[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 162 (Wednesday, August 21, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 67720-67819]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-18279]
[[Page 67719]]
Vol. 89
Wednesday,
No. 162
August 21, 2024
Part II
Department of Health and Human Services
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
45 CFR Parts 1301, 1302, 1303, et al.
Supporting the Head Start Workforce and Consistent Quality Programming;
Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 89 , No. 162 / Wednesday, August 21, 2024 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 67720]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
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: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule makes regulatory changes to the Head Start
Program Performance Standards (HSPPS) to support and stabilize the Head
Start workforce and improve the quality of services Head Start programs
provide to children and families. These changes include requirements
for wages and benefits, breaks for staff, and enhanced support for
staff health and wellness. The changes also include enhancements to
mental health services to better integrate mental health into every
aspect of program service delivery. Enhancements are also included in
the areas of family service worker family assignments, identifying and
meeting community needs, ensuring child safety, services for pregnant
women and other pregnant people, and alignment with State early
childhood systems. Finally, the changes include minor clarifications to
promote better transparency and clarity of understanding for grant
recipients.
DATES:
Effective date: August 21, 2024.
Compliance date: The compliance date for many of the requirements
in this final rule is October 21, 2024, or 60 days after this final
rule is published in the Federal Register. However, there is a subset
of requirements where we expect programs may need more time to
implement the regulatory changes. In these cases, we specify an
alternate timeline for compliance. See further discussion of these
dates in the section entitled Effective and Compliance Dates.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jessica Bialecki, Office of Head
Start, 202-240-3901 or [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Statutory Authority
II. Background
III. Effective Summary
Effective and Compliance Dates
Severability
IV. Development of Regulation
V. General Comments and Cross-Cutting Issues
VI. Section-by-Section Discussion of Comments and Regulatory
Provisions
Definition of Head Start and Related Terms (Sec. 1305.2)
Workforce Supports: Staff Wages (Sec. 1302.90)
Workforce Supports: Staff Benefits (Sec. 1302.90)
Workforce Supports: Training and Professional Development Plans
(Sec. 1302.91)
Workforce Supports: Staff Wellness (Sec. 1302.93)
Workforce Supports: Employee Engagement (Sec. Sec. 1302.92,
1302.101)
Workforce Supports: Staff Wellness (Sec. 1302.93)
Mental Health Services (Subparts D, H, and I)
Child Health and Safety (Sec. Sec. 1302.47; 1302.90; 1302.92;
1302.101; 1302.102)
Modernizing Head Start's Engagement With Families (Sec. Sec.
1302.11; 1302.13; 1302.15; 1302.34; 1302.50)
Community Assessments (Sec. 1302.11)
Adjustment for Excessive Housing Costs for Eligibility
Determination (Sec. 1302.12)
Tribal Eligibility and Selection Process (Sec. Sec. 1302.12;
1302.14)
Migrant and Seasonal Eligibility and Selection Process
(Sec. Sec. 1302.12, 1302.14) Transportation & Other Barriers to
Enrollment and Attendance (Sec. Sec. 1302.14; 1302.16)
Serving Children With Disabilities (Sec. 1302.14)
Suspension and Expulsion (Sec. Sec. 1302.17; 1305.2)
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)
Preventing and Addressing Lead Exposure (Sec. 1302.47)
Family Partnership Family Assignments (Sec. 1302.52)
Participation in Quality Rating and Improvement Systems (Sec.
1302.53)
Services to Enrolled Pregnant Women (Sec. Sec. 1302.80;
1302.82)
Facilities (Sec. Sec. 1303.42; 1303.43; 1303.44; 1303.45)
Definition of Income (Sec. 1305.2)
Definition of Major Renovations, Federal Interest, and Purchases
(Sec. 1305.2)
Definition of Poverty Line (Sec. 1305.2)
Removal of Outdated Sections
Compliance With Section 641(a)(2) of the Act
VII. Regulatory Process Matters
VIII. Regulatory Impact Analysis
I. Statutory Authority
This final rule is being issued under the authority granted to the
Secretary of Health and Human Services by sections 640(a)(5)(A)(i) and
(B)(viii), 641A, 644(c), 645, 645A, 648A, and 653 of the Head Start Act
(the Act) (42 U.S.C. 9835, 9836a, 9839(c), 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 . . .'' \1\ 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 Act and addresses Congress's mandate that called for
the Secretary to review and revise the performance standards. The
Secretary has determined that the modifications to performance
standards contained in this final rule are appropriate and needed to
effectuate the goals of the performance standards and the purposes of
the Act. The requirements outlined in this final rule shall not be
construed to supersede or preempt the requirement for Head Start
agencies to comply with other laws, including title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Pay Act of 1963, the Age Discrimination
in Employment Act of 1967, the Americans with Disabilities Act, as
amended, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008, the
Pregnant Workers Fairness Act of 2022, the Fair Labor Standards Act,
and any other applicable Federal, state, or local labor standards laws
when implementing workforce performance standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See section 641A(a)(1) and (2) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Background
The Federal Head Start program provides early education and other
comprehensive services to well over half a million children prenatal to
age five 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.\2\ The most essential
[[Page 67721]]
component to accomplishing Head Start's mission of providing high-
quality early childhood education and comprehensive services is the
workforce of approximately 248,000 staff \3\ who provide the services
to children and families each day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 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.
\3\ Source: Head Start 2022 Program Information Report (PIR).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Early educators provide a critical foundation for children to learn
and develop \4\ and positively impact children's outcomes.\5\ 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.\6\ Currently, Head Start programs
across the nation are experiencing a severe staff shortage with
turnover at its highest point in two decades.\7\ This severely impacts
the ability of programs to fully enroll classrooms and provide
consistent high-quality services to children and families. 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. Research indicates that well compensated
early childhood teachers and staff have lower turnover rates and
provide higher quality services.\8\ Conversely, a higher rate of
turnover among early care and education (ECE) staff is associated with
lower quality services and care, as well as poorer developmental
outcomes for children.\9\ For instance, research has demonstrated that
turnover among early care and education professionals is linked to
worse cognitive and social developmental outcomes for children birth to
age 5.\10\ For decades, the Head Start program has been subsidized by
low paid workers committed to the mission; now is the time to enact
clear Federal requirements for staff compensation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 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).
\5\ 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.
\6\ 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.
\7\ Source: Head Start 2022 PIR.
\8\ 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-staffing-1994-2000/.
\9\ Hale-Jinks, C., Knopf, H., & Kemple, K. (2006). Tackling
teacher turnover in childcare: Understanding causes and
consequences, identifying solutions. Childhood Education, 82, 219-
226.
\10\ Hale-Jinks, Knopf, & Kemple (2006). Tackling teacher
turnover in childcare: Understanding causes and consequences,
identifying solutions. Childhood Education, 82, 219-226.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 instituted a number of
changes to increase qualifications and other requirements for Head
Start staff, particularly education staff, and mandated HHS to revise
the Head Start Program Performance Standards (HSPPS). 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. The 2016 overhaul of the HSPPS updated and enhanced
program standards 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.
Although 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. 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 68 percent in 2023), inflation-adjusted salary for these teachers
increased by less than 1 percent during this same timeframe, from
$41,389 in 2010 to $41,691 in 2023.\11\ Given the increased
expectations and requirements for these staff positions without any
significant increases in wages, it is unsurprising that turnover among
Head Start classroom teachers, as well as other staff positions, has
increased markedly over the past decade, a situation that was
exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.\12\ In 2023, turnover across all
staff positions was 17 percent, a large jump from 13.5 percent in 2019
(prior to the pandemic), although marginally improved from an a high of
19 percent in 2022. Turnover for teachers (across both preschool and
infant and toddler teachers) was even higher in 2023, at 19
percent.\13\ Indeed, the workforce challenges in Head Start have
remained intractable even after some other industries have regained
pre-pandemic employment levels. The unprecedented rate of turnover and
staff vacancies programs are experiencing threaten the stability and
future 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. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Source: Head Start 2023 PIR.
\12\ Source: Head Start 2010-2023 PIR.
\13\ Source: Head Start 2023 PIR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While high staff turnover rates are an issue for the entire ECE
sector in the
[[Page 67722]]
United States, HHS has the authority and opportunity to address the
systemic problems driving high turnover in Head Start, and stronger
workforce supports are necessary to meet the purpose of the Act of
promoting school readiness for low-income children (42 U.S.C. 9831).
The Act authorizes the Secretary to modify the program performance
standards as necessary, and, while the changes through this final rule
retain the level of 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 nationwide
benchmark for high-quality early childhood programs. This final rule
affirms that higher wages and benefits are a key driver of quality in
early childhood.
In addition to post-pandemic workforce challenges related to
compensation and turnover, mental and behavioral health issues have
risen among children and adults over the last decade. Head Start
programs must adapt and evolve to continue leading the sector in
quality programing for children and families. The final rule enhances
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. Infant and early childhood mental
health consultation services are provided by licensed or licensed-
eligible mental health professionals with specialized knowledge in
child development, such as social workers or psychologists, who build
the capacity of adults to support the mental health and social and
emotional development of children. Prior to this final rule,
requirements in the performance standards in these areas were broad and
contributed to wide variation in the quality of the implementation of
those standards.
This final rule also promotes improvements in the quality of
program service delivery. The enhancements in this final rule will
promote more consistent implementation of program services across a
variety of areas, ultimately improving outcomes for enrolled children
and their families. For instance, the rule improves services to
families by limiting the number of families to which an individual
family service worker can be assigned. Additionally, since the
inception of the 2016 revision to the HSPPS, ACF received feedback
about areas where standards have not been implemented as intended in
the field, or areas where standards are not clear. This final rule
enhances and clarifies the performance standards across a variety of
areas, codifies certain essential best practices, and streamlines
processes for programs implementing the standards, with the goal of
further improving the quality of Head Start services.
The changes to the HSPPS promulgated through this final rule 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. Establishing the new or enhanced
standards described in this final rule--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.
The Head Start program is facing unprecedented levels of programs
that are not fully enrolled. ACF is aware of many programs that have
waiting lists but cannot open classrooms because they cannot hire
teachers at current wage and benefit levels. Thus, many Head Start
programs face the conundrum of having vacant slots, but no staff to
serve additional children. Short staffing places additional stress on
current staff, exacerbating burnout and turnover.
This rule offers a path forward by requiring more competitive wages
and benefits to attract and retain staff and align actual and funded
enrollment levels. For many programs, costs can be partially or mostly
offset through reductions in funded slots that are currently vacant. In
addition, while there are costs associated with the rule, ACF notes
that there are also costs associated with high staff turnover and
vacant slots.
Moreover, the policy changes in this final rule are necessary for
the Head Start program to continue to operate effectively and meet its
mission and remain the gold standard of early care and education
services for young children, particularly for those furthest from
opportunity. As noted above, many programs have unfilled slots,
providing an opportunity to restructure the budget to support fewer
slots in some programs to ensure higher quality of services delivered,
including higher wages and benefits for staff without reducing the
number of children actually enrolled in the program. In addition to the
goal of stabilizing the Head Start workforce that will help minimize
empty classrooms, the policies in the final rule seek to mitigate slot
loss by providing a longer implementation timeline for wage and benefit
requirements (see a further discussion on this in the sections on
Workforce Supports), allowing for both program planning as well as
future congressional investments in quality improvement. The final rule
also includes different wage and benefit requirements for small Head
Start agencies (those with 200 or fewer funded slots). Absent
additional funding, smaller agencies may have a more challenging time
increasing wages and benefits without disproportionately impacting the
number of funded slots in their agencies. Finally, in the event that
appropriation increases for Head Start are below 1.3% on average for a
period of four years, the rule also includes a flexibility for the
Secretary to establish a limited waiver process for most of the rule's
wage requirements, for programs determined to be meeting quality
benchmarks and that would otherwise have to reduce enrolled Head Start
slots to implement these requirements.
Overall, for the reasons summarized above, the current staffing
shortage needs to be addressed urgently, and regulatory action is
warranted and necessary. Failure to put in place a glidepath to higher
wages and benefits would further threaten the ability of 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 of serving as many children
as possible, while helping to stabilize the Head Start program over the
long-term. Further, the establishment of new or enhanced expectations
in program quality through the changes described in this final rule
provides a better foundation for more consistent implementation of
high-quality services.
III. Executive Summary
This final rule amends the HSPPS to: (1) support and stabilize the
Head Start workforce through new requirements for staff wages,
benefits, and wellness supports; (2) strengthen mental health services
for children, families, and staff by integrating mental health into all
aspects of program service delivery; and (3) improve the quality of
services provided to children and families across a variety of other
service areas. The rule also makes some technical and other changes to
the HSPPS for improved clarity. The final rule makes changes from the
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), published on November 20, 2023
(88 FR 80818), based on public comment. These changes are designed
[[Page 67723]]
to increase flexibility for Head Start programs in achieving the goals
and intended outcomes of the final rule. Key changes from the policies
in the NPRM to the final rule include modifications to the wage and
benefit requirements for small Head Start agencies with a funded
enrollment level that is at or below 200 slots; an option for the
Secretary to establish a process in 2028 for a limited waiver authority
for the final rule's wage requirements, to mitigate slot loss in
programs determined to be meeting quality benchmarks, in the absence of
a four year annual average increase in Head Start appropriations of at
least 1.3 percent; a four year (rather than a two year) timeline for
phasing in benefit requirements; removal of the requirement to provide
paid family and medical leave beyond the existing requirements in the
Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA); additional flexibility to
implement monthly mental health supports; more flexibility in how
programs prevent exposure of children to lead in water and paint of
Head Start facilities; and maintaining the prior policy of allowing up
to seven days for programs to report child safety incidents to the
Office of Head Start (as opposed to three days as proposed in the
NPRM), as well as further clarification that only serious incidents
that should be reported to OHS, including definitions and examples.
Improving Wages, Benefits, and Wellness Supports for the Head Start
Workforce
This final rule makes changes to the HSPPS to support and stabilize
the Head Start workforce through new requirements for staff wages,
benefits, and wellness supports. First, the final rule adds a set of
new requirements for wages to promote competitive salaries for Head
Start staff. Specifically, by August 1, 2031, programs must implement a
set of four interrelated standards for staff wages. First, programs
must establish or update a salary scale or pay structure that promotes
competitive wages for all staff positions and takes into account
responsibilities, qualifications, experience, and schedule or hours
worked. Programs must review this pay structure at least once every 5
years. Second, programs must ensure annual salaries for Head Start
educators are at least comparable to those of preschool teachers in
public school settings, adjusted for responsibilities, qualifications,
experience, and schedule or hours worked. To support implementation of
this requirement, the final rule adds an alternative option to ensure
their education staff salaries are comparable to at least 90 percent of
public kindergarten teacher salaries (adjusted for responsibilities,
qualifications, experience, and schedule or hours worked), in
communities where public preschool does not exist or where data on
public preschool teacher salaries is hard to access. This alternative
benchmark for teacher salaries is described further below in the more
detailed discussion of the wage requirements. Overall, this standard
for education staff salaries will ensure that programs make measurable
progress towards pay parity with public school kindergarten through
third grade teachers in local elementary schools, and programs must
track data on progress towards pay parity over time. Third, programs
must ensure all Head Start staff receive pay that is at least
sufficient to cover basic costs of living in their geographic area.
Finally, programs must ensure wages are comparable across Head Start
Preschool and Early Head Start programs for staff serving in similar
positions with similar qualifications and experience.
The final rule includes an option for the Secretary to establish in
2028 a limited waiver process for most of the rule's wage requirements,
for eligible programs, if the prior four years of appropriation
increases for Head Start are less than an annual average of 1.3
percent. If the Secretary decides to invoke a waiver due to low
appropriations, the waiver would only be available to eligible grant
recipients that demonstrate that they meet four conditions: (1) the
program would have to reduce enrolled Head Start slots to implement
these requirements; (2) the program is meeting quality benchmarks
including protecting health and safety and demonstrated improvements in
staff wages during the preceding four years, to the greatest extent
practicable; (3) the program held the Head Start grant for the service
area prior to August 21, 2024 (the effective date of this rule); and
(4) the program agrees to make continued progress on wages for Head
Start staff over time, to the greatest extent practicable. These
eligibility criteria are discussed in more detail below in the section
by section discussion of comments and regulatory provisions. Next, this
final rule adds a set of requirements for staff benefits. The
compliance date for these requirements is August 1, 2028, which is two
years later than the timeline initially proposed in the NPRM. For full-
time staff--defined as those working 30 hours or more per week while
the program is in session--Head Start programs must: provide or
facilitate access to high-quality affordable health care coverage;
offer paid personal leave; and offer access to short-term, free or
minimal cost behavioral health services. The final rule includes
changes from the NPRM including requiring paid personal leave more
generally, rather than separate paid personal and paid sick time;
aligning with existing FMLA requirements rather than adding new
requirements for Head Start programs for paid family and medical leave;
and removing specific requirements for the number of behavioral health
sessions, while still requiring that programs provide access to
behavioral health services for staff.
For part-time staff, programs must facilitate access to high-
quality, affordable health care coverage. For any staff member who may
be eligible, programs must facilitate access to affordable child care
and to the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program or other
applicable student loan debt relief programs. Finally, at least once
every 5 years, and to the extent practicable, programs must determine
if their benefits packages are at least comparable to those provided to
elementary school staff. Programs are enouraged to offer additional
benefits if feasible.
In recognition of the particular challenges potentially faced by
small Head Start agencies (defined as those with 200 or fewer funded
slots) in implementing the policies for wages and benefits, this final
rule includes different requirements for these agencies in response to
comments on the NPRM. Specifically, small Head Start agencies are
required to make improvements in wages and benefits for staff over time
to reduce disparities between wages and benefits in Head Start
educators and preschool teachers in public schools. Further, the
statutory requirement that agencies maintain full enrollment (as part
of the Full Enrollment Initiative) will continue to apply to these
agencies. Small agencies are also required to establish or update a
salary scale or pay structure that promotes competitive wages for all
staff and takes into account responsibilities, qualifications,
experience, and schedule or hours worked. While small agencies have
flexibility to phase in wage and benefit increases according to their
budgets, ACF strongly encourages these programs to invest in higher
compensation by restructuring their budgets, targeting the annual cost-
of-living adjustment (COLA) to compensation, and seeking other
available funding sources that can be used to enhance compensation.
ACF will monitor progress and work with grant recipients to reduce
[[Page 67724]]
disparities between wages and benefits offered in small and larger Head
Start agencies, to reduce disparities in pay in small programs and
avoid the unintended consequence of staff leaving small agencies to
work in programs that offer higher compensation. Further, it is ACF's
expectation that all Head Start programs will work to steadily improve
staff compensation over time, and prior to the compliance dates for the
full set of wages and benefits requirements in this final rule.
Lastly, this final rule adds a few requirements to support the
wellness of the Head Start workforce. First, programs must cultivate a
program-wide culture of wellness that empowers staff as professionals
and supports them to effectively accomplish daily job responsibilities
in a high-quality manner. Second, by August 1, 2027, programs must
provide each staff member with regular breaks during their work shifts
that are of adequate length based on hours worked. The final rule
provides more flexibility than the NPRM for how programs implement
break schedules, removing the requirement for unscheduled five-minute
breaks as well as the specificity for length of breaks, as proposed in
the NPRM. The final rule also removes the requirement proposed in the
NPRM for adult sized furniture in classrooms.
Taken together, ACF strongly believes these new standards will
support and stabilize the Head Start workforce over the long term. Head
Start must be able to effectively recruit and retain high-quality staff
in order to keep classrooms open and continue to provide the quality
services for which Head Start is known.
Strengthening Mental Health Services for Children, Families, and Staff
The final rule makes changes to integrate and elevate mental health
across the entire Head Start program and incorporates changes from the
NPRM based on comments specifically concerned about the lack of mental
health professionals available to some Head Start programs. The final
rule, like the NPRM, includes important revisions to incorporate
strengths-based mental health language throughout the standards and to
clarify that mental health supports should promote staff and family
well-being, in addition to child well-being. In addition, this final
rule strengthens, clarifies, and enhances specific program standards
for mental health. The final rule requires that programs use a
multidisciplinary approach, rather than a multi-disciplinary team as
proposed in the NPRM, to support a program-wide culture that promotes
mental health, social and emotional well-being, and overall health and
safety for children and adults. This change better reflects the intent
of centering mental health in all aspects of program services as an
integral part of Head Start. A multidisciplinary approach will support
programs to better promote program-wide wellness by leveraging
knowledge and skills across disciplines in the program, rather than
taking a siloed approach. The final rule also clarifies the role,
qualifications, and responsibilities of mental health consultants and
the services they provide to build the capacity of adults to support
the mental health and social and emotional development of children. The
final rule revises the expectations for mental health consultants to be
available at least once a month. The final rule includes additional
flexibility to support implementation of the frequency of mental health
services. Specifically, the final rule includes a new provision that
allows other licensed mental health professionals or behavioral health
support specialists to work in coordination and consultation with the
mental health consultant to provide mental health supports on at least
a monthly basis. This change maintains the requirement for every
program to have a mental health consultant and ongoing mental health
supports integrated regularly into programs while also recognizing the
reality of the mental health workforce shortage. Together these changes
in the final rule are designed to enhance mental health support for
everyone involved in Head Start programs.
Improving the Quality of Head Start Services
Finally, this rule includes numerous other changes to improve the
quality of services that are a hallmark of Head Start programs. First,
this rule, as proposed in the NPRM, establishes a maximum family
assignment ratio of 40:1, with some exceptions, to address the long-
standing problem of excessive family assignments for many staff who
work with families. This change is consistent with section 648A(c)(2)
of the Act, which 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 this change will
improve staff well-being and the quality of services families receive.
Next, this rule strengthens the ability of programs to meet
community needs. First, we emphasize that the community assessment
process is an intentional process for Head Start programs to understand
the community they serve, design their services accordingly, and
strategically review and update their community assessment. We clarify
that the comprehensive community assessment is only required once in
the five-year grant period, with an annual review to determine if
changes in the community may impact services and necessitate an update
to the community assessment. Second, we require programs to use their
community assessment to identify the population of eligible children
and families as well as potential barriers to enrollment and
attendance, including access to transportation for the highest need
families. Programs are encouraged to address identified barriers where
possible, such as by providing or facilitating transportation services.
Finally, we allow programs to make an adjustment to a family's gross
income calculation for the purposes of determining eligibility in order
to account for excessive housing costs. 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 services if those
housing costs were considered when determining eligibility.
In addition, this final rule strengthens a variety of health and
safety provisions to ensure children remain safe in Head Start programs
with some changes to the policies as proposed in the NPRM in response
to concerns raised by commenters. The rule enhances requirements for
programs to prevent and address lead exposure in the water and paint of
facilities that serve Head Start children but provides more flexibility
for programs compared to the NPRM proposals to determine how they
approach prevention of exposure to lead. Specifically, we require
programs to ensure Head Start children are not exposed to lead in the
water or paint of facilities through regular testing, inspection, and,
as needed, remediation or abatement actions. Instead of prescribing
specific lead prevention and abatement procedures as proposed in the
NPRM, the final rule requires programs have a plan in place to mitigate
exposure to lead.
Additionally, we clarify several requirements related to submitting
incident reports to ACF to ensure accurate and necessary information is
reported in a timely manner. The NPRM proposed a three-day timeframe
for reporting child safety incidents to OHS. However, the final rule
codifies the
[[Page 67725]]
prior policy that programs must submit incident reports immediately but
no later than seven calendar days following an incident. The final rule
also clarifies which incidents affecting the health and safety of
children require a report to ACF, in terms of involved participants,
settings, and types of incidents. Based on comments received in
response to the NRPM, the final rule clarifies that only serious
incidents that involve child maltreatment or endangerment should be
reported to OHS and provides definitions and examples of what rises to
this level. For example, we clarify that those Standards of Conduct
pertaining to child maltreatment or endangerment of children must be
reported. The final rule also includes several modifications to align
ACF descriptions of child maltreatment with Federal guidance and laws
related to mandated reporting of child abuse and neglect. Finally, the
final rule strengthens several requirements intended to prevent child
health and safety incidents, such as annual trainings on mandated
reporting of child abuse and neglect and on positive strategies to
support social and emotional development.
Effective and Compliance Dates
Effective date: This final rule is effective August 21, 2024.
Compliance date: The compliance date for all requirements in this
final rule is October 21, 2024, or 60 days after this final rule is
published in the Federal Register, unless otherwise noted in this
section. For Sec. 1302.47(b)(10), while the effective date is upon
publication of the 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 sections in
this final rule. Therefore, we maintain the timeline as proposed in the
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), and programs have until August 1,
2025, or approximately 1 year after publication of the final rule, to
comply with the following sections: Sec. Sec. 1302.11(b); 1302.14(d);
and 1302.16(a)(2)(v); the changes made to remove ``assistant provider''
in Sec. Sec. 1302.23(b); 1302.45(a); and 1302.82(a).
The following sections also have longer implementation timelines,
as outlined below:
Section 1302.52(d)(2), Family Service Worker Ratios:
August 1, 2027, or approximately 3 years after publication of the final
rule;
Section 1302.80(e), Enrolled pregnant women: December 19,
2024, or 120 days after publication of the final rule;
Section 1302.80(f), Enrolled pregnant women: February 18,
2025, or 180 days after publication of final rule;
Section 1302.90(e), Staff wages: August 1, 2031, or
approximately 7 years after publication of the final rule;
Section 1302.90(f), Staff benefits: August 1, 2028, or
approximately 4 years after publication of the final rule; and
Section 1302.93(c), Staff Health and Wellness: August 1,
2027, or approximately 3 years after publication of the final rule.
Severability
This is a comprehensive rule containing many subparts that address
many distinct aspects of the Head Start program. To the extent any
subpart or portion of a subpart is declared invalid by a court, ACF
intends for all other subparts to remain in effect. For example, ACF
expects that if a court were to invalidate subpart D of part 1302 (or
any of subpart D's discrete provisions) relating to Health Program
Services, changes to the Head Start Program Performance Standards in
all other subparts--such as subpart E (Family and Community Engagement
Program Services), subpart F (Additional Services for Children with
Disabilities), subpart G (Transition Services), etc.--may continue to
operate and should remain operative independently of the invalidated
subpart.
Additionally, each subpart also contains many distinct provisions,
many of which may also operate independently of one another; thus, the
invalidation of one particular provision within a particular subpart
would not necessarily have implications for other aspects of that
subpart. For example, within subpart D, the requirement pertaining to
preventing and addressing lead exposure at Sec. 1302.47 would not be
impacted by the invalidation of the requirements related to mental
health consultation at Sec. 1302.45 or the provision of family support
services for health, nutrition, and mental health at Sec. 1302.46. ACF
intends that if one or more provisions within a subpart are
invalidated, that all other provisions of that subpart (and all other
subparts of the rule) remain in effect.
IV. Development of Regulation
Since the 2007 Reauthorization of Head Start and the last major
update to the HSPPS in 2016, ACF has listened to and learned from Head
Start programs, families, and community members; assessed the evolving
ECE landscape; examined the successes and challenges in the
reauthorized Act's implementation; and tracked the impact and
implications of the COVID-19 public health emergency on Head Start
programs. The policies in this final rule are informed by these lessons
and are designed to improve on the work of the past and build a
stronger Head Start program that more effectively supports the
development of children from low-income families, helping them enter
kindergarten more prepared to succeed in school and in life.
ACF published an NPRM in the Federal Register on November 20, 2023
(88 FR 80818), proposing revisions to the HSPPS regulations. We
provided a 60-day comment period during which interested parties could
submit comments in writing or electronically. During the public comment
period, OHS engaged with the Head Start community through a series of
round table discussions with Head Start program leadership in multiple
locations around the country and virtually to encourage discussion on
the NPRM and generate interest in submitting public comments.
ACF received 1,300 public comments, of which 1,133 were unique
comments, on the proposed rule (public comments on the proposed rule
are available for review on www.regulations.gov), including comments
from numerous Head Start programs; national, regional, and state Head
Start associations, including those representing Tribal and Migrant and
Seasonal Head Start programs; groups representing community action
agencies; labor unions; early childhood researchers and research
organizations; individual Head Start staff and families; other notable
national organizations focused on early childhood education; individual
members of the public; and members of the U.S. Congress. Public
comments informed the development of content for this final rule. In
sections below, we describe the changes we made to provisions in this
final rule, in response to the public comments. To support the analysis
of public comments, ACF used a large language model, a type of
artificial intelligence, as a tool to tag public comments by topic,
sentiment, and intent, alongside topic-based summaries. The output of
the model was further analyzed and refined by content experts based on
further review of public comments.
The changes outlined in this final rule affect the many local Head
Start grant recipients that operate Head Start programs for children
and families. ACF has and will continue to provide
[[Page 67726]]
technical assistance throughout the implementation of this final rule.
V. General Comments and Cross-Cutting Issues
This final rule includes changes in key areas in the HSPPS. ACF
received comments on all the significant proposed changes in the NPRM,
and we revised various proposals in this final rule in response to
these comments. Many comments responded to broader themes that cut
across policy proposals, including concerns around the loss of
enrollment slots associated with implementing the proposed provisions
absent additional Federal funds, the differential impacts of proposals
from the NPRM on small and rural programs, the administrative burden of
implementing what some commenters described as overly prescriptive
requirements, and issues specific to Tribal programs. Other commenters
expressed strong support for the requirements proposed in the NPRM and
encouraged ACF to strengthen requirements in the final rule. We believe
it is clearer for us to respond to these cross-cutting comments if we
group them by theme. We also discuss specific comments on each proposed
policy area in the section-by-section analysis later in this final
rule.
Impact on Enrollment Slots Absent Additional Federal Funds
Commenters were generally supportive of the intent behind the
proposed changes to improve staff compensation, benefits, and supports
for wellness, as well as to enhance mental health services and child
safety within Head Start programs. Overall, the majority of the 1,133
unique public comments reflected an appreciation for the goals and
intentions of the NPRM proposals. However, many commenters expressed
concern that while increasing staff wages and benefits is a positive
step towards equity and sustainability within the Head Start workforce,
these changes would lead to a reduction in the number of children and
families Head Start programs can serve and would lessen Head Start's
impact on communities in need if Congress does not appropriate
sufficient additional funding. Some commenters expressed support for a
more nuanced approach that considers the unique circumstances of
programs and communities, rather than a one-size-fits-all mandate.
Others requested a reevaluation of the funding formula and a phased-in
approach to compensation increases that is directly tied to the
availability of Federal funding. In summary, the commenters who
expressed concerns on this issue conveyed a request for additional
funding to support the wage and benefit increases for Head Start staff
proposed in the NPRM. Without additional funding, this group of
commenters expressed concern that programs will need to make difficult
decisions that result in fewer children and families receiving Head
Start services in future years.
ACF acknowledges commenters' concerns about the costs associated
with these changes and the possible reduction in slots absent
additional appropriations from Congress, and we have given these
comments extensive consideration. In response to comments, the final
rule includes flexibility for the Secretary to establish a limited
waiver process for most of the rule's wage requirements, for programs
determined to be meeting quality benchmarks and that would otherwise
have to reduce enrolled Head Start slots to implement these
requirements. The Secretary must establish this waiver process between
January 1, 2028, and December 31, 2028, and only if increases in
Federal appropriations for the Head Start program remain below 1.3
percent, on average, in the four fiscal years preceding the waiver
establishment. If the waiver process is established, the responsible
HHS official will determine whether individual programs are eligible
for the waiver, based on the criteria described in other parts of this
rule. With the inclusion of this limited waiver authority, we believe
the final rule strikes an appropriate balance between the urgent need
for improved compensation for Head Start staff and the potential
impacts of these regulatory changes on the number of children served,
absent additional congressional investment.
We maintain that we are at a critical moment for Head Start, and we
must recognize the real costs of providing high-quality early education
services to the most vulnerable children and families in our country,
including competitive compensation for program staff. Right now, many
Head Start programs have empty slots because of workforce shortages.
While workforce shortages have become acute in recent years, turnover
among Head Start classroom teachers has grown steadily over the last
decade. We know programs across the country have waiting lists but
closed classrooms because they do not have qualified staff. At the same
time, we have not seen meaningful increases in compensation that allow
programs to recruit and retain and appropriately compensate qualified
educators, leading to unprecedented rates of turnover and staff
vacancies. We believe we need to take purposeful action to stabilize
and support the valuable Head Start workforce in the face of this
crisis, and to ensure that children and families continue to receive
Head Start services at the level of quality defined in the Head Start
Act for years to come. That said, we acknowledge commenters' concerns
that meeting these requirements could have a differential impact on
some Head Start programs that may need to reduce enrolled slots, absent
congressional investment. We believe adding this limited waiver
authority will help alleviate this concern.
Even with limited waiver authority, ACF fully recognizes that these
changes, without additional funding, may require programs to make
tradeoffs that include restructuring budgets to reduce the number of
funded slots--essentially focusing on how to strengthen services for
currently enrolled children. We know that many Head Start programs do
not want to reduce funded slots, even if they are currently vacant,
especially given the number of eligible children and families who would
potentially benefit from Head Start services. However, without
additional congressional investment, these steps are necessary to
stabilize and sustain the Head Start program for the long term. In
addition to including the limited waiver discussed above, we have also
intentionally provided a delayed implementation timeline for the most
significant policy changes in this final rule, both to give programs
time to plan and to create an opportunity for future congressional
investments in quality improvement. We also note that, historically,
Congress has steadily increased Head Start appropriations, particularly
in response to efforts to improve quality. We also note that, even in
the absence of additional funding beyond what is needed to keep pace
with inflation, the regulatory impact analysis of this rule estimates
that Head Start would continue to serve roughly the same number of
children actually enrolled today.
Concern That Wage and Benefit Requirements Need To Be Strengthened
As mentioned above, the vast majority of commenters expressed
support for the goals and intention of the wage and benefit
requirements proposed in the NPRM. In addition, several commenters--
including labor unions, professional membership organizations, and Head
Start staff--suggested that ACF issue a final rule to strengthen wage
and benefit requirements and create additional mechanisms for
accountability. These commenters
[[Page 67727]]
stressed the importance of Head Start staff and their contributions to
enrolled children and families as well as their communities. They
stressed the need for policies to reflect the value of Head Start staff
and ensure that flexibility for programs does not undermine the intent
of the wage and benefit provisions. For example, commenters suggested
that ACF require Head Start programs to benchmark early educators'
salaries to the total value of the compensation package in a public
school, inclusive of salaries and benefits and account for the number
of hours worked, which some commenters indicated could be higher in
Head Start. They requested a requirement for Head Start programs to
publish their salary scale to create additional accountability, as well
as specific enforcement mechanisms by the Office of Head Start.
Commenters also suggested a shorter timeline to implement wage and
benefit requirements given the urgency of the workforce shortage.
Commenters urged more stringent requirements for Head Start programs as
they develop their wage and salary scale, including prohibiting or
limiting wages from being adjusted downward if a staff member does not
have a degree, licensure, or credential and requiring programs to
benchmark to either preschool teachers in public schools or
kindergarten to third grade teachers in public schools, whichever is
higher. Finally, several comments urged ACF to expand the benefits
proposed in the NPRM, including requiring retirement benefits with an
employer contribution and expanding benefits to part-time staff.
ACF acknowledges the input from these commenters. After careful
review, we believe that we have struck an appropriate balance by
requiring a wage and salary scale with minimum requirements to
benchmark to preschool teachers in public schools or at least 90
percent of kindergarten teacher salaries, adjusting for experience,
qualifications, and responsibilities. Given the variation in preschool
services around the country, including differences in the availability,
auspices, and funding structure in state and local preschool programs,
ACF believes this flexibility is needed to account for the differential
experiences of local Head Start agencies and the availability of
comparable preschool teachers in local public schools. We appreciate
that Head Start teachers may work longer hours than teachers in local
elementary schools, especially those working in Early Head Start
programs that often operate year-round and for an extended day. We have
incorporated this feedback to clarify that wages and salaries should
reflect hours worked, including time spent for lesson planning, family
engagement, administrative paperwork, and other activities outside of
hours when children are present. As described in Sec. 1302.90(f)(5),
we encourage programs to offer additional benefits not specified in the
rule to their staff, including enhanced health benefits, retirement
savings plans, flexible savings accounts, or life, disability, and
long-term care insurance to remain competitive with other employers in
their area.
Throughout the implementation process, OHS will provide technical
assistance to support programs in developing a wage and salary scale
that appropriately considers qualifications, credentials, and
experience. OHS will update its monitoring protocol to include wages
and benefits as well as other provisions of the rule.
Differential Impacts on Small and Rural Head Start Programs
Many commenters expressed concerns that implementing the policies
in the NPRM without additional Federal funding would require reducing
the number of children served or require programs to close, with an
acute impact on small and rural programs. They contended that these
closures would then exacerbate the existing challenges in early
childhood education access in rural and small communities. Commenters
highlighted the importance of integrating mental health supports into
everyday programming to prevent staff burnout and to address children's
behavioral issues but noted the shortage of mental health professionals
that particularly impacts rural areas. Some commenters identified other
proposals in the NPRM that could be challenging to implement in rural
areas, including locating certified assessors for lead testing and
adopting modern technology to facilitate family engagement. In general,
many commenters expressed support for consideration of the unique
circumstances of small and rural Head Start programs to ensure that the
changes do not inadvertently reduce access to essential services for
children and families in these communities.
We recognize the specific challenges of small and rural Head Start
programs, and we also recognize small programs are particularly
important in rural communities where Head Start may be one of the few
licensed center-based early childhood options available for children
and families. We have made changes in the final rule to provide some
accommodations for small agencies, consistent with section 644(c) of
the Act, which allows the Secretary, where appropriate, to establish
special or simplified requirements for smaller agencies or agencies
operating in rural areas. We discuss these changes more fully later in
this final rule, but, in brief, the final rule includes different wages
and benefits requirements for small Head Start agencies, defined as
those with 200 or fewer funded slots, that provides additional
flexibility to implement higher wages and benefits for staff. The
policy for small agencies acknowledges that implementation of the wages
and benefits policies required of larger agencies could be difficult in
an agency that does not benefit from the economies of scale available
to larger agencies.
More specifically, small agencies are exempt from the requirement
to provide wages that are at least comparable to preschool teachers in
public schools, setting a wage floor that covers basic living expenses,
and wage parity between Head Start and Early Head Start educators.
Instead, small programs must show measurable progress over time toward
these outcomes. Small agencies are also required to develop or update a
pay scale that promotes competitive wages for all staff. While making
these accommodations to address potential differential impacts, ACF
remains committed to supporting and stabilizing the workforce in all
Head Start programs and thus is still requiring small agencies to make
measurable improvements in staff wages and benefits over time to reduce
disparities between Head Start educators and preschool teachers in
public schools. ACF will provide technical assistance to small agencies
as needed to support implementation of improvement in staff
compensation over time.
We made revisions across several other policy areas that address or
mitigate concerns raised about possible differential impacts of the
proposed changes in the NPRM, including, for example, mental health and
staff benefits. In revising expectations around mental health
consultation services, the final rule specifies that if a mental health
consultant cannot be available to a program at least once a month, a
program must supplement the work of a mental health consultant with
other licensed mental health professionals or behavioral health support
specialists certified and trained in their profession. This revision
broadens the pool of available practitioners to provide programs with
mental health supports in recognition of the challenge of securing
mental health consultation in many parts of the country, and
particularly in rural areas. We have also
[[Page 67728]]
made changes to staff benefits, including the removal of the paid
family leave policy and making the remaining paid leave policy more
flexible for all programs.
Concerns Related to Administrative Burden From Overly Prescriptive
Requirements
Many commenters expressed concerns with increased administrative
burden associated with proposals in the NPRM. Specifically, some
commenters noted the administrative complexity of implementing pay
parity across multiple jurisdictions; lead testing, monitoring, and
remediation; and adjusting income for excessive housing costs, among
others. In reporting concerns with the administrative burden associated
with the proposed policies in the NPRM, some commenters described the
proposals as overly prescriptive and reminiscent of the HSPPS prior to
the revisions through the final rule published in 2016. Commenters
suggested that ACF should provide training and technical assistance
(TTA), flexibility, and clear guidance to support programs in
implementing the changes.
We have made numerous changes in the final rule that are responsive
to commenters' concerns about increased administrative burden, while at
the same time retaining the critical requirements that reflect the
standards all programs need to meet to achieve high-quality early
childhood programming. Regarding commenters' assertions about the
prescriptive nature of the NPRM proposals, ACF believes that all the
proposed requirements in the NPRM were aligned to the overarching goals
of the regulatory changes, including supporting the workforce,
enhancing program mental health services, and improving overall program
service quality. However, we also recognize that it is important to
balance Federal requirements for Head Start with local program
flexibility to implement those requirements in a way that best meets
individual community needs. Our changes in this final rule strike this
appropriate balance.
We highlight three examples of relevant changes here but discuss
these and other changes in detail in section V. First, we revised the
requirements for programs to prevent and address lead exposure in the
water and paint of facilities that serve Head Start children. In the
final rule, we include a new simpler, more streamlined standard that
requires programs to ensure Head Start children are not exposed to lead
in the water or paint of facilities through regular testing,
inspection, and, as needed, remediation or abatement actions.
Second, in response to public comments, we have removed the NPRM
proposals for adult size furniture in classrooms and for brief
unscheduled breaks for staff. We believe these are important aspects of
promoting the well-being of classroom staff. However, we understand
that it is more prudent for programs to determine how to implement such
approaches in their own programs.
Third, this final rule retains the requirement from the previous
program standards related to child health and safety that only those
Standards of Conduct pertaining to the maltreatment or endangerment of
children by staff, consultants, contractors, and volunteers require an
incident report. Based on the comments, ACF agrees that some of the
proposed changes in the NPRM to the Standards of Conduct could
undermine child safety by creating confusion and over-reporting of less
serious incidents. With these changes, we think the final rule is
clearer and focuses incident reporting on more serious incidents,
thereby allowing Head Start resources at the Federal and program level
to focus on protecting children's safety and reducing administrative
burden.
Tribal Programs
ACF received many comments focused specifically on how the NPRM
would affect Tribal programs, and these comments highlighted concerns
both with the rulemaking process and with specific proposed policies.
First, commenters reported concerns about the lack of meaningful Tribal
consultation prior to the release of the NPRM. Responses shared concern
that Tribal leaders were not at the table during the decision-making
process and that the timing of the NPRM release was problematic, as it
coincided with significant cultural and leadership transitions for many
Tribes. These commenters requested that ACF honor Tribal sovereignty,
engage in meaningful Tribal consultation, and consider the unique needs
and cultural practices of Tribal communities in the rulemaking process.
Second, while many commenters supported the goals of the NPRM, they
expressed concerns that the lack of additional funding to implement the
proposed changes could lead to reduced enrollment slots, staff
shortages, and program closures, particularly affecting Tribal
programs. Some commenters suggested that the costlier proposed changes
should be noted as best practices until appropriate funding and
consultation opportunities are made available. Many of the commenters
from Tribal communities expressed concern about the prescriptive nature
of some of the proposed standards, which could conflict with Tribal
employment infrastructure and philosophies. For example, some expressed
concerns that increases in wages and benefits for Head Start staff
would affect wages and benefits across the Tribal government and usurp
the Tribes' sovereign right to set its own conditions of employment.
Several comments highlighted other unique challenges faced by Tribal
communities, such as the need for flexibility in meeting program hour
requirements due to cultural and traditional events, and the importance
of culturally relevant curricula and assessments. Some commenters
requested local autonomy in determining health benefits and other
employee benefits. Several comments reported concerns that the proposed
changes, such as those that address incident reporting, would add
additional administrative burden on overworked staff, noting that
Tribes already have internal incident reporting practices in place.
Finally, many commenters from Tribal communities called for categorical
Head Start eligibility for American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN)
children, similar to other categorical eligibility allowances, such as
those for children experiencing homelessness and families receiving
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits. These
commenters emphasized the importance of ensuring AIAN children in their
communities receive comprehensive and culturally relevant services
though Tribal Head Start programs.
We appreciate the important feedback received from AIAN communities
through ongoing Tribal consultations and the public comment process.
ACF conducts an average of five Tribal consultations each year for
those Tribes operating Head Start programs. The consultations are held
in geographic areas across the country: Southwest, Northwest, Midwest
(Northern and Southern), and Eastern. The consultations are often held
in conjunction with other Tribal meetings or conferences, to ensure
opportunities for most of the 150 Tribes served through Head Start to
be able to attend and voice their concerns and issues. The Tribal
consultation held on December 5, 2023, in Costa Mesa, California,
provided an opportunity for Tribes in attendance to share reactions and
input specifically about the NPRM, which was released on November 20,
2023, and
[[Page 67729]]
was a main focus of discussion during that Tribal consultation. ACF
acknowledges that a set of commenters expressed the view that the
existing Tribal consultation process has fallen short of their
expectations. ACF is committed to improving the nation-to-nation
relationship with Tribes and will continue to seek ways to enhance
engagement, including formal consultations and listening sessions or
meetings.
Through the NPRM and public comment process for this rule, we also
received comments from many Tribal communities and stakeholders,
including from the National Indian Head Start Directors Association,
which directly informed the development of this final rule. We
highlight three examples here. First, as noted previously and discussed
in more detail in subsequent sections, the final rule includes an
exemption from the rule's wages and benefits requirements for small
agencies, defined as those with 200 or fewer funded slots for the
reasons discussed above. At the time of the development of this final
rule, ACF estimates that 78 percent of Tribal Head Start agencies meet
the definition of a small agency; therefore, we anticipate that this
small agency exemption will be particularly impactful for programs in
Tribal communities.
Second, the final rule makes changes to program requirements
related to mental health consultation that will have an important
impact on Tribal programs. In revising expectations around mental
health consultation services, the final rule specifies that a mental
health consultant should be available to a program at a frequency of at
least once a month; however, if services by a mental health consultant
are not available at that frequency, other licensed mental health
professionals or behavioral health support specialists certified and
trained in their profession, including traditional practitioners
recognized by their Tribal governments, must be used in coordination
and consultation with the mental health consultant. This change in the
final rule recognizes both the concerns about the availability of
mental health professionals broadly, and specifically in rural areas,
as well as the traditional practices that are an integral part of many
AIAN communities' approach to wellness.
Third, the final rule does not maintain the NPRM proposal for Early
Head Start (EHS) duration, which proposed to require that the 1,380
hours of planned class operations for children in EHS center-based
programs occur across a minimum of 46 weeks per year. We know this is
significant for Tribal programs as they expressed in public comments
that the ability to be flexible about how to meet the 1,380 hours
requirement through the calendar year has supported traditional Tribal
practices and important local and cultural events. Although it is a
long-standing expectation of ACF that EHS programs provide continuous,
year-round services for enrolled children, ACF is committed to
prioritizing flexibility for local programs to determine the program
schedule that best meets their community needs, while still achieving
the required 1,380 annual hours of services for children.
On a final note, ACF revises language in the final rule to conform
to language in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024 (Pub. L. 118-
47), which includes a provision that allows Tribes to consider all
children in a Tribal Head Start program's service area to be eligible
for services regardless of income. The provision emphasizes that Tribes
have the discretion to determine and use selection criteria to enroll
those children who would benefit from the program, including children
and families for which a child, a family member, or a member of the
same household, is a member of an Indian Tribe. This change is
consistent with Administration priorities as outlined in the fiscal
year (FY) 2025 President's Budget to Congress, and is responsive to a
key priority for Tribal leaders.
VI. Section-by-Section Discussion of Comments and Regulatory Provisions
We received comments about changes we proposed to specific subparts
of the regulation. Below, we identify each subpart, summarize the
comments, and respond to them accordingly.
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 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. Similarly, we 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) and a definition of Early
Head Start that refers to a program that serves pregnant women and
children from birth to age three. The term Head Start was not
previously defined in the HSPPS nor was it used consistently throughout
the standards. Consequently, this inconsistency was also present
throughout sub-regulatory policy and TTA documents published by ACF.
This inconsistency may be challenging for those who are new to Head
Start and troublesome for the field in general.
We also revise two other definitions to align with the revised
terms above. First, we revise the the 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 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 also
update the usage of these terms as they are used throughout the HSPPS
to align with these above changes. Finally, we remove the term Early
Head Start Agency as well as implement a nomenclature change of
``grantee'' to ``grant recipient''.
ACF acknowledges the necessity of maintaining consistent and
transparent terminology within this area and is confident that these
terminology updates will effectively address those needs.
Comment: ACF received very few comments overall regarding the
``Definition of Head Start and Related Terms.'' Of the comments
received, the majority were in support of the new terminology, citing
increased clarity and consistency. However, a few commenters were
concerned about the potential confusion caused by the term Head Start
Preschool, especially in light of widespread expansion of other
preschool programs. A few also worried that the use of the term
Preschool undermines the unique dual-generation approach to
comprehensive services that is characteristic of Head Start programs.
Response: ACF maintains the changes proposed in the NPRM related to
the definition of Head Start and related terms. The public agreed with
ACF that the use of Head Start as an umbrella term to represent all
program types authorized under the Act, as well as related changes,
promote more consistent or clear use of the terms. Specifically, the
differentiation between Head Start Preschool and the overall Head Start
program aims to improve comprehension for both experienced
[[Page 67730]]
and novice readers of the HSPPS and codifies the colloquial use of the
term Head Start. ACF acknowledges the concerns raised by the commenters
regarding the potential overlap in naming with other Preschool programs
but does not believe the changes diminish the distinctive approach and
comprehensive services provided by Head Start programs.
Workforce Supports: Staff Wages (Sec. 1302.90)
The prior version of the HSPPS did not contain any requirements for
salaries or wages for Head Start staff. In this final rule, we add a
new paragraph (e) to Sec. 1302.90 that lays out requirements for staff
wages to support and stabilize the Head Start workforce. These
requirements will ensure that programs make measurable progress towards
pay parity with kindergarten to third grade teachers for Head Start
educators, as well as improve wages for all other Head Start staff. The
final rule includes most of the provisions proposed in the NPRM but
includes some refinements as well as two notable changes in recognition
of some of the particular challenges noted by commenters. First, the
final rule provides a more flexible approach for small agencies with
200 or fewer funded slots that exempts them from most of the rule's
wage (and benefit) requirements that apply to larger agencies. Second,
the final rule includes a flexibility for the Secretary to establish a
waiver process for most of the wage requirements, in the absence of
average annual increases in appropriations of at least 1.3 percent for
Head Start in the preceding four years. Programs will be eligible for
the waiver if they are determined to be meeting quality benchmarks and
would otherwise have to reduce enrolled slots. We discuss both of these
changes in more detail later in this section.
Specifically, in this final rule we require that, by August 1,
2031, programs with greater than 200 funded slots must: (1) establish
or update a salary scale or pay structure that promotes competitive
wages for all staff positions and takes into account responsibilities,
qualifications, experience, and schedule or hours worked (Sec.
1302.90(e)(1)); (2) ensure annual salaries for Head Start educators
match those of preschool teachers in public school settings, or at
least 90 percent of public school kindergarten teacher salaries,
adjusted for responsibilities, qualifications, experience, and schedule
or hours worked (Sec. 1302.90(e)(2)); (3) ensure all Head Start staff
receive pay that is at least sufficient to cover basic costs of living
in their geographic area (Sec. 1302.90(e)(3)); and (4) ensure wages
are comparable across Head Start Preschool and Early Head Start
programs for staff serving in similar positions with similar
qualifications and experience (Sec. 1302.90(e)(4)).
These new wage provisions aim not only to enhance the recruitment
and retention of qualified staff through competitive compensation but
to improve quality for children and families served in the program by
reducing turnover and increasing access to effective teaching and
learning practices. These policies go into effect August 1, 2031,
approximately seven years after publication of the final rule. We
believe this longer implementation window allows programs sufficient
time to plan for the needed wage increases and to make improvements in
staff wages over time and to implement wage changes in a manner that
minimizes disruptions to enrolled children by incrementally phasing in
wage increases while adjusting program budgets and funded enrollment.
It also provides opportunities for additional appropriations from
Congress or for the Secretary to establish a limited waiver for certain
programs if Head Start appropriations are very low in the four fiscal
years preceding 2028.
In response to public comments, the final rule provides some
additional flexibilities beyond the policies proposed in the NPRM to
support successful implementation and mitigate potential unintended
consequences. First, as described previously, we provide an exemption
for small Head Start agencies, defined as those with 200 or fewer
funded Head Start slots, from the majority of the new wage policies
(Sec. 1302.90(e)(5)) and instead require a more flexible approach to
increasing wages. As noted previously, section 644(c) of the Act allows
the Secretary, where appropriate, to establish special or simplified
requirements for smaller agencies, which provides the basis and
authority for a different approach to small agencies. Small agencies
are still required to establish or update a salary scale or pay
structure that promotes competitive wages for all staff positions.
Small agencies must also make measurable improvements in staff wages
over time, including reducing disparities in wages between Head Start
education staff and public school preschool teachers. This approach is
discussed in further detail below.
Second, to provide programs more flexibility in determining
comparison salaries in public schools for Head Start education staff
salaries, we add a clarification that programs can choose to benchmark
education staff salaries to at least 90 percent of kindergarten teacher
salaries, as an alternative to preschool teacher salaries (Sec.
1302.90(e)(2)(iv)). Third, we clarify that education staff salaries can
be adjusted for schedule or hours worked, in addition to adjusting for
responsibilities, qualifications, and experience (Sec.
1302.90(e)(2)(i) and (ii)). Finally, we clarify that our intent is for
the pay parity standards for education staff to apply to staff who are
employees as well as those whose salaries are funded by Head Start
through a contract (Sec. 1302.90(e)(2)(iii)).
Third, as noted previously, we include a flexibility for the
Secretary to establish in 2028 a limited waiver of most of the final
rule's wage requirements, in the absence of an average annual increase
of at least 1.3 percent in Head Start appropriations in the preceding
four years for eligible programs. Programs would be eligible for the
waiver if they: demonstrate they would have to reduce enrolled slots;
demonstrate improvements in wages over the four years preceding the
waiver, to the greatest extent practicable; have not been designated
for competition under the Designation Renewal System (DRS) after the
effective date of this rule; and do not have significant child health,
safety, or quality concerns as determined by the responsible HHS
official. Any programs granted this waiver are still required to make
improvements in wages for Head Start staff over time, to the greatest
extent practicable; and to establish or update a salary scale or pay
structure that promotes competitive wages for all staff and takes into
account staff responsibilities, qualifications, experience, and
schedule or hours worked. This waiver is discussed in further detail
below.
The majority of comments submitted on the NPRM provided input on
the proposed wage policies, with comments addressing the wage policies
numbering approximately 850. The comments included a nuanced spectrum
of viewpoints, reflecting both strong endorsement of the proposed wage
policies and pointed concerns about the practical aspects of
implementing the policies and the potential impact on services for
children and families.
Many Head Start educators, as well as labor unions,
enthusiastically welcomed the new requirements and expressed positive
support for proposed wage improvements, advocating for enhancements
such as indexing wages to inflation and advocating for the policies to
be implemented and effective on a faster timeline. Many provided
[[Page 67731]]
personal testimony about the low wages and working conditions they
endure, including stories of educators who are laid off and collect
unemployment every summer, and who rely on public benefits or work
additional jobs to provide for their families, as well as stories of
qualified and skilled educators who leave Head Start to pursue better
wages, benefits, and financial stability. Most educators highlighted
the urgent need for increased compensation, applauding ACF for making
an important step forward to address longstanding workforce challenges.
This enthusiasm underscored the importance of workforce compensation on
educators' personal and professional lives, and on programs' ability to
retain and recruit qualified staff.
Conversely, many Head Start program leaders as well as national and
local organizations representing Head Start programs, while supportive
of the intentions behind the wage increases, voiced apprehension
primarily centered around the financial implications of such policies.
They raised concerns regarding the availability of funds, the
practicality of the proposed timeline, and the potential repercussions
on service delivery. Commenters expressed fears that these
repercussions could include reductions in slots or the number of
children and families served as well as potential program closures.
Another common theme was the financial strain that the proposed wage
provisions could place specifically on small, rural, and Tribal
programs. Suggestions for mitigating these challenges included phased
implementations, more substantial Federal funding, and the development
of clear, achievable benchmarks for progress towards wage parity and
improvements. There was a consensus in the comments on the need for ACF
to offer comprehensive support, guidance, and flexibility to enable
programs to adapt to and meet the new wage requirements effectively.
ACF strongly believes that Head Start program staff are the
cornerstone of the Head Start mission to provide high-quality early
education and comprehensive services to children and families who need
them. Improving wages for Head Start staff is a critical mechanism to
enable staff recruitment and retention and program quality in Head
Start. Therefore, in this final rule, we maintain the proposed wage
provisions, with the additional flexibilities discussed above. We
discuss the comments and our rationale for any changes to the
regulatory text below.
Cross-Cutting Comments and Themes on Staff Wages
Comment: Many comments expressed concern about the increased
operational costs that would result from the proposed wage adjustments
and the uncertainty about accompanying Federal funding increases. Many
commenters expressed that without additional funding, programs with
limited funding would face difficult choices, and would need to reduce
the number of slots or children and families served, and in some cases
would need to close programs, thereby reducing access to Head Start
services for children and families. In light of these financial
concerns, some commenters proposed innovative financial strategies to
mitigate the impact of wage increases on program operations.
Specifically, they suggested that Head Start programs could leverage
multiple funding streams and braid funds from Federal, state, local,
and private sources as a potential solution to support wage
improvements. The comments suggested that this approach would not only
address the immediate financial challenges posed by the proposed wage
adjustments but also contribute to the long-term sustainability of
programs.
Commenters also raised concerns that the cost implications of the
proposed wage policies in the NPRM would be particularly acute for
small, community-based programs that already operate with tight budgets
and could be at risk for program closure when wage requirements go into
effect. Some commenters who strongly supported wage increases clarified
that this is only if sufficient funding is provided to avoid a
reduction in services for children and families, noting the important
role Head Start plays in providing access to quality early care and
education. Some comments proposed tying wage policies to appropriations
increases and including flexibility for the Secretary of HHS to remove
or reduce the wage requirements if funding is not sufficient. Other
commenters proposed allowing incremental increases over time,
demonstrating progress without reaching parity requirements. Some
commenters expressed concerns about making additional enrollment
reductions following reductions that programs made by choice in
previous years to increase staff compensation.
Response: ACF acknowledges the complexities surrounding the
proposed wage adjustments within the Head Start program, particularly
related to the availability of funding and the potential impact on
program slots. It is essential to recognize, however, that the chronic
issue of unfilled staff positions and the inability of programs to
operate at full capacity stem from the challenges in recruiting and
retaining qualified staff, primarily due to noncompetitive wages. This
situation inadvertently results in many Head Start slots going
unfilled, thereby already limiting the program's reach to children and
families who could benefit from its services.
We agree with commenters that it is important to balance any
quality improvements with the capacity of Head Start to reach children
and families in need of services. In response to comments, the final
rule includes an option for the Secretary to establish a limited waiver
from most of the rule's wage requirements for eligible programs if
Federal appropriations for Head Start are less than an average annual
increase of 1.3 percent over the proceeding four years. In order to be
eligible for the waiver, programs must meet quality benchmarks and
demonstrate they would need to reduce enrolled slots in order to
implement the wage requirements. The criteria for this waiver are
discussed in more detail in the following paragraphs.
First, if the Secretary decides to establish this waiver process,
the program must demonstrate that it would otherwise have to reduce
enrolled Head Start slots to implement the wage requirements. A Head
Start slot is considered vacant when a child leaves the program (either
because the family removes the child or the child ages out) and the
Head Start program does not enroll another child within 30 days
(exclusive of summer months if the program is closed). (Separate from
this possible waiver process, programs are expected to reduce their
funded enrollment to eliminate vacant slots, as needed, to meet the
requirements of the final rule.)
Second, if the Secretary establishes a waiver, Head Start agencies
must meet quality benchmarks to demonstrate that they are protecting
child safety and improving staff wages over time. This approach ensures
that flexibility does not undermine child health and safety or quality,
for programs that struggle to implement the wage requirements in the
absence of additional appropriations. Head Start agencies are not
eligible for a waiver if they were designated for competition under the
DRS after the effective date of this rule. Further, programs are
ineligible if they have significant child health, safety, or quality
concerns, as determined by the responsible HHS official. The latter
criterion is intended to encompass serious incidents of child
maltreatment or a pattern of child safety incidents that
[[Page 67732]]
may have happened too recently to trigger competition in the DRS. In
addition, to meet this criterion, the responsible HHS official must not
have significant concerns about program quality that seriously impact
the delivery of education and child development program services
required in part 1302, subpart C, of the HSPPS. Programs must also
demonstrate improvements in staff wages during the four years preceding
the start of the waiver to the greatest extent practicable.
Third, a Head Start agency can only be granted a waiver if they
held the grant for the service area prior to August 21, 2024 (the
effective date of this rule). New grant recipients should apply for
Head Start funding with a proposed budget to meet the wage requirements
and other provisions of the final rule.
Fourth, any programs granted this waiver are to continue to make
improvements in wages for Head Start staff over time, to the greatest
extent practicable. These programs are also required to establish or
update a salary scale or pay structure that promotes competitive wages
for all staff and takes into account staff responsibilities,
qualifications, experience, and schedule or hours worked.
Waivers are granted for the duration of the program's five-year
grant period. Waiver eligibility will be reassessed for each successive
grant period and may be renewed if appropriation increases are below
1.3 percent for the preceding four years and the grant recipient
continues to meet the criteria described above.
ACF also recognizes the challenges that some Head Start agencies--
particularly small agencies--may face in implementing new policies for
wage requirements absent additional appropriations. In this final rule,
we also provide an exemption from most of the rule's wage requirements
for small Head Start agencies. This exemption is discussed in further
detail below, along with wage requirements for small programs that
offer more flexibility in how small agencies go about increasing wages
over time. The rationale behind the wage requirements is rooted in a
strategic effort to address longstanding challenges that have led to
poverty level wages for many Head Start staff, which have in turn led
to severe staff shortages and closed Head Start classrooms. By
supporting the workforce through improved compensation, ACF aims to
enhance the ability of Head Start programs to attract and retain the
qualified staff necessary for delivering high-quality programming. This
is a critical step toward ensuring that the Head Start mission of
supporting the development of children from low-income families through
comprehensive services can be fully realized. It is also central to the
mission of Head Start, which includes disrupting intergenerational
poverty in communities, to ensure that our Federal program investments
do not perpetuate poverty level wages that force staff to rely on
public benefits themselves. Ultimately, increasing wages for staff will
increase Head Start's ability to serve more children over time, as it
will put the program on a more sustainable path. ACF agrees with
commenters who highlighted the potential of leveraging multiple funding
streams and braiding funds as a strategy to support the implementation
of wage improvements and program stability. Further, ACF supports
programs exploring and utilizing a variety of funding sources,
including Federal, state, local, and private funds, which can provide a
more robust financial foundation for programs to address wage
adjustments without compromising service delivery. Layering funds is an
acceptable and encouraged practice that can enhance quality in early
childhood programs. This approach aligns with ACF's commitment to
innovative and sustainable solutions that support the financial health
of Head Start programs while advancing our goal of equitable
compensation for all staff. We encourage programs to explore these
options as part of their strategic planning for implementing the new
wage requirements, while also recognizing that states and localities
vary significantly in the availability of non-Federal early childhood
investments.
Differential Impacts on Different Program Types
Comment: Many comments highlighted the differential impact of the
proposed wage changes on small programs, noting that small Head Start
entities will face unique challenges implementing wage improvements,
due to their size. Commenters noted that slot reductions are not a
viable option for smaller programs because the volume of slots that
would need to be reduced to facilitate compliance with the wage
policies in the absence of additional funding would impact financial
viability of such programs and potentially lead to program closures.
Some commenters raised concerns in particular around small programs
that are fully enrolled and fully staffed. Other commenters stressed
that small programs that are also rural may be the only high-quality
early education option in a community. Commenters urged ACF to consider
special provisions or flexibilities for small programs.
Response: ACF understands the unique challenges faced by small
agencies that operate on thin margins and need to maintain a sufficient
number of funded Head Start slots to ensure their agencies are viable
in terms of economies of scale. Section 644(c) of the Head Start Act
also acknowledges that some requirements may need to differ for small
agencies and allows the Secretary, where appropriate, to establish
special or simplified requirements for smaller agencies. Therefore, as
described previously, the final rule includes an exemption from most of
the rule's wages and benefits requirements for small Head Start
agencies, defined as those with 200 or fewer funded slots, and creates
a simplified requirement for small agencies with more flexibility. As
of December 2023, small Head Start agencies with 200 or fewer funded
slots represented 35 percent of all Head Start agencies and eight
percent of all Head Start funded slots nationally.
The approach that Head Start agencies take to implement the wage
requirements will depend on a number of specific variables including
current wages and the gap between wages in Head Start and preschool
teachers in local public schools, current enrollment levels and the
number of vacant slots, and the size and flexibility of their budget
especially in relation to fixed costs. Most Head Start programs
currently have vacant slots, meaning that their funded enrollment
exceeds the number of children who are actually enrolled in their
program. However, the number of slots impacted by lower enrollment and
the budgetary impact varies significantly by the size of the program.
Most costs in Head Start are not tied to the individual child or
family, but rather to the staff, space, supplies, and equipment needed
to operate each classroom. For example, consider a small program with
150 funded slots and a larger program with 1,000 funded slots. Assume
that both programs are at 90 percent enrollment, meaning that 90
percent of the slots are currently occupied by an enrolled child and 10
percent are vacant. The small program has 15 empty slots and the large
program has 100 empty slots. In Head Start, there are generally 17-20
children in a preschool classroom. The large program can reduce the
number of classrooms in the program by five and reallocate the budget
to increases in staff wages in other classrooms, without significantly
impacting actual enrollment. The small program is not able to reduce
the number of classrooms without potentially impacting slots that
[[Page 67733]]
are currently occupied by enrolled children.
Moreover, small programs are limited by the fact that fixed costs
represent a higher proportion of their budget. There are many fixed or
relatively fixed costs involved in running a Head Start program that
exist regardless of agency size or number of classrooms. These include,
but may not be limited to: building space, utilities, insurance,
marketing, outreach to and enrollment of families, custodial services,
curriculum, administrative staff, and staff needed to implement
required Head Start comprehensive services (e.g., family service
workers, mental health professionals, health services staff,
disabilities services staff, etc.). These fixed costs, in general,
represent a lower proportion of overall costs in larger Head Start
agencies because they can be shared across more classrooms, whereas
they represent a larger proportion of overall costs in small agencies.
Small Head Start agencies also suffer from a lack of economies of scale
in relation to their purchasing and negotiating power, resulting in
higher rates for everything from cleaning supplies to health insurance.
If a smaller agency reduces or streamlines classrooms in order to
reallocate funding towards compensation, the agency will still bear
many--if not all--of their fixed costs, and would be spreading those
fixed costs across fewer classrooms.
Leading cost modelers have documented that operating an ECE program
that serves fewer than 100 children is very difficult and may not
always be financially viable.\14\ This threshold arguably may be higher
for the Head Start context, since Head Start includes more
comprehensive services than a typical child care program. OHS has
provided related guidance in past funding opportunities for EHS and
Early Head Start--Child Care Partnership (EHS-Child Care Partnership)
expansion, encouraging applicants to consider proposing to operate no
fewer than 72 EHS slots to ensure they will have the economies of scale
necessary to sustain program operations and meet all Head Start program
requirements.\15\ In this final rule, the small agency exemption
applies to those agencies with 200 or fewer funded slots. In the
absence of additional appropriations from Congress in the near future,
a program with 200 or fewer funded slots would likely need to reduce or
streamline the number classrooms and could quickly fall below the
research-based recommendation for the minimum number of funded slots to
sustainably operate an ECE program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Mitchell, A. 2010. Lessons from Cost Modeling: The Link
Between ECE Business Management and Program Quality. http://www.earlychildhood finance.org/finance/cost-modeling; Stoney and
Blank, 2011. Delivering Quality: Strengthening the Business Side of
Early Care and Education. https://childcareta.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/delivering_quality_strengthening_the_business_side_of_ece.pdf.
\15\ For example, see: https://glenpricegroup.com/sites/ehsccpresearch/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2014/06/Funding-Opportunity-Announcement-EHS-CCP-2014.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, of the agencies with fewer than 50 employees, the
majority (87 percent) of them also have 200 or fewer funded slots and
will therefore be included in the small agency flexibility.\16\ Several
other existing Federal laws provide flexibilities and exemptions to
small businesses, including for those with 50 or fewer employees (e.g.,
employer mandate of the Affordable Care Act (ACA); FMLA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Head Start 2023 PIR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This exemption reflects ACF's understanding that small programs
play a critical role in their communities, particularly in rural and
Tribal communities where a large proportion of Head Start agencies
would qualify for the small agency exemption. This exemption also
applies to Head Start interim service providers that provide services
to children and families temporarily in place of a Head Start agency
that would have qualified for the small agency exemption (Sec.
1302.90(e)(6)). In such instances, the interim service provider is
temporarily providing Head Start services for a particular service
area, in place of a grant recipient that either relinquished or lost
their Head Start grant. Therefore, these interim providers are still
operating within the same economies of scale constraints as the small
agency that previously served that particular service area. Further,
when a new permanent service provider is awarded the grant for that
service area, that future provider will also likely be a small agency
operating under the same financial constraints.
Though Head Start agencies with 200 or fewer funded slots are
exempt from most of the wage requirements, they must still have a pay
scale or structure that promotes competitive wages for staff; must make
measurable progress over time to increase wages and reduce the gap
between wages offered to Head Start educators and preschool teachers in
public schools (or 90% of kindergarten teacher salaries in public
schools); and must increase wages over time for the lowest paid staff
to cover basic living expenses.
In addition, the workforce in small Head Start agencies remains
impacted by the current ECE workforce challenges happening nationwide,
and the potential impact on services for children and families in the
face of ongoing staff shortages may continue without investment in
staff compensation. This is why, as part of the exemption policy, ACF
requires small agencies to continue to improve staff wages (and
benefits) over time. This flexibility is designed to promote
significant wage improvements without unduly compromising service
capacity for small agencies. This approach also provides a clear
mechanism and expectation for small agencies to increase wages and
benefits when Congress provides additional funds through annual
appropriations targeted to COLA increases or quality improvement. It
underscores ACF's intention to implement the wage adjustments in a
manner that is both equitable and pragmatic, ensuring that the benefits
of improved compensation extend to all Head Start staff and families
while acknowledging the operational realities of smaller Head Start
agencies.
We also note that the wage and benefit requirements in the final
rule are intended to address concerns related to child health and
safety and quality as well. OHS will continue to provide technical
assistance and monitor all programs, including small programs, to
support child health and safety and adherence to quality standards.
Specific changes related to protecting child safety and supporting
mental health are further discussed below and apply to all programs
regardless of size.
Comment: Many commenters noted that it would be particularly
challenging for rural programs to implement the wage policies, as they
have more limited access to alternative funding sources to support wage
improvements, face more severe economic barriers, experience more
challenges finding qualified staff and service providers, and for some
communities, may be the only early care and education option serving a
large geographic area. Therefore, meaning a reduction in slots or
program closure could have an outsized impact on the community and its
economy. Many requested consideration of the unique circumstances of
rural Head Start programs to ensure that the changes do not
inadvertently reduce access to essential services for children and
families in these communities.
Response: ACF acknowledges the critical role that Head Start plays
in rural communities, at times offering the only high-quality early
care and education option in a community. We understand commenters'
concern about possible reductions in services in rural
[[Page 67734]]
areas, particularly in small rural communities. Based on ACF's analysis
of the geographic distribution of Head Start agencies at the time of
the development of this final rule, ACF has determined that the
exemption of the wage and benefits policies offered for small agencies
will apply to over half of rural Head Start agencies. According to
ACF's analysis, approximately 56% of entirely rural Head Start
agencies--meaning those where 100% of their slots operate in a rural
area--are also small agencies (200 or fewer funded slots).
Many comments referred to challenges for rural programs and largely
focused on the challenges recruiting and retaining qualified staff and
service providers in remote or rural locations. ACF makes adjustments
to requirements on mental health services and protecting children from
lead in response to these comments, but notes qualifications for
teachers are statutory and not adjusted in the final rule. The new
requirements for staff wages and benefits established through this
final rule will improve the ability of Head Start programs--including
rural programs--to recruit and retain qualified staff. These
requirements are critical to ensure Head Start programs can be
competitive employers in their communities and retain the qualified
staff necessary to provide high quality services to children and
families. As needed, ACF will provide TTA to rural programs to support
in their efforts to implement the wage and benefit requirements. As
described above, the size of a Head Start agency and the resulting
economies of scale and budget flexibility primarily impacts a program's
approach to the new wage and benefit requirements.
If necessary, absent additional funding, larger Head Start agencies
located in rural areas can restructure their programs and reduce the
number of classrooms to invest in improved compensation for staff,
while remaining financially viable programs. However, in the case of
smaller rural programs, the closure of even one or two classrooms could
constitute such a large share of the program and the fixed costs
required that the program may no longer be economically viable. The
flexibility afforded to small agencies in this final rule will help to
mitigate potential negative impacts on rural programs, particularly in
small rural communities where Head Start may be the only high-quality
early education opportunity available to low-income families.
Comment: Many Tribal Head Start program leaders and other
commenters from Tribal communities expressed strong support of the
policy aims stated in the NPRM for improved wages to address staff
retention and program stability. However, these commenters also
expressed concerns that Tribal Head Start programs would face
significant challenges implementing the proposed wage requirements due
to the unique operational contexts of Tribal governments. Commenters
from Tribal communities shared concern that the lack of additional
funding to implement the proposed changes could lead to reduced
enrollment slots, staff shortages, and program closures in their Head
Start programs. Some voiced concerns about the administrative burden
that Tribal Head Start programs would experience to implement the NPRM
policies, and argued that the new requirements were overly prescriptive
and did not respect Tribal sovereignty and self-determination,
including Tribal employment infrastructure and philosophies.
Response: We acknowledge the concerns raised by Tribal Head Start
program leaders and other commenters representing Tribal communities.
The exemption for small Head Start agencies described previously will
allow flexibility for Tribal Head Start agencies that operate with 200
or fewer funded slots regarding whether they meet all of the wage
policy requirements in this final rule. At the time of the development
of this final rule, ACF estimates that approximately 116 Tribal Head
Start agencies will benefit from this flexibility, which represents
approximately 78 percent of all Tribal Head Start agencies.
Like the commenters, ACF believes that all Head Start educators
deserve competitive wages and benefits that reflect the importance of
their work, and that all staff should earn a livable wage, and this
includes the Head Start workforce in Tribal communities. OHS will work
with Tribal grant recipients to understand their challenges and provide
technical assistance and support to develop appropriate wage scales for
the Head Start program in light of existing Tribal wage scales.
Comment: Representatives of Migrant and Seasonal Head Start (MSHS)
programs also expressed concerns about the impact of implementing wage
policies on MSHS programs without additional funding, particularly
given the seasonal nature of their program schedules. Some commenters
noted that they had already reduced enrollment in order to increase
wages and that to further increase, they would have to decrease
enrollment to a level that would deem them inoperable.
Response: ACF is committed to supporting the operation and
sustainability of MSHS agencies, as well as ensuring compensation that
will support the recruitment and retention of qualified staff. MSHS
agencies play a particularly important role in delivering early
childhood services in the communities they serve, and improving staff
wages will support quality and stability of programs. However, we
recognize there are unique challenges for MSHS agencies given their
program structures and schedules. ACF will provide additional support
and TA to MSHS agencies on how to implement the wage policies in this
rule while continuing to provide critical services in their
communities.
Timing/Phase-In of Wage Policies
Comment: Some comments shared concerns about the sustainability of
increased compensation, especially given the uncertainty of continuous
Federal funding in future years. Comments urged ACF to allow for
flexibility and phased approaches to implementation that consider
future economic conditions and changes in the early childhood education
landscape. For example, some commenters suggested that programs should
be assessed and monitored for progress towards pay parity, such as
demonstrating a reduction in pay gaps over time, rather than requiring
programs to achieve comparable salaries with preschool teachers in
public schools. Comments that addressed the proposed timeline for
implementing the new wage standards ranged from some asserting that the
seven-year period is too lengthy and could delay necessary improvements
to staff compensation, to many others requesting additional time to
ensure that comprehensive wage adjustments could be made holistically
across new requirements. Many expressed concerns that the timeline
might still be too aggressive for programs to feasibly meet without
causing financial strain or necessitating reductions in services. Some
requested the authority for the Secretary to reduce requirements if
additional appropriations from Congress were not provided to fund the
wage improvements.
Response: Balancing input from commenters, ACF maintains that the
seven-year implementation timeline for the wage policies allows
programs sufficient time to plan for phased increases while considering
the urgency of improving staff compensation. This timeline offers a
phased approach that will enable programs to plan strategically, adapt
to changing
[[Page 67735]]
economic conditions, and ensure that wage increases are sustainable
over time, including through possible additional funding increases
through future congressional appropriations. This may give programs
additional time to seek funding from local, state, or private sources
as well as layer funding as previously discussed. It acknowledges the
significant variations in local economic conditions, the complexities
of wage adjustment processes, and the necessity for Head Start programs
to engage in thoughtful, strategic planning. ACF will provide technical
assistance and guidance to programs to support implementation of these
policies. This may include sharing best practices, developing useful
tools and resources, and offering support to address specific
challenges as needed.
Administrative Burden/Technical Implementation Challenges
Comment: A considerable number of comments focused on the potential
administrative burden associated with developing, implementing, and
maintaining the programmatic policies necessary to implement the wage
requirements. Commenters raised concerns with conducting wage
comparability studies, managing increased complexity in payroll
systems, and adhering to new standards while also adhering to other
obligations such as collective bargaining agreements and state-specific
employment laws. Comments suggested that additional administrative
requirements could detract from program resources and focus,
potentially impacting service delivery. ACF also heard from at least
one large labor union that indicated that the presence of a collective
bargaining unit should not pose a barrier to implementing new
requirements because the employer and workers representing the
collective bargaining unit can work together to meet all requirements
in Head Start and applicable local or state requirements, as well as
any other employees in the collective bargaining unit. Questions and
concerns were raised about the specifics of how pay scales should be
constructed, the technical resources needed to comply with new
requirements, and the potential for increased complexity in program
administration. Commenters expressed strong concerns with the lengthy
timeline associated with getting approval for a change in scope
application, which directly impacts a program's ability to restructure
programs in a timely fashion to raise compensation. Commenters sought
clarity and guidance from ACF on these issues and many requested
support from ACF to develop, maintain, and implement pay scales or
suggested that this work should be done at a systems level, rather than
by individual programs.
Response: Understanding the technical support needed to develop and
implement equitable pay scales, ACF maintains in the final rule a
seven-year implementation timeline to implement the wage requirements.
The seven-year implementation timeline not only provides programs with
sufficient time to thoughtfully plan and prepare for wage adjustments
but also allows for the necessary negotiation with unions representing
Head Start staff, for any adjustments that may be needed to contracts,
and for possible additional funding to be obtained or appropriated to
support implementation. This timeline is crucial for ensuring that wage
improvements are implemented smoothly. ACF will provide Head Start
programs with the necessary tools and resources to effectively manage
the administrative demands of implementing structured pay scales and to
ensure an equitable compensation system for all staff members. For
instance, ACF recently published the ``Early Care and Education
Workforce Salary Scale Playbook: Implementation Guide,'' \17\ a
comprehensive resource designed to guide early childhood leaders,
including Head Start programs, through the complexities of salary scale
development. Finally, ACF is committed to supporting programs' efforts
to restructure by working with them to process change in scope
applications in a timely fashion. ACF recognizes that the timeline for
processing change in scope applications has been delayed in the past
and is taking steps to improve response times.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See: https://childcareta.acf.hhs.gov/early-care-and-education-workforce-salary-scale-playbook-implementation-guide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: Some comments reflected the need to address wage
disparities and equity within the Head Start workforce, emphasizing
equity across race, setting, and age groups served. There was a strong
call for ACF to provide technical assistance and support for conducting
wage gap analyses and developing plans to address identified
disparities. Some commenters recommended including equity weights to
ensure that adjustments for qualifications do not unintentionally
exacerbate pay disparities for early educators that are Black,
Indigenous, and/or members of other historically marginalized groups,
who research has documented are less likely to have accessible pathways
to credential and degree attainment. Some commenters also emphasized a
need for a coordinated approach to compensation across all ECE settings
to ensure a stable, qualified workforce regardless of program type and
expressed concern that increasing compensation for the Head Start
workforce without making similar adjustments for child care providers
could lead to further inequities in the field.
Response: ACF appreciates these comments about the importance of
addressing wage disparities among different groups and across the ECE
sector. Indeed, research indicates that women of color in the ECE
workforce are paid less on average than White women, and women of color
are also more likely to hold assistant positions as opposed to lead
teaching positions.\18\ As programs are revising and updating pay
scales to implement the new wage standards, ACF encourages programs to
intentionally examine possible disparities in pay by race and
ethnicity. ACF strongly agrees that Head Start programs should not
perpetuate disparities in pay across racial and ethnic groups. Further,
the new wage standard included in the final rule at Sec. 1302.90(e)(4)
requires programs to ensure there are not disparities in pay for Head
Start staff based on the age of children served, for those with similar
qualifications and experience. While ACF recognizes the concern that
increasing wages for Head Start staff may lead to further pay
disparities for other parts of the ECE sector including child care, we
strongly believe that the wages of Head Start staff cannot continue to
be suppressed. Head Start has long been a leader in the field of ECE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Austin, L.J.E., Edwards, B., Ch[aacute]vez, R., &
Whitebook, M. (2019). Racial wage gaps in early education
employment. Center for the Study of Child Care Employment,
University of California. https://cscce.berkeley.edu/racial-wage-gaps-in-early-education-employment/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pay Scale
Comment: Some comments expressed concerns over the logistics of
policy execution, including potential challenges with the collection of
comparable compensation data such as obtaining up-to-date local school
district salary information, as well as concerns about the frequency of
the five-year review of pay structures. Commenters emphasized the need
for additional time for comprehensive wage adjustments post-
implementation, alongside concerns regarding wage standard
operationalization for varied staff roles funded by Head Start.
Comments
[[Page 67736]]
demonstrated some confusion around the ability to adjust pay based on
qualifications, schedule or hours worked, and other factors. Many
comments called for ACF to provide a robust framework of support,
including technical assistance and training, to navigate the
complexities of revising pay structures. Many comments emphasized the
need for a strategic approach that includes careful consideration of
the unique challenges faced by special populations, as well as input
from the broader early childhood program provider community, to ensure
that the wage requirements are responsive to their diverse needs. For
example, some commenters recommended making positive wage adjustments
within salary scales for educators who bring language or cultural
skills to the job, as a part of their overall adjustments for
qualifications. Some commenters requested that ACF provide tools, that
technical assistance partners develop pay scales for programs, or that
state or local governments would be better positioned to develop pay
scales rather than requiring each individual program to design,
develop, and implement their own.
Response: ACF acknowledges the concerns highlighted regarding the
logistical challenges and administrative burden associated with
implementing the new wage standards, particularly the collection of
comparable compensation data and the periodic review of pay structures.
ACF encourages programs to leverage and utilize their existing
partnerships with local publicly funded preschool and kindergarten
programs, including the memorandum of understanding (MOU) required in
Sec. 1302.53(b)(1), to identify and gather data on comparable
preschool and kindergarten teacher salaries. While it is important for
individual programs to tailor their pay scales for their program and
community context, ACF believes that technical assistance and support
can provide useful guidance and tools from which programs can develop
and implement pay scales over time. The final rule retains a seven-year
implementation window to allow time for programs to plan and develop
the technical capacity to develop and implement pay scales. ACF also
aims to provide TTA to programs on these issues to support the
development of revised pay scales. The final rule also maintains
policies that allow for wages to be adjusted based on responsibilities,
qualifications, and experience relevant to the position, and clarifies
that adjustments can be made to account for schedules or hours worked.
This language provides these minimum adjustments, meaning that programs
may include additional equity adjustments or incentives to ensure that
the pay scale structure is equitable and supports the development of a
Head Start workforce that is well-equipped to meet the needs of
children and families. For example, a Head Start program may choose to
provide a higher wage or salary to a staff member who speaks a language
shared by a child or children in the program or a Native language, a
teacher who has a background in working with children with
disabilities, or other skills or training that improve quality and
responsiveness in Head Start programs.
Progress To Pay Parity for Education Staff With Elementary School Staff
Comment: Most commenters shared a strong support for increased
compensation for Head Start teachers, and many reflected support for
making progress towards pay parity and equity with kindergarten to
third grade public school teachers. Many commenters recognized the
critical role that Head Start staff play and the complexity of the work
and skills required of Head Start teachers to provide high-quality
early education. Most comments asserted that equitable compensation is
overdue, especially considering the increasing qualifications
(including degree requirements) and multifaceted job responsibilities
that have evolved since the 2007 reauthorization of the Head Start Act.
However, many commenters raised concerns about the practicality of
achieving salaries comparable to public school preschool teachers
without additional Federal funding, and about the tradeoffs between
investments in compensation for teachers and other investments in
program quality and the number of children and families served.
Some comments expressed confusion regarding the methodology for
adjusting salaries based on qualifications and other factors. The
direct comparison between Head Start and public school salaries raised
questions about the feasibility and fairness of achieving pay parity,
given the differences in staff qualifications across these settings.
These comments indicated that some interpreted the proposed standard as
mandating a direct match to public school preschool teacher salaries
without adjustments; commenters questioned the flexibility of the
proposed wage parity policy to allow programs to adjust staff salaries
from comparable salaries to account for differences in qualifications,
experience, and other relevant factors, while striving for parity. Some
commenters discussed the wide salary gaps between Head Start staff and
public preschool teachers in their local school districts and raised
questions about whether and how to assess comparable salaries and
requested more guidance on how to make adjustments. Other comments
raised concerns about reaching and maintaining salaries comparable with
public preschool teacher salaries when school districts and other
employers tend to more predictably increase their salaries each year,
with those adjustments potentially surpassing the cost-of-living
adjustments that Head Start receives. Commenters feared that this could
leave Head Start programs chasing a ``moving target'' which could lead
to programs continually reducing services to meet salary improvements
over time.
Response: ACF agrees with the sentiment that Head Start staff
should receive equitable compensation based on their skills and
qualifications and the critical role they play in early education. The
final rule maintains a strong set of wage policies that aim to enhance
wage structures to ensure competitive compensation for Head Start
staff. The final rule does not require any Head Start program to
achieve full pay parity with kindergarten to third grade teachers.
Rather, the final rule requires agencies with more than 200 funded
slots to benchmark to either (1) the salaries of preschool teachers in
local public schools or (2) 90% of salaries in local public schools for
kindergarten teachers. In response to concerns about feasibility and
the comparison with public school staff, ACF emphasizes that Head Start
programs' efforts to increase educator pay to be comparable to public
school preschool teachers can and should consider differences in
qualifications, roles, experience, and other factors. For example,
suppose a majority of the preschool teachers in a program's local
school district hold a master's degree, whereas the majority of Head
Start teachers hold a bachelor's degree. The expectation in this
scenario is that the program would consider what public preschool
teachers are paid as a starting point and then create a salary scale
that considers education level, among other factors. In this case,
salaries for Head Start teachers with a bachelor's degree would be
lower than a preschool teacher's salary with a master's degree
(provided that they have comparable hours, experience, and job
responsibilities).
As another example, ACF does not expect that an Early Head Start
(EHS)
[[Page 67737]]
teacher with a Child Development Associate (CDA) would receive the same
salary as a public preschool teacher with a bachelor's degree that
works the same number of hours; rather, ACF expects that the salary for
the EHS teacher would be adjusted down from the target of the public
preschool teacher salary, to account for the difference in
qualifications. However, ACF does expect that these adjustments should
still result in wage increases for most education staff. Moreover, if
an EHS teacher works more hours than a preschool teacher in public
schools, ACF expects that wages would be increased accordingly to
account for the longer hours.
In response to comments, we modify the wage policies in the final
rule at Sec. 1302.90(e)(2)(i) and (ii) to further clarify that
salaries can be adjusted for schedule or hours worked in addition to
responsibilities, qualifications, and experience. This includes both
time in the classroom or program as well as time spent on lesson
planning, family engagement, administrative paperwork, and other tasks
that are necessary to fulfill job requirements. For many Head Start
educators, this includes time in the evening or on weekends to prepare
classroom activities, conduct home visits, or complete training. For
example, if a preschool teacher at the local public school works a
full-day, full-school year schedule, and a Head Start teacher with
similar qualifications, experience, and job responsibilities works a
part-day, full-school year schedule, the expectation is that the Head
Start teacher's salary would be adjusted down to account for this
difference in schedule/hours worked after taking into account time for
planning and other activities related to the teacher's job
responsibilities. On the other hand, if a Head Start teacher with a
bachelor's degree and five years of experience works a part-day, year-
round schedule, whereas the local school preschool teacher with the
same qualifications and experience works a part-day and school-year
schedule, the expectation is that the Head Start teacher's salary would
be adjusted up to account for the longer year schedule that they work.
ACF also recognizes that not all jurisdictions have preschool
teachers in public schools because public preschool is not offered in
all states and school districts. In addition, information on salaries
for elementary school teachers is often more publicly accessible,
depending on the auspices of the preschool program. Therefore, we add a
new wage-related standard to the final rule to allow Head Start
programs to use an alternate method to determine appropriate comparison
salaries for pay parity that is equivalent to at least 90 percent of
the annual salary paid to kindergarten teachers in the program's local
school district, adjusted for role, responsibilities, qualifications,
experience, and schedule or hours worked (Sec. 1302.90(e)(2)(iv)). ACF
anticipates that Head Start programs will use this flexibility when
they do not have comparable wage data for preschool teachers in public
schools, either because such teachers do not exist in their geographic
area, or such information cannot be ascertained. This flexibility
should not be used to reduce wages for Head Start staff if preschool
teachers are on the same salary scale as elementary school teachers.
For example, suppose a Head Start program is in a community that
does not have state or locally funded preschool in their public
schools. This program identifies average kindergarten teacher salaries
in the local school district at $70,000, and thereby creates a target
benchmark for pay parity at $63,000, which represents 90 percent of
that average kindergarten teacher salary. The Head Start program then
creates a salary scale that adjusts further as needed based on
differences in roles, responsibilities, qualifications, experience, and
schedule or hours worked. If the Head Start program year or hours
worked are shorter than the kindergarten school year or hours, Head
Start educator salaries could be adjusted down to account for this. If
the opposite is true, such that the Head Start program year runs
through the summer, and is therefore longer than the kindergarten
school year, Head Start educator salaries could be adjusted up to
account for this longer year.
Finally, ACF acknowledges concerns raised by commenters that public
school teacher salaries may continue to increase over time in some
states and communities, making efforts to reach parity more challenging
for Head Start programs in those contexts. However, this does not
appear to be substantiated by national data. As demonstrated in the
Fiscal Year 2025 President's Budget request, ACF requested the funding
needed for a full cost of living adjustment to support Head Start
programs in keeping pace with inflation. Further, ACF strongly believes
that Head Start programs must continue to keep pace with public school
preschool teacher salaries in order to retain qualified educators in
Head Start programs that can provide the high-quality early education
services for which Head Start programs are known.
ACF will provide further TTA to assist programs in implementing
these standards, including examples and strategies for programs to
assess parity and develop pay scale structures.
Comment: Some comments called for clearer definitions of what
constitutes ``pay parity'' and how it should be measured, especially in
diverse operational contexts like multi-district programs or programs
spanning different states with varying preschool and kindergarten
through 12th grade public school salary levels and contexts. Commenters
raised concerns about operationalizing the concept of parity with local
school districts when considering the variability in teacher
qualifications between preschool, kindergarten through 12th grade, and
Head Start; the structure of preschool and kindergarten through 12th
grade education systems; and differing funding mechanisms that support
teacher compensation in each of these contexts. Many commenters raised
concerns about defining ``neighboring school districts'' for large Head
Start programs whose service area spans many school districts,
suggesting that a separate salary schedule for each site would be
impractical.
Response: ACF understands and agrees with the complexities involved
in assessing and moving to pay parity with public school educators.
Because of this complexity and the varied context in which Head Start
programs operate, the final rule maintains the flexibility that was
initially proposed in how pay parity is assessed and operationalized.
In addition, we modify the final rule to provide additional flexibility
in how a program identifies comparable salaries for the pay parity
benchmark. The final rule policy allows programs to use public school
preschool teacher salaries as their benchmark for parity, or to use an
alternative method that represents at least 90 percent of public school
kindergarten teacher salaries. We maintained the phrasing of the pay
parity requirement which allows flexibility for programs to determine
to which of their local public schools to benchmark salaries. Programs
operating in multiple locations are not expected to develop multiple
pay scales; however, programs can choose to do so if they serve
different geographic regions with different costs of living, in which
case it may be most practical for such programs to differentiate wages
for these different areas.
ACF believes that maintaining the initially proposed flexibility
and providing some additional flexibility in the final rule around how
to assess and move to pay parity is responsive to
[[Page 67738]]
comments about the varied contexts in which programs operate. ACF
believes that detailed technical guidance and support for programs in
how to define and operationalize pay parity is best done through
guidance and TTA, which ACF will provide following publication of the
final rule.
Salary Floor
Comment: Most comments expressed strong support for establishing a
minimum pay requirement for all Head Start staff, recognizing the need
to ensure that every employee receives a living wage that reflects
their contribution to early childhood education. However, commenters
raised concerns about how the minimum pay requirement would be
determined and adjusted over time to reflect the cost-of-living
increases and changes in the economic landscape, as well as the
potential for this requirement to exacerbate wage disparities among
regions with different costs of living. Commenters sought detailed
guidance from ACF on establishing fair and equitable minimum pay
standards that align with regional economic variations. Commenters
suggested that ACF provide clear guidelines for determining an
appropriate minimum wage, taking into account regional cost-of-living
adjustments, and ensure that additional funding is available to support
this requirement without compromising service delivery or increasing
the administrative burden on Head Start programs.
Response: We maintain this provision in the final rule, which
recognizes that cost of living varies across the country and still aims
to ensure that all staff members are paid sufficiently to cover basic
needs. Small agencies (those serving 200 or fewer funded slots) are
exempt from this requirement; however, these agencies must still
demonstrate progress in improving wages for the lowest paid staff over
time.
ACF agrees with concerns raised by commenters about the importance
of carefully considering how to promote minimum pay in a way that
balances potential cost impacts and does not deepen disparities in cost
of living. There are multiple publicly available tools that can support
Head Start programs in calculating cost of living. It is of note that
these are examples only and should not be considered an endorsement by
ACF of these specific calculators or tools. One such tool is the Living
Wage Calculator developed by experts at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology (MIT).\19\ Another is the Self-Sufficiency Standard
developed by experts at the Center for Women's Welfare of the
University of Washington.\20\ An additional example is the Family
Budget Calculator developed by the Economic Policy Institute.\21\ 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. Following publication of the final rule, ACF will offer TTA to
support programs with implementation of this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Glasmeier, A.K. Living Wage Calculator. 2020. Massachusetts
Institute of Technology. livingwage.mit.edu.
\20\ The Center for Women's Welfare. The Self-Sufficiency
Standard. University of Washington. https://selfsufficiencystandard.org/.
\21\ Economic Policy Institute. Family Budget Calculator.
https://www.epi.org/resources/budget/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wage Comparability for All Ages Served
Comment: Many comments expressed a great sense of urgency to
address the disparities in wages, particularly for staff serving
infants and toddlers, who historically receive lower compensation than
those serving preschoolers.
Response: ACF recognizes the importance of addressing wage
disparities across all staff roles within Head Start programs, with a
particular focus on those serving infants and toddlers, who
historically have received lower compensation. In response to public
comments highlighting the urgency of this issue, ACF maintains in the
final rule our policy and commitment to ensuring wage improvements and
comparability across all educational staff roles, regardless of the age
group they serve, such that wages would not differ by age of children
served for similar program staff positions with similar qualifications
and experience. Specifically, the final rule mandates that agencies
with more than 200 slots must have a wage or salary structure that does
not differ by the age of children served for similar program staff
positions with similar qualifications and experience, ensuring that
disparities in wages, particularly for staff serving infants and
toddlers, are addressed comprehensively.
Staff for Whom Wage Standards Apply
Comment: Comments expressed both support and concern over the
application of wage standards to all staff roles within the Head Start
program. The NPRM's intention to extend wage improvements to encompass
all educational staff roles--including assistant teachers, home
visitors, and family child care providers--was widely endorsed.
However, some comments urged for an even more inclusive consideration
of staff roles that involve regular engagement with children,
suggesting for example, that the pay parity requirements should apply
to all staff roles who contribute to the Head Start mission, not just
teaching staff, to recognize and compensate the diverse contributions
of all program personnel. Some comments specifically called out a need
to include more substantial wage improvements for family service
workers, administrators, and support staff who play critical roles but
often face lower compensation.
Response: ACF affirms the NPRM's intention to ensure wage
improvements for all educational staff roles, including assistant
teachers, home visitors, and family child care providers, while also
recognizing the critical contributions of other staff in the program.
While the requirements for pay parity maintain a focus on educational
staff, the final rule also requires that programs develop or update a
pay scale that applies to all staff positions. The intent of this pay
scale standard is to promote competitive wages for all positions and
ensure that all staff have sufficient wages to cover basic needs. Head
Start agencies can increase wages for other non-education roles at
their discretion and may choose to benchmark to similar positions in
their community to ensure that Head Start provides competitive pay and
to mitigate the effects of wage compression that would otherwise occur
if salaries for education staff are raised but not those for other
positions.
Comment: Some commenters raised questions about whether the NPRM's
wage requirements apply to staff of child care partner agencies as well
as contracted staff who are not employees of the Head Start program.
Some comments also raised concerns about applying the wage standards to
staff paid in part with Head Start funds, highlighting the potential
impact on a broad array of staff roles and the need for clarity on the
implementation of wage standards for contracted staff, those involved
in EHS-Child Care Partnerships, staff of child care partner agencies,
and contracted staff not directly employed by Head Start programs.
Response: To address the questions and lack of clarity raised
through public comments about extending wage standards to all staff,
including those at partnership sites or contracted staff, we revise the
final rule to clarify our expectations for how the wage standards
should apply to contracted staff.
[[Page 67739]]
Specifically, the pay parity requirements described in Sec.
1302.90(e)(2)(i) apply to all teachers and education staff funded by
Head Start, including both grant recipient employees and those whose
salaries are funded by Head Start through a contract. This may include,
for example, education staff in EHS-Child Care Partnership sites, as
well as any education staff who are contracted directly.
Workforce Supports: Staff Benefits (Sec. 1302.90)
The prior HSPPS did not include any requirements for programs to
provide benefits to their staff. In this final rule, we add in Sec.
1302.90(f) new requirements that apply to Head Start agencies with more
than 200 funded slots for staff benefits to support and stabilize the
Head Start workforce, including: the provision of or facilitated access
to health care coverage for all staff; paid leave for full-time staff;
access to free or low-cost, short-term behavioral health services for
full-time staff; facilitated access to PSLF and child care subsidies
for staff who may be eligible; and an option for programs to prioritize
enrollment in Head Start for the eligible children of staff. Programs
are also required in Sec. 1302.90(f)(5) to assess and determine at
least once every five years 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, to the
extent practical. All requirements in Sec. 1302.90(f) will take effect
August 1, 2028, approximately four years after publication of the final
rule.
Similar to the staff wage requirements, this final rule includes in
Sec. 1302.90(f)(6) an exemption from the rule's benefits policies for
small Head Start agencies, defined as those agencies with 200 or fewer
funded Head Start slots. This exemption also applies to Head Start
interim service providers that provide services to children and
families temporarily in place of a Head Start agency that would have
qualified for the small agency exemption (Sec. 1302.90(f)(7)). These
small Head Start agencies are still required to demonstrate measurable
improvements in staff benefits over time.
The benefits requirements included in the final rule represent a
change in some of the policies as proposed in the NPRM. Specifically,
the final rule removes the proposed requirement for paid family leave
(though programs are reminded they must still comply with requirements
under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), if applicable to their
organization). The final rule also provides more flexibility for the
provision of paid sick, vacation, and personal leave.
The public comments on the benefits for staff proposed in the NPRM
revealed a mix of support, concern, and suggestions for improvement.
The vast majority of commenters supported the intent behind the
proposed staff benefits. However, many commenters called for additional
funding, flexibility, and clarity to ensure the requirements are
feasible and do not negatively impact children and families. Other
commenters called for stronger requirements for benefits, such as
requiring Head Start programs to benchmark to benefits offered in
public schools or the Federal Government.
The final rule balances the desire for more flexibility for Head
Start programs, costs to support the workforce, and implementation
costs. ACF strongly believes in the importance of benefits for staff as
a mechanism to greatly improve staff recruitment and retention across
Head Start programs, and in turn, program quality. Therefore, in this
final rule, the requirements for staff benefits provide more
flexibility to programs than the NPRM proposals, but still recognize
the importance of benefits as part of a competitive compensation
package that supports an overall high-quality workforce.
Cross-Cutting Comments and Themes on Staff Benefits
Comment: ACF received over 500 comments on the staff benefits
policies proposed in the NPRM. We received comments indicating general
support regarding the need for better wages, benefits, and wellness
support for Head Start staff, recognizing that such measures are
crucial for staff retention, recruitment, and overall program quality.
Many commenters expressed that the proposed changes could significantly
improve the working conditions for Head Start employees and improve
staff recruitment and retention. Several commenters noted and
appreciated the existing benefits provided by their agencies, including
health insurance, mental health support, and leave, while others
expressed their desire for better benefits. Many, including multiple
organizations that represent Head Start workers, encouraged ACF to
expand upon the benefits requirements included in the NRPM, such as
retirement benefits and paid leave. Some also called for benefits to be
required for part-time staff. There were suggestions to engage all Head
Start staff and partners in a transparent, equitable process to work
toward meeting the revised wage and benefit standards.
Response: We agree that the provision of staff benefits is crucial
for attracting and retaining qualified staff, and for promoting staff
well-being and program quality. In the final rule, we retain from the
NPRM the majority of requirements for benefits for full-time staff,
though with flexibility, including paid leave, access to behavioral
health support, and the provision of or facilitated access to health
care coverage. In the NPRM, we requested public comment on whether we
should require programs to offer retirement benefits to full time
staff. In the final rule, we do not add a requirement for retirement
benefits. However, ACF encourages programs to provide retirement
benefits to staff if feasible, such as offering 401(k) or similar
mechanisms with or without employer contributions. As discussed below,
we maintain requirements from the NPRM for facilitating access for
eligible staff to PSLF and child care subsidies, and for part-time
staff, to health care coverage. We encourage programs to develop staff
benefit packages in consultation with staff, unions, and other
partners, as appropriate.
Comment: Many comments called for flexibility in implementing the
changes to accommodate the diverse nature of Head Start programs and
the communities they serve. Specifically, there were concerns about the
prescriptive nature of the proposed benefits. Some indicated that the
proposed requirements were too detailed and did not account for the
unique needs of different programs, their communities, or the existing
benefits that programs may already offer. Some voiced concerns about
equitable implementation, union agreements, or non-Head Start employees
across different programs within the same agency. Others called
attention to additional staff wellness considerations, such as flexible
work arrangements, paperwork burden, work satisfaction, or challenging
behaviors in the classroom. Some comments suggested that the benefits
not be mandated but encouraged and communicated through guidance. A few
comments suggested that programs should provide competitive benefits
packages appropriate for their community or region, noting this could
be determined by community assessment data. There was a recommendation
to shorten the implementation period due to the need for the Head Start
workforce to earn adequate wages and benefits more immediately. There
was some
[[Page 67740]]
misunderstanding that programs would be required to extend health
insurance benefits to part-time workers.
Response: The final rule includes several changes to the policies
as proposed in the NPRM to make the staff benefits requirements more
flexible and allow programs to create benefit packages that meet the
varying needs of their workforce.
First, we recognize that, while these benefits are important for
recruiting and retaining staff, some programs will have to re-negotiate
union contracts or agreements with contractors, while others may need
more time to research and implement changes. To enable this, and as
summarized previously, we have extended the timeline for the effective
date of the benefits requirements from approximately two years after
final rule publication (as proposed in the NPRM) to approximately four
years after final rule publication. The effective date for these
provisions is now August 1, 2028. We believe this change carefully
balances the concerns unions have raised that timely implementation is
important for retaining and attracting staff with the concerns from
programs that these changes will take time to implement, as well as
acknowledging the cost considerations of shorting the implementation
timeline.
Second, the final rule in Sec. 1302.90(f)(1)(ii) requires programs
to provide paid leave to all full-time staff. But the final rule does
not differentiate between sick, vacation, or personal leave or require
specific accrual rates, allowing programs to pool types of leave or to
offer different systems of determining leave. In the final rule, we
also fully remove the NPRM proposal for paid family leave, though we
strongly encourage programs who are already offering paid family leave
to continue to do so and encourage programs that do not to offer those
benefits if feasible. Many Head Start agencies are already required to
follow the FMLA, which provides job protections for most employees
during extended illness, caregiving, or following the birth or adoption
of a child. Many states and municipalities also have paid leave laws
and programs that apply to Head Start agencies.
Third, in Sec. 1302.90(f)(1)(iii) of the final rule, we retain the
requirement to provide full-time staff with short-term free or low-cost
behavioral health services, but we remove the specificity of ``three to
five'' visits as proposed in the NPRM. We agree with comments that such
a level of specificity is not needed in regulation. This change allows
programs to determine the best way to structure behavioral health
supports for their staff.
Fourth, it was not our intent to imply that programs must provide
employer-sponsored health care coverage to part-time workers. Programs
are required in Sec. 1302.90(f)(2) to facilitate access for these
employees to health care coverage options for which they may be
eligible in the Marketplace or Medicaid.
Fifth, in the NPRM, we sought comment on a potential requirement
for retirement benefits. The final rule does not require programs to
provide staff with retirement benefits. However, ACF also recognizes
that retirement savings are an important benefit for staff and are
often provided to public school employees. Therefore, ACF strongly
encourages programs to create and offer retirement mechanisms if
feasible, such as 401(k) accounts.
Finally, we maintain other benefits requirements from the NPRM,
including provided or facilitated access to health care coverage for
full-time staff in Sec. 1302.90(f)(1)(i), and facilitated access to
child care subsidies and PSLF for any eligible staff in Sec.
1302.90(f)(3) and (4), respectively.
Together, these improvements in staff benefits in the final rule
will improve staff well-being and work satisfaction, reduce staff
turnover, and improve program quality, while offering programs
reasonable flexibility around implementation.
Comment: Many commenters were concerned about the potential
financial burden the proposed staff benefits requirements could impose
on programs, particularly in small or community-based organizations,
without additional Federal funding. Commenters feared that without
increased funding, programs may have to reduce enrollment or lay off
staff, which could lead to fewer children being served or program
closures. Others noted the difficulty in maintaining full enrollment
despite rigorous recruitment efforts due to enrollment competition for
four-year-old children with other early childhood programs and losing
staff to other careers. There were suggestions to phase in requirements
in tandem with increased funding, to add secretarial discretion to not
enforce the rule if sufficient dollars are not allocated, and to
institute processes for waivers and flexibility particularly for
certain programs. Many commenters suggested that ACF make these
provisions effective only upon funding from Congress.
Response: As discussed in other areas of this rule, ACF appreciates
and recognizes concerns from commenters about the cost of implementing
the staff benefits requirements in the absence of additional
congressional funding. We made some changes from the NPRM to address
these concerns, including the longer timeline until these requirements
go into effect, the removal of paid family leave requirements beyond
those in FMLA, and the reduction in the prescriptiveness of other
benefit requirements (as described previously). However, ACF has
determined that the benefits requirements included in this final rule
are necessary for Head Start programs to retain staff and continue to
effectively meet their mission to provide high-quality services to
children and prepare them for success in elementary school and beyond.
As previously described, wage and benefit improvements are necessary so
that Head Start can recruit and retain effective staff and thereby
deliver high-quality services.
Comment: Some commenters raised the issue of equitable access to
benefits for smaller programs. Some suggested that small programs
cannot access the large insurance plans that could provide benefits
comparable to what public schools provide. Commenters also raised
concerns about potential differential impacts on Tribal programs when
implementing the benefits standards.
Response: ACF recognizes the specific challenges faced by small
programs and made several changes in the final rule to accommodate
small programs or extend flexibility to all programs in a manner that
will address concerns raised by small programs. First, as described
above, the final rule extends the implementation timeline for the staff
benefits requirements from two to four years to allow more time for
planning and implementation for all programs. Second, as described
previously, the final rule includes an exemption from the rule's wages
and benefits requirements for small agencies, defined as those with 200
or fewer funded slots. This exemption recognizes that small agencies
need additional flexibility to address wages and benefits in a
sustainable way given lack of economies of scale. As previously stated
above, research demonstrates that operating an early childhood program
that serves fewer than 100 children may not always be financially
viable.\22\ OHS has
[[Page 67741]]
established 200 slots so that, in the absence of additional
appropriations from Congress, these agencies do not need to streamline
the number of classrooms below this recommended threshold. This
approach roughly aligns with other policies that exempt employers with
fewer than 50 employees, as the vast majority of agencies with fewer
than 50 Head Start employees have fewer than 200 funded slots.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Mitchell, A. 2010. Lessons from Cost Modeling: The Link
Between ECE Business Management and Program Quality. http://www.earlychildhoodfinance.org/finance/cost-modeling; Stoney and
Blank, 2011. Delivering Quality: Strengthening the Business Side of
Early Care and Education. https://childcareta.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/delivering_quality_strengthening_the_business_side_of_ece.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This exemption reflects ACF's understanding that small programs
play a critical role in their communities, particularly in rural
communities where Head Start may be one of the few center-based early
childhood options available for children and families. However, ACF
remains concerned about the workforce in small Head Start agencies and
the resulting impact on services for children and families in the face
of ongoing staff shortages. For this reason, the exemption requires
that small agencies still improve benefits for staff over time and make
progress towards achieving the benefits requirements that apply to
larger Head Start agencies. ACF believes this is critically important
so that small agencies can sustain high-quality services over time.
This exemption balances the need for better compensation for staff with
the recognition that our smallest agencies may be very challenged to
execute these policies in the absence of additional funding, given
economies of scale. The exemption also applies to Head Start interim
service providers that provide services to children and families
temporarily in place of a Head Start agency that would have qualified
for the small agency exemption (Sec. 1302.90(f)(7)). As with wages,
ACF will work with small agencies to identify opportunities to make
progress on access to benefits, especially to avoid staff leaving small
programs for larger programs.
We also acknowledge the concerns raised by Tribal Head Start
program leaders and other commenters representing Tribal communities.
ACF believes that all Head Start educators deserve competitive benefits
that reflect the importance of their work, and this includes the Head
Start workforce in Tribal communities. The exemption for small Head
Start agencies described previously will allow flexibility for Tribal
Head Start agencies that operate with 200 or fewer funded slots
regarding whether they meet all the staff benefits policy requirements
in this final rule. However, as with other small agencies, small Tribal
Head Start agencies are still required to make improvements in staff
benefits over time. As previously noted, at the time of the development
of this final rule, ACF estimates that approximately 116 Tribal Head
Start agencies will benefit from this flexibility, which represents
approximately 78 percent of all Tribal Head Start agencies.
ACF recognizes that Tribes may offer different benefit structures
and has thus worded the benefit requirements to account for differences
in benefit structures. For example, the final rule requires ``health
care coverage'' which might include health insurance or access to
health care through a Tribally operated clinic. ACF will work with
Tribes to offer support and technical assistance to implement these
provisions in a way that honors Tribes' approaches to benefits for
employees.
Comment: A few comments noted that Head Start's family child care
partners will have difficulty implementing requirements due to their
small size and that this may serve as a disincentive for the family
child care option. A few comments noted the importance of timely,
predictable payments for Head Start's child care partners, particularly
family child care, needed to meet the compensation requirements.
Response: Nothing in this rule should be interpreted as a
disincentive for the family child care option, and we agree that
timely, predictable payments are necessary for Head Start's child care
partners.
Comment: A few comments suggested additional benefits for
consideration, such as training or other types of leave. There was a
suggestion for the creation of concrete, measurable midpoint benchmarks
toward implementing the revised standards. A few comments suggested
that Head Start programs be required to participate in state early
childhood workforce registries, and that registries could be used as a
data source for wages and benefits, including for creating salary
scales. A few comments suggested that benefits be extended to part-time
staff, potentially through a proportional allocation based on number of
hours worked.
Response: We appreciate the need for improved staff benefits, and
the final rule includes requirements for several benefits that will
improve staff well-being, recruitment, and retention. While we do not
include additional requirements suggested by commenters in this rule,
as noted in Sec. 1302.90(f)(5), programs may offer additional benefits
not specified in the rule to their staff, including enhanced health
benefits, retirement savings plans, flexible savings accounts, or life,
disability, and long-term care insurance.
Comment: Commenters suggested that the requirements in the final
rule should align with existing Federal standards and laws, like the
FMLA, the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the ACA, and the Bureau of
Labor Statistics' (BLS) definition of full-time work, as well as state
and local labor laws, to avoid creating additional administrative
burdens. Some comments voiced concern about the definition of full-time
employees and suggest following existing Federal standards or allowing
for local autonomy in defining full-time. Other commenters supported
the definition of full-time as 30 hours, recognizing the need to align
the definition with the typical school year calendar.
Response: The final rule retains the definition of ``full-time
staff'' as those working 30 hours per week or more while the program is
in session. This definition is based on an existing Federal law.
Specifically, for the purposes of the ACA's Employer Shared
Responsibility Provision, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) specifies
that: ``a full-time employee is, for a calendar month, an employee
employed on average at least 30 hours of service per week, or 130 hours
of service per month.'' \23\ This definition of full-time staff allows
Head Start staff who work with children in school-day programs (e.g.,
approximately six hours a day) to be considered full-time. Head Start
programs should also account for time spent when children are not
present, which might include time for lesson planning, family
engagement, and paperwork.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See the IRS website for more details: Employer Shared
Responsibility Provisions [verbar] Internal Revenue Service
(irs.gov).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: A few commenters expressed concern that Head Start grant
recipients may limit workers' rights to organize or exercise voice
through collective bargaining and urged ACF to use oversight and
enforce union neutrality. ACF also heard from a few national labor
unions indicating support for the proposed benefit requirements and
comments indicating that labor unions could partner in implementing
required changes through the collective bargaining agreement
negotiation process.
Response: ACF reiterates that Head Start funds cannot be used to
assist, promote, or deter union organizing per 42 U.S.C. 9839(e), and
nothing in the final rule is intended to limit workers' rights to
organize or exercise voice through collective bargaining. Head
[[Page 67742]]
Start agencies with and without collective bargaining units are
encouraged to engage staff in implementing wage and benefit provisions
in this final rule. ACF encourages any individual, including Head Start
staff and union leaders, who experiences or becomes aware of violations
of Head Start's neutrality clause to report such violations by
contacting the Office of Head Start or HHS Office of the Inspector
General (OIG) complaint hotline.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Reports may be made to the Office of Head Start either
online at https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/contact-us or by calling
866-763-6481. Reports may be made to OIG online at https://oig.hhs.gov/fraud/report-fraud/ or by calling 1-800-447-8477.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: Some comments suggested taking employer-sponsored health
insurance and other employee benefits into account when calculating
total staff compensation and evaluating progress toward pay parity to
avoid an unintended consequence of decreasing existing benefits in
order to increase wages. A few comments raised the issue that some Head
Start staff are laid off by their agency and receive unemployment
benefits during the summers as factors in compensation. Other
commenters suggested that Head Start should benchmark to the total
value of the compensation package in public schools, inclusive of
salaries and benefits.
Response: We decline to include employer-sponsored health care
coverage and other employee benefits as part of Head Start staff
salaries for the purposes of understanding progress toward pay parity
as described in Sec. 1302.90(e)(2) of this final rule. Research
indicates that Head Start staff earn lower wages and have fewer
benefits than staff at public elementary schools.\25\ The intent of the
benefits policies in the final rule is to markedly improve benefits for
the Head Start workforce and ensure Head Start programs can be
competitive employers in their local communities. Average hourly wages
and fringe rates for public school teachers are higher than those at
Head Start programs. For instance, in September 2023, benefits
accounted for 35.6 percent of total compensation for elementary and
secondary teachers.\26\ The benefits we require for full-time staff in
this final rule--health care coverage and paid leave--are basic
benefits widely available in the labor force and key to ensuring staff
well-being and program quality in Head Start. We encourage programs
that have been offering other types of employee benefits to continue to
do so and encourage others to expand their benefits offerings if
feasible. Programs can take into account all benefits they provide to
full-time staff when they assess and determine if their benefits
package is at least comparable to those provided to elementary school
staff in the program's local or neighboring school district, to the
extent practicable, as required at least once every five years by Sec.
1302.90(f)(5) of this rule. When implementing the benefits requirements
in this final rule, ACF declines to include consideration of
unemployment benefits for staff laid off during the summer months. ACF
discourages Head Start agencies from laying off staff in the summer
months, as this introduces financial uncertainty to staff and can
exacerbate challenges with retaining staff and worsen turnover as a
result.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See Comparison-of-Personnel-Systems-K12-and-Early-
Childhood-Teachers.pdf (berkeley.edu).
\26\ See elementary and secondary schools in Table 3: Employer
Costs for Employee Compensation for state and local government
workers by occupational and industry group. ecec.pdf (bls.gov).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments on Individual Staff Benefits
Comment: Many commenters expressed that the proposed changes to
health benefits could significantly improve the working conditions for
Head Start employees and improve staff recruitment and retention.
Several comments noted and appreciated the existing health insurance
benefits provided by their agencies, while others expressed a desire
for better benefits.
Response: As noted previously, this final rule retains the health
care coverage benefits proposed in the NPRM and requires a program to
provide or facilitate access to high-quality, affordable health care
coverage for all staff. Specifically, for all full-time staff (defined
as those working 30 or more hours per week when the program is in
session), programs are required to either (1) provide and contribute to
employer-sponsored health care 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. Employees are not
obligated to accept employer-provided or employer-facilitated health
care coverage, such as those receiving insurance coverage through a
partner or another manner. If programs are required to offer employer-
sponsored coverage under the ACA or elect to do so anyway, we encourage
coverage similar to that offered by silver, gold, or platinum plans in
the Marketplace. The requirements for health care coverage allow
programs to facilitate full-time staff members' enrollment in health
insurance options in the Marketplace, which helps with the logistical
difficulties of negotiating employee benefits plans with insurers, and
we recognize that programs may require technical assistance to connect
with Navigators or other resources.
For part-time staff who work fewer than 30 hours per week, the
final rule requires programs to facilitate the enrollment of these
staff in health care coverage options in the Marketplace or through
Medicaid for which they may be eligible. Programs are not required to
offer nor precluded from offering employer-sponsored health care
coverage to part-time staff, but the final rule requires, at a minimum,
that programs 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.
Comment: Some comments raised concerns regarding the administrative
burden of or the need to clarify benefits requirements, such as
facilitating access to health insurance for part-time employees,
particularly for small employers, and to define ``facilitate access.''
Some comments voiced concern about the administrative burden of
providing employees with information about the health insurance
Marketplace and other resources and contended that it is the employees'
responsibility to learn about and enroll in those opportunities. Other
comments noted that the requirement to inform staff of their health
insurance options through the Marketplace is likely not a major change
in practice and is already required for new employees through the FLSA.
Response: We acknowledge that under the ACA, employers to which the
FLSA applies are already required to provide a notice to employees
about the health insurance Marketplaces in the states in which they
operate. This final rule seeks to set a higher standard for Head Start
programs to ``facilitate access'' to health coverage, which they can do
in a variety of ways: by distributing information or hosting
information sessions about Marketplace options, including handouts and
the Marketplace website; providing internet or computer access to
employees so they can learn more or enroll; and connecting staff to
Navigators or benefits specialists at Head Start programs or elsewhere
to help staff enroll. Programs already have extensive experience
connecting the families they serve to other programs for which they may
be eligible and, therefore, are uniquely suited to help connect staff
with health care coverage options for which they may be eligible.
Comment: Commenters shared several thoughts in response to the
request for
[[Page 67743]]
comment on requiring retirement benefits for staff. Some commenters
noted they already provide benefits to staff, including some on par
with local public schools or state employees, and would have to adjust
or change plans to fit any new requirements. Many commenters said that
programs should have the flexibility to tailor benefits to their
specific circumstances and to be inclusive of multiple types of
retirement plans, including individual retirement accounts and
pensions. They suggested that mandates or minimum required employer
contributions to retirement could be burdensome and that a one-size-
fits-all approach may not be appropriate. Some comments called for
requirements for programs to provide a matching 401(k) plan or similar
retirement options, with education on retirement planning. A few
comments supported a minimum employer contribution to staff retirement
benefits. A few commenters suggested that retirement benefits should be
available for all staff. A few discussed the positive implications for
gender, racial, and ethnic equity in expanding benefits.
Response: The final rule does not require that programs offer a
retirement savings benefit for staff. While we agree with commenters
that noted the importance of retirement benefits, we also recognize the
additional substantial cost this could have for employers. However, ACF
strongly encourages programs to offer retirement benefits to staff, if
feasible, to improve staff recruitment and retention.
Comment: There was some misunderstanding that Head Start retirement
benefits would be required to align with those of public school
systems. Some comments suggested that the government provide Head Start
employees with the same health care and retirement benefits that most
government employees receive, that their benefits be on par with public
schools, that benefits not require employee contributions, and/or that
the government should facilitate a collective into which small programs
could buy.
Response: The final rule does not require that Head Start health
care coverage benefits be on par or aligned with those of the public
school system or offered to most government employees. As described
previously, the final rule does not include or add any requirements for
retirement benefits for staff.
Comment: Commenters expressed a variety of thoughts on the paid
leave policies as proposed in the NPRM. Many commenters identified that
they already provide sick and vacation leave to staff through existing
paid time off policies. Many commenters expressed concern that
separating sick leave and vacation leave, as proposed in the NPRM,
would increase administrative burden and be less desirable for staff.
Some commenters requested the option to rollover accrued time off
rather than provide leave commensurate with experience or tenure and
raised concerns about the ability to pay out accrued time off at the
end of employment. Commenters also noted the importance of providing
benefits to part-time staff and suggested a pro-rata approach based on
hours worked.
Response: We agree with commenters regarding the need for
flexibility around paid leave policies, and therefore, the final rule
requires programs to offer paid leave without distinguishing between
sick and vacation leave. To increase flexibility and local autonomy, we
also do not specify how paid leave should be accrued. Although we
encourage programs to provide sick and vacation leave to part-time
staff, we decline to require this in the final rule. As described
further in other areas, we also do not maintain the requirement for
paid family leave in the final rule.
Comment: Many commenters emphasized the need for clear and
consistent guidance on minimum standards for paid leave to avoid
inequitable implementation. Some commenters requested that ACF provide
a minimum requirement that aligns with existing policies in states that
provide sick leave, while others requested alignment with private
industry leave policies.
Response: We appreciate the desire from some commenters to have
clear and consistent guidance on minimum leave standards. To increase
flexibility and local autonomy, we decline to require minimum standards
for paid leave in the final rule.
Comment: Many commenters raised concerns that the paid family leave
requirements as proposed in the NPRM exceeded the intent of the Federal
FMLA standards or may not align with existing state or Tribal policies.
For example, the NPRM proposed that paid family leave apply to agencies
with fewer than 50 employees, which commenters noted is not consistent
with FMLA. Some commenters expressed confusion about whether the policy
as proposed in the NPRM would require full wage replacement, which
commenters were concerned could lead to potential misuse of
intermittent family and medical leave. A majority of comments that
discussed this issue recommended that ACF align its policy with Federal
FMLA requirements. Some commenters expressed support for enhancing paid
family and medical leave beyond existing Federal laws (e.g., apply to
grant recipients of all sizes) due to historically inequitable access
to leave for workers who do not qualify for FMLA. Many commenters
expressed worry that the proposed policy would be expensive to
implement, leading to financial strain for programs.
Response: ACF has removed the requirement for paid family leave in
the final rule. While some commenters expressed support for enhancing
access to paid family leave, we appreciate the concerns from many
commenters that the policy as proposed in the NPRM would exceed the
intent of Federal FMLA requirements by requiring all Head Start
programs, regardless of employer size, to provide partial or full wage
replacement during qualified periods of leave. However, for staff who
are eligible for and utilize periods of family leave under FMLA, ACF
still strongly encourages programs to provide partial or full wage
replacement for such employees. The majority of the Head Start
workforce are women who have often taken on the bulk of caregiving
responsibilities for their own families. Ensuring some consistency in
wages for employees during the birth or adoption of a child or to care
for themselves or family members with health conditions is an important
tool for staff retention.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Fact Sheet #28F: Reasons that Workers May Take Leave under
the Family and Medical Leave Act [verbar] U.S. Department of Labor
(dol.gov).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: Many commenters supported the intent of the proposed
requirement to provide short-term behavioral health services for staff
and emphasized the need for such supports, recognizing the high-stress
nature of the work and the recent increase in children's behavioral
issues in classrooms. A few commenters expressed concern about the
challenges of accessing mental health services, with long wait times
for appointments, especially in rural areas.
Response: We agree with commenters that access to free or low-cost
short-term behavioral health services for staff is important for
promoting staff well-being and child development. We recognize the
challenge of accessing mental health services, especially in rural
areas. In the final rule, we retain the behavioral health requirement
for staff, but with additional flexibility, as discussed further in
other areas. We encourage programs to use a variety of strategies to
connect staff to mental health resources and providers.
Comment: Many commenters expressed concern about the prescriptive
nature of the behavioral
[[Page 67744]]
health services requirement for staff as proposed in the NPRM, which
specified three to five outpatient visits per year. Commenters argued
for local autonomy in decision-making, suggesting that the specific
needs of staff and programs vary and that a one-size-fits-all approach
may not be appropriate. They also pointed out that there is no
equivalent requirement for other health concerns for staff, such as
physical therapy or diabetes care management.
Response: To support flexibility and local autonomy in decision-
making, in the final rule ACF removes the specific requirement to
provide approximately three to five outpatient visits per year. While
the final rule still requires programs to offer access to behavioral
health services to staff, the policy as revised provides more
flexibility to programs to determine the best way to provide such
access to behavioral health services. However, we encourage programs to
provide a minimum of three to five outpatient behavioral health visits
per year if they choose.
Comment: Some commenters requested clarification about what mental
health services and benefit plans would meet the requirement to provide
short-term behavioral health services for staff, while others suggested
this requirement could be met through an Employee Assistance Program
(EAP), existing comprehensive health plans and coverage that include
behavioral health services, or by developing partnerships with
community behavioral health agencies. A few commenters raised specific
concerns about the cost of the mental health benefit requirement,
noting that additional funding would be needed if programs are required
to purchase health insurance that includes coverage for behavioral
health services with low out-of-pocket costs.
Response: ACF clarifies that programs may use a variety of
strategies to ensure staff have access to short-term, free or low-cost
behavioral health services, some of which may result in no additional
cost to employers who are providing or facilitating access to high-
quality, affordable health care coverage. For instance, employers may
meet this standard through existing employer-sponsored group health
plans or through an EAP that qualifies as an excepted health
benefit.28 29 In a 2020 nationally representative survey,
among those reporting perceived unmet mental health care needs in the
prior year, 19 percent reported that their health insurance did not pay
enough for mental health services.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ When offering access to the behavioral health services
required under this final rule, 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, the benefits
provided may not be coordinated with benefits under another group
health plan, 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 this final rule 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 ERISA.
For example, the Paul Wellstrone and Pete Domenici Mental Health
Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008, which added ERISA section
712, 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. 26 CFR 54.9812-1; 29 CFR 2590.712;
and 45 CFR 146.36.
\29\ Section 1251 of the Affordable Care Act provides that
grandfathered health plans are not subject to certain provisions of
the Internal Revenue Code (Code), ERISA, and the Public Health
Service (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/dolgov/files/EBSA/laws-and-regulations/laws/affordable-care-act/for-employers-and-advisers/grandfathered-health-plans-provisions-summary-chart.pdf.
\30\ 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/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: Regarding the proposed requirement for programs to
facilitate access to and enrollment in affordable child care, some
comments noted the importance of child care for their staff and
community and supported increased access to child care resources. A few
suggested providing child care options to staff such as onsite child
care or partnering with a local child care center may be a better way
to support the workforce while meeting the needs of the community.
Several commenters requested clarification and guidance regarding the
definitions of ``facilitate access to'' and ``facilitate enrollment
in'' child care.
Response: The early childhood workforce, including Head Start
staff, are disproportionately women,\31\ many of whom need child care
for their own children in order to work, but high-quality, affordable
child care is difficult to find.\32\ The final rule retains the
proposed policy and requires that programs connect staff to local child
care information sources, including distributing information about
child care resource and referral agencies. Among staff who may be
eligible for child care subsidies, the final rule contains revised
language requiring programs to ``facilitate access'' rather than
``facilitate enrollment'' in the child care subsidy program and is now
consistent with the requirements regarding facilitating staff access to
PSLF. Facilitating access to child care may involve referring staff to
State and local agencies that administer child care subsidy programs,
providing computer or internet access and support to apply for child
care subsidies, providing printed resources about child care subsidies,
providing timely income and employment documentation, and assisting
staff in completing the application as needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ 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/.
\32\ Child Care Aware (2022). 2021 Child Care Affordability.
https://www.childcareaware.org/catalyzing-growth-using-data-to-change-child-care/#ChildCareAffordability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: Regarding the proposal in the NPRM that programs can
choose to prioritize the enrollment of staff members' children, many
comments supported the prioritized enrollment for the children of
eligible staff. Some commenters were concerned about the implications
of prioritizing such children for enrollment over serving those most
at-risk in their community. A few comments urged that the children of
Head Start staff be categorically eligible to attract and retain staff.
A few comments suggested that the language of the policy could be
broadened to include ``children for whom staff is the primary
caretaker'' to be inclusive of grandparents who are primary caregivers
or those providing kinship or guardianship care.
[[Page 67745]]
Response: We retain this provision in the final rule. As described
above, many in the ECE workforce rely on child care to work and their
families may benefit from Head Start's services. The final rule
provides an option for programs to prioritize the enrollment of staff
members' children through selection criteria. This is not a requirement
of programs, and Head Start agencies may choose whether to include
prioritization of staff members in their selection criteria. In
addition, staff members' children must meet one or more eligibility
categories described in Sec. 1302.12(c) or (d). Because of the wage
increases required through this final rule, ACF acknowledges that it is
likely that fewer staff members' children will be eligible for Head
Start over time. Programs are reminded that through their selection
criteria, they must still prioritize those most in need of Head Start
services. We acknowledge the suggestion to allow for categorical
eligibility for the children of Head Start staff; however, as
eligibility categories are largely determined by Head Start statute, we
do not incorporate this suggestion in the final rule.
Comment: Commenters supported the policy proposed in the NPRM that
would facilitate greater ease of access to PSLF for Head Start staff,
including a suggestion for Head Start to work with the Department of
Education or automatically enroll Head Start staff in PSLF. Some
expressed concern about the administrative burden of facilitating
access to PSLF, and several commenters requested clarification and
guidance about what is meant by ``facilitate access,'' with a few
suggesting replacing this with a requirement to share information. A
few comments noted that workers at for-profit agencies do not qualify
for PSLF, and there was confusion that this would prohibit Head Start
from partnering with for-profit child care partners. A few comments
suggested that this provision would be more appropriate in guidance
instead of in regulation.
Response: The final rule retains the requirement that programs
facilitate access to the PSLF program. A 2022 study found that 19
percent of the ECE workforce 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.\33\ Maintaining the ``facilitate
access'' language is important to ensure that programs both share
information and provide support and timely certification for enrollment
in PSLF. Activities considered ``facilitating access'' include, but are
not limited to, providing information to and hosting information
sessions for staff, providing internet or computer access to employees
during dedicated time away from their normal job duties so they can
learn more or enroll, and connecting staff to benefits specialists at
Head Start programs or elsewhere to help staff enroll. We recognize not
all Head Start staff will be eligible for PSLF, given that some may not
have eligible employment if the Head Start program or child care
partner site does not meet the employer requirements because they are
for-profit entities. However, of those that do, the timely
certification of employment is necessary for staff who are applying.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACF appreciates the comments encouraging coordination with the
Department of Education on PSLF and will continue to explore ways the
Federal Government can work across agencies to make it easier for early
educators to apply for PSLF.
Workforce Supports: Training and Professional Development Plans (Sec.
1302.91)
In this standard, we describe the minimum requirements for annual
professional development, and we codify the requirements of the 2007
Head Start Act for teaching staff within the HSPPS. The NPRM further
codified the requirements of section 648A(f) of the Head Start Act.
Section 648A(f) of the Act requires programs to develop, with input
from the employee, individual professional development plans for every
full-time staff providing direct services to children. These plans
serve as a mechanism for programs to help ensure their staff have the
skills, knowledge, and competencies to effectively perform their roles
and deliver high-quality program services.
While the requirement is stated in the Act, it has not been
previously codified in the HSPPS, and data from OHS monitoring findings
show that programs are being cited for lacking professional development
plans for their education staff. From fiscal year 2020-2022, a top
cited finding for programs in education was related to professional
development plans.\34\ Revising language in Sec. 1302.92(b)(1) to
include individual professional development plans aligns the HSPPS with
the Act and reminds programs of the requirement. It also emphasizes the
importance of leveraging staff's input to identify their professional
needs and drive their career growth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Data from narrative responses from monitoring reviews from
fiscal years 2020-2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: Many commenters expressed support for the revision. One
commenter noted this revision will streamline information and make it
easier for programs to reference and adhere to all regulations and
mandates. Another commenter noted that when individual professional
development plans are done well, they can improve staff retention and
job satisfaction. Further, professional learning opportunities designed
and delivered in a way that elevate educator expertise and autonomy can
increase children's learning and development.
Response: ACF agrees with commenters and retains the language
proposed in the NPRM to include individual professional development
plans.
Comment: While section 648A(f) of the Act requires programs to co-
create a professional development plan with each full-time employee who
provides direct services to children, a few commenters noted the
importance of such plans for all Head Start positions. A few commenters
also noted the importance of individual staff input (including staff in
family child care settings) in developing goals and identifying next
steps within their individual professional development plans. Such
input makes plans meaningful to their role and tasks and allows staff
to build upon the valuable skills they already possess. Another
commenter recommended programs leverage existing infrastructure, such
as professional development offerings and tools within early childhood
professional registries.
Response: ACF encourages programs to implement individual
professional development plans with all staff. We agree that these
plans can be effective tools to support professional and career
development for everyone. We also acknowledge that staff's input on
their plans is an important step to individualize professional
development approaches. The goal is for staff to build on existing
strengths and implement effective practices to deliver quality program
services. Individuals and programs can also consider future career
opportunities as they develop plans. ACF encourages programs to
leverage existing infrastructure and services to support their delivery
of impactful professional development.
While ACF acknowledges commenters' recommendations, we do not
revise the provision to address these comments. We feel programs can
access technical assistance and resources on the Early Childhood
Learning and
[[Page 67746]]
Knowledge Center (ECLKC) to enhance their professional development
planning processes. Additionally, we note that programs can elect to go
beyond the minimum requirement of a professional development plan for
each full-time employee who provides direct services to children and
support such a plan for all Head Start staff positions.
Comment: One commenter offered additional revisions to the NPRM
language. The commenter suggested that ACF revise Sec. 1302.92(b) to
encourage programs to consider various strategies that elevate the
early educator profession and pair these with holistic improvements to
professional development opportunities. Additionally, the commenter
advised that professional development opportunities build on the
linguistic and cultural strengths of educators. The commenter also
proposed adding language to Sec. 1302.92(b)(3) that expands training
for child and family services staff on best practices for implementing
family engagement strategies to include a focus on a holistic approach
to child development, inclusive of mental health and social and
emotional development.
Response: While ACF encourages programs to consider strategies that
build on staff's strengths and offer professional development
opportunities to help staff meet the unique needs of their enrolled
children and families, we do not revise this provision to address this
comment. We think these provisions are sufficient in directing programs
to provide a systemic approach to staff training and professional
development that supports staff in acquiring or increasing the
knowledge and skills needed to provide high-quality, comprehensive
services. By codifying the statutory requirement for individualized
professional development plans in regulation, we reinforce the
importance of tailoring professional development experiences to each
staff members' unique cultural, linguistic, and educational
backgrounds.
Comment: A few commenters noted that professional development plans
are a helpful mechanism to support and track staff's attainment of
their educational requirements, and they are particularly needed when
recruiting qualified staff continues to be challenging. One commenter
requested that programs be able to provisionally hire staff who do not
meet the educational requirements without needing to submit individual
waivers when assistant teachers have two-year plans to attain the CDA
credential and when teachers have a five-year plan to get their degree.
Response: ACF agrees that professional development plans can be a
vehicle to track timely progress and attainment of educational
credentials and qualifications. However, since the qualification
requirements of Head Start educators are prescribed in legislation, we
do not revise this provision to address this comment.
Workforce Supports: Staff Wellness (Sec. 1302.93)
Section 1302.93 outlines program requirements for promoting staff
health and wellness, including ensuring that staff have regular health
examinations; do not pose a risk of exposing others in the program to
communicable diseases; and are provided access to mental health and
wellness information. This final rule adds requirements to Sec.
1302.93 for programs to provide regular breaks for staff and cultivate
a program-wide culture of wellness for staff. In response to public
comments, this final rule does not include the proposed requirements in
the NPRM for unscheduled breaks and adult-sized furniture in
classrooms, as described further below. The changes in this section of
the rule are intended to further amplify the crosscutting efforts
across multiple areas in the HSPPS to improve staff recruitment and
retention through an intentional focus on staff wellness. ACF believes
these changes will help reduce burnout and staff turnover, as well as
promote high-quality services for children and families.
Staff Breaks
The previous standards in Sec. 1302.93 lacked critical
requirements to promote staff wellness on the job. This final rule adds
a new paragraph (c) to Sec. 1302.93 which outlines requirements for
break times during work shifts. In new paragraph (c)(1), we specify
that, for each staff member, a program must provide regular breaks of
adequate length and frequency based on hours worked, including (but not
limited to) time for meal breaks as appropriate. New paragraph (c)(2)
requires programs to comply with Federal, State, or local laws or
regulations that are more stringent for staff breaks, if applicable.
For staff members who regularly work in classrooms with children,
the breaks for staff described in paragraph (c)(1) are subject to
required staff-child ratios. However, in new 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, so long as this staff
member has the necessary training and experience to ensure the 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 and
passed the appropriate background checks.
This final rule does not include paragraph (c)(4) that was included
in the NPRM, which proposed unscheduled wellness breaks for staff. As
described below in the public comment analysis, ACF believes that early
childhood staff need restroom breaks and an opportunity to step away
during stressful situations. Such breaks are important to staff health
and child safety. However, ACF will defer to Head Start agencies to
determine how to implement breaks.
We respond to the comments we received on staff breaks in response
to the NPRM in this section-by-section discussion below.
Comment: We received several public comments on our proposals
regarding required staff breaks. They reflected a mix of support and
concern. Of those that commented on this issue, many agreed that breaks
for staff are beneficial for mental health and can improve the quality
of services provided to children. They recognized the importance of
supporting staff well-being to reduce burnout and turnover, and some
said their agencies already provide such breaks, scheduled and
unscheduled.
Response: We strongly agree with the importance of staff breaks for
supporting overall staff wellness. In alignment with the overarching
goal of this final rule, to promote higher-quality services for
children in Head Start programs and better support the mental and
physical well-being of staff, children, and families, ACF adds to Sec.
1302.93 a new paragraph (c), including paragraphs (c)(1) through (3),
which outlines requirements for break times during work shifts, but
with some modifications to the policy as proposed in the NPRM. This
standard for regular staff breaks is discussed further below.
Comment: Regarding the proposed scheduled breaks policy, the
majority of comments were supportive of the requirement, noting some
programs already provide breaks for staff when possible. However,
commenters found the proposed language for scheduled breaks to be too
prescriptive because of the specific time requirements proposed in the
standard. Commenters highlighted potential contradictions
[[Page 67747]]
with State requirements as well. A few commenters also expressed
concern that the new requirements for breaks were unfunded, which could
lead to a reduction in slots to accommodate the additional staffing
costs.
Response: ACF believes in the critical importance of regular breaks
for staff to promote physical health and wellness, and in turn promote
higher quality interactions and services for children and families.
However, ACF understands that programs have unique structures and
programmatic considerations that might dictate how breaks are
implemented, and therefore, in this final rule, we retain the
requirement for scheduled breaks but with some modifications to provide
more flexibility for programs. Specifically, the staff breaks standard
added in Sec. 1302.93(c)(1) requires that each staff member receive
regular breaks of adequate length and frequency based on hours worked,
including, but not limited to, time for meal breaks as appropriate.
With these revisions to the staff breaks policy, ACF believes the
requirement now better supports programs' autonomy to execute a break
schedule that is most effective for each program's staff and overall
organizational health while maintaining child safety and ratios. ACF
expects that breaks for staff will be provided away from their regular
job duties including being away from the classroom for those staff. The
phrasing ``of adequate length and frequency'' in the new standard is
meant to imply that staff who work longer shifts may need longer or
more frequent breaks. For instance, ACF expects that staff who work
longer shifts will be provided a regular break that is of adequate
length to allow for a meal and regular restroom breaks.
As discussed in other sections, ACF recognizes that the
implementation of some of the policies in the final rule will come with
associated costs and may require adjustments in funded enrollment if
additional congressional appropriations are not available. This final
rule also delays the effective date for the staff breaks requirement to
August 2027, approximately three years after the publication of the
final rule. This will allow programs more time to plan for and
implement this new policy.
Comment: Regarding the proposed unscheduled wellness breaks, there
were significant concerns about their practicality and feasibility of
implementation. Commenters expressed worry about maintaining child-to-
staff ratios, violating licensing requirements, the financial and
logistical burden of hiring additional staff to cover breaks, and the
potential for abuse of the unscheduled break policy.
Response: The safety of children is of the utmost importance to
ACF, and we recognize this is a key priority for programs as well. As
such, ACF agrees with the public concerns regarding the need for
programs to have flexibility in how they structure brief, unscheduled
breaks for staff safely, particularly for small and rural programs and
those that are geographically dispersed. While the proposed requirement
was intended to reduce potential child incidents by allowing an
overwhelmed classroom staff member an opportunity to briefly step away
from a situation, ACF acknowledges that some programs need flexibility
in terms of how they implement, particularly those whose licensing
requirements would not allow for such unscheduled breaks without
another staff member immediately available to step into the room. We
agree that programs will need to determine how to implement breaks in a
way that does not pose a safety risk for smaller and understaffed
programs. As such, the proposed requirement for brief unscheduled
breaks for staff is not included in this final rule, and instead we
include a more flexible policy that requires breaks of appropriate
length and frequency.
However, being an early educator, including in Head Start, involves
actively educating, caring for, and supervising young children. These
jobs require the full attention of staff members and can be physically,
mentally, and emotionally demanding, particularly if done for long
shift periods. It is critically important that programs allow staff to
step away for restroom breaks and support overwhelmed staff that may
need a moment away from the classroom. Unscheduled breaks allow staff
the opportunity to briefly step away from an overwhelming situation,
think through an appropriate approach to handling the given situation,
and may ultimately help prevent or reduce child safety incidents in
classrooms. Lack of access to breaks at work may be part of a
constellation of workplace stressors faced by Head Start staff
including the significant responsibility entrusted to Head Start staff
who are charged with supporting the children and families who are
furthest from opportunity. Work climate and stressors are associated
with teacher psychological well-being,\35\ and in turn, contribute to
staff turnover.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, it is also critically important for classroom staff to
have access to unscheduled bathroom breaks as needed, to promote
physical wellness. Research indicates that ECE teachers have higher
rates of urinary tract infections relative to the general population of
women, a troubling finding.\36\ This is thought to be due to staff not
feeling as though they can regularly access the bathroom as needed.
Therefore, ACF remains convinced of the benefits of offering staff
unscheduled breaks as needed and urges programs to develop staffing
systems that incorporate such an approach as feasible, while ensuring
child safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: Some commenters found the language around unscheduled
breaks to be too prescriptive and felt that programs should have the
autonomy to support their employees' health and wellness in ways that
are practical for their specific circumstances. A few commenters noted
the rigidness of the proposed requirements could lead to a culture of
micromanagement, eroding morale and undermining the judgment and
expertise of staff.
Response: As noted above, ACF concurs with public sentiment that
programs need flexibility in structuring staff breaks, so this is not
included as a requirement in this final rule.
Adult-Sized Furniture
Based on the feedback received from the public on the NPRM, ACF is
not retaining the proposed new paragraph (d) in Sec. 1302.93, which
would have required programs to ensure staff have access to adult-size
furniture in classrooms. The requirement was not well-supported by the
public for a variety of reasons. ACF ultimately agrees that the
presence of the adult-sized furniture in a classroom is better left to
the discretion of individual programs. However, ACF remains committed
to the benefits of access to adult-sized furniture, particularly
chairs, for classroom staff and encourages programs to implement
changes to better support the physical health of teachers. ACF's
support for access to adult-sized furniture is motivated by the data
indicating that staff in Head Start programs experience
[[Page 67748]]
elevated levels of 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.\37\ 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.\38\ Programs
should continue to align with ACF's goal of improving and investing in
staff health and wellness including strengthening support for Head
Start early educators' physical well-being whenever possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ The Happy Teacher Project (2020). Strengthening Health,
Wellness, and Psychosocial Environments in Head Start: Technical
Report 2020. Johns Hopkins University and Oklahoma State University.
\38\ 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 respond to the comments we received on adult-sized furniture in
classrooms in response to the NPRM in this section-by-section
discussion below.
Comment: The majority of the public comments regarding staff access
to adult-size furniture in classrooms were not supportive of the
requirement. Commenters were generally apprehensive about the
requirement for adult-sized furniture in classrooms, citing safety
concerns for children, reduced usable space, and potential conflicts
with both state licensing standards and the Early Childhood Environment
Rating Scale (ECERS). Most of the comments on this issue also reflected
a desire for less prescriptive rules that focus on a desired outcome
and allow for more locally designed approaches to achieve those
outcomes.
Response: Due to the overwhelming negative feedback ACF received on
adult-sized furniture in classrooms for staff, we do not retain it as a
requirement in this final rule. ACF finds commenters' concerns
regarding a potential conflict with state licensing standards and ECERS
to be compelling. However, as noted previously, ACF remains committed
to supporting the health and well-being of Head Start program staff.
ACF encourages programs to ensure classroom staff at minimum have
adult-size chairs in classrooms and a dedicated space with adult-size
furniture for breaks and meals as needed. This can help promote
ergonomic health and minimize physical pain for staff associated with
consistently sitting on child-sized chairs or the floor.
Comment: Of the supportive comments received, many supported the
idea of adult-sized chairs for adult comfort but argued against adult-
sized desks, which commenters believed were not suitable for EHS
classrooms due to space constraints and safety issues. Additionally,
some commenters stated that adult-sized furniture could create barriers
and negatively impact teacher-child interactions. Some commenters
agreed with the benefits of access to adult-sized furniture but
suggested instead focusing on creating a dedicated workspace for staff
outside of the classroom.
Response: As discussed previously, ACF does not retain this
requirement in the final rule.
Culture of Wellness for Staff
This final rule adds a new paragraph (d) to Sec. 1302.93 that
states that a program should cultivate a program-wide culture of
wellness that empowers staff as professionals and supports them to
effectively accomplish their job responsibilities in a high-quality
manner, in line with the requirement at Sec. 1302.101(a)(2). 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.\39\ As noted in changes made to Sec. 1302.101(a)(2),
meaningful and effective employee engagement practices that promote
clear roles and responsibilities are needed to improve the well-being
of the workforce. Additionally, knowing that the mental health of young
children is intertwined with the mental health of the adults who care
for them, it is critical to foster a supportive environment for staff
well-being, reduce burnout, and improve retention in order to promote
the highest quality of services for children and families.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ https://www.cdc.gov/workplacehealthpromotion/planning/leadership.html; https://aspe.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/private/pdf/76661/rpt_wellness.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: Of the few comments received on the new requirement for
programs to cultivate a program-wide culture of wellness, most were
supportive, citing the importance of fostering a healthy work
environment, preventing burnout, and the unintended negative impact on
the children and families served. About half of the commenters were
also concerned with the subjective nature of the requirement and how
ACF would be able to monitor it.
Response: ACF maintains the proposed requirement, with the general
support of the public, requiring programs to foster a program-wide
culture of wellness. Staff who are not as emotionally committed to or
proud of their work or organization, are less motivated and are more
eager to leave, which can in turn negatively affect the quality of
their work and the attitudes held toward children.\40\ ACF believes in
the intent of this requirement and the positive impact on programs,
staff wellness, and the children and families served, as a result.
After publication of the final rule, ACF will determine how best to
monitor programs on this requirement in a way that is fair and
equitable across programs. As needed, ACF will also provide TA to
programs on how to meet this requirement, including examples of best
practices from other programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ Kleine, A.-K., Rudolph, C.W., & Zacher, H. (2019). Thriving
at work: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(9-
10), 973-999.; Walumbwa, F.O., Hartnell, C.A., & Oke, A. (2010).
Servant leadership, procedural justice climate, service climate,
employee attitudes, and organizational citizenship behavior: A
cross-level investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 517-
529.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Workforce Supports: Employee Engagement (Sec. Sec. 1302.92, 1302.101)
Section 1302.101(a)(2) requires programs to implement a management
system that promotes clear and reasonable roles and responsibilities
for all staff and provides regular and ongoing staff supervision with
meaningful and effective employee engagement practices. The language in
the final rule is intended to discourage staff supervision approaches
that are primarily top-down and is grounded in an understanding that
staff engagement is critical to both employee well-being and program
quality. The final rule also reflects provisions in the Head Start Act
that emphasize the importance of employee development and active
engagement.
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, staff, and their representatives;
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
[[Page 67749]]
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.
The final rule also retains a revision from the NPRM in Sec.
1302.92(b), which requires programs to implement a systematic approach
to staff training and professional development. We add to this section
the phrase ``and integrated with employee engagement practices in
accordance with Sec. 1302.101(a)(2).'' This revision builds on the
revised language in Sec. 1302.101(a)(2) and is intended to ensure
programs implement an approach to staff training and professional
development that is informed by input from staff, identifies barriers
to job performance, and includes other employee engagement practices.
Comment: ACF received few comments overall on provisions related to
employee engagement. Of those who commented, there was general
consensus on the necessity of well-defined roles and responsibilities
for Head Start staff. Commenters advocated for management systems that
recognize the diverse duties of staff and support the complexity of
these roles. There was a call for professional development plans that
are flexible, crafted with input from staff, and tailored to meet the
specific needs of each program.
Response: ACF agrees with commenters and retains the revised
language from the NPRM.
Comment: A few commenters advocated for integrating mental health
and anti-bias approaches into the employee engagement provisions.
Response: ACF agrees with commenters on the importance of
integrating mental health throughout Head Start programs. This final
rule includes multiple provisions in Sec. 1302.45 establishing what
programs must do to support a culture that promotes mental health,
including revised requirements in Sec. 1302.45(a) to include
coordination and collaboration between mental health and other relevant
program services. Since we do not specify any other content areas
(e.g., physical health) for inclusion in the employee engagement
provisions in Sec. 1302.92(b) or Sec. 1302.101(a)(2), we do not make
further revisions to these sections from the NPRM language. ACF has and
will continue to provide TTA on supporting mental health and promoting
inclusive environments in Head Start programs.
Comment: A few comments highlighted a preference for leadership
development strategies that empower rather than prescribe, with a call
for ACF to offer guidance instead of stringent requirements. These
commenters emphasized the importance of program autonomy in staffing
and professional development decisions. A few comments raised concerns
about a potential increase in regulatory burdens with these provisions.
Response: ACF values commenters' input on leadership development
strategies and recognizes the need for strategies that are adaptable to
local contexts. The final rule reflects this by providing a framework
that supports the development of management systems at the program
level, allowing for the leadership of each program to guide the
creation and implementation of employee engagement practices. The rule
aims to balance the need for clear Federal guidance with flexibility
for programs to address their specific challenges and dynamics.
In response to concerns about regulatory burden, ACF has been
intentional about ensuring that the final rule provisions on employee
engagement do not impose undue constraints on programs. Rather, they
support autonomy in developing and executing strategies that are most
effective for each program's staff and organizational health. The
changes described in these sections are intended to be scaled to the
size of the Head Start organization and are not anticipated to incur a
large cost.
Mental Health Services (Subparts D, H, and I)
The final rule makes updates to mental health services for
children, families, and staff and more fully integrates mental health
in all aspects of Head Start services while focusing on a preventive
and strengths-based approach. Collectively, the final rule provisions
promote a Head Start program that recognizes mental health as a part of
child development and integrates a promotion and prevention approach
that includes addressing the mental health needs of children and the
adults that care for them in an ongoing and collaborative way. Mental
health services have always been an important part of the Head Start
model, and this rule affirms the importance of mental health by
explicitly referencing it in the heading of subpart D and the renamed
Health and Mental Health Services Advisory Committee (HMHSAC). In
addition, the final rule includes clarifying language to reinforce that
mental health should be integrated into all aspects of the Head Start
program, including developmental screenings, family support services,
family engagement, and nutrition.
The final rule includes significant changes from previous standards
on mental health to address mental health services as an important
component of Head Start and respond to increasing mental health
concerns among children, families, and staff in the program. Many of
these changes were proposed in the NPRM, with some additional changes
made in the final rule in response to public comments. Specifically,
the final rule removes the requirement for a multidisciplinary mental
health team in the NPRM and replaces it with a requirement for a
multidisciplinary approach to emphasize that programs should determine
how best to coordinate and ensure program-wide mental health supports
and services with the appropriate staff, which is discussed more in
depth below. The new requirements for the multidisciplinary approach to
support mental health across the program largely reflect those proposed
in the NPRM and include: (1) coordinating supports for adults,
including families and staff; (2) new strengths-based language related
to mental health services for children that focus on preventive
strategies; (3) annual assessment of mental health consultation
services to address any needed changes in service delivery; (4) monthly
mental health consultation services with an option to augment with
other licensed mental health professionals or behavior health support
specialists, as needed; (5) screening for social and emotional
development and follow-up with parents; (6) coordination across mental
health and other service providers in the program; and (7) leveraging
community partnerships to provide mental health services, including
through the HMHSAC.
The final rule also retains the description of the role of a mental
health consultant, whose role is to build the capacity of adults to
support the mental health and social and emotional development of
children. Research has demonstrated that mental health consultation has
positive impacts on young children's social and emotional skills and
reductions in behaviors that are challenging to adults.\41\ While the
[[Page 67750]]
NPRM required monthly mental health consultation, the final rule
provides additional flexibility in meeting the monthly mental health
consultation requirement such that, if mental health consultation is
not available on a monthly basis, Head Start programs must use other
licensed mental health professionals or behavior health support
specialists to ensure the provision of mental health supports on at
least a monthly basis. If this flexibility is exercised, the other
licensed mental health professionals or behavioral health support
specialists must coordinate and consult with the program's mental
health consultant. This change is responsive to comments received on
the NPRM about the lack of mental health consultants available to Head
Start programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ Center of Excellence for Infant and Early Childhood Mental
Health Consultation (2023). Status of the Evidence for Infant and
Early Childhood Mental Health Consultation (IECMHC). https://www.iecmhc.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/CoE-Evidence-Synthesis.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part 1302, Subpart D--Health and Mental Health Program Services
Subpart D outlines the program requirements to support the
provision of high-quality health, oral health, mental health, and
nutrition services. The final rule modifies the name of this section to
include mental health more explicitly.
Section 1302.40 Purpose
Section 1302.40 describes the overarching purpose of health and
mental health program services in Head Start. Paragraph (b) describes
the previous requirement to establish and maintain a Health Services
Advisory Committee, an advisory group usually composed of local health
providers who represent a wide variety of local social services
agencies. The final rule changes the title of this advisory committee
to Health and Mental Health Services Advisory Committee (HMHSAC) to
include mental health more explicitly and to emphasize the importance
of including professionals with mental health expertise on the
committee. While ACF strongly recommends including professionals with
mental health experience or expertise (including professionals with
background or experience in substance use disorders) on the HMHSAC, the
composition of the committee should be designed based on community need
and remains at the discretion of the local program. The final rule
modifies other requirements referencing the committee to update the
language in Sec. Sec. 1302.42(b)(1)(i), 1302.43(b)(4), and 1302.94(a).
Comment: We received some comments on this section, and they
generally focused on two themes. First, those who commented on this
section noted confusion about how the role of the HMHSAC differs from
that of the multidisciplinary team proposed in the NPRM under Sec.
1302.45(a). Second, those who commented requested clarification on
whether the change from the Health Services Advisory Committee to the
Health and Mental Health Services Advisory Committee is a name change
only or if the responsibilities of the committee will also change.
Response: ACF accepts the feedback from commenters expressing
concern and confusion about the multidisciplinary team and does not
retain that proposed requirement in the final rule. Instead, the final
rule requires programs to use a multidisciplinary approach to mental
health and wellness supports, and programs are encouraged to take a
team-based approach to meet this requirement. The final rule changes
the title of the advisory committee to elevate the importance of
including mental health providers as programs often do not realize that
the committee can include mental health expertise in addition to other
health expertise. The rule does not change the overarching
responsibilities of the committee, but it does state that one function
of the HMHSAC is to support the program in building community
partnerships in Sec. 1302.45(a)(7).
Section 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
to communicate in a timely manner with parents about their children's
health needs and development concerns.
The final rule includes mental health more explicitly throughout
this section. Specifically, the final rule requires that programs
collaborate with parents as partners in the health, mental health, and
well-being of their children and communicate with parents about their
children's health and mental health needs, including at a minimum,
obtaining advance authorization for mental health procedures
administered and sharing policies for mental health emergencies.
Comment: Those who commented on Sec. 1302.41 were supportive of
the inclusion of mental health in advanced authorization.
Response: We agree with commenters and maintain the NPRM proposal
to further integrate mental health with other health-related services
by including authorization from parents for mental health supports as
part of the initial consent process.
Section 1302.42 Child Health Status and Care
Section 1302.42 describes the requirements for 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.
The final rule includes mental health more explicitly to align with
the purpose and intent of the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic
and Treatment (EPSDT) benefit. Specifically, the final rule requires
that determinations obtained about a child's schedule of age-
appropriate preventive and primary care includes mental health care.
The final rule also requires that when a program is identifying a
child's nutritional health needs, that developmental and mental health
concerns should also be considered.
Comment: Some commenters requested additional clarification on how
to ensure a child is up-to-date on mental health care and expressed
concern about program burden to directly facilitate provision of these
screenings if health care providers do not routinely perform mental
health screening.
Response: We retain this requirement in the final rule. Programs
can ensure a child is up-to-date on mental health care by obtaining
determinations from any social, emotional, or behavior screening as
prescribed by the EPSDT program of the Medicaid agency of that state in
which they operate. ACF believes that screening for mental health
concerns is an important way to ensure children and families with needs
are identified early and can access appropriate interventions. ACF has
TTA available to assist programs with screening and assessment
efforts.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/child-screening-assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 1302.45 Supports for Mental Health and Well-Being
Section 1302.45 establishes the requirements for what programs must
do to support a culture that promotes mental health and outlines the
responsibilities of mental health consultants. In the previous
standards, programmatic requirements related to mental health appeared
in several areas. This final rule strengthens, clarifies, and
[[Page 67751]]
enhances these requirements to provide a comprehensive and integrated
approach that elevates mental health across the entire program.
The final rule changes the heading of Sec. 1302.45 and Sec.
1302.45(a) to better reflect that the intent of the additional
requirements is to help programs support not only the mental health of
children and their families, but also the adults who care for them
across the program.
In addition to changes in the titles of these sections, the final
rule makes significant changes from previous standards to Sec.
1302.45(a) and (b). Together, the changes to this section from the NPRM
take a prevention-focused and strengths-based approach to mental
health, promote the integration of mental health and wellness supports
for Head Start children, families, and staff, and strengthen best
practices in mental health consultation.
In Sec. 1302.45(a), the final rule requires that programs use a
multidisciplinary approach to support a program-wide culture that
promotes mental health, social and emotional well-being, and overall
health and safety. Using a multidisciplinary approach in Head Start
programs means leveraging knowledge and skills across disciplines,
instead of maintaining a siloed approach to mental health. The
multidisciplinary approach allows programs to coordinate across Head
Start services to ensure greater consistency among staff members and
better address the mental health needs of children and families,
including those who may have multiple staff members providing services.
For example, a multidisciplinary approach would facilitate an
eligibility, recruitment, selection, enrollment, and attendance (ERSEA)
coordinator and family services provider to communicate about how
mental health concerns may impact a family's attendance, and to
collaboratively identify a variety of supports, such as helping the
family access treatment or parent groups, identifying transportation,
or facilitating communication with the teacher. Under Sec. 1302.45(a),
we include revised language to describe what activities are expected
from the program-wide wellness supports, for a total of seven
provisions.
In the first provision, we require coordination of supports for
adult mental health and well-being, including for families and program
staff. Requiring programs to engage with families in nurturing and
responsive relationships and home visiting services ensures that
programs take a preventive and holistic approach to mental health. For
example, programs can facilitate communication across service areas to
ensure that the family is supported in a variety of ways that may
impact their mental health and wellness, such as assistance with
housing, food insecurity, or issues related to substance use. Parents
with substance use disorder (SUD) may experience barriers to care and
Head Start programs can work across service areas to help families
navigate and overcome these barriers, including by providing
information on substance use issues or disorders to staff or parents
and providing referrals, as appropriate, for screening and/or
treatment. This assistance is crucial as drug overdose deaths among
pregnant and postpartum women and people alone increased by 81 percent
between 2017 and 2020.
This first provision also includes promoting staff health and
wellness as outlined in Sec. 1302.93. Staff who are happier,
healthier, and less stressed are able to engage in higher quality
interactions with children. Over the last several years, staff in Head
Start programs have experienced heightened stress, burnout, exhaustion,
and increased depressive symptoms comparable to other early childhood
educators and providers across the board. For example, research has
demonstrated that women who work in Head Start have poorer physical and
mental health compared to other U.S. women who have similar
sociodemographic characteristics.\43\ A recent survey of the early
childhood workforce found that 66 percent of ECE staff surveyed
experienced moderate to high levels of stress.\44\ Research indicates
that Head Start staff who experience frequent stress or symptoms of
depression are more likely to perceive children in their care in a less
positive light. This could, in turn, relate to lower quality
interactions and care.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ Whitaker et al. (2012). The Physical and Mental Health of
Head Start Staff: The Pennsylvania Head Start Staff Wellness Survey.
Prev Chronic Dis, Vol 13.
\44\ Elharake JA, Shafiq M, Cobanoglu A, Malik AA, Klotz M,
Humphries JE, et al. (2022). Prevalence of Chronic Diseases,
Depression, and Stress Among US Childcare Professionals During the
COVID-19 Pandemic. Prev Chronic Dis, Vol 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the second provision, we revise the previous requirement related
to coordinating supports for children's mental health and well-being in
the learning environment to align with a strength-based and inclusive
approach. The previous requirement focused on supporting children in
classrooms, which could be interpreted to exclude other program options
or settings. The previous requirement also focused on managing
challenging behaviors, which can contribute to stigma and places an
emphasis on responding to--rather than preventing--concerns. The new
requirement in this final rule includes all Head Start program options,
and highlights strengths-based language that reinforces the importance
of strategies that support the development of all children.
The remaining provisions in this section provide requirements and
clarifications to address the increased need for mental health supports
and services for children in Head Start programs. Social-emotional
difficulties impact up to 20 percent of children under the age of five,
and over half of mental health disorders begin before age 14.\45\
Additionally, 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. Recent
events, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, have only increased the need for
mental health supports for young children and their families, as
research has documented increases in stress-related disorders in young
children and programs have reported more difficulties managing
children's behaviors in early learning settings.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ 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 an recommendations.
Public health reports, 121(3), 303-310. 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.
\46\ West, K.D., Ali, M.M., Schreier, A., & Plourde, E. Child
and Adolescent Mental Health During COVID-19: Considerations for
Schools and Early Childhood Providers (Issue Brief). Washington, DC:
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services. September 22, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although there is an increased need, access to mental health
services, including treatment, is severely limited by a shortage of
behavioral health providers in the community. As a result, Head Start
programs need to enhance integration of mental health supports within
the program by leveraging community partnerships, as well as utilizing
behavioral health support specialists, TTA resources specifically
available to Head Start programs, and creative solutions such as
telehealth. While Head Start has a long history of requiring access to
mental health consultation services, the new provisions enhance the
quality of
[[Page 67752]]
consultation services in programs by providing clarity on best
practices. Additionally, requiring programs to coordinate other
program-wide strategies to prevent or intervene early on children's
mental health concerns reduces the need to refer to community
providers, who are limited in availability.
The third program-wide wellness support provision maintains the
previous expectation for a program to secure mental health consultation
services and adds a new requirement that these services be ongoing and
the approach to mental health consultation be re-examined annually to
determine if the approach is meeting the needs of the program. This new
requirement reflects an understanding that the mental health needs of
children and adults in the program, available mental health supports in
the community, or other factors may change over time, creating a need
for continuous quality improvement.
Fourth, we require that mental health consultation be available to
the program at a frequency of at least once a month, with the caveat
that if the mental health consultant is not available at that
frequency, other licensed mental health professionals or behavioral
health support specialists certified and trained in their profession
must be used in coordination and consultation with the mental health
consultant to provide mental health supports on at least a monthly
basis. This monthly frequency requirement is intended to set a minimum
expectation of mental health consultation services in the program to
meet the needs of staff and families in a timely and effective manner.
Fifth, we require that the program's multidisciplinary approach
include ensuring children receive adequate screening related to social
and emotional milestones that impact mental health and appropriate
follow-up in partnership with parents, referencing Sec. 1302.33.
Including screening provisions in a program's multidisciplinary
approach further ensures effective integration and coordination of key
mental health supports across program service areas, such as supports
for children who are waiting for an evaluation or those with identified
disabilities.
Sixth, we add another new provision emphasizing the need for
multidisciplinary coordination and collaboration between mental health
and other relevant program services. Given the increase in children's
mental health needs described above, it is especially important to
equip Head Start staff across program service areas with opportunities
to coordinate and collaborate to address mental health. This
requirement further underscores that mental health should be integrated
across program services, including education, disability, family
engagement, and health services, and provides examples of the most
relevant service areas to be included in an effective multidisciplinary
approach. This integration is particularly important as early childhood
mental health cannot be effectively addressed with a siloed approach.
Mental health in young children includes skills such as a child's
capacity to express and regulate emotions, form trusting relationships
with adults, explore, and learn. These skills are cultivated in
interactions with caregivers in a child's life, including parents and
Head Start staff across program services. Furthermore, these skills
impact other areas of development and are foundational for family well-
being, children's learning and overall healthy development, and
children's long-term success.
Finally, we require that programs leverage the role of the HMHSAC
to meet the existing requirement to build community partnerships that
facilitate access to mental health resources and services.
As was proposed in the NPRM, the final rule removes the requirement
for parental consent for mental health consultation. The previous
requirement for parental consent was unwarranted since mental health
consultants are providing supports to Head Start staff and other adults
in a child's life and do not provide treatment to children, and it
proved to be a barrier to providing mental health consultation.
Additionally, this was an unnecessary administrative burden on programs
and families since it was duplicative of other requirements for
obtaining advance authorization for mental health procedures and
sharing policies for mental health emergencies, as proposed in the NPRM
and included in Sec. 1302.41 of the final rule. Programs must still
retain parental consent for any mental health services provided
directly to children in the form of therapy by an appropriate licensed
mental health professional, which would be outside the typical purview
of a mental health consultant.
This final rule also makes several revisions to Sec. 1302.45(b) to
clarify the role and responsibilities of the mental health consultant
and promote best practice recommendations for mental health
consultation in Head Start settings. First, we align our description of
mental health consultation with the Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration (SAMHSA)-funded Center of Excellence for Infant
and Early Childhood Mental Health Consultation, a leader in the
advancement and impact of mental health consultation, as well as
research and best practice in the field. The final rule description
clarifies that mental health consultation services build the capacity
of adults to support the mental health and social and emotional
development of children. Second, the final rule explains that the
mental health consultant can consult with a range of adults in a
child's life, including program staff to implement strategies that
promote children's mental health and prevent and respond to children's
mental health concerns; families to support adult or child mental
health such as in the event of a crisis or natural disaster; or program
leadership to support specific program policies, such as those related
to suspension or mental health needs following a significant safety
incident. The purpose of clarifying and broadening the responsibilities
of the mental health consultant is not to create a checklist the mental
health consultant must complete. Rather, the goal is to describe the
variety of ways that mental health consultation services can be used
based on program needs. Programs can determine which of these options
best meet their needs and reassess those needs through the annual
review.
We received many public comments on the proposed changes in the
area of supports for mental health and well-being. Of those who
commented on these issues, many reflected a strong desire for enhanced
mental health support for everyone involved in Head Start programs,
consistent with the intent of the changes. Many commenters noted the
increased rates of stress and burnout among staff coupled with a rise
in challenging behaviors and developmental delays among children.
Although commenters supported the broader goals, many commenters also
expressed concerns about implementing the proposed requirements in the
NPRM and requested consideration for the unique challenges faced by
different communities to ensure that mental health is adequately
supported by and integrated into Head Start programming. We discuss
these public comments as well as our response and revisions in more
detail below.
Comment: Many commenters expressed a need for greater clarity and
specificity about the role of the multidisciplinary team within the
program. Some commenters expressed concern that programs would need to
[[Page 67753]]
hire additional staff to meet this requirement. Other commenters
requested that ACF give programs flexibility to determine how to meet
this requirement based on program and community needs, including
allowing programs to determine where they assign the responsibilities
of the multidisciplinary team. Some commenters specifically noted
confusion about how the role of the multidisciplinary team differs from
that of the HMHSAC.
Response: The final rule removes the proposed NPRM language
requiring that programs have a multidisciplinary team. Instead,
programs are required to use a multidisciplinary approach to mental
health and wellness supports and are encouraged to take a team-based
approach to meet this requirement. The intent of the NPRM was to be
clear that mental health and wellness supports should be integrated
program-wide, to convey the scope of these services, and to identify
specific areas where mental health should be included. With this
revision in the final rule, we are emphasizing the multidisciplinary
approach to integrating mental health throughout Head Start program
services and allowing programs to determine how best to meet that
requirement. A program's multidisciplinary approach should certainly
include building community partnerships, and the HMHSAC is one way a
program can achieve this.
Comment: Many of the commenters who submitted comments on this
topic expressed concerns about the availability of mental health
professionals broadly and specifically in rural areas. These commenters
noted the long waitlists for mental health professionals as a barrier
to hiring mental health consultants who could provide consultation
services to the program on a schedule of at least monthly. Some
commenters offered specific suggestions for changing this requirement,
including waivers, exemptions, or additional flexibilities if programs
could demonstrate a shortage of licensed professionals with experience
in early childhood education in their area. Other suggestions included
expanding the consultant qualifications further and implementing mental
health consultation, including frequency, based on programs' own data
and community needs. Some comments requested more clarification on the
requirement related to mental health consultation, including whether
the schedule applies at the classroom, program, or agency level.
Response: We revise the requirement related to mental health
consultation in the final rule. While we retain a monthly frequency for
mental health consultation, we expand programs' ability to provide
mental health supports on at least a monthly basis, in part, with other
licensed mental health professionals or behavioral health support
specialists who are credentialed and trained in their field, such as
community health workers, behavior specialists, and traditional
practitioners, who are especially important in Tribal communities. Head
Start programs are still required to have a mental health consultant;
programs cannot entirely replace a mental health consultant with these
other providers. Rather, programs can have these other providers that
work in collaboration and consultation with mental health consultants
to meet the ``at least once a month'' frequency requirement for
providing mental health services, which is a requirement that applies
at the program level.
ACF believes this approach is responsive to public comments. It
balances the objective of integrating more mental health support for
programs while acknowledging the challenges of the mental health
workforce shortage. It allows programs to leverage other providers of
mental health supports they can already access in their program and
community. It also retains the critical role of the mental health
consultant and their expanded role in not just addressing behaviors in
the classroom but working with all adults in a child's life, including
families and other staff outside the classroom, and coordinating with
any other licensed mental health professionals or behavioral health
support specialists who may be supplementing their work. Finally, it
incorporates culturally responsive mental health approaches by allowing
programs to leverage traditional practitioners identified by their
Tribal governments to offer traditional knowledge and practices.
Comment: Many commenters further elaborated on their concerns about
the availability of mental health professionals, and particularly
individuals trained to work with children, and offered suggestions to
address the supply of providers. Specifically, they recommended that
ACF support different provider qualifications and allow telehealth
consultation.
Response: We think the revisions we made in response to public
comments will support programs in implementing these requirements.
Allowing a broader set of individuals to supplement the work of the
mental health consultant balances the need for more mental health
support in Head Start programs with the reality that mental health
consultants may not be able to support programs at the frequency
proposed in the NPRM. Additionally, we retain the NPRM proposal in
Sec. 1302.91(e)(8)(ii) that allows programs to secure mental health
consultation from professionals who are providing services under the
supervision of a licensed mental health professional, rather than
needing to be already licensed themselves, such as trainees who may be
in the process of obtaining licensure. Lastly, as we noted in the
preamble to the NPRM, even if a consultant cannot be on site,
teleconsultation services can be used to work with adults in the
program.
Comment: While commenters agreed with the premise that mental
health should be integrated throughout the program and that mental
health supports should not be left to the mental health consultant
alone, there was concern that the proposed changes were significant in
scope and the level of expertise, time, and cost required to carry out
these proposed requirements would be daunting for some programs and
would take significant time to implement.
Response: We think the revisions we made in the final rule in
response to public comments will support programs in implementing these
requirements while maintaining our commitment to the overall goal of
integrating and elevating mental health and wellness supports across
the program. As noted, we specifically remove the proposed NPRM
language requiring a multidisciplinary team and revise the requirement
related to mental health consultation to allow programs to use other
licensed mental health professionals or behavioral health support
specialists to supplement the work of the mental health consultant in
the event the mental health consultant is not available at least once
per month.
Comment: Some commenters stated that mental health services should
be culturally sensitive and inclusive, taking into consideration the
diverse backgrounds of the children and families served by Head Start
programs.
Response: ACF agrees that mental health services should be
culturally sensitive and inclusive, particularly given the diversity of
the children and families participating in Head Start programs. The
revision to the mental health consultation standard to allow other
licensed mental health professionals or behavioral health support
specialists to support programs if the mental health consultant cannot
provide services on at least a monthly basis is responsive to these
comments
[[Page 67754]]
because it allows programs to look to other professionals who can
augment the delivery of culturally sensitive and inclusive mental
health services. For example, Tribal or other Native communities could
incorporate traditional practices as mental health supports if the
mental health consultant is not available at least once per month.
Section 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. The final rule modifies requirements
throughout this section to incorporate a preventive approach to mental
health into family support services by using more strengths-based
language in paragraph (b)(1)(iii), and by providing opportunities to
engage families in discussions about mental health even when there is
not an identified problem in paragraph (b)(1)(iv).
The final rule adds a new requirement in paragraph (b)(2) that
programs must provide ongoing support to assist parents' navigation
through mental health systems, including providing information about
how to access mental health services for young children and their
families.
Comments: We did not receive many comments on this section. Those
who commented expressed concern that the reference to ``evidence-
based'' mental health services created additional confusion and program
burden to determine if a mental health service is evidence-based.
Response: ACF removes the reference to ``evidence-based'' services
in Sec. 1302.46(b)(2)(iv) in the final rule. ACF strongly encourages
programs to work with their HMHSAC or others with relevant expertise to
ensure parents receive mental health information and referrals that are
developmentally and culturally appropriate, and evidence-informed and
rooted in science. However, we do not want to unnecessarily delay
access to mental health supports by requiring programs to determine if
services are evidence-based. Further, we want programs to identify
services and providers that are culturally and linguistically
responsive to the communities they serve. We acknowledge that not all
interventions have been evaluated with the diverse populations that
Head Start programs serve. Whenever possible, ACF strongly encourages
the use of evidence-based services with adaptations to make services
appropriate for specific communities.
Part 1302, Subpart H--Services to Enrolled Pregnant Women
Section 1302.81 Prenatal and Postnatal Information, Education, and
Services
Section 1302.81 establishes the requirements for the prenatal and
postpartum information, education, and services programs must provide
enrolled pregnant women and other pregnant people, fathers, and
partners or other relevant family members. Regarding mental health, the
final rule retains provisions proposed in the NPRM and broadens the
scope of the mental health information and education that may be
helpful to provide to expectant families and ensures that social
support is part of prenatal and postnatal services for enrolled
families.
Comment: Many commenters expressed support for the proposed changes
that aim to enhance social support and mental health for expectant
families. Some commenters indicated that they have already incorporated
these practices into their programs while others noted the need for
additional support and resources to meet these requirements, including
funding for staff training and curriculum development. A few commenters
suggested the provision of additional information, including culturally
relevant information.
Response: We retain the NPRM proposal in the final rule. ACF will
support programs that need additional support in meeting these
requirements through TTA.
Part 1302, Subpart I--Human Resources Management
Section 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. The final rule clarifies the required
qualifications for infant and early childhood mental health consultants
to make clear that mental health consultants can include individuals
who are working under the supervision of another licensed individual,
as initially proposed in the NPRM. This aligns with best practice in
the field, expands the pool of available mental health consultants, and
provides opportunities to build the mental health workforce in the
early care and education field.
Comment: Of the commenters who commented on this proposed change,
some expressed support for the change to include individuals working
under the supervision of another licensed individual. A few comments
recommended retaining the term ``certified'' from the previous
standards' requirement.
Response: We retain the proposed NPRM language, which removes
``certified'' and replaces it with ``under the supervision of a
licensed'' individual, in the final rule. Broadening the pool of mental
health consultants in this way is supportive of ACF's goal to reduce
barriers to securing consultants while ensuring those individuals are
receiving supervision and support from a licensed individual to
facilitate the provision of high-quality services.
Child Health and Safety (Sec. Sec. 1302.47; 1302.90; 1302.92;
1302.101; 1302.102)
The final rule makes improvements to protect child health and
safety through several strategies, including broadening who needs to
adhere to child health and safety to cover contractors and volunteers
in addition to staff; clarifying that children should be supervised at
all times; requiring annual training on positive social and emotional
support and mandated reporter training; and codifying the timeline for
reporting health and safety incidents to OHS. The final rule also
streamlines and updates the Standards of Conduct and the categories of
child maltreatment to align with the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC). Taken together, these changes promote a culture of
safety for children and adults through both preventative measures and
addressing any serious incidents that do arise.
The final rule makes several changes from the NPRM to focus on
serious child health and safety incidents while avoiding administrative
burdens that could distract from efforts to address child safety.
First, the final rule requires incidents to be reported to OHS as soon
as possible, but within seven calendar days; this seven-day timeline is
the current policy and a change from the NPRM, which proposed three
days. The final rule also includes three clarifications in response to
concerns raised in public comment that the reporting criteria were
overly broad and would result in reporting small incidents or events to
OHS. First, the final rule clarifies that programs should report child
maltreatment as well as serious injury, harm, or endangerment resulting
from lack of preventative maintenance or lack of supervision. Second,
the final rule revises the Standards of Conduct to focus on
maltreatment and endangering health and safety. Third, the final rule
clarifies
[[Page 67755]]
that reporting closures to OHS does not include reporting scheduled
breaks, holidays, or temporary closures for inclement weather.
Section 1302.47 Safety Practices
Section 1302.47 establishes expectations for Head Start programs to
ensure basic health and safety measures are taken for the protection of
all children. As proposed in the NPRM, the final rule includes an
additional requirement and several clarifications to strengthen safety
practices that protect children in Head Start settings, including by
broadening who must follow safety practices, better aligning practices
with Federal child abuse and prevention law, being clearer that
children must be supervised at all times, and clarifying the connection
between safety practices and the Standards of Conduct.
Specifically, the final rule adds a requirement in Sec.
1302.47(b)(5) that contractors and volunteers follow safety
requirements, just as staff and consultants were already required to
do. This change 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. ACF believes this is
essential since contractors and volunteers need to understand how to
safely interact with children in their roles, as well as their
responsibilities if they witness unsafe practices in Head Start
programs. For contractors, this requirement only applies to (1)
contractors, or individuals on a contract, whose activities involve
contact with and/or direct services to children and families, and (2)
any contractor who could have unsupervised access to children and
families.
Next, the final rule provides a definition of child abuse and
neglect that is aligned with existing Federal statute, the Federal
Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) (42 U.S.C. 5101
note).\47\ CAPTA, originally enacted in 1974, establishes national
definitions regarding child abuse and neglect. The definition included
in this final rule provides clarity and sets a consistent minimum
standard for Head Start programs to follow. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ 42 U.S.C. 5106g. Available online at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2017-title42/html/USCODE-2017-title42-chap67.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The final rule clearly states that children must be appropriately
supervised at all times in Sec. 1302.47(b)(5)(iii). This change
removes language in the previous standards that described settings in
which children must be supervised. Requiring that children are
appropriately supervised at all times provides Head Start programs with
a clear directive that children must never be left unsupervised and
addresses one of the clearest health and safety threats for children.
Finally, the final rule clarifies that safety practices include the
provision in the Standards of Conduct requiring staff, consultants,
volunteers, and contractors to not maltreat or endanger children in
Sec. 1302.90(c)(1)(ii). This language in the final rule reduces
redundancies from the previous requirement, which duplicated references
to supervision and reporting of child abuse and neglect as safety
practices.
Comment: Some commenters expressed concern that requiring
volunteers to follow safety practices could deter community
participation and parent engagement, as well as create liability
issues. They suggested that volunteers should not be included in the
pool of mandated reporters, especially since they are never left alone
with children and are always supervised by trained staff. Other
commenters expressed that it is important to include volunteers as
mandated reporters.
Response: We retain the NPRM proposal that volunteers are required
to follow safety practices in the Final Rule. ACF is committed to
protecting children in Head Start from child abuse and neglect and
disagrees with the contention that volunteers should not be mandated
reporters, even if they should never be left alone or unsupervised with
children. Even under supervision, a volunteer should have a basic
understanding of safety practices. In the case of mandated reporting of
child abuse and neglect, which appeared to be the primary concern
identified in comments, 52 percent of states already require volunteers
to report child maltreatment.\48\ Volunteers may directly witness or
receive disclosures about child abuse and neglect in their roles and
should have basic knowledge about what to do with this information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ Lee, J. & Weigensberg, E. (2022). ``How Do Laws and
Policies for Reporting Child Abuse and Neglect Vary Across States?''
OPRE Report #2022-165. Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research,
and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: Some commenters raised questions about specific
circumstances under which a person would be a mandated reporter, such
as contractors with no direct contact with children or who are not
regularly at the program. Other commenters expressed that it is
important to include contractors as mandated reporters.
Response: We retain the NPRM proposal that contractors are required
to follow safety practices in the Final Rule. ACF agrees with
commenters that there are specific types of contractors, such as
facilities contractors working during non-operational hours or
contractors performing emergency repairs, to whom these requirements
are not applicable. For contractors, similar to the requirement for
background checks in Sec. 1302.90(b) and ACF's guidance in Program
Instruction, ACF-PI-HS-16-05, Background Checks--Extension of
Compliance Date and Questions, ACF only considers this requirement as
applicable to (1) contractors, or individuals on a contract, whose
activities involve contact with and/or direct services to children and
families, and (2) anyone who could have unsupervised access to children
and families.
Comment: Many commenters suggested that ACF provide clear guidance
on when an individual is obligated to serve as a mandated reporter.
Some commenters requested that ACF address how consultants,
contractors, and volunteers would be trained to fulfill their
responsibilities as mandatory reporters.
Response: ACF previously issued Information Memorandum, ACF-IM-HS-
15-04, Mandatory Reporting of Child Abuse and Neglect, and will
consider providing additional guidance on the topic of mandated
reporting of child abuse and neglect as needed.\49\ Programs may refer
to Sec. 1302.47(b)(4) for an overview of Head Start requirements for
safety training, including for staff with and without regular child
contact. The final rule leaves flexibility for how programs approach
training on mandatory reporting because it does not require programs to
train contractors, consultants, or volunteers in this area. However,
since these individuals are required to report suspected or known child
abuse and neglect, we encourage programs to offer them information and
training about mandated reporting. Numerous resources with essential
[[Page 67756]]
information related to mandatory reporting of child abuse and neglect
are freely available, such as through Child Welfare Information
Gateway, Department of Defense Child Development Virtual Laboratory
School, OHS ECLKC, and Caring for Our Children.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\Early Childhood Knowledge and Learning Center (2015).
Mandated Reporting of Child Abuse and Neglect. U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families,
Office of Head Start. Available at https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/policy/im/acf-im-hs-15-04.
\50\ Child Welfare Information Gateway (2023). Mandatory
reporting of child abuse and neglect. U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Children's
Bureau. https://www.childwelfare.gov/resources/mandatory-reporting-child-abuse-and-neglect/; The Department of Defense Child
Development Virtual Lab School (2023). Protecting Children from Harm
in Your Program. Developed by the Ohio State University for U.S.
Department of Defense, Office of Family Policy/Children and Youth
and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Nation Institute of Food &
Agriculture. Available at https://www.virtuallabschool.org/preschool/child-abuse-identification-and-reporting/lesson-6; Early
Childhood Knowledge and Learning Center (last updated 2024). Child
Abuse and Neglect. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Administration for Children and Families, Office of Head Start.
Available at https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/practicas-de-seguridad/articulo/child-abuse-neglect; Early Childhood Knowledge and Learning
Center (last updated 2022). 10 Actions to Create a Culture of
Safety. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration
for Children and Families, Office of Head Start. Available at
https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/publication/10-actions-create-culture-safety; National Resource Center for Health and Safety in Child Care
and Early Education (last updated 2018). Caring for Our Children:
Recognizing and Reporting Suspected Child Abuse, Neglect, and
Exploitation. U.S. Department of Health and human Services,
Administration for Children and Families. https://nrckids.org/CFOC/Database/3.4.4.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 1302.90 Personnel Policies
Section 1302.90(c)(1) 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, the final rule ensures ACF is as clear as possible
with requirements that reflect current best practices and guidance. The
final rule makes several changes to the previous standards for clarity
and alignment with other Federal resources and laws.
First, the final rule modifies requirements under Sec.
1302.90(c)(1)(ii) to align with categories and definitions of child
maltreatment adapted from CDC child maltreatment resources, which were
established through extensive consultation with experts to recommend
consistent terminology related to potential child maltreatment.\51\ The
previous requirement included corporal punishment and physical and
emotional abuse, but did not include sexual abuse or neglect, which are
also types of child maltreatment that are prohibited in Head Start
settings. The final rule provides definitions to facilitate clear and
equitable understandings of the types or categories of child
maltreatment. The categories are (A) corporal punishment or physically
abusive behavior defined as the intentional use of physical force that
results in, or has the potential to result in, physical injury, (B)
sexually abusive behavior defined as any completed or attempted sexual
act, sexual contact, or exploitation, (C) emotionally harmful or
abusive behavior defined as behaviors that harm a child's self-worth or
emotional well-being, and (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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ 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.; 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the final rule provides examples of each category of
child maltreatment and endangerment, which were informed by CDC
guidance and research. The previous standards provided a list of what
would be considered child maltreatment or endangerment of the health
and safety of a child. This list included both broad categories of
child maltreatment (such as physical abuse of a child), and specific
behaviors that were redundant (such as binding or tying a child to
restrict movement). The final rule provides a clearer understanding of
what is meant by child maltreatment and endangerment by outlining broad
categories of maltreatment with corresponding definitions and examples.
ACF provides examples to offer concrete guideposts to Head Start
programs, but these examples are not an exhaustive list.
Second, the final rule adds a requirement in Sec.
1302.90(c)(1)(iii) to ensure staff, consultants, contractors, and
volunteers report suspected or known child abuse and neglect, as
defined by CAPTA and in compliance with Federal, state, local, and
Tribal laws. Consistent with the requirement in Sec. 1302.47(b)(5),
this requirement only applies to those contractors, or individuals on a
contract (1) whose activities involve contact with and/or direct
services to children and families, and (2) who could have unsupervised
access to children and families.
The final rule requires staff, consultants, contractors, and
volunteers to respect and promote the unique identity of each
individual involved in the Head Start program in Sec.
1302.90(c)(1)(iv). The previous requirement only pertained to children
and families' unique identities. The final rule is aligned with efforts
to promote well-being for everyone in the program and communicate the
need to ensure supportive and responsive relationships among staff as
part of promoting safety.
Finally, the final rule clarifies that children cannot be left
alone or unsupervised in Sec. 1302.90(c)(1)(vi). This change removes
language in the previous requirement which could be erroneously
interpreted to mean that children could be left solely under the
supervision of volunteers. This final rule clarification is consistent
with ACF's policy in Sec. 1302.94(b) that children should never be
left alone with volunteers.
Overall, the comments on this topic reflected a commitment to child
safety and well-being, as well as a recognition of the challenges faced
by Head Start programs in navigating reporting requirements related to
staff conduct and ensuring a supportive environment for both children
and staff. We discuss specific comments below.
Comment: Many commenters expressed concerns about the NPRM
proposals in the Standards of Conduct, such as language related to
negative impacts on mental health and emotional harm. Specifically,
commenters were concerned that overly broad language could lead to
overreporting and misinterpretation of staff actions that were intended
to protect children or manage classroom behavior. Some commenters
shared concerns about how the language could disproportionately impact
staff of color. Commenters suggest that ACF should focus on serious
incidents that truly impact child safety and allow programs to handle
less severe matters internally.
Response: We revise the requirements for Standards of Conduct in
the final rule. ACF agrees that overly broad language could have
unintended consequences and revises the final rule with more targeted
language which we believe will better prioritize child safety. ACF
agrees that over-reporting could have the unintended consequence of
jeopardizing child safety if Federal staff and programs are focused on
reporting every incident instead of focusing on serious incidents that
involve child endangerment, abuse, or
[[Page 67757]]
neglect. ACF removes the language proposed in the NPRM that included
what many commenters perceived to be an overly broad range of
behaviors, and retains the previous requirement that staff,
consultants, contractors, and volunteers do not maltreat or endanger
the health or safety of children. In the final rule, ACF also modifies
the NPRM definition of emotionally harmful or abusive behavior. The
language proposed in the NPRM could be interpreted too broadly as
capturing any staff conduct that is not considered best practice but
would not be classified as maltreatment, as noted by commenters. The
proposed language in the NPRM was also redundant with other subparts of
the Standards of Conduct that require implementation of positive
strategies to support children's well-being in Sec. 1302.90(c)(1)(i).
The final rule language that defines emotional abuse as behaviors that
harm a child's self-worth or emotional well-being captures staff
conduct that is clearly not permissible because it has the potential to
maltreat or endanger children.
Comment: Many commenters raised concern about the non-exhaustive
list of examples or about specific examples of staff conduct, such as
``forcibly moving'' and ``restraining.'' Other commenters were
supportive of examples such as ``restrain'' and suggested examples to
add, such as ``seclusion.''
Response: As was proposed in the NPRM and retained in the final
rule, ACF includes examples of each category of child maltreatment and
retains ``restraint'' as an example. We revise language from the NPRM
to include ``seclusion'' and replace ``forcibly moving'' as examples.
ACF acknowledges that it is not possible to create an exhaustive
list of examples. However, we believe it is important to provide
concrete examples of behaviors that could maltreat or endanger a child,
particularly for categories that can be more difficult to identify,
such as emotional abuse and neglect.\52\ Highlighting examples also
facilitates equitable communication with programs and staff regarding
ACF's position on specific behaviors such as the use of restraint in
Head Start settings, which is discussed further below. ACF offers
existing TTA on ECLKC to facilitate further understanding. Additional
examples of child maltreatment can be found in guidance from CDC
resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ de Braal B. (2010). Understanding emotional abuse. The
journal of family health care, 20(3), 82-84.; Hildyard, K.L., &
Wolfe, D.A. (2002). Child neglect: developmental issues and
outcomes. Child abuse & neglect, 26(6-7), 679-695.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some commenters suggested that restraint should be permissible
staff conduct under specific circumstances. While this rule does not
address use in other settings, ACF opposes the use of restraint in Head
Start settings. Retaining ``restraint'' as an example in the final rule
communicates this position. The broader literature is clear on the
risks of performing restraints.\53\ Restraints are also used
disproportionately on children with disabilities. Therefore, ACF is not
making any changes to the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ LeBel, J., Nunno, M.A., Mohr, W.K., & O'Halloran, R.
(2012). Restraint and seclusion use in US School settings:
Recommendations from allied treatment disciplines. American journal
of orthopsychiatry, 82(1), 75.; Dunlap, G., Ostryn, C., & Fox, L.
(2011). Preventing the Use of Restraint and Seclusion with Young
Children. Technical Assistance Center on Social Emotional
Intervention for Young Children.; Office for Civil Rights, U.S.
Department of Education. (2016). Fact Sheet: Restraint and Seclusion
of Children with Disabilities. Available at https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/dcl-factsheet-201612-504-restraint-seclusion-ps.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACF agrees with suggestions to include the example of ``seclusion''
due to its disproportionate use on children with disabilities.
Seclusion also has many similar adverse impacts as described above for
restraint.\54\ The final rule replaces isolation with seclusion as an
example of emotional abuse.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACF agrees with comments that ``forcibly moving'' may be an overly
broad example. The final rule replaces this example with ``pushing.''
Section 1302.92 Training and Professional Development
Section 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 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.
The final rule adds a new requirement for annual training in
positive strategies to support social and emotional development. ACF
believes that enhancing the use of positive strategies amongst staff,
as appropriate based on the scope of their job responsibilities, will
support staff in preventing and responding to child behavior that
challenges adults and increase opportunities for peer support as
appropriate.
The final rule modifies the requirement related to mandated
reporting of child abuse and neglect to specify that this training
should occur on an annual basis. This requirement is intended to
support staff in recognizing potential child abuse and neglect and
understanding their legal responsibility as a mandated reporter.
Comment: Many commenters recognize the importance of staff training
broadly and express a need for additional training and supports.
Commenters suggest a variety of potential trainings that would benefit
Head Start staff, such as training on trauma-informed care, implicit
bias in interpreting behaviors, child development, or specific
disabilities.
Response: ACF revises requirements for training in social and
emotional development to be more inclusive of the diverse training
needs commenters suggested. The final rule provides flexibility for
programs to determine specific topics related to managing children's
behavior that meet their staff's needs. ACF considers the impact of
trauma on children's social and emotional development, implicit bias in
interpreting behaviors, understanding basics of child social and
emotional development, individualizing supports for social and
emotional development of children with disabilities, or other related
topics to be appropriate training topics to satisfy this requirement.
Comment: Of those who commented on the proposed changes to training
and professional development, several commenters expressed support and
a few share that they already implement similar practices. Some
commenters raised concerns about associated administrative burdens of
fulfilling this requirement, such as time and costs to track, provide,
and enforce trainings and the availability of supports in rural
communities. For example, a few commenters noted that an ACF
requirement for annual mandated reporter training would exceed their
State's requirement, which impacts their ability to access state
training on a more frequent basis.
Response: We retain the proposed language from the NPRM on mandated
reporting training in the final rule as it is critical for staff to
understand information related to mandated reporting of child abuse and
neglect. This is particularly important for Head Start programs, as the
risk of experiencing maltreatment is higher for children under the age
of four and children who have a diagnosed disability.\55\ Furthermore,
as Head Start programs primarily serve children from low-income
families, it is critical that staff know how to differentiate between
[[Page 67758]]
child neglect and a family experiencing poverty.\56\ ACF has and can
continue to support programs in meeting this requirement through TTA,
including virtual TTA options to support rural and remote programs in
meeting this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/childabuseandneglect/riskprotectivefactors.html.
\56\ Child Welfare Information Gateway (2023). Poverty and
Neglect. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Administration for Children and Families, Children's Bureau.
Available at https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/safety-and-risk/poverty-and-neglect/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: Commenters appreciated the strengths-based approach taken
in mental health and noted other regulations that may benefit from
this.
Response: ACF revises the requirement to use strengths-based
language, replacing ``challenging behaviors'' with ``children's
behavior'' in this requirement.
Section 1302.101 Management System
Section 1302.101 outlines management responsibilities governed by a
system that enables the delivery of the high-quality services.
Paragraph (a) of Sec. 1302.101 establishes requirements for
implementing a management system. The final rule adds a new requirement
to implement a management system that ensures that all staff are
trained to implement reporting procedures in Sec. 1302.102(d)(1)(ii).
This requirement is intended to promote consistent implementation and
greater understanding of expectations and procedures related to
incident reporting.
Comment: We received few comments on this section. Of those who
commented on this section, commenters were generally neutral or
supportive of the general approach to providing programs with an
overarching standard as well as autonomy to develop and implement
individual strategies and practices.
Response: ACF retains this requirement in the final rule.
Section 1302.102 Achieving Program Goals
Section 1302.102 outlines requirements that programs establish
goals and a process for monitoring program performance, including how
they 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.
The final rule makes several changes to this section that are intended
to build upon recent subregulatory guidance on incident reporting
expectations and clarify language where necessary to reduce potential
over-reporting, which may keep Federal and program staff from focusing
on serious incidents.
First, the final rule codifies the requirement to report incidents
to ACF immediately but no later than seven calendar days following the
incident. Second, the final rule requires programs to report
significant incidents affecting the health or safety of a child when
such an incident occurs in a Head Start setting and involves (1) staff,
contractors, or volunteers who participate in a setting that receives
Head Start funds, regardless of the child's Head Start funding; or (2)
a child who participates in a setting that receives Head Start funds.
Third, the final rule clarifies the requirement related to reporting
classroom or center closures, and we clarify that ACF's definition of
closures does not include scheduled holidays, scheduled breaks, or
short-term closures for inclement weather. Finally, the final rule
codifies several expectations for other significant health and safety
incidents that must be reported to ACF at a minimum. These include
incidents involving any suspected or known maltreatment or endangerment
of a child by staff, consultants, contractors, and volunteers under
paragraph Sec. 1302.90(c)(1)(ii); incidents involving serious harm or
injury of a child resulting from preventative maintenance; incidents
involving serious harm, injury, or endangerment of a child resulting
from lack of supervision; and incidents involving any unauthorized
release of a child.
Overall, many commenters who addressed this topic expressed a
recognition of the importance of safeguarding children, but also a
concern about the potential for over-reporting. Commenters shared a
range of unintended and counterproductive consequences of over-
reporting, such as negative impacts on workforce retention and
unnecessary administrative burden on program staff and ACF. Below we
address specific comments and requests for clarification.
Comment: Many commenters expressed concern about the short
timeframe for reporting proposed in the NPRM. The proposed three-day
deadline for reporting incidents was seen as unrealistic and
potentially counterproductive. Commenters believed it would not allow
sufficient time for a thorough internal investigation and could lead to
incomplete or inaccurate reporting. A few commenters gave examples of
how organizational structures and partnerships would prevent reporting
in this time in some cases. Many commenters suggested extending the
reporting period to ensure more accurate and comprehensive reports.
Response: ACF revises the requirement from the NPRM for reporting
incidents. ACF agrees with commenters that in some cases, the upper
limit of three days may be too restrictive. An upper limit of three
days may not allow programs to gather accurate information to
distinguish serious health and safety incidents from more minor
concerns. ACF also recognizes that grant recipients may be immediately
focused on complying with child welfare and law enforcement to
facilitate investigative processes and ensure immediate safety needs
are met. The final rule requires a reporting timeline of immediately
but no later than seven calendar days following the incident. To ensure
consistency in operationalizing this requirement, ACF recognizes the
day a program learns of an incident as ``Day 0''. If a program reports
an incident to ACF on or after ``Day 8'', the program will not be in
compliance with this requirement. The requirement provides an upper
limit of seven calendar days.
Comment: Several commenters expressed concern about incident
reports involving non-Head Start-funded children, citing concerns about
being asked to reveal personal identifiable information, protected
health information, or issues related to family's consent.
Response: ACF retains the requirement that programs submit a report
for a significant incident affecting the health and safety of a child,
when such an incident occurs in a Head Start setting and involves
staff, contractors, or volunteers who participate in a setting that
receives Head Start funds, regardless of the child's Head Start
funding. ACF requires these reports because such incidents can have
broader implications for children served in the program, including
those funded by Head Start dollars. ACF disagrees with the argument
that these reports entail privacy concerns. ACF does not request
personal identifiable information or protected health information in
incident reports. Programs should not submit personal identifiers that
could tie any health information back to a child.
Comment: A few commenters requested clarification on whether
mandated reports of child abuse and neglect involving parents would be
a required incident report under this section.
Response: ACF revises the requirement to clarify its intent that
[[Page 67759]]
programs are not required to submit reports to ACF related to mandated
reporting of child abuse and neglect involving parents. However, if a
parent is involved in a reportable incident while participating in a
Head Start setting as a volunteer or employee, the program must submit
an incident report. ACF identified that the NPRM proposal language
requiring programs to submit reports of significant incidents affecting
child health and safety in Head Start settings involving ``other
adults'' could be misinterpreted to include parents. We remove this
reference to ``other adults'' in the final rule to clarify ACF's
intent.
Comment: Many commenters request greater clarification on the types
of incidents that must be reported, such as classroom closures and
significant child health & safety incidents. Many commenters shared
questions about whether a situation would be a reportable incident,
such as a child crying in a classroom, snow days, or a child tripping
accidentally.
Response: ACF revises requirements in this final rule for the types
of incidents that must be reported at minimum to provide greater
clarity as appropriate. ACF agrees that broad language can increase the
risk of over-reporting which may distract Federal staff and program
staff from addressing serious incidents. Several questions or concerns
from commenters reflected over-interpretations of ACF's intent, and ACF
revises language in those requirements. We discuss these revisions in
more detail below.
First, ACF revises the NPRM proposal describing significant
incidents such that the final rule removes the term ``mental health''
from the description of incidents. The final rule aligns with the
previous requirement describing significant incidents affecting the
health or safety of children. ACF requires programs to report instances
of potential emotional abuse and neglect. However, the reference to
mental health caused confusion and over-interpretation in comments. ACF
believes the revised requirements to the Standards of Conduct are best
designed to keep children safe.
Second, we revise the requirement in the final rule such that
programs must report incidents that require classrooms or centers to be
closed. ACF's definition of closures does not include scheduled
holidays, scheduled breaks, or short-term closures for inclement
weather. The final rule removes the NPRM proposal to include specific
exemptions to prevent misinterpretation that any other closures are
reportable. As proposed in the NPRM and retained in the final rule,
this requirement no longer includes the phrase ``for any reason'' to
clarify ACF's intent.
Third, ACF revises the requirement in the final rule to clarify
which incidents related to significant health and safety incidents are
reportable. The final rule separates the NPRM proposal into two
distinct requirements for clarity. Each requirement in the final rule
identifies what is considered ``significant'' in the regulation for
clarity and accessibility of information. The final rule requires
programs to submit reports related to incidents involving (1) serious
harm or injury of a child resulting from lack of preventative
maintenance, and (2) serious harm, injury, or endangerment of a child
resulting from lack of supervision. ACF believes these clarifications
in the final rule will reduce the risk for over-reporting incidents
related to lack of preventative maintenance and lack of supervision.
ACF includes leaving a child unattended on a bus as an example of
neglect in Sec. 1302.90(c). This is a concrete example of an incident
involving endangerment of a child resulting from lack of supervision
and as such is required to be reported. ACF believes this approach is
responsive to general comments expressing concerns about overly broad
requirements for ACF reporting, as it narrows the scope of reportable
incidents to those ACF believes are most indicative of substantial or
systemic concern.
Comment: Many commenters expressed concern about expanding the
reporting requirement to include violations of the Standards of
Conduct. Commenters express that this requirement in particular could
undermine program autonomy to manage minor incidents and negatively
impact staff morale. Commenters note how the proposed changes in the
NPRM to the Standards of Conduct may lead to confusion and overly
punitive approaches (see the discussion in the Standards of Conduct
section). Commenters suggest that ACF should focus on serious incidents
that truly impact child safety and allow programs to handle less severe
matters internally. Commenters suggest a range of approaches to
accomplish this, such as aligning reporting requirements with CAPTA,
deferring to state licensing and welfare system results unless are
extenuating circumstances, and creating a tiered system that
differentiates serious violations requiring immediate reporting to ACF.
Response: Head Start programs are required to report incidents of
abuse and neglect under current policy, and the final rule clarifies
that this continues to be the case. ACF makes modifications to this
standard and believes that the final rule language more accurately
represents conduct that clearly requires a report to ACF under new
requirements in Sec. 1302.102(d) and allows programs autonomy in
managing staff conduct that does not rise to this severity.
ACF previously released the Information Memorandum, ACF-IM-HS-22-
07, Reporting Child Health and Safety Incidents,\57\ which clarified
that OHS considers violations of the Standards of Conduct to be a
significant incident affecting the health and safety of children. Based
on the comments, ACF agrees that some of the proposed changes in the
NPRM to the Standards of Conduct could lead to confusion and overly
punitive approaches. The modified requirements in the final rule
described in Sec. 1302.90(c) are intended to address these concerns.
Specifically, the final rule retains the previous requirement that
staff do not maltreat or endanger children and uses uniform categories
and definitions of child maltreatment. With these changes, ACF believes
that the final rule is clearer and focuses incident reporting on
serious incidents. Several commenters misinterpreted incident reporting
requirements to include all sections of the Standards of Conduct. The
final rule clarifies that only those standards pertaining to the
maltreatment or endangerment of children by staff, consultants,
contractors, and volunteers requires an incident report. Programs have
discretion over other staff conduct issues. ACF believes this approach
addresses most commenter's concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/policy/im/acf-im-hs-22-07.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACF believes that the final rule creates a system that better
differentiates violations that warrant incident reports. ACF's role in
incident reporting is distinct from the child welfare system. ACF
determines whether the program is in compliance with ACF regulations
pertaining to the incident, while the child welfare system determines
if a report is substantiated based on evidence of child maltreatment.
Furthermore, states' definitions of child abuse and neglect vary, and
they require different levels of evidence to substantiate reports.\58\
Basing ACF
[[Page 67760]]
policies on variable State approaches could result in inequitable
monitoring of programs depending on the state in which the program is
located. If permitted and as appropriate, programs may update ACF with
relevant information about licensing and child welfare findings.
Programs are encouraged to update ACF if a program has already taken
action to correct an identified issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ Lee, J. & Weigensberg, E. (2022). ``How Do Definitions of
Child Abuse and Neglect Vary Across States?'' OPRE Report #2022-164.
Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation,
Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services.; Lee, J. & Weigensberg, E. (2022). ``How Do Laws
and Policies for Investigating Reports of Child Maltreatment Vary
Across States?'' OPRE Report #2022-167. Washington, DC: Office of
Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Administration for Children and
Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: Many commenters requested that ACF provide clearer
guidance on reporting procedures, such as the type of information
required, reporting process, and expected response time from ACF.
Response: ACF acknowledges commenters' request for clearer guidance
on incident reporting procedures. However, ACF does not believe this is
appropriate to include in regulatory requirements for programs. ACF
will consider other ways to provide this type of guidance as
appropriate.
Modernizing Head Start's Engagement With Families (Sec. Sec. 1302.11;
1302.13; 1302.15; 1302.34; 1302.50)
This final rule adds or updates five standards to improve the
family experience, both initially during program recruitment,
application, and enrollment, and in ongoing communications once the
child is in the program. The final rule makes adjustments from the NRPM
to account for different community preferences and the fact that not
all families will want to use modern technology. The changes are
responsive to commenters that identified diverse preferences and
culturally relevant communication styles in their communities.
First, this final rule adds a new paragraph (b)(1)(v) under Sec.
1302.11 that requires programs to identify the communication methods
and modalities available to the program to best engage with prospective
and enrolled families in accessible ways. This ensures programs use the
community needs assessment to identify the preferred communication
modalities among its families, whether they be social media platforms,
text messaging, enhanced websites, automated or personal phone calls,
or dedicated phone lines for program updates. It also ensures programs
are meeting the needs of all prospective and enrolled families,
including those with various disabilities, schedules, levels of
language access, family structures or generational differences,
literacy levels, and cultural backgrounds.
Second, Sec. 1302.13 outlines the requirements for recruiting
children to a Head Start program. This final rule adds clarifying
language to the standard that a program must include modern technology
options in two areas: (1) to encourage and assist families in applying
for admission to the program, and (2) to reduce the family's
administrative and paperwork burden in the application and enrollment
process.
Third, this final rule adds a new paragraph (g) to Sec. 1302.15,
focused on requiring a user-friendly process for enrolling new families
into the Head Start program. Paragraph (g) states a program must
regularly examine their enrollment processes and implement any
identified improvements to streamline the enrollment experience for
families. This new provision requires programs to establish new
procedures or update current procedures that are both streamlined and
user centric. ACF expects programs to regularly update these procedures
to reflect changes in community needs or best practices.
Fourth, this final rule adds a new paragraph (b)(9) to Sec.
1302.34 that requires programs to use accessible communication methods
and modalities that meet the needs of the community when engaging with
prospective and enrolled families. ACF expects programs to consider
both currently enrolled families as well as prospective families. This
provision will ensure programs consult and engage with parents and
families, incorporating their input into the creation of processes and
communication channels.
Lastly, this final rule modifies the purpose statement in Sec.
1302.50(a) by requiring programs address the individual needs of
families in how they develop their communications. This change reflects
Head Start's multi-generational approach and is intended to convey that
programs should accommodate the needs of all family members.
Comment: Most of the public comments that addressed modernizing
engagement with families were supportive of the new requirements.
Commenters highlighted the importance of effective communication with
families and the value of adopting modern technology to facilitate
this. Even while supporting the sentiment of these changes, some
commenters expressed concerns that the term ``must use'' in Sec.
1302.13 is overly prescriptive. Some commenters shared that in-person
interactions and traditional methods of communication may better meet
the needs of children and families who most need Head Start programs.
Others said modern methods may not meet the needs of Tribal and rural
communities with limited access to technology and reliable
infrastructure. Overall, the comments reflected a desire for a better
balance between modernizing communication and engagement methods and
ensuring accessibility and adaptability.
Response: ACF recognizes commenters' concerns that programs need
flexibility to use communication strategies that meet community needs.
As such, while maintaining the overall sentiment of the changes, ACF
adjusts language in the final rule to emphasize the importance of
implementing enhancements that align with community needs and enhance
the efficiency of service delivery. In Sec. 1302.13, ACF changes the
language proposed in the NPRM to require that programs give families
the option of using modern technology, rather than requiring the use of
modern technology in the application and enrollment process. In Sec.
1302.34, ACF changes the language proposed in the NPRM from requiring
the best available communication methods to ensuring the communication
methods are accessible to all community members and meet the needs of
the community. Finally, in Sec. 1302.50, ACF alters the proposed
language from the NPRM from requiring programs to use the most
accessible communication methods, to using methods that meet the needs
of each individual family. ACF believes these modifications in the
final rule language better clarify a family-centered approach to
recruitment, enrollment, and communication that meets evolving
community expectations around the use of technology, while also being
attuned to digital development in rural and remote communities and
deploying more traditional methods as appropriate. ACF acknowledges the
benefits of in-person enrollment and recruitment efforts to better
access and benefit some families, especially in rural and Tribal areas,
and does not intend to discourage those practices. These changes
present an opportunity for programs to seek input on the communication
methods they currently use and improve their family engagement
strategies and procedures.
ACF expects these requirements may look different in practice in
each program based on the unique needs of their families and community.
For many families, their expectations regarding interactions with
service providers have changed due to the availability of modern
technology. Programs may find
[[Page 67761]]
an online, mobile-friendly application portal provides an efficient way
both for families to apply and for the program to review applications.
Programs may integrate their application process with those of other
state or local benefits applications. For some families, in-person
application support may be more appropriate. There are many reasons we
agree with an approach to family engagement that flexibly includes both
technological and in-person options. A family-centered, accessible
approach acknowledges parent and family diversity related to language
access, literacy levels, and disabilities. Programs may partner with
local or online translation agencies to offer translation services for
families who speak languages other than English. This can include
translating enrollment forms and other documents and materials into
languages commonly spoken by the community or providing translation
services for meetings and in-person events. Programs can utilize
communication applications that support multiple languages and offer
features such as real-time translation, text messaging, and video
calling. Closed captioning, subtitles, and speech-to-text tools may
also be beneficial. Materials in accessible formats such as braille,
large print, or accessible electronic documents should be available as
needed for individuals who are blind or have low vision. Programs may
also consider offering Telecommunication Relay Services (TRS) to
facilitate telephone communication with individuals who are deaf, hard
of hearing, or who have speech or language disorders.
Comment: A few commenters expressed concerns about a potential
added financial and human resource burden to operationalize these
changes. A few commenters also noted a potential conflict between the
intended purpose of the revision to Sec. 1302.13, which is focused on
reducing family burden during the application and enrollment process,
and the new provision in Sec. 1302.12(i) allowing programs to adjust a
family's income to account for excessive housing costs when determining
eligibility.
Response: ACF disagrees that there will be a significant financial
or human resource burden associated with these changes. ACF believes
the cost to programs to make these determinations and implement new
technologies will be nominal. Additionally, while ACF acknowledges that
there may be some initial burden associated with implementing these
changes, we see significant benefits and efficiencies for programs and
families over time. Streamlining the enrollment experience for families
will result in more user-friendly and efficient processes, ultimately
reducing burden and fostering greater trust with families. This in turn
supports Head Start programs in delivering services more equitably and
effectively. ACF also acknowledges the potential additional burden
associated with the changes to the eligibility determination process in
Sec. 1302.12(i). However, we deem this burden reasonable considering
the importance of providing additional flexibility for families who are
making above or near poverty wages, but face high housing costs, and
would be eligible for Head Start programs if those disproportionally
high housing costs were taken into account when determining
eligibility. The changes to eligibility determination are also optional
for programs.
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 community strengths and resources. The HSPPS describe a broad
and comprehensive assessment of community needs, strengths, and
resources and specify the minimum data Head Start programs must use in
this process. Programs must complete a comprehensive community
assessment at least once during a five-year grant period with an annual
review and update of significant changes. The revisions to this section
in the final rule emphasize the importance of this tool, the
Communitywide Strategic Planning and Needs Assessment, as an
intentional process for Head Start programs to understand the community
they serve, plan accordingly, and strategically review and update. This
section makes some changes from the NPRM, including adding language
emphasizing the importance of collecting information on families
experiencing homelessness in response to comments that proposed changes
in the NPRM could have the unintended consequence of collecting less
information on these families. The final rule also clarifies that
programs must annually review and--as needed--update their community
needs assessment, but they are not required to complete a comprehensive
assessment every year. Finally, this section provides more information
on the type of information that can inform the community needs
assessment in response to requests by commenters for additional clarity
from the NPRM.
We recognize that many Head Start programs utilize the community
assessment effectively to inform the design of their program. However,
some Head Start programs and others in the Head Start community have
raised concerns about the requirements as previously written. Concerns
included lack of clarity on purpose, especially on the purpose and
scope of the annual review and update. Some programs may collect
unnecessarily complicated data rather than utilizing information they
know or have available to them that is relevant to their community.
Related concerns include the cost and staff resources needed for
complex data collection and analysis. Together these challenges can
create costly barriers to some programs using their community
assessment to effectively guide programmatic decisions as intended,
especially with staff who are newer to the Head Start program and rely
on policy to guide their implementation of the community assessment.
The final rule updates this section to promote clarity around the
intent of the community assessment, align with best practices, and
support the use of the community assessment to inform key aspects of
the Head Start program. At the beginning of this section, we have added
a description of the purpose, goals, and intended outcomes of the
community assessment to strengthen programs' use of this tool. Next, we
have added language encouraging programs to be strategic and
intentional in what data they collect and use to achieve intended
outcomes. We have also included language to encourage programs to
access readily available data on their community and to challenge
programs to consider data beyond counts of eligible populations and
resources in the community. Specifically, we strongly encourage
programs to collect information directly from impacted families when
possible, including enrolled and prospective families, as their
perspectives on their needs and strengths are critical to program
design. ACF will provide TA and information on best practices to
support programs in gathering lived experiences. Additionally, ACF has
added language in the final rule to ensure transportation needs and
resources are part of the data that informs a program's design and
service delivery.
ACF has also revised the paragraph on the annual review to the
community assessment to better describe the purpose and goals of this
endeavor. As clearly described in the purpose paragraph, a
comprehensive community assessment is only required once in the
[[Page 67762]]
five-year grant period and an annual review allows programs to
determine if changes in the community may impact how the program serves
families and therefore warrant an update to the assessment. In the
final rule, we have clarified that the annual review and update is not
a comprehensive community assessment but should be approached
strategically to guide a program's modification of services. We have
also described how the annual review can support and be supported by
other required processes, including the annual self-assessment (part
1302, subpart J) and the annual funding application.
In this final rule, we emphasize that the community assessment is
not an isolated requirement to be conducted; rather, it is the basis of
program design and service delivery. ACF has retained the requirement
that programs conduct a comprehensive community assessment once during
their five-year grant cycle and annually review the assessment. This
annual review is still required as community factors can change
rapidly. For example, a large employer could move in or out of the
service area, or there could be a rapid increase in the number of
families experiencing homelessness. It is essential that programs are
aware of significant community changes and incorporate this knowledge
into program design and service delivery.
Comment: Commenters generally agree that the community assessment
process should be streamlined, with many supporting the idea of not
requiring annual updates unless significant community changes occur. A
few comments suggested this revision reduces burden only slightly as
programs must still collect data for their annual funding application,
and therefore asked ACF to clarify how these processes work together.
Others stated that revisions did not go far enough to reduce burden
and, in fact, were more prescriptive than current standards. A few
commenters suggested ACF provide more guidance on how to determine what
updates are required annually. Other commenters misunderstood the
revisions and thought that the NPRM removed the requirement for the
annual review and update of the community assessment entirely.
Response: ACF believes that the main burden reduction comes from a
new emphasis on strategic data collection and use and the emphasis on
the purpose of the community assessment. We do not view the revisions
as adding burden or as overly prescriptive, as we do not add
requirements but rather descriptions of how programs can strategically
determine what information is needed. This requires programs to make
strategic decisions on what relevant demographic data to collect and
how to utilize it to improve program quality.
ACF understands that the language used in the NPRM regarding the
annual review and update caused confusion and concern for some
commenters. This final rule reiterates the requirement for an annual
review but clarifies programs do not need to complete a comprehensive
assessment every year. Programs must review their community assessment
every year. The results of this annual review will dictate whether
service delivery changes are needed. We further understand that
streamlining the annual review language inadvertently caused concern
regarding families experiencing homelessness. ACF does not intend to
minimize our focus on homelessness, and we have restored language in
this final rule requiring programs to look specifically each year at
changes to families experiencing homelessness in their communities. We
acknowledge the suggestions from commenters on how best to collect data
regarding families experiencing homelessness, and we will continue to
provide TTA to programs in this area.
Comment: A variety of concerns about data were expressed through
public comments. Several commenters suggested that using publicly
available data as a proxy could reduce the burden of data collection
and costs. Some commenters suggested that additional guidance was
needed from OHS to help programs understand which data sources could be
used as proxies. Others suggested that proxies may not truly capture
community characteristics. Specifically, some commenters expressed
concern about the impact the proposed changes would have on programs'
ability to recruit and serve children and families experiencing
homelessness. Many cited the lack of existing data sources to identify
children and families experiencing homelessness, such that accurate
proxy data would not be available. Commenters also recommended OHS
ensure best practices for data collection and use, particularly
regarding the promotion of equity, accessibility, and cultural
sensitivity. Commenters' recommendations included adding requirements
to collect data on families' technology needs, local teacher salary and
benefit information, and other information to inform program goals and
design.
Response: ACF revises the NPRM language to describe expectations
around data collection and use in the community assessment process more
completely. In lieu of the term ``proxy,'' which we recognize created
some confusion for commenters, we clarify that programs should utilize
their own knowledge and existing data relevant to their community, and
should rely on community partners to fully understand the community
they serve. Programs should be strategic and intentional in collecting
information relevant to their program and the populations they serve,
rather than collecting information about the entire community. We
acknowledge the suggestions made by commenters on data practices and
will provide TTA to programs as requested to promote best practices for
ensuring culturally appropriate data collection.
Comment: Nearly half of the comments on this section highlighted
the importance of transportation resources in community assessments,
noting that lack of transportation is a significant barrier for many
families. While supportive of this addition to the NPRM, several
commenters expressed concern that requiring an assessment of
transportation resources and needs may lead to a requirement to provide
transportation, which is untenable for many programs.
Response: Since transportation can be a common barrier for families
in poverty attaining needed services, ACF considers it important to
include an assessment of available transportation resources in the
community. The goal of adding this to the community assessment is to
ensure that programs are aware of resources available to support
families and develop partnerships. ACF recognizes the often-high cost
of transportation due to cost of buses as well as a lack of available
drivers and monitors. As such, ACF is not requiring the provision of
transportation by Head Start programs but expects programs to
prioritize identifying available community partners and resources to
mitigate this ongoing challenge.
Comment: Commenters provided suggestions on how to strengthen the
focus on equity, diversity, and cultural sensitivity in collecting
community assessment information. Some also suggested an increased
focus on using community assessments to design programs to meet needs
of diverse communities. Other commenters recommended revisions to the
NPRM language to enhance a strength-based approach to understanding and
incorporating the unique needs of all community members.
Response: ACF agrees with these comments, and we specifically focus
on the inclusion of diversity, equity,
[[Page 67763]]
inclusion, and accessibility in the final rule. As one example, we
modify the enumerated list of demographic data that programs need to
collect as part of the community assessment to highlight race and
ethnicity as well as children living in poverty.
Adjustment for Excessive Housing Costs for Eligibility Determination
(Sec. 1302.12)
Section 1302.12 describes the requirements Head Start programs must
follow to determine, verify, and document eligibility of prospective
families. In this final rule, we added new paragraphs (i)(1)(i) and
(ii) to Sec. 1302.12 to allow a program to adjust a family's income to
account for excessive housing costs when determining eligibility. The
final rule largely retains the proposed requirements in the NPRM with
additional information on implementation process.
Many programs have expressed concern that Head Start eligibility
criteria do not account for the high cost of living in some areas
across the country. High housing cost burdens have increased for low-
and moderate-income renting households since the 1960s. A growing
number of families earn just above poverty wages but spend more than 30
percent of their total gross income on housing costs, a threshold that
has long been used to define housing affordability and is used by the
Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) as a rent
limit for the HOME Investment Partnerships Program for low-income
rental units. 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 housing costs were taken into account when
determining eligibility.
In this final rule, 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
costs. In addition, a new term for ``housing costs'' is defined in
Sec. 1305.2 as the total annual expenses on housing, which may include
rent or mortgage payments, homeowner's or renter's insurance,
utilities, interest, and taxes on the home. Utilities may include
electricity, gas, water, sewer, and trash. Programs can use bills and
expenses from one month to calculate the average expenses that a family
has throughout the year.
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,
such as participation in SNAP or Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families (TANF). Therefore, the regulatory language in paragraph
(i)(1)(ii) indicates that a program ``may'' use available documents to
calculate housing costs. Programs should continue using their current
methods of verifying eligibility based on tax forms, pay stubs, or
other proof of income. These regulatory changes 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 the
enrollment of families most in need of services as required in Sec.
1302.13.
Comment: Comments on the housing adjustment provision revealed
overwhelming support for the intent behind these changes, with many
commenters agreeing that this approach would better reflect the reality
of many families who, despite earning above the poverty line, are
burdened by housing costs and could benefit from Head Start services.
However, some comments expressed concerns about the administrative
burden this change could impose on both families and program staff.
Commenters worried that the requirement for additional documentation to
prove housing expenses could be burdensome, potentially leading to
errors and inconsistencies in eligibility determination. Additionally,
there were concerns that the process could become too complicated and
time-consuming, which might deter families from applying and slow down
the enrollment process. A few commenters noted that the additional
documentation burden is at odds with the final rule changes in
Sec. Sec. 1302.13 and 1302.15 to reduce families' burden and
streamline their experience in the application and enrollment process.
Response: We retain the provision allowing programs to adjust a
family's income to account for excessive housing costs when determining
eligibility. We recognize that collecting and reviewing families'
housing documentation may add some burden. The use of the housing
adjustment is optional, and it is not necessary to apply this
adjustment to families who are already income-eligible or are eligible
through other eligibility categories. Additionally, in this final rule,
we revise language from the NPRM to provide further clarity and
instruction on what documentation is required and how to calculate the
adjustment. ACF believes this provision affords programs the
flexibility to incorporate families' excessive housing costs into their
existing eligibility determination processes while managing
administrative burden. Furthermore, ACF will provide TTA as needed to
grant recipients on how to calculate the housing adjustment in order to
help minimize administrative burden and facilitate consistent
application of the policy.
Comment: Several commenters suggested that instead of requiring
programs to document individualized housing expenses, OHS should
consider using a standardized measure such as HUD's Fair Market Rent
data as a proxy for housing costs to simplify the process and reduce
the potential for error and administrative burden. If the use of a
proxy is not allowed, several comments requested clear guidance on what
types of documentation would be acceptable and how to calculate the
deductions for housing expenses. Commenters expressed a desire for the
documentation review process to be as easy as possible for families and
programs, with a few suggesting the use of signed family declarations
when documentation is not available or allowing families who receive
housing assistance to be categorically eligible for the program.
Response: We acknowledge commenters' suggestions to consider HUD's
Fair Market Rent (FMR) data as an alternative to reviewing individual
families' housing documentation, but do not incorporate that approach
into this final rule. ACF will provide forthcoming guidance on how a
housing adjustment tool can be used to help determine income
eligibility. We also acknowledge the suggestion to allow for
categorical eligibility for families in receipt of housing assistance;
however, as eligibility categories are largely determined by Head Start
statute, we do not incorporate this suggestion in the final rule.
Tribal Eligibility and Selection Process (Sec. Sec. 1302.12, 1302.14)
This final rule revises eligibility requirements for Tribal
programs to conform with congressional action in March 2024. The Head
Start Act previously allowed up to 49 percent of
[[Page 67764]]
AIAN program enrollment to be comprised of enrollees who did not meet
income eligibility criteria if certain conditions were met, while the
remaining 51 percent of the AIAN program participants had to meet an
income eligibility criterion specified at Sec. 1302.12(c)(1) (e.g.,
family income at or below the poverty line, eligible for public
assistance, experiencing homelessness or in foster care). With the
passage of the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024 (Pub. L.
118-47), Tribal programs now have the discretion to consider
eligibility regardless of income. In this final rule, we revise the
requirement at Sec. 1302.12(e)(1) to reflect that change in statutory
language. Public Law 118-47 also emphasizes that Tribal programs may,
at their discretion, use their selection criteria to prioritize
children in families in which a child, family member, or member of the
household is a member of an Indian Tribe. We revise the requirement in
the final rule accordingly in Sec. 1302.14, which is a separate
section of the HSPPS where selection criteria requirements are
outlined.
Comment: As noted in section V, General Comments and Cross-Cutting
Issues, many NPRM commenters from Tribal communities requested
categorical eligibility for AIAN children. These commenters emphasized
the importance of ensuring AIAN children in their communities receive
comprehensive and culturally relevant services though Tribal Head Start
programs. They requested revisions to the standards to allow them to
reach more children in their communities and remain sustainable
programs into the future.
Response: We agree with commenters and understand from our
engagement with Tribal leaders that categorical eligibility for AIAN
children has been a priority for Tribal programs. This change in
eligibility requirements was included in President Biden's FY 25 Budget
Request to Congress, and it has now been enacted into law through the
passage of Public Law 118-47. We believe this change in eligibility
better positions Tribes to determine which children would most benefit
from Head Start services in their communities. In this final rule, ACF
revises the eligibility requirements for Tribal programs to be in
alignment with congressional action. Publishing the final rule with
requirements in the previous HSPPS that have already been superseded by
Public Law 118-47 would be confusing for Tribal programs at a time when
they are implementing this new law and are looking for clear guidance
from ACF. ACF engaged and consulted with Tribes on the eligibility
changes in a variety of ways prior to the release of this final rule,
including at the in-person ACF Early Childhood Tribal Consultation in
July of 2024, providing multiple opportunities to provide feedback on
important implementation considerations.
Migrant and Seasonal Eligibility and Selection Process (Sec. Sec.
1302.12, 1302.14)
Sections 1302.12(f) Eligibility and 1302.14(a) Selection Process
This final rule revises eligibility requirements for Migrant or
Seasonal Head Start (MSHS) programs to conform with congressional
action in March 2024. Under the previous program standards, to be
eligible for MSHS, a family was required to demonstrate that their
income came primarily from agricultural labor, which was interpreted
and implemented to mean a family's income must have been more than 50
percent from agricultural work. As changes in agricultural work have
made it increasingly less common for the primary source of a family's
income to be from agricultural work, many migrant or seasonal
farmworker families have not met the criteria to enroll in MSHS. To
remove this barrier to enrollment, ACF proposed in the NPRM to revise
language in Sec. 1302.12(f) regarding income eligibility for MSHS.
In March 2024, after the November 2023 publication of the NPRM,
Congress enacted changes to eligibility requirements for MSHS in the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024 (Pub. L. 118-47). In the final
rule, we revise Sec. 1302.12(f) to ensure alignment to the change in
eligibility in Public Law 118-47. We revise Sec. 1302.12(f) to allow
MSHS programs to serve any child who has one family member whose income
comes primarily from agricultural employment as defined in section 3 of
the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (29 U.S.C.
1802), even if they do not meet other income eligibility requirements.
The summary of comments focuses on the public's response to the NPRM
proposal, even though Public Law 118-47 also removed the requirement
that MSHS families meet other income eligibility requirements.
Additionally, Public Law 118-47 reinforces an existing requirement that
MSHS programs use their selection criteria to give priority to children
of migrant farmworker families. We revise the requirement in the final
rule accordingly in Sec. 1302.14, which is a separate section of the
HSPPS where selection criteria requirements are outlined.
Comment: Most commenters who discussed these changes supported the
revision to consider income of one family member being primarily from
agricultural work rather than the entire family's income being
primarily from agricultural work. They appreciated ACF's efforts to
address financial and operational challenges faced by migrant and
seasonal farmworkers. Specifically, commenters applauded that the
provision maintains the requirement for agricultural work while also
recognizing challenges such as income from agriculture not always being
the primary source due to its instability, and the need to find work in
other industries as a result. Further, commenters stated that the
revised eligibility requirements will offer more flexibility to
families to pursue additional economic opportunities without fear of
losing MSHS eligibility due to not meeting the family income threshold
of at least 51% coming from agricultural work. Some commenters stated
that if adopted, the provision would balance the requirement to work in
agriculture to qualify for MSHS with the need for Migrant Seasonal Head
Start services due to the unique demands and seasonality of
agricultural work. Several comments highlighted the importance of this
revision to allow access to families who would benefit from the
critical early learning opportunities MSHS provides, especially in
rural and farming communities.
Response: ACF agrees with commenters who expressed that this
revision to current standards would better reflect the nature of
agricultural work and allow those in the agricultural industry to
benefit from MSHS programs. The language on income from agricultural
work for MSHS eligibility remains the same as it was in the NPRM and,
as described above, we further revise Sec. 1302.12(f) to conform to
Public Law 118-47 that removed the requirement that MSHS families meet
other income eligibility requirements.
Comment: While supporting the change in the threshold of
agricultural employment required, several commenters offered
suggestions to amend this provision. One commenter suggested that OHS
provide MSHS programs additional flexibility (such as a lower threshold
than 51%) on agricultural work since the Head Start Act requires a
family to be ``primarily engaged in agricultural work,'' without
specifying a threshold. Another comment suggested adding a requirement
that MSHS program selection criteria prioritize families with
[[Page 67765]]
two parents working in agriculture for enrollment over families with
only one family member working in agriculture. An edit was recommended
by one commenter to change Migrant or Seasonal to Migrant and Seasonal
and to specify that MSHS programs decide whether a family meets the
agricultural work threshold. One commenter expressed concern that the
revision did not reduce eligibility paperwork, stating it was still
complicated to document income and other eligibility criteria such as
age. A few commenters asked for clarification on operationalizing this
change and how the definition of family relates to this provision.
Response: ACF acknowledges suggestions made by commenters to amend
the provision; however, we maintain this language in this final rule
and further revise this requirement to align with Public Law 118-47. We
believe the revisions to the income threshold provide increased access
to families who would benefit from MSHS. The changes to this
requirement also address concerns about the burden to the extent that
families no longer need to meet other income eligibility requirements,
aside from one member of the family's income coming primarily from
agricultural work. Further, Migrant or Seasonal is the title of the
program, and the final rule does not change that, and programs are
responsible for determining whether a family meets the agricultural
work threshold in accordance with regulations on documenting
eligibility. Programs set their own selection criteria, which is not
part of this section, but is in section Sec. 1302.14.
Section 1302.12(j) Eligibility Duration
ACF also adds a new provision to clarify the duration of
eligibility for infants and toddlers served in MSHS programs.
Specifically, 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. Current standards do not specify how long eligibility lasts
for the youngest children in MSHS, even though nearly half of
enrollment in MSHS programs is comprised of children under the age of
three. ACF adds a new paragraph (j)(5) which states that MSHS programs
can serve infants and toddlers until the age of three without re-
verifying eligibility, consistent with the requirement in Sec.
1302.12(j)(2) that children participating in EHS are eligible for the
duration of the program. We believe this new language will provide
equity among programs while promoting continuity of care for infants
and toddlers in MSHS programs. The language in the final rule is the
same as the language proposed in the NPRM.
Comment: There was consensus among commenters who spoke on this
topic, with strong support for the revisions that align MSHS
eligibility redetermination requirements with those of EHS to ensure
continuity of care. Most of these commenters supported the new
provision at Sec. 1302.12(j)(5) which aligns duration of MSHS
eligibility with the existing duration for children in EHS at Sec.
1302.12(j)(2). No opposition to this new provision nor concerns about
this provision were expressed in public comments. One comment
celebrated this revision as ``a very welcome and overdue adjustment to
the standards.''
Response: We agree with commenters and maintain the language on
MSHS eligibility duration proposed in the NPRM.
Transportation & Other Barriers to Enrollment and Attendance
(Sec. Sec. 1302.14; 1302.16)
Section 1302.14 outlines the requirements for programs when
establishing their selection process. Specifically, it requires
programs to establish section criteria that prioritizes participants
based on community need and other factors, such as family income,
whether a child is homeless or in foster care, among others. The final
rule includes a requirement in Sec. 1302.14(d), Understanding barriers
to enrollment, that programs use their community assessment to identify
the population of eligible children and families and potential barriers
to enrollment and attendance, including access to transportation for
the highest need families. Programs must also 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.
Section 1302.16 specifies program requirements related to
attendance, specifically in the areas of promoting regular attendance,
managing systematic program attendance issues, and supporting
attendance for children who are homeless. The final rule includes the
requirement that programs examine barriers to regular attendance, such
as access to reliable transportation, and where possible, provide or
facilitates transportation if needed.
Below we discuss the public comments we received and our responses
on Sec. Sec. 1302.14(d) and 1302.16(a)(2)(v).
Comment: Some respondents strongly expressed that the NPRM
requirement in Sec. 1302.14(d) to survey and analyze data for families
who were selected but did not enroll was a significant administrative
burden.
Response: ACF agrees and changes this requirement in the final rule
to state that programs must, as part of the existing community
assessment process, identify the population of age- and income-eligible
children and identify whether lack of safe and reliable transportation,
especially for the highest need children and families, poses a barrier
to enrollment and attendance. We revise the final rule to eliminate the
requirement for additional information collection from families who
were selected but who did not enroll or attend. ACF retains the NPRM-
proposed change in Sec. 1302.16(a)(2)(v), which requires that programs
examine barriers to regular attendance, such as access to reliable
transportation, and where possible, provide or facilitates
transportation if needed.
Comment: Some commenters interpreted this section to mean that
programs must provide transportation services if transportation is a
barrier to attendance.
Response: Neither the NPRM nor the final rule requires that
programs provide direct Head Start transportation services. In the
final rule, we maintain the NPRM proposal to require that programs
identify whether lack of transportation is a barrier to attendance and,
if it is, make every effort to provide or facilitate transportation.
When Head Start is paying for transportation services, such services
must meet Head Start requirements. This can be challenging but programs
are encouraged to work with community partners, such as school
districts, school transportation contractors, and transit providers to
identify solutions. When lack of safe and reliable transportation is a
barrier to Head Start program attendance, programs may need to consider
changes in program design to ensure that children and families high on
the eligibility list can access the program.
Comment: The majority of comments, including both from programs
that currently provide transportation and those that do not, indicated
that providing transportation services is expensive.
Response: ACF understands both that transportation is expensive to
operate and that many of the children and families with the most
significant needs lack access to safe and reliable transportation. As
noted, the final rule does not require that Head Start
[[Page 67766]]
programs necessarily provide direct transportation services. Rather,
the rule requires that programs analyze whether the lack of
transportation is keeping children otherwise high on the selection
criteria list from access the program. If the program finds that lack
of safe and reliable transportation is a barrier, it must develop and
implement plans that address program needs that may include such
actions as budgeting to provide transportation services directly or
through contractual arrangement or partnering with school districts to
expand services to include Head Start transportation services for
children and families high on the eligibility list who cannot otherwise
enroll.
Comment: Many commenters stated that there is a shortage of drivers
with the required Commercial Drivers License (CDL). Some also stated
that CDL drivers are able to earn higher salaries in other industries.
One commenter asked that ACF approve a different type of vehicle that
would not require a CDL to operate.
Response: While ACF agrees that CDL drivers have continued to be in
demand and that this contributes to the overall cost of transportation
services, we do not change this requirement in the final rule. A CDL is
required by most states for drivers providing student transportation.
In some areas, programs recruit parents and community members as bus
monitors or in other positions and help them acquire the knowledge,
training, and experience needed to acquire a CDL. Such programs assist
people by providing employment while ensuring a pool of drivers for the
Head Start program. Other programs have recruited retired truck drivers
who can get a passenger endorsement on their CDL and for whom Head
Start employment benefits may be a draw.
Comment: Several commenters indicated that lack of transportation
does not pose a barrier because they only enroll children whose
families can provide transportation.
Response: The Act and the HSPPS require programs to develop
selection criteria based on community need and offer enrollment to
children from families with the highest level of need. While ACF
acknowledges that Head Start transportation services are expensive, ACF
is concerned that only enrolling children whose families can provide
transportation is not a correct use of selection criteria. Programs
must work to ensure lack of transportation is not a barrier to
participating in the program. This may require long term planning and
difficult program decisions.
Comment: A number of commenters, including both programs that
currently provide transportation services and several organizations,
applauded this provision of the NPRM. These comments emphasized that
Head Start transportation services allow many children and families to
enroll and attend who would otherwise be unable to access the program.
Head Start program respondents stated that they would not be able to
provide the services they do absent program-provided transportation.
Response: ACF agrees that Head Start transportation services are
critical for many children and families, while also understanding the
financial impact. This rule requires that programs assess their local
needs and develop quality improvement plans that will improve access
for the children and families who most need Head Start program
services.
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
the 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 the previous standard Sec. 1302.14(b) read ``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 previous HSPPS stated different requirements. To address this
inconsistency, the final rule changes ``funded'' to ``actual'' in Sec.
1304.14(b)(1) so the HSPPS are consistent with the Act. This change
clarifies the requirement and addresses the confusion caused by the
discrepancy.
Comment: Most commenters expressed support for the proposed
language change.
Response: As was proposed in the NPRM, we replace ``funded'' with
``actual'' in Sec. 1304.14(b)(1) so the HSPPS are consistent with the
Act.
Comment: A few commenters opposed the change and encouraged OHS to
retain the previous HSPPS language to count ``funded enrollment''
rather than ``actual enrollment'' to ensure that children with
disabilities have equal access to learning opportunities.
Response: 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 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.
Suspension and Expulsion (Sec. Sec. 1302.17; 1305.2)
Section 1302.17 describes ACF's policies that severely limit
suspension and prohibit expulsion due to a child's behavior. This final
rule clarifies which disciplinary practices are captured under
suspension by adding a definition for suspension in Sec. 1305.2. It
also describes that the intended purpose of a temporary suspension is
when a serious safety threat has not been reduced or eliminated by
providing interventions and supports recommended by the mental health
consultant, and the program needs more time to put additional
appropriate services in place. The changes further clarify and
strengthen previous standards regarding what a program must do to bring
the child back to the program as expediently as possible. The intent of
these changes is to provide sufficient clarity on the purpose of a
temporary suspension and how to return a child quickly and safely to
program services with the correct supports in place.
Comment: Many commenters generally support OHS's efforts to limit
suspensions and prohibit expulsions, recognizing the negative long-term
impacts of such disciplinary actions, especially on populations such as
children of color and those with disabilities. However, the comments
reflect a concern that current resources and staff training are
insufficient to manage the severity and frequency of unsafe behaviors,
leading to staff burnout, turnover, and a compromised learning
environment and safety concerns for other children and staff.
Response: We acknowledge commenters' recognition of the importance
of ensuring that the use of disciplinary practices does not perpetuate
disproportionalities across different groups of children, including
young boys of color, children with disabilities, and children who are
dual language learners. ACF also agrees that these policies must be
accompanied by adult capacity-building to equip staff to
[[Page 67767]]
understand and respond to behaviors associated with suspension/
expulsion early and effectively. The final rule revises the definition
of suspension in Sec. 1305.2 to clarify what ACF considers a
suspension. Momentarily removing a child from the learning setting due
to an immediate threat to child or adult safety, or due to established
plans in a child's individualized family service plan (IFSP) or
individualized education program (IEP), is not included in this
definition of suspension. The final rule includes other requirements
intended to support staff to manage and prevent unsafe behaviors,
including training and professional development to use positive
strategies to support social and emotional development in Sec. 1302.92
as well as effective implementation of mental health consultation and a
multidisciplinary approach to mental health, as outlined in Sec.
1302.45.
Comment: Some commenters ask for more flexibility in handling
suspensions, with some suggesting that ``temporary suspensions'' should
be an option when staff and children's safety is at risk. Some
commenters suggest changing the term ``temporary suspension'' to
another name as the intent of this process is to provide better
supports for the child, not temporarily remove them from the program
without any supports or services.
Response: Section 1302.17(a) outlines the limitations on suspension
and the steps that must be followed if a program proceeds with a
temporary suspension, including providing continued support to
facilitate the child's reentry into the program. As specified in Sec.
1302.17(a)(2), a temporary suspension must be used only as a last
resort in extraordinary circumstances when there is a serious safety
threat. The language does not specify who is impacted by the serious
safety threat, in acknowledgment that it could be either staff or
children. The previous performance standards specified that temporary
suspension could occur if the safety threat ``cannot be reduced or
eliminated,'' and the final rule maintains the NPRM proposal to change
the language to be ``has not been reduced or eliminated'' to emphasize
that the program should take active steps to attempt to reduce or
eliminate the concern and demonstrate that the steps have not worked.
Although we retain the language of ``temporary suspension,'' the
requirement is clear that temporary suspension does not mean removing a
child from a program without any supports or services. On the contrary,
programs are required to continue engaging with the parents, mental
health consultant, and other appropriate staff, and continue to use
appropriate community resources; to provide additional program supports
and services, including home visits; and to determine whether a
referral to a local agency responsible for implementing IDEA is
appropriate, or if the child has an IFSP or IEP, to consult with the
responsible agency to ensure the child receives the needed support
services.
Comment: Several comments request clarifying the role of the
multidisciplinary team and mental health consultant, including in
determining if a temporary suspension is needed.
Response: We remove the requirement that programs have a
multidisciplinary team. Rather, programs must use a multidisciplinary
approach to integrate mental health throughout Head Start program
services. Given the removal of the requirement to have a
multidisciplinary team from this final rule, the specific role of that
team in temporary suspensions is no longer relevant. The mental health
consultant is an important partner in these decisions, as noted in the
list of responsibilities of the mental health consultant in Sec.
1302.45(b), and, specifically, in the implementation of the policies
related to suspension and expulsion. Ultimately, the program is
responsible for determining whether a suspension is necessary and for
supporting children prior to, during, and after a suspension.
Comment: The comments also address the challenges of implementing
some of the proposed changes to expulsion in Sec. 1302.17(b) of the
NPRM, such as the requirement for immediate placement in alternative
programs. Many commenters note the scarcity of alternative placements
with immediate availability or any alternative placements within the
community, which could make compliance with these requirements
difficult. A few comments request clarity about expectations for Head
Start programs before a child is transitioned to an alternative
placement, such as interim modified services.
Response: ACF does not believe further regulation is necessary on
this issue at this time. ACF does not retain in this final rule the
NPRM language stating that the placement can immediately enroll and
provide services to the child. However, the existing program standards,
which remain in effect at Sec. 1302.17(b), already prohibit expulsion
due to child behavior and outline expectations for when children
exhibit persistent and serious challenging behaviors. This includes the
requirement that a program work with appropriate entities to directly
facilitate the transition of a child to a more appropriate placement in
Sec. 1302.17(b)(3). Directly facilitating a child to a more
appropriate placement is intended to convey that a child's services
should not lapse, and that the child should not be unenrolled from Head
Start program services until the new receiving placement enrolls the
family and is ready to begin services. HHS, in collaboration with the
U.S. Department of Education, previously released a policy statement
that elaborates on ACF's position and expectations related to
expulsion.\59\ This includes the expectation that as part of direct
facilitation, the program collaborates with the family, teacher,
service providers, and receiving placement to develop and implement a
seamless transition plan. In identifying a receiving placement, the
program additionally ensures the new placement is inclusive and offers
the child opportunities to optimize learning and develop skills
alongside their peers. ACF is interested in understanding the extent to
which programs are using the steps outlined in Sec. 1302.17(b)(3) to
determine a more appropriate placement and will consider regulating at
some point in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/publication/policy-statement-expulsion-suspension-policies-early-childhood-settings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: Several commenters express frustration with the lack of
support from parents when trying to address challenging behaviors. Some
comments suggest empowering families by providing a description of
suspension and expulsion policies to families upon enrollment so they
know their rights and so they understand their role in collaborating
with programs to address child behavior and mental health.
Response: Section 1302.41 of the previous program standards
requires Head Start programs to collaborate closely with parents as
partners in their children's health, well-being, and overall
development. ACF adds ``mental health'' throughout this paragraph in
the final rule to clarify that mental health is an integral part of
health that should be incorporated into conversations with parents
early and often. ACF has and will continue to provide training and
technical assistance on creating authentic partnerships with families,
including strategies on ways to collaborate with families that foster
children's healthy development. ACF encourages programs to leverage
resources to meet their needs, including providing descriptions of
policies to families upon enrollment.
[[Page 67768]]
Ratios in Center-Based Early Head Start Programs (Sec. 1302.21)
Section 1302.21(b) sets requirements for ratios and group size
within the center-based option. According to Sec. 1302.21(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. The NPRM proposed revising Sec.
1302.21(b)(2) to encourage programs to use a lower teacher-child ratio
of no more than three children to every teacher for their youngest
children (infants under 12 months old), provided it does not interfere
with continuity of care.
Comment: Overall, commenters supported the concept of smaller group
sizes and lower staff-to-child ratios to promote individualized
attention, especially for children with severe behavioral issues or
identified special needs. A couple of commenters suggested that ACF
require, rather than encourage, lower group size and ratios. However,
many commenters noted challenges in implementing the proposed
provision, including the difficulty of finding and hiring qualified
infant/toddler teachers. Without additional funding, programs expressed
that they cannot hire or effectively train more staff, and that they
cannot provide additional physical space for smaller group sizes while
still serving all their funded slots.
Response: ACF does not retain in this final rule the NPRM provision
that encourages programs to use a 1:3 ratio for children under the age
of 12 months. Section 1302.21(b)(2) remains as it was written in the
previous standard. ACF reminds programs that they have the flexibility
to implement policies that are more stringent than the requirements
within the HSPPS. This flexibility allows programs to adapt their
services based on the immediate needs of children and families. This
includes reducing group sizes and ratios in infant, toddler, and
preschool classrooms.
Comment: Many commenters wanted flexibility to lower group sizes
and ratios in preschool classrooms.
Response: We do not revise the standard to address these comments,
as current standards already address flexibilities for programs to
reduce group sizes and ratios in all age groups. Section 1302.21(b)(1)
requires programs to determine teacher-child ratios and group sizes
within infant, toddler, and preschool center-based settings based on
the ages and needs of the children present. This allows programs to
lower group sizes and ratios in infant, toddler, and preschool
classrooms to best meet the immediate needs of enrolled children and
families. Additionally, programs that need to reduce their overall
enrollment levels in order to accommodate lower ratios may submit a
change in scope application, and ACF will consider these applications.
Comment: Commenters recommended that ACF include specific
strategies in regulation to support continuity of care (e.g., keeping
children with a familiar adult as children move through classrooms/ages
and mixed age group settings).
Response: We do not revise the standard to include specific
strategies related to continuity of care. ACF encourages programs to
access TTA resources provided by OHS to enhance their strategies to
effectively support continuity of care.
Comment: Commenters asked ACF to specify how the age of a child
should be determined for ratio purposes as well as to clarify the
recommended ratio of typically developing children to children with
disabilities in Early Head Start classrooms.
Response: We do not revise the standard to address these comments.
Section 1302.21(b)(1) requires that programs determine the age of the
majority of children in a class for ratio purposes at the start of the
year, and they may adjust this determination during the program year,
if necessary. Additionally, programs should follow local and State
requirements to help them determine children's ages for ratio purposes.
Programs can also access TTA resources provided by OHS to enhance their
practices to effectively support the learning of children who are
typically developing, children with identified disabilities, and
children with suspected delays.
Comment: Many commenters noted the desire to temporarily reduce
enrollment and lower ratios in classrooms with significant needs
without worrying about the impact on their grant funding and inclusion
in the Full Enrollment Initiative (FEI). A commenter also suggested
that there should be waivers from the FEI so programs can meet the
needs of enrolled children without penalties.
Response: We do not revise the standard to address these comments.
ACF reminds programs that they must provide services to the number of
children and pregnant women noted within their funding award. If
programs need to adjust their number of funded slots, they should
contact their regional office to submit a change request.
Center-Based Service Duration for Early Head Start (Sec. 1302.21)
Section 1302.21(c)(1) outlines requirements for service duration in
Early Head Start center-based programs. This final rule removes
outdated language from Sec. 1302.21(c)(1)(i) but otherwise maintains
the requirement that EHS center-based programs must provide 1,380
annual hours of planned class operations for all enrolled children.
Comment: Of those who commented on this issue, many were not
supportive of requiring a 46-week minimum for EHS center-based
services. Commenters suggested that 46 weeks is excessive, could lead
to burnout for staff, and may negatively impact the mental health of
staff and children. Some commenters expressed concern that the proposed
changes would limit opportunities for professional development and
staff wellness activities, emphasizing the need for breaks, planning,
and time off for staff. Commenters also indicated that a 46-week
minimum would reduce the time available for staff planning, trainings,
and breaks.
Response: In response to the public comments on this issue, we do
not maintain in the final rule the proposed change to require EHS
center-based services occur across at least 46 weeks per year. While it
has been and continues to be a long-standing expectation of ACF that
EHS programs provide continuous, year-round services for enrolled
children, ACF is committed to prioritizing the flexibility of local
programs to determine the program schedule that best meets their
community needs, while still achieving the required 1,380 annual hours
of services for children.
Comment: Many commenters expressed concern that the 46-week minimum
would increase the difficulty in recruiting and retaining qualified
staff. Some commenters raised concerns that requiring teachers to work
across 46 weeks and give up their summer breaks could drive current
employees to seek positions with more favorable work-life balance and
result in increased turnover. Several commenters caution that the 46-
week minimum would further the gap in days per year between and Head
Start and Early Head Start programs, potentially impacting staff
morale. Others noted the increased cost associated with a 46-week
requirement.
Response: Our intent in this final rule is to support the Head
Start workforce and promote consistent quality programming. We
understand programs
[[Page 67769]]
continue to experience staffing challenges and know that programs must
be able to recruit and retain qualified staff to provide high-quality
services to children. While our expectation remains that EHS programs
provide continuous services, the proposed 46-week minimum is not
adopted in the final rule.
Comment: Several commenters suggested that the proposed changes
could lead to a decrease in program quality, and several argued that
not all children benefit from longer hours in a classroom setting.
Response: We disagree with the idea that a 46-week minimum would
lead to a decrease in program quality. 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.
Comment: Some commenters advocated for special provisions to adjust
EHS service duration to align with local school district schedules.
Others recommended adopting a structure like Head Start Preschool (HSP)
service duration, aligning with the HSP center-based service duration
requirement (1,020 hours across 8 months), or requiring 1,380 hours
over 10-11 months or 34-46 weeks.
Response: While we remove the proposed 46-week minimum, the final
rule maintains the current requirement that EHS center-based programs
provide 1,380 annual hours of planned class operations for all enrolled
children. Research suggests that continuity of care for infant and
toddlers is key to healthy growth, development, and learning outcomes.
Although we expect programs to provide continuous services, this final
rule affords programs the flexibility to develop their program
schedules in a manner that best meets community needs.
Comment: Some commenters stressed the importance of local autonomy
and being able to tailor programs to meet community needs, with
commenters requesting that ACF allow for waivers and exemptions under
certain conditions. Several commenters cautioned that adding additional
weeks to programs that are already at or above 1,380 hours would
substantially increase total service hours or force programs to shorten
days to extend the year which would negatively impact parent's ability
to work. Some commenters noted that some parents do not want their
child attending EHS for long hours or 5 days per week. Some noted that
a 46-week requirement would interfere with cultural activities in the
summer, such as those observed by Tribes.
Response: We retain flexibility for programs to decide which
program schedules best meet the diverse needs of families and
communities. Therefore, the proposed 46-week minimum is not adopted in
the final rule.
Comment: A few commenters supported the proposed change,
appreciating the clarification provided by the 46-week minimum and
reiterating the importance of providing year-round, continuous services
to infants and toddlers. However, a few in support of the changes
cautioned that this would come at an increased cost to programs.
Response: We agree with the commenters about the importance of
providing year-round, continuous services to infants and toddlers and
recognize that many programs are already providing these services
across 46 weeks or more. However, given the number of possible
unintended consequences raised, we remove the proposed 46-week minimum
in the final rule.
Center-Based Service Duration for Head Start Preschool (Sec. Sec.
1302.21; 1302.24)
Section 1302.21(c)(2) outlines requirements for service duration
for Head Start preschool center-based programs. This final rule does
not change the service duration policies for these programs, but
rather, makes six technical corrections to remove outdated regulatory
text and improve readability of these standards, including the removal
of outdated standards related to Secretarial determinations to lower
preschool service duration requirements that previously appeared at
Sec. 1302.21(c)(3) and (4). Relatedly, the standards previously at
Sec. 1302.21(c)(5) and (6) have been renumbered and are now Sec.
1302.21(c)(3) and (4) in the final rule.
Comment: We did not receive any public comments relevant to the
proposed technical changes to the standards for Head Start Preschool
duration. The only comments we received on this topic were not germane
to this final rule. For instance, a few commenters recommended a
reduction in Head Start Preschool service duration; a few advocated for
a four-day service week to allow staff time for planning and paperwork;
and a few advocated for flexibility for AIAN programs to better align
with the traditions, culture, and values of their communities.
Response: We do not make any changes in the final rule in response
to these comments, as they are not germane to the rule.
Ratios in Family Child Care Settings (Sec. 1302.23)
Section 1302.23 of this final rule adds clarifying language to the
previous standard on child ratio and group size requirements for
programs that operate a family child care option with enrolled Head
Start children. These language changes do not alter the substance of
the previous regulation but 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.
Section 1302.23(b)(2) clarifies maximum group size requirements for
family child care programs with one provider based on the ages of the
children in the group. To add clarity to this section, the final rule
adds two headers, ``Mixed Age with Preschoolers'' and ``Infants and
Toddlers Only.'' Under the header ``Mixed Age with Preschoolers'' the
final rule clarifies that when a mixed age group with one provider
includes preschoolers (e.g., children over the age of 36 months), the
maximum group sizer is six children. In addition, no more than two of
these six children can be under 24 months of age. Under the heading,
``Infants and Toddlers Only'' the final rule clarifies that when there
is a mixed-age group where all the children are under 36 months of age
and there is one family child care provider, the maximum group size is
four children.
In making these clarifying revisions, we note that the previous
standard in Sec. 1302.23(b)(2) allowed for an increased group size
when both a family child care provider and an assistant provider were
present. However, the role of ``family child care assistant provider''
was not defined and was not addressed in the staff qualifications and
competency requirements outlined in Sec. 1302.91(e)(5) for child and
family services staff. To address this, the final rule now refers to
two providers and removes a reference to ``assistant provider'' from
the final sentence of Sec. 1302.23(b)(4). In making these changes, the
final rule clarifies the expectation that all staff who may have
primary responsibility for children have the necessary training and
experience to ensure quality services are not interrupted.
Comment: Many commenters suggested that the second provider in a
family child care setting should be
[[Page 67770]]
allowed to be in the process of obtaining their CDA credential, rather
than having it from the start. They cited increased costs and potential
difficulty recruiting qualified providers as the primary reason for
this suggestion.
Response: We agree with the commenters and note that programs
already have this flexibility under Sec. 1302.91(e)(4)(i), which
allows them to hire family child care providers who are in the process
of achieving a Family Child Care CDA or state equivalent and plan to
earn one of these credentials. Once hired and providing services, these
family child care providers have 18 months (after they begin to provide
services) to earn the credential.
Comment: Some commenters expressed a concern that the proposed
changes will negatively impact partnerships with family child care
providers, particularly in rural areas, and could lead to a reduction
in the number of children and families served by Head Start programs.
Response: As previously noted, the final rule removes all previous
references to ``assistant providers'' in the standards, thereby
emphasizing that programs operating a family child care option must
ensure all staff who may have primary responsibility for children have
the necessary training and experience to ensure quality services. ACF
believes the HSPPS provide ample hiring flexibility for Head Start
programs with a family child care option so as to minimize recruitment
and/or retention issues that could impact partnerships with community
programs. Specifically, under Sec. 1302.91(e)(4)(i), programs may hire
family child care providers who are enrolled in a Family Child Care CDA
program or state equivalent prior to beginning service provision, and
who acquire the credential within eighteen months of beginning to
provide services.
While some commenters noted that they do not directly employ family
child care providers and therefore lack the authority to require such
changes in their community partners, we believe that partnerships offer
the opportunity to support programs to meet this standard without
causing undue burden. For example, programs operating the family child
care option through partnerships can use Head Start professional
development funds to support their community partners to hire and
retain individuals who are on a path to attaining the required
qualification. This access to professional and career development
opportunities, provided through the Head Start program, can act as an
additional incentive for family child care programs to enter into and
sustain partnerships. Ultimately, providing support to family child
care partners to help them meet the required qualifications has the
added benefit of increasing the supply of high-quality family child
care programs and providers in the community.
Preventing and Addressing Lead Exposure (Sec. 1302.47)
The prior HSPPS include a requirement at Sec. 1302.47(b)(1)(iii)
for all facilities where Head Start children are served to be free from
pollutants, hazards, and toxins that are accessible to children. The
final rule includes a requirement that Head Start programs take steps
to protect children from lead exposure and address any lead detected,
but leaves the specific approach to program discretion rather than the
more prescribed approach that was proposed in the NPRM.
The NPRM included a new section, Sec. 1302.48, with several
specific proposed requirements for programs to prevent and address lead
exposure in the water and paint of facilities that serve Head Start
children. In the requirements for water, ACF proposed that programs
must sample fixtures used for human consumption for lead hazards on an
annual basis, and take remediation actions to reduce lead in water to
below 5 parts per billion (ppb). In the requirements for paint, ACF
proposed that programs inspect for and address lead-based paint hazards
with a certified risk assessor and take steps to restrict access to
hazards and conduct abatement actions with a certified contractor.
While commenters agreed that children should not be exposed to lead
in water or paint, they also emphasized that the proposed regulations
were too prescriptive, costly, and would result in administrative
burden. ACF also recognizes that there is not uniformity in lead action
levels for water, and that related state and Federal requirements for
these prescribed levels may change over time. Therefore, in this final
rule, ACF does not retain the proposed Sec. 1302.48. Instead, ACF
includes a new simpler, more streamlined standard at Sec.
1302.47(b)(10) that addresses the critical need to keep young children
safe from exposure to lead, while being responsive to commenters'
concerns about the potential cost, burden, and prescriptiveness of the
proposed rule.
The final rule requires Head Start programs to develop a plan to
prevent children from being exposed to lead in the water or paint of
Head Start facilities. In Head Start facilities where lead may exist,
programs must implement ongoing practices to protect children from lead
exposure including testing and inspection at least every two years,
with support from trained professionals. HHS is not requiring that the
testing and inspection regarding lead in paint include a lead risk
assessment for all programs. If a risk assessment is done of a pre-1978
child-occupied facility, the person must be a certified risk assessor
and the firm for which the risk assessor works must be a certified risk
assessment firm.\60\ This revision ensures that programs establish an
appropriate schedule for testing for lead in water and paint based on
the age and other physical characteristics of the facility, since for
example, older facilities may have lead service lines, plumbing,
fixtures, or lead-based paint. This revised requirement also recognizes
that, for instance, in some newer facilities or in facilities where
water pipes have been fully replaced and a program can document the
water is free of lead contaminants, regular testing of water may not be
required at the same frequency as for an older facility. If lead
hazards are identified in either water or paint, programs must
implement appropriate remediation or abatement actions. ACF believes
the changes in this final rule balance the need to protect children
from exposure to lead while maintaining program flexibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ Independent of this rulemaking, HUD's regulations require
re-evaluations for HUD-assisted properties to be performed by a
certified risk assessor (24 CFR 35.1355(3)) and EPA's regulations
require certification of individuals and firms conducting lead-based
paint activities in pre-1978 child-occupied facilities (40 CFR part
745, especially subpart L (Lead-Based Paint Activities)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: Commenters were supportive of the intent of the proposed
requirements to address lead in water and paint. However, the majority
of commenters emphasized that the proposed requirements would be costly
to implement without financial support, were too prescriptive, and
would create significant administrative burden for programs. Commenters
noted that implementation would be more expensive in rural and remote
communities, with higher costs due to travel for certified testers, and
further noted confusion due to the different action level requirements
across states and the Federal Government. A few commenters also asked
for a longer implementation window so they could budget for testing and
remediation costs.
Response: In response to the significant concerns raised regarding
cost, burden, and different thresholds at the state and Federal level,
ACF does not include the proposed Sec. 1302.48 in
[[Page 67771]]
the final rule. Given that the lead level in water requiring
remediation action varies across states, ACF is mindful of not creating
a specific requirement in this space that may conflict with state or
Federal requirements. Instead, in this final rule, we add paragraph
(b)(10) to Sec. 1302.47, Safety practices, which outlines more
streamlined requirements for lead in water and paint prevention
practices. The final rule provides more flexibility for programs to
budget and to establish a plan and practices tailored to the age and
condition of their facilities to prevent children from being exposed to
lead in water and paint of Head Start facilities. The final rule also
provides facilities that can demonstrate children will not be exposed
to lead hazards, such as those that have replaced or were constructed
without lead-based plumbing or paint, or those using alternative water
sources, such as water bottles or coolers, the ability to tailor their
testing approaches and schedule appropriately, thereby mitigating costs
for testing, inspection, and remediation or abatement to prevent lead
exposure.
Comment: Commenters expressed mixed reactions regarding the
frequency of testing for lead proposed in the NPRM. Several commenters
supported and welcomed the flexibility proposed in the NPRM to test a
rotating proportion of water fixtures annually such that all fixtures
are tested at least once every five years. However, some noted that
some states have their own standards for testing for lead in water and
paint in child care facilities and schools. Other commenters emphasized
that requiring annual testing for lead in water as well as reassessment
every two years for lead-based paint hazards would be labor intensive
and create administrative burden for programs. Still other commenters
suggested that the testing frequency proposed for lead in paint was too
lenient.
Response: As noted previously, ACF does not include the proposed
Sec. 1302.48 in this final rule, and instead we add a new paragraph
(b)(10) to Sec. 1302.47. In facilities where lead may exist, this new
standard requires testing and inspection of lead in water and paint at
least every two years.
If a lead hazard is identified, remediation or abatement must be
conducted. For lead in water, programs are only required to test water
fixtures that are accessible or used by children enrolled in Head
Start, thus, providing allowances for programs to minimize their
testing frequency on a subset of fixtures at least every two years.
This standard provides flexibility for programs to develop a plan to
prevent children's exposure to lead in water or paint that better
aligns with the possible risks for lead exposure in their facilities.
The revised rule also provides allowances for programs that have
confirmed they do not have existing lead hazards in their facilities--
or that are taking alternative actions, such as the use of alternative
water sources--to minimize continued testing, inspection, remediation,
and abatement activities. This two year interval is aligned with the
two year re-evaluation interval for HUD-assisted properties, such as
child care facilities in common areas of multi-family housing, in the
Lead Safe Housing Rule at 24 CFR 35.1355(b)(4).
Comment: Several commenters noted that there are currently
considerable differences between state and Federal requirements for
identifying and taking action on lead in water, particularly that the
proposed requirements in the NPRM to take remediation action if lead
levels in water were above 5 ppb differed from the Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA) lead action level of 15 ppb, and that it
could be difficult to conduct remediation efforts for water fixtures to
achieve a lead level below 5 ppb, as water from faucets generally meet
the EPA's standard of 15 ppb. It was also noted that the proposed
requirements lacked specificity on the application of Dust-Lead hazard
Standards (DLHS) and Dust Lead Clearance Levels (DLCL) for lead in
paint.
Response: As described previously, ACF modifies the requirement in
the final rule to be less prescriptive including the removal of the 5
ppb lead action level in water, understanding that there are currently
differences in state and Federal requirements. Programs should
determine lead action levels in water for their facilities informed by
Federal and state requirements, guidance from state or local health
departments or community water systems, and TTA or guidance from ACF.
The final rule requires programs to work with trained professionals to
abate lead-based paint hazards as needed. These professionals are
equipped to enact EPA standards for DLHS and DLCL and subject to
applicable EPA and HUD requirements and regulations.
Comment: Several commenters recommended TTA for addressing and
preventing lead in water and paint. Specifically, commenters requested
assistance in creating partnerships for remediation efforts and
developing lead paint management plans. Commenters also noted there
should be training for staff to become certified testers. It was also
recommended that supports for finding certified testers and abatement
contractors especially in rural or more remote communities are
necessary.
Response: ACF will provide TTA and sub-regulatory guidance related
to implementation of the new standard following the publication of the
final rule. ACF will support programs as they develop a plan and, as
needed, implement practices to address identified lead in paint and
water of Head Start facilities.
Comment: A few commenters expressed concerns with continuing
program operations if lead in water or paint hazards are identified in
their facilities. Commenters identified that supports are needed for
minimizing interruptions of service if remediation or abatement is
required, and to define what restricting access entails.
Response: ACF will provide TTA and sub-regulatory guidance for
programs to minimize disruptions in program operations or interruptions
of service if a lead in water or paint hazard is identified in Head
Start facilities that requires remediation or abatement.
Comment: A few commenters expressed concerns that implementing the
proposed requirements for center-based programs located in schools will
be difficult to enforce due to specific school system policies,
variations in school facility size, and because some programs rent
their classroom space from the schools.
Response: ACF revises the final rule so that programs must develop
a plan to prevent children's exposure to lead in water and paint,
implement appropriate testing and inspection protocols, and, as needed,
remediate or abate identified hazards if they are accessible to Head
Start children. Programs are only required to test fixtures that are
used by the Head Start program. For example, if a Head Start program
operates in a school, the program must test fixtures in Head Start
classrooms as well as common areas used for the Head Start program.
However, the program is not required to test those classrooms that
serve older school-age children who are not enrolled in Head Start.
Comment: Some commenters asked for the use of bottled water as an
option for remediation and expressed that programs should be required
to test children following the identification of exposure to lead in
water or paint.
Response: The requirements in the final rule allow programs the
flexibility to develop a plan for preventing exposure to lead hazards
in water and paint, including any necessary remediation or abatement
efforts. A program could choose to permanently restrict access to
fixtures impacted by lead and implement the use of an alternative water
source, such as bottled water, if that is determined by the
[[Page 67772]]
program to best meet program needs. We do not include a new specific
requirement for programs to test children following exposure to lead in
water or paint. However, the existing standard at Sec. 1302.42(d)
already requires programs to facilitate testing, evaluation, treatment,
and follow-up as appropriate for children that may have a health
problem, including higher lead levels.
Section 1302.47(b)(10) is added to the final rule, requiring
programs to develop a plan to prevent children from being exposed to
lead in the water or paint of Head Start facilities. If lead may exist,
it also requires that programs implement ongoing practices of testing
and inspection, at least every two years with support from trained
professionals and, as needed, implement remediation or abatement to
prevent lead exposure.
Family Partnership Family Assignments (Sec. 1302.52)
Section 1302.52 outlines the requirements for family partnership
services, the foundational and central process by which Head Start
staff engage with each family of enrolled children. In this final rule,
we include new standards in Sec. 1302.52(d) for assigning staff to
work with families. This change is consistent with section 648A(c)(2)
of the Act, which explicitly provides ACF with the authority to review
and if necessary, revise, requirements related to family assignments,
and as suggested by research and best practice, will improve the
quality and effectiveness of staff providing services to families.
Based on the research on human services case management, PIR data,
feedback we received from programs, as well as support from public
comments on this proposed change in the NPRM, ACF believes there is a
strong need for clearer standards for management of family assignments.
This final rule retains the proposed requirement in the NPRM and
includes a maximum family assignment ratio of 40:1, with some
exceptions, to address the long-standing problem of excessive family
assignments for many staff who work with families. Family wellbeing is
the greatest predictor of school readiness, yet Head Start has been
without workload standards that promote quality services for parents
and families. This new rule establishes more manageable workloads and
sets staff up to better address family wellbeing, which includes family
health and mental health, finances, educational advancement,
employment, housing and food assistance, and other support services.
Specifically, we have retained the exception proposed in the NPRM,
with some modifications, to allow programs to demonstrate that they
have an alternative approach that affords high-quality with reasonable
workloads that exceed 40:1; and made that exception and the process for
getting that exception clearer by clarifying it is a waiver for
programs that can demonstrate they are meeting staff competency and
program outcomes requirements with a higher but reasonable staff
workload. We also added an exception in the final rule that allows a
program to temporarily exceed the 40:1 ratio to address operational
needs during periods of staff absence and attrition, changes in daily
operations related to start up or transitional activities, and
circumstances of emergency response and recovery. We are establishing
this new requirement to ensure more consistent, reasonable family
assignments for staff who work directly with families and believe this
change will improve staff wellness and the quality of services families
receive, while also allowing flexibility for programs to implement
assignments in ways that can work best for their families and program
design.
Comment: The majority of commenters who submitted comments on this
topic supported the idea of reducing family assignments to ensure high-
quality services and to allow for more focused and individualized
attention with families. Many agreed that a maximum family assignment
ratio of 40 families per staff is a positive step towards managing
healthy and realistic workloads, which are better for staff and can
lead to better outcomes for families and children. A few commenters
suggested that 40 is too high while others suggest that their programs
are already at or below the proposed limit of 40.
Response: We agree that lower family assignment ratios are ideal
for quality services and best for children, families, and staff. As was
proposed in the NPRM, we maintain the maximum family assignment number
at 40. We know from PIR data that more than half of Head Start programs
nationally are already at or below a family assignment ratio of 40
families per staff person. Comments were consistent with this data.
This final rule provides exceptions to meeting the 40:1 ratio, and
we made modifications to the NPRM language on these exceptions to
improve clarity and enhance program flexibility. First, we added a
waiver for programs that can demonstrate they are meeting staff
competency and program outcomes requirements with a higher but
reasonable staff workload. We also added a provision that allows
programs to temporarily exceed the 40:1 ratio to address certain
operational changes caused by, for example, emergencies and staffing
changes.
Comment: Some commenters sought clarification about how to
interpret and implement the family assignment ratio. A few comments
sought additional clarification on how it applies to part-time staff.
Some comments pointed to the need for a clearer definition of family
services staff and responsibilities in the proposal. For example, some
commenters reported that they use different terminology for staff roles
or define staff responsibilities differently, and as a result, they
were unsure about the meaning of ``family services'' in the NPRM. A few
comments raised questions about how OHS would monitor both the family
assignment maximum and the exception clause for programs that could
demonstrate how they meet quality and staff wellness requirements using
a different approach. A few comments suggested that the regulation
should instead establish a desired outcome and let the program
determine the approach.
Response: To alleviate confusion about to whom the 40:1 standard
applies, we remove the term ``family services'' from the NPRM and refer
more generally to ``family partnership services'' in the final rule. We
also clarify that this requirement refers to family, health, and
community engagement staff who work on family goal setting, adding
health staff since many staff who conduct the family partnership
process support health services as well. We recognize the challenges
caused by the pandemic, the operational challenges of running Head
Start programs, and the variation of program staffing structures, but
believe the goal of the multi-generation Head Start model requires
reasonable assignments for family partnership services staff to be able
to focus on family support services.
Some commenters asked how programs would demonstrate that they have
an alternative approach that affords high-quality while maintaining
reasonable workloads. We are including a waiver option to ensure
programs can work toward outcomes using innovative and alternative
approaches that work best for their staff, families, and communities.
ACF will issue additional guidance to grant recipients on the
waiver process. In addition, to ensure programs understand what we mean
by high
[[Page 67773]]
quality family and community engagement services in the NPRM, the final
rule includes references to two existing performance standards that
contribute to quality and that programs can use to demonstrate the
effectiveness of their alternative approaches. The requirement for
systemic staff training and professional development for child and
family services staff, when fully implemented, builds staff
competencies to improve child and family outcomes (Sec.
1302.92(b)(4)). Additionally, programs demonstrate quality when they
use the Parent, Family and Community Engagement Framework outcomes to
assess and provide services related to family strengths, interests, and
needs (Sec. 1302.52).
Comment: Commenters raised the most concerns about the financial
implications of implementing a lower family assignment ratio which,
they report, would necessitate additional staff and supervisory hires.
Some of these comments suggested that without additional funding,
programs may have to reduce the number of slots available to children
and families, and this is an unfavorable option.
Response: We acknowledge cost implication concerns from those
programs who have family assignment ratios above 40:1. We maintain the
long view that we need to move toward more consistent service quality
for families across all Head Start programs. However, as noted, in the
final rule we add a waiver for programs that can demonstrate manageable
workloads for staff along with staff competence and quality service
provision. We also add an exception whereby a program can temporarily
exceed the 40:1 ratio to address operational needs during periods of
staff absence and attrition, changes in daily operations related to
start up or transitional activities, and circumstances of emergency
response and recovery. In addition, we maintain, with modifications,
the NPRM-proposed flexibility through which programs can demonstrate
alternative approaches to quality. Further, we retain the three-year
time frame from the publish date of the final rule to give programs
time for planning and implementation.
Comment: A majority of comments highlighted a need for more
flexibility in determining and implementing family assignment ratios
for reasons that relate to program design, daily operations, staff
attrition, geography, and family and community needs. A few commenters
suggested that there are variations in responsibilities of staff beyond
case management and that some staff duties also include recruitment,
eligibility, enrollment, health-related tracking, classroom breaks for
teacher classroom substitutions, supervision of children, and
behavioral support in the classroom.
Response: We understand commenters' concerns and questions about
implementing this regulation and agree that programs need flexibility
in implementing and maintaining their family assignment processes and
procedures. As noted previously, we add a temporary exception in the
final rule to address operational needs during periods of staff absence
and attrition, changes in daily operations related to start up or
transitional activities, and circumstances of emergency response and
recovery. We also add the option of a waiver in the final rule,
maintaining that it allows flexibility for programs with other than a
40:1 approach to continue to be responsive to staff wellness and family
strengths and needs.
Comment: Some commenters identified a preference for a family
assignment range, with recommendations averaging somewhere between 40-
60. Some comments suggested that this would help with staff attrition
and hiring, workload considerations related to home visit travel time,
and models that include smaller caseloads for some staff assigned to do
more intensive work.
Response: We disagree with a 40-60 family assignment range and
believe that a maximum of 60 families for any one staff member does not
meet the goal of supporting staff wellness and high-quality family
engagement and family support services. Instead, we maintain the 40:1
family assignment ratio and both add and clarify exceptions that
support program flexibility in implementing this regulation. We believe
that these exceptions may address concerns related to attrition, family
assignment triage models, and workload factors, including those related
to rural and remote programming.
Participation in Quality Rating and Improvement Systems (Sec. 1302.53)
This final rule clarifies language on Head Start program
participation in State quality rating and improvement systems (QRIS).
Section 1302.53 establishes the conditions under which Head Start
programs should participate in State quality rating and improvement
systems. In the previous standard, with the exception of American
Indian and Alaska Native programs, each Head Start program must
participate in its State QRIS if three conditions are met: (1) its
State or local QRIS accepts Head Start monitoring data to document
quality indicators included in the State's tiered system; (2)
participation would not impact a program's ability to comply with the
HSPPS; and (3) the program has not provided ACF with a compelling
reason not to comply with this requirement.
This final rule reinforces the importance of quality improvements
and encourages Head Start programs to continue their participation
efforts, while clarifying that Head Start programs should participate
in QRIS to the extent practicable if the State system has strategies in
place to support their participation. The change also removes the three
qualifying conditions for non-participation in the State QRIS described
in the above paragraph, eliminating the documentation burden on
programs that cannot reasonably participate in the QRIS. 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. These changes are intended to reduce duplication of effort
and reduce burden on programs and allow Head Start programs to focus
their resources on activities that are most likely to support quality
services for children and families.
Comment: The public comments on the proposed change to QRIS
participation requirements indicate consensus that the proposed changes
are positive and alleviate unnecessary burden on Head Start programs.
Commenters appreciate the shift from mandatory to recommended
participation in QRIS, noting that the HSPPS often exceed State QRIS
requirements and that in some instances, efforts to participate in QRIS
can be duplicative and burdensome. They argued that the previous
requirement to participate in QRIS was redundant, sometimes stressful,
and created extra work for staff, without significantly benefiting Head
Start programs.
Response: As was proposed in the NPRM and retained in the final
rule in paragraph (b)(2), we remove the requirement that programs
participate in their State or local QRIS and instead clarify that they
should to the extent practicable. We eliminate the three conditions for
participation in the State QRIS as written in the current standards at
Sec. 1302.53(b)(2)(i) through (iii), and add ``to the extent
practicable, if a State or local QRIS has a strategy to support
[[Page 67774]]
Head Start participation without requiring programs to duplicate
existing documentation from Office of Head Start oversight.''
Comment: Some commenters noted participation in QRIS can better
integrate Head Start programs into the State's overall early care and
education system. They suggest the Head Start program, as a national
model for high-quality early learning, could leverage participation in
QRIS, along with other state systems collaboration efforts, to
influence state QRIS indicators to better address the needs of all
children, especially historically marginalized children and families.
Overall, the comments support the proposed changes to QRIS
participation, advocating for programs to participate in QRIS when
appropriate and with greater flexibility and reduced burden.
Response: We agree with commenters who support the changes, which
still encourage participation but allow for a more flexible approach
that recognizes the high standards of Head Start programs and reduces
the duplication of efforts.
Comment: Some commenters questioned the value of State QRIS in
general, arguing they include lower quality standards than Head Start
and that they are inconsistent across states. A few commenters also
noted that QRIS perpetuate racial inequities. Some of these commenters
also noted that Head Start programs may be in a position to positively
influence the State QRIS systems through their participation.
Response: OHS believes that where practicable, it benefits Head
Start Programs to participate in QRIS in order to more fully
participate in State early care and education systems and, in some
instances, to participate in larger state-led quality improvement
efforts.
Services to Enrolled Pregnant Women (Sec. Sec. 1302.80; 1302.82)
Section 1302.80 Enrolled Pregnant Women
This section specifies standards for services to enrolled pregnant
women and other pregnant people. We revise this section in the final
rule to clarify what topics program staff must discuss with parents at
the two-week newborn visit, to reinforce accountability in documenting
and tracking services enrolled pregnant women and other pregnant people
receive, and to require data be used to design services that are
culturally responsive and intended to prevent pregnancy-related deaths
and address disparities across racial and ethnic groups. Early Head
Start programs are critical in mitigating 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.
Comment: Several commenters expressed concern about the feasibility
of conducting newborn visits within two weeks of birth and requested
flexibility in scheduling and conducting those visits. Commenters
suggested allowing either a medical visit by a physician, a telephone
call, or a virtual visit within the first two weeks after birth to be
counted as a two-week newborn visit if parents are not yet ready to
receive staff for visits.
Response: To clarify, the requirement in paragraph (d) is that a
program schedule the newborn visit within two weeks after the infant's
birth; the standard proposed in the NPRM and retained in the final rule
does not require the program to conduct that visit within the first two
weeks. We do not propose any changes to this requirement. While we
understand the recommendation to allow a medical visit by a physician
to count as this newborn visit, we maintain the NPRM proposal to
require Head Start programs to conduct the visit and to cover specific
topics during this visit; allowing a different provider to conduct the
visit would mean a Head Start program has no control over the content
of that visit, and would not position the Head Start program to provide
follow-up supports.
Comment: Some commenters suggested we add ``safe sleep'' to the
list of topics we proposed to add to paragraph (d) to clarify what
program staff are required to discuss with parents at the two-week
newborn visit.
Response: We agree with commenters' suggestion. We add ``safe
sleep'' to the list of topics staff should discuss, at a minimum,
during the newborn visit.
Comment: Many commenters agreed with requirements to enhance
pregnancy services and to reduce the impact systemic racism has on
maternal health outcomes for the Black and AIAN women and other
individuals and families that Head Start programs serve. A few
commenters were concerned about costs associated with requiring
programs to collect data on enrolled pregnant women and other pregnant
people. A few commenters asked for more clarity on how to collect and
use data to inform services and address disparities across racial and
ethnic groups.
Response: We agree with commenters regarding the importance of
reducing the impacts of systemic racism on outcomes for Black, AIAN,
and other pregnant women and other pregnant people programs serve. We
maintain this requirement in the final rule and require programs to do
their part to reduce disparities in maternal outcomes across racial and
ethnic groups.
We encourage programs to refer to Information Memorandum ACF-IM-HS-
22-02, ``Documenting Services to Enrolled Pregnant Women'', where we
clarify how programs can improve their data collection efforts and use
the data they collect on enrolled pregnant women and other pregnant
people to inform services, leveraging existing resources to limit
additional administrative costs. We also encourage programs to continue
to work with their regional offices if they require additional support
in meeting this standard.
Section 1302.82 Family Partnership Services for Enrolled Pregnant Women
This section requires programs to engage in the family partnership
services process described in Sec. 1302.52 for enrolled pregnant women
and other pregnant people with a specific focus on their prenatal and
postpartum needs. In the previous program standards, programs were not
required to use any specific curriculum when engaging with pregnant
women and other pregnant people in the family partnership services, nor
were there requirements for the type of curriculum if one was used. We
revise paragraph (a) in this section by adding language to clarify that
if a program chooses to use a curriculum with pregnant women and other
pregnant people, they should select a curriculum that focuses on
maternal and child health.
Comment: Some commenters recommended that programs serving pregnant
women and other pregnant people use evidence-informed curricula, with a
focus on maternal and infant health. A few other commenters suggested
curricula that consider the unique cultural needs of diverse ethnic and
racial groups.
Response: We acknowledge commenters' suggestions, however, in the
final rule, we maintain the changes to paragraph (a) as proposed in the
NPRM and decline to make further changes to this paragraph. We believe
the revisions to paragraph (a) as proposed in the NPRM (described
above) allow programs that use a curriculum in the provision of
services to pregnant women the autonomy to decide which maternal health
curriculum is right for the families they serve. We encourage programs
that provide services to pregnant women and other pregnant people to
use a maternal
[[Page 67775]]
health curriculum that is culturally relevant and based on the best
available research to help guide maternity care decisions.
Comment: Several commenters expressed concerns about the costs
associated with developing curricula.
Response: ACF reminds programs that using a curriculum with
pregnant women and other pregnant people is optional. The intent of the
revision to this standard is to clarify that if a program does choose
to use a curriculum, that it should be one that is appropriate for this
service population. The Early Childhood Learning and Knowledge Center
(ECLKC) provides some information on curricula, including some that are
appropriate for use during the prenatal period. Following publication
of the final rule, ACF will provide TA as needed to programs on the
selection of appropriate curricula for this population.
Facilities (Sec. Sec. 1303.42; 1303.43; 1303.44; 1303.45)
Part 1303, subpart E (Facilities), implements the statutory
requirements related to facilities in section 644(c), (f), and (g) of
the Act. It organizes requirements for grant recipients when they apply
to use Head Start funds to purchase, construct or make major
renovations to facilities, as well as outlines all relevant information
and requirements for protecting the Federal interest under a broad
variety of circumstances and aligns all provisions with the Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements
for Federal Awards. In the final rule, ACF makes clarifying changes to
several requirements related to facilities, including to the
definitions of major renovation, Federal interest, and purchase, which
are discussed in a later section. Additionally, in response to comments
that the part 1303 process is burdensome for grant recipients, ACF
makes other clarifying changes to facility regulation and processes in
addition to what was proposed in the NPRM to be responsive to those
comments and to reduce burden.
In general, most commenters agreed with the facilities proposals
included in the NPRM, noting that they help to improve understanding of
confusing areas. Overall, while there was support for the
clarifications and revisions to the definition of the terms major
renovation, Federal interest, and purchase, and to facilities
valuation, under Sec. 1303.44(a)(7), there was a desire for further
guidance to ensure that Head Start programs can continue to provide
safe and supportive environments for children without undue financial
or administrative burdens. We discuss comments and our responses to
changes to subpart E in more detail below.
Comment: One commenter asked ACF to consider the different types of
facility-use agreements programs may be using--whether the recipient
owns their facility, rents their facility, shares their space with
another program, or receives in-kind space within a school building,
among others--and how this might impact the application of the major
renovation definition.
Response: ACF acknowledges this request for clarification and would
like to point to existing relevant regulations on how to navigate
variations in facility-use agreements. Per Sec. 1303.44(a)(2),
recipients are required to provide the deed or other document showing
legal ownership of real property, a legal description of facility site,
and an explanation of why the location is appropriate for the service
area. And per Sec. 1303.45(a)(2)(i) through (iv), recipients are
required to identify who owns the property, develop a cost comparison
relevant to the particular facility-use agreement to list all costs,
identify costs over the structure's useful life, and demonstrate how
the proposed purchase is consistent with goals, community needs,
enrollment, and program options, and how it will support quality
services to children and families. For leased properties, recipients
are required to provide a copy of existing or proposed lease agreement,
and the landlord or lessor's consent (Sec. 1303.44(b)(1)). For a
modular unit to be sited on leased property or on property not owned by
a recipient, recipients are required to provide a copy of the proposed
lease or other occupancy agreement giving grantee access to modular
unit for at least 15 years (Sec. 1303.44(b)(2)).
Comment: Some commenters raised concerns and requested
clarification with respect to the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts (DBRA)
and its application to Head Start facility projects. Specifically,
commenters are concerned that the provisions in the DBRA are a barrier
for programs when it pertains to (1) locating qualified vendors to
perform repairs and routine maintenance, due to the high labor cost
that may be associated with DBRA compliance, and (2) the reporting and
paperwork requirements imposed by the DBRA, which are seen as
deterrents to timely and cost-effective repairs, especially in rural
and suburban areas. These commenters argue that an exemption from the
DBRA would provide recipients with large cost savings which could be
used to support their staff. Some commenters request that OHS align its
guidance with the Head Start Act and exempt DBRA compliance for minor
renovations and repairs necessitated by normal wear and tear. They
argue that the DBRA should only apply to construction and major
renovations, which they believe is consistent with other funding
sources, such as the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
A few comments specifically request that OHS address potential
conflicting guidance on the application of the DBRA including in the
Facilities Guidance Attachment A to ACF-IM-HS-17-01.
Response: ACF understands the concerns and clarification requested
with respect to the DBRA. The application of the DBRA on Head Start
facilities is statutory and ACF cannot make exemptions from its
coverage through the rulemaking process. In addition, routine
maintenance is generally not subject to DBRA requirements. See, e.g.,
29 CFR 5.2 (``The term ``building or work'' generally includes
construction activities of all types, as distinguished from
manufacturing, furnishing of materials, or servicing and maintenance
work.'').
Comment: A few commenters shared concerns that the part 1303
facility grant process is slow and burdensome, with calls for
streamlining approval processes and increasing flexibility. These
comments share frustration in a long application and approval process
that can cost programs time, effort, stress, and large expense. In sum,
these commenters feel the proposed changes, or lack thereof, to the
part 1303 application process, fall short in addressing the market
realities and barriers facing recipients pursuing facility
applications.
Response: ACF agrees with commenters' concerns regarding a part
1303 facility application process. As such, ACF makes changes
throughout subpart E in this final rule to improve the facility
application development and approval process:
In Sec. 1303.42, ACF strikes Sec. 1303.42(b) so that
recipients are no longer required to have a written statement from an
independent real estate professional to satisfy the requirement under
Sec. 1303.42(a)(1)(iii). This will give recipients the flexibility to
demonstrate the lack of suitable facilities in the grantee's service
area in a way that is less time-intensive and/or resource-intensive.
In Sec. 1303.43, we clarify the requirement related to
the use of grant funds to pay fees for the application to determine
preliminary eligibility. In the prior performance standards, grant
recipients could submit a written request to the responsible HHS
official
[[Page 67776]]
for reasonable fees and costs to determine preliminary eligibility, and
if that request was approved, the grant recipient could use Federal
funds to pay those fees and costs. However, there was a lack of clarity
about whether the funds used for the application to determine
preliminary eligibility could be disallowed if the application was
ultimately disapproved. The final rule makes clear that if recipients
seek to use Federal funds for reasonable fees and costs associated with
preliminary eligibility and the application to purchase, construct, and
renovate a facility, they must receive approval from the HHS official.
Once approval is granted to use Federal funds for these purposes, the
funds are allowable regardless of the outcome of the application under
Sec. 1303.42 or Sec. 1303.44.
In Sec. 1303.44(a)(3), we clarify that when referencing
parking in the plans and specifications for the facility, it is whether
there is space available for parking, if applicable, understanding that
parking may not be relevant in all cases.
In Sec. 1303.44, we remove in paragraph (a)(7) the phrase
``cost'' as a description of ``value'' (``cost value''). In the
previous performance standards, a licensed independent certified
appraiser must estimate the facility's ``fair market value'' when the
purchase and associated repairs, construction, and renovation is
completed. In the NPRM, we proposed to remove ``fair market.'' In this
final rule, we remove ``cost'' and ``fair market'' in recognition that
there are multiple types of values and using ``cost'' could still lead
to confusion. We also clarify in paragraph (a)(7) that the estimate
from the appraiser can be done either on-site or virtually. ACF
understands from recipients that finding an appraiser to come in-person
can be challenging, particularly in rural areas. This clarification
helps to ensure that all recipients know they have the flexibility to
identify an appraiser and provide any necessary plans, specifications,
or proposals via email.
In Sec. 1303.44(a)(14), we revise the requirement to
establish clearer parameters around the additional information the
responsible HHS official could request as part of the part 1303
process. The previous program standards state that it could be anything
the HHS official may require; the final rule stipulates that it must be
what the official ``needs to determine compliance with regulations.''
In Sec. 1303.45(a)(2)(iii), we strike ``balloon'' in
reference to mortgage payments because this is outdated language. ACF
no longer considers balloon mortgages given the level of risk
associated with them.
Comment: A few commenters raised that investing in facilities is
needed to ensure safe and supportive environments for children to
thrive and learn. These commenters express that some facilities are
inadequate and emphasize the need for additional funding to modernize
and safely maintain Head Start buildings, classrooms, and outdoor
spaces. These commenters request OHS to provide extra financial support
for facility projects.
Response: ACF agrees with commenters that investing in facilities
is critically important to ensure high-quality environments for
children, families, and staff. ACF reminds commenters that the Head
Start program does not receive a separate appropriation for facilities
and increasing funding for facilities is not within our authority. ACF
reminds recipients that they can request one-time funding to address
facility needs.
Comment: A few commenters express the importance of the physical
learning environment and the role it plays in the development and
health of children and the mental health of staff. In sum, these
commenters made recommendations for additional facility requirements,
such as ones to address the adverse impact of indoor pollutants,
providing ample natural light and maximizing air flow, to enhance
accessibility for all children, families, and staff, and ensure that
every Head Start child will learn and thrive in a safe and
developmentally appropriate learning environment.
Response: ACF acknowledges these recommendations but is not adding
these requirements at this time.
Definition of Income (Sec. 1305.2)
The definition for ``income'' in the prior HSPPS listed several
types of income sources that could be included in the calculation of
gross income and referenced additional possible sources in a lengthy
document from the Census Bureau published in 1992. This definition has
caused confusion regarding what should be included in income
calculations for Head Start eligibility determination purposes. In this
final rule, we update the definition of income and make it clearer and
less burdensome to implement. We maintain the changes for this
definition as proposed in the NPRM, with additional changes for further
clarity. These changes are intended to ensure programs can more easily
identify and calculate an applicant's income.
To that end, in this final rule, we revise the definition of income
as gross income that only includes wages, business income, unemployment
compensation, 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). This revised definition
includes the following changes from the prior standards' definition of
income: removes ``cash'' from ``gross cash income''; replaces ``earned
income'' with the more specific terms ``wages'' and ``business
income''; adds ``gifts that exceed the threshold for taxable income''
as a possible source of income; and clarifies that income does not
include refundable tax credits or any forms of public assistance.
As a further change from the NPRM proposal, the definition of gross
income in the final rule no longer includes Social Security benefits,
veterans' benefits, or alimony. The rationale for these additional
changes is described further below.
Comment: The comments we received on the revised definition of
income were generally supportive, but there were requests for changes
and clarification. Several commenters appreciated the clearer
definition of income, including the provision of a finite list of
sources of income for income verification purposes, the exclusion of
public assistance and tax credits as a source of income, and the
removal of the citation to the external document which has caused
confusion.
Response: We agree with commenters that this streamlined definition
of income provides more clarity for programs. We therefore maintain
this definition in the final rule with a few additional changes, as
previously summarized.
Comment: Several commenters requested that specific forms of
income, specifically alimony, veterans' benefits, and Social Security
benefits, be excluded from the definition of income. These commenters
also expressed concern that many low-income parents do not receive
their alimony payments; veterans are already facing other adverse
challenges, including disabilities; and inclusion of Social Security
would negatively impact grandparents who are raising grandchildren.
Response: ACF acknowledges and agrees with the concerns shared by
commenters on the inclusion of these specific sources in the
calculation of gross income. More specifically, ACF
[[Page 67777]]
recognizes that alimony payments may be inconsistent among low-income
families, and therefore not a reliable source of income. ACF also
recognizes that veterans' benefits typically refer to disability
payments for veterans who are unable to work. Finally, ACF agrees that
consideration of Social Security benefits as part of income for Head
Start eligibility determinations could adversely impact the eligibility
of grandchildren being raised by their grandparents, and who otherwise
are living just above poverty. Therefore, in this final rule, the
definition of gross income is revised so that Social Security benefits,
veteran's benefits, and alimony are no longer part of this definition
for eligibility determination purposes.
Comment: A few commenters made suggestions or requests for clarity
on the inclusion of other sources of income such as child support
payments, stipends, and tuition reimbursement.
Response: ACF acknowledges the request for clarity on the inclusion
of other sources of income such as child support payments, stipends,
and tuition reimbursement. Child support payments are not included in
the revised definition of income in this final rule. Further, payments
made to directly cover tuition or related school fees are not
considered income because the student does not receive the payment.
However, stipends would be considered earned income.
Comment: Although not related to the proposed policy on income
definition, several commenters requested categorical eligibility for
certain groups, including AIAN families and those receiving the Special
Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC)
and Medicaid.
Response: Regarding categorical eligibility for AIAN children and
families, ACF revises language in the final rule to conform to language
in the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024 (Pub. L. 118-47),
which includes a provision that allows Tribes to consider all children
in a Tribal Head Start program's service area to be eligible for
services regardless of income. The provision emphasizes that Tribes
have the discretion to determine and use selection criteria to enroll
those children who would benefit from the program, including children
and families for which a child, a family member, or a member of the
same household, is a member of an Indian Tribe. We acknowledge
commenters' requests for categorical eligibility for other groups;
however, as eligibility categories are largely determined by Head Start
statute, we do not incorporate these additional suggestions in the
final rule.
Definitions of Major Renovation, Federal Interest, and Purchase (Sec.
1305.2)
Major Renovation
The final rule makes changes to the definition of major renovation
from the previous performance standards. In addition to correcting a
typo, the definition in the final rule clarifies aspects of the
definition that have led to confusion and inconsistencies since the
2016 revision of the HSPPS. We maintain aspects of the NPRM proposal
regarding this definition as well as make further modifications. We
discuss these changes in more detail, as well as the comments and our
responses below.
Comment: The majority of comments on the proposed changes regarding
the definition of major renovation conveyed support for the revisions
and clarifications provided. Commenters appreciated the efforts to
improve understanding of what constitutes a major renovation and the
technical fixes that align with existing practices. Many commenters
believed the changes directly address confusion regarding the
definitions of minor renovations and repairs by clearly excluding such
activities from the definition, except when the activities are included
in a purchase application. Commenters also shared that the changes add
the level of detail needed to assure that facility projects are not
broken up into arbitrary components to avoid a part 1303 application,
while also clarifying that unrelated minor repairs, that exceed the
major renovations cost threshold, can be submitted into the same
application, and will not trigger the need for a part 1303 application.
Response: We acknowledge commenters' reactions that the changes to
the definition of major renovation address confusion and provide the
necessary detail to support the part 1303 process. In the final rule,
we maintain key aspects of the definition proposed in the NPRM as well
as make modifications designed to further clarify. In addition to
correcting a typo, these changes clarify what a ``collective group of
renovations'' means, increases the threshold for a major renovation
from $250,000 to $350,000, and allows Tribes that jointly apply to use
both Tribal Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) and Head Start funds
toward major renovations to comply with the CCDF threshold for major
renovation if it is higher.
Comment: Some commenters highlighted ambiguity around the term
``consecutively,'' with respect to ``collective renovation
activities,'' and requested that OHS define a clear timeframe in
between renovation activities that would trigger a major renovation
definition. These commenters raised the fact that some Head Start
programs are in old buildings in need of many repairs that may require
multiple renovation projects over time due to the extent of need, cost
limitations, and the administrative burden facility projects can
impose.
Response: While ACF recognizes that the updated definition of major
renovations does not define an explicit time frame for ``collective
renovation activities,'' ACF is opting not to prescribe a timeframe
with respect to this type of major renovation. ACF clarifies for
commenters that for collective renovation activities to equate to a
major renovation, the project activities must be intended to occur
concurrently or consecutively, or altogether address a specific part or
feature of a facility, at the onset of the application development.
Comment: A few commenters suggested raising the threshold for what
constitutes a major renovation to reflect the true costs and to
facilitate timely and efficient facility repairs.
Response: As noted, ACF agrees with commenters and raises the
threshold to $350,000 to better reflect considerations for increased
costs of major renovation facility projects. Additionally, to maintain
alignment with the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the major
renovation threshold will increase if there are increases made to the
simplified acquisition threshold beyond $350,000. In other words, if
the NDAA increases the simplified acquisition threshold above $350,000
in a given year, the threshold for a major renovation will increase to
remain aligned with that increase to the simplified acquisition
threshold. Lastly, for Tribes applying jointly to use both CCDF funds
and Head Start funds toward a major renovation, they can comply with
the CCDF threshold for major renovation if it is higher.
Federal Interest
The final rule retains the definition of Federal interest, as
proposed in the NPRM. The revised definition provides technical fixes
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,
[[Page 67778]]
construction and major renovations under part 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 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.
The majority of public comments supported the proposed changes to
the definition of Federal interest, and believed they promote
consistent interpretations and clarify that the Federal share, and
resulting Federal interest, relate only to the percentage of OHS's
participation in the cost of a facility. We retain the NPRM proposal
but address some comments related to this topic below.
Comment: A few comments call for more clarity on the expiration of
the Federal interest.
Response: ACF clarifies for commenters that Federal interest does
not expire, rather, Federal interest can only be released by the
Federal Awarding Agency and in written permission by the responsible
Federal official (in this case, HHS). Federal interest cannot be
subordinated, diminished, or nullified through the encumbrance of the
property, transfer of the property to another party, or any other such
action taken by the recipient. A Federal interest cannot be defeated by
a recipient's failure to file a required notice of Federal interest
(Sec. 1303.46(a)) and 45 CFR 75.318(c).
Comment: One commenter believed the definition of Federal interest
exceeds statutory authority and is inconsistent with the Uniform
Guidance. This comment also raised concern that this change could
potentially result in improper augmentation of ACF's appropriation, and
ultimately, recommended deleting the definition of Federal interest in
the HSPPS and deferring to the definition in the Uniform Guidance.
Response: ACF disagrees with the commenter. While the definition of
Federal interest differs from the Uniform Guidance, that difference is
related to the non-Federal match, which Congress requires of grant
recipients in the Act. The definition of Federal interest is not adding
anything new to the regulations since Sec. 1303.44(c) states that
``any non-federal match associated with facilities activities becomes
part of the federal share of the facility.'' Lastly, we do not think
the non-Federal match is an improper augmentation of appropriations
since Congress required it.
Comment: Additionally, one commenter suggested striking the section
of the definition regarding a match requirement, citing concerns that
if an agency is successful in raising private funding for building or
renovating a facility, and then wishes to utilize a significant private
investment for a matching requirement, it seems unreasonable and unwise
to require Federal interest in the building, as it may become a
disincentive for partnership and investment.
Response: Protection of Federal interest is required by 45 CFR
75.323. The Federal interest includes total project costs paid with
Federal funds, those amounts awarded directly from the OHS grant, and
amounts claimed by the recipient as cost sharing or matching for the
project. ACF does not have the authority to strike this requirement.
Purchase
In this final rule, ACF retains the technical fix to the definition
of purchase, as proposed in the NPRM. A ``capital lease agreement'' is
updated to a ``finance lease agreement,'' in alignment with the
Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), Accounting Standards
Update No. 2016-2, Lease topic 842. The term is updated so that the
definition aligns with the standard accounting standard. ACF did not
receive any comments on this proposal.
Definition of the Poverty Line (Sec. 1305.2)
This final rule establishes a definition for the term poverty line
in regulation, which codifies the working definition for poverty line
in alignment with the Head Start Act and reflective of the way it has
been used by the Office of Head Start. This final rule does not change
the definition of poverty line as it applies to Head Start eligibility.
Comment: Many of the public comments we received on the definition
of the poverty line were in relation to the concern that the current
Federal poverty guidelines are too low, making it difficult for
families to qualify for the program. Commenters suggested that the
guidelines have not kept pace with the cost of living, particularly in
states with higher minimum wages or high costs of living, such as
California and Colorado. This discrepancy is seen as a barrier to
enrollment and a hindrance to the program's ability to serve children
and families in need.
Many commenters advocated for increasing the poverty guidelines,
such as to 130 or 200% of the Federal poverty level to align with other
social service programs and to reflect the true cost of living. They
argued that this would simplify the eligibility determination process,
reduce administrative burdens, and allow more families to access Head
Start services. A few commenters suggested that the program should
consider using a percentage of the local median household income
instead of the Federal poverty level to determine eligibility.
Response: The inclusion of a definition for poverty line in this
final rule is only intended to codify the working definition for
poverty line used by the Office of Head Start, 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 Head Start income eligibility and
align with requirements and existing definition of the poverty line in
the Head Start Act set by Congress. Changes to the poverty line as
requested cannot be considered and, therefore, no changes are made in
response to these public comments.
Removal of Outdated Sections
The previous HSPPS contained regulatory language associated with
the last overhaul of the standards, published through a final rule in
2016. We removed two sections of the standards that referred to the
implementation timeline of those changes, which has since passed and
therefore these sections are no longer relevant. The first section we
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 Section 641A(a)(2) of the Act
We sought extensive input in the process of developing this final
rule. 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
[[Page 67779]]
challenging aspects of Head Start policy and programmatic requirements
for grant recipients. We also sought their feedback on policies we were
considering both for the development of the NPRM and the final rule. We
intentionally consulted with OHS staff who oversee MSHS and AIAN 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.
In addition, in consultation with our OHS TTA 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 Head Start requirements. 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 National Academy of Science reports on the
workforce. Taken together, our consultation with all these groups and
sources provided us with relevant data points and advice on how to
promote quality across all Head Start settings.
Furthermore, since the last revision of the HSPPS 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. We also regularly hear from
Tribal leaders at OHS's annual Tribal consultations. These touchpoints
allow OHS the opportunity to gain critical on-the-ground understanding
of areas where the standards are confusing and could be made clearer.
We also fielded a survey of grant recipients in November 2022 which
provided real time information on workforce challenges programs were
experiencing.
Lastly, ACF asserts that the revisions to the HSPPS promulgated
through this final rule 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 required to be
provided under the standards that were in effect when the Head Start
Act was last reauthorized in 2007.
VII. Regulatory Process Matters
We have examined the impacts of the final 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 the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
(OIRA) in each case. This final rule is a significant rule and the
Regulatory Impact Analysis for this final rule identifies economic
impacts that exceed the threshold for significance under section
3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866.
Congressional Review Act
Pursuant to subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (also known as the Congressional Review Act), OIRA
in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this
action meets the criteria set forth in 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
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 final rule will result in
increased expenditures by Head Start programs that exceed HHS's default
threshold, we have determined that the final rule will have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
We have aimed to minimize this impact to some small entities by
providing additional flexibility for the new wages and benefits
policies for Head Start agencies with 200 or fewer funded slots.
Specifically, small agencies with 200 or fewer funded slots must have a
wage or salary scale and must demonstrate measurable progress over time
in improving wages, but they are not required to meet other wage and
benefit requirements that apply to larger programs.
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 $183 million, using the most current (2023) Implicit
Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic Product. This final rule will not
likely result in unfunded mandates that meet or exceed this amount.
Head Start grant recipients receive over $12 billion annually in
Federal funding to implement the requirements of the program, including
policy changes as a result of this final rule.
Federalism Assessment Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132 requires Federal agencies to consult with
State and local government officials if they develop regulatory
policies with federalism implications. Federalism is rooted in the
belief that issues that are not national in scope or significance are
most appropriately addressed by the level of government close to the
people. This final rule will not have substantial
[[Page 67780]]
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 final 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 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 final rule establishes new recordkeeping requirements under
the PRA. Under this final rule, 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 included in the final rule may result in
changes to existing information collections approved under the PRA,
including the information collection for the existing Head Start
Program Performance Standards (HSPPS), the Program Information Report
(PIR), applicable collections in the Head Start Enterprise Systems
(HSES), and other information collections.
The HSPPS are covered already by an existing OMB control number
0970-0148. This OMB control number already covers burden associated
with updating personnel policies and documenting eligibility. The below
table outlines the burden of complying with the standards in this final
rule. 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 (grant, program, family, or
enrollee level). In 2023, there were about 1,900 grants providing Head
Start services across 2,900 Head Start, Early Head Start, AIAN, and
MSHS programs.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21AU24.000
[[Page 67781]]
VIII. Regulatory Impact Analysis
Comment and Response
Here we summarize and respond to comments we received on the
Regulatory Impact Analysis in the NPRM. Subsequent sections provide a
revised Regulatory Impact Analysis for this final rule.
Comment: Comments indicated that the Regulatory Impact Analysis of
the NPRM underestimated the fiscal implications, economic realities,
and staff shortages faced by programs and communities.
Response: The Regulatory Impact Analysis in the NPRM used the most
recent internal and public data, including the PIR, funded and actual
Head Start enrollment, Head Start program budgets, the Consumer Price
Index, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics to provide the best estimates
for existing Head Start wages and benefits, wage targets, inflation,
and projected costs and appropriations. We acknowledge the uncertainty
in future costs and economic situations and the assumptions made,
including the rate of inflation and increases in appropriations, all of
which are necessary to project future impacts. We recognize that our
estimates represent national level estimations, while some programs or
some communities may be more or less affected by the implementation of
the policies in the final rule based on numerous factors including
population, the labor market, the availability of early care and
education programs, and other considerations. We use the same approach
in the final rule's Regulatory Impact Analysis as we did in the NPRM,
with updated figures to reflect the most recent information and new
timeline.
Comment: Commenters noted that ACF assumed a 2.3% annual increase
to Head Start appropriations over time in the Regulatory Impact
Analysis, yet inflation has been much higher in recent years.
Response: For purposes of this Regulatory Impact Analysis, and as
used in the preliminary analysis performed for the proposed rule, ACF
adopts 2.3% for the annual rate of inflation for each year in the time
horizon, matching an economic assumption in the President's Budget for
Fiscal Year 2024. We also assume an annual increase to Head Start
appropriations to fully keep pace with inflation, which is therefore
assumed to be 2.3% in our estimates. However, this should not be
understood to suggest that the actual increase in annual appropriations
will be 2.3%. The actual COLA needed to keep pace with inflation (and
thus to yield the results in the Regulatory Impact Analysis for this
final rule) will depend on actual rates of inflation in a given year.
In response to public comments, the Regulatory Impact Analysis uses a
higher appropriations growth rate for Fiscal Years 2024 and 2025 than
in later years in the time horizon. For FY 2025, we have used the
economic assumptions used in the FY2025 President's Budget to estimate
inflation, as well as assumed increase in appropriations to keep pace
with inflation. We continue to use the standard economic assumption of
2.3% for inflation and the assumed increase in annual appropriations,
for all fiscal years beyond 2025.
Comment: Commenters highlighted a discrepancy within the NPRM as to
whether or not the proposed rule would mandate aggregate expenditures
of more than $177 million by State, local, and Tribal governments.
Response: This was a typographic error in the NPRM. The final rule
clarifies that the revised policies do not mandate aggregate
expenditures of more than $177 million by State, local, and Tribal
governments. The expenditures required under the rule are a condition
of accepting Federal funds and do not constitute a mandated expenditure
for State, local, and Tribal governments.
Comment: Commenters indicated that our NPRM cost estimates
underestimated true costs because we included projected slot
enrollments and did not account for any population growth adjustment to
the number of program slots and staff needed to maintain the relative
status quo, and that we assumed the number of funded slots would remain
the same through 2030.
Response: Congressional investment designated for expansion would
be required for additional Head Start slots to be made available in
order to maintain the relative status quo in cases of population growth
as described by commentors. For the purposes of this Regulatory Impact
Analysis, we do not assume any additional congressional appropriations
beyond those to keep pace with inflation in our estimates. ACF notes in
the Discussion of Uncertainty section of the Regulatory Impact Analysis
that the cost estimates presented in this final rule would be
underestimated if Congress were to appropriate additional funds for
expansion.
Introduction and Summary
A. Introduction
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.We conducted an initial Regulatory
Impact Analysis in the NPRM to estimate and describe the expected
costs, transfers, and benefits resulting from the proposed rule. This
included evaluating polices in the major areas of policy change: staff
wages and benefits; staff breaks; family partnership family
assignments; mental health benefits; and lead testing. Based on
feedback received during the public comment period, and resulting
changes to the policies in this final rule, we have further refined
these estimates for the final rule.
B. Summary of Benefits, Costs, and Transfers
The most likely impacts of these provisions depend, in large part,
on funds available to Head Start programs; for example, the standards
to increase remuneration per teacher will 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.\61\
Some of the past increase in appropriations were 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 final rule. In such a
case, the regulation's effects manifest themselves as expenditures by
taxpayers.\62\ 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 rule, then rule-induced spending will instead be shifted within
Head Start.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ If future Head Start appropriations designated for
expansion grow at similar rates--for reasons that are independent of
this rule--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.
\62\ 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 (i.e., funded
[[Page 67782]]
enrollment). Historically there has been little difference between
funded enrollment and actual enrollment,\63\ which represents the
number of children who are actually enrolled in 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ 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 will manifest
themselves as enrollment reductions is especially challenging.
Historically, Congress has invested in Head Start, especially to
improve access to quality program services and the final rule includes
a seven-year phase in period for wage increases to allow for increases
in appropriations. 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, ACF
believes, and research supports,\64\ that programs have long stretched
their funding as far as is possible and are unlikely to have many
optional activities available to drop.\65\ Moreover, the difference
between funded and actual enrollment also generates uncertainty
regarding the magnitude of regulatory effects; for example, if Head
Start entities reallocate 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 rule-required salaries or fringe benefits, or
changes in working conditions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ Workman (2018). Where does your child care dollar go?
Center for American Progress. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/child-care-dollar-go/ Neelan, T.S., and Caronongan, P.
(2022). Measuring costs to support quality in early care and
education centers. OPRE Early Childhood Research Brief 2022-20.
ichq-measuring-costs-jan-2022.pdf (hhs.gov).
\65\ Even if this were the case, ACF 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 HSPPS, and could not be dropped from program
offerings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similar to the approach taken in the NPRM but updated to reflect
newly available data, ACF estimates all effects based on the projected
FY2024 funded enrollment of 750,000, which is the estimated highest
enrollment level, funded or actual, possible absent additional
appropriations specifically designated for expansion. This is slightly
less than the projected funded enrollment for FY2023 used in the NPRM
of 755,074, which reflects programs' changes in scope and slot
reductions over the prior year.
Using the current funded enrollment as a starting point, this
analysis shows that the expenditures associated with the final rule,
when fully phased in after 7 years, can be mostly paid for by aligning
funded enrollment levels to the FY2024 actual enrollment, leading to a
funded enrollment level decline from 750,000 to approximately 645,500.
Importantly, approximately 650,000 of the 750,000 slots are occupied by
enrolled children at this time.
As compared to the current enrollment level of about 650,000, the
enrollment level of approximately 645,500 represents about a 1 percent
reduction from the current number of children served. In other words,
implementation of these regulatory changes will be a de minimis impact
on actual enrollment. With additional appropriations--in excess of COLA
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 policy to
serve 650,000 children, which reflects the estimated FY2024 actual
enrollment. Sometimes the narrative description of this (same) analysis
is framed as estimating the increases in expenditures that enable full
implementation of this rule without reducing funded enrollment below
projected FY2024 funded enrollment levels.
The largest elements of the final 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, for all
agencies to which all wage and benefits requirements apply (with more
than 200 slots), expenditures on wages \66\ will need to increase by
about $1.2 billion (reported in nominal dollars) in 2031 and then be
maintained annually through a COLA. In that same year, the expenditures
on staff benefits, which include the policy to increase fringe
benefits, will require about an additional $877 million. We identify
the annual expenditures to fully implement the following provisions:
staff breaks about $75 million; family partnership family assignments,
$147 million; and mental health supports, $75 million. We also quantify
expenditures associated with preventing and addressing lead exposure
and expenditures associated with program administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We estimate that in 2031 (when all policies are in effect) and if
we maintain a funded enrollment of 750,000, this final rule will
require an increase in expenditures of about $2.3 billion. These
expenditures include full implementation of all the policies described
in this final rule, including the wage and benefit policies, mental
health supports, and other quality improvements. This expenditure level
assumes no reductions in the projected funded enrollment level of
750,000.
Over a 10-year time horizon, which covers the timeline that the
policies will take effect, we estimate annualized expenditures of about
$1.4 billion under a 2% discount rate. In addition to calculating the
expenditures necessary to fully implement the 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 regulation). Under this scenario, we
estimate that Head Start programs will need to reduce the total number
of funded slots available by about 13% compared to projected FY2024
funded enrollment, or 1% from estimated FY2024 actual enrollment in
2031, to fully implement the final rule. Table 1 reports the summary of
expenditures of the final rule, reported in constant 2024 dollars and
nominal dollars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ The transfers illustrated in this table represent transfers
from some combination of the Federal Government and would-be Head
Start participants to Head Start program staff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BILLING CODE 4184-87-P
[[Page 67783]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21AU24.001
BILLING CODE 4184-87-C
These estimates are somewhat lower than those in the NPRM. This is
because of policy changes such as exempting small agencies (defined as
those with 200 or fewer funded slots) from most of the wage and
benefits requirements, removing paid family leave as a required
employer-provided benefit, and increasing flexibility in how programs
provide mental health supports and how programs prevent and address
lead exposure. These new cost estimates reflect updated information
regarding Head Start funded and actual enrollment and appropriations,
as described below.
Final Economic Analysis of Impacts
A. Analytic Approach
In conducting this analysis, we adopted much of the same approach
used in the NPRM. We began by identifying the most consequential
impacts that will likely occur under the final rule. 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 staff to provide family partnership
services, 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 final rule.
For the purposes of this analysis, we assume that the final rule
will 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 ``2025.'' We shift the ten-year time horizon in
the NPRM by one year, now covering the period 2025 through 2034.
[[Page 67784]]
This analysis adopts a baseline forecast that assumes Federal
appropriations grow at a constant rate of inflation in fiscal years
2026 through 2033, with greater growth during fiscal years 2024 and
2025 as projected by the September month year-over-year estimates by
the Presidential Budget Economic Assumptions based on the Consumer
Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) issued by the Bureau of
Labor Statistics (BLS).\68\ These are only projections and are subject
to change with updated CPI-U estimates from the BLS. We note that
because we assume Federal appropriations will grow at least at the pace
of inflation annually, we do not provide quantitative estimates that
account for the Secretary's waiver authority or any other possible
funding level.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/ap_2_assumptions_fy2025.pdf.
\69\ For a discussion of the estimated impact of the Secretary's
waiver authority, see section K. (Importantly, the funding level
required for the Secretary's waiver or a similarly low level of
appropriations would have substantial, negative effects on Head
Start's ability to enroll and provide high-quality services to
families.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
All analyses provided here were completed using national level
estimations. National estimates are used in lieu of providing estimates
that account for individual program variation due to the fluid nature
of Head Start enrollment figures that vary throughout the year as well
as substantial variation in the behavior of programs, grants, and
agencies. Head Start grants are awarded to a variety of entities that
vary in size, scope, and available resources. A model that accounts for
every characteristic that may predict variation in slot loss would
require HHS to make significant assumptions for which we lack a strong
empirical or data driven foundation.
Head Start enrollment fluctuates regularly. For instance,
enrollment is usually lower in the first month or two of the program
year and grows over the course of the year. In the last year, an
unprecedented number of Change in Scope applications, which allow
programs to reduce their funded enrollment and reallocate their budget
to meet other needs, such as wages or shifting slots from Head Start to
Early Head Start, or to be more responsive to changing community needs
by adjusting the operating schedule. Enrollment also fluctuates when
new grants are awarded as a result of the Designation Renewal System,
grant relinquishments, or other grant transitions. At the end of 2023,
approximately 18% of all Head Start agencies (which represents 10.7% of
all Head Start slots) had more than 200 funded slots--and would
therefore not be considered for the small program exemption--and were
considered fully enrolled at 97% or greater. ACF anticipates that these
grant recipients will benefit from additional support to use the period
between the final rule going into effect and wage requirements to
explore additional resources (i.e., Head Start funds made available
through increases in appropriations or recaptured funds, state, local,
or private funding) or program restructuring. We reiterate that
enrollment fluctuates due to a variety of factors and the estimates
used in this analysis should not be assumed to be static over time.
In our main analysis, we estimate the increases in Federal
appropriations needed to fulfill the goals of the rule while also
maintaining the size of the Head Start workforce consistent with the
projected FY2024 funded enrollment level of 750,000 slots. We also
present a sensitivity analysis that explores how the rule's effects are
expected to manifest themselves if there are no increases in Federal
appropriations above baseline (or such increases occur but not in
response to this regulation and/or the increased appropriations could
not be used to support the policies in the final 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 final rule. We also report the likely reductions in funded
enrollment in the absence of additional appropriations compared to the
estimated FY2024 actual enrollment under the final 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 2034. We adopt 2.3% for the rate
of inflation for each year in the time horizon after 2025, matching an
economic assumption in the President's Budget for Fiscal Year 2025.\70\
Across all years, we assume that the COLA for Head Start staff will
match the rate of inflation. Based on 2023 PIR data, we assume 8.6% of
Head Start staff work at agencies with 200 or fewer slots.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ Office of Management and Budget. ``Analytical Perspectives,
Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2025.'' Economic
Assumptions. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/spec_fy2024.pdf President's Budget [verbar] OMB [verbar] The White
House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In FY2024, Head Start appropriations totaled $12,271,820,000.\71\
About 97% of these appropriations, $11.9 billion, is awarded to grant
recipients for base program operations; and from these amounts, about
76% \72\ go towards personnel costs, or about $9.1 billion. Compared to
FY2024, we assume that FY2025 appropriations will increase with a cost-
of-living adjustment amount to fully account for inflation. Thus, we
anticipate that total appropriations will increase by 2.61% 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/2882?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%22Consolidated+Appropriations+Act%2C+2024%22%7D&r=2&s=1.
\72\ Budget data submitted to the Office of Head Start for
FY2022 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
FY2023 to FY2024 go towards personnel costs, and will therefore
increase the overall share of operations awards allocated to
personnel costs to about 76%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 67785]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21AU24.002
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 2024, based on patterns observed in FY2023.
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 current funds, in the baseline, for teacher
bonuses).\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ For completeness, we also note that Head Start funding
increases at greater than the rate of inflation (for reasons
independent of this regulation) 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 2024, Head
Start programs are projected to be funded to serve 750,000 children;
however, ACF 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 accurately predict both funded and actual
enrollment levels in future years.
As such, ACF first estimates costs by using the FY2024 funded
enrollment of 750,000 which represents the funding needed to implement
the final rule and maintain current funded enrollment, or the maximum
appropriations needed to fully implement the final 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 FY2024 actual enrollment estimate.
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 rule),
compared to both projected FY2024 funded enrollment and to estimated
FY2024 actual enrollment.
Our baseline scenario is informed by staffing levels, credentials,
wage rates, and enrollment figures from PIR data covering 2023,\74\
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, bachelor's 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 2023 PIR data:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ 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 0.2% 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 2023 PIR data with 2019 PIR data, which
contained information on the specific credential type for home visitors
and family child care providers. We assume that, conditional on
reporting any credential in 2023, 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 34,904 Head Start teachers,
32,770 Early Head Start teachers, 36,946 Head Start assistant teachers,
6,245 home visitors, and 2,129 family child care providers. Table B2
reports these counts by credential type.
[[Page 67786]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21AU24.003
In 2023, Head Start programs were funded to serve 778,420 slots
\75\ and reported 112,994 education staff. At the time this analysis
was prepared, ACF did not have comparable information from the PIR for
2024, which is ongoing; however, we anticipate significant changes to
staffing levels, wage rates, and slots compared to those observed in
2023 for reasons described above, largely driven by Head Start programs
requesting to reduce their funding enrollment levels to increase wages.
Our funded enrollment data, as described above, are based on the end of
the FY 2023 which ended in October 2023, and our Head Start salary
figures are from the 2023 PIR data and are reported about the 2022-2023
program year that ended in May 2023 for most programs. This gap in data
leaves a period from May to October 2023 during which many programs
continued to pursue reductions to their funded enrollment and likely
also took other efforts to improve staff compensation that is not
reflected in the 2023 PIR salary data, as many programs were likely to
make salary adjustments at the start of the 2023-2024 program year. As
such, using the raw compensation data from the 2023 PIR likely
underestimates Head Start salaries for FY 2024 which would in turn
overestimate the impacts of this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ This represents funded enrollment at the end of FY 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To account for this, we draw from data showing that Head Start
salaries grew 7% from program year 2021-2022 to 2022-2023. We estimate
a slightly higher growth rate from program year 2022-2023 to 2023-2024
because of substantial COLA and an increased rate of change in scope
request that both occurred in the latter part of FY2023. We estimate
that one third, 2.5%, of this projected annual growth rate for program
year 2023-2024 took place in the four months between May to October
2023. Therefore, we have adjusted for this misalignment in reporting
timeframes by adjusting for the projected annual growth that took place
between May to October 2023 in our baseline wage estimates by
increasing them by 2.5%.
We also anticipate additional enrollment reductions, primarily
through requests from programs proposing to reduce their funded
enrollment to maintain quality of program services.\76\ We currently
project 750,000 funded slots, or a 3.7% reduction in funded enrollment
in 2024 compared to 2023, and adopt a corresponding reduction in
education staff by the same percentage. This is less than the 9%
reduction in enrollment observed from 2022 to 2023. 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. ACF
anticipates that funded enrollment will continue to decline; however,
for the reasons described above, we model projections based on funded
enrollment in 2024 at 750,000 for the purposes of this analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/policy/im/acf-im-hs-22-09.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 67787]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21AU24.004
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 (e.g., facilities, certain 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 routinely train and onboard staff when there is turnover. Where
there is a difference between actual and funded enrollment, much 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 Table J1--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 final rule outlines four areas of 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 (or 90% of kindergarten
teachers) in public school settings in the program's local school
district, adjusted for qualifications, experience, job
responsibilities, and schedule or hours worked; (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, schedule or 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 final rule also outlines requirements for grant recipients to
provide benefits to staff, discussing health care coverage, paid leave,
access to short-term free or low-cost mental health services, and other
considerations. As described above, these benefits-related requirements
have been modified to be more flexible and less prescriptive in
response to comments on the NPRM. 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 final rule will result in Head Start staff receiving an annual
salary commensurate with preschool teachers (or 90% of kindergarten
teachers) in local public school settings, adjusted for qualifications,
experience, job responsibilities, and schedule or hours worked. The
target comparison of preschool teachers in public school settings is
intended to represent substantial progress towards parity with
kindergarten to third grade elementary teachers. 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, and provide
programs the option to use either benchmark.\77\ While
[[Page 67788]]
wage rates would be determined locally, we present estimates of the
likely impact measured at the national level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\77\ This analysis uses BLS average annual salaries from May
2023, inflation adjusted to February 2024 dollars, as wage targets.
However, since the BLS national average for kindergarten teacher
salaries ($67,790 in May 2023) 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 ($61,011) 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 ($56,060) is therefore approximately 90% of the
annual salary for kindergarten teachers with a bachelor's degree
($61,011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the purposes of this analysis, we adopt an estimate of the
target salary in 2023 of $56,060, which corresponds to the most recent
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 May
2023.\78\ This estimate is intended to be consistent with the
requirement that annual salaries be comparable to that of preschool
teachers in public school settings or to 90% of kindergarten teacher
salaries in public school settings. We assume that a typical preschool
teacher works 1,680 hours per year, so this annual salary corresponded
to a $33.37 hourly wage in 2023, or a $34.05 hourly wage in 2024 under
an assumption that preschool and kindergarten teacher salaries will
grow approximately in relation to inflation.\79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\78\ U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Occupational Employment
and Wages. May 2023. 25-2011 Preschool Teachers, Except Special
Education. https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes252011.htm.
\79\ Multiplied by a ratio of February 2024 (310.326) to May
2023 (304.127) CPI. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. CPI for all
Urban Consumers (CPI-U), Not Seasonally Adjusted, https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CUUR0000SA0. Accessed April 9, 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We adopt this estimate as the hourly wage target for teachers, home
visitors, and family child care providers with a bachelor's degree,
which serves as the base wage rate for other credentials. Following the
methodology used in the NPRM, 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 bachelor's degree is
$28.26 per hour. Table C1 reports the hourly wage targets for each
staff role by credential under the final rule and the baseline
scenario.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21AU24.005
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 2024 dollars. We take into
account the exemption of small agencies from the wage policies with
associated costs by reducing costs by 8.6% to take into account that
8.6% of Head Start staff work at agencies with 200 or fewer slots,
according to 2023 PIR data. Data from December 2023 show that about 120
agencies (i.e., 7% of all agencies) are funded between 200-250 slots
and a subset of these programs may reduce their slots below the 200
slot threshold as a result of an approved Change in Scope application,
which allows Head Start agencies to reduce the funded enrollment level
or convert slots from Head Start Preschool to Early Head Start based on
community needs. These agencies are not included in the 8.6% adjustment
to our analyses since we do not know how many of these agencies will
reduce their funded slots below the 200 slot threshold. Expenditure
estimates in this analysis may be overestimated if many or all of those
programs are eligible for and take advantage of the small agency
exemption.
[[Page 67789]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21AU24.006
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 the 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 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 rule compared to programs in
Community Action Agencies that, on average, tend to provide lower
compensation. The costs of implementing these 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.
ACF responds to this concern by providing small agencies (defined as
those with 200 or fewer funded slots) an exemption from implementing
most of the wage and benefits requirements in this final rule. However,
small Head Start agencies are still required develop or update a pay
scale and make improvements in wages and benefits for staff over time
to reduce disparities between wages and benefits in Head Start and
preschool teachers in public schools.
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.
[[Page 67790]]
ACF acknowledges that a limitation of using national level
estimates is that these program-level nuances are not specifically
illustrated in the analysis. However, in lieu of determining individual
program-level variation in the cost of this rule, we use national
averages to estimate costs at the national level.
Impact of the Minimum Pay Requirement
This final rule requires 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 $62 million per year, which accounts for $48 million
through hourly wage increases, and $13 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 \80\ 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 $1.40. While the regulation does not
establish a dollar amount associated with establishing a minimum hourly
wage, as this level will vary geographically, we use $15.00 for
estimation purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\80\ 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 2023, which is consistent with an average hourly wage of
$11.33. The estimate of average minimum wage was calculated using
the minimum wage for each State (https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/mw-consolidatedState Minimum Wages (ncsl.org)) and which states
would have minimum wages at or above $15 per hour by 2031 based on
enacted (but, in some cases, not presently effective) minimum wages,
and the number of Head Start staff in each State according to
administrative data from the Office of Head Start in 2023. 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 FY2023 to FY2024, 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
final rule will result in increased compensation for staff providing
family partnership services as well as other non-education staff
positions to address wage compression and wage equity issues that would
arise. For example, the required wage increases for lead teachers may
exceed what a similarly credentialed family service staff 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.
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 $571 million in additional annual expenditures on
wages.\81\ Note that these estimates are reported in constant 2024
dollars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ 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] TR21AU24.007
[[Page 67791]]
The estimates in Table C3 reflect the expenditures (in constant
2024 dollars) needed to fully implement pay parity, which would occur
in 2031 under the final rule. Table C4 reports the expenditures by year
under the implementation schedule, reported in constant 2024 dollars
and also nominal dollars.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21AU24.008
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 $9.1 billion in 2024. Of this figure, 76% goes to wage
compensation, or about $6.9 billion, and 24% goes to fringe benefits,
or about $2.2 billion. We assume that this ratio will remain constant
over time, absent the staff benefits provisions of the final rule.
This final rule outlines requirements for grant recipients to
provide benefits to staff, discussing health care coverage, paid leave,
short-term mental health services, and other considerations. 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 27.2%, holding wages compensation constant. Absent
all other provisions in this final rule, adopting the benefits policy
at baseline wages would increase fringe benefits in constant 2024
dollars from $2.2 billion to about $2.57 billion, and total
compensation from about $9.0 billion to $9.48 billion, for an increase
of about $397 million.
Table C5 reports the impacts of the benefits policies 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--as presented in more detail in
Table C6--are driven by wage increases of the wage policies.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21AU24.009
[[Page 67792]]
Disaggregation of Fringe Benefit Estimates
We use the same approach as in the NPRM to estimate the cost
associated with each category of benefits in the final rule. We refer
to the distribution of benefits provided to teachers,\82\ who have an
overall fringe rate of 32.5% according to data on employer costs for
employee compensation released by BLS in December 2022.\83\ There are
more categories of benefits provided to teachers described by the BLS
than will be required under the final 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 final 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 policies under
the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\ 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 benefit policies. The occupational
group includes postsecondary teachers; primary, secondary, and
special education teachers; and other teachers and instructors.
\83\ https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_03172023.pdf. As reported in March 2024, the fringe rate in
December 2023 was 32.1% for teachers overall and 34.2% for primary,
secondary, and special education school teachers. We retain our
target fringe of 32.5%, which is between these numbers. ecec.pdf
(bls.gov).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 compared to existing expenditures in each category
for Head Start programs.\84\ This approach estimates the total
projected cost associated with increasing the fringe rate from 24.0% to
27.2% to account for requirements in the final rule for health care
coverage and paid time off. This is less than the target fringe rate of
27.8% used in NPRM to account for the removal of the requirement to
provide paid family leave proposed in the NPRM.\85\ Under the final
rule, increased spending on health care coverage will account for 42%
of the total cost of the benefits policy, and increased spending on
paid time off will account for the remaining 58% of the total cost of
the benefits policy. Under the policies proposed in the NPRM, the
benefits requirements were required after two years; the final rule
extends the implementation timeline for benefits by two years to year
four.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\84\ Estimates based on average fringe for each category of
benefits calculated from a sample of Head Start program budgets.
\85\ The reduction in the fringe rate of 0.6% is made to account
for the removal of the requirement for paid family and medical
leave. This estimate is based on the 2017 report estimating that, as
a share of national payroll, total benefits estimated to be paid out
for a national paid family and medical leave policy range from 0.45
percent to 0.63 percent of payroll depending on the generosity of
the model simulated. IMPAQ-Family-Leave-Insurance.pdf (dol.gov).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table C6 reports an expenditure breakdown for each major category
of benefits that would be impacted by the final rule.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21AU24.010
We identify several significant caveats to this analysis. First,
because many existing Head Start grant recipients provide health care
coverage to staff, the growth in costs for expanded health care
coverage 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
[[Page 67793]]
components such as Social Security taxes are not necessarily comparable
between the reference group of teachers included in the BLS data and
Head Start staff. Most, but not all, State and local employees are not
covered by Social Security because they are covered by State or local
pension plans; as a result, legally required fringe may be lower for
some teachers and retirement fringe higher for many 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
FY2024 funded enrollment of 750,000, very similar to the funded
enrollment levels we projected in the NPRM for FY2023. If funded
enrollment were to increase, which would require congressional
investment designated for expansion (and such increase occurs for
reasons separate from this regulation), the impacts of this final 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 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, ACF 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 or multi-market partial equilibrium modeling
could potentially explore the impacts of the final 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 final rule)
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 final rule, section J presents a
sensitivity analysis on that significant source of uncertainty.
D. Workforce Supports: Staff Wellness--Staff Breaks
The final rule outlines requirements for programs to provide break
times during work shifts. Specifically, for each staff member, a
program must provide regular breaks of adequate length based on hours
worked.
This increased flexibility does not change our approach to
estimating the costs of the staff breaks requirements (in other words,
we expect that programs will adopt similar breaks policies and
frequencies). The scope of this element of the final rule covers
approximately 108,869 education staff, the estimate of education staff
that is proportionally decreased to reflect the reduced enrollment in
2024 compared to 2023. Across all staff, the final rule requires an
average break time of about 28 minutes per shift.\86\ 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.\87\ For 108,869 total
education staff, the final rule requires a minimum of about 9.2 million
hours of break time per year.\88\ 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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\86\ 13% * 15 + 87% * 30 = 28.05.
\87\ 2,805 * 180 = 5,049.
\88\ 5,049 * 108,869/60 = 9,161,293.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Under the baseline scenario of no regulatory action, 20% of
Head Start programs offer break time for education staff.
(2) Under the final rule, 50% of Head Start programs will shift the
workloads of existing Head Start staff to provide coverage during the
additional breaks.
(3) Under the final 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 will pay the `floaters' hourly
wages in line with assistant teachers with no credential.
In line with assumptions 1 and 2, we adjust the 9.2 million hours
estimate downwards by 70% and estimate that the final rule would result
in about 2.7 million hours of additional breaks for educational staff.
Using the wage target for assistant teachers of $16.96 per hour under
the wage-parity target and accounting for the benefits policy, the
breaks policy would result in additional expenditures of about $64
million per year (in constant 2024 dollars). 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. Tables D1 and D2 reflect the policy
cost using the benefits fringe rate in the final rule benefits policy.
[[Page 67794]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21AU24.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21AU24.012
E. Family Partnership Family Assignments
This final rule ensures that 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. 2023 PIR data reveals that
approximately 44 percent of grants have staff family assignments that
are 40 families or less. Across all grants with ratios of families per
family services staff that exceed 40, we estimate that Head Start
programs would need to hire an additional 2,282 staff to provide family
partnership services to meet this new caseload requirement. The policy
allows programs to request a waiver to go above the caseload of 40
families, if they can demonstrate appropriate staff competencies,
program outcomes, and reasonable staff workload. This estimate includes
an assumption that 10% of programs will apply for and receive this
waiver to exceed a caseload of 40.\89\ This estimate also assumes that
grants will only provide family partnership services to 85% of families
they serve at any given time, due to average family turnover.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\89\ 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 staff, which results in a $52,631 total compensation in
the baseline scenario or $54,945 total compensation under the benefit
policy. For 2,282 workers, this would result in additional expenditures
across Head Start programs of $125 million. This policy would begin to
take effect in 2028. Table E1 reports the expenditures needed to fund
this policy, in constant and nominal dollars.
[[Page 67795]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21AU24.013
F. Mental Health Services
The final rule enhances 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. In response to
comments, we incorporated flexibility into the requirements for mental
health supports, including by centering a multidisciplinary approach
instead of a specific team, and by revising the requirement related to
mental health consultation to allow programs to meet the monthly
frequency requirement, in part, with behavioral health specialists.
Given this additional flexibility, we adjust our NPRM estimates to
anticipate that this element of the rule so that half of agencies will
hire roughly equivalent to one additional full-time employee (FTE) per
Head Start agency to support the requirements for mental health
supports in the final rule. We estimate 775 agencies will need an
additional FTE to comply with the policy.
As we did in the NPRM, 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 $22,418 under
the benefit policy. In total, under the final 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 $82,418
in total compensation in all future years. For 775 FTEs, this would
result in additional expenditures across Head Start programs of $64
million. We assume that these impacts would begin immediately. Table F1
reports the expenditures needed to fund this policy, in constant and
nominal dollars.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21AU24.014
G. Preventing and Addressing Lead Exposure
The final rule includes new requirements to prevent and address
lead exposure through water and lead-based paint in Head Start
facilities. This analysis presents estimates of the costs associated
with testing, inspection, and, as needed, remediation or abatement
actions, in Head Start facilities where lead hazards may still exist.
For purposes of this analysis, the cost estimates are split between
preventing exposure to lead in water and preventing exposure to lead in
paint.
Preventing Exposure to Lead in Water
To assess the likely magnitude of the costs associated with
preventing exposure to the lead in water requirement, we assume the
majority of
[[Page 67796]]
plans and ongoing practices by programs will align with approaches
states have developed to address exposure to lead in water in school
systems. We estimate a total of 18,500 service locations, with an
average of 7.5 water fixtures per service location, for 138,750 total
fixtures. States use varying approaches on the frequency of testing,
precent of fixtures tested in a facility, and remediation. For
frequency of testing, we assume some portion of all fixtures each year
at a rate of 25% of all fixtures would be tested in the first year, or
34,688 water fixtures, and following the first year, about 4% of all
water fixtures would be tested every year, about 4% would be tested
every 3 years, and 16% of will be tested every 5 years. We adopt an
estimate of $100 per fixture tested. For remediation costs, we assume
12 percent of all water fixtures sampled will have a lead concentration
at or above the state's action level, or about 4,163 water fixtures. We
assume for the cost of remediation that about 95% of water fixtures
will be using point-of-use devices, while 5% will be addressed through
lead service line replacements, although we recognize that there may be
other approaches to remediation including restricting access to the
water fixture and using an alternative water source. For point-of-use
devices, we adopt an estimate of $30 per filter, with filters replaced
quarterly, or a cost per fixture of $120 per year. For lead service
line replacement, we assume $6,500 per lead service line replaced. To
estimate the cost of remediation for the 4,163 water fixtures with a
lead concentration at or above the state's action level, we calculate
an annual cost of $890,882 for remediation. Although replacement of
lead service lines would reduce ongoing costs of remediation, we
maintain this cost consistent each year assuming new lead hazards in
water fixtures would emerge over time. 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.
Preventing Exposure to Lead in Paint
To assess the likely magnitude of the costs associated with the
preventing exposure to lead in paint requirement, we first adopt
estimates of 18,500 service locations with about 1,762 average square
feet per service location based on required usable indoor space of 35
square feet for each child served increased by 25% for other general
common areas where children may be served. We assume a prevalence of
lead-based paint in about 28% Head Start facilities. Thus, about 5,180
service locations would be inspected for an estimate $1,000 per service
location. Across all service locations requiring evaluation, we
estimate an initial total cost associated with evaluations of about
$5.18 million that would be split evenly among the first two years for
a total of $2.59 million in the first year.
Of rooms undergoing an evaluation, we assume that 14% of rooms
would be identified as having a significant lead-based paint hazard
needing abatement.\90\ Thus, after the first round of assessments
covering 5,180 service locations, we estimate that 2,590 service
locations would have a significant lead-based paint hazard needing
abatement split across the first two years, or 1,259 service locations
in the first year. We assume $2,750 cost for remediation or abatement
of lead in paint hazards per service location which includes costs
associated with interior paint repair ($710); friction/impact work
($430); area cleanup ($110), and unit cleanup ($640). These cost
estimates reflect the costs for a single family unit at 1,775 square
feet but are then increased to account for additional administrative
costs for these type of activities in a Head Start facility setting.
Across all 1,259 service locations requiring abatement following the
first round of assessments, this would be about $3.56 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\90\ https://downloads.regulations.gov/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0063-0197/content.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To model reassessments and remediation or abatement in future
years, we assume reinspection for all facilities with lead-based paint
in years 3 and 4, followed by half of those programs continuing to be
reinspected in years 5 and onward. Since lead-based paint abatement
reflects measures that are expected to eliminate or reduce exposures to
lead hazards for at least 20 years under normal conditions and other
remediation or interim controls can also be effective for many years
with proper maintenance, we assume a significant decrease in continuing
costs associated with remediation or abatement of exposure to lead in
paint.
BILLING CODE 4184-87-P
[[Page 67797]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21AU24.015
Table G2 reports the yearly costs associated with the lead in water
policy.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21AU24.016
[[Page 67798]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21AU24.017
BILLING CODE 4184-87-C
H. Administrative Costs
Several of the provisions of the final rule will 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 use the same approach as we did in the
NPRM. 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 will 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 final rule. For each program, we
value this impact at $36,000.\91\ Across nearly 3,000 Head Start
programs, we estimate the total impact as $108 million, all occurring
in 2025.\92\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\91\ $36,000 = 600 hours * $60/hour.
\92\ $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 final 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 FY2024 funded enrollment, consistent with this implementation
timeline, reporting yearly estimates, and present value and annualized
values corresponding to a 2% discount rate, with all monetary estimates
reported in millions of constant 2024 dollars. Tables I2 reports the
same impacts except in nominal dollars.
BILLING CODE 4184-87-P
[[Page 67799]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21AU24.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21AU24.019
BILLING CODE 4184-87-C
All estimates reported above are impacts compared to our baseline
budget scenario described in Table B1. Further, we calculate the cost
per child, in 2031, when the rule is fully implemented, using 2024
funded enrollment levels to be $22,357 (nominal dollars). As discussed
previously, we recognize that projected FY2024 funded enrollment
exceeds estimated FY2024 actual enrollment. Based on national
estimates, if programs fully implement these policies and maintain
funded enrollment at least consistent with FY2024 actual enrollment
(i.e., 650,000), they will not need additional appropriations beyond
the baseline budget scenario until 2031, when they would need an
additional $100 million. In 2032, programs will need an additional $104
million, $109 million in 2033, and additional $114 million in 2034
above the baseline budget scenario funding levels to fully implement
the policies and maintain a funded enrollment level consistent with
estimated FY2024 actual enrollment. However, as previously discussed,
individual programs may need additional resources depending on their
current policies, local wages, and cost of living in their area.
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 750,000.
As we did in the NPRM, in the interest of transparency, we perform
a sensitivity analysis to evaluate the impacts of the final 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 regulation and/or are not increased in response to it). Under this
scenario, Head Start
[[Page 67800]]
programs will likely comply with the final 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 $15.7 billion in total Head
Start funding will be necessary to fully implement the final rule in
2034 and maintain funded enrollment consistent with the estimated
FY2024 actual enrollment of 650,000. Under our baseline budget
scenario, $15.5 billion will be available, which is about 99% of the
funding needed. Thus, we estimate approximately 645,500 slots will be
available, which is 99% of enrollment at the estimated FY2024 actual
enrollment level, or a % change in slots of -1%.
Table J1 reports the change in total slots \93\ over time that we
estimate may be necessary to implement the final rule compared to both
projected FY2024 funded enrollment and estimated FY2024 actual
enrollment, absent an increase in Federal appropriations. Based on
national estimates, we estimate that programs can approach full
implementation of the policies in the final rule without additional
appropriations by aligning their funded enrollment levels with their
actual enrollment. As in the NPRM, we estimate that only a small
reduction in slots from estimated FY2024 actual enrollment, 1%, will be
needed to reach full implementation of the policies in the final rule.
Specifically, programs may need to reduce funded enrollment from the
projected FY2024 funded enrollment of 750,000 by 14%, to a funded
enrollment of approximately 645,500 in 2031, which reflects a 1%
reduction from estimated FY2024 actual enrollment of 650,000.\94\ All
monetary estimates are reported in nominal dollars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\93\ For this analysis, we assume that staffing reductions occur
at the same rate as slot reductions.
\94\ We note that reductions in funded enrollment in response to
the final rule will require some shifting 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 the discussion under the heading
``Connecting Baseline Uncertainty with Differing Estimates of
Regulatory Effects.''
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21AU24.020
K. Non-Quantified Impacts of Certain Elements of the Final Rule
In addition to the effects that are quantified elsewhere in this
analysis, we have identified a select number of provisions that are
expected to have impacts that are not quantified or monetized.
Estimated Impact of Relevant Provisions on Slot Loss
Sections C through G of this Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA)
monetize the provisions of this final rule that we anticipate will 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 these 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 quantify
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 may be impacted by this loss of access will 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
[[Page 67801]]
and education in programs or settings that lack the quality to
adequately support their learning and development, though we note that,
absent the quality improvements under this final 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 final rule has new requirements for programs to have a plan to
prevent children from being exposed to lead in the water or paint of
Head Start facilities. 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.\95\ 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 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.\96\ 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.\97\ This research suggests
there may be a societal benefit that lead remediation regulations can
make.\98\ Additionally, there is research showing that having
classmates who were exposed to lead has implications for everyone in
the classroom.\99\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\95\ 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.
\96\ 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.
\97\ 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.
\98\ Gazze, Ludovica, Persico, Claudia and Spirovska, Sandra
(2022). ``The Spillover Effects of Pollution: How Exposure to Lead
Affects Everyone in the Classroom.'' (forthcoming) Journal of Labor
Economics. The Long-Run Spillover Effects of Pollution: How Exposure
to Lead Affects Everyone in the Classroom [bond] NBER.
\99\ Gazze, Ludovica, Persico, Claudia and Spirovska, Sandra
(2022). ``The Spillover Effects of Pollution: How Exposure to Lead
Affects Everyone in the Classroom.'' Journal of Labor Economics. The
Long-Run Spillover Effects of Pollution: How Exposure to Lead
Affects Everyone in the Classroom [bond] NBER.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Head Start workers may result in a reduction in the number of
households receiving a range of safety net benefits, including Low
Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), housing assistance,
Medicaid/Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), Marketplace
premium tax credits, SNAP, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), TANF,
and WIC. Additionally, increases in staff wages will likely have an
outsized impact on improving the educational quality of Head Start
programming. While descriptive and non-causal, research illustrates
that low wages are a primary driver of high turnover in early childhood
educator positions.\100\ When early childhood teachers achieve pay
parity with teachers in public schools their stress likely decreases,
and research finds evidence that increased wages reduces turnover and
improves worker focus and attention to children's needs.\101\ This will
improve the quality of services delivered in programs. Research has
also demonstrated that improved wages are correlated with higher
quality programs.\102\ The majority of research in this area is 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 but
rooted in strong developmental science on the importance of continuity
of care and adult-child interaction as a predictor of program quality
in early education settings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\100\ 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.
Morrissey, T.W., & Bowman, K. (2024). Early care and education
workforce compensation, program quality, and child outcomes: A
review of the research. Early Education & Development. Early Care
and Education Workforce Compensation, Program Quality, and Child
Outcomes: A Review of the Research: Early Education and Development:
Vol 0, No 0--Get Access (tandfonline.com).
\101\ Doromal et al. (2024). Wage supplements strengthen the
child care workforce. The Urban Institute. Wage Supplements
Strengthen the Child Care Workforce [bond] Urban Institute. Bassok
et al. (2021). The effects of financial incentives on teacher
turnover in early childhood settings: Experimental evidence from
Virginia. The University of Virginia. 6de6fd54-e921-4c88-a452-
ad7cabccc362.pdf (elfsightcdn.com).
\102\ 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. Further, a strong and stable
early childhood workforce can lead to improved child behavior and
stronger social competence.\103\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\103\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is also likely that there will be potential cost savings from
the effects of this final rule mitigating the high expenses associated
with high turnover. When Head Start programs experience staffing
shortages, they 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 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 Secretary's Waiver Authority for Wage Policies
(Sec. 1302.90)
This RIA assumes annual increases in appropriations that are
sufficient to keep pace with inflation. The
[[Page 67802]]
Secretary's waiver authority described in Sec. 1302.90(e)(7) through
(10) protects against unintended consequences if annual appropriations
are far below what is sufficient to keep pace with inflation (i.e.,
less than 1.3%) for programs that meet certain criteria. This funding
scenario would be an historic anomaly and ACF would expect significant
impacts on programs as a result of unprecedented low funding levels.
While this scenario is unlikely, ACF is providing information on how
costs and slots could be impacted should appropriations be much lower
than anticipated.
In order to qualify for the waiver, should the authority be
exercised, programs must meet several criteria. ACF assumes that most
programs will meet several of the criteria to be eligible for a waiver
by 2028. First, programs must demonstrate they would need to cut
enrolled slots in order to comply with the wage policies. By 2028, when
the Secretary's authority could be exercised, we expect that nearly all
programs will have reached full enrollment, either through enrolling
more children or through reducing their funded service level and would
thus meet this criterion. Programs must also demonstrate that they are
making progress toward pay parity, which ACF expects all programs will
do as a requirement of the final rule.
However, ACF believes some programs will not be eligible because
they do not meet health, safety, and quality criteria. ACF anticipates
that the majority of programs that are disqualified for a waiver due to
this criterion will be ineligible because they were required to compete
as part of the DRS. Over the last 10 years (from 2013-2023), an average
of 21% of Head Start grants that were monitored in a given year were
designated to compete for continued funding and thus would not be
eligible for a waiver. Should this waiver authority be exercised, we
estimate that approximately 80% of programs would be eligible under the
Secretary's waiver authority.
Combined with the exemption for small programs, we estimate that
the vast majority of programs could be exempt from many of the wage
policies if the Secretary's waiver authority is exercised. Further, we
expect that the costs (experienced by workers as increased
remuneration) associated with the wage requirements of this rule would
decrease significantly as a result of this Secretarial authority, which
would likely lead to slower loss of funded slots attributable to the
rule implementation. However, we would also expect that the overall
expenditures on wages would continue to increase, albeit at a slower
rate, as programs with an exemption or waiver would be required to
continue to make progress on wages.
Estimated Impact of Mental Health Services (Part 1302, Subparts D, H,
and 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 are expected to promote
higher-quality services for children in Head Start programs across the
country and support child, family, and staff well-being.
Specifically, revisions to part 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 will support programs in having
conversations about mental health early and often. Screening will
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. This rule also adds a requirement that a program take a
multidisciplinary approach to mental health. We expect that this work
would be carried out by existing staff and may have an associated
opportunity cost not reflected in budgets.
Expected Benefits of Child Health and Safety (Sec. Sec. 1302.47;
1302.90; 1302.92; 1302.101; 1302.102)
The rule includes several provisions to ensure basic health and
safety measures are taken to protect all children. These provisions
include a revision of previous 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
will 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 mandated reporters, which
will improve child safety and program response to violations of
standards of conduct.
These provisions also enhance requirements for incorporating child
health and safety training into existing annual staff training and
professional development. We assume there will be nominal costs
(included in the estimates below) associated with improved training on
child health and safety because programs will replace other on-the-job
activities. Non-quantifiable benefits of an increased frequency of
training include allowing 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.
This policy change also creates 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 also enhances the use of
positive strategies and have the added benefit of increasing
opportunities for peer support as appropriate. Together, these changes
will have the benefit of ensuring the safety and wellbeing of all who
participate in Head Start programs.
The cost estimates for the additional annual training content are
provided below and represent value-of-time costs by year for all staff
in Head Start programs who will be required to take this annual
training. We predict this cost will be borne out by shifting existing
content of existing staff trainings to accommodate this new
requirement. Table K1 reflects this value-of-time cost using the
average target wage for all position types and the benefits fringe rate
in the final rule benefits policy. These costs were estimated using an
hourly wage of $24.36 which represents the midpoint between the
baseline and target wage averages, which is $33.46 per hour when final
rule benefits policy are included. We assume 0.5 hours of
[[Page 67803]]
training annually for 178,690 staff (which represents all education
staff and half of other types of staff who will expect will receive the
training).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21AU24.021
Estimated Impact of Modernizing Engagement With Families (Sec. Sec.
1302.11; 1302.13; 1302.15; 1302.34; 1302.50)
These provisions enhance existing requirements that programs must
follow when completing their community needs assessments. Programs will
be required to identify communication methods to best engage with
prospective and enrolled families, and to use modern technologies to
streamline 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 will 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 will 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 Assessment (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 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 will promote overall
effectiveness of the community assessment to drive programmatic
decision making. These changes 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
will also be allowed to use readily available data on their community,
which will 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, facilitate Head Start's
ability to understand the diversity of populations most in need of
services, which in turn will 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 will enable Head Start to more effectively meet the
needs of families and improve access to Head Start services.
Estimated Impact of Adjustment for Excessive Housing Costs for
Eligibility Determination (Sec. 1302.12)
This provision allows a program to adjust a family's income to
account for excessive housing costs. This provision reflects a transfer
of benefits from one potentially eligible family to another, however,
consistent with Sec. Sec. 1302.14 and 1302.13 in the HSPPS which are
unchanged in this rule, programs will continue to establish selection
criteria that prioritize 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 may be newly eligible for Head Start. This
enables Head Start to continue to
[[Page 67804]]
prioritize the enrollment of families most in need of services. This
provision also increases alignment with other means-tested Federal
programs that use an income adjustment to account for excessive housing
costs.
Estimated Impact of Tribal Eligibility (Sec. 1302.12)
The modifications to eligibility requirements for Tribal programs
in this provision benefits Tribal programs by reducing barriers to
families in need of program services. The rule allows Tribal programs
the flexibility to consider eligibility regardless of income. Tribal
programs can use their selection criteria to enroll pregnant women and
age-eligible children who would benefit from Head Start services but do
not meet income eligibility requirements. This selection criteria may
include prioritizing children in families in which a child, family
member, or member of the household is a member of an Indian Tribe.
There may be nominal costs for Tribal programs to establish or revise
their selection criteria and administrative procedures for enrollment.
Estimated Impact of Migrant and Seasonal Head Start Eligibility (Sec.
1302.12)
The modifications to eligibility requirements for MSHS programs in
this provision benefits MSHS programs and families by reducing barriers
to enrolling farmworker families in need of program services. First,
MSHS programs may now serve any pregnant woman or age-eligible child
who has one family member whose income comes primarily from
agricultural employment as defined in section 3 of the Migrant and
Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (29 U.S.C. 1802), even if
they do not meet other income eligibility requirements. This change
will allow for the families of migrant and seasonal farmworkers to
benefit from Head Start without losing their eligibility if they pursue
additional economic opportunities in other sectors. Second, the
provisions related to eligibility duration 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 also promotes
continuity for families served by MSHS and reduces 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 is to address 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 supports Head Start in maximizing services to
children with disabilities who benefit from the program's strong focus
on inclusive early childhood settings.
Expected Benefits of Family Partnership 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, 44 percent of programs have caseloads that exceed 40
families. We estimate that a total of 2,282 new family services staff
will need to be hired to meet this new requirement at a total cost of
$125 million. There are numerous non-quantifiable benefits to lower
family assignments. This provision will address staff well-being,
reduce burnout, and reduce 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 will 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 will 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. However, the rule allows for
program to choose not to participate in QRIS if it presents an undue
burden. 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. Sec.
1302.80; 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 recordkeeping. Non-quantifiable
benefits of these provisions include assessing the child care, health,
and mental health needs of mothers in the critical period after child
birth, which will 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 also
supports ACF in understanding the services provided and identifying how
to best be responsive to the needs of enrolled pregnant people. These
records will 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 person about their needs before and after the baby is
born.
Expected Benefits of Definition of Income (Sec. 1305.2)
This provision revises 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 promoting consistent interpretation on what to include in
calculating income across programs.
Final 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
[[Page 67805]]
Preamble of this final rule, serves as the Final 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).\104\ We
replicate the SBA's description of this table:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\104\ 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 ``$''). 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 final 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 $2.51 billion (nominal
dollars) in additional funding will be necessary to fully implement the
final rule in 2034, 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 final rule will
likely result in increased expenditures of about 17%, we find that the
final rule will likely have a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
In response to comments and concerns regarding the sustainability
of small programs in implementing these policies, ACF is exempting
agencies with 200 or fewer funded slots from most of the staff wage and
benefit requirements in the final rule. However, small Head Start
agencies are still required to make improvements in wages and benefits
for staff over time to reduce disparities between wages and benefits in
Head Start and preschool teachers in public schools. While small
agencies have flexibility to phase in wage increases according to their
budgets, ACF strongly encourages these programs to invest in higher
wages by restructuring their budgets, targeting annual COLA increases
to wages, and seeking other available funding sources that can be used
to enhance wages.
C. Alternatives To Minimize the Burden on Small Entities
ACF considered many policy alternatives to the final rule, some of
which are quantified in this analysis. Tables I1 and I2 summarize the
impacts on expenditures under the wage-parity policy, reporting yearly
estimates, and present value and annualized values corresponding to a
2% discount rate. These tables present 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 analyses demonstrate the impact of exempting Head
Start agencies with 200 or fewer funded slots from the wages and
benefits requirements, estimated to be among the most expensive
requirements of the final rule, and minimizes burden on small entities.
The estimates in this final rule are lower than those estimated in the
NPRM because of policy changes, such as removing the requirement for
paid family leave, and the exemption of Head Start agencies with 200 or
fewer slots from the wage and benefits requirements, which was added in
response to comments and the particular challenges that small Head
Start agencies may face in implementing these policies. In the NPRM, we
also modeled an alternative policy that included retirement benefits,
which the final does not include. In section J of this Regulatory
Impact Analysis, we describe a sensitivity analysis that explores how
the rule's effects are expected to manifest themselves if there are no
increases in Federal appropriations above baseline (or such increases
occur but not in response to this regulation and/or the increased
appropriations could not be used to support the policies in the final
rule). In addition, we report the likely reductions in funded
enrollment under the final rule, which are also lower than estimated
for the provisions in the NPRM. These tables and additional analyses in
the narrative of this document enabled ACF to appropriately consider a
range of feasible policy alternatives.
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: August 1, 2024.
Xavier Becerra,
Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.
For reasons stated in the preamble, we 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:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a); and
[[Page 67806]]
0
b. In paragraph (b)(2), removing the word ``grantees'' and adding in
its place the words ``grant recipients''.
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 the 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. This 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, the provisions in this part do not narrow the scope or quality of
services covered in previous regulations. Instead, the regulations in
this part 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
``grantees'' and adding in its place the words ``grant recipients''.
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 comprehensive
community assessment at least once over the five-year grant period and
annually review and update if any significant changes are needed as
described in paragraph (b)(5) of this section to:
(i) Identify populations most in need of services including
prevalent social or economic factors, challenges, and barriers
experienced by families and children;
(ii) Inform the program's design and to ensure equitable,
inclusive, and accessible service delivery that reflect needs and
diversity of the community;
(iii) Inform the enrollment, recruitment, and selection process to
prioritize the enrollment of those populations with relevant
circumstances 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
for education, health, nutrition, and referrals to social services to
eligible children and families; and,
(v) Identify the communication methods and modalities available to
the program that best engage with prospective and enrolled families in
accessible ways.
(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 data about eligible children and expectant
mothers, including:
(A) Race and ethnicity;
(B) Children living in poverty;
(C) Children experiencing homelessness in collaboration with, to
the extent possible, McKinney-Vento Local Education Agency Liaisons (42
U.S.C. 11432 (6)(A));
(D) Children in foster care;
(E) Children with disabilities, including types of disabilities and
relevant services and resources provided to these children by community
agencies; and
(F) Geographic location 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, challenges, and barriers to program participation
such as transportation needs;
(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 and their ages;
(v) Resources that are available in the community to address the
needs of eligible children and their families, especially
transportation resources, and culturally appropriate and responsive
supports;
(vi) Strengths of the community; and,
(vii) Gaps in community resources in areas relevant to addressing
the needs of eligible children and their families such as gaps in
health and human services, housing assistance, food assistance,
employment assistance, early childhood development, and social
services.
(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 programs should consider what information is most relevant
to inform services for families most in need. Data gathering should be
informed by the program's understanding of the community and be
intentionally designed to help the program identify community
strengths, needs and resources, and plan the program accordingly.
Programs are not required to collect all information themselves; rather
programs should utilize community partners and utilize existing
available data sources relevant to the local community.
(5) A program must annually review and, where needed, update the
community assessment to identify any significant shifts in community
demographics, needs, and resources that may impact program design and
service delivery. As described in paragraph
[[Page 67807]]
(b)(4) of this section, programs should consider results from their
self-assessment as required in subpart J of this part (Sec. Sec.
1302.101 through 1302.103) and their annual funding application to
inform this process. The annual update review must consider at a
minimum: changes related to children and families experiencing
homelessness; how the program addresses equity, accessibility, and
inclusiveness in its provision of services; and changes to the
availability of publicly funded pre-kindergarten and whether it meets
needs of families. Programs must consider how the annual review and
update can inform and support management approaches for continuous
quality improvement, program goals, and ongoing oversight.
(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:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2) introductory text, (b)(2)(i),
(e), and (f);
0
b. Redesignating paragraphs (i)(1)(i) through (iii) as paragraphs
(i)(1)(iii) through (v);
0
c. Adding new paragraphs (i)(1)(i) and (ii);
0
d. Revising paragraphs (j)(3) and (4);
0
e. Adding paragraph (j)(5); and
0
f. Revising paragraph (l).
The revisions and additions 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) Additional allowances for Indian tribes. (1) Notwithstanding
paragraph (c) of this section, a Tribal program may determine any
pregnant women or children in the approved service area to be eligible
for services regardless of income, if they meet the requirements of
paragraph (b) of this section.
(2) 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. Notwithstanding
paragraph (c) of this section, pregnant women and children are eligible
for Migrant or Seasonal Head Start if they have at least one family
member whose income comes primarily from agricultural employment as
defined in section 3 of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker
Protection Act (29 U.S.C. 1802), and if they meet the requirements of
paragraph (b) of this section.
* * * * *
(i) * * *
(1) * * *
(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 to account for
excessive housing costs. A program may use available bills, bank
statements, and other relevant documentation provided by the family to
calculate total annual housing costs with appropriate multipliers to:
(A) Determine if a family spends more than 30 percent of their
total gross income on housing costs, as defined in part 1305 of this
chapter; and
(B) If applicable, reduce the total gross income by the amount
spent on housing costs that exceed more than 30 percent.
* * * * *
(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 include 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 children in need, including children
experiencing homelessness and children in foster care.
0
11. Amend Sec. 1302.14 by:
0
a. Revising and republishing paragraph (a);
0
b. Revising paragraph (b)(1); and
0
c. Adding paragraph (d).
The revisions, republication, and additions read as follows:
Sec. 1302.14 Selection process.
(a) Selection criteria. (1) A program must annually establish
selection criteria that weigh the prioritization of selection of
participants, based on community needs identified in the community
needs assessment as described in Sec. 1302.11(b), and including family
income, whether the child is homeless, whether the child is in foster
care, the child's age, whether the child is eligible for special
education and related services, or early intervention services, as
appropriate, as determined under the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA) (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.) and, other relevant
family or child risk factors.
(2) An Indian Tribe that operates a Head Start program must
annually
[[Page 67808]]
establish selection criteria that weigh the prioritization of selection
of participants, based on community needs identified in the community
needs assessment as described in Sec. 1302.11(b), and may, at its
discretion, give priority to children in families for which a child, a
family member, or a member of the same household, is a member of an
Indian Tribe, and would benefit from the Head Start program.
(3) If a program serves migrant or seasonal families, it must
annually establish selection criteria that weigh the prioritization of
selection of participants, based on community needs identified in the
community needs assessment as described in Sec. 1302.11(b), and give
priority to children whose families can demonstrate they have relocated
frequently within the past two-years to pursue agricultural work.
(4) 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 must not deny enrollment based on a disability or
chronic health condition or its severity.
(6) 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 community assessment to identify the population of
eligible children and families and potential barriers to enrollment and
attendance, including using data to understand access to transportation
for the highest need families. 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:
0
a. Removing ``and,'' at the end of paragraph (a)(2)(iii);
0
b. Removing the period at the end of paragraph (a)(2)(iv) and adding
``; and'' in its place; and
0
c. Adding paragraph (a)(2)(v).
The addition reads 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) and (4) and
(b)(2) introductory text 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.
* * * * *
(4) If a temporary suspension is deemed necessary, a program must
help the child return to full participation in all program activities
as quickly as possible while ensuring child safety. 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, 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 behavioral
concerns, a program must explore all possible steps and document all
steps taken to address such problems, and facilitate the child's safe
participation in the program. Such steps must include, at a minimum,
engaging a mental health consultant, considering the appropriateness of
providing appropriate services and supports under section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act 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:
* * * * *
Subpart B--Program Structure
0
15. Amend Sec. 1302.20 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a) and (c)(1) and (2);
0
b. Removing the word ``grantees'' and adding in its place words ``grant
recipients'' wherever it appears in paragraph (c)(3);
0
c. Revising paragraphs (c)(3)(i) and (iii); and
0
d. Revising paragraphs (c)(4) and (d).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 1302.20 Determining program structure.
(a) Choose a program option. (1) A program must choose to operate
one or more of the following program options: center- based, home-
based, family child care, or an approved locally designed variation as
described in Sec. 1302.24. The program option(s) chosen must meet the
needs of children and families based on the community assessment
described in Sec. 1302.11(b). A Head Start 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
[[Page 67809]]
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) 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) 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 and republishing paragraph (c) to
read as follows:
Sec. 1302.21 Center-based option.
* * * * *
(c) Service duration--(1) Early Head Start. (i) A program must
provide 1,380 annual hours of planned class operations for all enrolled
children.
(ii) A program that is designed to meet the needs of young parents
enrolled in school settings may meet the service duration requirements
in paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section if it operates a center-based
program schedule during the school year aligned with its local
education agency requirements and provides regular home-based services
during the summer break.
(2) Head Start 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:
(i) Plan its year using a reasonable estimate of the number of days
during a year that classes may be closed due to problems such as
inclement weather; and,
(ii) Make every effort to schedule makeup days using existing
resources if hours of planned class operations fall below the number
required per year.
* * * * *
0
17. Amend Sec. 1302.22 by revising paragraphs (a) and (c)(2) paragraph
heading and 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 paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 1302.23 Family child care option.
* * * * *
(b) Ratios and group size--(1) Group size. A program that operates
the family child care option where Head Start children are enrolled
must ensure group size does not exceed the limits specified in this
section. If the family child care provider's own children under the age
of six are present, they must be included in the group size.
(2) 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.
[[Page 67810]]
(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:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (c)(1), (3), and (5); and
0
b. 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.
Subpart C--Education and Child Development Program Services
0
20. Amend Sec. 1302.34 by:
0
a. Removing ``and,'' at the end of paragraph (b)(7);
0
b. Removing the period at the end of paragraph (b)(8) and adding ``;
and'' in its place; and
0
c. Adding paragraph (b)(9).
The addition reads as follows:
Sec. 1302.34 Parent and family engagement in education and child
development services.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(9) The program utilizes accessible communication methods and
modalities that meet the needs of the community when engaging with
prospective and enrolled families.
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 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; and
* * * * *
(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 use a multidisciplinary
approach 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.
[[Page 67811]]
(3) Secures ongoing mental health consultation services and
examines the approach to mental health consultation on an annual basis
to determine if it meets the needs of the program.
(4) Ensures mental health consultation services are available at a
frequency of at least once a month.
(i) If a mental health consultant is not available to provide
services at least once a month, programs must use other licensed mental
health professionals or behavioral health support specialists certified
and trained in their profession or recognized by their Tribal
governments, such as peer specialists, community health workers,
promotores, traditional practitioners, or behavioral health aides, to
ensure mental health supports are available on at least a monthly
basis.
(ii) If the program uses other licensed mental health professionals
or behavioral health support specialists, the program must ensure their
regular coordination and consultation with mental health consultants.
(5) 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.
(6) Facilitates multidisciplinary coordination and collaboration
between mental health and other relevant program services, including
education, disability, family engagement, and health services.
(7) Builds community partnerships to facilitate access to
additional mental health resources and services, as needed, including
through the Health and Mental Health Services Advisory Committee in
Sec. 1302.40.
(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 any of the following:
(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),
and revising and republishing paragraph (b)(2) 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:
(i) In understanding how to access health insurance for themselves
and their families, including information about private and public
health insurance and designated enrollment periods;
(ii) In understanding the results of diagnostic and treatment
procedures as well as plans for ongoing care;
(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 mental health
services for young children and their families, including referrals if
appropriate.
0
28. Amend Sec. 1302.47 by revising paragraphs (b)(5) introductory text
and (b)(5)(i), (iii), and (v) and adding paragraph (b)(10) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1302.47 Safety practices.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(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)(1)(ii).
* * * * *
(10) Exposure to lead in water and paint prevention practices. A
program must develop a plan to prevent children from being exposed to
lead in water and paint in Head Start facilities. In facilities where
lead may exist, a program must implement ongoing practices, including
testing and inspection at least every two years, with support from
trained professionals. As needed, a program must pursue remediation or
abatement to prevent lead exposure.
* * * * *
Subpart E--Family and Community Engagement Program Services
0
29. 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 multi-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 meets the needs of each
individual family.
* * * * *
0
30. Amend Sec. 1302.52 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (c)(2) and (3);
0
b. Removing paragraph (c)(4);
[[Page 67812]]
0
c. Redesignating paragraph (d) as paragraph (e); and
0
d. Adding a new paragraph (d).
The revisions and addition 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 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 partnership services. A program must:
(1) Ensure the family 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
staff that conduct the family partnership process and work on family,
health and community engagement services is no greater than 40:1. A
program must maintain this ratio, except:
(i) When the responsible HHS official grants a waiver if the
program can demonstrate staff competencies at Sec. 1302.92(b)(4);
program outcomes at paragraph (b) of this section; and reasonable staff
workload as described in paragraph (d)(3) of this section.
(ii) During temporary periods of staff absence or attrition;
changes in daily operations related to start-up or transitional
activities; or extenuating circumstances related to emergency response
and recovery.
(3) Ensure meaningful employee engagement practices address family
services workload experiences, in accordance with Sec. 1302.101(a)(2).
* * * * *
0
31. Amend Sec. 1302.53 by revising paragraph (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) 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
32. 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
33. 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
34. Amend Sec. 1302.71 by revising the section heading to read as
follows:
Sec. 1302.71 Transitions from Head Start Preschool to kindergarten.
* * * * *
0
35. 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 families experiencing
homelessness and children in foster care, 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
36. 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, safe sleep, 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
[[Page 67813]]
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
37. 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 in the
prenatal and postpartum stage 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
prenatal and postpartum mental health concerns including but not
limited to anxiety, depression, 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
38. 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 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
39. Amend Sec. 1302.90 by revising and republishing paragraph (c)(1)
and adding paragraphs (e) and (f) to read as follows:
Sec. 1302.90 Personnel policies.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) A program must ensure all staff, consultants, contractors, and
volunteers abide by the program's standards of conduct that:
(i) Ensure staff, consultants, contractors, and volunteers
implement positive strategies to support children's well-being and
prevent and address challenging behavior;
(ii) Ensure staff, consultants, contractors, and volunteers do not
engage in behaviors that maltreat or endanger the 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, pushing, 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. Examples
include, but are not limited to, using seclusion, using or exposing a
child to public or private humiliation, or name calling, shaming,
intimidating, or threatening a child; and
(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, leaving a child unattended on a bus, 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; and
(v) Require staff, consultants, contractors, and volunteers to
comply with program confidentiality policies concerning personally
identifiable information about children, families, and other staff
members in accordance with subpart C of part 1303 of this chapter and
applicable Federal, State, local, and Tribal laws; and,
(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) through (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, 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) By August 1, 2031, a program must demonstrate it has
made progress to parity with kindergarten through third grade teachers
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, experience, and schedule
or hours worked. 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
[[Page 67814]]
described in paragraph (e)(2)(i) of this section, adjusted for role,
responsibilities, qualifications, experience, and schedule or hours
worked.
(iii) For Head Start teachers and education staff described in
paragraphs (e)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section, progress to parity must
be demonstrated for those staff who are employees as well as those
whose salary is funded by Head Start through a contract.
(iv) A program may use an alternative method to determine
appropriate comparison salaries in order to implement the requirements
in paragraphs (e)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section The alternative method
must use a comparison salary that is equivalent to at least 90 percent
of the annual salary paid to kindergarten teachers in public school
settings in the program's local school district, adjusted for role,
responsibilities, qualifications, experience, and schedule or hours
worked.
(v) 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.
(5) Small agency exemption. An agency with 200 or fewer funded
slots is exempt from the requirements described in this paragraph (e),
except that such an agency must still establish or update a pay scale
or structure that promotes competitive wages for all staff. The agency
must also make measurable improvements in wages for Head Start staff
over time and demonstrate progress towards meeting the requirements of
paragraphs (e)(2) through (4) of this section.
(6) Interim service providers. The exemption described in paragraph
(e)(5) of this section also applies to an interim service provider that
is temporarily providing Head Start services in place of a Head Start
agency that would otherwise qualify for the small agency exemption.
(7) Secretarial determination of waiver authority. Between January
1, 2028, and December 31, 2028, the Secretary may establish a waiver
process for the requirements described in paragraphs (e)(2) through (4)
of this section for eligible Head Start programs, if over the preceding
four fiscal years, the average annual increase in Federal
appropriations for the Head Start program was less than 1.3 percent.
(8) Waiver conditions. If the Secretary establishes the waiver
process described in paragraph (e)(7) of this section, the responsible
HHS official designated by the Secretary may grant a waiver if the
program requests a waiver and meets the following conditions:
(i) The program can demonstrate that it would need to reduce
enrolled Head Start slots in order to implement the requirements
described in paragraphs (e)(2) through (4) of this section;
(ii) The program is meeting quality benchmarks including:
(A) Demonstrated improvements in staff wages during the preceding
four years, to the greatest extent practicable;
(B) Has not been designated to compete under the Designation
Renewal System after August 21, 2024; and
(C) The responsible HHS official determines the program does not
have significant child health, safety, or quality concerns;
(iii) The program held the Head Start grant for the service area
prior to August 21, 2024; and
(iv) The program continues to make improvements in wages for Head
Start staff over time, to the greatest extent practicable.
(9) Reassessing waiver eligibility. For any program granted a
waiver under the process established in paragraph (e)(7) of this
section, the responsible HHS official will reassess waiver eligibility
for each successive grant period, in line with the process established
and criteria described in paragraph (e)(8) of this section.
(10) Ongoing waiver authority. Waivers granted under the process
established in paragraph (e)(7) of this section may only be granted if
over the preceding four fiscal years, the average annual increase in
Federal appropriations for the Head Start program was less than 1.3
percent.
(f) Staff benefits. (1) For each full-time staff member, defined as
those working 30 or more hours per week with the Head Start program
during the program year, a program must:
(i) Provide or facilitate access to high-quality affordable health
care coverage;
(ii) Offer paid leave; and,
(iii) Offer access to short-term, free or minimal cost behavioral
health services.
(2) For each part-time staff member, a program must facilitate
access to high-quality, affordable health care coverage.
(3) For each staff member, a program must facilitate access to
available resources and information on child care, including
connections to child care resource and referral agencies or other child
care consumer education organizations and, for staff who meet
eligibility guidelines, facilitate access to the child care subsidy
program.
(4) For each staff member who may be eligible, 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) To the extent practicable, 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 at least once every 5 years. Programs may
offer additional benefits to staff, including more enhanced health
benefits, retirement benefits, flexible savings accounts, or life,
disability, and long-term care insurance.
(6) An agency with 200 or fewer funded slots is exempt from the
requirements described in this paragraph (f). Such an agency must make
measurable improvements in benefits for Head Start staff over time and
demonstrate progress towards meeting the requirements of paragraphs
(f)(1) through (5) of this section.
(7) The exemption described in paragraph (f)(6) of this section
also applies to an interim service provider that is temporarily
providing Head Start services in place of a Head Start agency that
would otherwise qualify for the small agency exemption.
0
40. Amend Sec. 1302.91 by revising paragraphs (b), (e)(2) and (3), and
(e)(8)(ii) to read as follows:
Sec. 1302.91 Staff qualifications 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.
* * * * *
[[Page 67815]]
(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) 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
41. 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, such as tools for
managing children's 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
42. Amend Sec. 1302.93 by adding paragraphs (c) and (d) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1302.93 Staff health and wellness.
* * * * *
(c)(1) A program must provide, for each staff member, regular
breaks of adequate length and frequency based on hours worked,
including, but not limited to, time for meal breaks as appropriate.
(2) If applicable Federal, State, or local 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. If providing a break during nap time, a
program may comply with Sec. 1302.21(b)(1)(ii).
(d) 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).
0
43. 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
44. Amend Sec. 1302.101 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a)(2);
0
b. Removing ``and,'' at the end of paragraph (a)(3);
0
c. Removing the period at the end of paragraph (a)(4) and adding ``;
and'' in its place; and
0
d. Adding paragraph (a)(5).
The revision and addition 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
45. 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 but no later than 7 calendar days following the incident,
related to:
(A) Any significant incident that affects the 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, or volunteer that participates in
either a Head Start program or a classroom at
[[Page 67816]]
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; and
(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;
(C) Legal proceedings by any party that are directly related to
program operations;
(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 maltreatment or endangerment of a child
by staff, consultants, contractors, and volunteers under Sec.
1302.90(c)(1)(ii);
(F) Serious harm or injury of a child resulting from lack of
preventative maintenance;
(G) Serious harm, injury, or endangerment of a child resulting from
lack of supervision; and,
(H) Any unauthorized release of a child.
* * * * *
Sec. 1302.103 [Removed]
0
46. Remove Sec. 1302.103.
PART 1303--FINANCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS
0
47. The authority for part 1303 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9801 et seq.
PART 1303 [Amended]
0
48. Amend part 1303 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 ``grantee's'' and adding the words ``grant
recipient's'' in its place wherever it appears.
Subpart D--Delegation of Program Operations
0
49. Amend Sec. 1303.30 by revising the section heading to read as
follows:
Sec. 1303.30 Grant recipient responsibility and accountability.
* * * * *
Subpart E--Facilities
0
50. Revise Sec. 1303.42 to as follows:
Sec. 1303.42 Eligibility to purchase, construct, and renovate
facilities.
Before a grant recipient can apply for funds to purchase,
construct, or renovate a facility under Sec. 1303.44, it must
establish that:
(a) The facility will be available to Indian Tribes, or rural or
other low-income communities;
(b) The proposed purchase, construction, or major renovation is
within the grant recipient's designated service area;
(c) The proposed purchase, construction, or major renovation is
necessary because the lack of suitable facilities in the grant
recipient's service area will inhibit the operation of the program; and
(d) The proposed construction of a facility is more cost-effective
than the purchase of available facilities or renovation.
0
51. Revise Sec. 1303.43 to read as follows:
Sec. 1303.43 Use of grant funds to pay fees.
If a recipient seeks to use Federal funds for reasonable fees and
costs necessary to submit an application under Sec. Sec. 1303.42 and
1303.44, they must be granted approval from the responsible HHS
official. Once approval is granted to use Federal funds to submit an
application, the funds are allowable regardless of the outcome of the
preliminary eligibility under Sec. 1303.42 and the application under
Sec. 1303.44.
0
52. Amend Sec. 1303.44 by revising paragraphs (a)(3), (7), and (14) to
read as follows:
Sec. 1303.44 Applications to purchase, construct, and renovate
facilities.
(a) * * *
(3) Plans and specifications for the facility, including square
footage, structure type, the number of rooms the facility will have or
has, how the rooms will be used, where the structure will be positioned
or located on the building site, whether there is space available for
outdoor play, and whether there is space available for parking, if
applicable;
* * * * *
(7) An estimate by a licensed independent certified appraiser of
the facility's value after proposed purchase and associated repairs and
renovations, construction, or major renovation is completed, either on-
site or virtually, is required for all facilities activities except for
major renovations to leased property;
* * * * *
(14) Any additional information the responsible HHS official needs
to determine compliance with the regulations in this part.
* * * * *
0
53. Amend Sec. 1303.45 by revising paragraph (a)(2)(iii) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1303.45 Cost-comparison to purchase, construct, and renovate
facilities.
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(iii) Identify costs over the structure's useful life, which is at
least 20 years for a facility that the grant recipient purchased or
constructed and at least 15 years for a modular unit the grant
recipient renovated, and deferred costs, including mortgage payments,
as costs with associated due dates; and,
* * * * *
0
54. Amend Sec. 1303.48 by revising the section heading to read as
follows:
Sec. 1303.48 Grant recipient limitations on Federal interest.
* * * * *
Subpart F--Transportation
0
55. 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:
* * * * *
[[Page 67817]]
0
56. 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 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 1304--FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES
0
57. The authority for part 1304 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9801 et seq.
PART 1304 [Amended]
0
58. Amend part 1304 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.
Subpart A--Monitoring, Suspension, Termination, Denial of
Refunding, Reduction in Funding, and Their Appeals
Sec. 1304.5 [Amended]
0
59. Amend Sec. 1304.5 by removing the word ``Grantee's'' and adding in
its place the words ``Grant recipient's'' in paragraph (c) heading.
Subpart B--Designation Renewal
0
60. 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
61. Amend Sec. 1304.11 by:
0
a. Revising the introductory text;
0
b. Removing ``grantees' '' in paragraph (b)(2)(i) and adding ``grant
recipients''' in its place; and
0
c. Revising paragraphs (d) and (e).
The revisions 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
62. Amend Sec. 1304.12 by revising the section heading to read as
follows:
Sec. 1304.12 Grant recipient reporting requirements concerning
certain conditions.
* * * * *
0
63. 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) of the Head Start Act. 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
64. Revise and republish Sec. 1304.14 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.
(1) The plan will be established and implemented within six months
after the responsible HHS official's determination.
(2) Not more than six months after the implementation of that plan,
the responsible HHS official will reevaluate the performance of the
Indian Head Start agency.
(3) If the Indian Head Start agency is still not delivering a high-
quality and comprehensive Head Start program, the
[[Page 67818]]
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 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
65. Revise and republish Sec. 1304.15 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
(2) That such agency has been determined on a preliminary basis to
be eligible for renewed funding for five years without competition
because ACF finds that none of the conditions under Sec. 1304.11 have
been met during the relevant time period described in paragraph (b) of
this section. If prior to the award of that grant, ACF determines that
the grantee has met one of the conditions under Sec. 1304.11 during
the relevant time period described in paragraph (b) of this section,
this determination will change and the grantee will receive notice
under paragraph (c)(1) of this section that it will be required to
compete for funding for an additional five-year period.
Subpart C--Selection of Grant Recipients Through Competition
0
66. Revise the heading for subpart C to read as set forth above.
0
67. 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
68. Revise the heading for subpart D to read as set forth above.
PART 1305--DEFINITIONS
0
69. The authority for part 1305 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9801 et seq.
0
70. Amend Sec. 1305.2 by:
0
a. Revising the definition of ``Continuity of care'';
0
b. Removing the word ``grantee'' and adding in its place the words
``grant recipient'' in the definition of ``Denial of Refunding'';
0
c. Adding in alphabetical order a definition for ``Early Head Start'';
0
d. Removing the definition of ``Early Head Start agency'';
0
e. Revising the definitions of ``Federal interest'', ``Fixed route'',
and ``Full-working-day'';
0
f. Removing the word ``grantee'' and adding in its place the words
``grant recipient'' in the definition of ``Funded enrollment'';
0
g. Removing the definition of ``Grantee'';
0
h. Adding in alphabetical order definitions for ``Grant recipient'' and
``Head Start'';
0
i. Revising the definition of ``Head Start agency'';
0
j. Adding in alphabetical order definitions for ``Head Start
Preschool'' and ``Housing costs'';
0
k. Revising the definitions of ``Income'';
0
l. Removing the word ``grantee'' and adding in its place the words
``grant recipient'' in the definition of ``Legal status'';
0
m. Revising the definitions of ``Major renovation'' and ``Migrant
family'';
0
n. Removing the word ``grantee'' and adding in its place the words
``grant recipient'' in the definition of ``Modular unit'';
0
o. Revising the definition of ``Participant'';
0
p. Adding in alphabetical order a definition for ``Poverty line'';
0
q. Revising the definitions of ``Program'' and ``Purchase'';
0
r. Removing the word ``grantee'' and adding in its place the words
``grant recipient'' in the definition of ``Service area'';
0
s. Adding in alphabetical order a definition for ``Suspension'';
0
t. In the definition of ``Termination of a grant or delegate agency
agreement'':
0
i. Removing the word ``grantee's'' and adding in its place the words
``grant recipient's'' in the introductory text and paragraph (1); and
0
ii. Removing the word ``grantee'' and adding in its place the words
``grant recipient'' in introductory text;
0
u. Removing the definition of ``Transition period''; and
0
v. Revising the definition of ``Transportation services''.
The additions and revisions read as follows:
Sec. 1305.2 Terms.
* * * * *
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.
* * * * *
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
[[Page 67819]]
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 costs means the total annual applicable expenses on housing
which may include 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,
unemployment compensation, 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 $350,000 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. To maintain alignment with the National Defense
Authorization Act (NDAA), the major renovation threshold will increase
to account for any increases made to the simplified acquisition
threshold beyond $350,000. Tribes that jointly apply to use both Tribal
Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) and Head Start funds toward
major renovations may comply with the CCDF threshold for major
renovation if it is higher.
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 means the temporary removal of a child from the learning
setting due to a child's behavior including requiring the child to
cease attendance for a specified period of time, reducing the number of
days or amount of time that a child may attend, removing the child from
the regular group setting for an extended period of time, or requiring
the parent or the parent's designee to pick up a child for reasons
other than illness or injury.
* * * * *
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.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2024-18279 Filed 8-16-24; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4184-87-P