staff in the same 
role.
    (2) We augment the 2022 PIR data with 2019 PIR data, which 
contained information on the specific credential

[[Page 80876]]

type for home visitors and family child care providers. We assume that, 
conditional on reporting any credential in 2022, the credentials of 
staff with each credential type are distributed in proportion with 
observed credentials of other credentialed staff in the same role in 
2019.
    With these adjustments, we report 36,517 Head Start teachers, 
32,286 Early Head Start teachers, 38,316 Head Start assistant teachers, 
6,676 home visitors, and 2,046 family child care providers. Table B2 
reports these counts by credential type.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20NO23.003

    In 2022, Head Start programs were funded to serve 833,075 slots and 
reported 115,841 education staff. At the time this analysis was 
prepared, ACF did not have comparable information from the PIR for 
2023, which is ongoing; however, we anticipate significant changes to 
staffing levels, wage rates, and slots compared to those observed in 
2022 for reasons described above. We anticipate enrollment reductions, 
including through requests from programs proposing to reduce their 
funded enrollment to maintain quality of program services.\264\ We 
currently project 755,074 funded slots, or a 9% reduction in funded 
enrollment in 2023 compared to 2022, and adopt a corresponding 
reduction in education staff by the same percentage. Compared to a 
scenario of no reduction in slots or education staff, we anticipate 
that this will lead to increases in total compensation for education 
staff. Again, this does not reflect the difference between funded 
enrollment and actual enrollment of families in the program. OHS 
anticipates that funded enrollment will continue to decline; however, 
for the reasons described above, we model projections based on funded 
enrollment in 2023 at 755,074 for the purposes of this analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \264\ https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/policy/im/acf-im-hs-22-09.
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20NO23.004
    

[[Page 80877]]


Connecting Baseline Uncertainty With Differing Estimates of Regulatory 
Effects
    Head Start programs must be in a position to serve their full 
funded enrollment at all times, regardless of their actual enrollment 
levels. When programs are under-enrolled, they must continue their 
operations in a way that is sufficient to serve their funded 
enrollment. As Head Start funds are allocated to a variety of fixed 
cost categories (like facilities, personnel, supplies, and 
transportation), only some of these costs are saved when a funded slot 
is empty. If a slot is empty, a program must still pay for a facility 
with classrooms, along with utilities and maintenance. Programs must 
also attempt to hire (or, spend the associated funds recruiting) staff, 
and have transportation that can accommodate the slot. Where there is a 
difference between actual and funded enrollment, the majority of the 
difference in allocated funding is used in this manner, thus doing 
little to improve the Head Start experience for remaining students.
    Therefore, to the extent that under-enrolled Head Start programs 
will, over the analytic time horizon of this regulatory impact 
assessment, be approved to reduce their funded enrollment without those 
slots being shifted to other Head Start entities, the estimates that 
use actual enrollment as a key input or comparison--for example, the 
rightmost columns of Tables J1 and K5--are informative and meaningful. 
By contrast, if reductions of funded enrollment at entities that are 
under-enrolled in the baseline were accompanied (also in the baseline) 
by shifting of those slots to other Head Start entities, the estimates 
that use funded enrollment as a key comparison are more informative. 
Similarly, if under-enrollment were to ease in the future (perhaps to 
due further stabilization in the labor market as the biggest 
disruptions of the COVID-19 pandemic recede into the past), the latter 
set of estimates should receive the analytic focus.
C. Workforce Supports: Staff Wages and Staff Benefits
    The proposed rule outlines four areas of proposed requirements for 
wages for Head Start staff: (1) that education staff working directly 
with children as part of their daily job responsibilities must receive 
a salary comparable to preschool teachers in public school settings in 
the program's local school district, adjusted for qualifications, 
experience, and job responsibilities; (2) to establish or enhance a 
salary scale, wage ladder, or other pay structure that applies to all 
staff in the program and takes into account job responsibilities, hours 
worked, and qualifications and experience relevant to the position; (3) 
that all staff must receive a salary that is sufficient to cover basic 
costs of living in their geographic area, including those at the lowest 
end of the pay structure; and (4) to affirm and emphasize that the 
requirements for pay parity should also promote comparability of wages 
across Head Start Preschool and Early Head Start staff positions.
    The proposed rule also outlines requirements for grant recipients 
to provide benefits to staff, discussing health insurance, paid sick 
leave, paid vacation or personal leave, paid family leave, access to 
short-term free or low-cost mental health services, and other 
considerations. We also describe an alternative policy scenario in 
which retirement benefits are also included in the proposed benefit 
requirements, see Section K below.
    In this section, we describe baseline wages for Head Start 
education staff and their corresponding wage-parity targets. We also 
describe baseline staff benefits and the enhanced-benefit policy.
Wage-Parity Targets
    The proposed rule would result in Head Start staff receiving an 
annual salary commensurate with preschool teachers in local public 
school settings, adjusted for qualifications, experience, and job 
responsibilities. The target comparison of preschool teachers in public 
school settings is intended to represent substantial progress towards 
parity with public school elementary teachers. Specifically, we intend 
the benchmark of preschool teacher annual salaries in public school 
settings to represent about 90% of kindergarten teacher annual 
salaries, for those with comparable qualifications.\265\ While wage 
rates would be determined locally, we present estimates of the likely 
impact measured at the national level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \265\ This analysis uses BLS average annual salaries as wage 
targets. However, since the BLS national average for kindergarten 
teacher salaries ($65,120) includes all kindergarten teachers, of 
which approximately half have a master's degree or higher, adjust 
this annual salary to reflect the target salary for a teacher with a 
bachelor's degree ($58,608) guided by salary differences observed in 
National Center for Education Statistics data (https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/ntps/). The BLS reported annual salary for preschool teacher 
in school settings ($53,200) is therefore approximately 90% of the 
annual salary for kindergarten teachers with a bachelor's degree 
($58,608).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the purposes of this analysis, we adopt an estimate of the 
target salary in 2022 of $53,200, which corresponds to the mean annual 
wage for preschool teachers in elementary and school-based settings as 
reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for occupation code 25-2011, 
Preschool Teachers, Except Special Education for 2022.\266\ This 
estimate is intended to be consistent with the requirement that annual 
salaries be ``comparable to preschool teachers in public school 
settings.'' We assume that a typical Preschool teacher works 1,680 
hours per year, so this annual salary corresponded to a $31.67 hourly 
wage in 2022, or a $32.95 hourly wage in 2023 under an assumption that 
Preschool teacher salaries will grow approximately in relation to 
inflation.\267\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \266\ U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Occupational Employment 
and Wages. May 2022. 25-2011 Preschool Teachers, Except Special 
Education. https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes252011.htm.
    \267\ Multiplied by a ratio of May 2023 (304.127) to May 2022 
(292.296) CPI. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. CPI for all Urban 
Consumers (CPI-U), Not Seasonally Adjusted, https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CUUR0000SA0. Accessed June 19, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We adopt this estimate as the hourly wage target for teachers, home 
visitors, and family child care providers with a BA, which serves as 
the base wage rate for other credentials. For staff in these roles with 
an advanced degree (i.e., master's degree or higher), we adopt an 
hourly wage target 10% above the base wage rate; for AA degrees, 20% 
below the base wage rate; for CDA, 30% below the base wage rate; and 
for no credential, 40% below the base wage rate. For assistant 
teachers, who often have fewer responsibilities than lead teachers, we 
adopt hourly wage targets that are about 17% less than other roles. For 
example, the wage rate target for assistant teachers with a BA is 
$27.35 per hour. Table C1 reports the hourly wage targets for each 
staff role by credential under the proposed rule and the baseline 
scenario.
    We note that the assumption that a typical Preschool teacher works 
1,680 hours per year differs with the source of the annual wage data 
comparison. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) assumes a ``year-
round, full-time hours figure of 2,080 hours'' which is consistent with 
a 40-hour work week for all 52 weeks of the year. The proposed policy 
requires comparable annual salaries, however hourly estimates are 
provided and used here for the purposes of calculating the estimated 
impacts of the proposed policies. We have therefore chosen to calculate 
the hourly target wage using 1,680 hours, which is our estimate of the 
number of paid hours worked by preschool education staff. We request 
comment on the best approach to handle the discrepancy in assumptions 
about the number of hours worked. In particular, we request

[[Page 80878]]

comment on the best estimate for the annual hours worked by Head Start 
education staff, as well as by preschool teachers in public school 
settings. We further request comment on the degree to which paid hours 
worked aligns with actual hours worked, as education staff in both Head 
Start and preschools in public school settings may perform additional 
work tasks outside official work hours.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20NO23.005

    To estimate the likely impact of the wage-parity policy on 
expenditures, we calculate the expenditures under the baseline 
scenario, then calculate the expenditures needed to fund the wage 
increases. Table C2 reports these impacts under the baseline scenario. 
Note that these are reported in constant 2023 dollars.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20NO23.006

Disaggregation of Wage-Parity Policy Implementation Costs
    While estimates in this analysis are performed at the national 
level, the cost of implementing the wage policies will likely not be 
borne equally by each program. Programmatic data suggests Head Start 
programs vary in their current compensation practices and therefore 
will likely have varying costs associated with implementing the wage 
parity policy. Head Start data shows that wages and enrollment are not 
distributed evenly across various program types. Furthermore, some 
programs across the country are experiencing a workforce shortage and 
are in varying stages of implementing changes to address issues related 
to lack of qualified and available staff to fill classrooms and 
associated under-enrollment.
    Data from 2019 PIR shows that programs located in school systems 
pay classroom teachers at the highest rate, on average. Grant 
recipients in school districts also have more programs that are fully 
enrolled compared to other agencies. Meanwhile, grant recipients that 
are Community Action Agencies are, on average, the lowest paying agency 
type and pay more than $10,000 less annually to classroom teachers, on 
average, compared to school systems.
    Finally, ACF published sub-regulatory guidance to encourage Head 
Start programs to increase staff and teacher wages. Some Head Start 
programs have responded to this guidance by requesting to reduce their 
funded enrollment in order to increase staff wages, but those programs 
are in varying stages of implementing these changes.
    Given this information, we expect that the cost of implementing 
these proposed policies will vary depending on a variety of factors, 
such as agency type. For instance, programs in school systems that 
already compensate at a higher level, will likely incur lower costs 
when implementing the wage policies in this proposal compared to 
programs in Community Action Agencies that, on average, tend to provide 
lower compensation. The costs of implementing these proposed policies 
will likely further vary based on the local wage targets used for each 
program, the distribution of qualifications for existing staff, and the 
degree to which each program has already made efforts to improve 
compensation.

[[Page 80879]]

    The national estimates provided in this analysis cannot necessarily 
be applied at the individual program level. For instance, the hourly 
wage targets described in the previous section (Table C2) represent 
national averages and targets for individual programs will vary based 
on salaries for preschool teachers in their community. Program-level 
wage targets will vary based on factors such as local compensation 
rates and cost of living. Depending on the existing compensation 
structure in each program, some programs will have to increase their 
hourly wages substantially, and others may only need to make small 
increases. Program-level costs for implementing this policy are 
expected to be impacted by a variety of factors such as local pay 
compensation rates, education/credential levels of program staff, and 
the degree to which programs have already attempted to increase wages.
    HHS acknowledges that a limitation of using national level 
estimates is that these program-level nuances are not specifically 
illustrated in the analysis. However, using national averages to 
estimate costs at the national level accounts, in some ways but not 
others, for program-level variation.
Impact of the Minimum Pay Requirement
    The proposed rule would require that all staff receive, at minimum, 
a salary that is sufficient to cover basic costs of living in their 
geographic area, including those at the lowest end of the pay 
structure. We anticipate that Head Start programs in low-income areas 
would spend additional resources to fulfill the basic cost-of-living 
requirement. We assume that the incremental impact of this provision is 
approximately $116 million per year, which accounts for $88 million 
through hourly wage increases, and $28 million in corresponding 
increases in non-wage benefits. This estimate is consistent with about 
15% of all Head Start staff, about 35,000 staff members in the 
baseline, each working an average of 30 hours per week for 42 weeks, 
receiving an additional $2.00 \268\ per hour in wages to meet the goal 
of establishing a minimum hourly wage of $15.00, or a total average 
increase in hourly compensation of $2.63.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \268\ In the absence of data from Head Start programs that 
reports the wages paid to the lowest paid staff, this estimate 
assumes that all of the 35,000 staff earned minimum wage in their 
State in 2022, which is consistent with an average hourly wage of 
$10.68. The estimate of average minimum wage was calculated using 
the minimum wage for each State (https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/mw-consolidated) and the number of Head Start staff in each State 
according to administrative data from the Office of Head Start in 
2022. For those staff where minimum wage data were not available due 
to lack of data for the U.S. Territory or data entry error, the 
Federal minimum wage of $7.25 was used. In the baseline analysis, we 
assume that all staff receive a pay increase, to $13.00 per hour, 
due to the projected reductions in funded enrollment from FY2022 to 
FY2023, and the associated reduction in staff and increased share of 
personnel funds. These staff would therefore need an additional 
$2.00 per hour to meet the $15 per hour minimum pay policy goal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Impact on Expenditures Through Wage Compression
    In addition to the direct impacts on teachers, assistant teachers, 
home visitors, and family child care providers, we anticipate that the 
proposed rule would result in increased compensation for family service 
workers as well as other non-education staff positions to address wage 
compression and wage equity issues that would arise. For example, 
proposed wage increases to lead teachers may far exceed what a 
similarly credentialed family service worker makes in a program and 
those programs would need to plan for compensation increases for such 
staff to avoid a significant wage gap between those positions. As 
another example, with rising wages for education staff, other staff in 
supervisory or mid-management roles would likely receive wage increases 
as well (e.g., coaches, education managers, etc.). To account for this 
impact, we assume that the total impacts on expenditures associated 
with wages would be 10% higher than the sum of the impacts associated 
with wage targets and the minimum pay requirement. We seek comment on 
whether 10% is an appropriate adjustment to estimate expenses that 
programs will incur to avoid wage compression.
Overall Impacts of Wage Parity on Expenditures, Holding Benefits 
Constant
    Next, we report the total expenditures, including the impacts of 
the wage targets, minimum pay requirement, and impacts associated with 
wage compression. Table C3 reports the net impacts on expenditures, 
holding benefits constant. The ``wage targets'' row is equal to the 
totals of the ``expenditure increase'' rows contained in Tables C1 and 
C2. When pay parity is fully implemented, the wages policies would 
result in about $875 million in additional annual expenditures on 
wages.\269\ Note that these estimates are reported in constant 2023 
dollars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \269\ The additional annual expenditures on fringe associated 
with the wage policies (i.e., the fringe associated with the 
increased wages in the wage policies at the baseline fringe rate of 
24%), are included in the estimates reported in Table C6 in the 
benefits section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20NO23.007

    The estimates in Table C3 reflect the expenditures needed to fully 
implement pay parity, which would occur in 2030 under the NPRM, if 
finalized. Table C4 reports the expenditures by year under the 
implementation schedule, reported in constant 2023 dollars and also 
nominal dollars.

[[Page 80880]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20NO23.008

Expenditures Associated With Fringe Benefits
    As discussed above, based on an analysis of current Head Start 
programs, about 24% of total personnel costs go towards fringe 
benefits, rather than wage compensation. Table B1 reports personnel 
costs of about $8.7 billion in 2023. Of this figure, 76% goes to wage 
compensation, or about $6.6 billion, and 24% goes to fringe benefits, 
or about $2.1 billion. We assume that this ratio will remain constant 
over time, absent the staff benefits provisions of the proposed rule.
    The proposed rule outlines requirements for grant recipients to 
provide benefits to staff, discussing health insurance, paid sick 
leave, vacation or personal leave, paid family leave, short term mental 
health services, and other considerations. In our alternative policy 
scenario, discussed further in Section K, grant recipients would also 
be required to provide retirement benefits to staff. For the purposes 
of this analysis, we assume that these enhancements would increase the 
share of total personnel costs that go towards fringe benefits from 24% 
to 27.8%, or to 32.5% in the alternative policy scenario, holding wages 
compensation constant. Absent all other provisions in the NPRM, 
adopting the benefits policy at baseline wages would increase fringe 
benefits in constant 2023 dollars from $2.1 billion to about $2.5 
billion, and total compensation from about $8.7 billion to $9.2 
billion, for an increase of about $458 million.\270\ In nominal 
dollars, these impacts would increase with the Head Start COLA, or 2.3% 
per year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \270\ Under the Required Retirement Scenario and absent all 
other provisions in the NPRM, adopting the benefits policy at 
baseline wages would increase fringe benefits in constant 2023 
dollars from $2.1 billion to about $3.2 billion, and total 
compensation from about $8.7 billion to $9.8 billion, for an 
increase of about $1.1 billion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table C5 reports the impacts of the benefit policy over time, 
accounting for the yearly impact of the wage policies reported in Table 
C4, reported in constant and nominal dollars. These tables report the 
changes to benefits, some of which are driven by wage increases of the 
wage policies.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20NO23.009


[[Page 80881]]


Disaggregation of Fringe Benefit Estimates
    To estimate the cost associated with each category of benefits in 
the proposed rule, we refer to the distribution of benefits provided to 
teachers,\271\ who have an overall fringe rate of 32.5% according to 
data on employer costs for employee compensation released by BLS in 
December 2022.\272\ There are more categories of benefits provided to 
teachers described by the BLS than will be required under the proposed 
rule, specifically retirement benefits are provided to teachers in the 
BLS data. In order to estimate the expenditures on the major benefits 
categories that will be required under the proposed rule, we first 
estimate the cost of Head Start teachers receiving the same fringe rate 
and major benefits categories (32.5%: health insurance, retirement, and 
paid leave). We then calculate the associated reduction in fringe 
associated with removing the retirement benefit in order to estimate 
the cost of the benefits policy under the proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \271\ This occupational group was chosen because the total 
fringe rate aligns with internal estimates of the total fringe rate 
that would be associated with the proposed benefit policies. The 
occupational group includes postsecondary teachers; primary, 
secondary, and special education teachers; and other teachers and 
instructors.
    \272\ https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_03172023.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We tentatively apply the same distribution of fringe associated 
with each fringe category to the estimated expenditure on benefits for 
Head Start using the same overall fringe rate of 32.5%, which 
represents an increase of 8.5% from the current fringe rate. We then 
calculate the increased expenditure needed for each of the major 
benefits categories: health insurance, retirement, and paid leave, 
compared to existing expenditures in each category for Head Start 
programs.\273\ This approach estimates that of the total projected cost 
associated with increasing the fringe rate from 24.0% to 32.5%, 16.6% 
will be accounted for by increased spending on health insurance. 
Increased spending on retirement will account for 54.7% of the total 
projected cost, and increased spending on paid leave will account for 
28.7% of the total projected cost. Thus, of the total increase of 8.5% 
in fringe, we anticipate about 1.4% of this increase will go towards 
health insurance, 4.7% of this increase will go towards retirement 
benefits, and 2.4% will go towards paid leave.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \273\ Estimates based on average fringe for each category of 
benefits calculated from a sample of Head Start program budgets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As retirement benefits are only proposed to be required under the 
alternative policy scenario, we reduce the estimated increase on fringe 
by the increase associated with retirement benefits, 4.7%, for a target 
fringe rate of 27.8% under the benefits policy in the proposed rule. 
Under the proposed rule, increased spending on health insurance will 
account for 37% of the total cost of the benefits policy, and increased 
spending on paid leave will account for the remaining 63% of the total 
cost of the benefits policy.
    Table C6 reports an expenditure breakdown for each major category 
of benefits that would be impacted by the proposed rule.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20NO23.010

    We identify several significant caveats to this analysis. First, 
because many existing Head Start grant recipients provide health 
insurance, the growth in costs for expanded health insurance may be 
smaller than projected. We do expect that there will be improvements in 
the quality of health plans and what employees are covered, and 
increases in the provision of life and disability insurance, which may 
increase overall insurance costs for some grant recipients, but it is 
likely not to increase linearly with wage increases. Further, some 
grant recipients may choose to encourage staff to enroll in plans 
available in the Marketplace because the quality and expenses of health 
insurance in the Marketplace may be better than what they can obtain as 
an employer, and therefore the proportion of fringe spent on insurance 
for those grant recipients would decrease. Second, legally required 
fringe components such as Social Security taxes and retirement and 
savings fringe are not necessarily comparable between the reference 
group of teachers included in the BLS data and Head Start staff. Many 
elementary teachers are State

[[Page 80882]]

employees and not all State employees are covered by Social Security 
because they are covered by State pension plans; as a result, legally 
required fringe may be lower and retirement fringe higher for teachers 
relative to a comparable benefits package for Head Start staff.
Discussion of Uncertainty
    We have attempted to provide our best estimates of the potential 
effects of the staff wages and staff benefit provisions. We acknowledge 
several significant and unresolved sources of uncertainty. First, we 
note that these estimates use a single baseline, which is a limitation 
of this analysis. We have provided estimates using a single baseline 
that assumes a stable funded enrollment level consistent with projected 
FY2023 funded enrollment of 755,074. If funded enrollment were to 
increase, which would require Congressional investment designated for 
expansion (and such increase occurs for reasons separate from this 
regulatory proposal), the impacts of this proposed rule would be 
underestimated. If funded enrollment were to decrease, particularly if 
it were to decrease below the level of our current actual enrollment of 
650,000, then the impacts of this proposed rule would be overestimated. 
Furthermore, if other baseline assumptions were to vary, such as the 
child-to-staff ratio or the share of appropriations allocated to 
personnel costs, that would also impact the estimated effects. However, 
absent guiding data for the timing and magnitude of these possible 
variations, OHS presents estimates using the single, data-informed 
baseline.
    Second, we followed a partial equilibrium modeling approach, 
focusing the primary scope of our analysis on the impacts to Head 
Start. General equilibrium modeling could potentially explore the 
impacts of the proposed rule on wages beyond Head Start staff. These 
effects could be informative for the estimates on expenditures, since 
wage increases experienced by Head Start staff could result in wage 
increases to other occupations that draw from a similar supply of 
workers, such as Kindergarten teachers. It is possible to anticipate a 
gradual feedback effect between Head Start staff and occupations that 
provide reference wages under the wage-parity policy. If this is the 
case, this would tend to indicate that our expenditure estimates are 
underestimated.
    Third, the analysis assumes that average compensation for Head 
Start staff (in the baseline scenario) and preschool teachers in public 
school settings (in the baseline scenario and under the NPRM) increases 
with inflation, or equivalently, that their average compensation 
remains constant in real terms, over the time horizon of this analysis. 
If compensation for preschool teachers in public school settings grows 
more slowly over time than compensation for Head Start staff, this 
would tend to indicate that our expenditure estimates are 
overestimated. Alternatively, if compensation for preschool teachers in 
public school settings grows faster than compensation for Head Start 
staff, this would tend to indicate that our expenditure estimates are 
underestimated.
    In regard to the inherent uncertainty over the availability of 
funding to fully implement this proposed rule, if finalized, Section J 
presents a sensitivity analysis on that significant source of 
uncertainty.
D. Workforce Supports: Staff Wellness--Staff Breaks
    The proposed rule outlines requirements for programs to provide 
break times during work shifts. Specifically, for each staff member 
working a shift lasting between four and six hours, programs would be 
required to provide a minimum of one 15-minute break per shift; and for 
each staff member working a shift lasting six hours or more, programs 
would be required to provide a minimum of one 30-minute break per 
shift.
    The scope of this element of the proposed rule covers approximately 
104,995 education staff, the estimate of education staff that is 
proportionally decreased to reflect the reduced enrollment in 2023 
compared to 2022. We assume that 13% of education staff typically work 
shifts lasting between four and six hours, and that 87% of education 
staff typically work shifts lasting 6 hours or more. Thus, across all 
staff, the proposed rule would require an average break time of about 
28 minutes per shift.\274\ We assume 180 average shifts per year for 
each education staff, for a total of 5,049 minutes of break time per 
year per staff.\275\ For 104,995 total education staff, the proposed 
rule would require a minimum of about 8.8 million hours of break time 
per year.\276\ We do not have detailed information from Head Start 
programs on their current policies for staff breaks. For the purposes 
of this analysis, we adopt the following assumptions:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \274\ 13% * 15 + 87% * 30 = 28.05.
    \275\ 2,805 * 180 = 5,049.
    \276\ 5,049 * 104,995/60 = 8,835,310.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) Under the baseline scenario of no regulatory action, 20% of 
Head Start programs offer break time for education staff.
    (2) Under the proposed rule, 50% of Head Start programs would shift 
the workloads of existing Head Start staff to provide coverage during 
the additional breaks.
    (3) Under the proposed rule, Head Start programs who do not already 
provide breaks and cannot shift workloads of existing staff would 
provide coverage during the additional breaks by hiring `floaters.'
    (4) On average, Head Start programs would pay the `floaters' hourly 
wages in line with assistant teachers with no credential.
    In line with assumptions 1 and 2, we adjust the 8.8 million hours 
estimate downwards by 70% and estimate that the proposed rule would 
result in about 2.7 million hours of additional breaks for educational 
staff. Using the wage target for assistant teachers of $16.41 per hour 
under the wage-parity target, this policy would result in additional 
expenditures of about $57 million per year, or $60 million when also 
accounting for the benefits policy.\277\ This policy would take effect 
in 2027, and the total expenditures would increase in line with the 
wages under the wage-parity policy. Table D1 reports the expenditures 
needed to fund this policy, in constant and nominal dollars. Table D2 
reports the additional value-of-time costs by year for those programs 
who provide breaks by shifting existing workloads, in constant and 
nominal dollars. Both Table D1 and Table D2 reflect the policy cost 
using the benefits fringe rate in the proposed benefits policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \277\ Under the Required Retirement Scenario, the Breaks policy 
would cost $64 million in Constant 2023 dollars.

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

[[Page 80883]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20NO23.011

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20NO23.012

E. Family Service Worker Family Assignments
    The proposed rule would ensure the planned number of families 
assigned to work with individual family services staff is no greater 
than 40, unless a program can demonstrate higher family assignments 
provide high quality family and community engagement services and 
maintain reasonable staff workload. 2019 PIR data reveals that 
approximately 50 percent of programs have staff family assignments that 
are 40 families or less. Across all programs with ratios of families 
per family services staff that exceed 40, we estimate that Head Start 
programs would need to hire an additional 3,231 family service workers 
to meet this requirement at the funded enrollment level projected for 
FY2023, compared to the baseline scenario. This estimate includes an 
assumption that 10% of programs will exceed a caseload of 40,\278\ as 
is allowable under the proposed policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \278\ For the purposes of this estimation we assume that all of 
the programs that exceed the threshold have an average caseload of 
60.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We adopt an estimate of $40,000 in wage compensation per year per 
family service worker, which results in a $52,631 total compensation in 
the baseline scenario or $55,401 total compensation under the benefit 
policy.\279\ For 3,231 workers, this would result in additional 
expenditures across Head Start programs of $179,002,770. This policy 
would begin to take effect in 2027. Table E1 reports the expenditures 
needed to fund this policy, in constant and nominal dollars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \279\ Under the Required Retirement Scenario total compensation 
for each additional family service worker would be $59,259 in 
constant 2023 dollars.

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

[[Page 80884]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20NO23.013

F. Mental Health Services
    The proposed rule would enhance requirements for mental health 
supports to integrate mental health more fully into every aspect of 
program services as well as elevate the role of mental health 
consultation to support the wellbeing of children, families, and staff. 
We anticipate that this element of the proposed rule would result in 
additional work for a variety of program staff, which we estimate will 
add up to together to be roughly equivalent to one full-time employee 
(FTE) per Head Start agency. We estimate 1,564 agencies needing the 
additional FTE to comply with the proposed policy.
    We adopt an estimate of $60,000 in wage compensation per year per 
FTE which represents an average of the various salaries of the staff 
members who we assume will complete the additional work. In addition to 
wage compensation, we assume that fringe benefits will be associated 
with the additional FTE, or about $18,947 under the baseline 
assumptions for benefits, or $23,102 under the benefit policy. In 
total, under the proposed rule, we estimate that each additional FTE 
would require $78,947 in total compensation in years prior to the 
effective date of the benefits policy, and $83,102 in total 
compensation in all future years. For 1,564 FTEs, this would result in 
additional expenditures across Head Start programs of 
$129,972,299.\280\ We assume that these impacts would begin 
immediately. Table F1 reports the expenditures needed to fund this 
policy, in constant and nominal dollars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \280\ Under the Required Retirement Scenario, the fringe 
associated with each additional FTE is estimated to be $28,889 for a 
total compensation of $88,889. The total policy cost for the mental 
health policy under the Robust Benefit Scenario is $139 million.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20NO23.014


[[Page 80885]]


G. Preventing and Addressing Lead Exposure
    The proposed rule includes new requirements on preventing and 
addressing lead exposure through water and lead-based paint in Head 
Start facilities. This analysis presents estimates of the costs 
associated with testing and remediating water fixtures, and costs 
associated with evaluating and reducing the hazards from lead paint in 
classrooms and common areas at Head Start facilities.
Lead in Water
    To assess the likely magnitude of the costs associated with the 
lead in water requirement, we first adopt estimates of 19,400 service 
locations, with an average of 7.5 water fixtures per service location, 
for 145,500 total fixtures. We assume that half of these fixtures would 
be tested annually, and half of these fixtures would be tested once 
every 5 years. Thus, in a given year, about 60% of the total fixtures, 
or 87,300 fixtures, would be tested per year. We adopt an estimate of 
$100 per fixture tested, for an annual cost associated with testing of 
$8,730,000. In addition to these testing costs, we assume that 25% of 
fixtures, or 35,375 fixtures, will require ongoing remediation using 
point-of-use devices. We identify filter replacements as largest cost 
associated with remediation, and adopt an estimate of $30 per filter, 
with filters replaced quarterly, or a cost per fixture of $120 per 
year. Across 35,375 fixtures requiring ongoing remediation, we 
calculate an annual cost of $4,365,000 for remediation. In total, we 
estimate $13,095,000 per year in annual costs associated with testing 
and remediating water fixtures. Some of this cost can be covered by 
Federal funding under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (as enacted by 
the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act); many states are already 
using this funding.
Lead-Based Paint
    To assess the likely magnitude of the costs associated with the 
lead-based paint requirement, we first adopt estimates of 25,409 total 
rooms across Head Start facilities, consisting of 19,500 classrooms and 
5,909 common areas. We assume that about 46% Head Start facilities were 
constructed prior to 1978 and would require a lead-hazard evaluation 
under the proposed rule. Thus, about 11,688 rooms would require 
evaluation. We adopt an estimate of $700 per room for the evaluations, 
which would consist of a lead-based paint inspection and risk 
assessment. Across all rooms requiring evaluation, we estimate an 
initial total cost associated with evaluations of about $8.2 million.
    Of rooms undergoing an evaluation, we assume that 43.8% of rooms 
would be identified as potentially having a lead-based paint hazard 
requiring abatement.281 282 Thus, after the first round of 
assessments covering 11,688 rooms, we estimate that 5,125 rooms would 
require abatement. We assume that half of the rooms requiring abatement 
would require interior paint repair, with a per-room cost of $710; that 
half of the rooms would require friction/impact work, with a per-room 
cost of $280; and assume that that all rooms undergoing abatement would 
incur costs associated with unit cleanup of $430 per room and costs 
associated with clearance of $170 per room. In total, we estimate an 
average cost of abatement of $1,095 per room. Across all 5,125 rooms 
requiring abatement following the first round of assessments, this 
would be about $5.6 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \281\ https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/HH/documents/AHHS_II_Lead_Findings_Report_Final_29oct21.pdf.
    \282\ We note that the First National Environmental Health 
Survey of Child Care Centers published by HUD in 2003, found that 
child care centers were significantly less likely to have lead-based 
hazards than residences. As such, cost of the proposed rule may be 
overestimated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule outlines a process for subsequent assessments for 
rooms requiring abatement. These reassessments occur at least once 
every 2 years unless two reassessments conducted two years apart 
identify no lead-based paint hazards. To model assessments in future 
years, we assume that 21.9% of all rooms that are reassessed will 
require abatement, which is half the rate of abatement compared to 
initial assessments. Thus, for the 5,125 rooms that required abatement, 
we estimate that 1,124 would require additional abatement. The other 
4,001 rooms would still require a second reassessment. Table G1 reports 
the number of assessments and abatements by year, the costs of those 
assessments and abatements, and the yearly costs of the lead-based 
paint policy.
BILLING CODE 4184-40-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20NO23.015


[[Page 80886]]


    Table G2 reports the yearly costs associated with the lead in water 
policy, the lead-based paint policy, and the total cost associated with 
the two lead policies in constant and nominal dollars.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20NO23.016

BILLING CODE 4184-40-C
H. Administrative Costs
    Several of the provisions of the NPRM would likely entail 
additional administrative costs beyond those that we have otherwise 
quantified in this analysis. For example, we anticipate that programs 
would expend resources to develop program-specific policies while 
preparing to implement the workforce wage and benefits provisions. To 
account for these impacts, we adopt an assumption that each Head Start 
program would spend a total of 600 hours per program, spread across 
directors, education managers, disability managers, health managers, 
and other management staff to develop program-specific policies. To 
value the time spent on these activities, we adopt a fully loaded 
hourly wage of $60 per hour, reflecting a mix of wages across several 
roles. We assume that this impact would primarily occur in the first 
year of the time horizon of our analysis, before most of the impacts 
associated with wage and benefits policies take effect, and thus we do 
not adjust these upwards to account for other provisions of the 
proposed rule. For each program, we value this impact at $36,000.\283\ 
Across 3,000 programs, we estimate the total impact as $108 million, 
all occurring in 2024.\284\ We request comment on whether 600 hours is 
a reasonable assumption for each program to review, understand, and 
plan for implementation for these proposed changes to the standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \283\ $36,000 = 600 hours * $60/hour.
    \284\ $108,000,000 = $36,000/program * 3,000 programs. Head 
Start funding is only used for a portion of the salaries of these 
management positions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Timing of Impacts
    The proposed rule includes an implementation timeline for several 
of the provisions, described above. Table I1 summarizes the impacts on 
expenditures assuming a funded enrollment level consistent with the 
projected FY2023 funded enrollment, consistent with this implementation 
timeline, reporting yearly estimates, and present value and annualized 
values corresponding to 3% and 7% discount rates, with all monetary 
estimates reported in millions of constant 2023 dollars. Table I2 
reports the same impacts except in nominal dollars.
BILLING CODE 4184-40-P

[[Page 80887]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20NO23.017

BILLING CODE 4184-40-C
    All estimates reported above are impacts compared to our baseline 
budget scenario described reported in Table B1. Further, we calculate 
the cost per child, in 2030, when the rule is fully implemented, using 
2023 funded enrollment levels to be $21,797 (nominal dollars). As 
discussed previously, we recognize that projected FY2023 funded 
enrollment greatly exceeds estimated FY2023 actual enrollment. If 
programs were to fully implement the proposed policies and maintain 
funded enrollment at least consistent with FY2023 actual enrollment 
(i.e., 650,000), they would not need additional appropriations beyond 
the baseline budget scenario until 2030, when they would need an 
additional $118 million. In 2031, programs would again need an 
additional $118 million, $122 million in 2032, and additional $124 
million in 2033 above the baseline budget scenario funding levels to 
fully implement the proposed policies and maintain a funded enrollment 
level consistent with estimated FY2023 actual enrollment.
J. Sensitivity Analysis--Potential Enrollment Reductions
    In the previous analysis, we framed results as the Federal 
appropriations increase needed to fully fund these requirements and 
maintain current funded enrollment of 755,074.
    However, in the interest of transparency, we perform a sensitivity 
analysis to evaluate the impacts of the proposed rule under a scenario 
of no additional funding above the baseline budget scenario in Table B1 
(or increased appropriations that cannot be used to support this 
regulatory proposal and/or are not increased in response to it). Under 
this scenario, Head Start programs would likely comply with the 
proposed rule by reducing the size of their funded enrollment, which 
would also result in a reduced workforce at Head Start programs.
    To calculate the number of slots at Head Start programs under this 
last scenario, we multiply the total number of slots under the full-
funding scenario by the share of funding available compared to full 
funding. For example, we estimate that $15.2 billion would be necessary 
to fully implement the proposed rule in 2033 and maintain funded 
enrollment consistent with the estimated FY2023 actual enrollment of 
650,000. Under our baseline budget scenario, $15.0 billion would be 
available, which is about 99% of the funding needed. Thus, we estimate 
644,374 slots would be available, which is 99% of enrollment at the 
estimated FY2023 actual enrollment level, or a % change in slots of -
1%.
    Table J1 reports the change in total slots \285\ over time that 
would be necessary to implement the proposed rule compared to both 
projected FY2023 funded enrollment and estimated FY2023 actual 
enrollment, absent an increase in Federal appropriations. We estimate 
that programs can approach full implementation of the policies in the 
proposed rule without additional appropriations by aligning their 
funded enrollment levels with their actual enrollment. Only a small 
reduction in slots from estimated FY2023 actual enrollment, 1%, would 
be needed to reach full implementation of the policies in the proposed 
rule. Specifically, programs would need to reduce funded enrollment 
from the projected FY2023 funded enrollment of 755,074 by 15%, to a 
funded enrollment of 644,605 in 2030, which reflects a 1% reduction 
from estimated FY2023 actual enrollment of 650,000.\286\ All monetary 
estimates are reported in nominal dollars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \285\ For this analysis, we assume that staffing reductions 
occur at the same rate as slot reductions.
    \286\ We note that reductions in funded enrollment in response 
to the proposed rule will require some shifting of transfer of funds 
from existing expenditures, such as those to support funded slots 
that are currently empty or spending to recruit and train staff in a 
high turnover environment. Please see our request for comment on 
this point in Section B and the discussion under the heading 
``Connecting Baseline Uncertainty with Differing Estimates of 
Regulatory Effects.''

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

[[Page 80888]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20NO23.019

K. Alternative Policy Scenario: Required Retirement
    The proposed rule outlines requirements for grant recipients to 
provide benefits to staff, discussing health insurance, paid leave, 
access to short-term free or low-cost mental health services, and other 
considerations. The proposed rule requests comment on whether grant 
recipients should also be required to provide retirement savings plans 
as part of their benefits.
    In this section, we describe the alternative policy scenario, the 
Required Retirement Scenario, in which the proposed benefits policy 
includes a requirement that grant recipients also provide retirement 
benefits to staff. We analyze this scenario to identify the most 
consequential impacts that would likely occur under the Required 
Retirement Scenario, should it be included in a finalized rule.
    We base this analysis on the same methodology described in Section 
C: Disaggregation of Fringe Benefit Estimates. Based on the data on 
employer costs for employee compensation released by the U.S. Bureau of 
Labor Statistics in December 2022, teachers have an overall fringe rate 
of 32.5%, which is inclusive of health insurance, paid leave, 
retirement, and other benefits. As such, we assume an overall fringe 
rate of 32.5% under the Required Retirement Scenario, which is 
inclusive of fringe associated with all three major benefits policies 
included in the policy: health insurance, paid leave, and retirement. 
The disaggregation of these costs is described in Section C: 
Disaggregation of Fringe Benefit Estimates.
    Table K1 reports the impacts of the robust benefit policy over 
time, accounting for the yearly impact of the wage policies reported in 
Table C5, reported in constant and nominal dollars. These tables report 
the changes to benefits, some of which are driven by wage increases of 
the wage policies. Table K2 reports a breakdown of increased 
expenditure for each major category of benefits that would be impacted 
by the proposed rule under the Required Retirement Scenario.
BILLING CODE 4184-40-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20NO23.020


[[Page 80889]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20NO23.021

    The inclusion of retirement benefits under the Required Retirement 
Scenario impacts the cost estimates for other policies that required 
increased expenditures on compensation, such as the family service 
worker and mental health policies. Table K3 summarizes the impacts on 
expenditures for the Required Retirement Scenario, consistent with the 
implementation timelines described in the proposed rule, reporting 
yearly estimates and present value and annualized values corresponding 
to 3% and 7% discount rates, all with monetary estimates reported in 
millions of constant 2023 dollars. Table K4 reports the same impacts 
for the Required Retirement Scenario in nominal dollars.

[[Page 80890]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20NO23.022

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20NO23.023

BILLING CODE 4184-40-C
    All estimates reported above are impacts compared to our baseline 
budget scenario reported in Table B1. Further, we calculate the cost 
per child, in 2030, when the rule is fully implemented, using 2023 
funded enrollment levels to be $22,958 (nominal dollars). As discussed 
previously we recognize that projected FY2023 funded enrollment greatly 
exceeds estimated FY2023 actual enrollment. If programs were to fully 
implement the proposed policies and maintain funded enrollment at least 
consistent with FY2023 actual enrollment (i.e., 650,000), they would 
not need additional appropriations beyond the baseline budget scenario 
until 2027, when they would need an additional $80 million. In future 
years (all in nominal dollars), programs would need $336 million in 
2028, $595 million in 2029, $872 million in 2030, $890 million in 2031, 
$912 million in 2032,

[[Page 80891]]

and $932 million in 2033 above the baseline budget funding scenario to 
implement the proposed policies and maintain a funded enrollment level 
consistent with estimated FY2023 actual enrollment.
    We also replicate the sensitivity analysis described in Section J. 
In this analysis, we assume an alternative funding scenario in which no 
additional funding above the baseline budget scenario in Table B1 is 
available to enact the proposed rule under the Required Retirement 
Scenario (or increases in appropriations over time that cannot be used 
to support the proposed rule, if finalized, and/or are not increased in 
response to it). In this scenario, Head Start programs would likely 
comply with the proposed rule by reducing the size of their funded 
enrollment, which would also result in a reduced workforce at Head 
Start programs. We apply the same methodology used in Section J to this 
analysis. Table K5 reports the change in total slots that would be 
necessary to implement the proposed rule under the Required Retirement 
Scenario, absent a responsive increase in Federal appropriations.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20NO23.024

L. Non-Quantified Impacts of Certain Elements of the Proposed Rule
    In addition to the effects that are quantified elsewhere in this 
analysis, we have identified a select number of provisions that would 
have impacts that are not quantified or monetized.
Estimated Impact of Relevant Provisions on Slot Loss
    Sections C through G of this RIA monetize the provisions of this 
proposed rule that we anticipate would have the largest potential 
impact. Some of the provisions described in this section may also 
result in costs that have not been monetized. As quantified above, one 
potential impact of enacting the proposed standards at current funding 
levels is a reduction in Head Start slots in some programs. A reduction 
in Head Start slots would reduce access to high-quality early childhood 
education for some children ages birth to 5 from low-income families. 
However, this impact is difficult to qualify because a substantial 
number of current Head Start slots remain unfilled currently, due to 
staffing shortage and other constraining factors. A loss of funded 
slots that are unfilled would not impact children who are currently 
enrolled.
    The children who would be impacted by this loss of access would not 
receive high-quality services from Head Start and would not experience 
the positive outcomes for children and families who participate in the 
Head Start program. Some children who lose access to Head Start may 
receive early childhood education through State or local preschool 
programs, which are offered in many areas of the country. Another 
potential impact is that some children who would otherwise have been 
served by Head Start may receive early care and education in programs 
or settings that lack the quality to adequately support their learning 
and development, though we note that, as described in the NPRM 
preamble, absent the quality improvements under the proposed rule, Head 
Start quality is likely to deteriorate over time. Loss of access to 
Head Start may also reduce opportunity for parents and caregivers to 
participate in the workforce.
Expected Impact of Preventing and Addressing Lead Exposure (Sec.  
1302.48)
    This NPRM has new requirements for programs to test the lead levels 
in their facilities and if applicable, remediate exposure risks. Below 
we summarize findings from a few select research studies. Decades of 
research have shown that high lead levels are harmful for children's 
development.\287\ Research also shows, however, that lead remediation 
has long-term benefits to children's health and economic benefits to 
society as they mature into adolescence and beyond. For instance, a

[[Page 80892]]

2002 CDC study found that reduced lead exposure in the United States 
since 1976 has resulted in a $110 billion to $319 billion economic 
benefit due to higher IQs and worker productivity.\288\ Research has 
also found that the lead and copper rule investment from the EPA has 
led to an estimated benefit ratio of 35:1 meaning that that for every 
$1 invested, the economic return would be about $35.\289\ Furthermore, 
a research study that conducted a cost-benefit analysis on every dollar 
invested in lead paint control has been estimated to be a $17 to $221 
return.\290\ This research suggests there may be a societal benefit 
that lead remediation regulations can make. While we cannot estimate 
the quantitative cost savings that this provision will have, we note 
that testing on its own does not make anyone healthier; the cause-and-
effect chain between testing and health outcomes includes activities 
that have costs. We welcome public comment on these costs and on this 
analysis more generally, including interpretation of and extrapolation 
from the studies referenced above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \287\ Finkelstein, Y., Markowitz, M. E., & Rosen, J. F. (1998). 
Low-level lead-induced neurotoxicity in children: an update on 
central nervous system effects. Brain research reviews, 27, 168-176.
    \288\ Grosse, S. D., Matte, T. D., Schwartz, J., & Jackson, R. 
J. (2002). Economic gains resulting from the reduction in children's 
exposure to lead in the United States. Environmental health 
perspectives, 110(6), 563-569. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.02110563.
    \289\ Levin, R., & Schwartz, J. (2023). A better cost:benefit 
analysis yields better and fairer results: EPA's lead and copper 
rule revision. Environmental Research, 229, 115738. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2023.115738.
    \290\ Gould, E. (2009). Childhood Lead Poisoning: Conservative 
Estimates of the Social and Economic Benefits of Lead Hazard 
Control. Environmental Health Perspectives, 117(7). https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.0800408.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additional Impact of Workforce Supports: Staff Wages and Benefits 
(Sec.  1302.90)
    In addition to the effects (costs) quantified in this RIA, these 
provisions may also result in potential cost savings to governments at 
various jurisdictional levels (which are mostly transfers, when 
categorized from a society-wide perspective) due to benefit reductions 
for ECE workers. Specifically, an increase in wages and benefits for 
ECE workers may result in a reduction in the number of households 
receiving a range of safety net benefits, including LIHEAP, housing 
assistance, Medicaid/CHIP, SNAP, SSI, TANF, and WIC. Additionally, 
increases in staff wages will likely have an outsized impact on 
improving educational quality of Head Start programming. When teachers 
are fairly compensated their stress likely decreases, and dedication 
and commitment to their work likely improves. This will improve the 
quality of services delivered in programs. While descriptive and non-
causal, research illustrates that low wages are a primary driver of 
high turnover in early childhood educator positions.\291\ Research has 
also demonstrated that improved wages are correlated with higher 
quality programs.\292\ These research findings are not causal, and, to 
the best of our knowledge, no cost-benefit analysis has been conducted 
related to the impact of increased wages in the early childhood sector. 
Therefore, our conclusions here are tentative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \291\ Caven, M., Khanani, N., Zhang, X., & Parker, C.E. (2021). 
Center-and program-level factors associated with turnover in the 
early childhood education workforce (REL 2021-069). U.S. Department 
of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for 
Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational 
Laboratory Northeast & Islands.; Whitebook, M., Howes, C., & 
Phillips, D. (2014). Worthy Work, STILL Unlivable Wages: The Early 
Childhood Workforce 25 Years after the National Child Care Staffing 
Study. Center for the Study of Child Care Employment. https://cscce.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/publications/ReportFINAL.pdf.
    \292\ Isaccs, J., Adelstein, S., Kuehn, D. (2018). Early 
Childhood Educator Compensation in the Washington Region. Urban 
Institute. https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/97676/early_childhood_educator_compensation_final_2.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By improving wages, teachers may choose to stay in the profession 
longer and may spend more time building the skills necessary to support 
high-quality early childhood programming and high-quality teacher-child 
interactions. Furthermore, improvements in staff retention overall due 
to improved wages and benefits likely promotes more stable staffing 
across the program and provides continuity of services for enrolled 
children and may also reduce stress and workload for other staff in the 
program due to fewer staff vacancies.
    It is also likely that there will be potential cost savings from 
the effects of this proposed rule mitigating the high expenses 
associated with high turnover. When Head Start programs experience 
staffing shortages, they will often ask existing staff to work 
additional hours to compensate for the lack of adequate coverage. In 
some cases, substitute or temporary staff will be hired and sometimes 
this comes at an increased cost. Presumably, after the implementation 
of this proposed policy, these excess costs (experienced as 
remunerations increases for the aggregate collection of Head Start 
teachers) will be reduced because the workforce will be more stable and 
programs will experience improved retention.
Estimated Impact of Mental Health Services (Sec.  1302 Subpart D; 
Subpart H; Subpart I)
    In addition to the effects (costs) quantified in Section E of this 
RIA, there are numerous additional benefits to enhancing provisions 
related to mental health supports. Advancing science in child 
development demonstrates that birth to age five is an important period 
for brain development and is a critical foundation on which all later 
development builds. Mental health and social-emotional well-being 
during this period are foundational for family well-being, children's 
healthy development, and early learning and are associated with 
positive long-term outcomes. Early childhood experiences, like trusting 
relationships with caregivers in a stable, nurturing environment, aid 
in the development of skills that build resilience. The enhancements to 
the requirements for mental health supports would promote higher-
quality services for children in Head Start programs across the country 
and would support child, family, and staff well-being.
    Specifically, enhancements to Sec.  1302 Subpart D enhances health 
program services to explicitly include mental health. These regulatory 
changes also reflect a preventative approach to mental health across 
comprehensive service areas, such as health and family engagement. The 
addition of mental health screening would support programs in having 
conversations about mental health early and often. Screening would 
facilitate the identification of children, families, and staff with 
specific needs and allow for intervention before more time and resource 
intensive care becomes necessary. Mental health screening may result in 
nominal costs to programs that elect to purchase specific screening 
tools. Sec.  1302.45(a) also adds a requirement that a program have a 
multidisciplinary team responsible for mental health. We believe this 
team would be comprised of existing staff positions so would have an 
associated opportunity cost not reflected in budgets.
Estimated Impact of Modernizing Engagement With Families (Sec.  
1302.11; Sec.  1302.13; Sec.  1302.15; Sec.  1302.34; Sec.  1302.50)
    These provisions enhance existing requirements that programs must 
follow when completing their community needs assessments. Programs 
would be required to identify communication methods to best engage with 
prospective and enrolled families, and to use modern technologies to 
streamline

[[Page 80893]]

information gathering and improve communications. There is significant 
benefit to families in giving them a voice in the way that programs 
choose to communicate. Using communication modalities and methods that 
are easiest to families would enhance engagement with Head Start and 
increase program accessibility. Programs would also be required to 
implement improvements to streamline the enrollment experience for 
families. There may be nominal costs for programs to make these 
determinations and implement new technologies. Streamlining the 
enrollment experience for families would create more user-friendly and 
efficient processes, reduce burden and build trust with families, and 
support Head Start in more equitably and effectively delivering 
services.
Estimated Impact of Community Assessments (Sec.  1302.11)
    The changes to these provisions address concerns that Head Start 
programs and others in the field have raised about the burdens of the 
community needs assessment. These provisions would promote clarity on 
the intent of the community assessment, align with best practices, and 
increase the effectiveness in how the community assessment is used to 
inform key aspects of program design and approach. Requiring a 
strategic approach to determine what data to collect prior to 
conducting the community needs assessment and how to use the needs 
assessment to achieve intended outcomes would promote overall 
effectiveness of the community assessment to drive programmatic 
decision making. They may also facilitate reductions in cost of time-
consuming or complex assessment and analytical techniques and reduce 
barriers to programs being able to use their community assessment data 
to effectively guide programmatic decisions. Programs would also be 
allowed to use publicly or local available data as a proxy, which would 
reduce duplication of efforts and further lessen burden, and may 
facilitate coordination with other community programs.
    Other new requirements related to the collection of specific 
elements in the community needs assessment, such as geographic 
location, race, ethnicity, and languages, would facilitate Head Start's 
ability to understand the diversity of populations most in need of 
services, which in turn would help promote equity, inclusion, and 
accessibility in service delivery. Factors related to transportation 
needs and resources in communities reflects that transportation remains 
a significant barrier for many of the hardest to serve families and 
impedes Head Start's mission. Ensuring transportation needs and 
resources are part of the data that informs a program's design and 
service delivery would enable Head Start to more effectively meet the 
needs of families and improve access to Head Start services.
Estimated Impact of Adjustment for Excessive Shelter Costs for 
Eligibility Determination (Sec.  1302.12)
    This provision would allow a program to adjust a family's income to 
account for excessive shelter costs. This provision reflects a transfer 
of benefits from one potentially eligible family to another, however 
consistent with Section 1302.14 and 1302.13 in the HSPPS which is 
unchanged in this current proposal, programs will continue to establish 
selection criteria that prioritizes selection of participants based on 
need. There may be nominal implementation costs as Head Start programs 
implement these new income calculations. Children whose families have 
few resources because they earn near-poverty level wages and live in 
areas with a high-cost of living would newly be eligible for Head 
Start. This would enable Head Start to continue to prioritize the 
enrollment of families most in need of services. This provision also 
increases alignment with other means-tested Federal programs (e.g., 
SNAP, see relevant section in Preamble for details) that use an income 
adjustment to account for excessive shelter costs.
Estimated Impact of Migrant and Seasonal Head Start Eligibility (Sec.  
1302.12)
    The modifications to eligibility requirements in this provision 
would benefit MSHS programs and families by reducing barriers to 
enrolling farmworker families in need of program services. The 
provisions related to eligibility duration would address an existing 
inequity between infants and toddlers served in Early Head Start 
programs and those served in MSHS programs. The existing requirement 
creates an inequity because infants and toddlers served in Early Head 
Start programs can receive services for the duration of the program, 
meaning until they turn three and age out of the program, whereas the 
MSHS family is no longer considered eligible for the program after two 
years. Therefore, the young children of agricultural workers are not 
provided the same potential duration of services as infants and 
toddlers served by Early Head Start. This change would also promote 
continuity for families served by MSHS and reduce paperwork for 
families and programs.
Estimated Impact of Serving Children With Disabilities (Sec.  1302.14)
    These provisions clarify language to address an inconsistency 
between the HSPPS and the Act. This provision reflects a transfer of 
benefits from one potentially eligible family to another. A non-
quantifiable benefit of this provision would be addressing confusion 
caused by the discrepancy. Further clarification that the requirement 
to fill ten percent of slots with children with disabilities under IDEA 
is a floor and not a ceiling would support Head Start in maximizing 
services to children with disabilities who would benefit from the 
program's strong focus on inclusive early childhood settings.
Expected Benefits of Ratios in Center-Based Early Head Start Programs 
(Sec.  1302.21)
    This provision encourages programs to consider reducing teacher-
child ratios for their youngest classrooms, to provide the highest 
quality care and learning opportunities for infants enrolled in Head 
Start. This provision has numerous non-quantifiable benefits for 
children and families served by Head Start. A warm, responsive 
relationship between an infant and caregiver is a crucial foundation 
for infants to learn and develop. A lower teacher-child ratio would 
support the establishment of this strong, secure relationship and allow 
for more individualized attention between the infant and teacher. A 
lower ratio of one teacher to three infants also aligns with the 
National Resource Center for Health and Safety in Child Care and Early 
Education recommendations for center-based programs with classrooms 
where the majority of children are under 12 months old. Further, 
research indicates that, generally, lower teacher-child ratios in ECE 
classrooms relate to higher classroom quality and stronger child 
outcomes. As the premier ECE provider in the United States, Head Start 
sets an example for early childhood programs nationwide, and this 
provision would further support high-quality early childhood services 
across the country.
Expected Benefits of Center-Based Service Duration for Early Head Start 
(Sec.  1302.21)
    This provision clarifies that the 1,380 hours of planned class 
operations for children in EHS should occur across a minimum of 46 
weeks per year. We believe most programs are already

[[Page 80894]]

operating year-round; however, a small number of programs may be 
operating less than a full year and we would like to promote full-year 
services for infants and toddlers in EHS. These programs may incur 
costs associated with transitioning to full-year services. However, 
there are substantial non-quantifiable benefits to young children's 
development. Research on full-day and full-year programs suggests 
children in poverty benefit from longer exposure to high-quality early 
learning programs than what is provided by part-day and/or part-year 
programs.
Expected Benefits of Family Service Worker Family Assignments (Sec.  
1302.52)
    This provision seeks to ensure that an individual family services 
staff is assigned to work with no greater than 40 families. Based on 
internal data, 42 percent of programs have caseloads that exceed 40 
families. We estimate that a total of 3,231 new family services staff 
would need to be hired to meet this new requirement at a total cost of 
$170,052,632. There are numerous non-quantifiable benefits to lower 
family services staff caseloads. This provision would address staff 
well-being, reduce burnout, and lower expressions of job frustration 
and dissatisfaction. For staff well-being, large caseloads are 
associated with staff burnout and turnover, feeling overwhelmed, and 
expression of job frustration and dissatisfaction. This provision would 
improve the quality of family services and improve staff well-being and 
reflects best practice in the field.
Expected Benefits of Participation in Quality Rating and Improvement 
Systems (Sec.  1302.53)
    This provision encourages Head Start programs to participate in 
State QRIS to the extent practicable if the State system has strategies 
in place to support their participation. We assume that programs newly 
participating in QRIS would incur additional costs and burden from 
substantive changes in the form of revised processes and potentially 
additional or different documentation, as well as possible duplication 
of monitoring and assessment processes. Non-quantifiable benefits of 
participation in QRIS include continued quality improvement efforts, 
providing a common metric through which families can understand and 
make decisions about program options, and aligning standards across a 
statewide early care and education system.
Expected Benefits of Services to Enrolled Pregnant People (Sec.  
1302.80; Sec.  1302.82)
    This provision enhances services to enrolled pregnant people by 
requiring the newborn visit to include a discussion of maternal mental 
and physical health, infant health, and support for basic needs; and 
requiring programs to track and record information on service delivery 
for enrolled pregnant women. We assume programs may incur nominal costs 
associated with enhancements to record-keeping. Non-quantifiable 
benefits of these provisions would be assessing the child care, health, 
and mental health needs of mothers in the critical period after child 
birth, which would enable Head Start to provide support to mothers and 
identify opportunities for collaboration and intervention. Improved 
tracking and recording of services to enrolled pregnant women would 
also support OHS in understanding the services provided and identifying 
how to best be responsive to the needs of enrolled pregnant people. 
These records would also be used to validate the use of Federal funds 
to serve pregnant people and to inform ongoing conversations program 
staff have with the pregnant people about her needs before and after 
the baby is born.
Expected Benefits of Standards of Conduct (Sec.  1302.90)
    These provisions revise current requirements to ensure we are as 
clear as possible and that our requirements reflect current best 
practices and more precise terminology around standards of conduct. 
These changes would result in aligned definitions with other Federal 
resources and clarifications to existing requirements. Non-quantifiable 
benefits of these enhancements include critical supports to child 
safety by supporting staff in recognizing potential child abuse and 
neglect and understanding their legal responsibility as a mandated 
reporter, which would improve child safety and program response to 
violations of standards of conduct.
Expected Benefits of Staff Training to Support Child Safety (Sec.  
1302.92; Sec.  1302.101)
    These provisions enhance requirements and frequency of staff 
training and professional development. We assume there would be nominal 
costs associated with more frequent training. Non-quantifiable benefits 
of an increased frequency of training would be to allow programs to 
offer staff advanced training opportunities on areas of local 
importance or greater complexity, such as culturally responsive 
practices in reporting, issues related to disproportionate reporting, 
and information about at-risk populations, as well as emphasize the 
importance of child safety in Head Start. This proposed policy change 
would also create more equitable opportunities for staff to understand 
and discuss their ethical and legal responsibilities. Annual training 
on positive strategies to understand and support children's social and 
emotional development would also enhance the use of positive strategies 
and have the added benefit of increasing opportunities for peer support 
as appropriate.
Expected Benefits of Definition of Income (Sec.  1305.2)
    This provision would revise the definition of income by providing a 
clear and finite list of what is considered income and what is not 
considered income. Non-quantifiable benefits of this provision include 
making the policy less burdensome and complicated for programs to 
implement, ensuring programs can more easily identify an applicants' 
income, and promote consistent interpretation on what to include in 
calculating income across programs.

Initial Small Entity Analysis

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires Agencies to analyze 
regulatory options that would minimize any significant impact of a rule 
on small entities. This analysis, as well as other sections in this 
document and the Preamble of the proposed rule, serves as the Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, as required under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act.
A. Description and Number of Affected Small Entities
    The SBA maintains a Table of Small Business Size Standards Matched 
to North American Industry Classification System Codes (NAICS).\293\ We 
replicate the SBA's description of this table:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \293\ U.S. Small Business Administration (2023). ``Table of Size 
Standards.'' March 17, 2023 https://www.sba.gov/document/support--table-size-standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table lists small business size standards matched to 
industries described in the North American Industry Classification 
System (NAICS), as modified by the Office of Management and Budget, 
effective January 1, 2022.
    The size standards are for the most part expressed in either 
millions of dollars (those preceded by ``$'') or number of employees 
(those without the

[[Page 80895]]

``$''). A size standard is the largest that a concern can be and still 
qualify as a small business for Federal Government programs. For the 
most part, size standards are the average annual receipts or the 
average employment of a firm. How to calculate average annual receipts 
and average employment of a firm can be found in 13 CFR 121.104 and 13 
CFR 121.106, respectively.
    This proposed rule will impact small entities in NAICS category 
624410, Child Care Services, which has a size standard of $9.5 million 
dollars. We assume that most Head Start programs, if not all, are below 
this threshold and are considered small entities.
B. Description of the Potential Impacts of the Rule on Small Entities
    In the main analysis, we estimate that about $2.576 billion in 
additional funding would be necessary to fully implement the proposed 
rule in 2033, which is about a 17% increase above baseline funding 
levels. Most of the funding needed is proportional to the size of the 
Head Start program or agency, so we do not separately assess the 
potential impacts of the rule on small entities of different sizes. The 
Department considers a rule to have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities if it has at least a 3% impact on 
revenue on at least 5% of small entities. Since the proposed rule would 
likely result in increased expenditures of about 17%, we find that the 
proposed rule would likely have a significant impact on a substantial 
number of small entities.
C. Alternatives To Minimize the Burden on Small Entities
    ACF considered many policy alternatives to the proposed rule, some 
of which are quantified in this analysis. Tables I1 through I4 
summarize the impacts on expenditures under the wage-parity policy, 
reporting yearly estimates, and present value and annualized values 
corresponding to 3% and 7% discount rates. This table presents separate 
analyses of the following policies: staff wages, staff benefits, staff 
breaks, family service worker family assignments, mental health 
supports, and preventing and addressing lead exposure. This document 
also considers the impacts of expenditures associated with the minimum 
pay requirement, and itemized impacts of the lead in water and lead-
based paint policies. These tables and additional analyses in the 
narrative of this document enabled ACF to appropriately consider a 
range of feasible policy alternatives. This analysis also considers 
excluding the following elements of the proposed rule: provisions 
related to benefits, provisions related to staff breaks, provisions 
related to family service workers, provisions related to mental health 
support, and provisions related to lead hazards.

List of Subjects

45 CFR Part 1301

    Early education, Grant programs, Head Start, Program governance, 
Social programs

45 CFR Part 1302

    Compensation, Early education, Grant programs, Head Start, Mental 
health, Quality improvement, Social programs, Workforce.

45 CFR Part 1303

    Early education, Financial management, Grant programs, Head Start, 
Social programs.

45 CFR Part 1304

    Accountability, Early education, Grant programs, Head Start, 
Monitoring, Social programs.

45 CFR Part 1305

    Definitions, Early education, Grant programs, Head Start, Social 
programs.

    Dated: November 8, 2023.
Xavier Becerra,
Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.

    For reasons stated in the preamble, we propose to amend 45 CFR 
parts 1301, 1302, 1303, 1304, and 1305 as follows.

PART 1301--PROGRAM GOVERNANCE

0
1. The authority citation for part 1301 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. Revise Sec.  1301.1 to read as follows:


Sec.  1301.1  Purpose

    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 programs. Policy councils are responsible for 
the direction of the agency's Head Start programs.
0
3. Amend Sec.  1301.3 by revising paragraph (a) and removing the word 
``grantee'' and adding in its place the words ``grant recipient'' in 
paragraph (b)(2).
    The revision reads as follows:


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 program to one delegate 
agency, the policy council and policy committee may be the same body.
* * * * *
0
4. Amend Sec.  1301.4 by revising paragraph (b)(3) to read as follows:


Sec.  1301.4  Parent committees.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) Within the guidelines established by the governing body, policy 
council or policy committee, participate in the recruitment and 
screening of Head Start employees.

PART 1302--PROGRAM OPERATIONS

0
5. The authority for part 1302 continues to read as follows:

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

0
6. Revise Sec.  1302.1 to read as follows:


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 
Preschool, 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   [Amended]

0
7. Amend Sec.  1302.10 in the first sentence by removing the word

[[Page 80896]]

``grantee'' and adding in its place the words ``grant recipient''.
0
8. Amend Sec.  1302.11 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    (b) Community wide strategic planning and needs assessment 
(community assessment). (1) A program must conduct a community 
assessment at least once over the five-year grant period to:
    (i) Identify populations most in need of services including 
relevant family or child risk factors;
    (ii) Inform the program's design and service delivery to reflect 
needs and diversity of the community, and to promote equity, inclusion, 
and accessibility;
    (iii) Inform the enrollment, recruitment, and selection process to 
prioritize the enrollment of those populations with relevant risk 
factors identified under paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section;
    (iv) Identify strengths and resources in the community that can be 
leveraged for service delivery, coordination, and partnership efforts 
including in the delivery of education, health, nutrition, and 
referrals to social services to eligible children and families;
    (v) Identify the communication methods and modalities available to 
the program that best engage with prospective and enrolled families of 
all abilities.
    (2) In conducting the community assessment, a program must collect 
and utilize data that describes community strengths, needs, and 
resources and include, at a minimum:
    (i) Relevant demographic and other data about eligible children and 
expectant mothers, including:
    (A) Children living in poverty;
    (B) Children experiencing homelessness in collaboration with, to 
the extent possible, McKinney-Vento Local Education Agency Liaisons (42 
U.S.C. 11432 (6)(A));
    (C) Children in foster care;
    (D) Children with disabilities, including types of disabilities and 
relevant services and resources provided to these children by community 
agencies; and
    (E) Geographic location, race, ethnicity, and languages they speak.
    (ii) The education, health, nutrition and social service needs of 
eligible children and their families, including prevalent social or 
economic factors, such as transportation needs, 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, especially 
transportation resources; and,
    (vi) Strengths of the community.
    (3) Programs should have a strategic approach:
    (i) To determine what data to acquire to reach goals in paragraph 
(b)(1) of this section prior to conducting the community assessment and
    (ii) For how to use the data acquired to reach goals in paragraph 
(b)(1) of this section after conducting the community assessment
    (4) When determining what data to acquire under paragraph (b)(2) of 
this section, if the burden or cost to acquire certain data is 
unreasonable, programs should identify other publicly or locally 
available data that could be used as a proxy.
    (5) A program must annually review and, where needed as determined 
by the program, update the community assessment to identify any 
significant shifts in community demographics, needs, and resources that 
may impact program design and service delivery. Programs must consider 
how the annual update can inform and support management approaches for 
continuous quality improvement, program goals, ongoing oversight, and 
results from their self-assessment as required in subpart J of this 
part (Sec. Sec.  1302.101 through 1302.103).
    (6) 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.
0
9. Amend Sec.  1302.12 by revising paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2) 
introductory text, (b)(2)(i), (e)(1)(ii), (e)(4), (f), (i)(1), and 
(j)(3) and (4), adding paragraph (j)(5), and revising paragraph (l) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  1302.12  Determining, verifying, and documenting eligibility.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) For Early Head Start, except when the child is transitioning to 
Head Start Preschool, a child must be an infant or a toddler younger 
than three years old.
    (2) For Head Start Preschool, 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 Preschool program is located; and,
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) The Tribe has resources within its grant, without using 
additional funds from HHS intended to expand Head Start services, to 
enroll pregnant women or children whose family incomes exceed low-
income guidelines or who are not otherwise eligible; and,
* * * * *
    (4) An Indian Tribe or Tribes that operates both an Early Head 
Start program and a Head Start Preschool 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 Preschool 
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 
one family member is primarily engaged in agricultural employment.
* * * * *
    (i) * * *
    (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) The program must calculate total gross income using applicable 
sources of income.
    (ii) A program may make an adjustment to a family's gross income 
calculation for the purposes of determining eligibility in order to 
account for excessive housing expenses. A program must use available 
bills, bank statements, and other relevant documentation provided by 
the family to calculate total annual housing expenses with appropriate 
multipliers to:
    (A) Determine if a family spends more than 30 percent of their 
total gross

[[Page 80897]]

income on housing expenses, as defined in part 1305 of this subchapter, 
and
    (B) If applicable, reduce the total gross income by the amount 
spent in housing expenses above the 30 percent threshold to calculate 
the adjusted gross income for determining income eligibility.
    (iii) 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.
    (iv) 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.
    (v) If the family can demonstrate a significant change in income 
for the relevant time period, program staff may consider current income 
circumstances.
* * * * *
    (j) * * *
    (3) If a child moves from an Early Head Start program to a Head 
Start Preschool program, program staff must verify the family's 
eligibility again.
    (4) If a program operates both an Early Head Start and a Head Start 
Preschool 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 Preschool 
services until enrolled in school, provided the child is eligible.
    (5) If a program operates a Migrant and Seasonal Head Start 
program, children younger than age three participating in the program 
remain eligible until they turn three years old consistent with 
paragraph (j)(2) of this section.
* * * * *
    (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 Head Start services.
* * * * *
0
10. Revise Sec.  1302.13 to read as follows:


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. A program must use modern 
technologies to encourage and assist families in applying for admission 
to the program, and to reduce the family's administrative and paperwork 
burden in the application and enrollment process. 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.
0
11. Amend Sec.  1302.14 by revising paragraph (a)(3), adding paragraph 
(a)(5), revising paragraph (b)(1), and adding paragraph (d) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  1302.14  Selection process.

    (a) * * *
    (3) If a program operates in a service area where Head Start 
Preschool 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.
* * * * *
    (5) A program may consider the enrollment of children of staff 
members as part of the selection criteria in paragraph (a)(1) of this 
section.
    (b) * * *
    (1) A program must ensure at least 10 percent of its total actual 
enrollment is filled by children eligible for services under IDEA, 
unless the responsible HHS official grants a waiver.
* * * * *
    (d) Understanding barriers to enrollment. A program is required to 
use data from the selection process to understand why children selected 
for the program do not enroll or attend, such as a lack of 
transportation being a barrier to enrolling once they are selected. A 
program must use this data to inform ongoing program improvement 
efforts as described in Sec.  1302.102(c) to promote enrolling the 
children most in need of program services.
0
12. Amend Sec.  1302.15 by revising paragraph (b)(2) and adding 
paragraph (g) to read as follows:


Sec.  1302.15  Enrollment.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) Under exceptional circumstances, a program may maintain a 
child's enrollment in Head Start Preschool 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).
* * * * *
    (g) User-friendly enrollment process. A program must regularly 
examine their enrollment processes and implement any identified 
improvements to streamline the enrollment experience for families.
0
13. Amend Sec.  1302.16 by adding paragraph (a)(2)(v) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  1302.16  Attendance.

    (a) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (v) Examine barriers to regular attendance, such as access to safe 
and reliable transportation, and where possible, provide or facilitate 
transportation for the child if needed;
* * * * *
0
14. Amend Sec.  1302.17 by revising paragraphs (a)(2) through (4), 
(b)(2) introductory text, and (b)(3) to read as follows:


Sec.  1302.17  Suspension and expulsion.

    (a) * * *
    (2) A temporary suspension must be used only as a last resort in 
extraordinary circumstances where there is a serious safety threat that 
has not been reduced or eliminated by the provision of interventions 
and supports recommended by the mental health consultant and the 
program needs time to put additional appropriate services in place.
    (3) Before a program determines whether a temporary suspension is 
necessary, a program must engage with a mental health consultant, the 
multidisciplinary team responsible for mental health, 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

[[Page 80898]]

the child return to full participation in all program activities as 
quickly as possible while ensuring child safety. A program must explore 
all possible steps and document all steps taken to address the 
behavior(s) and supports needed to facilitate the child's safe reentry 
and continued participation in the program. Such steps must include, at 
a minimum:
    (i) Continuing to engage with the parents, mental health 
consultant, the multidisciplinary team responsible for mental health, 
and other appropriate staff, and continuing to utilize appropriate 
community resources;
    (ii) Providing additional program supports and services, including 
home visits; and,
    (iii) Determining whether a referral to a local agency responsible 
for implementing IDEA is appropriate, or if the child has an 
individualized family service plan (IFSP) or individualized education 
program (IEP), consulting with the responsible agency to ensure the 
child receives the needed support services.
    (b) * * *
    (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 the parents, mental health consultant, and the 
multidisciplinary team responsible for mental health; considering the 
appropriateness of providing appropriate services and supports under 
section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 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:
* * * * *
    (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), 
the mental health consultant, and the multidisciplinary team 
responsible for mental health 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 that can immediately enroll and provide services 
to the child.

Subpart B--Program Structure

0
15. Amend Sec.  1302.20 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) and (c)(1) and (2);
0
b. Removing the word ``grantees'' and adding in its place words ``grant 
recipients'' in paragraph (c)(3) introductory text;
0
c. Revising paragraphs (c)(3)(i) and (iii);
0
d. Removing the word ``grantees'' and adding in its place words ``grant 
recipients'' in paragraph (c)(3)(vi); and
0
e. Revising paragraphs (c)(4) and (d).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  1302.20  Determining program structure.

    (a) * * *
    (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 Preschool program 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 Preschool 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.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) Consistent with section 645(a)(5)15 of the Head Start Act, 
grant recipients may request to convert Head Start Preschool slots to 
Early Head Start slots through the refunding application process or as 
a separate grant amendment.
    (2) Any grant recipient proposing a conversion of Head Start 
Preschool services to Early Head Start services must obtain policy 
council and governing body approval and submit the request to their 
regional office.
    (3) * * *
    (i) A grant application budget and a budget narrative that clearly 
identifies the funding amount for the Head Start Preschool and Early 
Head Start programs before and after the proposed conversion;
* * * * *
    (iii) A revised program schedule that describes the program 
option(s) and the number of funded enrollment slots for Head Start 
Preschool and Early Head Start programs before and after the proposed 
conversion;
* * * * *
    (4) Consistent with section 645(d)(3)16 of the Act, any American 
Indian and Alaska Native grant recipient that operates both an Early 
Head Start program and a Head Start Preschool 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 Preschool and Early Head Start 
service duration requirements in this subpart.
0
16. Amend Sec.  1302.21 by revising paragraphs (b)(2), (c)(1)(i), 
(c)(2) and (3), and (c)(4) introductory text to read as follows:


Sec.  1302.21  Center-based option.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) A 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 is encouraged to 
establish a lower teacher to child ratio for the youngest children they 
serve, provided that it does not jeopardize continuity of care for 
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.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) A program must provide 1,380 annual hours of planned class 
operations over the course of at least forty-six weeks per year for all 
enrolled children.
* * * * *

[[Page 80899]]

    (2) Head Start Preschool--(i) Service duration for at least 45 
percent. A program must provide 1,020 annual hours of planned class 
operation over the course of at least eight months per year for at 
least 45 percent of its Head Start Preschool center-based funded 
enrollment.
    (ii) Service duration for remaining slots. 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.
    (iii) Double session. Double session variation 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, assistants, 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.
    (iv) Special provision for alignment with local education agency. A 
Head Start Preschool 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 paragraph (c)(2)(i) 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) Exemption for Migrant or Seasonal Head Start programs. A 
Migrant or Seasonal program is not subject to the requirements 
described in paragraph (c)(1) or (2) of this section, but must make 
every effort to provide as many days and hours of service as possible 
to each child and family.
    (4) Calendar planning. A program must:
* * * * *
0
17. Amend Sec.  1302.22 by revising paragraphs (a) and (c)(2) 
introductory text to read as follows:


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 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 Preschool programs, the 
home-based option may only be used to deliver services to a portion of 
a program's enrolled children.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) Head Start Preschool. A Head Start Preschool home-based program 
must:
* * * * *
0
18. Amend Sec.  1302.23 by revising paragraphs (b)(2) through (4) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  1302.23  Family child care option.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) Mixed age with preschoolers. When there is one family child 
care provider, with a mixed-age group of children that includes 
children over 36 months of age, the maximum group size is six children 
and no more than two of the six may be under 24 months of age. When 
there are two providers, the maximum group size is twelve children with 
no more than four of the twelve children under 24 months of age.
    (3) Infants and toddlers only. When there is one family child care 
provider with a group of children that are all under 36 months of age, 
the maximum group size is four children, and no more than two of the 
four children may be under 18 months of age.
    (4) Maintaining ratios. 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 available with the 
necessary training and experience to ensure quality services to 
children are not interrupted.
* * * * *
0
19. Amend Sec.  1302.24 by revising paragraphs (c)(1), (3), and (5) and 
removing paragraph (d).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  1302.24  Locally-designed program option variations.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) The responsible HHS official may waive one or more of the 
requirements contained in Sec. Sec.  1302.21(b), (c)(1)(i), and 
(c)(2)(i); 1302.22(a) through (c); and 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.
* * * * *
    (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)(i), a program must meet the requirements described in 
Sec.  1302.21(c)(2)(ii), or in the case of a double session variation, 
a program must meet the requirements described in Sec.  
1302.21(c)(2)(iii).
* * * * *
    (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)(i), 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.
0
20. Amend Sec.  1302.34 by adding paragraph (b)(9) to read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (9) The communication methods and modalities utilized by the 
program are the best available to engage with prospective and enrolled 
families of all abilities.

Subpart D--Health and Mental Health Program Services

0
21. Revise the heading for subpart D to read as set forth above.
0
22. Amend Sec.  1302.40 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:


Sec.  1302.40   Purpose.

* * * * *
    (b) A program must establish and maintain a Health and Mental 
Health Services Advisory Committee that includes Head Start parents, 
professionals, and other volunteers from the community.
0
23. Revise Sec.  1302.41 to read as follows:


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, mental health, and 
well-being of their children in a linguistically and culturally 
appropriate manner and communicate with parents about their child's 
health and mental 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, mental health, and developmental 
procedures

[[Page 80900]]

administered through the program or by contract or agreement, and, 
maintain written documentation if they refuse to give authorization for 
health and mental health services; and,
    (2) Share with parents the policies for health or mental health 
emergencies that require rapid response on the part of staff or 
immediate medical attention.
0
24. Amend Sec.  1302.42 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (b)(1)(i) and (b)(4); and
0
b. Removing the word ``grantee'' and adding in its place the words 
``grant recipient'' in paragraph (e)(2).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  1302.42  Child health status and care.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (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, mental 
health, 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 and Mental Health 
Services Advisory Committee that are based on prevalent community 
health problems;
* * * * *
    (4) A program must identify each child's nutritional health needs, 
taking into account available health information, including the child's 
health records, relevant developmental or mental health concerns, 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 and Mental Health Services 
Advisory Committee.
* * * * *
0
25. Amend Sec.  1302.44 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:


Sec.  1302.44  Child nutrition.

* * * * *
    (b) Payment sources. A program must use funds from USDA Food, 
Nutrition, and Consumer Services child nutrition programs as the 
primary source of payment for meal services. Head Start funds may be 
used to cover those allowable costs not covered by the USDA.
0
26. Revise Sec.  1302.45 to read as follows:


Sec.  1302.45   Supports for mental health and well-being.

    (a) Program-wide wellness supports. To support a program-wide 
culture that promotes mental health, social and emotional well-being, 
and overall health and safety, a program must have a multidisciplinary 
team responsible for mental health that:
    (1) Coordinates supports for adult mental health and well-being 
including engaging in nurturing and responsive relationships with 
families, engaging families in home visiting services, and promoting 
staff health and wellness, as described in Sec.  1302.93;
    (2) Coordinates supports for positive learning environments for all 
children; supportive teacher practices; and strategies for supporting 
children with social, emotional, behavioral or mental health concerns;
    (3) Secures mental health consultation services no less than once a 
month to ensure a mental health consultant is available to partner with 
staff and families in a timely and effective manner and examines the 
approach to mental health consultation on an annual basis to determine 
if it meets the needs of the program;
    (4) Ensures that all children receive adequate screening and 
appropriate follow up and the parent receives referrals about how to 
access services for potential social, emotional, behavioral, or other 
mental health concerns, as described in Sec.  1302.33;
    (5) Facilitates coordination and collaboration between mental 
health and other relevant program services, including education, 
disability, family engagement, and health services; and
    (6) Builds community partnerships to facilitate access to 
additional mental health resources and services, as needed.
    (b) Mental health consultants. A program must ensure that mental 
health consultants provide consultation services that build the 
capacity of adults in an infant or young child's life to strengthen and 
support the mental health and social and emotional development of 
children, including consultation with:
    (1) The program to implement strategies that promote a program-wide 
culture of mental health, prevent mental health challenges from 
developing, and identify and support children with mental health and 
social and emotional concerns;
    (2) Child and family services staff to implement strategies that 
build nurturing and responsive relationships and create positive 
learning environments that promote the mental health and social and 
emotional development of all children;
    (3) Staff who have contact with children to understand and 
appropriately respond to prevalent child mental health concerns, 
including internalizing problems such as appearing withdrawn; 
externalizing problems such as behavioral concerns; and how exposure to 
trauma and substance use can influence risk;
    (4) Families and staff to understand mental health and access 
mental health interventions or supports, if needed, including in the 
event of a natural disaster or crisis;
    (5) The program to implement policies to limit suspension and 
prohibit expulsion as described in Sec.  1302.17; and
    (6) The program to support the well-being of children and families 
involved in any significant child health, mental health, or safety 
incident described in Sec.  1302.102(d)(1)(ii).
0
27. Amend Sec.  1302.46 by revising paragraphs (b)(1)(iii) and (iv), 
(b)(2) introductory text, and (b)(2)(ii) and (iii), and adding 
paragraph (b)(2)(iv) to read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iii) Learn about healthy pregnancy and postpartum care, as 
appropriate, including breastfeeding support and treatment options for 
parental mental health, including depression, anxiety, and substance 
use concerns;
    (iv) Discuss information related to their child's mental health 
with staff, including typical and atypical behavior and development, 
and how to appropriately respond to their child and promote their 
child's social and emotional development; and,
* * * * *
    (2) A program must provide ongoing support to assist parents' 
navigation through health and mental health systems to meet the general 
health and specifically identified needs of their children and must 
assist parents:
* * * * *
    (ii) In understanding the results of diagnostic and treatment 
procedures as well as plans for ongoing care;
    (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; and
    (iv) In providing information about how to access evidence-based 
mental health services for young children and

[[Page 80901]]

their families, including referrals if appropriate.
0
28. Amend Sec.  1302.47 by revising paragraphs (b)(1)(iii), (b)(5) 
introductory text, and (b)(5)(i), (iii), and (v) to read as follows:


Sec.  1302.47  Safety practices.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iii) Free from pollutants, hazards and toxins that are accessible 
to children and could endanger children's safety including lead 
consistent with Sec.  1302.48;
* * * * *
    (5) Safety practices. All staff, consultants, contractors, and 
volunteers follow appropriate practices to keep children safe during 
all activities, including, at a minimum:
    (i) Reporting of suspected or known child abuse and neglect, as 
defined by the Federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) 
(42 U.S.C. 5101 note), including that staff comply with applicable 
Federal, State, local, and Tribal laws;
* * * * *
    (iii) Appropriate supervision of children at all times;
* * * * *
    (v) All standards of conduct described in Sec.  1302.90(c)(ii); 
and,
* * * * *
0
29. Add Sec.  1302.48 to subpart D to read as follows:


Sec.  1302.48  Preventing and Addressing Lead Exposure.

    (a) Preventing and addressing lead exposure through water. A 
program must address lead in water from water fixtures used for human 
consumption in Head Start facilities constructed before 2014 and where 
lead service lines, plumbing, or fixtures may still exist, including, 
at a minimum:
    (1) Sample and test water in such fixtures for lead on an annual 
basis, or, if approved by the governing body, a proportion of water in 
such fixtures each year to ensure they are tested at least once every 
five years;
    (2) Sample and test water in such fixtures following remediation 
actions to address detectable lead or following a change to the water 
profile;
    (3) All samples must be collected by an individual adequately 
trained to collect samples for lead testing;
    (4) All samples must be analyzed by a laboratory that is certified 
by Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or the State, territory, or 
Tribe for testing lead in drinking water;
    (5) Restrict access to such fixtures within 24 hours of determining 
the water has a lead sample result at or above 5 parts per billion and 
provide notice in a timely manner to parents of children who may have 
consumed the water;
    (6) Take remediation actions and restrict access until follow-up 
lead sample results indicate the water lead level is below 5 parts per 
billion;
    (7) For lead sample results with detectable lead below 5 parts per 
billion, consider taking remediation actions to lower the lead level as 
low as practicable; and
    (8) If point-of-use devices are used to address lead in water, 
appropriately use and maintain point-of-use devices that reduce lead 
levels as tested and certified by a third party according to National 
Sanitation Foundation/American National Standards Institute (NSF/ANSI) 
Standards for lead reduction.
    (b) Preventing and addressing lead exposure through paint. A 
program must address lead-based paint hazards in paint, dust, and soil 
in Head Start facilities constructed before 1978 and where lead-based 
paint may still exist, including, at a minimum:
    (1) Inspect for lead-based paint and assess for lead-based paint 
hazards (that, in the case of dust-lead hazards, are at or above the 
clearance levels) by a lead risk assessor certified by the EPA or an 
EPA-authorized State, territory, or Tribe;
    (2) Immediately restrict access to any identified lead-based paint 
hazards (that, in the case of dust-lead hazards, are at or above the 
clearance levels) until abatement is completed;
    (3) Abate any identified lead-based paint hazards (that, in the 
case of dust-lead hazards, are at or above the clearance levels) by a 
lead abatement contractor certified by the EPA or EPA-authorized State, 
territory, or Tribe; and
    (4) Following conclusion of abatement, reassess for lead-based 
paint hazards by a certified risk assessor at least once every 2 years 
unless two reassessments conducted 2 years apart identify no lead-based 
paint hazards (that, in the case of dust-lead hazards, are at or above 
the clearance levels) in areas accessible to children.
    (c) Notification of lead testing and remediation. A program must 
provide notification of results of any lead testing and any planned or 
completed remediation actions to parents and staff.
    (d) Conflicting requirements. If applicable State or local laws or 
regulations have more stringent requirements for lead testing or 
remediation, a program should comply with the more stringent 
requirements.

Subpart E--Family and Community Engagement Program Services

0
30. Amend Sec.  1302.50 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:


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. This includes 
communicating with families in a format that is most accessible.
* * * * *
0
31. Amend Sec.  1302.52 by revising paragraphs (c)(2) and (3) and (d) 
and adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:


Sec.  1302.52  Family partnership services.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) Help families achieve identified individualized family 
engagement outcomes; and
    (3) Establish and implement a family partnership agreement process 
that is jointly developed and shared with parents in which staff and 
families to review individual progress, revise goals, evaluate and 
track whether identified needs and goals are met, and adjust strategies 
on an ongoing basis, as necessary.
    (d) Approaches to family services. A program must:
    (1) Ensure the family services assignment process takes into 
account the varied interests, urgency, and intensity of identified 
family needs and goals.
    (2) Ensure the planned number of families assigned to work with 
individual family services staff is no greater than 40, unless a 
program can demonstrate higher family assignments provide high quality 
family and community engagement services and maintain reasonable staff 
workload as described in paragraph (d)(3) of this section.
    (3) Ensure meaningful employee engagement practices address family 
services workload experiences, in accordance with Sec.  1302.101(a)(2).
    (e) 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.

[[Page 80902]]

0
32. Amend Sec.  1302.53 by revising paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) to read 
as follows:


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

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) Memorandum of understanding. To support coordination between 
Head Start Preschool 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)22 of the Act.
    (2) Quality Rating and Improvement Systems. A program, with the 
exception of American Indian and Alaska Native programs, should 
participate in its State or local Quality Rating and Improvement System 
(QRIS), to the extent practicable, if a State or local QRIS has a 
strategy to support Head Start participation without requiring programs 
to duplicate existing documentation from Office of Head Start 
oversight.
* * * * *

Subpart F--Additional Services for Children With Disabilities

0
33. Amend Sec.  1302.61 by revising paragraphs (c)(1)(v) and (c)(2)(ii) 
to read as follows:


Sec.  1302.61  Additional services for children.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (v) Services are provided in a child's regular Head Start classroom 
or family child care home to the greatest extent possible.
    (2) * * *
    (ii) For children with an IEP who are transitioning out of Head 
Start Preschool 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.

Subpart G--Transition Services

0
34. Amend Sec.  1302.70 by revising paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) and (d) 
to read as follows:


Sec.  1302.70  Transitions from Early Head Start.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (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 Preschool, 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 Preschool 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.
* * * * *
    (d) Early Head Start and Head Start Preschool collaboration. Early 
Head Start and Head Start Preschool programs must work together to 
maximize enrollment transitions from Early Head Start to Head Start 
Preschool, consistent with the eligibility provisions in subpart A of 
this part, and promote successful transitions through collaboration and 
communication.
* * * * *
0
35. Amend Sec.  1302.71 by revising the section heading to read as 
follows:


Sec.  1302.71  Transitions from Head Start Preschool to kindergarten.

* * * * *
0
36. Amend Sec.  1302.72 by revising paragraphs (a) and (c) to read as 
follows:


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 Head Start programs. If Head Start is not 
available, the program should assist the family to identify another 
early childhood program that meets their needs.
* * * * *
    (c) A migrant or seasonal Head Start program must undertake efforts 
to support effective transitions to other migrant or seasonal Head 
Start or, if appropriate, Early Head Start or Head Start Preschool 
programs for families and children moving out of the community in which 
they are currently served.

Subpart H--Services to Enrolled Pregnant Women

0
37. Amend Sec.  1302.80 by revising paragraph (d) and adding paragraphs 
(e) and (f) to read as follows:


Sec.  1302.80  Enrolled pregnant women.

* * * * *
    (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. 
At a minimum, the visit must include a discussion of the following: 
maternal mental and physical health, infant health, and support for 
basic needs.
    (e) A program must track and record services an enrolled pregnant 
woman receives both from the program and through referrals, to help 
identify specific prenatal care services and resources the enrolled 
pregnant woman needs to support a healthy pregnancy.
    (f) The program must provide services that help reduce barriers to 
healthy maternal and birthing outcomes for each family, including 
services that address disparities across racial and ethnic groups, and 
use data on enrolled pregnant women to inform program services.
0
38. Revise Sec.  1302.81 to read as follows:


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

    (a) A program must provide enrolled pregnant women, mothers, 
fathers, and partners or other family members the prenatal and 
postpartum information, education and services that address, as 
appropriate, fetal development, the importance of nutrition including 
breastfeeding, the risks of alcohol, drugs, and smoking and the 
benefits of substance use treatment, labor and delivery, postpartum 
recovery, and infant care and safe sleep practices.
    (b) A program must support pregnant women, mothers, fathers, 
partners, or other family members to access mental health services, 
including referrals, as appropriate, to address concerns including 
perinatal depression, anxiety, grief or loss, birth trauma, and 
substance use.
    (c) A program must also address pregnant women's needs for 
appropriate supports for social and emotional well-being, nurturing and 
responsive caregiving, and father, partner, or other family member 
engagement during pregnancy and early childhood.
0
39. Amend Sec.  1302.82 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:


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

[[Page 80903]]

on factors that influence prenatal and postpartum maternal and infant 
health. If a program uses a curriculum in the provision of services to 
pregnant women, this should be a maternal health curriculum, to support 
prenatal and postpartum education needs.
* * * * *

Subpart I--Human Resources Management

0
40. Amend Sec.  1302.90 by revising paragraphs (c)(1)(ii) through (iv) 
and adding paragraphs (c)(1)(vi), (e), and (f) to read as follows:


Sec.  1302.90  Personnel Policies.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) Ensure staff, consultants, contractors, and volunteers do not 
engage in behaviors that would be reasonably suspected to negatively 
impact the health, mental health, or safety of children, including at a 
minimum:
    (A) Corporal punishment or physically abusive behavior, defined as 
intentional use of physical force that results in, or has the potential 
to result in, physical injury. Examples include, but are not limited 
to, hitting, kicking, shaking, biting, forcibly moving, restraining, 
force feeding, or dragging.
    (B) Sexually abusive behavior, defined as any completed or 
attempted sexual act, sexual contact, or exploitation. Examples 
include, but are not limited to, behaviors such as inappropriate 
touching, inappropriate filming, or exposing a child to other sexual 
activities.
    (C) Emotionally harmful or abusive behavior, defined as behaviors 
that harm a child's self worth or emotional well-being or behaviors 
that are insensitive to a child's developmental needs. Examples 
include, but are not limited to, using isolation as discipline, using 
or exposing a child to public or private humiliation, or name calling, 
shaming, intimidating, or threatening a child.
    (D) Neglectful behavior, defined as the failure to meet a child's 
basic physical and emotional needs including access to food, education, 
medical care, appropriate supervision by an adequate caregiver, and 
safe physical and emotional environments. Examples include, but are not 
limited to, withholding food as punishment or refusing to change soiled 
diapers as punishment.
    (iii) Ensure staff, consultants, contractors, and volunteers report 
reasonably suspected or known incidents of child abuse and neglect, as 
defined by the Federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) 
(42 U.S.C. 5101 note) and in compliance with Federal, State, local, and 
Tribal laws.
    (iv) Ensure staff, consultants, contractors, and volunteers respect 
and promote the unique identity of each individual and do not 
stereotype on any basis, including gender, race, ethnicity, culture, 
religion, disability, sexual orientation, or family composition;
* * * * *
    (vi) Ensure no child is left alone or unsupervised.
* * * * *
    (e) Wages--(1) Pay scale. (i) By August 1, 2031, a program must 
implement a salary scale, salary schedule, wage ladder, or other 
similar pay structure for program staff salaries that incorporates the 
requirements in paragraphs (e)(2), (3), and (4) of this section, 
reflects salaries or wages for all other staff in the program, promotes 
salaries that are comparable to similar services in relevant industries 
in their geographic area, and considers, at a minimum, 
responsibilities, qualifications, and experience relevant to the 
position, and schedule or hours worked.
    (ii) After August 1, 2031, a program must review its pay structure 
at least once every 5 years to assess whether it continues to meet the 
expectations described in paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this section.
    (iii) A program must ensure that staff salaries are not in excess 
of level II of the Executive Schedule, as required in 42 U.S.C. 
9848(b)(1).
    (2) Progress to pay parity for education staff with elementary 
school staff. (i) A program must make measurable progress towards pay 
parity for Head Start teachers with kindergarten through third grade 
teachers. By August 1, 2031, a program must demonstrate it has made 
progress to parity by ensuring that each Head Start teacher receives an 
annual salary that is at least comparable to the annual salary paid to 
preschool teachers in public school settings in the program's local 
school district, adjusted for responsibilities, qualifications, and 
experience. A program may provide annual salaries comparable to a 
neighboring school district if the salaries are higher than a program's 
local school district.
    (ii) A program must make measurable progress towards pay parity for 
all other Head Start education staff who work directly with children as 
part of their daily job responsibilities. By August 1, 2031, a program 
must demonstrate it has made progress to parity by ensuring that each 
staff member described in this provision receives an annual salary that 
is at least comparable to the salaries described in paragraph (e)(2)(i) 
of this section, adjusted for role, responsibilities, qualifications, 
and experience.
    (iii) If there is not a sufficient number of comparable preschool 
teachers in school-based settings in the program's local or neighboring 
school district, a program may use an alternative method to implement 
the requirements in paragraphs (e)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section to 
determine appropriate comparison salaries. The alternative method must 
be approved by ACF.
    (iv) To demonstrate measurable progress towards pay parity as 
described in paragraph (e)(2)(i) of this section, a program must 
regularly track data on how wages paid to their education staff compare 
to wages paid to preschool through third grade teachers in their local 
or neighboring school district.
    (3) Salary floor. By August 1, 2031, a program must ensure, at a 
minimum, the wage or salary structure established or updated under 
paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this section provides all staff with a wage or 
salary that is generally sufficient to cover basic needs such as food, 
housing, utilities, medical costs, transportation, and taxes, or would 
be sufficient if the worker's hourly rate were paid according to a 
full-time, full-year schedule (or over 2,080 hours per year).
    (4) Wage comparability for all ages served. A program must ensure 
the wage or salary structure established or updated under paragraph 
(e)(1)(i) of this section does not differ by age of children served for 
similar program staff positions with similar qualifications and 
experience.
    (f) Staff benefits. (1) For each full-time staff member, defined as 
those working 30 or more hours per week during the program year, a 
program must:
    (i) Provide or facilitate access to high-quality affordable health 
insurance;
    (ii) Offer the accrual of paid sick leave based on hours worked or 
days of sick leave updated annually and the accrual at a minimum must 
meet the standards set by State or local laws, if applicable;
    (iii) Offer job-protected periods of paid family leave consistent 
with eligibility for and protections in the Family and Medical Leave 
Act (FMLA) or, if applicable, the standards set by State or local laws;
    (iv) Offer the accrual of paid vacation or personal time 
commensurate with experience or tenure, if the program

[[Page 80904]]

operates longer than a typical school year; and
    (v) Offer access to short-term, free or minimal cost behavioral 
health services of approximately three to five outpatient visits per 
year;
    (2) For each part-time staff member, a program must facilitate 
access to high-quality, affordable health insurance.
    (3) For each staff member, a program must facilitate access to 
affordable child care, including connections to child care resource and 
referral agencies or other childcare consumer education organizations 
and, for staff who meet eligibility guidelines, facilitate enrollment 
in the child care subsidy program.
    (4) For each staff member, a program must facilitate access to the 
Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program, or other applicable 
student loan debt relief programs, including timely certification of 
employment.
    (5) At least once every 5 years, a program must assess and 
determine if their benefits package for full-time staff is at least 
comparable to those provided to elementary school staff in the 
program's local or neighboring school district. Programs may offer 
additional benefits to staff, including more enhanced health benefits, 
retirement savings plans, flexible savings accounts, or life, 
disability, and long-term care insurance.
0
41. Amend Sec.  1302.91 by revising paragraphs (b), (e)(2) and (3), and 
(e)(8)(ii) to read as follows:


Sec.  1302.91  Staff qualification and competency requirements

* * * * *
    (b) Head Start director. A program must ensure a 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.
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (2) Head Start Preschool center-based teacher qualification 
requirements. (i) The Secretary must ensure no less than fifty percent 
of all Head Start Preschool teachers, nation-wide, have a baccalaureate 
degree in child development, early childhood education, or equivalent 
coursework.
    (ii) As prescribed in section 648A(a)(3)(B) \27\ 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 Preschool assistant teacher qualification 
requirements. As prescribed in section 648A(a)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act, a 
program must ensure Head Start Preschool 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.
* * * * *
    (8) * * *
    (ii) A program must ensure all mental health consultants are 
licensed or under the supervision of a licensed mental health 
professional. A program must use mental health consultants with 
knowledge of and experience in serving young children and their 
families.
* * * * *
0
42. Amend Sec.  1302.92 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:


Sec.  1302.92  Training and professional development.

* * * * *
    (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, and 
integrated with employee engagement practices in accordance with Sec.  
1302.101(a)(2). 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, 
and includes creating individual professional development plans as 
described in section 648A(f) of the Act.
    (2) Annual training on mandatory reporting of suspected or known 
child abuse and neglect, that complies with applicable Federal, State, 
local, and Tribal laws;
    (3) Annual training on positive strategies to understand and 
support children's social and emotional development, including the 
implementation of tools for preventing and managing challenging 
behavior;
    (4) Training for child and family services staff on best practices 
for implementing family engagement strategies in a systemic way, as 
described throughout this part;
    (5) 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,
    (6) 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.
* * * * *
0
43. Amend Sec.  1302.93 by adding paragraphs (c) through (e) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  1302.93  Staff Health and Wellness.

* * * * *
    (c)(1) A program must provide:
    (i) For each staff member working a shift lasting between four and 
six hours, a minimum of one 15-minute break per shift; and
    (ii) For each staff member working a shift lasting six hours or 
more, a minimum of one 30-minute break per shift.
    (2) If applicable State laws or regulations have more stringent 
requirements for breaks, a program should comply with the more 
stringent requirements.
    (3) During break times for classroom staff described in paragraph 
(c)(1) of this section, one teaching staff member may be replaced by 
one staff member who does not meet the teaching qualifications required 
for the age, provided that this staff member has the necessary training 
and experience to ensure safety of children and minimal disruption to 
the quality of services.
    (4) A program must design and implement a systematic approach to 
ensure each staff member that works directly with children as part of 
their regular job responsibilities can have access to brief unscheduled 
wellness breaks of about 5 minutes as needed while ensuring child 
safety.
    (d) A program must ensure staff have access to adult size furniture 
in classrooms.
    (e) A program should cultivate a program-wide culture of wellness 
that empowers staff as professionals and

[[Page 80905]]

supports staff to effectively accomplish their job responsibilities in 
a high-quality manner, in line with the requirement at Sec.  
1302.101(a)(2).
0
44. Amend Sec.  1302.94 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:


Sec.  1302.94  Volunteers.

    (a) A program must ensure 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 
and Mental Health Services Advisory Committee must be consulted 
regarding the need for such screenings.
* * * * *

Subpart J--Program Management and Quality Improvement

0
45. Amend Sec.  1302.101 by revising paragraph (a)(2) and adding 
paragraph (a)(5) to read as follows:


Sec.  1302.101   Management System.

    (a) * * *
    (2) Promotes clear and reasonable roles and responsibilities for 
all staff and provides regular and ongoing staff supervision with 
meaningful and effective employee engagement practices.
* * * * *
    (5) Ensures that all staff are trained to implement reporting 
procedures in Sec.  1302.102(d)(1)(ii).
* * * * *
0
46. Amend Sec.  1302.102 by revising the section heading and paragraph 
(d)(1)(ii) and adding paragraph (d)(1)(iii) to read as follows:


Sec.  1302.102  Program Goals, Continuous Improvement, and Reporting.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) Reports, as appropriate, to the responsible HHS official 
immediately or no later than 3 business days following the incident, 
related to:
    (A) Any significant incident that affects the health, mental 
health, or safety of a child that occurs in a setting where Head Start 
services are provided and that involves:
    (1) A staff member, contractor, volunteer, or other adult that 
participates in either a Head Start program or a classroom at least 
partially funded by Head Start, regardless of whether the child 
receives Head Start services; or
    (2) A child that receives services fully or partially funded by 
Head Start or a child that participates in a classroom at least 
partially funded by Head Start; or
    (B) 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.
    (iii) Reportable incidents under paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this 
section include at a minimum:
    (A) Any mandated 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, 
except for circumstances such as natural disasters that interfere with 
program operations;
    (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 of 
this chapter, including disqualification from the Child and Adult Care 
Food Program (CACFP) and license revocation.
    (E) Any suspected or known violations of Standards of Conduct under 
Sec.  1302.90(c)(1)(ii);
    (F) Significant health or safety incidents related to suspected or 
known lack of supervision or lack of preventative maintenance; and,
    (G) Any unauthorized release of a child.
* * * * *


Sec.  1302.103   [Removed]

0
47. Remove Sec.  1302.103.

PART 1303--FINANCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS

0
48. The authority for part 1303 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart D--Delegation of Program Operations

0
49. Revise Sec.  1303.30 to read as follows:


Sec.  1303.30  Grant recipient responsibility and accountability.

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

Subpart E--Facilities

0
50. Amend Sec.  1303.44 by revising paragraph (a)(7) to read as 
follows:


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

    (a) * * *
    (7) An estimate by a licensed independent certified appraiser of 
the facility's cost 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;
* * * * *
0
51. Amend Sec.  1303.48 by revising the section heading to read as 
follows:


Sec.  1303  Grant recipient limitations on Federal interest.

* * * * *

Subpart F--Transportation

0
52. Amend Sec.  1303.70 by revising paragraph (c)(1) introductory text 
to read as follows:


Sec.  1303.70  Purpose.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) A program that provides transportation services must comply 
with all provisions in this subpart. A Head Start Preschool 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:
* * * * *
0
53. Amend Sec.  1303.75 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:


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

[[Page 80906]]

option by the grant recipient. Whenever possible, children with 
disabilities must be transported in the same vehicles used to transport 
other children enrolled in the Head Start program.
* * * * *

PART 1303--[AMENDED]

0
54. Further amend part 1303 by:
0
a. Removing the word ``grantee'' and adding the words ``grant 
recipient'' in its place wherever it appears;
0
b. Removing the word ``grantees'' and adding the words ``grant 
recipients'' in its place wherever it appears; and
0
c. Removing the word ``grantee's'' and adding the words ``grant 
recipient's'' in its place wherever it appears.

PART 1304--FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

0
55. The authority for part 1304 continues to read as follows:

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

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


Sec.  1304.5   [Amended]

0
56. Amend Sec.  1304.5 by removing the word ``Grantee's'' and adding in 
its place the words ``Grant recipient's'' in the paragraph (c) heading 
and removing the word ``grantees'' and adding in its place the words 
``grant recipients'' paragraph (c)(1) and the paragraph (e) heading.


Sec.  1304.6  [Amended]

0
57. Amend Sec.  1304.6 by removing the word ``grantees'' and adding in 
its place the words ``grant recipients'' in the paragraph (c) heading.

Subpart B--Designation Renewal

0
58. Revise Sec.  1304.10 to read as follows:


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 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 grant 
recipients be fully protected. The Designation Renewal System is 
established in this part to determine whether 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) or 645A(b)(12) and (d) of the Head Start 
Act. A competition to select a new Head Start agency to replace a 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.
0
59. Amend Sec.  1304.11 by revising the introductory text and 
paragraphs (d) and (e) to read as follows:


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

    A Head Start agency will 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 under Sec.  1304.15:
* * * * *
    (d) An agency has had a revocation of its license to operate a Head 
Start center or program by a State or local licensing agency during the 
relevant time period 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 will 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 program by ACF 
during the relevant time period covered by the responsible HHS 
official's review under Sec.  1304.15 and the suspension has not been 
overturned or withdrawn. If 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 
and the suspension remains in place, the condition will be implemented.
* * * * *
0
60. Amend Sec.  1304.12 by revising the section heading to read as 
follows:


Sec.  1304.12   Grant recipient reporting requirements concerning 
certain conditions.

* * * * *
0
61. Revise Sec.  1304.13 to read as follows:


Sec.  1304.13  Requirements to be considered for designation for a 
five-year period when the existing grant recipient 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 program. The 
application must address the criteria for selection listed at section 
641(d)(2)58 of the Act for Head Start. Any agency that has had its 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 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.
0
62. Amend Sec.  1304.14 by revising paragraphs (a) introductory text, 
(a)(2) and (3), (b), and (c) to read as follows:


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 agency determined not to be 
delivering a high-quality and comprehensive 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 operated by the Indian Head Start agency.
* * * * *
    (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 agency.
    (3) If the Indian Head Start agency is still not delivering a high-
quality and comprehensive Head Start program, the responsible HHS 
official will conduct an open competition to select a grant recipient 
to provide services for the community currently being served by the 
Indian Head Start agency.
    (b) A non-Indian 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 agency available for designation to carry out an 
Indian Head Start program.
    (c) A non-Indian Head Start agency may receive a grant to carry out 
an

[[Page 80907]]

Indian Head Start program only until such time as an Indian Head Start 
agency in such community becomes available and is designated pursuant 
to this part.
0
63. Amend Sec.  1304.15 by revising paragraphs (a), (b), (c) 
introductory text, and (c)(1) to read as follows:


Sec.  1304.15  Designation request, review and notification process.

    (a) A grant recipient must apply to be considered for Designation 
Renewal. A Head Start agency wishing to be considered to have its 
designation as a Head Start agency renewed for another five-year period 
without competition must 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 agency 
during the current project period.
    (c) ACF will give notice to grant recipients on Designation Renewal 
System status, except as provided in Sec.  1304.14, at least 12 months 
before the expiration date of a Head Start agency's current grant, 
stating:
    (1) The 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
* * * * *

Subpart C--Selection of Grant Recipients through Competition

0
64. Revise the heading for subpart C to read as set forth above.
0
65. Amend Sec.  1304.20 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:


Sec.  1304.20  Selection among applicants.

    (a) In selecting an agency to be designated to provide Head Start 
Preschool, Early Head Start, Migrant or Seasonal Head Start or Tribal 
Head Start Preschool 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.
* * * * *

Subpart D--Replacement of American Indian and Alaska Native Grant 
Recipients

0
66. Revise the heading for subpart D to read as set forth above.

PART 1304--[AMENDED]

0
67. Further amend part 1304 by:
0
a. Removing the word ``grantee'' and adding the words ``grant 
recipient'' in its place wherever it appears; and
0
b. Removing the word ``grantees'' and adding the words ``grant 
recipients'' in its place wherever it appears; and

PART 1305--DEFINITIONS

0
68. The authority for part 1305 continues to read as follows:

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

0
69. Amend Sec.  1305.2 by:
0
a. Adding in alphabetical order definitions for ``Abatement'' and 
``Change to the water profile'';
0
b. Revising the definition of ``Continuity of care'';
0
c. Removing the word ``grantee'' and adding in its place the words 
``grant recipient'' in the definition of ``Denial of Refunding'';
0
d. Adding in alphabetical order a definition for ``Early Head Start'';
0
e. Removing the definition of ``Early Head Start agency'';
0
f. Adding in alphabetical order a definition for ``Expulsion'';
0
g. Revising the definitions of ``Federal interest'', ``Fixed route'', 
and ``Full-working-day'';
0
h. Removing the word ``grantee'' and adding in its place the words 
``grant recipient'' in the definition of ``Funded enrollment'';
0
i. Removing the definition of ``Grantee'';
0
j. Adding in alphabetical order definitions for ``Grant recipient'' and 
``Head Start'';
0
k. Revising the definition of ``Head Start agency'';
0
l. Adding in alphabetical order definitions for ``Head Start 
Preschool'' and ``Housing expenses'';
0
m. Revising the definitions of ``Income'',
0
n. Removing the word ``grantee'' and adding in its place the words 
``grant recipient'' in the definition of ``Legal status'';
0
o. Revising the definitions of ``Major renovation'' and ``Migrant 
family'';
0
p. Removing the word ``grantee'' and adding in its place the words 
``grant recipient'' in the definition of ``Modular unit'';
0
q. Revising the definition of ``Participant'';
0
r. Adding in alphabetical order a definition for ``Poverty line'';
0
s. Revising the definitions of ``Program'' and ``Purchase'';
0
t. Removing the word ``grantee'' and adding in its place the words 
``grant recipient'' in the definition of ``Service area'';
0
u. Adding in alphabetical order a definition for ``Suspension'';
0
v. Removing the word ``grantee's'' and adding in its place the words 
``grant recipient's'' in the introductory text and paragraph (1) of the 
definition of ``Termination of a grant or delegate agency agreement'' 
and removing the word ``grantee'' and adding in its place the words 
``grant recipient'' in introductory text of the definition of 
``Termination of a great or delegate agency agreement'';
0
w. Removing the definition of ``Transition period'';
0
x. Revising the definition of ``Transportation services''; and
0
y. Adding in alphabetical order a definition for ``Water fixtures used 
for human consumption''.
    The additions and revisions read as follows:


Sec.  1305.2  Terms.

    Abatement means actions designed to eliminate lead-based paint or 
lead-based paint hazards. Abatement can include the:
    (1) Removal of lead-based paint and dust-lead hazards, the 
enclosure or encapsulation of lead-based paint, the replacement of 
components or fixtures painted with lead-based paint, and the removal 
or permanent covering of soil-lead hazards; and
    (2) Preparation, cleanup, disposal, and post-abatement testing to 
determine the effectiveness of such measures.
* * * * *
    Change to the water profile means change in source of water, water 
plumbing, or water fixture.
* * * * *
    Continuity of care means 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 Preschool.
* * * * *
    Early Head Start means a program that serves pregnant women and 
children from birth to age three, pursuant to section 645A(e) of the 
Head Start Act. This includes Tribal and migrant or seasonal programs.

[[Page 80908]]

    Expulsion is the permanent removal of a child from the learning 
setting or a requirement that a child unenroll in a program.
* * * * *
    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 subject to part 
1303, subpart E of this chapter funding in the event the facility is no 
longer used for Head Start purposes by the grant recipient or upon the 
disposition of the property. When a grant recipient uses Head Start 
funds to purchase, construct or make major renovations to a facility, 
or make mortgage payments, it creates a Federal interest. The Federal 
interest includes any portion of the cost of purchase, construction, or 
major renovation contributed by or for the entity, or a related donor 
organization, to satisfy a matching requirement.
* * * * *
    Fixed route means the established routes to be traveled on a 
regular basis by vehicles that transport children to and from Head 
Start program activities, and which include specifically designated 
stops where children board or exit the vehicle.
* * * * *
    Full-working-day means not less than 10 hours of Head Start 
services per day.
* * * * *
    Grant recipient 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 means any program authorized under the Head Start Act.
    Head Start agency means a local public or private non-profit or 
for-profit entity designated by ACF to operate a Head Start Preschool 
program, an Early Head Start program, or Migrant or Seasonal Head Start 
program pursuant to the Head Start Act.
* * * * *
    Head Start Preschool means a program that serves children aged 
three to compulsory school age, pursuant to section 641(b) and (d) of 
the Head Start Act. This includes Tribal and migrant or seasonal 
programs.
* * * * *
    Housing expenses means the total annual expenses spent by the 
family on rent or mortgage payments, homeowner's or renter's insurance, 
utilities, interest, and taxes on the home. Utilities include 
electricity, gas, water, sewer, and trash.
    Income means gross income and only includes wages, business income, 
veteran's benefits, Social Security benefits, unemployment 
compensation, alimony, pension or annuity payments, gifts that exceed 
the threshold for taxable income, and military income (excluding 
special pay for a member subject to hostile fire or imminent danger 
under 37 U.S.C. 310 or any basic allowance for housing under 37 U.S.C. 
403 including housing acquired under the alternative authority under 10 
U.S.C. 169 or any related provision of law). Gross income only includes 
sources of income provided in this definition; it does not include 
refundable tax credits nor any forms of public assistance.
* * * * *
    Major renovation means any individual or collective group of 
renovation activities related to the same facility that has a cost 
equal to or exceeding $250,000 in Head Start funds. Renovation 
activities that are intended to occur concurrently or consecutively, or 
altogether address a specific part or feature of a facility, are 
considered a collective group of renovation activities. Unless included 
in a purchase application, minor renovations and repairs are excluded 
from major renovations.
    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.
* * * * *
    Participant means a pregnant woman or child who is enrolled in and 
receives services from a Head Start Preschool, an Early Head Start, a 
Migrant or Seasonal Head Start, or an American Indian and Alaska Native 
Head Start program.
* * * * *
    Poverty line is set by the poverty guidelines updated periodically 
in the Federal Register by the U.S. Department of Health and Human 
Services under the authority of 42 U.S.C. 9902(2). Poverty guidelines 
for the contiguous-states-and-DC apply to Puerto Rico and U.S. 
Territories.
    Program means any funded Head Start Preschool, Early Head Start, 
Migrant or Seasonal Head Start, Tribal, or other program authorized 
under the Act and carried out by an agency, or delegate agency, to 
provide ongoing comprehensive child development services.
* * * * *
    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 finance 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.
* * * * *
    Suspension is the temporary removal of a child from the learning 
setting including all reductions in the amount of time a child may be 
in attendance of the regular group setting, either by requiring the 
child to cease attendance for a particular period of time or reducing 
the number of days or amount of time that a child may attend. Requiring 
a child to attend the program away from the other children in the 
regular group setting is included in this definition. Requiring the 
parent or the parent's designee to pick up a child for reasons other 
than illness or injury is also included in this definition.
* * * * *
    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 grant 
recipient 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.
* * * * *
    Water fixtures used for human consumption means fixtures used for 
drinking, cooking, hand washing, teeth brushing, food preparation, 
dishwashing, and maintaining oral hygiene.

[FR Doc. 2023-25038 Filed 11-15-23; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4184-40-P