[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 151 (Friday, August 7, 2026)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 51248-51322]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2026-16134]
[[Page 51247]]
Vol. 91
Friday,
No. 151
August 7, 2026
Part III
Department of Health and Human Services
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Administration for Children and Families
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
45 CFR Part 1301, 1302, et al.
Reducing Federal Burden for Head Start Programs; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 151 / Friday, August 7, 2026 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 51248]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Administration for Children and Families
45 CFR Part 1301, 1302, 1303, 1304, and 1305
RIN 0970-AD30
Reducing Federal Burden for Head Start Programs
AGENCY: Office of Head Start (OHS), Administration for Children and
Families (ACF), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This NPRM proposes to rescind and replace the Head Start
Program Performance Standards (Performance Standards), last revised in
2024. The proposed Performance Standards would significantly reduce
Federal bureaucratic burden on programs; defer to State policies
wherever possible; return substantial local control to Head Start
agencies delivering the services and to parents as the primary
caregivers and decision-makers for their children; reduce unnecessary
duplication of Head Start regulations with Federal statute and other
regulations; and emphasize the critical role of health, nutrition, and
physical exercise for young children.
DATES: Please submit comments on this NPRM by October 6, 2026.
ADDRESSES: You may submit written comments, identified by docket number
ACF-2026-0595 and/or RIN number 0970-AD30, by one of the following
methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Email: [email protected]. Include the docket number
ACF-2026-0595 and/or RIN number 0970-AD30 in the subject line of the
message.
Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name
and docket number or RIN number for this rulemaking. All comments
received are a part of the public record and will be posted for public
viewing on www.regulations.gov, without change. Please be advised that
the substance of the comments and the identity of individuals or
entities submitting the comments will be subject to public disclosure.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Adam N. Jones, Deputy Chief of Staff,
Immediate Office of the Assistant Secretary, Administration for
Children and Families, Department of Health and Human Services,
Washington, DC 202-417-0115 or [email protected]. The docket on
https://www.regulations.gov will include a plain language summary of
the NPRM.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Statutory Authority and Requirements
This NPRM is published under the authority granted to the Secretary
of the Department of Health and Human Services under sections 641,
641A, 644, 645, 645A, and 646 of the Head Start Act (Act) (42 U.S.C.
9836, 9836a, 9839(c), 9840, 9840a, and 9841), as amended by the
Improving Head Start for School Readiness Act of 2007. In these
sections, the Secretary is required to establish performance standards
for Head Start and Early Head Start programs, as well as Federal
administrative procedures. Specifically, the Act requires the Secretary
to ``modify, as necessary, program performance standards by regulation
applicable to Head Start agencies and programs. . . .'' (Sec.
641A(a)(1)). Further the Act specifies that, ``in developing any
modifications to standards . . . the Secretary shall--take into
consideration . . . projected needs of an expanding Head Start program
. . . [and] guidelines and standards that promote child health services
and physical development, including participation in outdoor activity
that supports children's motor development and overall health and
nutrition'' (Sec. 641A(a)(2)). In order to meet requirements mandated
by the Act, give more authority to states and parents, reduce
unnecessary burden and regulatory duplication, and promote health,
nutrition and physical exercise, this NPRM would reorganize and
substantially amend the existing Federal regulations for Head Start
programs.
II. Background
Initiated under President John F. Kennedy's efforts and formally
launched in 1965 as part of President Lyndon Johnson's ``War on
Poverty,'' Head Start was created out of concern for the well-being of
children in low-income families based on evidence that they were less
likely to succeed in school than their more well-positioned peers. As
its name implies, the Head Start program was developed to enhance the
experiences of children in low-income families prior to school entry,
with the goal of alleviating the negative effects of growing up in
poverty.
When Project Head Start was first started in the summer of 1965,
over 560,000 children and families across the United States were served
in an 8-week program. As the program grew, it expanded opportunities
for children to receive services in a number of ways. In 1995, Head
Start expanded to include pregnant women and children from birth to 3
years of age through the Early Head Start program, which emphasized the
importance of children's earliest years for lifelong development.
The Head Start Program Performance Standards (Performance
Standards) are the foundation on which programs design and deliver
services to support the school readiness of children from low-income
families. The first set of Standards was published in the 1970s. The
first major revisions to the Performance Standards were issued in 1996.
The 2007 reauthorization of the Head Start Act placed an emphasis on
involving parents in the design of the program and placed a stronger
focus on the educational outcomes of Head Start children. The proposed
landmark 2026 revision would fundamentally transform the landscape,
empowering states and local authorities to meet the unique needs of
children and families in their communities--free from burdensome
Federal regulations that have long constrained progress. With the
freedom to create local solutions for local challenges, these changes
would ultimately strengthen and revitalize the family unit.
Over time, the delivery of these crucial services became
unnecessarily encumbered by onerous regulations. Eliminating these
restrictive Federal regulations would also empower small and local
businesses, freeing them to focus on excellence in service delivery
rather than bureaucratic compliance. This proposed sweeping reform
would deliver tangible benefits to children, families, and the broader
community, fueling prosperity and opportunity at every level. This NPRM
would modernize the Performance Standards; reduce Federal regulation
and duplication; empower states, local programs, and families with
greater authority and flexibility; advance the health and well-being of
children and communities; and reinforce evidence-based standards for
health, nutrition, and physical activity.
Expert and Stakeholder Consultation
Throughout the years, ACF has received feedback that the
Performance Standards are overly prescriptive, constrain flexibility,
and impede coordination with State and local requirements. This input
comes from Head Start program leadership staff, including Tribal
leaders, and national organizations that represent Head Start programs.
Additionally, program
[[Page 51249]]
monitoring has provided insight into the strengths and weaknesses of
the current Performance Standards. The proposed changes in this NPRM
give programs more flexibility and discretion in a way that matches
local content. Additionally, the publication of this NPRM initiates a
public comment period during which ACF will receive comment from all
interested parties. In particular, ACF is interested in hearing from
experts in the fields of child development, early childhood education,
child health care, family services, administration, and financial
management and others with Head Start operations experience.
III. Executive Summary
Purpose of the Proposed Rule
This NPRM proposes to comprehensively rescind and replace the Head
Start Program Performance Standards at 45 CFR Chapter XIII to restore
flexibility to Head Start programs and families, reduce regulatory
burden, eliminate duplication with statutory requirements, reinforce
state and local authority, and refocus Federal oversight on core
statutory priorities, particularly school readiness and child outcomes,
child development and health, and parental engagement. This
modernization would ultimately empower states to actively lead the
advancement of early childhood education, ensuring meaningful impact
for children and families. Its purpose is to drive lasting improvements
in early childhood educational outcomes and to foster change by
preparing our youngest learners to succeed in their educational
journey, and seeking to end generational poverty.
The Performance Standards have grown increasingly detailed and
prescriptive, often duplicating or elaborating upon requirements
already established in the Head Start Act or other Federal statutes and
regulations. This accumulation of regulatory complexity has shifted
program focus towards procedural compliance rather than direct service
delivery. This expansion has constrained program flexibility, increased
administrative workload, and limited the ability of grant recipients to
tailor services to the unique needs of their communities.
This proposed rule would rescind Parts 1301 through 1305 of the
current Performance Standards in their entirety and replace them with a
streamlined Part 1301 that maintains statutory accountability while
reducing unnecessary Federal burden and overreach.
Reduce Regulations and Restore Authority to States
The proposed rule would substantially reduce the scope and
prescriptiveness of Federal regulatory requirements and return primary
authority over areas traditionally within state and local purview. For
instance, the proposed rule would give authority to the States to
govern group size and ratios, background checks, and transportation
practices while eliminating duplicative Federal requirements. By
restoring flexibility in these areas, the rule would allow states and
local programs to align more effectively with state early childhood
systems and community conditions. This approach reflects principles of
cooperative federalism and recognizes that state and local entities are
best positioned to design and administer services responsive to their
populations.
Returning Authority Back to Parents
Consistent with the Head Start Act, this proposed rule specifically
recognizes parents as children's primary teachers and essential
partners in program governance. Furthermore, the proposed rule would
reduce prescriptive Federal requirements governing curriculum
implementation, parent committees, family engagement procedures, and
service delivery structures. By eliminating detailed procedural
mandates not required by statute, the rule reaffirms parental authority
and strengthens opportunities for families to make meaningful decisions
regarding their children's education and development. This shift
ensures that family engagement is grounded in partnership and shared
responsibility rather than compliance-driven process requirements.
Reducing Unnecessary Burden
The proposed rule would rescind more than 1,400 highly detailed
regulatory provisions and replace them with a consolidated and
streamlined framework. It simplifies eligibility, recruitment,
selection, enrollment, and attendance (ERSEA) requirements; removes
duplicative documentation and procedural mandates; and reduces
reporting obligations not required by statute. The rule would also
broaden waiver authority, excluding core protections related to
nutrition, physical activity, and eligibility, to provide programs
greater operational flexibility. Facilities requirements would be
simplified, reporting timelines made less prescriptive, and designation
renewal processes streamlined to focus on measurable outcomes and
fiscal integrity and remain in line with statute. Collectively, these
revisions would shift resources from administrative overhead to direct
services, reduce compliance-driven operational constraints, and improve
program efficiency without altering statutory protections.
Furthers Emphasis on Health, Nutrition, and Physical Exercise
While reducing regulatory burden in many areas, the proposed rule
strengthens emphasis on core statutory priorities related to child
health and physical development. The proposed regulatory framework
would encourage programs to provide nutrient-dense, whole foods
compatible with healthy dietary practices within the framework of the
USDA Child and Adult Care Food Program meal standards and continue to
structure meal times in ways that support both development and
learning. In addition, programs would be required to provide a minimum
of 30 minutes of physical activity for every three and a half hours
that the child participates in the program, with outdoor activity
required when weather permits.
Reduce Duplication
The proposed rule would eliminate regulatory provisions that
restate requirements already codified in the Head Start Act or other
Federal laws and regulations. By removing redundant language and
compliance layers, the rule clarifies that statutory requirements
remain fully binding while avoiding unnecessary repetition in
regulation. This approach reduces confusion, improves regulatory
clarity and focus, and ensures that Federal oversight is focused on
statutory requirements and areas where regulatory implementation is
necessary rather than duplicative of existing law. This clarification
is intended to improve regulatory transparency, reduce confusion among
grant recipients, and ensure that Federal oversight is grounded in
statutory authority rather than duplicative rule text.
Maintain Statutory Accountability
Although many regulatory provisions would be rescinded, all
statutory requirements contained in the Head Start Act remain fully in
effect. Programs must continue to comply with statutory mandates
concerning eligibility, governance, school readiness goals, services
for children with disabilities, fiscal controls, monitoring, background
checks, civil rights protections, and parent involvement. Federal
oversight mechanisms required by statute, including monitoring, audit
requirements, and child safety
[[Page 51250]]
protections, would remain unchanged. Nothing in this proposed rule
alters or waives statutory obligations; rather, it aligns regulatory
text more closely with governing law. The proposed regulatory framework
is designed not to diminish accountability, but to ensure that
accountability flows directly from statutory requirements rather than
layered procedural mandates.
Anticipated Impact
If finalized, this rule would substantially reduce Federal
regulatory complexity while preserving statutory safeguards and
accountability mechanisms. Head Start grant recipients would have
increased flexibility to design services responsive to local
conditions, align more effectively with state systems, develop child
outcome and school readiness goals that mirror state requirements, and
prioritize direct services to children and families.
The proposed rule would improve operational efficiency, strengthen
fiscal stewardship, increase transparency for parents, reinforce health
and physical development priorities, and clarify the appropriate
balance between Federal oversight and state and local program
administration. These outcomes would support long-term program
sustainability while preserving core statutory protections. ACF
recognizes there are a range of possible options regarding the
effective dates for the proposed rescission and replacement of
standards and requests public comment on implementation timing of these
changes to maximizing the goals outlined above.
Costs, Benefits, and Transfer Impacts
By removing multiple regulatory requirements in the Performance
Standards, this NPRM is expected to reduce compliance costs and create
efficiencies in the distribution of resources within the program. The
primary quantified effects of this rule are reductions in program
expenditures associated with changes in staffing, service delivery, and
administrative requirements, as well as program reinvestment effects
associated with the proposed administrative cost cap, as described in
the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA). Because Head Start is a grant-
funded program, these reductions may be reallocated by grant recipients
to support additional funded slots.
Over a five-year time horizon covering 2027 through 2031, ACF
estimates total quantified impacts of approximately $1,476,881,912 to
$2,959,495,914 annually at full implementation, with a primary estimate
of approximately $2,218,188,913. These estimates reflect the combined
effects of scenario-based reductions in personnel expenditures and
fixed reductions associated with structural policy changes, and program
reinvestment effects associated with the administrative cost cap.
Consistent with the phased implementation described in this RIA, these
impacts increase over time starting in 2027 and reach full effect in
2031.
For purposes of presenting annualized impacts, ACF calculates
annualized cost reductions and transfers over the five-year period
using standard discount rates of 3 percent and 7 percent, consistent
with OMB Circular A-4. Based on the phased implementation schedule
described above, the estimated annualized cost reductions are
approximately $1,304,696,469at a 3 percent discount rate and
$1,271,000,241 at a 7 percent discount rate under the primary scenario.
Consistent with prior analyses of Head Start policy changes,
reductions in program expenditures may translate into increases in
funded slots, including approximately 116,516 new Head Start Preschool
slots and 45,578 Early Head Start slots in 2031. These estimates
represent the number of funded slots that could be supported in that
year and are not cumulative across years. These effects are reflected
in the funded slot estimates presented in the RIA and are based on
nominal cost reductions and program reinvestment effects and
incorporate a phased implementation approach.
To produce an estimate of the quantified annual cost savings
associated with the proposed rule for purposes of Executive Order
14192, ACF assumes that the impacts of the proposed changes on costs at
full implementation in 2031 extend in perpetuity. Under this
assumption, ACF calculates annualized cost savings at a 7 percent
discount rate relative to the baseline year, excluding transfers and
adjusting the estimate to 2024 dollars consistent with OMB guidance for
Executive Order 14192 accounting. The annualized cost savings at a 7
percent discount rate are approximately $0.94 billion. This amount
reflects quantified reductions in regulatory compliance costs and
program expenditures and does not include the administrative cost cap
effect, for which the quantified effect is treated as a transfer
because it reallocates Head Start resources within the program.
Separately, ACF estimates potential funded slot capacity using the
broader set of ongoing quantified impacts, including cost reductions
and program reinvestment effects, under the funded slots methodology
described above. That funded slot estimate is not used as the Executive
Order 14192 accounting value. This estimate is based on 2031 costs and
does not assume future appropriations increases, cost-of-living
adjustments (COLAs) needed to keep pace with increasing costs, or other
funding changes that would affect the number of slots that could be
supported in subsequent years.
These estimates represent potential changes in regulatory burden,
program reinvestments and reallocations within the Head Start program,
and associated impacts on funded slots. Actual realized impacts may
differ depending on program-level decisions, state and local
requirements, labor market conditions, and the extent to which programs
choose to maintain existing practices even when they are no longer
required by the Performance Standards.
Severability
The purpose of this Section is to clarify ACF's intent with respect
to the severability of the provisions of this NPRM. As explained above,
ACF proposes removing Sections of the Head Start regulations because we
determined that doing so would make the regulations clearer, less
burdensome, and more accessible to the public. To the extent that any
portion of the proposed removals are declared invalid by a court, ACF
intends for all other provisions of this proposed rule to remain in
effect to the greatest extent possible to ensure that Head Start
regulations remain as concise and accessible as possible. For example,
if section 1301.01 Committees is deemed invalid by a court, all other
provisions in 1301 can function independently of 1301.01. As another
example, if section 1301.14 on the 5 percent administrative cap is
invalidated by a court, all other provisions in 1301 can function
independently of 1301.14. None of the provisions contained herein are
central to an overall intent of the proposed rule, nor are any
provisions dependent on the validity of other, separate provisions.
IV. Table
In this NPRM, we propose rescinding the Performance Standards as
they currently exist and replacing them with a streamlined set of
requirements that are not duplicative of the Head Start Act and other
Federal statutes and regulations. We include the following table to
help the public identify which current regulations we propose to remove
entirely and which we propose to replace. We also indicate which
current regulations will still be required by the Head Start Act,
despite being removed or replaced in the proposed
[[Page 51251]]
regulations. The table is not an exhaustive list of all other
applicable Federal statute or regulations such as the Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements
for Federal Awards that still govern aspects of program operation.
To understand the proposed requirements, it is essential to read
them in full and reference the requirements in the Head Start Act,
however, the table below is a tool to help reflect the relationship
between the current regulations, proposed regulations, and the Head
Start Act, at a high level.
BILLING CODE 4814-87-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU26.003
[[Page 51252]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU26.004
[[Page 51253]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU26.005
[[Page 51254]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU26.006
[[Page 51255]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU26.007
[[Page 51256]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU26.008
[[Page 51257]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU26.009
[[Page 51258]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU26.010
[[Page 51259]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU26.011
[[Page 51260]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU26.012
[[Page 51261]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU26.013
BILLING CODE 4814-87-C
Similar to all sections of this NPRM, ACF requests public comment
on how to support states in complying with statute in the absence of
the proposed rescinded regulations found to be duplicative with
statute, including what challenges states may face in interpreting and
complying with statute.
V. Discussion of Proposed Rule
ACF proposes to rescind parts 1301 through 1305 in the current
regulation and either completely rewrite or restructure them under
subchapter B at 45 CFR Chapter XIII. The order proposed here removes
parts 1302 through 1305 in the current regulation and redesignates new
and remaining requirements in a new part 1301. The table provided in
section IV., above, is intended to help the public readily locate
current sections and provisions proposed for revision, removal, and
renumbering.
[[Page 51262]]
Program Governance
The proposed new Sec. 1301.01 reflects a revision to parent
committee requirements by making parent committees optional and
eliminating Federal prescriptions regarding committee structure and
function. In current Sec. 1301.4, programs must establish parent
committees at each center and comply with specific requirements
governing their structure and purpose. The proposed regulations at
Sec. 1301.01 would allow, but not require, programs to establish a
parent committee comprised exclusively of parents of currently enrolled
children to advise staff in developing and implementing local program
policies, activities, and services to ensure they meet the needs of
children and families. Programs would have the flexibility to determine
the bylaws of any committee including but not limited to length of a
committee member's term and election procedures.
These proposed changes at Sec. 1301.01 seek to reduce
administrative burden and duplication of requirements that already
exist in the Act. The Act's governance provisions remain in effect
regardless of these proposed regulatory changes (Sec. 642(c-d)). The
statute requires the establishment of a governing body, a Policy
Council and in instances when the recipient has subrecipients, Policy
Committees. The Act specifies the roles and responsibilities of each
body, the reports that must be shared with these governance groups and
the composition requirements of each body (Sec. 642(c)). Under the
proposed regulations, Head Start programs would continue to be required
to have a Governing Body, Policy Council, and for recipients that have
subrecipients, Policy Committees.
These proposed changes do not represent a departure from empowering
parents as the lead decision makers for their children's education as
the proposed regulation is simply returning to the statutory
requirements, which include in Sec. 642(c) that membership of a
program's governing body shall ``reflect the community to be served and
include parents of children who are currently, or were formerly,
enrolled in Head Start programs.'' This proposed rule continues to
value and prioritize parental engagement.
Eligibility, Recruitment, Enrollment and Attendance
If finalized, this NPRM would rescind Part 1302 Subpart A of the
current Performance Standards, often referred to as Eligibility,
Recruitment, Selection, Enrollment, and Attendance (or ERSEA). This
NPRM proposes requirements for Eligibility, Enrollment, and Attendance
in Sec. Sec. 1301.02 and 1301.03. The proposed changes in Sec. Sec.
1301.02 and 1301.03 reflect multiple ACF priorities, including
restoring flexibility to local Head Start programs; reducing burden for
programs and families; and reducing duplication with relevant statutory
requirements. Each of the proposed changes are explained in more detail
in the paragraphs that follow.
Proposed Eligibility Requirements Aligned With Current Regulation
Multiple new proposed regulations under Sec. 1301.02 align with
current regulations. These represent important policies to maintain
that, for the most part, are not separately detailed in statute.
New proposed Sec. 1301.02(a) outlines that a pregnant woman or
child is eligible for Head Start if they meet the eligibility
requirements in Section 645(a)(1) of the Act. This provision is
intended to address the requirement in Section 645(a)(1)(A) that the
Secretary prescribes by regulation eligibility for participation in
Head Start programs. It is ACF's position that the newly proposed
language is sufficient to meet that statutory requirement.
New proposed Sec. 1301.02(b) continues to specify that children in
foster care are categorically eligible for Head Start services. New
proposed Sec. 1301.02(c)(3) specifies the type of documentation a
program must secure to verify that a child is in foster care. Both
proposed standards align with the current Performance Standards and do
not represent a proposed change in policy (see current Sec.
1302.12(c)(1)(iv) and (i)(4)).
New proposed Sec. 1301.02(c)(1) clarifies the types of
documentation programs must gather and use to determine family income
for the relevant time period and whether such income meets requirements
for eligibility. New proposed Sec. 1301.02(c)(2) describes
documentation requirements when a family is found eligible for Head
Start due to receipt of or eligibility for public assistance. These
standards are consistent with the current Performance Standards and do
not represent proposed changes in policy (see current Sec. Sec.
1302.12(i)(1) and (i)(2) and 1305.2).
Consistent with the current Performance Standards, new proposed
Sec. 1301.02(d) describes requirements to reverify a child's
eligibility when they move from Early Head Start to Head Start
Preschool (see current Sec. 1302.12(j)(3)).
Proposed Eligibility Requirements Rescinded and Replaced From Current
Regulation
Proposed Sec. 1301.02(c)(4) specifies that self-attestation would
no longer satisfy eligibility requirements. If finalized, this change
would strengthen risk reduction strategies and mitigate the misuse of
funds. Similar to all sections of this NPRM, ACF requests public
comment on this proposed change.
Proposed Sec. 1301.02(e) specifies requirements for eligibility
determination records. Aligned with current regulation, the proposed
paragraph would require programs to maintain such records for each
participant while enrolled and for one year after they are no longer
enrolled (see current Sec. 1302.12(k)(1) and (k)(3)). Finally, in line
with efforts to safeguard Federal funds, proposed Sec. 1301.02(f)
would require Head Start programs to make such records available to HHS
upon request. Sharing such records must be done in accordance with
relevant laws and regulations on protecting the confidentiality of
personally identifiable information (PII). Note that Family Educational
Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) has exceptions, including for Federal
audits/monitoring as well as law enforcement activities. Presumably, if
agencies are adopting policies equivalent to FERPA, then similar
exceptions would need to be included in those policies.
To further guard against fraud and misuse of limited Federal funds
and to ensure the neediest children are served by Head Start programs,
proposed Sec. 1301.02(f) would require programs to report staff who
violate eligibility determination regulations to their Office of Head
Start Regional Office point of contact. This represents a proposed
change in policy from the current requirement at Sec. 1302.12(l) that
gives programs the flexibility to determine policies and procedures for
violating eligibility determination regulations.
To streamline Federal requirements and reduce duplication across
regulations and statute, proposed Sec. 1301.02(g) clarifies that
children experiencing homelessness qualify for program eligibility
(consistent with current regulations at Sec. 1302.12(c)(1)(iii)) and
that programs should address eligibility determinations for this
population in accordance with the Act. If finalized, the proposed
regulations would allow programs flexibility in documenting
homelessness, but self-attestation would no longer meet eligibility
requirements.
Programs are reminded that statute specifies that the Secretary
shall issue
[[Page 51263]]
rules to remove barriers to enrollment and participation of children
experiencing homelessness, including allowing such children to apply,
enroll in, and attend Head Start while required documentation is
gathered within a reasonable time frame (see Sec. 640(m)). In other
words, under the proposed regulations, programs must still comply with
the statutory requirement to support enrollment of children
experiencing homelessness.
Eligibility Requirements Proposed for Removal From Current Regulation
The proposed regulations for eligibility under Sec. 1301.02 would
reduce duplication in Federal regulatory requirements for Head Start
eligibility and remove provisions that currently allow programs to go
beyond statutory authority. While programs would still need to comply
with all eligibility requirements specified in the Act, their proposed
removal from the Performance Standards would reduce duplicative Federal
regulatory requirements and ensure these requirements more closely
align with statutory requirements and limitations on eligibility for
Head Start services.
This NPRM proposes to remove the following requirements from
current Sec. 1302.12 because they are already detailed in statute: age
requirements for eligibility for both Head Start Preschool and Early
Head Start (described in Sec. 638 and 645A(c) of the Act); eligibility
for a pregnant woman or child whose family income is equal to or below
the Federal poverty line (see Sec. 645(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act);
eligibility for a pregnant woman or child whose family is eligible for
public assistance, or would be in the absence of child care (see Sec.
645(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act); flexibility to enroll up to 10 percent of
children whose family income is over the income threshold (see Sec.
645(a)(1)(B)(iii)(I) of the Act); flexibility to enroll up to 35
percent of children whose family income is between 100 and 130 percent
of the Federal poverty line (see Sec. 645(a)(1)(B)(iii)(II)), including
requirements to justify such enrollment (see Sec. 645(a)(1)(B)(iv));
flexibilities in eligibility requirements for Migrant or Seasonal
programs and for Indian Tribes (see Further Consolidated Appropriations
Act, 2024; Pub. L. 118-47); eligibility requirements for communities
with less than 1,000 individuals (see Sec. 645(a)(2)); eligibility
duration for Head Start Preschool (see Sec. 645(a)(1)(B)(v)), including
Migrant and Seasonal Head Start; and ensuring children in Early Head
Start who are eligible for Head Start Preschool can receive those
services if the family desires (see Sec. 645A(b)(10)). Regarding the
requirements for those eligible for public assistance, programs are
reminded that at the time of this publication, ``public assistance''
for Head Start eligibility is inclusive of Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families (TANF), Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) (ACF-IM-HS-22-03).
A few eligibility-related standards are proposed for removal
because they go beyond statutory authorization regarding eligibility.
Specifically, the NPRM proposes to reserve eligibility for those who
meet the stated income threshold, without incorporating a further
expansion of eligibility by applying housing costs for eligibility
determination purposes (current 1302.12(i)(1)(ii), (ii)(A), and
(ii)(B)). The NPRM also strengthens program integrity by proposing to
remove a provision in current Sec. 1302.12(h) that permits programs to
enroll a child without documentation of child age, if such
documentation could not be provided by the family. We specifically
request public comment on the proposed removal of this provision.
Removal of these policies ensures programs are more closely aligning
with statutory requirements and limitations on eligibility for Head
Start services.
Enrollment and Attendance
The requirements proposed in Sec. 1301.03 focus specifically on
attendance and enrollment. Section 1301.03(a), which proposes to
require programs to track attendance for each child, aligns with Sec.
1302.16(a) of the current Performance Standards. Section 1301.03(b)
specifies that all applicable Federal and state statutes and state
regulations apply to attendance procedures regarding child safety
concerns due to absence(s). This means programs must align their
attendance procedures with a broader legal framework on attendance,
such as the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)/Section 504
of Rehabilitation Act, which are examples but not an exhaustive list.
Section 1301.03(c), which proposes to require that a program maintain
its funded enrollment level and fill any vacancy as soon as possible,
but not to exceed 30 days, aligns with Sec. 1302.15(a) of the current
Performance Standards.
The requirements proposed in Sec. 1301.03 would reduce the current
burden on enrollment and attendance. Programs would continue to comply
with requirements in the Act. The Act specifies that programs must
enroll 100 percent of their funded enrollment, maintain an active
waitlist, and engage in ongoing outreach to the community and
activities to identify underserved populations (Sec. 642(g)); are
permitted to provide more than one year of Head Start services to
eligible children and can recruit and accept applications throughout
the year (Sec. 645(c)); and must comply with enrollment-related
reporting requirements if serving children under the 130 percent
poverty line provision (Sec 645(a)(1)(B)(iv)). Lastly, the Act requires
programs to ensure the sharing of accurate and regular information for
the governing body and policy councils to use, specifically noting
program enrollment reports, including attendance reports for children
whose care is partially subsidized by another public agency (Sec.
642(d)(2)(C)).
The proposed changes to enrollment and attendance requirements in
Sec. 1301.03 produce significantly fewer Federal requirements for
enrollment and attendance, because many of the requirements are not in
the Act and they are proposed for removal in the NPRM.
These changes, if finalized, would greatly reduce administrative
burden and increase program flexibility. Recipients are reminded that
they are and will continue to be required to comply with all applicable
state and local requirements that have a bearing on enrollment and
attendance.
Other ERSEA-Related Requirements in Current Performance Standards
This NPRM also proposes to remove other Federal ERSEA-related
requirements in current Part 1302, Subpart A. The following sections
discuss in more detail these requirements in the current Performance
Standards and how they would be impacted when these proposed changes
are finalized.
Determining Community Strengths, Needs, and Resources
This NPRM proposes to remove the requirements in Sec. 1302.11 of
the current Performance Standards to avoid duplication with the Act's
requirements and to reduce burden for programs. If these proposed
changes are finalized, there would be significantly fewer Federal
requirements related to determining community strengths, needs, and
resources. Under the proposed regulations, programs would not be
required to propose a service area, as this requirement is duplicative
of the Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) process. When applying for
[[Page 51264]]
funding, a NOFO is posted by service area, and entities apply for the
service area(s) outlined in the NOFO. The recipient's Notice of Award
also specifies the service area the Federal funding supports, thus
providing documentation of the agreement between the recipient and OHS.
The proposed regulations would no longer require programs to
produce a complicated community needs assessment that meets current
overly prescriptive standards, including how often programs must
conduct the community assessment, what data elements must be included,
and the timelines for review and updates of the community assessment.
However, the Act clearly requires use of a community needs
assessment, and the Act addresses both how programs and the Secretary
should use it. First, the Act requires programs to consider the
community needs assessment for purposes of program design and
designation as a Head Start program. A program must use their community
assessment when applying to convert part-day slots to full-working-day
sessions and if applying to convert Head Start preschool slots to Early
Head Start slots (Sec 645(a)(4) and (5)(A)(ii)) to demonstrate that a
shift in the use of funds is responsive to community need.
Additionally, the Secretary must consider whether programs have
undertaken a communitywide needs assessment when expanding Head Start
and have reflected in their application a need to provide full-working-
day or full-calendar-year services and collaborate with other child
care providers (Sec. 640(g)(1)(C)).
Second, the Act also has several requirements related to the
community assessment in the context of monitoring. Reviews must include
an assessment of whether programs have addressed the communitywide
strategic planning and needs assessment (Sec. 641A(c)(2)(D)) and
programs may receive a corrective action if the program fails to
address the communitywide needs assessment (Sec. 641A(e)(1)).
Third, the Act requires the use of the communitywide needs
assessment for technical assistance, including programs developing an
annual technical assistance and training plan based on their self-
assessment and their communitywide strategic planning and needs
assessment (Sec 642(h)). The Act also requires the Secretary, in
providing Training and Technical Assistance (TTA), to assist programs
in conducting and participating in communitywide strategic planning and
needs assessment, including the needs of children experiencing
homelessness and their families (Sec. 648(a)(3)(B)(iii)).
Lastly, programs must share information about program planning,
policies, and operations with the governing body and policy council.
One source of information is the communitywide strategic planning and
needs assessment, including applicable updates (Sec 642(d)(2)(G)).
Selection Process
ACF proposes to remove the requirements in Sec. 1302.12 of the
current Performance Standards related to the selection process to allow
programs greater flexibility in determining how to enroll children in
their funded slots. Under these proposed changes, programs would still
be required to have selection criteria, but not at the level of
overprescription in the current Performance Standards. Note that
programs could continue to consider the enrollment of children of staff
members as part of their selection criteria, even though this standard
is proposed for removal in this NPRM. The intent with the proposed
removal of these requirements is not to take away a guidepost for
meeting the Act's requirement for selection criteria and then find
programs out of compliance; rather it is to be clear that programs have
flexibility to develop criteria for filling their enrollment slots that
is grounded in community need and best meets the needs of underserved
populations.
As noted, the Act requires programs to have selection criteria and
references selection criteria in several ways. First, in outlining the
responsibilities of the governing body, the Act includes establishing
procedures and criteria for recruitment, selection, and enrollment of
children (Sec. 642(c)(1)(E)(iv)(II)). This means the establishment of
selection criteria fall within the formal responsibilities of the
agency's governing body. Second, the Act requires that monitoring
reviews include a review and assessment of whether programs comply with
eligibility requirements under section 645(a)(1) and whether programs
have met the requirements for outreach and enrollment policies and
procedures, and selection criteria (Sec. 641A(c)(2)(J)). Third, the Act
requires the Secretary to issue regulations that prescribe eligibility
for participation in Head Start, including that programs may (1)
implement outreach and recruitment policies and procedures and (2)
establish selection criteria that ensure programs serve children who
are low-income and experiencing homelessness before serving children
whose families have incomes below 130 percent of the poverty line or
are over-income.
Lastly, the proposed removal of several provisions in Sec. 1302.14
of the current Performance Standards reduces duplication with
requirements included in the Act. The NPRM proposes to remove Sec.
1302.14(b) related to the children eligible for services under IDEA,
but the Act requires the Secretary to establish policies and procedures
to assure that programs fill at least 10 percent of their actual
enrollment slots with children eligible for IDEA (Sec. 640(d)(1)). As
such, prior to a final rule taking effect, programs should expect
guidance around the 10 percent enrollment requirement.
The NPRM also proposes to remove Sec. 1302.14(c) related to
waiting lists, but this base requirement does not change as the Act
requires that programs maintain an active waiting list at all times
with ongoing outreach to the community and activities to identify
underserved populations (Sec. 642(g)). As noted, recipients are
required to abide by Federal and state laws that apply to the selection
and enrollment of participants in Federally-funded programs.
Recruitment of Children
This NPRM proposes to remove Sec. 1302.13 of the current
Performance Standards, which addresses the recruitment of children, to
avoid duplication with requirements in the Act and to allow programs
more flexibility in how they recruit children and families to
participate in Head Start programs. If the proposed changes are
finalized, decisions on how best to engage eligible children and
families would be at the discretion of local programs. Programs can
continue to use the current practices when recruiting children and
families and would be compliant with requirements if they do, but
programs will no longer be required.
However, the Act includes several provisions that establish
recruitment-related requirements and responsibilities, and programs
will need to comply with these requirements even if the proposed
changes are finalized. First, as noted in the discussion of current
Sec. 1302.12: Selection process, the Act requires the governing body
to establish procedures and criteria for recruitment, selection, and
enrollment of children (Sec. 642(c)(1)(E)(iv)(II)). Second, the Act
states that programs should be permitted to recruit and accept
applications for enrollment throughout the year (Sec. 645(c)). Lastly,
in clarifying expectations related to full enrollment, the Act requires
that a program enroll 100 percent of its funded
[[Page 51265]]
enrollment and maintain an active waiting list at all times with
ongoing outreach to the community and activities to identify
underserved populations (Sec. 642(g)). The Act is clear that it is the
responsibility of the governing body to establish selection criteria,
that programs can recruit and accept children for enrollment throughout
the year, and that programs must have ongoing outreach to the
community, but the proposed removal of the requirements in current
Sec. 1302.13 gives programs more discretion in how they meet the
requirements in the Act.
Suspension and Expulsion
This NPRM proposes to remove Sec. 1302.17 of the current
Performance Standards, which outlines the limitations on suspension and
the prohibition on expulsion. The Act requires that Early Head Start
programs ensure that children with documented behavioral problems,
including problems related to prior or existing trauma, receive
appropriate screening and referral (Sec. 645A(b)(6)), thus programs
serving infants and toddlers must comply with this statutory
requirement. The removal of these regulatory requirements would apply
to both Head Start Preschool and Early Head Start programs and would
allow them to determine their own disciplinary policies within the
context of state and local licensing requirements.
The rationale for ACF's proposed removal of these requirements is
twofold. First, when ACF included these requirements limiting
suspension and prohibiting expulsion in its 2016 final rule revising
the Performance Standards, many state child care licensing regulations
either did not address suspension and expulsion explicitly or addressed
them only indirectly through discipline policies. The landscape has
changed, and a growing number of states have incorporated suspension
and expulsion requirements directly into licensing regulations, quality
standards, or state law. Second, the proposed removal of these Federal
requirements restores state and local authority in recognition that
effective Head Start programs can and do operate under varying
approaches based on state and local contexts. These proposed changes
are not an endorsement of suspension and expulsion as approaches to
address persistent and serious behavioral concerns; rather, the intent
is to allow programs to determine their own discipline policies, within
the context of state and local licensing requirements. Recipients are
reminded that they will continue to be required to comply with all
applicable state and local requirements that have a bearing on
suspension and expulsion.
Fees
This NPRM proposes to remove Sec. 1302.18 of the current
Performance Standards, which outlines the policy on fees, because it is
duplicative of requirements in the Act. Section 645(b) of the Act,
which aligns with Sec. 1302.18, prohibits the Secretary from
prescribing any fee schedule or otherwise provide for the charging of
any fees for participation in Head Start programs. The Act notes that
this prohibition does not prevent (1) families who participate in Head
Start programs and who are willing and able to pay the full cost of
participation from doing so, and (2) programs that provide full-
working-day services in collaboration with other agencies from
collecting a family co-payment to support extended day services, as
long as the co-payment does not exceed the copayment charged to
families with similar incomes and circumstances.
Education and the Learning Environment
The proposed regulations on education and the learning environment
reflect ACF's commitment to providing flexibility to Head Start
programs in how they implement services in the classroom context. The
proposed regulations address teaching and learning environment
(proposed Sec. 1301.04), group size and ratio (proposed Sec.
1301.05), and parent and engagement in education and child development
services (proposed Sec. 1301.06).
Teaching and Learning Environment
The proposed regulations for Teaching and learning environment
(Sec. 1301.04) address requirements pertaining to language, nutrition
and physical activity.
Language
The proposed regulation regarding language in Sec. 1301.04(a) will
require programs to conduct all education to children in English.
Further, Sec. 1301.04(a)(1) specifies that if a child's native
language is not English, and the child does not speak English, a
program must prioritize teaching English to the child. Under the
proposed regulations in Sec. 1301.17(d), an Indian Head Start agency
will not be subject to Sec. 1301.04(a) so long as the language being
spoken relates to the furtherance of tribal heritage.
If finalized, these proposed changes would represent a shift from
current Head Start regulations which require programs to support
bilingualism, including both English and the home language for children
who are dual language learners (see current Sec. 1302.31(b)(2)) as the
current requirements are at odds with E.O. 14224, Designating English
as the Official Language of the United States. As discussed in the
E.O., learning English opens doors economically for families and helps
individuals better engage with their communities. The changes proposed
in this NPRM help achieve these goals as a key part of a young child's
education.
The Act includes several requirements aimed at supporting children
and families with limited English proficiency (LEP), a term defined in
the Act under Sec. 637 which includes children whose native language is
not English or who come from an environment where another language
affects English proficiency, and whose English difficulties may deny
them success in an English-instruction classroom or full participation
in society. Under Sec. 641A(a)(1)(B)(x), the Act requires the Secretary
to modify, as necessary, standards for LEP children that must include
progress toward the acquisition of the English language while also
making meaningful progress in the broader domains (language, literacy,
math, etc.). The Act requires programs to ensure that assessments are
valid, reliable, and appropriately administered for LEP children, with
necessary accommodations (Sec. 641A(b)(2)), provide outreach and
information to parents of LEP children in a language they can
understand, to the extent practicable, and establish procedures to
identify LEP children and inform parents about instructional services,
including English acquisition (Sec. 642(11) and Sec. 642(f)(10)), and
build workforce capacity through training and technical assistance. In
addition, the Act requires all recipients to establish goals and
measurable objectives for educational services (Sec. 642(f)(9)).
In summary, if these proposed regulations are finalized, programs
would be required to conduct all education to children in English
(except for Tribal programs, so long as the language being spoken
relates to the furtherance of Tribal heritage). However, Head Start
programs will continue to be required to continue to comply with all
language requirements, for LEP children and their parents, as detailed
in the Act. In addition to alignment with E.O. 14224, these
[[Page 51266]]
proposed changes would minimize non-essential multilingual services and
redirect resources toward English-language education and assimilation.
Nutrition
The proposed regulation regarding nutrition in section Sec.
1301.04(b) requires snack and meal times to be structured and used as
learning opportunities that support teaching staff-child interactions
and foster communication and conversations that contribute to a child's
learning, development, and socialization. Additionally, the proposed
regulation encourages programs to meet this requirement with family
style meals when developmentally appropriate. These proposed nutrition
regulations under the teaching and learning environment align to
current Sec. 1302.31(e)(2) and clarify and elevate key aspects of
nutrition services and how they strengthen and reinforce education
services. This emphasizes ACF's commitment to the Make America Healthy
Again (MAHA) agenda through Head Start program services and places a
spotlight on the role nutrition plays in promoting children's growth,
development, and lifelong healthy habits.
In summary, if the proposed regulations are finalized, programs
would continue to be required to use snack and meal times as learning
opportunities that support teaching staff-child interactions and foster
communication and conversations that contribute to a child's learning,
development, and socialization. Additionally, the proposed regulation
continues to encourage programs to meet this requirement with family
style meals when developmentally appropriate.
Physical Activity
The proposed regulation regarding physical activity in section
Sec. 1301.04(c) requires programs to recognize physical activity as
important to learning and integrate intentional movement and physical
activity into curricular activities and daily routines in ways that
support health and learning. A program must provide a minimum of 30
minutes of physical activity for every three and a half hours that t
the child participates in the program. The proposed regulation also
states that, weather permitting, the activity should take place
outside. While the proposed policy aligns with existing requirements to
``integrate intentional movement and physical activity into curricular
activities and daily routines'' it goes a step further by setting a
minimum baseline for the duration that such activity must take place.
Programs that exceed this baseline would still be within compliance
with these proposed requirements.
For infants, physical activity may include a range of
developmentally appropriate movements beyond prone positioning, such as
supervised floor play and interactive movement. While ``tummy time'' is
an important component of development, it is typically recommended in
shorter intervals and does not represent the full scope of physical
activity for infants. The proposed changes emphasize the importance of
physical activity in young children's healthy development. Higher
amounts of physical activity are associated with better indicators of
bone health and reduced risk for excessive increases in weight in
children 3 to 6 years of age.\1\ Regular physical activity is crucial
for physical, metabolic, and mental health, as well as for the proper
development of the musculoskeletal system in children.\2\ The proposed
policy would ensure children receive a baseline amount of physical
activity while attending Head Start programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pate, R. R., Hillman, C. H., Janz, K. F., Katzmarzyk, P. T.,
Powell, K. E., Torres, A., & Whitt-Glover, M. C. (2019). Physical
activity and health in children younger than 6 years: A systematic
review. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 51(6), 1282-1291.
https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0000000000001940.
\2\ Veldman, S. L. C., Chin A Paw, M. J. M., & Altenburg, T. M.
(2021). Physical activity and prospective associations with
indicators of health and development in children aged <5 years: A
systematic review. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and
Physical Activity, 18, Article 6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-020-01072-w.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Group Size and Ratio
The proposed regulations for group size and ratio (Sec. 1301.05)
would require Head Start programs to establish and publish both a
maximum group size and a ratio of children to staff that is consistent
with applicable state and local laws and Child Care and Development
Fund regulations. The published group size and ratio must be in a
location and format visible to parents. Research indicates that staff-
child ratios in early care and education settings demonstrates that
state child care licensing regulations provide adequate supervision to
protect children's health and safety while supporting normal
developmental progress. Research has found few, if any consistent or
statistically significant associations between child-staff ratios
(within the ranges permitted under state licensing standards) and
children's cognitive, language, or social emotional outcomes.\3\
Therefore, the proposed regulations would replace Federally mandated
staff-to-child ratios and group-size limits with state-established
minimum standards that programs have the flexibility to either follow
or remain more stringent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Perlman, M., Fletcher, B., Falenchuk, O., Brunsek, A.,
McMullen, E., & Shah, P. S. (2017). Child-staff ratios in early
childhood education and care settings and child outcomes: A
systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One, 12(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Group size and ratio requirements are currently established only in
regulation. The Performance Standards establish different group size
and teacher-child ratio requirements for center-based Head Start
Preschool (current Sec. 1302.21(b)(3) and (b)(4)), center-based Early
Head Start (current Sec. 1302.21(b)(2)), and family child care
(current Sec. 1302.23(b)). Ratios and group sizes are currently
differentiated within program option type depending on the age of
children served.
Because the Act does not prescribe specific group size or staff-to-
child ratios, the proposed regulations would effectively rescind the
current requirements in the Performance Standards, and Head Start
programs would no longer be required to adhere to these requirements.
Rather, they would be required to maintain a group size and a ratio of
children to staff that is consistent with applicable state and local
licensing laws and Child Care and Development Fund regulations.
Currently, the Head Start ratio requirements are more restrictive
than any state in the nation for three of the four categories of ratio
requirements specified in the current performance standards, and in the
remaining category, the ratio is more restrictive than every state
other than Vermont and Massachusetts. Requirements are similarly more
restrictive for group size, where the current Head Start regulations
are more restrictive than every state in the nation for three of the
four specified group size categories. The remaining category has a more
stringent requirement for group size than every state other than
Vermont. Thus, programs in all 50 states would be given the opportunity
to serve more children if the program chose to do so, but programs
would still have the right to remain at the current thresholds.
Additionally, programs would be required to publish the group size
and ratio in a location and format visible to parents. Collectively,
these proposed changes would allow programs to defer to state licensing
laws for group size and ratios. This proposed change allows programs to
align with the state and local requirements on ratios and groups
[[Page 51267]]
sizes that are best for their communities. Public posting of this
information would support transparency for parents in their selection
of the best early education arrangement for their child.
HHS acknowledges that the current ratio and group size requirements
were adopted to promote child safety, support effective supervision and
teacher-child interactions, and foster high-quality early learning
environments. HHS continues to recognize the importance of these
objectives and the research supporting them. However, the specific
numerical thresholds currently prescribed in the Performance Standards
were established decades ago based on the research and policy
considerations available at that time. Since then, state early
childhood systems have evolved significantly, including through more
robust licensing and oversight requirements.
HHS has therefore reconsidered whether a single set of Federally
prescribed ratio and group size thresholds is necessary to achieve
these objectives in all program settings across the country. While HHS
continues to recognize the benefits associated with smaller group sizes
and lower staff-child ratios, HHS has determined that a single
Federally mandated approach may unnecessarily limit program capacity
and local flexibility. HHS notes that the current requirements are more
restrictive than those applicable in nearly all state early childhood
systems, and programs remain subject to applicable state and local
requirements.
This proposal is also consistent with prior efforts to simplify
requirements and provide greater flexibility to programs. In ACF's 2015
NPRM and 2016 final rule on Head Start, HHS retained the existing ratio
and group size thresholds while modifying related requirements to
simplify implementation and increase flexibility. HHS believes this
proposal continues that approach by allowing programs to make staffing
and classroom organization decisions based on local needs and
circumstances while maintaining responsibility for providing safe,
high-quality services.
Parent and Family Engagement in Education and Child Development
Services
Proposed Sec. 1301.06(a) would require center-based and family
child care programs to structure education and child development
services to recognize parents' roles as children's primary teachers and
nurturers. This proposed regulation aligns to current Sec. 1302.34(a)
and demonstrates ACF's commitment to supporting families and ensuring
programs prioritize the role of parents in the delivery of their
education services. The strong emphasis on engaging parents in the
context of the proposed streamlined regulatory framework spotlights the
important role parents play in their child's development and growth and
the partnership that programs need to forge to honor parents' decision
making in regards to their child's education.
Next, proposed Sec. 1301.06(b) would require programs to implement
strategies to engage parents and family members in their children's
learning and development and support parent-child relationships,
including specific strategies for father engagement, and provide
educational material and instruction that demonstrates healthy marriage
as a positive good. Notably, the proposed regulations would add a new
requirement to provide educational material and instruction that
demonstrates the value of healthy marriage. This proposed change to
current requirements reflects ACF's commitment to supporting strong
families as the cornerstone of a healthy society.
The Act authorizes and encourages programs to provide family
support and family strengthening services, which can include activities
that support healthy relationships and marriage. Under the Act, Head
Start programs must provide family and community partnership services
designed to support parents in improving family well-being and
achieving family goals (Sec. 642(b)). The Act permits programs to offer
services that support family stability, including activities related to
relationship-building and father involvement. This includes education
on marriage and healthy relationships. The Act also emphasizes
responsible father engagement and family strengthening as part of
comprehensive services to families (Sec. 641(d)(2)(J)(vii)).
In summary, this NPRM promotes healthy marriage as a positive good
and emphasizes the critical role of fathers. Under the proposed
regulation, Head Start programs would be required to implement
strategies to engage parents and family members in their children's
learning and development and support parent child relationships,
including specific strategies for father engagement, and have increased
flexibility to so do. Additionally, if finalized, Head Start programs
would newly be required to provide educational material and instruction
that demonstrates healthy marriage as a positive good. These proposed
changes would empower parents as their children's primary decision-
makers and help to show how healthy married households often have
better economic and social outcomes for children and adults.
Determining Program Structure
The proposed regulations remove existing limiting regulations
regarding program options. As such, given that center-based, family day
care (family child care), home-based services and locally-designed
program options are outlined or defined in the Act programs will
continue to be able to operate under these models with greater
flexibility due to the removal of specific regulatory requirements.
The conversion process from Head Start Preschool to Early Head
Start is not impacted as the statutory authority for conversion is
maintained in the Act (Sec. 645(a)(5)(A)).
Center-Based Service Duration
Under the proposed regulations, the Performance Standards would no
longer require programs to adhere to current center-based, Head Start
Preschool service duration requirements (current Sec. 1302.21(c)(2)).
Instead, programs are still required to abide by the Act which sets a
floor whereby the Secretary must allow such programs to align with the
hours of service in regulation in 1994, as long as programs do not
provide less than 3 hours of service per day and do not reduce the
number of service days per week or per year required in 1994 (Sec.
640(k)(1)). When the current service duration requirements were
finalized in 2016, ACF recognized that research generally supported the
value of longer early education services for children, while also
acknowledging that the evidence did not identify a clear threshold or
specific combination of hours and days necessary to achieve positive
child outcomes. Upon further consideration, ACF believes that
prescribing a minimum annual number of service hours is not the most
appropriate means of promoting positive outcomes for children. ACF
believes that grant recipients, in partnership with their Policy
Councils, are better positioned to determine service schedules that
reflect the needs of their communities and families. Removing the
service duration requirements as proposed in this NPRM will provide
greater flexibility to design program schedules that reflect local
family and community needs. To the extent that programs choose to
reduce duration, ACF acknowledges that families may need to secure
alternative child care arrangements, which could impose additional
financial costs or lost work time for families. However,
[[Page 51268]]
programs will also have the flexibility to develop operational hours
that align with the needs of parents' work schedules, including
maintaining their current hours of operation if desired.
Specifically, if the proposed regulations are finalized, the
center-based, Head Start service duration requirements from 1994 would
remain in place and stipulate that center-based preschool programs that
operate four days per week must provide at least 128 days per year of
planned class operations. Under the 1994 requirements, Center-based
preschool programs that operate five days per week must provide at
least 160 days per year of planned class operations. Those programs
implementing a combination of four and five days per week must plan to
operate between 128 and 160 days per year. All center-based preschool
programs must provide a minimum of 32 weeks of scheduled days of class
operations over an eight- or nine-month period. Every effort should be
made to schedule makeup classes using existing resources if planned
class days fall below the number required per year.
With respect to center-based EHS service duration, the proposed
regulations would return to the requirements found in the Act, which
specifies that EHS programs must provide ``continuous'' comprehensive
child development and family support services (Sec. 645A(b)(1)). Even
prior to the establishment of 1,380 hours policy in regulation in 2016,
ACF has long interpreted this statutory requirement to mean the
provision of full-day, year-round services for infants and toddlers in
EHS programs. This interpretation better supports working parents,
children, and families as a whole, aligning with Head Start's core
mission of fostering healthy child development, strengthening the
family unit and helping families rise out of poverty into sustained
economic self-sufficiency. Under these proposed regulations, recipients
would still have to comply with the requirement for continuous EHS
service duration and any other applicable state and local requirements.
Center-Based Licensing and Facility Square Footage
Under the proposed regulations, the Performance Standards would no
longer establish Head Start specific square footage and space
arrangement requirements (see current Sec. 1302.21(d)(2) and (3)).
These requirements are not specified in the Act. Therefore, these
changes, if finalized, would reduce administrative burden and increase
program flexibility to determine whether and how to continue these
practices. Recipients are reminded that they still will be required to
comply with all applicable state and local requirements, including
continuing any of these practices if mandated by state or local law or
regulations.
Home-Based Option
With the exception of the proposed regulation at Sec. 1301.05(a)
already discussed previously, the proposed regulations remove
regulatory requirements with respect to how to conduct the home-based
program option as currently described in Sec. 1302.22. As in other
areas of the proposed regulations, this represents ACF's commitment to
reducing regulatory burden and returning control to local programs.
Under the proposed rules, hyper specific requirements regarding home
visitor caseloads (current Sec. 1302.22(b)), service duration (current
Sec. 1302.22(c)), and make-up requirements (current Sec. 1302.22
(c)(3)) would be removed and those determinations will instead be made
by local and state decisionmakers.
Furthermore, the proposed rule removes all of the Federal
regulations found at Sec. 1302.35 regarding home--based program
design, instructional activities for home visits, curriculum, staff
support, adapting curriculum, and group socialization structure. As the
Act does not specify these requirements, the removal of these
regulations would give programs greater flexibility in implementation.
Family Child Care Option
With the exception of the proposed regulation at Sec. 1301.05(a)
already discussed previously, the proposed regulations remove other
requirements regarding the family child care program option as
currently described in Sec. 1302.23. The Act does recognize and define
the program option ``Head Start family day care'' as ``Head Start
services provided in a private residence other than the residence of
the child receiving such services'' (Sec. 637). Therefore, Head Start
recipients would still be authorized to provide services through the
family child care program option; this is not a change from current
policy.
Under the proposed rule family child care homes would still be
required to accommodate children and families with disabilities
(proposed Sec. 1301.10 and current Sec. 1302.23(a)(2)), as required
by applicable Federal and state statutes and regulations regarding
providing services for children with disabilities. Additionally, under
the proposed rule, programs operating the family child care option
would not be required to adhere to service duration requirements that
specify a minimum of at least 1,380 hours of operations per year
(current Sec. 1302.23(c)) or have a child development specialist
(current Sec. 1302.23(e)). The requirement for 1,380 hours of service
duration for family child care was added to the Performance Standards
through a 2016 final rule. That final rule noted that, prior to this
requirement being developed, nearly all Head Start family child care
providers already provided longer service duration to families.
Therefore, ACF believes that this regulation is unnecessary, as it is
clear that family child care providers adapt well to the needs of
working families without an overly prescriptive regulatory requirement.
This NPRM will provide family child care programs the flexibility they
need to design schedules that reflect local family and community needs,
and ACF anticipates that many will choose to continue to offer longer
hours of operation. If programs do choose to reduce duration, ACF
acknowledges that families may need to secure alternative child care
arrangements or may miss work time. However, programs will have the
flexibility to develop operational hours that align with the needs of
parents' work schedules, including maintaining their current hours of
operation if desired.
Overall, the proposed removal of regulatory requirements under the
family child care option aligns with ACF's efforts to reduce
prescriptive Federal oversight on local programs and provide more
autonomy to local programs to operate as they see fit, within the
bounds of Federal and state statutes.
Locally-Designed Program Option Variations
The proposed regulations under Sec. 1301.18(c) related to locally-
designed program option variations are discussed in greater detail in
the section of this preamble titled, Program Flexibility.
Curricula
The proposed regulations do not restate curricula expectations
which are currently specified under Sec. 1302.32, as the Act maintains
that each Head Start agency must implement a standardized, research-
based early childhood curriculum that promotes school readiness in
language, literacy, mathematics, science, cognitive, social and
emotional development, and physical development, and that is aligned
with ongoing assessment, learning goals, and the Head Start Birth
[[Page 51269]]
to 5 Early Learning Outcomes Framework (Sec. 642(f)(3)). Therefore
under these proposed rules, programs would only be required to comply
with the applicable curricula requirements as detailed in the Act.
Child Screenings and Assessments
This NPRM proposes to rescind current Sec. 1302.33 Child
screenings and assessments to remove duplication with the Act, reduce
administrative burden, and restore more flexibility to local Head Start
agencies to make decisions on how best to implement screening and
assessment practices in their programs.
The Act requires that programs use research-based assessment
methods to support the educational instruction and school readiness of
children in the program (Sec. 642(f)(5)). The Act includes further
specification that assessment methods should be developmentally
appropriate, consistent with nationally recognized professional
standards, administered by staff with appropriate training for such
administration, and high-quality research-based measures (see Sec.
641A(b)(2)).
In addition, the Act requires programs to use research-based
developmental screening tools that have been demonstrated to be
standardized, reliable, valid, and accurate for the child being
assessed, to the maximum extent practicable, and aligned to the Head
Start Early Learning Outcomes Framework (Sec. 642(f)(6)). In addition,
some requirements related to the referral and support of children who
may be or are eligible for services under IDEA still apply (see
Services for Children with Disabilities for more details). Based on the
requirements included in the Act, under the proposed regulations
programs will continue to be required to conduct screenings and
assessments for enrolled children.
In summary, under the proposed regulation programs would continue
to be responsible for conducting screenings and assessments but will
have additional flexibility in how these are implemented as long as
they continue to meet the requirements specified in the Act.
Parent and Family Engagement in Education and Child Development
Services
The proposed regulation in Sec. 1301.6 would substantially reduce
the hyper specificity currently required of programs with respect to
parent and family engagement in education and child development
services currently found at Sec. 1302.34. This proposed change grants
programs the flexibility to engage parents and families in ways that
are best suited to individual needs and seeks to strike an appropriate
balance between reducing regulatory burden on programs, while still
recognizing the critical role of parents as children's first and
lifelong educators and nurturers.
Programs will still be required to comply with relevant provisions
of the Act. These include the statutory requirement that parents
participate in the governance of Head Start programs, including through
policy councils responsible for program direction (Sec. 642(c) and
(d)), and are involved in the development, conduct, and overall program
direction at the local level (Sec. 642(b)). Accordingly, while the
proposed rule would remove hyper specific regulations (such as the
group size requirement that the number of family members to staff that
conduct the family partnership process and work on family, health and
community engagement is no more than 40:1(current Sec.
1305.52(d)(2))), core statutory requirements concerning parent
involvement and governance under the Act will remain, but with much
greater discretion and control on the part of local programs to
implement the requirements as they and the families they serve see fit.
Health and Nutrition
The proposed regulatory changes related to Child Health and
Nutrition reflect ACF's commitment to supporting the healthy
development and nutrition of children served in Head Start programs.
The proposed regulations address Child Nutrition (Sec. 1301.07) and
Family Support Services for Health and Nutrition (Sec. 1301.08). The
proposed regulations would require programs to have staff or
consultants to support nutrition services, in alignment with current
Sec. 1302.91(e)(8)(iii), that promote development and learning and
ensure that infants are held during bottle feeding. The proposed
changes in this NPRM will would require programs to serve nutrient-
dense, whole foods consistent with a healthy and nutritious diet,
aligned to the program requirements of the Child and Adult Food Care
Program (CACFP) or, where applicable, provide an opportunity for
infants to be served breastmilk during the day. Similar to all sections
of this NPRM, ACF requests public comment on the proposed changes,
including whether any additional, and if so, what, supports programs
may require to implement the proposed changes.
In addition, programs would need to collaborate with parents to
promote children's health and well-being through nutrition and physical
activity support services. Under the proposed regulations, this
collaboration would include discussions regarding: the child's
nutritional status; the importance of physical activity and healthy
eating; the negative health consequences of sugar-sweetened beverages
and grain-based desserts; and selecting and preparing nutritious foods
within family budgets. This proposed regulation retains the core
principles of Head Start to engage families and provide for the health,
nutrition and well-being of children and families. Prescriptive
requirements pertaining to nutrition are proposed in contrast to the
otherwise de-regulatory approach of this NPRM to highlight the
importance associated with healthy eating. Other nutrition-related
provisions affecting the learning environment and program goals are
addressed elsewhere in this preamble (see Sec. Sec. 1301.04 and
1301.13).
The Act contains additional requirements that programs will
continue to be required to comply with under the proposed regulations.
The Act requires all recipients to establish goals and measurable
objectives for health and nutritional services (Sec. 642(f)(9)).
Statute requires programs to conduct screenings (Sec. 642(f)(6)); so,
while the proposed regulations would no longer specify that programs
must conduct hearing and vision screenings, this requirement will still
apply due to statutory requirements. However, programs would have more
flexibility on timeline and process for ensuring screenings are
completed. Early Head Start programs must coordinate with other state
and local entities to ensure a comprehensive array of services,
including health and mental health services (Sec. 645A(b)(5)).
In addition, Section 657A of the Act outlines requirements for
parental consent for nonemergency intrusive physical examinations. ACF
recognizes that USDA's CACFP is an important source of Federal funding
to support access to nutritious foods in Head Start programs. Programs
must continue to use USDA as a funding source for meals and snacks and
programs must comply with applicable regulations regarding nutrition
and food safety.
While the Act establishes high-level requirements for these
services, the proposed removal of multiple prescriptive requirements,
including requirements to maintain a Health and Mental Health Services
Advisory Committee, to obtain advance authorization for health, mental
health, and developmental procedures, to have monthly mental health
consultation, to assist children with daily teeth brushing, to conduct
health
[[Page 51270]]
determinations, to assist families in navigating health systems, and to
facilitate access to health care and insurance, would provide
recipients more flexibility to design and implement health, nutrition,
and mental health services that best meet their communities' needs.
Many mental Health regulations were introduced in a 2024 final rule to
reinforce that mental health should be integrated into all aspects of
the Head Start program, but upon further consideration, ACF believes
these requirements were overly prescriptive and limit programs' ability
to tailor services to the needs of their communities.
Safety and Transportation Practices
Licensing
This NPRM proposes to streamline safety and transportation
requirements in the Performance Standards by removing regulations that
duplicate state and local requirements. In proposed Sec. 1301.09(a),
programs would be required to be licensed by the state, tribal, or
local entity and comply with all Federal and State statutes, and
regulations regarding safety and transportation practices for children.
If exempt, programs must meet CCDF basic health and safety
requirements. While some states narrowly define ``licensing exempt'',
for the purposes of this proposed rule, ACF considers all programs that
are not required by the state to be licensed ``exempt'', including
school-based and tribal programs that do not have an applicable
licensing mechanism. Based on administrative data on service locations
and licensing, ACF estimates that approximately 26 percent of Head
Start service locations are not licensed under state child care
licensing requirements. These locations commonly include programs that
are license-exempt, operating under public school or local education
agency authority; home-based or other non-center-based service models;
and sites licensed, permitted, or overseen through another authority or
partner rather than through the state child care licensing process.
Smaller shares reflect sites that are closed or not yet operational,
and locations in the process of obtaining or renewing licensure.
Preventing Lead Exposure
In proposed Sec. 1301.09(b), programs would be required to prevent
children from being exposed to lead in the water and paint of Head
Start facilities. Research has indicated there are higher than
acceptable rates of lead in the water of child care facilities,\4\ and
exposure to any amount of lead in early childhood is particularly
detrimental for development.\5\ This proposed requirement is not new
for programs; it would replace current Sec. 1302.47(b)(9), while
giving programs and states greater flexibility on the specific pathways
to prevent children from being exposed to lead.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Triantafyllidou, S., Gallagher, D., & Edwards, M. (2020).
Assessing risk and mitigation options for lead in drinking water in
U.S. child care facilities. Environmental Research, 181, 108907;
Redmon, J. H., et al. (2022). Lead levels in tap water at licensed
North Carolina child care facilities, 2020-2021.
\5\ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2024).
Lead exposure and health effects in children; Wehby, G. L. (2025).
Early-life low lead levels and academic achievement in childhood and
adolescence.; Lanphear, B. P., Hornung, R., Khoury, J., et al.
(2005). Low-level environmental lead exposure and children's
intellectual function: An international pooled analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reducing Duplication With State and Local Systems
While the proposed rule would remove Federal requirements currently
found in Sec. 1302.47 (safety practices) and Sec. Sec. 1303.70-
1303.75 (transportation) because they are duplicative with state and
local requirements. The Act requires programs to collaborate on the
shared use of transportation and facilities with the Local Education
Agency, in appropriate cases (Sec. (642(e)(4)(A)).
Under the proposed rule, programs continue to be required to meet
all applicable state and local licensing and regulatory requirements
pertaining to safety and transportation. These requirements include,
but are not limited to, state transportation laws and vehicle safety
standards, local building and fire codes, state child abuse and neglect
reporting laws, state and local emergency preparedness requirements,
and state requirements for use of child safety restraints in moving
vehicles. Licensing exempt and programs that are not required to be
licensed such as school-based or Tribal programs must meet CCDF's basic
health and safety requirements. These include but are not limited to
core safety requirements such as building safety, child protection and
emergency preparedness. This proposal would return primary licensing
and regulatory authority to states and eliminate regulations where
Federal duplication of state and local standards exists.
While the proposed rule would remove overly specific and detailed
Federal requirements for transportation services in current Part 1303
Subpart F, such as the requirement to have at least one bus monitor
while transporting children, programs would remain permitted and
encouraged to offer transportation services under the proposed rule.
The proposed rule would also remove overly prescriptive safety
requirements related to facilities, equipment and materials, safety
training, hygiene practices, administrative safety procedures, and
disaster preparedness in current Sec. 1302.47.
Programs must continue to meet applicable state and local licensing
and other regulatory standards including USDA food safety standards.
Programs may voluntarily continue any practices from the current
Performance Standards that support child safety, even if not required
by state or local regulation, and programs retain discretion to
implement safety practices that exceed minimum state and local
requirements. Head Start programs will remain accountable for ensuring
the safety of enrolled children. The Act requires the Secretary to
monitor programs (Sec. 641A(c)), and HHS retains authority to issue
deficiencies when monitoring reveals a systemic or substantial material
failure that poses a threat to the health or safety of children or
staff (Sec. 637(2)(A)(i)).
Services for Children With Disabilities
The proposed Sec. 1301.10 ``Services for children with
disabilities'' would require programs to comply with all applicable
Federal and state statutes and regulations regarding providing services
for children with disabilities. This Section is proposed to replace
Part 1302 Subpart F of the current Performance Standards. This proposal
is intended to reduce duplication of regulations while still
maintaining the protection required for children with disabilities in
statute.
Additionally, the Act has multiple requirements that pertain to
services with children with disabilities that will still apply to
programs. The Act requires Head Start programs to establish effective
procedures for timely referral of children with disabilities to the
State or local agency providing services under IDEA and collaborate
with that agency (Sec. 642(b)(14)). It also requires that programs
establish effective procedures for providing necessary early
intervening services to children with disabilities prior to an
eligibility determination by the State or local agency responsible for
providing services (Sec. 642(b)(15)). The Act also requires Head Start
agencies to coordinate with the local education agency and programs
offering services under Part C of IDEA and Early Head Start programs
must ensure formal linkages with providers of early intervention
services for infants and
[[Page 51271]]
toddlers with disabilities (Sec. 642(e)(3)). Lastly, the Act specifies
that programs must work with schools to support children's entry into
Kindergarten and to facilitate and seek the involvement of parents of
participating children in activities designed to help such parents
become full partners in the education of their children--these
requirements are not specific to children with disabilities but apply
to them and all other children enrolled in the program (Sec. 642)(b)).
Furthermore, the Act requires the Secretary to establish policies
and procedures that will ensure recipients provide early support
services (educational and behavioral) to children who may have
disabilities, before a formal IDEA eligibility determination is made
and promptly refer children to the appropriate state or local IDEA
agency and collaborate to coordinate services for children with special
needs (Sec. 640(d)). While these requirements are no longer specified
in the proposed regulations, if this proposed rule becomes final, the
Secretary would issue policies and procedures to ensure these
requirements are met.
Under proposed Sec. 1301.10 programs would continue to be held to
all Federal and state requirements to support children with
disabilities and the core requirements of those services do not change
under the proposed regulations. That said, the proposed changes would
provide programs with additional flexibility to carry out these
requirements. For example, the Act requires programs to help parents
become full partners in the education of their children and create
linkages to other agencies, the program will have flexibility with
these proposed changes to do that in a way that best meets the needs of
enrolled families as long as they are compliant with all other state
and Federal laws and regulations.
Family Engagement and Program Transitions
Family Engagement
The proposed rule includes requirements for family engagement as
they pertain to education services (proposed Sec. 1301.06) and health
and nutrition (proposed Sec. 1301.08). These proposed regulations are
discussed in more detail in Education and the Learning Environment and
Health and Nutrition, respectively.
In addition, this NPRM proposes to rescind current 1302 Subpart E--
Family and Community Engagement Program Services to reduce duplication
with the Act and increase program flexibility. The Act establishes as a
central obligation for Head Start agencies that they actively involve
families and members of the community in the life of the program. To
meet this requirement, Head Start programs must actively engage parents
and community members as meaningful partners in shaping and carrying
out the program, ensuring they have a direct role in decisions and
program design (Sec. 642(b)(1-2)). Programs are expected to establish
strong, accessible processes that support parents as full participants
in their children's education, including offering transportation when
appropriate (Sec. 642(b)(3)). They must provide family-focused supports
such as literacy services, parenting education, and substance abuse
counseling, and conduct individualized family needs assessments in
clear, understandable language. Programs are also required to conduct
community outreach to attract new volunteers, ensure information is
accessible to offer family literacy services and parenting skills
training families (Sec. 642(b)(4-5)). The Act also requires programs to
provide a family needs assessment (Sec. 642(b)(7)) and support to help
parents secure assistance from public and private sources (Sec.
642(b)(12)).
Per the Act, Head Start agencies may also provide additional
supports to parents, including training in basic child development,
assistance in developing literacy and communication skills,
opportunities for parents to share experiences with other parents,
health services information, including maternal depression, regular in-
home visitation, and other activities designed to help parents become
full partners in their children's education (Sec. 642(b)(6)).
Under this NPRM many of the requirements in current 1302 Subpart E
would still apply either through the proposed regulations or because
they are required by the Act as summarized above. Other hyper specific
requirements are proposed for removal and would no longer be Federal
Head Start requirements which would increase program flexibility to
better meet the needs specific to the families that are being served.
While the Act requires family needs assessments (Sec. 642(b)(7))
the specific requirements in current regulation would no longer apply
(current Sec. 1302.52) and programs would have flexibility to
implement family needs assessments in ways that best meet the needs of
their community. Overall, these changes seek to reduce duplication
between program regulations and the Act and increase program
flexibility.
Community Engagement
This NPRM proposes to rescind current 1302 Subpart E--Family and
Community Engagement Program Services to reduce duplication with the
Act and increase program flexibility.
The Act requires Head Start programs to actively collaborate and
coordinate with public and private organizations in its community to
improve the availability and quality of services for children and
families (see Sec. 642(e)). This means working closely with the local
schools, which children will attend after Head Start, school districts,
businesses, community-based and faith-based organizations, museums, and
libraries to build community support and strengthen school readiness
efforts. In communities where both Head Start and public
prekindergarten programs operate, the agencies must coordinate their
activities. This includes working together to identify eligible
children and align services. Head Start agencies must also coordinate
with a range of other programs that serve young children and families,
such as child care assistance programs, child welfare and foster care
services, programs serving children experiencing homelessness, family
literacy initiatives, and early intervention and special education
services. In addition, per the Act, Head Start programs must take steps
to work with local educational agencies and schools to share
transportation and facilities when appropriate, reduce duplication of
services, improve efficiency, expand access for underserved children,
and exchange information about noneducational services such as health
and social supports (see Sec. 642(e)). Finally, the Act requires Head
Start agencies to enter into a written memorandum of understanding with
the local entities responsible for managing publicly funded preschool
programs in their service area, if one exists (see Sec. 642(e)).
While this NPRM proposes to rescind the regulations on Community
Engagement (current Sec. 1302.53), the majority of these requirements
would continue to apply through the requirements specified in the Act,
including coordinating and collaborating with public and private
entities (e.g., schools, other early childhood programs, health, mental
health, child welfare) to improve the availability and quality of
services to Head Start children and families (Sec. 642(e)). In
proposing to rescind the regulations at current Sec. 1302.53, this
NPRM removes prescriptive guidance for how programs should
operationalize
[[Page 51272]]
their coordination and collaboration, including that programs should
participate in state Quality Rating and Improvement Systems (QRIS).
With respect to QRIS specifically, while there is some evidence
that participation in QRIS leads to increases in quality ratings
particularly based on indicators or structural quality.\6\ Other
academic research 7 8 has generally found weak or
inconsistent association between QRIS ratings and children's
developmental outcomes. Overall, there is not clear evidence that the
QRIS infrastructure and strategies developed by states have had a
meaningful impact on driving quality that produces child outcomes.
Under the proposed regulations, programs would retain the flexibility
to participate in their State or local QRIS and share relevant data
with state systems, as long as doing so does not violate any state or
Federal statutes or regulations, but the regulations would no longer
tell programs they should participate. These proposed changes to
regulations on Community Engagement greatly reduce duplication between
the regulations and the Act and restore needed flexibility to programs
to make determinations on how to coordinate with state partners and
systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Gomez, C. J., Whitaker, A. A., & Cannon, J. S. (2023). Do
early care and education programs improve when enrolled in quality
rating and improvement systems? Longitudinal evidence from one
system. Early Education and Development, 34(5), 1236-1253. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2022.2105624.
\7\ Markowitz, A. J., Bassok, D., & Player, D. (2020).
Simplifying quality rating systems in early childhood education.
Children and Youth Services Review, 112, 104947. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.104947.
\8\ Hong, S. L. S., Howes, C., Marcella, J., Zucker, E., &
Huang, Y. (2015). Quality rating and improvement systems: Validation
of a local implementation in LA County and children's school-
readiness. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 30(Part B), 227-240.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2014.05.001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Transition Supports
This NPRM proposes to rescind current 1302 Subpart G--Transition
Services from the Performance Standards and does not propose new
regulations on the topic of transition services. However, the Act
includes several requirements for supporting families in transitions
that will still apply to programs that ACF will hold programs
accountable to through monitoring.
The Act directs Head Start agencies to take specific actions to
promote continuity of services and effective movement of children from
Head Start into elementary school settings (see Sec. 642A). Each Head
Start agency must take steps to enable children to maintain the
developmental and educational gains achieved in Head Start and to build
upon those gains in further schooling by coordinating with the local
educational agency. Agencies are required to establish ongoing
communication channels between Head Start staff and their counterparts
in the schools and promote the continued involvement of parents in
their children's education as children transition to elementary school.
Agencies must help prepare parents to be involved with schools, school
personnel, and school-related organizations.
The Act also requires programs to coordinate and collaborate with
other entities providing early childhood education (Sec. 642(e)(3)).
This collaboration should, among other things, be used to support the
transition of children between early childhood programs; however, the
Act does not specify requirements of what this process looks like,
which gives programs the opportunity to choose how best to structure
these transition practices. In addition, section 645A requires Early
Head Start programs to develop and implement a systematic procedure for
transitioning children and parents from an Early Head Start program to
a Head Start program or other local early childhood education and
development program.
In summary, this NPRM proposes to remove regulations on transition
services that are largely duplicative of requirements outlined in the
Act. The Act includes specific, detailed requirements about supporting
families transitioning to kindergarten. The requirements in the Act
regarding supporting children transitioning from Early Head Start to
Head Start and from Head Start to other early childhood programs are
less restrictive than the requirements in the current regulations which
give programs more flexibility and reduces administrative burden.
Services for Pregnant Women
This NPRM proposes to streamline requirements for providing
services to pregnant women to reduce administrative burden, while still
ensuring programs provide important support to pregnant and postpartum
women. Under the proposed Sec. 1301.11, programs would continue to be
required to provide newborn visits and offer comprehensive supports
through referrals that at a minimum includes nutritional counseling and
food assistance. In addition, the proposed rule maintains the current
requirement to provide postpartum information, education, and services
that address, as appropriate, fetal development, the importance of
nutrition in the prenatal and postpartum stage including breastfeeding,
the risk of alcohol, drugs, and smoking, and the benefits of substance
use treatment, labor and delivery, postpartum recovery, and infant care
and safe sleep practices.
The Act requires recipients to provide for family involvement,
including conducting an individualized needs assessment for each
participating family (see Sec. 642(b)). This is inclusive of enrolled
pregnant women so under the proposed regulation, this requirement will
still apply. While the proposed removal of current Sec. 1302.82
removes some specific Federal requirements around this process for
pregnant women, the overarching requirements from the Act will remain.
For example, while newborn visits will continue to be required, the
NPRM proposes to no longer require programs to schedule the newborn
visit within two weeks of birth. This proposed change provides much
needed flexibility to programs to determine when to schedule the
newborn visit with families.
The NPRM proposes to remove requirements to reduce administrative
burden, including the requirement that programs conduct health care
determinations and facilitate access to health insurance for pregnant
women, to provide services that help reduce barriers to healthy
maternal and birthing outcomes, and to track all services provided to
enrolled pregnant women. Several of these requirements were introduced
in a 2024 final rule in an effort to address maternal health-related
challenges and infant health needs during the early postpartum period.
Upon further consideration, ACF no longer believes that Federally
prescribed requirements regarding services to enrolled pregnant women
are necessary to achieve the goals of the Early Head Start program and
impose administrative burdens on grant recipients. While these
requirements are proposed to be removed, if finalized, programs would
not be prevented from providing currently specified services to
pregnant women, but would no longer be required to do so by Federal
regulations.
This proposed rule also removes a requirement in current Sec.
1302.80(f) that programs provide services that help reduce barriers to
healthy maternal and birthing outcomes for each family, including
services that address disparities across racial and ethnic group in
alignment with E.O. 14151 Ending Radical And Wasteful
[[Page 51273]]
Government DEI Programs And Preferencing. The proposed removal of this
requirement is responsive to feedback from programs after the release
of the 2024 final rule that addressing disparities in birth outcomes is
beyond the scope of what programs can reasonably be expected to do.
Management Systems and Administrative Costs
The proposed regulatory changes on Management Systems and
Administrative Costs reflect ACF's commitment to fiscal stewardship,
federalism, and regulatory streamlining. Consistent with the principles
of restoring authority to state and local programs and reducing
unnecessary regulatory burden, these proposed regulations address
Personnel and Records Policies (proposed Sec. 1301.12), Program Goals,
Continuous Improvement and Reporting (proposed Sec. 1301.13), and
Limitations on Administrative Costs (proposed Sec. 1301.14).
Personnel and Records Policies
The proposed regulation at Sec. 1302.12(a) on personnel policies
would continue to require programs to comply with all Federal and state
statutes and regulations regarding staff, contractor, and volunteer
background checks, including work authorization, staff standards of
conduct, and other affiliated human resource requirements. In proposed
Sec. 1302.12(b) programs would be required to establish policies,
protections, and rights equivalent to those in FERPA, 20 U.S.C. 1232g,
for the confidentiality of any personally identifiable information
(PII) in child records.
Finally the proposed regulation also introduces a new requirement
in Sec. 1301.12(c) related to staff hiring considerations. Under this
provision, programs may not require or incentivize the attainment of
postsecondary education credits, hours, or credentials unless they can
demonstrate that such educational attainment is necessary for the
position based on specified skills that can only be acquired through a
particular postsecondary education pathway. Programs must also provide
explicit alternatives for demonstrating required skills, including
assessments, industry-recognized credentials, or relevant work
experience, rather than relying solely on postsecondary educational
attainment. This requirement is intended to promote skills-based hiring
practices, expand access to employment opportunities for individuals
without traditional postsecondary credentials, and help ensure that
education requirements are directly tied to the competencies needed to
perform the job.
The proposed changes streamline requirements currently found in
1302 Subpart I--Human Resources Management by eliminating prescriptive
regulations not mandated by statute (e.g., staffing requirements for
dual language learners and volunteer requirements) and removing
duplicative requirements found in the Act and other regulations (e.g.,
establishing personnel policies and standards of conduct). Programs
will still be required to comply with the Act and all other applicable
Federal and state statutes. In addition to retaining these statutory
protections, the proposed revisions remove certain regulatory
provisions that exceed or duplicate those requirements, as described
below. This NPRM does not address the removal from the Performance
Standards of all the wages and benefits requirements in current Sec.
1302.90(e) and (f) because they have been proposed for removal by ACF
in a separate NPRM, Restoring Flexibility to Support Head Start Program
Access, which was published in the Federal Register for a 30-day public
comment period on May 12, 2026. ACF is considering public comments on
the proposed rescission of the wages and benefits requirements from
that NPRM and will address them in a final rule.
Child Safety and Background Checks
The proposed regulations remove restrictive Federal process
mandates and provide programs greater flexibility in developing
personnel policies and standards of conduct that reflect local
community needs. However, statutory requirements related to staff
accountability and background checks will remain in effect. As
described in the Act, programs must adopt rules that ensure full staff
accountability in matters governed by law, regulation, or agency policy
(Sec. 644(a)(1)). Programs must also continue to conduct interviews,
verify references, and obtain required State, tribal, or Federal
criminal record checks before hiring staff (Sec. 648A(g)). In addition,
programs remain subject to applicable state requirements aligned with
the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 2014, including
criminal background check requirements for all child care staff
members.
The proposed revisions would eliminate existing prescriptive
regulatory requirements, including those related to performing
background checks. Many of these regulatory requirements related to
background checks, such as requiring programs to conduct subsequent
background checks every five years following the initial background
check, were introduced in a 2016 final rule to highlight the importance
of protecting child safety and to complement the background check
requirements in the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 2014.
Although ACF continues to regard child safety as a paramount
responsibility, upon further consideration, these highly prescriptive
Federal requirements impose unnecessary administrative burden on grant
recipients, create duplicative screening requirements, and reduce local
flexibility in personnel practices. However, programs would continue to
be required to comply with all other applicable Federal, State, Tribal,
and local laws governing criminal background screening.
Staff Qualifications and Professional Development
Under the proposed regulations, the Performance Standards would no
longer contain any specific requirements for staff qualifications and
professional development beyond those expressly required by statute.
The Act requires programs to meet qualification requirements for
specified staff positions, including those for education managers,
education coordinators, mentor teachers, curriculum specialists, Head
Start Preschool center-based teachers and assistant teachers, and Early
Head Start center-based teachers (see Sec. 648A(a) and 645A(h)). All
other staff qualification requirements that expand beyond statutory
language currently found at Sec. 1302.91 (e.g., Head Start director,
Family Child Care provider, coaches, family service staff, and health
professional qualification requirements) would be removed under the
proposed regulations.
In a 2016 final rule, ACF introduced several additional staff
qualification requirements beyond those expressly required by statute,
in an effort to increase staff quality. However, at the time, ACF
acknowledged that the available research did not support the need for
specific degree requirements for certain positions. In general,
education requirements of classroom staff are not strongly related to
quality or child outcomes; research finds that increased qualifications
do not consistently correlate to better child outcomes.\9\ There is not
significant or
[[Page 51274]]
meaningful research on educational requirements of other staff roles
and their relationship to quality or child outcomes. Upon further
consideration, ACF believes that these non-statutory qualification
requirements unnecessarily restrict grant recipients' ability to
recruit and retain qualified staff and may limit programs' ability to
respond to local workforce conditions and community needs. ACF now
believes that, for positions not subject to qualification requirements
in statute, grant recipients are better positioned to determine the
combination of education, training, experience, competencies, and other
qualifications necessary for effective service delivery. Removing these
requirements will reduce barriers to hiring, expand the pool of
qualified candidates, and provide important flexibilities for programs
to determine the needed qualifications for staff positions and return
qualifications to what Congress authorized in the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Yang, X., Abdul Rahman, M.N., & Sun, Y. (2025). The impact
of teachers' qualifications on development outcomes in early
childhood: a systematic literature review. International Journal of
Early Years Education, 33(2), 426-445. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669760.2025.2451301.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Programs must continue to meet statutory requirements related to
professional development for staff. This includes creating and
regularly evaluating professional development plans for all full-time
Head Start employees who provide direct services to children (Sec.
648A(f)). Programs must also continue to ensure each classroom teacher
completes at least 15 clock hours of professional development annually
(Sec. 648A(a)(5)). The Act continues to require Mentor Teachers
(648A(b)) which align to coaching requirements. Programs also remain
required under statute to establish plans to assist limited English
proficient children in making progress toward English language
acquisition and toward attaining the knowledge, skills, abilities, and
development described in section 641A(a)(1)(B) (Sec. 641(d)(K)).
In alignment with E.O. 14151 Ending Radical And Wasteful Government
DEI Programs And Preferencing, the proposed revisions also eliminate
prescriptive regulatory requirements that require staff, consultants,
or contractors demonstrate familiarity with the ethnic backgrounds and
heritages of families served; and require at least one classroom staff
member or home visitor to speak the non-English language spoken by a
majority of children in a class or program.
Confidentiality and Records Protections
Under the proposed regulation, current 1303 Subpart C--Protections
for the Privacy of Child Records would be replaced with proposed Sec.
1301.12(b), which would require that a program establish policies,
protections, and rights equivalent to those in FERPA, 20 U.S.C. 1232g,
for the confidentiality of any personally identifiable information
(PII) in child records. This will give programs the flexibility to
establish their own policies and procedures provided that they are
equivalent to FERPA.
Furthermore, the Act requires programs to protect personally
identifiable information in child records through policies,
protections, and rights equivalent to those provided to parents under
the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) (Sec.
641A(b)(4)(A)). Accordingly, under the proposed regulation, programs
would be afforded flexibility to establish their own confidentiality
policies and procedures, provided those policies are equivalent to
FERPA. Programs must also continue to comply with confidentiality
provisions under Part B or Part C of IDEA to protect personally
identifiable information in records of children who are referred to, or
found eligible for, services under IDEA.
Staff Health and Wellness
The proposed revisions remove prescriptive regulatory requirements
concerning staff health and wellness that are not expressly required by
statute. Requirements proposed for removal include staff breaks, staff
health exams, and provision of mental health information to staff;
programs will now have increased flexibility in these areas. In
addition to the Act requirements, programs remain required to comply
with the Americans with Disabilities Act, section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act, and all other applicable Federal, state, and local
laws and regulations related to staff health and wellness.
Program Goals, Continuous Improvement, and Reporting
The proposed regulations on program goals, continuous improvement,
and reporting (Sec. 1301.13) promote child safety and the delivery of
effective, high-quality program services. The proposed regulations
would continue to require programs to establish goals and measurable
outcomes, including provision of evidence-based education, health,
nutritional, and family engagement services to further promote the
school readiness of enrolled children. The proposed regulations specify
that educational services must be evidence-based, reflecting the
importance of using proven practices to improve child outcomes.
Programs will continue to be required to conduct a self-assessment of
their progress towards meeting such goals and submit the findings to
ACF (as required by current Sec. 1302.102). In addition, the proposed
regulation would continue requiring programs to report any incident
regarding circumstances affecting the financial viability of the
program, breaches of personally identifiable information, or program
involvement in legal proceedings, or any matter for which notification
or a report to State, Tribal, or local authorities is required by
applicable law. The proposed regulations maintain the requirement to
submit to HHS any significant incident that affects the health and
safety of a child that occurs in the setting where head start services
are provided immediately, but no later than, seven calendar days
following the incident.
The proposed changes would streamline requirements currently found
in 1302 Subpart J--Program Management and Quality Improvement by
removing duplicative requirements found in the Act and other
regulations. Although these requirements are not explicitly restated in
the proposed regulation, programs are required to comply with the Act
and all other applicable Federal and state statutes. The statutory and
other legal requirements summarized below will continue to apply.
Consistent with the Act, programs are required to establish school
readiness goals that are aligned with the Head Start Child Outcomes
Framework: Ages Birth to Five, state and tribal early learning
standards, as appropriate, and the requirements and expectations of the
schools Head Start children will attend (Sec. 641A(g)(2)(A)). Programs
will also still be required to establish and implement a system of
ongoing oversight to ensure the effective implementation of the
Performance Standards, including child safety, and compliance with
other applicable Federal regulations (Sec. 641A(g)(3)).
In addition, programs will still be required to annually publish
and disseminate a report in accordance with section 644(a)(2) of the
Act. If applicable, programs must submit a quality improvement plan as
required under section 641A(e)(2) of the Act.
Programs will remain subject to statutory requirements governing
services for children with disabilities and must provide services
through collaboration with IDEA, as described in sections 640(d) and
642(b)(14)-(15) of the Act, consistent with section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act and the
[[Page 51275]]
Americans with Disabilities Act (Sec. 640(d)(2)).
In addition, programs will still comply with applicable provisions
of the OMB Uniform Guidance (2 CFR part 200), including requirements
related to financial management (2 CFR 200.302) and internal controls
(2 CFR 200.303).
Finally, programs will still be required to comply with applicable
State, Tribal, and local mandatory reporting laws concerning reasonably
suspected or known incidents of child abuse and neglect, consistent
with the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) and any other
applicable Federal laws.
In addition to streamlining requirements, the proposed changes
remove prescriptive requirements not mandated by statute and restore
flexibility to local programs. Under the proposed regulations programs
would no longer be required to adhere to prescribed data aggregation
and analysis processes for child-level assessment data, including the
requirement to conduct subgroup analysis. Instead, programs would
continue to conduct annual self-assessments and use data for continuous
improvement as required by statute, while gaining flexibility to
analyze child-level data when and how it best informs local decision-
making and program improvement. The proposed changes also eliminate
requirements that programs implement prescriptive coordinated
approaches and procedures at the beginning of each program year.
Programs will continue to collaborate with schools, child care
providers, disability services, and other community partners as
required by statute, while eliminating prescriptive coordination
procedures and timelines that do not account for local partnership
contexts. These proposed eliminations provide programs with flexibility
to develop management and reporting systems that best meet local
community needs while maintaining compliance with all statutory
accountability and quality standards, including continued reporting to
state and local authorities under Federal child protection laws.
Limitations on Administrative Costs
The proposed regulation on administrative costs (Sec. 1301.14)
would reduce the allowable costs to develop and administer a Head Start
program from 15 percent to 5 percent of the total approved program
cost, which includes both Federal costs and non-Federal match. ACF
considered administrative cost limitations in other Federal grant
programs and found that 5 percent caps are used in several HHS programs
with many Head Start programs already operating within this range. At a
time when needs exceed available resources, this proposed regulation
prioritizes direct service delivery and ensures that more Federal
dollars reach children and families in communities throughout America.
Programs would retain the flexibility to allocate costs within the 5
percent limit to best support their operational and administrative
needs.
The proposed changes streamline requirements currently found in
1303 Subpart A--Financial Requirements by removing duplicative
requirements found in the Act and other regulations. Although these
requirements are not explicitly restated in the proposed regulation,
programs will still be required to contribute 20 percent of the total
approved program cost as non-Federal match, as described in section
640(b) of the Act, which provides that Federal financial assistance
will not exceed 80 percent of the total approved program cost. While
the proposed regulations do not restate the specific cost
categorization and delineation procedures currently found at Sec.
1303.5(a)(2), programs remain subject to all applicable provisions of
the OMB Uniform Guidance (2 CFR part 200) regarding financial
management and administration, including applicable cost categorization
and reporting requirements.
This NPRM proposes a broader waiver provision at Sec. 1301.18.
Under that proposed regulation, programs may request a waiver of any
regulatory requirement, including the administrative cost cap and non-
Federal match, provided (1) the request is submitted in writing to HHS;
(2) does not relate to nutrition, physical activity, or eligibility
requirements; (3) does not violate any Federal statutes; and (4)
demonstrates that the waiver will not negatively impact the health or
safety of children in care. These proposed regulatory changes would
streamline financial requirements for grant recipients, reduce
duplication across the Act and other Federal regulations, maximize
resources for direct service delivery, and safeguard efficient use of
taxpayer dollars. The proposed waiver language would still allow for
HHS to determine which waivers to grant, but allows for programs to
submit waivers on a variety of components of operation.
Separately, this NPRM proposes to eliminate current 1303 Subpart
B--Administrative Requirements that are duplicative of requirements
already established in the Act and other Federal regulations, while
making clear that programs remain fully subject to all applicable
provisions of the Act and other Federal and state statutes. Although
these regulatory sections are proposed for elimination, grant
recipients will still be required to adhere to sections 644(e),
644(g)(3), 653, 654, 655, 656, and 657A of the Act. These sections
pertain to union organizing, the Davis-Bacon Act, limitations on
compensation, nondiscrimination, unlawful activities, political
activities, and obtaining parental consent. In addition, recipients
must continue to observe standards of organization, management, and
administration that will ensure that all program activities are
conducted in a manner consistent with the purposes of the Act and the
objective of providing assistance effectively, efficiently, and free of
any taint of partisan political bias or personal or family favoritism
(Sec. 644(a)(1)). Finally, recipients will still be required to carry
sufficient insurance coverage and maintain adequate fidelity bond
coverage consistent with applicable provisions of the OMB Uniform
Guidance (2 CFR part 200). Together, these eliminations reduce
regulatory redundancy and administrative burden without diminishing any
program accountability or financial integrity obligation.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ OECD (2025), OECD Regulatory Policy Outlook 2025, OECD
Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/56b60e39-en.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facilities
Proposed Sec. 1301.15 specifies the requirements related to the
application and eligibility to purchase, construct, and renovate
facilities. Proposed Sec. 1301.15(a) would continue to require
programs to submit an application for funds to purchase, construct, or
renovate a facility. Proposed Sec. 1301.15(b) aligns with current
Sec. 1303.42(d), which states that prior to applying for such funds,
grant recipients must establish that the proposed construction of a
facility is more cost-effective than the purchase of available
facilities or renovation of an existing facility. These proposed
regulatory changes advance ACF's priorities of promoting quality early
learning environments and practicing fiscal stewardship. They also
further the goals of streamlining regulations and reducing
administrative burden.
The proposed regulations would continue to require programs to
submit an application for funds to purchase, construct, or renovate a
facility. Prior to applying for such funds, grant recipients would
continue to be required to establish that the proposed construction of
a facility is more cost-effective than the purchase of available
facilities or renovation of an existing facility.
[[Page 51276]]
This NPRM would simplify and significantly streamline the
facilities application process by removing from regulation requirements
not mandated by statute. For example, the proposed changes would remove
from regulation the requirement that programs complete 20-year useful
life cost comparisons, agree to minimum lease terms (30 years for
purchase/construction and 15 years for renovation), and adhere to
strict filing deadlines for legal documents, among others outlined in
Sec. 1303.44 of the current performance standards. HHS acknowledges
that the requirements in Sec. 1303.44 were adopted to support review
of facilities applications, ensure cost-effective use of Federal funds,
and protect the Federal interest in facilities funded under the Head
Start program. HHS continues to believe these are important objectives.
However, HHS has determined that the specific procedural requirements
currently prescribed in regulation are not necessary to achieve those
objectives. HHS can evaluate facilities proposals, protect the Federal
interest, and ensure responsible stewardship of Federal funds through
case-by-case review and application requirements established by the
Secretary. Accordingly, HHS proposes to remove these prescriptive
requirements from regulation to provide greater flexibility and reduce
administrative burden while maintaining appropriate oversight of
facilities investments.
The application would outline the uniform procedures for requesting
facilities related approvals. HHS would specify requirements for
facilities applications at the Secretary's discretion.
The proposed regulatory changes also remove duplicative provisions
that restate requirements in the Act and other Federal regulations.
Although such requirements are not explicitly stated in the proposed
regulation, programs will still be required to adhere to the Act, OMB
Uniform Guidance, and all other applicable Federal and State statutes
and regulations. These include but are not limited to: meeting
eligibility criteria requiring that facilities be available to Indian
Tribes, rural, or low-income communities; being located within the
designated service area; and demonstrating necessity due to lack of
suitable facilities (Sec. 644(g)(1)); describing efforts to coordinate
or collaborate with other providers in the community to seek
assistance, including financial assistance, prior to using funds as
described in Section 644(f)(2); at a minimum, meeting or exceeding
State and local licensing requirements and ensuring continued
compliance (Sec. 641A(a)(1)(D)); retaining records which fully disclose
financial assistance and other records of cost required for an
effective audit (Sec. 647(a)); adhering to the access requirements of
the Americans with Disabilities Act, section 504 of the Rehabilitation
Act, and the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973; and complying with
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. Programs will also still be
required to follow all applicable parts of the Uniform Guidance such as
insurance coverage (2 CFR 200.310), real property (2 CFR 200.311),
property trust relationship (2 CFR 200.316), and retention requirements
for records (2 CFR 200.334) regardless of whether these proposed
changes are finalized.
This NPRM removes duplicative procedural detail, while preserving
all statutory safeguards and Federal property protections. In total,
these proposed changes condense 17 regulatory sections (currently found
at Sec. 1303.40-1303.56) into a single streamlined provision (Sec.
1301.15), meaningfully reducing administrative burden on programs and
allowing them to focus their time and resources on serving children and
families.
Designation Renewal
The proposed regulatory changes in Sec. 1301.16 on Designation
Renewal reflect ACF's commitment to improved outcomes for children and
families, regulatory streamlining, and fiscal stewardship. The proposed
changes in this NPRM are consistent with the values of prioritizing
high-impact investments based on evidence and results.
Basis for Determining if an Agency Is Subject to Open Competition
Consistent with the current Head Start Designation Renewal System
(DRS) implemented by ACF, the proposed regulation in Sec. 1301.16
would continue to require a Head Start agency to compete for its next
five years of funding if ACF determines that such agency is not
delivering a high-quality and comprehensive Head Start program that
meets the educational, health, nutritional, and social needs of the
children and families it serves, or is not meeting program and
financial management requirements and standards described in section
641A(a)(1) of the Act. Mostly consistent with current regulations at
Sec. 1304.11, this NPRM proposes for a Head Start agency to be
required to compete for its next five years of funding if one or more
of the following conditions existed during the award period of the
current grant:
Two or more deficiencies identified across Federal
monitoring reviews conducted under section 641A(c)(1)(A), (B), (C), or
(D) of the Act;
Failure to produce suitable results towards achieving
program goals for improving the school readiness of children, as
required by section 641A(g)(2) of the Act, based on a review conducted
under section 641A(c)(1)(A), (C), or (D) of the Act;
Determination that the agency is not delivering classroom
quality as measured under section 641A(c)(2)(F) of the Act;
Revocation of the agency's license to operate a Head Start
center or program by state or local licensing authorities;
Suspension from the Head Start program, after an initial
opportunity to show cause, that has not been overturned or withdrawn;
Debarment from receiving Federal or state funds from any
Federal or state department or agency or has been disqualified from the
Child and Adult Care Food Program;
Risk of failing to continue functioning as a going concern
within the current project period;
Two or more audit findings of material weakness or
questioned costs associated with Head Start funds in audit reports
submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse; or
Any other measure as specified in the Head Start Act.
The proposed changes would reduce administrative burden by
simplifying and streamlining the designation renewal process to focus
on outcomes rather than prescriptive compliance procedures not mandated
by statute. Under the current regulations, agencies can be required to
compete based on whether they established school readiness goals that
meet detailed specifications (current Sec. 1304.11(b)(1)), and took
prescribed steps to achieve those goals, including aggregating and
analyzing child assessment data at least three times per year and
documenting specific analysis procedures (current Sec. 1304.11(b)(2)).
Under the proposed regulation, the relevant condition on school
readiness goals would instead focus on whether the agency produced
suitable results towards achieving its program goals for improving the
school readiness of children, as required by the Act. This proposed
approach would focus on evidence and results and would provide programs
with flexibility to determine the best methods for achieving goals and
assessing outcomes, while still maintaining accountability for
delivering measurable improvements in school readiness.
[[Page 51277]]
Similarly, current regulations (Sec. Sec. 1304.11(c) and 1304.16)
specify the CLASS: Pre-K instrument as the instrument ACF uses to
measure classroom quality within the context of the DRS. Under current
regulations (Sec. 1304.11(c)), agencies can be required to compete
based on classroom quality scores using the CLASS: Pre-K instrument
with specific numerical thresholds. The proposed regulation retains
classroom quality as a condition under the DRS, consistent with
sections 641(c)(1)(D) and 641A(c)(2)(F) of the Act, which require that
Head Start classroom quality be assessed using a valid and reliable
research-based observational instrument and that the results of such
observations be considered as part of the DRS. However, this NPRM
proposes to remove from regulation both the requirement to use CLASS:
Pre-K as the sole measure of classroom quality and the associated
CLASS: Pre-K thresholds that trigger competition. Although ACF
anticipates continuing to use CLASS: Pre-K as the observational tool to
assess classroom quality for the foreseeable future, this proposed
change to regulations provides ACF with flexibility to possibly use
other methods to measure and assess classroom quality in the future.
Safeguarding effective instruction in Head Start classrooms remains a
key component of quality assessment under the proposed regulation.
The proposed changes also strengthen fiscal stewardship by
restructuring fiscal-related conditions for greater clarity and
appropriate accountability. Current regulations at Sec. 1304.11(g)
combine two distinct fiscal criteria, (1) risk of failing to continue
functioning as a going concern and (2) two or more audit findings of
material weakness or questioned costs associated with Head Start funds,
into a single condition. Under current regulations, an agency meeting
either or both fiscal criteria would be considered to have met one
condition. The proposed regulation will separate these into two
independent fiscal conditions: agencies at risk of failing to continue
functioning as a going concern (proposed Sec. 1301.16(e)), and
agencies with two or more material audit findings or questioned costs
associated with their Head Start funds (proposed Sec. 1301.16(f)).
This proposed change would ensure that each fiscal concern is
independently evaluated and appropriately assessed. Under the proposed
regulation, an agency with both fiscal concerns would now meet two
separate conditions rather than one combined condition, reflecting the
cumulative seriousness of multiple fiscal management concerns. In
addition, the proposed regulation retains deficiencies and revocation
of license as conditions without change and includes a provision
allowing for competition based on any other measure specified in the
Head Start Act, preserving the Secretary's statutory authority to
evaluate program quality comprehensively.
Separately, the proposed regulation would retain deficiencies,
suspensions, and revocation of license as conditions without change and
includes a provision allowing for competition based on any other
measure specified in the Head Start Act, preserving the Secretary's
statutory authority to evaluate program quality comprehensively.
Finally, this NPRM proposes to simplify the designation renewal
section to include only the conditions that would require a recipient
to compete for their next five years of funding. Under this proposed
regulatory change, purely procedural and administrative requirements
would be removed or relocated. The proposed changes will eliminate and/
or relocate multiple sections, as described in the paragraphs that
follow.
Reporting requirements concerning certain conditions (current Sec.
1304.12) would be addressed in the proposed Program goals, continuous
improvement, and reporting (proposed Sec. 1301.13).
Tribal government consultation (current Sec. 1304.14) would be
addressed in the proposed ``Tribes'' section (proposed Sec. 1301.17).
Consistent with the government-to-government relationship and unique
considerations for tribal grant recipients, the proposed regulation
would maintain the existing consultation process if a Tribe meets one
or more DRS criteria (Sec. 641(c)(7)(B)) and reiterates that non-Indian
Head Start agencies are ineligible to carry out an Indian Head Start
program unless there is no other option, and then only until an Indian
Head Start agency becomes available (Sec. 641(e)).
Requirements to compete for designation for a five-year grant
(current Sec. 1304.13): will be eliminated under the proposed
regulatory changes. While not restated in the proposed regulation,
agencies remain required to submit an application 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 in section 641(d)(2) of the Act.
Designation request, review and notification process (current Sec.
1304.15) would be eliminated under the proposed regulatory changes.
While these procedural requirements are not restated in the proposed
regulation, a grant recipient must continue to submit applications as
required by the Secretary (see Sec. 641(b)). ACF will continue to
provide timely notice and adequate opportunities for agencies to
respond to designation renewal determinations, consistent with all
application and notification requirements under section 641 of the Act.
Selection among applicants (current Sec. 1304.20) would be
eliminated under the proposed regulatory changes. While not restated in
the proposed regulation, ACF will continue to consider the applicable
criteria under Section 641(d) of the Head Start Act when selecting an
agency to provide Head Start Preschool, Early Head Start, Migrant or
Seasonal Head Start, or Tribal Head Start Preschool or Early Head Start
services.
Tribes
Proposed section 1301.17 would align with provisions in the Act for
Tribal programs but would streamline and reorganize the requirements
specific to Tribal programs in one section. These proposed requirements
reiterate the existing requirement that Tribal programs have a
reevaluation process if they meet one or more DRS criteria (Sec.
641(c)(7)(B)) and that non-Indian Head Start agencies are ineligible to
carry out an Indian Head Start program unless there is no other option,
and then only until an Indian Head Start agency becomes available (Sec.
641(e)). The requirements proposed in Sec. 1301.17 outline the process
by which a Tribal program may designate an alternate agency to provide
Head Start services to Tribal members if there is a relinquishment,
termination, or denial of refunding (Sec. 646(e)(1)(A-B)) and specifies
that the alternative agency must meet all requirements established in
the Head Start Act and cannot be prohibited from designation as
detailed in Sec. 646(e)(2). These proposed regulations are more
streamlined and concise than what is in current Sec. 1304.30 of the
Performance Standards. Proposed Sec. 1301.17(d) is new language that
proposes to exempt Tribal programs from the English-only provision in
proposed Sec. 1301.04(a) if the language being spoken relates to the
furtherance of tribal heritage.
The Act includes provisions specific to Tribal programs that will
remain in effect, even though they are not included in the proposed
regulations. The Act requires the Secretary to conduct annual
consultations with tribal governments operating Head Start
[[Page 51278]]
programs to address issues that affect service delivery, to publish a
Federal Register notice before consultations, and to issue a detailed
report to all Tribal governments within 90 days (Sec. 640(l)(4)). The
Act also requires training and technical assistance be provided by
staff with knowledge of and experience in working with Indian
populations (Sec. 640(l)(3)(A)), appointment of a national Indian Head
Start Collaboration Director (Sec. 640(l)(3)(B)), and studies and
reporting specific to Indian and Alaska Native populations (Sec.
649(k)).
Tribal programs would also continue to have flexibilities provided
in the Act even though they are not included in the proposed Sec.
1301.17. Tribal programs operating both Early Head Start and Head Start
programs may reallocate funds between programs at their discretion to
address population fluctuations (Sec. 645(d)(3)). Additionally, section
238 of the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024 amended the
Head Start Act to allow Tribal programs to consider eligibility for
Head Start services regardless of income and establish selection
criteria to prioritize Tribal children, and those statutory
flexibilities will remain in place under the proposed regulations.
There are multiple provisions in the current Performance Standards
that address flexibilities for Tribal programs that would no longer be
relevant because the NPRM proposes to remove those restrictive sections
and grant that flexibility to all Head Start programs. For example,
current Sec. 1302.11(a)(1)(i)-(ii) allows Tribal programs the
flexibility to define service areas based on where members of the
Indian tribes reside. This flexibility would no longer be needed under
the NPRM, because the NPRM proposes to remove the requirements in
current Sec. 1302.11. Additionally, current Sec. 1302.53(b)(4) allows
Tribal programs to determine whether to participate in Quality Rating
and Improvement Systems and state education data systems; this
flexibility would no longer be needed, as the NPRM proposes to remove
requirements related to coordination with other programs and systems.
Lastly, current Sec. 1302.36 allows Tribal Head Start programs to
integrate efforts to preserve, revitalize, restore, or maintain the
Tribal language for enrolled children into program services. This
flexibility would no longer be relevant because the proposed Sec.
1301.17(d) exempts Tribal programs from the English-only requirement in
proposed Sec. 1301.04(a).
Program Flexibility
Proposed Sec. 1301.18 would significantly expand the flexibilities
available to Head Start programs, if finalized. Proposed Sec.
1301.18(a) would allow programs to request a waiver for almost any
requirement in the entirety of proposed Sec. 1301, as long as a waiver
would not negatively impact the health or safety of children and would
not violate any Federal or State laws. The exception, as noted in
proposed Sec. 1301.18(b), is that requirements in the proposed
regulations relating to nutrition, physical activity, or eligibility
would not be eligible for a waiver. All waiver requests are subject to
approval by HHS. Proposed Sec. 1301.18(c) would align with the
flexibility provided in current Sec. 1302.24 in the Performance
Standards that programs can request to operate locally-designed options
(LDO) to better meet the unique needs of their communities. Note that
while the proposed LDO flexibility aligns with the concepts outlined in
current Sec. 1302.24(a) and (b), the more specific requirements in the
current Sec. 1302.24(c)(1)-(5) regarding ratios, group size, and
duration are proposed for removal to give local programs further
flexibility in operationalizing an LDO.
While the Act provides the Secretary of HHS with waiver authority
for a small subset of requirements, including operating locally-
designed options (Sec. 640(f)(1)), waiving non-Federal share (Sec.
640(b)), exceeding the current 15 percent cap for administrative costs
(Sec. 644(b)(2)), filling at least 10 percent of actual enrollment
slots with children eligible for IDEA (Sec. 640(d)(4)), and meeting
teacher qualification requirements (Sec. 648A(a)(4)), proposed Sec.
1301.18 would broaden waiver flexibility beyond those explicitly stated
in the Act. The rationale for this proposed change is to increase
flexibility for state and localities to deliver Head Start services in
a manner that is responsive to their local context, while still
maintaining the emphasis on health, nutrition, physical exercise, and
eligibility requirements, which are the requirements in the proposed
Sec. 1301.18 programs would not be able to waive. HHS would not grant
waiver requests for requirements that are mandated by the statute where
the statute does not allow for a waiver.
The current Performance Standards that reiterate and expand upon
the flexibilities provided in the Act are no longer relevant because
the flexibility proposed in Sec. 1301.18 provides a more blanket
waiver authority. For this reason, ACF proposes removal of these
provisions in the current Performance Standards that address more
specific flexibilities. For example, Sec. 1304.17 in the current
Performance Standards, which provides flexibility for DRS
determinations in cases of certain emergencies when data may not be
available, is proposed for removal in the NPRM. Additionally, the
current Performance Standards mentioned in the prior paragraph that
mirror the flexibilities included in the Act, are proposed for removal
because they are duplicative of the Act. For example, Sec. 1302.14(b)
requires programs to fill 10 percent of their actual enrollment with
children eligible for services under IDEA. This provision is proposed
for removal because the flexibility is provided in the Act, and
proposed Sec. 1301.18 allows for more expansive flexibilities than
both the Act and the current Performance Standards.
Appeals and Other Federal Procedures
The proposed changes on Appeals and Other Federal Procedures are
consistent with ACF's commitment to faithfully administer programs
consistent with statute and congressional intent. By reducing
duplication and unnecessary administrative burden, the proposed
regulation consolidates appeals provisions under Sec. 1301.19.
The proposed regulation on appeals would continue to honor an
agency's right to appeal a final decision by ACF to terminate financial
assistance or deny refunding of an application. The Departmental
Appeals Board procedures in 45 CFR part 16, govern notice and appeal
rights and establish a fair and impartial process for review of final
agency decisions in cases properly before the Departmental Appeals
Board. Similarly, if a Head Start Agency denies, or fails to act on a
prospective agency's funding application, prospective delegate agencies
will retain the right to appeal within 30 days of the agency's decision
or 120 days after the agency's inaction on the prospective delegate's
application. Head Start agencies will continue to be required to
respond to both ACF and the prospective delegate agency within 30 days
of the filed appeal. As with current practice, the decision rendered by
ACF would be final and not subject to additional appeals.
The proposed changes remove redundant regulatory text that restates
statutory requirements and procedures already contained in section 646
of the Act and 45 CFR part 16. Rather than repeating these
requirements, the proposed regulation explicitly cross-references the
governing statutory and regulatory authorities. Additionally, the
proposed regulation eliminates non-statutory procedural requirements
and timelines.
[[Page 51279]]
Monitoring
While the discussion of monitoring (current Sec. 1304.2) is
proposed for removal from the NPRM, ACF remains statutorily required to
conduct monitoring reviews at least once during each three-year period,
as described in section 641A(c) of the Act. Additionally, if a grant
recipient meets one or more of the criteria for a deficiency as defined
in section 637(2) of the Act, ACF must continue to inform the grant
recipient of the deficiency and require correction in accordance with
section 641A(e) of the Act. The proposed removal of Sec. 1304.2 would
not alter ACF's statutory monitoring authority, its obligation to
address deficiencies, or the process by which ACF would notify and
consult with agencies to address deficiencies.
Suspension
This NPRM proposes to remove current Sec. 1304.3 and Sec. 1304.4
related to suspension with notice and suspension without notice.
However, ACF remains authorized under Section 646(a)(5) of the Act to
suspend financial assistance for up to 30 days, or longer in limited
circumstances involving multiple and recurring deficiencies, provided
that ACF gives notice and an opportunity to show cause why financial
assistance should not be suspended.
In emergency situations, such as those involving risk to property,
misuse of funds, criminal violations, or threats to health and safety,
ACF remains authorized, under Section 646(a)(2) of the Act, to suspend
financial assistance without prior notice and opportunity to show
cause.
In all cases grant recipients must continue to adhere to the
Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit
Requirements for Federal Awards at 2 CFR part 200. Restrictions on
incurring new obligations during suspension and the allowability of
necessary and otherwise allowable costs continue to be governed by 2
CFR 200.375, and cost sharing or matching requirements, including
third-party in-kind contributions, remain governed by 2 CFR 200.306.
Under these proposed changes related to suspension in Sec. 1301.19
there would be significantly fewer bureaucratic processes, because many
of the requirements are not in the Act and they are proposed for
removal in this NPRM. Under the proposed rule, ACF would no longer be
required to follow specific requirements for suspension notices beyond
those required by statute.
Termination, Denial of Refunding, and Legal Fees
Similarly, this NPRM proposes to remove Sec. Sec. 1304.5, 1304.6
and 1304.7 from the Performance Standards. ACF remains authorized under
section 646(a)(3) of the Act to terminate financial assistance or deny
refunding to a grant recipient after providing reasonable notice and an
opportunity for a full and fair hearing. Grant recipients retain the
right to file an appeal within 30 days of receiving notice and to
receive a hearing within 120 days of filing such appeal.
While these statutory authorities and protections remain unchanged,
the proposed rule removes regulations that exceed or duplicate
statutory requirements. Specifically, this NPRM eliminates prescriptive
procedural provisions not explicitly required by statute, such as
specific procedures for termination and denial of funding (Sec.
1304.5), procedures for appeal for prospective delegate agencies (Sec.
1304.6) and policies regarding the allowability of legal fees (Sec.
1304.7). The proposed removal of these overly prescriptive procedural
provisions aligns with an overall goal of this NPRM to ensure that the
only requirements that exist in regulation are those that are required
by the Act. ACF will provide additional information for recipients on
procedures for termination and denial of funding, appeals for
prospective delegate agencies, and legal fees in forthcoming sub-
regulatory guidance. ACF does not intend to change existing policies or
procedures on these topics.
With respect to legal fees, the proposed regulation does not create
new authority or modify existing practice. Although current 1304.7 is
proposed for removal from this NPRM, consistent with section
646(a)(4)(C) of the Act, grant recipients may not charge to their grant
legal fees or other costs incurred in appealing termination, reduction,
or denial decisions. However, ACF retains existing authority under
section 646(a)(6) to reimburse reasonable and customary legal fees if
the grant recipient prevails.
Head Start Fellows Program
The proposed regulations remove discussion of the Head Start
Fellows Program (current Sec. 1304.40 and Sec. 1304.41) since these
requirements are largely duplicative of those outlined in the Act.
However, the Secretary retains authority to establish a program of
fellowships in accordance with Section 648A(d) of the Act.
Delegate Agencies
This NPRM proposes to rescind 1303 Subpart D- Delegation of Program
Operations because these regulations are, in large part, duplicative of
the requirements in the Act. Under the Act, a Head Start agency is
empowered to transfer Federal funds and delegate powers to other
agencies when doing so will improve efficiency, effectiveness, or
otherwise further program goals (Sec. 642(a)). The statute makes clear
that the authority to transfer funds and delegate powers includes the
ability to transfer and delegate for component projects when
appropriate to support program objectives.
The Act further outlines specific procedures that each Head Start
agency must establish concerning its delegate agencies (Sec. 641A(d)).
These procedures must include mechanisms for evaluating delegate
agencies, procedures for defunding a delegate agency, and procedures
that allow a delegate agency to appeal a defunding decision. Once these
procedures are in place, the agency must evaluate each delegate agency
in accordance with those procedures and inform the delegate agency of
deficiencies identified through that evaluation that must be corrected.
If a delegate agency's performance is found to be deficient, the Head
Start agency is required to take action, which can include initiating
steps to terminate the delegate agency's designation or conducting
monthly monitoring visits to the delegate agency until all identified
deficiencies are corrected or until the Head Start agency decides to
defund the delegate agency. The statute also places constraints on when
a Head Start agency may terminate a delegate agency or reduce its
service area by requiring the agency to show cause or demonstrate the
cost-effectiveness of the decision before doing so.
While the proposed regulations do not include current Sec.
1303.30, under the proposed regulation the grant recipient retains
legal responsibility and authority and bears financial accountability
for the program when services are provided by delegate agencies.
While this proposed rule would remove regulations regarding
delegate agencies in an effort to eliminate duplication between the
regulation and the Act, most requirements regarding delegate agencies
would remain in place through the Act. The proposed rule would also
remove reporting and procedural requirements to increase program
flexibility and reduce administrative burden.
[[Page 51280]]
In summary, these proposed revisions to regulations on appeals and
other Federal procedures remove duplicative and non-statutory
procedural details, while preserving all statutory authorities, notice
requirements, appeal rights, and due process protections mandated by
the Head Start Act and 45 CFR part 16. The changes are intended to
reduce unnecessary administrative burden and procedural rigidity
without altering substantive rights or enforcement authority and
faithfully administer programs consistent with statute and
congressional intent.
Definitions
Replacing the current Sec. 1305.2 definitions with the proposed
Sec. 1301.20 definitions would remove any unused or commonly
understood defined terms in the Head Start regulations. For ease of
viewing the proposed regulations in relation to the current regulations
on Definitions, please view the comprehensive comparison table below:
BILLING CODE 4814-87-P
[[Page 51281]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU26.014
[[Page 51282]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU26.015
[[Page 51283]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU26.016
[[Page 51284]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU26.017
BILLING CODE 4814-87-C
In summary, the proposed changes would preserve core statutory
program and fiscal definitions while eliminating definitions that are
either commonly accepted or are tied to terms that are no longer found
in the proposed regulations.
VI. Regulatory Process Matters
ACF has examined the impacts of the proposed rule under Executive
Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, Executive Order 13132, the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), and the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). Executive Orders 12866 and
13563 direct us to assess all benefits, costs, and transfers of
available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to
select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits.
Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 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 $100 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, 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 entitlements, grants, user
fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or (4) raising novel legal or policy issues arising out of
legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth
in Executive Order 12866. The Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs has determined that this proposed rule is a significant
regulatory action under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866 and we
have prepared a Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA). This proposed rule,
if finalized, is anticipated to be a deregulatory action under
Executive Order 14192.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), see 5 U.S.C. 605(b), as
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act,
requires Federal agencies to determine, to the extent feasible, a
rule's impact on small entities, consider regulatory options for
reducing any significant impact on a substantial number of such
entities, and explain their regulatory approach. The term ``small
entities,'' as defined in the RFA, includes small businesses, not-for-
profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are
not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with
populations of less than 50,000. Under this definition, many Head Start
grant recipients, particularly nonprofit organizations and certain
local governmental entities, may be considered small entities. A rule
is generally considered to have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities if it has at least a three percent
impact on revenue for at least five percent of such entities.
To provide context for the potential number of entities that may
meet or exceed Small Business Administration size standards, we
conducted a screening analysis using Head Start funding levels and
organizational type. The applicable SBA size standard for Child Day
Care Services (NAICS 624410) is based on average annual receipts and is
currently $9.5 million. Because data on total organizational receipts
are not available, we compared Head Start grant funding levels to this
threshold as a conservative proxy. Separately, we identified agencies
that are nonprofit organizations, which may qualify as small entities
under the RFA definition.
We then combined these two screens to identify agencies that meet
at least one of these criteria. Based on this combined screening,
approximately 1,450 (95 percent) of agencies either have Head Start
funding levels below the $9.5 million threshold, are nonprofit
organizations, or meet both conditions. Taken together, these counts
provide an upper-bound estimate of the number of entities that may be
considered small entities for purposes of this analysis. However, for
entities with Head Start funding below the threshold, this method does
not determine whether the entity qualifies as small, because such
entities may have additional revenue from other funding sources. As a
result, this analysis does not represent a definitive classification of
small entities under the RFA.
The proposed rule primarily reduces and streamlines existing
regulatory requirements and is expected to reduce
[[Page 51285]]
administrative burden and provide greater operational flexibility for
Head Start grant recipients. One provision of the proposed rule reduces
the allowable administrative cost cap from fifteen percent to five
percent of total approved program costs. This change may require some
entities to adjust how administrative and programmatic costs are
allocated within existing funding levels, and it may have a
particularly significant impact on Head Start programs classified as
small entities. This change is intended to direct a greater share of
Head Start resources toward services for children and families.
Approximately 3.7 percent of Head Start grants currently operate at or
below a five percent administrative cost threshold. In addition, as
discussed in the RIA, an additional 27.7 percent of grants currently
operate above 5 percent but below 10 percent administrative costs. The
proposed rule's broader reductions and streamlining of regulatory
requirements are expected to reduce administrative workload and may
support programs in transitioning toward the proposed cap while
maintaining service delivery. If needed, programs may request a waiver
of the administrative cost cap pursuant to proposed Sec. 1301.18,
subject to HHS review and approval. However, given the possible impact
on small businesses, below we provide an initial regulatory flexibility
analysis.
The proposed requirement for English-only instruction may affect a
subset of programs, particularly those serving high proportions of dual
language learners. Based on available data, ACF estimates that
approximately 33.4 percent of non-tribal Head Start classrooms may be
impacted by this requirement. While ACF does not expect this
requirement to result in a significant economic impact for most
entities, impacts may be more concentrated in certain programs,
including those serving predominantly non-English-speaking communities
(e.g., Migrant and Seasonal Head Start programs). ACF recognizes that
this requirement may result in additional costs or operational
challenges for programs serving dual language learners or operating in
predominantly non-English-speaking communities. At the same time, this
requirement reflects Administration priorities and broader Federal
policy emphasizing the importance of English language acquisition for
early learners, including supporting children's ability to participate
in English-language educational settings and engage with community
institutions.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Consistent with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 603), ACF
has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis to assess the
potential economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities and to
consider significant alternatives that would minimize such impacts. The
proposed reduction of the allowable administrative cost cap from 15
percent to 5 percent of total approved program costs may require some
entities to adjust administrative and programmatic cost allocations.
Based on program budget data, this change corresponds to an estimated
reduction in allowable administrative expenditures of approximately
$754,343,701 annually. The extent of impact will vary depending on
existing cost structures and may be more pronounced for smaller
programs. About half of Head Start grants (about 50 percent) serve 200
or fewer children, representing smaller-scale operations that may have
more limited ability to distribute fixed administrative costs. These
smaller grants span a range of organizational types, including
nonprofit organizations, school systems, governmental entities, and
Tribal programs, many of which may meet the RFA definition of small
entities.
ACF considered regulatory alternatives to minimize potential
impacts on small entities, including setting the administrative cost
cap at 10 percent rather than 5 percent and applying an exemption for
programs funded to serve 200 or fewer Head Start slots. Under a 10
percent cap, estimated reductions in allowable administrative
expenditures would be approximately $146,002,007 annually, reflecting a
smaller change from current administrative spending levels. This
smaller reduction is driven in part by the fact that many programs
currently operate below the 15 percent cap and closer to the 10 percent
level; as a result, the adjustment required on the part of programs
under a 10 percent cap is more limited than under a 5 percent cap. Such
a change may also prove less burdensome for small entities. ACF also
considered exempting smaller programs (those with 200 or fewer Head
Start funded slots) from the proposed cap.
ACF expects that reductions in administrative burden associated
with other provisions of the proposed rule may partially offset the
impact of the administrative cost cap. While some entities,
particularly smaller programs, may experience adjustment needs, ACF has
also provided for the availability of waivers (proposed Sec. 1301.18),
which may allow programs to address specific circumstances where
compliance with the administrative cap of 5 percent would present undue
operational challenges. ACF determined that the proposed approach
appropriately balances regulatory burden, program efficiency, and the
objective of maximizing resources available for services to children
and families. These considerations inform ACF's broader assessment of
the overall economic effects of the proposed rule on small entities.
Like all components of this NPRM, ACF will accept public comment on
these alternatives under consideration for the policy change on the
administrative cap for small entities.
Overall, ACF expects that the proposed rule will reduce regulatory
burden and associated costs for Head Start grant recipients, allowing
recipients the flexibility to reinvest funds into other areas,
including the potential to serve more eligible children within existing
operational budgets. While certain provisions, such as the reduction in
the administrative cost cap, may require adjustments for some entities,
the combined effects of the proposed rule are expected to reduce
overall compliance burden. To the extent that impacts vary across
entities, including smaller entities, such variation is expected to
reflect differences in organizational structure, existing cost
allocations, and local implementation decisions rather than the
imposition of new regulatory compliance requirements.
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 publishing ``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 $193 million, using the most current (2025) Implicit
Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic Product. This proposed rule, if
finalized, will not 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 proposed rule.
[[Page 51286]]
Federalism Assessment Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132 requires Federal agencies to consult with
State and local government officials if they develop regulatory
policies with Federalism implications. Federalism is rooted in the
belief that issues that are not national in scope or significance are
most appropriately addressed by the level of government close to the
people. This proposed rule, if finalized, would not have substantial
direct impact on the states, on the relationship between the Federal
government and the states, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with section 6 of Executive Order 13132, it is determined
that this action does not have sufficient Federalism implications to
warrant the preparation of a Federalism summary impact statement.
Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act of 1999 requires Federal agencies to determine whether a policy or
regulation may negatively affect family well-being. If the agency
determines a policy or regulation negatively affects family well-being,
then the agency must prepare an impact assessment addressing seven
criteria specified in the law. ACF believes it is not necessary to
prepare a family policymaking assessment (see Pub. L. 105-277) because
the action it takes in this proposed rule does 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.
The proposed rule will affect the information collection approved
under OMB control number 0970-0148. ACF will revise the associated PRA
package for the Head Start Performance Standards (Performance
Standards) to align with the regulatory changes.
VII. Regulatory Impact Analysis
Summary
The changes to the Performance Standards in this proposed rule
would produce substantial net reductions in regulatory compliance costs
across Head Start programs, primarily by eliminating or streamlining
prescriptive Federal requirements related to eligibility, recruitment,
selection, enrollment, and attendance (ERSEA); education; staffing;
service duration; health services; and administrative requirements.
Major quantified cost reductions stem from increased flexibility in
staffing models (e.g., removal of Federal ratio requirements,
requirements for a coaching system, and certain staff roles), reduced
administrative and reporting requirements (including for community
assessments and data aggregation), and a decrease in allowable
administrative spending (from 15 percent to 5 percent), alongside
smaller savings in facilities, transportation, and safety requirements.
Consistent with the Head Start program structure, where Federal funds
must be used to deliver services, these cost reductions in certain
areas are expected to function largely as resource reallocations
(transfers) that may support expanded enrollment, enhanced service
delivery, or other program priorities.
Because the proposed rule would increase local program discretion,
this RIA applies behavioral adjustment thresholds (low, primary, high
scenarios) to estimate impacts of the proposed policy changes, which
are intended to reflect varying degrees of possible program response:
lower adjustment assumptions are used where external constraints (e.g.,
state licensing requirements, physical infrastructure, operational
limitations) may limit operational changes by programs, while higher
adjustment assumptions are applied where historical stakeholder
feedback indicates that existing requirements have been particularly
burdensome and programs are more likely to scale back activities in
response to policy changes. ACF assumes that the proposed policy
changes are implemented over a five-year time horizon and the total
cost reductions would be realized upon full implementation in year
five. Unless otherwise noted, wage and compensation inputs based on
2025 BLS or PIR data are adjusted by 2 percent to express estimates in
constant 2026 dollars before applying fringe benefit adjustments.
Fringe benefits are assumed to represent 24 percent of total
compensation.
For purposes of this analysis, ACF assumes that the wage and non-
wage benefit requirements established in the 2024 final rule will not
take effect, but that other provisions of the 2024 final rule will take
effect. This reflects the proposed rescission of the wage and non-wage
benefit requirements through the proposed rule ``Restoring Flexibility
to Support Head Start Program Access'' (91 FR 25842). Accordingly, the
estimated cost reductions presented in this analysis are measured
relative to a baseline in which those requirements are not implemented.
However, we also present a sensitivity analysis to consider the impacts
of this proposed rule if all requirements of the 2024 final rule are
fully implemented or if this proposal is finalized before the
rescission proposal.
Overall, this analysis shows that the proposed changes would reduce
compliance costs and give programs more flexibility, allowing resources
to shift toward direct services, though implementation may vary by
program. As with all other sections of this NPRM, we invite public
comments on the assumptions made in this RIA that underline the
quantitative and qualitative discussions of costs and benefits of the
proposed policy changes.
Education and the Learning Environment
Overview
Part 1302 Subpart C of the current Performance Standards requires
programs to support both English acquisition and home language
development for dual language learners. The proposed rule would require
that all education for Head Start children be conducted in English,
except for American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) Head Start programs
that are using their tribal language in the program to further tribal
heritage.
[[Page 51287]]
This proposed change introduces one-time implementation costs for
certain non-tribal programs that currently provide primary instruction
in languages other than English or primarily serve dual language
learners. AIAN programs are excluded from this estimate consistent with
the proposed exemption.
Additionally, Part 1302 Subpart B of the current Performance
Standards establishes detailed requirements for program structure,
including center-based ratios and group sizes, center-based service
duration requirements, home-based service duration and caseload limits,
and requirements for child development specialists in family child care
settings.
The proposed rule would remove certain Federal ratio, duration, and
caseload requirements and defer to applicable state requirements or
local program design, thereby increasing flexibility and reducing
prescriptive Federal standards.
A. One-Time Costs With Requirement for English-Only Instruction
We estimate that 33.4 percent of non-tribal Head Start service
locations (including classrooms, family child care homes, and group
socialization sites) with available language-related data are operated
by programs that primarily serve dual language learners (i.e., at least
50 percent of children in the program speak or are learning a language
other than English at home) or where the reported primary language of
instruction is not English. This reflects 18,767 \11\ classrooms that
will be potentially impacted with one-time costs to implement the
changes necessary to comply with this requirement. To implement
English-only instruction, affected classrooms may need to replace
curriculum and instructional materials and books that contain non-
English content. Per proposed Sec. 1301.18, programs may request a
waiver of these requirements, subject to HHS review and approval. ACF
invites comment on the proposed waiver process, including circumstances
under which programs may seek waivers from the proposed English-
language instruction requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ This figure is based on the PIR to identify programs where
at least 50 percent of children in the program speak or are learning
a language other than English at home, and based on administrative
data on service locations and their class level data provided to
identify classrooms or groups of children served where the primary
language of instruction is not English.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The cost methodology assumes the estimated cost of replacing
classroom materials at $2,500 per classroom. This is based on the costs
of replacing frequently used curricula and related teaching materials,
estimated at $2,000, and an estimated additional cost of $500 for
classroom materials that have words, such as educational toys and
books. We multiply this estimate of $2,500 by the estimated number of
affected classrooms (18,767) for an estimated one-time cost total of
$46,917,500.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU26.018
We also estimate potential one-time costs associated with teacher
retraining, recruitment, or administrative adjustments for the same
classrooms discussed previously. Using PIR data, there are 103,186
preschool classroom teachers, preschool assistant teachers, and infant/
toddler classroom teachers across Head Start Preschool and Early Head
Start, of which an estimated 34,464 teachers and assistant teachers are
in potentially affected classrooms.
We assume a per-teacher retraining or recruitment cost of $3,000
reflecting moderate targeted professional development (e.g., English-
language instruction training and support), or recruitment process
expenditures (e.g., job board posting, screenings and interviews,
onboarding, overhead). This estimate reflects a blended assumption that
some affected teachers would require retraining while others may need
to be replaced. For recruitment-related costs, ACF considered estimates
used by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS),\12\ which
assumed recruitment and hiring costs of approximately $5,000 per worker
based on inflation-adjusted estimates of direct hiring costs and
recruitment expenditures. ACF does not adopt the full CMS estimate
because the proposed rule anticipates that some affected teachers would
be retained and retrained rather than replaced. For retraining costs,
ACF assumes approximately $1,000 per teacher, reflecting moderate
professional development activities and training materials associated
with implementing English-language instruction requirements. This
assumption reflects targeted training intended to support existing
staff in adapting instructional practices. Accordingly, ACF adopts a
blended estimate of $3,000 per teacher, representing a midpoint between
lower-cost retraining activities and higher-cost recruitment and
onboarding activities associated with staff replacement. Under the
primary scenario, we assume 50 percent of teaching positions in
affected classrooms incur retraining or recruitment costs, representing
moderate behavioral adjustment. The low scenario assumes 25 percent,
and the high scenario assumes 75 percent. We apply higher adjustment
assumptions to this policy change relative to other policy changes in
this proposed rule, as we expect some programs may need to make
significant changes to classroom staffing to comply with this proposed
requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare
and Medicaid Programs; Omnibus COVID-19 Health Care Staff
Vaccination, 86 FR 61555, 61668 (Nov. 5, 2021). CMS assumed
recruitment and hiring costs of approximately $5,000 per worker,
based on inflation-adjusted hiring cost estimates of $4,000 for
lower-skilled workers and $6,000 for higher-skilled workers.
Available at: https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2021-23831/p-642.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 51288]]
We multiply this estimate of $3,000 per teacher times the share of
teaching staff for the given scenario (n= 34,464 teachers). Under these
assumptions, estimated one-time staffing-related costs are
approximately $25,848,093 under the low scenario, $51,696,186 under the
primary scenario, and $77,544,279 under the high scenario.
Inputs for estimating another key portion of transition costs once
again include 34,464 baseline Head Start staff, as well as ratios of
25-percent, 50-percent, and 75-percent. Also used here is an estimate
of $8,000 in per-employee welfare harm of employment disruption
(updated to 2026 dollars from estimates reflecting normal economic
conditions, as reported in Table 1 of Kuminoff et al., 2015 \13\). If
roughly one-third of affected teachers experience employment
disruption, rather than retraining, the resulting upfront cost they
experience is approximately $139 million, with a range from $69 million
to $208 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Kuminoff, N.V., Schoellman, T., & Timmins, C. (2015),
Environmental regulations and the welfare effects of job layoffs in
the United States: A spatial approach, Review of Environmental
Economics and Policy, 9(2): 198-218.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACF recognizes that English-only instruction may result in
additional costs or burden not described here for programs serving dual
language learners or operating in predominantly non-English-speaking
communities.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU26.019
B. Removal of Head Start Group Size and Ratios
Under the current regulation, the maximum group sizes and staff-
child ratios for center-based settings are specified by age group.
These findings indicate that replacing the current prescriptive Federal
standards with deference to state licensing requirements will not
impede children's development or leave children unsafe, while enabling
programs to allocate resources more efficiently toward direct services
and expanded enrollment. The proposed rule would remove these specific
Federal ratio requirements and defer to applicable state licensing and
Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) requirements.
To estimate potential reductions in personnel costs, we compare the
reported number of teachers under current Head Start ratio requirements
and compare it to the number required under applicable state maximum
ratios. By using the maximum ratio of children to adults under state
ratios, this analysis represents a maximum adjustment in behavior,
which we later use as the upper bound on the potential impacts of this
rule change. This analysis is conducted at the state level, using PIR
data on number of teachers and enrollment by single-year age groups,
and state licensing ratios identified through a comprehensive research
of ratios required by licensing for each state.
For each state and age group, we calculate the number of teachers
required under state ratios by dividing the number of enrolled children
in each single-year age group by the maximum number of children
permitted per adult. Because state ratios do not align to single-year
age groups, we converted state age ranges into one-year groups and
averaged ratios across the months covered within each group. When
multiple ratios applied to the same month, we used the least strict
ratio to avoid double-counting. For limited data gaps (e.g., ages 5 or
older and select U.S. territories), we applied averages from available
data to ensure those slots were included. Once state ratios were
standardized to calculate the number of teachers required in each
single-year age group, we then used the number of children served in
each one-year age group by state and territory (as reported in the PIR)
to estimate the total number of teachers required under state and
territory ratios for the specific one-year age ranges. After taking a
sum of the number of teachers required in each age range for each state
and territory, we applied a reduction of approximately 13 percent to
account for the fact that the reported data on the number of children
served in each age range by state and territory reflects cumulative
enrollment.
By reducing the estimated number of teachers by 13 percent, we
adjust for the difference between cumulative enrollment reported in the
PIR and funded enrollment. Because cumulative enrollment includes
children who enter and exit programs during the year, it exceeds the
number of children enrolled at any given point in time. The 13 percent
adjustment reflects the difference between cumulative enrollment and
funded enrollment and is intended to align the teacher estimate with
the number of children occupying funded slots during the program year.
The following example illustrates the methodology used to estimate
the number of teachers required under state licensing ratios. Using
Texas as an example, the analysis applies the state's maximum child-to-
staff ratio for each age group to the number of children served in that
age group, as reported in the PIR. The resulting estimates are summed
across age groups to determine the total number of teachers required
under state ratios. Because PIR enrollment data reflect cumulative
enrollment over the course of the program year, including children who
enter and exit programs during the year, the total is then reduced by
13 percent to align the estimate with funded enrollment levels, which
more closely reflect the number of children served at a given point in
time.
[[Page 51289]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU26.020
We compare this figure to the number of teaching staff currently
reported in the PIR, broken out by teaching staff type (e.g., preschool
classroom teachers, preschool assistant teachers), and multiply the
number of staff by their respective average annual salaries as reported
in the PIR, adjusted by 2 percent to express the estimates in constant
2026 dollars, and then apply a 24 percent fringe adjustment to estimate
the teaching personnel expenditures at current levels. We calculate the
difference between the number of teaching staff reported in the PIR and
the total estimate of the number of teachers required by state ratios
to identify the estimated maximum potential reduction in the teaching
workforce. We calculate the proportional reduction in the teacher
workforce by dividing the difference in teaching staff by the current
reported teaching staff, and we apply this ratio to the estimated
teaching personnel expenditures to arrive at the maximum potential
reduction in personnel expenditures.
Recognizing that not all programs may immediately or fully adjust
to state maximum ratios, we apply behavioral multipliers to reflect
different levels of response. ACF recognizes that any steps towards
lower ratios will lead to lower cost per child costs, which will
improve program efficiency. The table below illustrates the low
estimate assumes 25 percent of the maximum potential reduction is
realized in year five, representing minimal behavior change. The
primary estimate assumes 50 percent realization in year five. The high
estimate assumes 75 percent realization, representing significant
behavior change in year five. These estimates are calculated by
multiplying the respective percent realizations by the maximum
potential reduction in personnel expenditures. ACF assumes that the
proposed policy changes are phased in over the five-year time horizon
and fully implemented in year five.
Results from this analysis are presented in the following table.
Under the primary scenario, the annual reduction in personnel
expenditures associated with ratio flexibility is estimated at
$668,299,826, with corresponding low and high estimates of $334,149,913
and $1,002,449,739, respectively.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU26.021
The estimated reduction in teaching staff can be used to estimate
the potential change in the average number of children per teacher.
Under the maximum adjustment scenario, the estimated number of teachers
required
[[Page 51290]]
under state licensing ratios is approximately 24 percent lower than the
number of teaching staff currently reported in the PIR (80,078 compared
to 105,423). Holding enrollment constant, this implies an increase of
approximately 32 percent in the average number of children per teacher.
Under the primary scenario, which assumes programs realize 50 percent
of the maximum adjustment, the increase in the average number of
children per teacher would be approximately 16 percent. Actual changes
would vary across programs and states depending on staffing decisions
and the extent to which programs adjust toward state licensing ratios.
No adjustments were made to these estimates for the proposed
removal of the Head Start per-child facility square footage
requirements. Although related, any effects from the removal of these
requirements are expected to be marginal because state licensing
standards already align closely with, or in some cases exceed, current
Head Start center-based requirements of 35 square feet of usable indoor
activity space per child and 75 square feet of outdoor play space per
child. While a small number of states permit lower space standards in
limited circumstances, many states impose more stringent requirements
that would already apply to Head Start programs operating in those
states. For example, Texas requires 80 square feet of outdoor space per
child, the District of Columbia and Rhode Island require 45 square feet
of indoor space for infants and toddlers, and Illinois increases
required square footage depending on whether sleep and play areas are
combined and whether cribs are used. As a result, in many states, about
30 to 40 states depending on the measure, licensing standards already
meet or exceed Head Start space benchmarks, making the proposed removal
of the Federal per-child facility requirement negligible for this
estimate.
C. Removal of Center-Based Head Start Preschool Duration and Program
Schedule Requirements
The current regulation requires that at least 45 percent of Head
Start Preschool center-based funded enrollment receive 1,020 annual
hours of planned class operations and establishes minimum days and
hours for remaining slots. The proposed rule removes this Federal
duration requirement for Head Start Preschool. Early Head Start is
excluded from this analysis because, as discussed in the preamble of
this NPRM, the Act specifies that EHS programs must provide
``continuous'' comprehensive child development and family support
services, which ACF has long interpreted to mean a full day and full
year of services for infants and toddlers in EHS center-based programs.
To estimate potential reductions in personnel costs associated with
reduced duration, we compare median annual hours of operation using
administrative data reported on program schedules of operation,
weighted by funded enrollment, prior to the 2016 final rule that
introduced these requirements on program duration (fiscal year 2015
used to characterize the analytic baseline) to median annual hours,
weighted by funded enrollment, from fiscal year 2025. In fiscal year
2015, estimated median annual hours of operation were 960 hours, and
estimated median annual days of operation were 162 days; both of these
figures are weighted by funded enrollment. After computing the weighted
median hours of operation per child per year, we calculated the
difference between the fiscal year 2025 median and the fiscal year 2015
median, which is 132 hours per child per year. This difference of 132
hours represents the maximum potential reduction in annual hours of
operation, from which the subsequent calculations are computed.
While some programs will reduce their duration, Head Start programs
primarily serve working families who rely on consistent care, and
programs must continue meeting these needs to sustain enrollment--
particularly as early childhood options expand. Accordingly, we assume
a range of behavioral adjustments in response to this proposed policy
change. The low estimate assumes a 25 percent reduction of the 132-hour
gap (33 hours), the primary estimate assumes a 50 percent reduction (66
hours), and the high estimate assumes a 75 percent reduction (99
hours). These represent low, primary, and high behavioral adjustments,
respectively.
Using 2025 PIR data, the average annual salary for Head Start
Preschool classroom teachers is $62,746 and for assistant teachers is
$42,272, after adjusting the PIR salary data by 2 percent to express
the estimates in constant 2026 dollars and applying a 24 percent fringe
adjustment. Multiplying by the number of teachers reported in the PIR
(32,262 classroom teachers and 35,881 assistant teachers) yields total
annual teacher compensation of approximately $3,541,086,867.
Applying the percentage reduction in annual hours to total
compensation yields estimated reductions of approximately $107,010,867
under the low estimate, $214,021,734 under the primary estimate, and
$321,032,601 under the high estimate. ACF assumes that the proposed
policy changes are implemented over a five-year time horizon and these
cost reductions would be fully realized upon implementation in year
five.
These reductions reflect reduced required instructional hours and
associated staffing time. Resources made available through reduced
duration requirements may be redirected toward other program priorities
or expanded enrollment.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU26.022
[[Page 51291]]
In addition to these estimated reductions in program expenditures,
the proposed changes may also affect how families arrange child care,
although these impacts are not quantified in this analysis. The
proposed removal of Head Start Preschool duration requirements may
result in changes to the number of hours of care provided to enrolled
children, depending on program-level implementation decisions. To the
extent that program hours change, families may adjust their
arrangements by using a mix of formal child care, informal supports, or
parental care, based on their individual preferences and local
availability of options.
The extent of these adjustments is uncertain and likely to vary
across communities and households. Key factors include the availability
and affordability of alternative child care, local labor market
conditions, program implementation decisions, and access to informal
care networks. Due to this variability, ACF has not quantified these
impacts but recognizes that families may respond in different ways,
consistent with their needs, resources, and local conditions. These
factors are also discussed further below in the section on Non-
Quantified Impacts (Costs and Benefits).
D. Removal of Home-Based Service Duration and Caseload Requirements
The current regulation prescribes minimum numbers of home visits
and group socializations and limits home visitor caseloads. The
proposed rule would remove these Federal duration and caseload
requirements.
For purposes of this estimate, we assume that states do not impose
significant independent requirements on home-based service duration or
home visitor caseloads.
We assume that, in response to removal of Federal duration and
caseload requirements, programs may adjust the number of home visits
per year as well as the number of families assigned per home visitor
(caseloads), resulting in a reduced overall need for home visiting
staff. Using PIR data, there are 5,556 home visitors reported. The
average annual salary for home visitors is $62,373, after adjusting the
PIR salary data by 2 percent to express the estimates in constant 2026
dollars and applying a 24 percent fringe adjustment.
We estimate potential reductions in the home visitor workforce
under three scenarios as outlined in the following table. Current
standards establish minimum expectations for visit frequency and
duration (e.g., weekly visits of defined length), which shape staffing
and service delivery. Absent these requirements, we anticipate programs
will likely shorten home visits, increase caseloads, and adjust
staffing. Accordingly, the scenarios reflect significant changes to
staffing costs.
The low estimate assumes a 25 percent reduction in the home visitor
workforce, the primary estimate assumes a 50 percent reduction, and the
high estimate assumes a 75 percent reduction. The low estimate
represents minimal behavioral adjustment, while the high estimate
reflects significant restructuring of home-based service delivery.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU26.023
Under these assumptions, estimated annual reductions in personnel
expenditures are approximately $86,636,097 under the low estimate,
$173,272,194 under the primary estimate, and $259,908,291 under the
high estimate.
E. Removal of Requirement for Child Development Specialist Role
The current regulation mandates that family child care providers
partner with child development specialists. The proposed rule would
remove this requirement.
Using PIR data, there are 570 child development specialists
reported. Because salary data for this role are not separately reported
in the PIR, we use the average annual salary for family child care
providers as a proxy adjusted by 2 percent to express the estimate in
constant 2026 dollars and then adjusted for fringe benefits, resulting
in an estimated annual compensation of $67,123.
We assume the proposed policy change in this NPRM will result in
many programs reducing or eliminating staffing for this role.
Therefore, the low estimate assumes a 25 percent reduction in this
workforce, the primary estimate assumes a 50 percent reduction, and the
high estimate assumes a 75 percent reduction.
Under these assumptions, estimated annual reductions in personnel
expenditures are approximately $9,564,986 under the low estimate,
$19,129,973 under the primary estimate, and $28,694,959 under the high
estimate.
[[Page 51292]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU26.024
Safety and Transportation Practices
A. Removal of Requirement for Bus Monitors on Board at All Times
The proposed rule would remove the regulatory requirement that at
least one bus monitor be present on vehicles transporting Head Start
children at all times. Current regulations governing vehicle operation
require programs that provide transportation services to ensure that a
bus monitor is on board during transportation services.
The proposed change would provide programs with greater flexibility
to determine how to structure transportation staffing based on local
operational considerations, safety practices, and state or local
transportation regulations.
This proposed regulatory change would reduce costs for programs
that currently employ personnel to fulfill the Federal bus monitor
requirement. Programs that determine a bus monitor is not necessary
under their transportation model may reduce staffing costs associated
with these positions. ACF acknowledges that programs may choose to
continue employing bus monitors to comply with applicable state or
local requirements.
To estimate potential reductions in personnel expenditures, the
analysis first estimates the number of bus monitors currently
associated with Head Start transportation services. According to the
PIR, a total of 94,230 children received transportation to and from
classes. This analysis estimates the number of bus monitors at the
grant level by dividing the number of transported children for each
grant, by an assumed ratio of 20 children per bus monitor and rounding
the result upward to account for whole staff positions. This ratio is
based on the capacity ranges of Type A buses. Based on this approach,
the estimated number of bus monitors associated with Head Start
transportation services is 5,130.
Compensation for bus monitors is estimated using the Bureau of
Labor Statistics Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics for School
Bus Monitors (SOC 33-9094), May 2025 mean annual wage of $35,150.
Adjusting for a 2 percent inflation rate to achieve 2026 dollars
results in a mean annual wage of $35,853. This analysis then applies a
24 percent adjustment to account for fringe benefits, resulting in an
estimated annual compensation of $47,175 per bus monitor which reflects
a fully loaded hourly compensation rate of $22.68.
Because bus monitoring responsibilities are frequently performed by
staff who hold multiple roles within Head Start programs (e.g.,
teachers, aides, etc.) or part-time staff, the analysis assumes that
removal of the requirement would affect an average of one-third of a
full-time equivalent position per monitor rather than eliminating a
full staff position in every case. To account for uncertainty regarding
program responses to this policy change, the analysis models three
behavioral scenarios reflecting different levels of reduction in bus
monitoring hours. The low scenario assumes programs reduce bus monitor
staffing hours by 25 percent, representing minimal behavioral change.
The primary scenario assumes a 50 percent reduction in hours. The high
scenario assumes a 75 percent reduction, representing more substantial
adjustment in transportation staffing practices.
These scenario assumptions are set based on evidence that Head
Start programs have historically reduced transportation services in
response to cost pressures and regulatory burden. The added flexibility
is expected to enable programs to continue offering transportation in a
more cost-efficient manner, which many are likely to adopt. Under the
primary scenario, assuming a 50 percent reduction in hours devoted to
bus monitoring, the estimated annual reduction in personnel
expenditures is approximately $39,931,279. Under the low scenario,
assuming a 25 percent reduction in hours devoted to bus monitoring, the
estimated reduction is approximately $19,965,639. Under the high
scenario, assuming a 75 percent reduction in hours, the estimated
reduction is approximately $59,896,918.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU26.025
[[Page 51293]]
These estimates reflect potential reductions in staff time
associated with the proposed removal of the Federal bus monitor
requirement. Actual cost reductions may be smaller if programs retain
bus monitors to comply with state or local transportation regulations
or to maintain existing safety practices. As with other personnel-
related adjustments discussed in this RIA, any reductions in staffing
time may allow programs to reallocate resources to other program
activities.
Health and Mental Health Services
The current standards require programs to conduct health
determinations, assist families in navigating health systems,
facilitate access to health care and insurance for pregnant women
within specified timeframes, conduct tooth brushing activities, and
provide mental health supports for children and families, including
ongoing mental health consultation at least monthly. The proposed rule
would remove specific Federal requirements across these areas.
To estimate the annual reduction in costs associated with these
removals, we use FY 2025 budget line-item reports for health
contractual services ($40,966,609 total reported across all Head Start
grant applications) and personnel costs for health and mental health
services ($177,357,309 total reported across all Head Start grant
applications). These FY 2025 amounts are adjusted by 2 percent to
express the estimates in constant 2026 dollars before applying the
scenario multipliers, resulting in $41,785,941 for health contractual
services and $180,904,455 in personnel costs for health and mental
health services. These categories include expenditures associated with
health, mental health, and nutrition-related personnel and consultants
to the extent such costs are reported by grant recipients and therefore
reflect the primary budget categories through which nutrition
consultation and related services are funded. Because these
expenditures are reported in aggregate, ACF is unable to separately
identify or estimate the costs associated solely with nutrition and
health consultants. See the Non-Quantified Impacts discussion of
nutrition-related provisions for additional discussion regarding
anticipated impacts and costs associated with those requirements. We
sum these amounts and apply multipliers of 25 percent (low), 50 percent
(primary), and 75 percent (high). Head Start programs remain
responsible for ensuring the provision of health, mental health, and
related services per the Act and must also continue to comply with
applicable state and local requirements. In addition, staff will still
need ongoing support to address children's challenging behaviors;
therefore, programs are likely to retain staff for these supports. If
they choose, programs may maintain health and mental health services as
currently implemented in their programs, if this best fits the needs of
their families and communities. Accordingly, we apply scenarios that
anticipate more moderate behavioral adjustments in this area.
This analysis also reflects the removal of requirements introduced
in the 2024 final rule related to monthly mental health consultation,
which were previously estimated to result in approximately $64 million
in annual costs and reflected the cost of providing regular mental
health consultation and related supports.\14\ The current NPRM proposes
to modify those requirements, along with removal of additional
prescriptive provisions, so the estimates presented here reflect a
broader set of changes to health and mental health service delivery
rather than a direct one-to-one reversal of the prior estimate from the
2024 final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ This dollar estimate is what was published in the 2024
final rule analysis and is not adjusted to 2026 dollars.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU26.026
Under the primary scenario, the estimated annual reduction is
approximately $111.3 million. Under the low and high scenarios, the
estimated annual reductions are approximately $55.7 million and $167.0
million, respectively.
These reductions reflect flexibility for programs to redesign
service delivery in alignment with the Act, state licensing
requirements, and local health systems, while maintaining focus on core
health and nutrition outcomes. Overall, ACF continues to anticipate a
net reduction in costs as previously estimated due to the removal of
prescriptive health and mental health requirements.
Family Service Worker Caseloads
The current family engagement standards require that the planned
number of families assigned to staff conducting the family partnership
process be no greater than 40 families per staff member, subject to
limited waivers. The proposed rule would remove the 40:1 caseload limit
that was introduced in a final rule published in 2024, restoring
discretion to local programs to determine family services staffing
patterns that are better aligned with family needs and available
resources.
Based on the same methodological framework used in the 2024 final
rule but incorporating updated data and baseline assumptions, we
estimate that 2,170 additional family services staff would be required
to meet the 40:1 ratio under current requirements.
The 2024 final rule estimated approximately $125 million in annual
costs associated with implementing the 40:1 family service worker
caseload requirement using similar
[[Page 51294]]
methodological assumptions. The estimates presented here build on that
approach but incorporate updated 2025 PIR data on family service worker
staffing levels and do not apply the same assumptions regarding
associated benefits, as the baseline for this analysis assumes
rescission of those requirements. These adjustments result in
differences between the estimates, which is why the 100 percent
scenario presented here does not directly align with the $125 million
estimate from the 2024 final rule.
We employ the assumption of a $40,000 average annual salary used in
the 2024 final rule, this analysis applies a 2 percent annual inflation
adjustment for two years to express the salary in 2026 dollars,
resulting in an average annual salary of $41,616. Fringe benefits are
assumed to represent 24 percent of total compensation; therefore, this
analysis divides wages by 0.76 to estimate fully loaded compensation,
resulting in a fully loaded average annual salary of $54,758. Because
this requirement has not yet taken effect, we estimate future cost
reductions associated with eliminating the anticipated need for these
additional staff.
This model applies scenarios with high behavioral adjustments
because programs have yet to implement this requirement and ACF
recognizes there are challenges with hiring and retaining family
services staff based on program feedback. Accordingly, the added
flexibility through the removal of the 40:1 ratio requirement is
expected to enable programs to continue offering family support
services in a more cost-efficient manner, which many programs are
likely to maintain. We apply reduction scenarios of 50 percent, 75
percent, and 100 percent of the projected 2,170 positions, while
adjusting for 24 percent fringe.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU26.027
Under the primary scenario, the estimated annual reduction is
approximately $89.1 million. Under the low and high scenarios,
estimated reductions are approximately $59.4 million and $118.8
million, respectively. ACF assumes that the proposed policy changes are
implemented over a five-year time horizon and these cost reductions
would be fully realized upon implementation in year five.
These reductions reflect that programs will likely determine
alternative staffing configurations to meet family needs without a
Federally prescribed caseload ratio. Without a Federally specified
caseload limit, family service workers may structure services
differently, which may affect the intensity or frequency of
individualized support provided to families.
Management Systems and Administrative Cost
Overview
This proposed rule would rescind requirements in Part 1302 Subpart
I related to staff qualifications and certain human resources policies.
It would remove specific Federal qualification requirements for several
non-education staff positions, remove prescriptive requirements to
implement a coordinated coaching strategy for education staff, and
remove requirements related to staff breaks that were introduced in a
2024 final rule. These changes are intended to restore discretion to
local programs, reduce Federally prescribed staffing constraints, and
allow programs to align staffing models with local labor market
conditions and state requirements, while continuing to comply with
statutory requirements under the Act. Certain education staff
qualification requirements remain in the Act, including those
applicable to Head Start Preschool teachers, preschool assistant
teachers, Early Head Start teachers, and education managers or
coordinators, while the proposed revisions would remove regulatory
qualification requirements for other specified roles.
The proposed rule includes requirements related to program-level
aggregation and analysis of child assessment data that align to current
regulation in that they would continue to require programs to establish
program goals, conduct self-assessments, and submit findings to HHS but
the proposed regulations do not include the specified minimum frequency
in current Sec. 1302.102(c)(2)(ii).
In addition, the proposed rule would reduce the cap on allowable
costs to develop and administer a Head Start program under Sec. 1303.5
from 15 percent to 5 percent of total approved program costs.
A. Removal of Staff Qualification Requirements for Non-Education Staff
Under the current Performance Standards at Sec. 1302.91, specific
minimum qualifications apply to certain management and service delivery
positions. These include requirements related to education and
credentials for roles such as Head Start directors; fiscal officers;
management staff overseeing family, health, and disability services;
home visitors; family child care providers; and family services staff.
The proposed rule would remove these Federal qualification
requirements for these roles, allowing programs to determine
appropriate qualifications, consistent with state, tribal, and local
laws and their own operational needs.
The economic effect of removing these qualification requirements is
expected to reduce average personnel expenditures as vacancies are
filled and compensation aligns more closely with the qualifications of
newly hired staff, who may hold lower credentials than currently
required. The estimated reduction in compensation is presented below;
however, reductions related to health staff and coaches are not
included in this estimate, as they are addressed in other sections of
this RIA.
To estimate the potential reduction in compensation, the analysis
first determines a potential ``floor salary'' for each position by
applying a percentage
[[Page 51295]]
reduction to the current average salary for that position. Under the
baseline scenario, we assume that management staff hold at minimum
bachelor's degrees, which aligns with requirements under the current
performance standards. For management staff positions that previously
required a baccalaureate degree, the analysis uses data from the
National Center for Education Statistics' National Teacher and
Principal Survey of Public School Principals (2020-21) to estimate
differences in compensation by education level. Based on that
distribution, the analysis estimates that the reduction in salary from
a bachelor's degree to no degree for a management position in education
is approximately six percent. Accordingly, a six percent reduction is
applied to current average salaries for Head Start management positions
to estimate the potential floor salary, which assumes no degree
requirements for these roles. For positions that previously required a
Child Development Associate credential, the analysis uses PIR data on
EHS classroom teacher salary differentials by credential level and
estimates a nine percent reduction from CDA to no credential. That nine
percent reduction is applied to the relevant staff categories to
estimate the potential salary floor, which assumes no credential
requirements for these roles.
For each position, the salary difference is calculated by
subtracting the estimated floor salary from the current average salary.
This difference represents the maximum potential per-position reduction
if all staff in that role were replaced with individuals holding no
credential. Recognizing that programs are unlikely to terminate
existing staff or replace all staff with individuals holding no
credentials to realize these savings but may instead adjust hiring
practices by filling vacancies at lower salary rates, three adjustment
scenarios are modeled. The narrow range for the scenarios (10 to 50
percent) reflects that changes to staffing patterns are expected to be
limited through attrition and hiring decisions. In the low scenario, 10
percent of positions move toward the estimated floor; in the primary
scenario, 30 percent; and in the high scenario, 50 percent. The total
reduction for each scenario is calculated by multiplying the per-
position salary difference by the number of staff in that role and then
by the applicable scenario adjustment percentage and summing across all
affected positions.
Average salary inputs are derived from the PIR, except for family
services staff, which are based on salary assumptions used in the 2024
final rule analysis. Where PIR salary data are used, ACF applies a 2
percent inflation adjustment to express estimates in constant 2026
dollars before applying fringe benefits. Counts of staff are also
derived from the PIR. This analysis applies a 24 percent fringe
adjustment to all salary estimates. These inputs are shown in the
following table.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU26.028
The estimated annual reduction in personnel expenditures associated
with removal of non-education staff qualification requirements is
presented in the following table.
[[Page 51296]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU26.029
In the low estimate, which reflects minimal behavioral change in
how programs currently operate in relation to these roles, annual
reductions in staff salaries due to lowered qualifications are
estimated at approximately $18.8 million. In the primary estimate,
reflecting moderate adjustment in staffing patterns, annual reductions
are estimated at approximately $56.6 million. This primary estimate is
considered most representative, as programs are likely to still hire
candidates that have comparable educational attainment for their role
as their predecessor, rather than intentionally seeking and hiring
candidates with no degrees for these positions. In the high estimate,
reflecting more substantial adjustment in hiring practices, annual
reductions are estimated at approximately $94.3 million.
B. Removal of Coaching Requirement for Education Staff
Current Sec. 1302.92(c) requires programs to implement a research-
based coordinated coaching strategy for education staff, including
intensive coaching for identified staff. The proposed rule would remove
these requirements, thereby reducing the level of prescriptive Federal
expectations regarding coaching structures and allowing programs
greater flexibility in how instructional support is delivered,
including associated staffing or contractual arrangements. ACF notes
that programs must continue to meet statutory requirements related to
mentor teachers under section 648A(b), which may overlap with certain
coaching functions, though these statutory requirements allow much more
flexibility for programs in implementation of coaching supports.
Although programs may continue to provide coaching at their
discretion or to align with the Act, the proposed removal of the
regulatory requirements is expected to reduce the intensity and
frequency of coaching activities in some programs. In this analysis,
these changes are operationalized as a reduction in the number of staff
or contracted personnel dedicated to coaching-type services, which may
result in lower expenditures associated with coach salaries and related
fringe benefits. The analysis assumes an average annual compensation of
$50,000 per coach, expressed in constant 2026 dollars, and applies a 24
percent adjustment for fringe benefits, resulting in an average total
compensation of $65,789. Based on PIR data, 5,432 individuals currently
provide coaching services.
The total baseline annual compensation associated with coaching
staff is calculated by multiplying 5,432 coaches by $65,789, resulting
in approximately $357.4 million. Because some programs may continue
coaching activities and maintain instructional support functions
through mentor teachers as required by the Act, three adjustment
scenarios are modeled. The wider adjustment range (25 percent to 75
percent) reflects that, unlike staffing changes tied to education
qualifications, coaching is a program activity that may be integrated
into broader instructional support roles and can generally be scaled
back in intensity more quickly following the removal of regulatory
requirements, including through reductions in dedicated staff or
contracted services. In the primary scenario, 50 percent of coaching
expenditures are reduced. In the low scenario, 25 percent of
expenditures are reduced, reflecting less significant behavioral
change. In the high scenario, 75 percent of expenditures are reduced,
reflecting more substantial reduction of coaching activities.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU26.030
[[Page 51297]]
Under the primary scenario, annual reductions are estimated at
approximately $178.7 million. Under the low scenario, annual reductions
are approximately $89.3 million. Under the high scenario, annual
reductions are approximately $268.0 million.
Variations in the extent to which programs continue to use
coaching, including through mentor teacher roles or other instructional
supports, may influence instructional support structures and how
programs monitor and support teaching practices.
C. Removal of Staff Break Requirement
A Head Start final rule in 2024 introduced a requirement that
programs provide regular breaks of adequate length and frequency to
staff, including classroom staff, during hours worked. This requirement
would go into effect for programs in August 2027. The proposed rule
would remove this and related requirements, so programs would not be
required to comply with this policy by August of 2027.
The cost estimate for the staff break requirement in the 2024 final
rule was based on assumptions regarding the number of affected staff,
the duration and frequency of breaks, and how programs would provide
coverage. The analysis assumed approximately 108,869 education staff,
with an average of 28 minutes of break time per shift and 180 shifts
per year, resulting in approximately 5,049 minutes of break time per
staff annually, or about 9.2 million total hours of break time across
all education staff.
Because detailed data on existing break policies were not
available, the analysis assumed that 20 percent of programs already
provided breaks under baseline conditions. Of the remaining programs,
it was assumed that 50 percent would accommodate break requirements by
shifting workloads among existing staff, while the remainder would
provide coverage by hiring additional staff, referred to as
``floaters,'' compensated at rates comparable to assistant teachers
without credentials.
Applying these assumptions, the analysis estimated that
approximately 2.7 million hours of additional break coverage would be
required annually. Valuing this time using assistant teacher wages,
including fringe benefits, resulted in an estimated annual cost of
approximately $64 million in the 2024 final rule. This analysis adjusts
that estimate by 2 percent annually for two years to express the
estimate in constant 2026 dollars, resulting in an estimated future
annual reduction of approximately $66.6 million.
Using the same cost assumptions from the prior rule, adjusted by 2
percent annually for two years to express the estimate in constant 2026
dollars, the removal of the requirement is estimated to reduce future
annual expenditures by approximately $66.6 million. This estimate does
not model alternative adjustment ranges, as it reflects the removal of
a previously estimated compliance cost using the same underlying
assumptions from the 2024 final rule, adjusted to constant 2026
dollars, rather than new behavioral responses.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU26.031
D. Removal of Requirements Related to Data Use in Program Management
Under the current regulations, programs must establish a
comprehensive and structured approach to program goals, monitoring
program performance, and continuous improvement, while using data to
assess progress and inform decision-making. This includes, as part of
these approaches, aggregating and analyzing child-level assessment data
multiple times per year, as well as reviewing data related to
professional development, family engagement, and service delivery. In
addition, programs must conduct a comprehensive community assessment at
least once during the five-year grant period and review and update it
annually to reflect significant changes in the community. Programs are
required to use community assessment data to inform key program
decisions, to identify community resources to support partnerships and
coordinate services, and to guide strategic planning and continuous
improvement efforts.
This proposed rule would streamline program goals, improvement, and
reporting requirements. Programs must still set measurable goals for
education, health, nutrition, and family engagement, assess their
progress, and report findings to HHS, but would remove detailed and
prescriptive requirements related to data collection, analysis, and
use. Specifically, it would eliminate requirements for programs to
aggregate and analyze child-level assessment data at specified
intervals, as well as requirements to systematically analyze data
related to professional development, family engagement, and other
program services for continuous improvement. It would also remove
prescriptive continuous improvement processes tied to specific data
inputs and timelines. In addition, the proposed rule would include
requirements related to community assessment that align to current
regulations but do not include the specified frequency for conducting a
comprehensive assessment and the requirement to annually review and
update it. These changes are intended to reduce administrative burden,
provide greater flexibility to programs in how they use data and
community information to inform improvement, and would reduce ongoing
compliance burden associated with use of data in program management.
The economic effects of these changes are expected to reduce total
staff time associated with data use in program management for the 1,526
Head Start agencies. Based on the Supporting Statement for the
Paperwork Reduction Act (OMB Control Number 0970-0148), programs spend
an average of 79 hours per year in the collection and use of data for
monitoring program performance, continuous improvement efforts, and
conducting their self-assessment, as well as conducting a comprehensive
community assessment at least once during the five-year grant period
including an annual review and update to identify significant changes
in community demographics, needs, and resources.
[[Page 51298]]
To estimate the reduction in expenditures associated with reduced
staff time for these activities, we examined salary data on education
and child care administrators from the BLS. The hourly compensation
rate applied in this analysis is based on the BLS Occupational
Employment and Wage Statistics for Education and Childcare
Administrators, Preschool and Daycare (SOC 11-9031), May 2025 mean
hourly wage of $31.15, from which this analysis applies a 2 percent
inflation adjustment to express the estimate in constant 2026 dollars,
resulting in a mean hourly wage of $31.77. This analysis then applies a
24 percent adjustment to account for fringe benefits, resulting in
$41.81 per hour.
We calculated the baseline annual cost of data use in program
management by multiplying 1,526 Head Start agencies by 79 hours per
year of administrator staff time and by $41.81 per hour. To estimate
reductions, three adjustment scenarios are modeled. The adjustment
range (25 percent to 75 percent) reflects that programs have
flexibility in the frequency and intensity of data collection and use
as part of their approach to program management and decision-making. In
the primary scenario, programs reduce staff time spent on these
activities by 50 percent. In the low scenario, programs reduce staff
time by 25 percent, reflecting minimal behavioral change. In the high
scenario, programs reduce staff time by 75 percent, reflecting more
substantial adjustment in these approaches.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU26.032
Under the primary scenario, annual reductions are estimated at
approximately $2.5 million. Under the low scenario, annual reductions
are approximately $1.3 million. Under the high scenario, annual
reductions are approximately $3.8 million. The extent to which programs
make changes in the frequency and intensity of using data as part of
program management may influence how programs identify trends and the
extent to which this informs continuous improvement strategies.
E. Reduction of Allowable Administrative Costs From 15 Percent to 5
Percent
Current Sec. 1303.5 limits allowable costs to develop and
administer a Head Start program to 15 percent of total approved program
costs, inclusive of both Federal and non-Federal match. The proposed
rule would reduce this cap from 15 percent to 5 percent of total
approved program costs. Using program budget line-item data reflecting
2025 administrative cost allocations at 2026 funding levels, adjusted
by 2 percent to express the estimates in constant 2026 dollars, this
analysis first calculates the current share of total budgets allocated
to administrative costs. These data indicate that administrative costs
represent approximately 11.2 percent of total program budgets under the
baseline scenario.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Many of the other provisions proposed in this document
would have the potential to reduce spending on direct services, so a
ratio estimate (of administrative costs to total program budgets)
that accounts for the other provisions might be higher than 11.2
percent. As this percentage increases, so do the effects of the
proposed administrative cost cap, including shifts of program
funds--estimated to be $754 million if the baseline ratio is 11.2
percent--and transition costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to program-specific data, ACF also considered
administrative cost limitations applied in other Federal grant programs
to assess the reasonableness of the proposed 5 percent cap. Across a
range of human services and workforce programs, administrative cost
limits commonly fall between 5 and 15 percent. Within Head Start
specifically, approximately 3.7 percent of grants currently operate at
or below a 5 percent administrative cost threshold, indicating that a
small subset of programs are already functioning within this range.
ACF also examined the distribution of grants with administrative
cost allocations above 5 percent but below 10 percent to assess how
close additional programs are to the proposed threshold. Approximately
7.9 percent of grants currently operate between 5 percent and 7.5
percent administrative costs, and approximately 19.8 percent operate
between 7.5 percent and 10 percent. ACF recognizes that relatively few
grants currently operate at or below the proposed 5 percent cap.
However, these data indicate that additional grants operate above 5
percent but below 10 percent administrative costs, suggesting that some
programs may be closer to the proposed threshold than others. The
extent to which programs can transition to the proposed cap will depend
on current cost structures, program size, service area, administrative
arrangements, and the availability of waiver relief where appropriate.
ACF also considered whether grants operating in more urban,
metropolitan, or rural areas may face different opportunities to
consolidate administrative functions. For this analysis, ACF used 2020
ZIP Code Rural-Urban Commuting Area (RUCA) classifications developed by
the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Economic Research Service. ZIP
Code RUCA codes are derived from census tract RUCA codes and classify
ZIP codes based on urbanization and commuting patterns. ACF used the
ZIP Code of the Head
[[Page 51299]]
Start agency location for this analysis; however, ACF recognizes that
the agency location may differ from the locations where services are
actually provided, particularly for grants that operate multiple sites
or serve broad geographic areas. ACF classified grants with ZIP Code
RUCA codes 1 through 3 as metropolitan or urban commuting areas,
reflecting metropolitan core areas and areas with high or low commuting
flows to a metropolitan urban area. Grants with ZIP Code RUCA codes 4
through 10 were classified as rural or nonmetropolitan areas, including
micropolitan, small town, and rural areas.
Based on this analysis, among grants with matched ZIP Code RUCA
classifications, approximately 63 percent of Head Start grants are
located in metropolitan or urban commuting areas, and approximately 37
percent are located in rural or nonmetropolitan areas. Approximately
3.7 percent of grants in metropolitan or urban commuting areas operate
at or below 5 percent administrative costs, compared to approximately
3.6 percent of grants in rural or nonmetropolitan areas. ACF recognizes
that programs in areas where Head Start services are geographically
clustered may have more opportunities to consolidate administrative
functions, while programs serving more remote or dispersed communities
may face different implementation considerations.
ACF also examined whether current administrative cost percentages
varied by grant funding size or program type. This analysis did not
show a meaningful relationship between total grant funding and
administrative cost percentage; average and median administrative
percentages were generally similar across grant-size categories.
Smaller grants were somewhat more likely to report administrative costs
at or below 5 percent; however, grant size did not appear to explain
differences in administrative cost percentages. Administrative cost
percentages also appeared broadly similar across HS Preschool-only,
EHS-only, and combined HS Preschool/EHS grants, with only modest
differences across program types.
Several HHS programs operate with a 5 percent administrative cost
limit, including the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF), the
Substance Use Prevention and Treatment Block Grant (SAPT), the
Community Mental Health Services Block Grant (MHBG), and the Community
Services Block Grant (CSBG). These programs support decentralized
service delivery systems that rely on State, local, and subrecipient
entities to administer benefits and oversee program operations.
To quantify the potential fiscal impact of this proposed change on
Federal Head Start funding, total Head Start funding is defined as the
sum of Head Start Preschool base, Early Head Start base, and Training
and Technical Assistance funds in FY 2025 funds planning data, adjusted
by 2 percent to express the estimates in constant 2026 dollars, is
$12,166,833,883. Applying the baseline 11.2 percent administrative
allocation results in approximately $1,362,685,395 in administrative
costs across all Head Start programs. If administrative costs are
capped at 5 percent, allowable administrative expenditures would be
approximately $608,341,694. The difference between these amounts
represents the estimated annual change in the distribution of Federal
Head Start expenditures under the proposed cap.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU26.033
The estimated annual change in administrative expenditures is
approximately $754.3 million. Programs may need to adjust
administrative and programmatic cost allocations to comply with the
proposed cap, and the extent of these adjustments will vary depending
on existing cost structures, program size, and local requirements.
Rather than representing a direct reduction in overall program costs,
this policy is expected to shift how funds are allocated within
programs, including toward direct services that promote the health,
safety, and well-being of children and families. Because this policy
establishes a fixed cap, no separate low or high behavioral scenarios
are modeled as it reflects a regulatory constraint rather than
behavioral adjustment.
If programs anticipate undue challenges with complying with this
proposed change in the administrative cost cap, they have the option
under proposed Sec. 1301.18 to request a waiver of this requirement.
It is at ACF's discretion to review and approve such requests, which
may provide flexibility for programs facing implementation constraints.
ACF invites comment on the proposed waiver process, including
circumstances under which programs may seek waivers from the
administrative cost limitation and the extent to which such flexibility
would support implementation of the proposed cap.
F. Additional Considerations Affecting Administrative Costs
In addition to the quantified changes associated with lowering the
administrative cost cap from 15 percent to 5 percent, several other
provisions of the final rule may affect administrative expenditures.
Many of these provisions were assessed individually as having marginal
fiscal impact relative to the larger cost drivers discussed in this RIA
and therefore were not separately quantified as administrative cost
adjustments. However, when considered collectively, these changes are
expected to influence administrative spending patterns and may affect
how programs allocate administrative resources and structure operations
while continuing to support effective service delivery for children and
families.
Several proposed regulatory revisions are expected to affect
administrative processes and workload requirements; many are not
separately quantified in this analysis because their impacts are
considered individually modest.
Proposed changes to recruitment and attendance requirements may
also change administrative practices.
[[Page 51300]]
Programs may align attendance accountability practices more closely
with state licensing standards, resulting in potential changes in
administrative time devoted to follow-up procedures. The proposed
removal of certain prescriptive supervision requirements, to the extent
those requirements differ from state licensing standards, may likewise
change associated administrative oversight and documentation
requirements.
Certain requirements related to waitlists and enrollment procedures
are proposed for removal from the Performance Standards; programs must
continue maintaining waitlists, both as a practical necessity for
managing enrollment and because it is required by the Act. Similarly,
certain Federal training requirements are proposed for removal;
programs will likely continue to provide trainings, either because they
remain required by the Act or state licensing frameworks, or because
programs determine that such training is necessary to support safe and
effective operations. In some states, child abuse and neglect reporting
training is embedded within broader professional development hour
requirements or required at hire or periodically rather than annually;
even in these circumstances, ACF assumes that overall changes in
administrative costs associated with training will be modest.
Taken together, ACF anticipates that programs may adjust
administrative structures and processes by streamlining and
consolidating processes, aligning more closely with state licensing and
statutory requirements, and exercising increased local discretion.
Although many of these individual changes were assessed as marginal
relative to the larger quantified fiscal impacts in this RIA, their
combined effect may influence administrative expenditures and resource
allocation decisions within programs.
Furthermore, the combination of the quantified changes discussed
throughout this RIA and the additional proposed streamlining effects
described above are expected to provide programs with multiple avenues
to restructure administrative functions and move toward compliance with
the proposed cap in a manner consistent with ACF's commitment to
effective service delivery and responsible stewardship of Federal
resources.
Facilities
The proposed rule would remove several regulatory provisions
governing applications for the purchase, construction, or renovation of
facilities using Head Start grant funds. Under the current regulations,
programs seeking such funding must submit extensive documentation as
part of the facilities application process.
The proposed regulatory changes would remove certain prescriptive
documentation requirements and are expected to reduce administrative
burden in the application process for programs that pursue facilities
funding by reducing the effort associated with preparing and submitting
supporting materials. The extent to which existing facilities
applications would be revised to align with the policy changes proposed
in this NPRM is yet to be determined and removal of these requirements
does not necessarily mean they will be fully removed from the facility
application process.
The estimated reduction in administrative burden is calculated by
applying existing burden estimates associated with preparation of
facilities funding applications and adjusting those estimates to
reflect a reduction in effort due to simplified application
requirements.
Using PRA estimates associated with the Performance Standards (OMB
Control Number 0970-0148, August 2024), the calculation assumes that
the number of Head Start programs potentially affected by the
regulatory change is 250 grants on an annual basis. Based on burden
estimates from the Supporting Statement for the Performance Standards,
programs spend an average of 40 hours preparing facilities-related
grant application materials annually. The hourly cost of staff time is
estimated using the BLS Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics for
Education and Childcare Administrators, Preschool and Daycare (SOC 11-
9031), which reports a May 2025 mean hourly wage of $31.15, from which
this analysis applies a 2 percent inflation adjustment to express the
estimate in constant 2026 dollars, resulting in a mean hourly wage of
$31.77. When this analysis applies a 24 percent fringe adjustment, the
estimated fully loaded hourly cost for staff time is $41.81.
The analysis assumes that simplification of the application process
would reduce the number of staff hours required by 20 percent. This
assumption reflects a moderate reduction in effort, recognizing that
facilities funding applications remain complex and that some
documentation will likely continue to be required in practice.
The total reduction in administrative burden is therefore
calculated by multiplying the number of programs by the average hours
spent preparing application materials, by the hourly wage rate
including fringe benefits, and by the expected 20 percent reduction in
hours required to complete the application.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU26.034
The reduction in administrative burden associated with the
facilities application process results in an estimated cost reduction
of approximately $83,613 annually.
Summary of Overall Estimated Cost Reductions, Costs, and Program
Reinvestments
The proposed rule would remove or streamline a number of regulatory
requirements governing program operations, staffing structures, service
delivery models, and administrative procedures. This RIA estimates the
resulting reductions in regulatory burden and personnel expenditures
across several categories, including reductions in staffing, service
duration requirements, program oversight activities, and administrative
processes. Unless otherwise noted, all cost estimates are presented in
constant 2026 dollars; estimates related to funded slots
[[Page 51301]]
discussed in the ``Increase in Funded Slots Capacity'' section are
presented in nominal dollars to reflect inflation-adjusted program
costs.
Across all quantified categories where behavioral scenarios were
modeled (excluding behavioral scenarios that are one-time costs), the
estimated annual net reduction in program expenditures is approximately
$1.5 billion under the primary scenario, with a range of $722 million
under the low scenario and $2.2 billion under the high scenario. These
estimates reflect the combined effects of reductions in personnel
expenditures associated with staffing flexibility, reductions in
administrative burden associated with documentation and reporting
requirements, and reductions in other operational costs across multiple
areas of program operations.
In addition to the scenario-based estimates, certain provisions
generate quantified impacts that are estimated as relatively fixed
amounts rather than behavioral scenarios. This includes reductions
associated with the simplification of facilities application
documentation, resulting in a fixed annual reduction of $83,613.
Additionally, the estimated annual change associated with the
administrative cost cap is $754,343,701. Rather than representing a
reduction in overall Head Start spending, this estimate reflects a
reallocation of expenditures within the program. Under the proposed
cap, these funds would no longer be available for administrative costs
and could instead be directed toward direct services, expanded
enrollment capacity, or other allowable uses. Accordingly, ACF
characterizes this impact as a program reinvestment within Head Start
rather than a reduction in overall program funding.
When these fixed reductions, program reinvestments, and scenario-
based estimates are considered together, the total estimated annual
quantified impact associated with the proposed rule is approximately
$2.2 billion under the primary scenario, with a range of approximately
$1.5 billion under the low scenario and approximately $3.0 billion
under the high scenario.
As a sensitivity analysis, ACF considered an alternative baseline
in which the wage and non-wage benefit requirements from the 2024 final
rule are fully implemented. Under that rule, compensation levels would
increase, affecting both the cost of remaining staff and the value of
any reductions in staffing or hours.
Holding behavioral responses constant, higher compensation levels
would increase the dollar value of estimated cost reductions, as
reductions in staffing or hours would occur at higher wage levels.
Based on estimates from the 2024 final rule, this corresponds to an
increase of approximately 19 percent. Applying this relationship as a
simplifying assumption, the quantified impacts presented in this RIA
would be approximately 19 percent higher under this alternative
baseline. For example, total estimated cost reductions of $2.2 billion
would increase to approximately $2.64 billion under the primary
scenario.
This sensitivity analysis is illustrative and does not incorporate
the phased implementation schedule of the 2024 rule or potential
changes in program behavior, including staffing changes, under a
higher-cost baseline. It also does not account for the corresponding
increase in costs for remaining staff. Accordingly, the net effect on
total program costs could differ from this percentage-based estimate.
ACF uses the primary baseline, which excludes the 2024 wage and benefit
requirements, for all central estimates to maintain consistency with
the proposed regulatory framework.
These estimates represent potential changes in regulatory burden,
program expenditures, and resource allocation associated with the
proposed removal or modification of Federal regulatory requirements.
Actual realized cost reductions may differ depending on program
implementation decisions, state licensing requirements, local labor
market conditions, and the extent to which programs choose to maintain
existing practices even when they are no longer required by Federal
regulation.
In addition to the recurring annual net cost reductions described
above, the proposed rule is also expected to result in future cost
savings associated with provisions of the 2024 final rule that have not
yet taken effect and certain one-time implementation costs. These costs
are primarily associated with transitioning to English-only instruction
in affected classrooms and include both fixed costs, such as the
replacement of curriculum and instructional materials, estimated at
approximately $46.9 million, and scenario-based costs related to
staffing adjustments, including retraining or recruitment. The
estimated scenario-based one-time staffing costs are approximately
$25.8 million under the low scenario, $51.7 million under the primary
scenario, and $77.5 million under the high scenario. These costs occur
during the initial implementation period rather than on an ongoing
basis. As such, they are presented separately from the recurring cost
reductions and do not offset the annualized savings estimates described
in this section.
Future cost savings associated with the removal of the staff break
requirement and family service worker caseload requirement reflect
avoided costs that would otherwise be incurred beginning in 2027 under
the 2024 final rule. These savings are presented separately from
ongoing annual reductions for clarity. Some quantified impacts
presented in this analysis reflect reductions in regulatory compliance
costs, while others reflect reallocations of Head Start expenditures.
In particular, the estimated impact associated with the proposed
administrative cost limitation represents a program reinvestment effect
in which expenditures previously allocated to administrative activities
may be redirected toward direct services and other programmatic uses.
These impacts are presented separately to distinguish changes in
expenditure allocation from reductions in regulatory costs.
[[Page 51302]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU26.035
Additional one-time administrative costs associated with transition
and implementation are presented separately in the table above and are
estimated at approximately $1.5 million to $3.6 million (primary
estimate: $2.6 million). Further detail on these costs is provided in
the transition and implementation section that follows.
[[Page 51303]]
Time Horizon of Estimated Cost Reductions, Costs, and Program
Reinvestments
Consistent with OMB Circular A-4, regulatory impacts are evaluated
over a multi-year period to reflect how costs and benefits accrue over
time. This requires assumptions regarding the timing of implementation
and the pattern of realized effects.
For this analysis, ACF assumes that economic impacts begin in 2027
and that the proposed policy changes are implemented gradually over a
five-year period, reaching full implementation in Year 5. This phased
approach is consistent with Head Start grant cycles and reflects that
programs may require time to adjust staffing models, service delivery
structures, and administrative processes in response to the proposed
regulatory changes.
Under this assumption, the savings estimates in Table 19 increase
incrementally over time, with approximately 20 percent of recurring
cost reductions realized in 2027, increasing by 20 percentage points
annually until full implementation is reached in 2031.
Table 19 presents the quantified impacts using Circular A-4
accounting categories by distinguishing savings, costs, and transfers
over the five-year time horizon. Savings reflect recurring cost
reductions expected to accrue over the five-year implementation period.
Costs reflect one-time implementation costs associated with the
proposed rule. Transfers reflect the estimated administrative cost cap
effect, which represents a program reinvestment within Head Start from
administrative costs to direct services or other allowable programmatic
uses, rather than a reduction in overall program spending.
Table 19 excludes avoided future costs associated with the staff
break and family service worker caseload requirements because those
requirements have not yet taken effect and would be rescinded before
implementation. These avoided costs are presented separately in Table
18 and are not included in the Circular A-4 savings totals below.
[[Page 51304]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU26.036
Regulatory Alternatives
Consistent with OMB Circular A-4, ACF considered alternative
regulatory approaches that correspond to subsets of the policies
included in this NPRM. These alternatives are intended to illustrate
how different combinations of policy changes could affect overall costs
and cost reductions.
One alternative considered is a regulatory-only approach, under
which only provisions that introduce new or expanded requirements would
be adopted. These include requirements related to English-only
instruction. Under this approach, programs would incur costs associated
with implementation of these requirements, including one-time costs for
curriculum and materials replacement and staff retraining or
recruitment, as well as any ongoing administrative costs associated
with compliance.
A second alternative considered is a deregulatory-only approach,
under which only provisions that reduce or eliminate existing
regulatory requirements would be adopted. These include changes related
to staffing flexibility, removal of prescriptive service requirements,
and reductions in administrative burden. Under this approach, programs
would realize reductions in personnel expenditures and administrative
costs similar to those estimated in the primary analysis, without
incurring the additional costs associated with new regulatory
requirements.
A third alternative considered was a delayed compliance approach
for provisions that may prompt substantial transition costs, including
the proposed 5 percent administrative cost cap and the English-language
instruction requirement. Under this alternative, compliance with these
provisions would be delayed for five years
[[Page 51305]]
following publication of the final rule. This alternative is intended
to illustrate how a longer implementation period could affect the
timing of transition costs and program adjustments while preserving the
substantive policy changes reflected in the proposed rule. Under this
alternative, affected programs would have additional time to adjust
staffing, curriculum, and administrative structures prior to
compliance. As a result, both the associated compliance costs and the
estimated program reinvestment effects would be deferred until the
delayed compliance date. ACF does not quantify this alternative
separately because the effect of a delayed compliance date on the
magnitude of costs would depend on program-specific implementation
decisions and the extent to which programs adjust operations before the
compliance date. Accordingly, this alternative is discussed
qualitatively as a timing alternative rather than presented as a
separate quantified estimate. ACF requests public comment and data on
quantification of these costs.
These alternatives are presented for illustrative purposes to
demonstrate the relative contributions of regulatory and deregulatory
components of the proposed rule. The primary analysis reflects the
combined effects of both sets of policy changes.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU26.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU26.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU26.039
Increase in Funded Slots Capacity
ACF expects that the proposed rule, if finalized, would increase
the number of funded slots that Head Start programs are able to support
by reducing ongoing program expenditures and avoiding certain future
costs. Specifically, reductions in ongoing program expenditures will
allow programs to reallocate resources to support additional funded
slots. In addition, certain future costs will be avoided through
rescission of specific policies that have not yet been implemented
(i.e. staff breaks, family service worker caseloads), thereby allowing
programs to maintain funded slot levels that would have otherwise been
reduced in order to implement those policy changes. Because Head Start
is a grant-funded program, these cost reductions can be reallocated
within the program to support additional funded slots.
Certain provisions of the 2024 final rule, including requirements
related to staff breaks and family service worker caseloads, would have
increased program costs beginning in 2027 when those policies would
have gone into effect. This proposed rule would remove those
requirements, resulting in avoided costs that may support retention of
existing funded slots as shown in the following table, grouped by
scenario.
[[Page 51306]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU26.040
In addition, the proposed rule would generate ongoing reductions in
program expenditures. To estimate the number of funded slots that may
be supported by these reductions, ACF applies a methodology consistent
with prior analyses that translate changes in program expenditures into
changes in funded slots, using average cost per slot. This approach is
conceptually consistent with prior analyses by the HHS Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) \16\ that
examined variation in spending per slot and its implications for funded
slots, although the estimates presented in the current analysis reflect
more recent FY 2025 funding data. The FY 2025 cost-per-slot input
amounts are first adjusted by 2 percent to express them in constant
2026 dollars. The resulting funded slot estimates are then calculated
using nominal values over the implementation period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Schreier, Rendon, and Benton, (2026)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under this approach, total cost reductions are allocated between
Head Start Preschool and Early Head Start based on their respective
shares of funded enrollment and divided by the average cost per slot
for each program type. Using this framework, estimated impacts
correspond to approximately $1,445,152,798 in reductions attributed to
Head Start Preschool and $817,399,893 attributed to Early Head Start
(in nominal dollars to reflect inflation), which translate to
approximately 116,516 Head Start Preschool funded slots and 45,578
Early Head Start funded slots under the primary scenario at full
implementation in 2031.
Because implementation is phased in over time, the potential for
increasing funded slots grows gradually as cost reductions are
realized. The estimates presented below reflect the number of funded
slots that could be supported in each individual year under the phased
implementation assumptions and should not be summed across years. Under
this framework, net new funded slots reflect ongoing and scalable cost
reductions and program reinvestments, including transfers associated
with the administrative cost cap, and exclude one-time costs and
avoided costs associated with future requirements. The estimates of
funded slots presented in this section are based on nominal cost
reductions and program reinvestment effects.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU26.041
The estimates are annual point-in-time estimates and should not be
interpreted as cumulative additions to funded slots across years.
Actual changes in funded slots will depend on program-level decisions,
state and local
[[Page 51307]]
requirements, workforce availability, and the extent to which programs
choose to reallocate resources toward increasing funded slots.
Non-Quantified Impacts (Costs and Benefits)
In addition to the quantified impacts discussed in this RIA, the
proposed rule may produce other non-quantified costs and benefits
associated with variation in how local programs implement increased
flexibility under the proposed regulatory framework. These effects are
inherently uncertain because they depend on program behavioral
responses, the continued applicability of other Federal, state, Tribal,
and local requirements, and the extent to which programs maintain
practices that were previously required by regulation. Some programs
may continue existing approaches because they view them as effective or
because other statutory or regulatory frameworks apply, while others
may modify service delivery to better reflect local needs and resource
constraints. The discussion below highlights selected non-quantified
impacts, but there may be additional effects on program implementation
and service delivery that are not captured in the quantified estimates
presented in this RIA.
Many of the proposed changes would replace current regulatory
provisions with streamlined requirements, remove regulatory text that
duplicates requirements in the Act or other applicable Federal, state,
Tribal, or local requirements, or provide additional flexibility for
programs to determine how to meet program goals and statutory
responsibilities. Where a replaced provision is not separately
quantified or discussed in detail in this RIA, ACF assumes the economic
impact is negligible because the provision is not expected to require
material changes in program operations or expenditures, or because any
resulting changes are expected to be limited and dependent on program-
specific decisions, local conditions, and the continued applicability
of other requirements.
ACF requests public comment on the estimated cost and benefits of
non-quantified impacts, including any additional costs or challenges
that commenters may identify.
A. Estimated Impact of Program Governance Provisions
The proposed rule streamlines regulatory provisions related to
program governance by proposing to remove multiple provisions from
current Part 1301 because most of these requirements are detailed in
the Act. ACF proposes requirements related to parent committees,
including establishment of committee bylaws, that would provide much
greater flexibility to programs in the implementation and structure of
parent committees. ACF does not anticipate that these policy changes
would result in significant cost reductions for programs. Current
regulations require programs to establish parent committees with
defined advisory roles, and changes to program governance provisions in
the proposed rule may affect how parents participate in program
decision-making. Approaches to parent input into program design through
governing bodies would likely vary across programs and therefore are
not quantified.
Non-quantified benefits of this proposed rule include the
prioritization of parents' role as essential partners in their
children's education and greater flexibility for parent involvement in
program governance. Increased flexibility in how parent committees
operate allows programs the opportunity to adopt alternative approaches
to parent involvement and may impact how parents participate in program
decision-making based on the program and community's needs. These
proposed changes would also grant parents the flexibility to determine
which wrap-around and comprehensive services are best suited for a
program to provide to children in care.
B. Estimated Impact of Eligibility, Enrollment, and Attendance
Provisions
Collectively, this proposed rule would remove current Part 1302
Subpart A in its entirety and replace it with a streamlined set of
requirements for programs related to child and family eligibility,
enrollment, and attendance in Head Start. These changes in proposed
Sec. 1301.02 and Sec. 1301.03 reflect multiple ACF priorities,
including restoring flexibility to local Head Start programs;
recognizing the importance of parents as primary decision-makers for
their children; reducing burden for programs and families; and reducing
duplication with relevant statutory requirements.
Impacts of Changes to Eligibility Provisions
The streamlined set of eligibility requirements proposed in Sec.
1301.02 would remove and replace many requirements from current Sec.
1302.12 that are already detailed in statute, including but not limited
to: eligibility requirements related to family income, child age,
receipt of public assistance, homelessness, and children eligible for
IDEA; duration of eligibility; attendance procedures; active waitlists;
enrollment reporting; procedures for recruitment, selection, and
enrollment; and prohibition on charging fees. While the removal of
these requirements reduces duplication across regulation and statute,
ACF did not assume significant costs or savings from these changes
because programs must still comply with these eligibility requirements
in the Act.
The proposed rule would no longer allow family self-attestation to
satisfy eligibility requirements. FY 2024 OHS monitoring data indicates
that approximately 7.6 percent of child files reviewed through the
monitoring process documented ``self-declared income or declaration of
zero income, signed by family'' as the type of documentation for
eligibility verification purposes. This was out of 23,819 total child
files reviewed, a random sample of files from all programs that
received a monitoring review in FY 24. However, monitoring data does
not indicate what portion of these files are false attestations in
which a family or staff member intentionally violated Head Start
eligibility requirements. Therefore, under the proposed policy changes,
we can extrapolate that approximately eight percent of children may
currently be enrolled in Head Start that would otherwise no longer be
eligible for enrollment under this proposed policy change, unless their
family can submit alternative acceptable documentation to demonstrate
they meet an allowable eligibility criterion.
The rule also proposes to require that programs report staff who
violate eligibility determination regulations to the appropriate Office
of Head Start regional office contact within HHS. ACF does not have
readily available data to quantify impact of this change in terms of
the number of staff who violate these requirements. FY 2024 OHS
monitoring reviews found that 139 of 23,819 (.58%) child files reviewed
were considered in error, not reflecting appropriate eligibility for
Head Start services. Although some instances may involve staff or
family fraud, others may stem from mistakes, such as eligibility
miscalculations; for example, unknowingly enrolling children whose
family income exceeded allowable thresholds. This data provides a
reference point when considering the impacts of this policy change to
safeguard against fraud, waste, and abuse.
The rule further proposes to remove a provision that currently
allows programs to enroll a child without
[[Page 51308]]
documentation on child age if such documentation is unavailable from
the family (Sec. 1302.12(h)). ACF does not have readily available data
on children currently enrolled without documentation of child age, so
we cannot easily quantify this proposed policy change. However, ACF
expects important benefits from this proposed change, namely, to
strengthen program integrity and ensure children enrolled in Head Start
are of the statutorily required age to receive these services. ACF
acknowledges that some families, such as those experiencing
homelessness, may have a more challenging time providing such
documentation, and programs may have to support such families more
closely through the enrollment process.
Under the proposed rule, programs would be required to share
eligibility data with HHS upon request. This change is expected to have
minimal impact on program operations since programs already share data
with HHS upon request through monitoring reviews.
The proposed rule also would remove the option to adjust families'
income for housing costs for purposes of eligibility determination,
which exceeded statutory authority. Non-quantifiable benefits to
programs include less administrative burden associated with verifying
housing costs, as well as ensuring limited Head Start services are
reserved for those children most in need.
Impacts of Changes to Determining Community Strengths, Needs, and
Resources
The rule proposes to remove the requirements in Sec. 1302.11 of
the current Performance Standards related to determining community
strengths, needs, and resources to avoid duplication with the Act and
to reduce burden on programs. Programs would not be required to propose
a service area or to meet prescriptive requirements related to
frequency of community assessment, what data elements must be included,
and the timelines for review and updates. In considering potential
impacts, ACF did not assume significant cost reductions associated with
these changes because programs still have requirements in the Act
related to the community assessment.
In a separate section of the RIA, Removal of Requirements Related
to Data Use in Program Management, ACF quantifies savings associated
with removing the requirement that programs conduct a community
assessment at least once over a five-year grant period, but there are
other non-quantifiable benefits to the proposed removal of the
requirements in Sec. 1302.11. For instance, programs would have fewer
Federal requirements to meet and increased flexibility with how they
conduct their community assessment and what data they consider. While
this change may result in more variation in the scope and breadth of
community assessments, ACF expects programs will continue to use their
community assessment in a way that meets statutory requirements and
supports service delivery that is responsive to the needs of the
community.
Impact of Changes to Recruitment of Children
The NPRM proposes to remove current Sec. 1302.13 related to
recruitment to avoid duplication with the Act and to give programs
greater flexibility in how they operationalize their recruitment
practices. Programs would no longer be required to 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, use modern technologies, and include
efforts to recruit specific populations. While there may be costs to
children and families from the removal of the requirement that programs
use modern technology to assist families in applying for the program or
recruit specific populations, ACF assumes programs will incorporate
recruitment strategies tailored to the needs of their communities.
Although the proposed rule would remove duplicative requirements,
many of these core requirements are in the Act. ACF does not assume
costs or cost savings since programs will continue to comply with the
Act.
Non-quantifiable benefits of the removal of the requirements in
Sec. 1302.13 include fewer Federal requirements and more discretion
for programs in how they meet the recruitment requirements in the Act,
including more innovation and tailored approaches to meet the needs of
the community.
Impact of Changes to Selection Process
This proposed rule would rescind the requirements in current Sec.
1302.14 associated with the selection process because they are overly
prescriptive or duplicative of the Act. Programs would not be required
to annually establish selection criteria or abide by prescriptive
requirements related to understanding barriers to enrollment. Programs
could continue to consider the enrollment of children of staff members
as part of their selection criteria, even though this standard is
proposed for removal in this NPRM.
Although the proposed rule would remove duplicative requirements,
many of these requirements are in the Act, therefore ACF does not
assume costs or savings. ACF also does not quantify the benefits
associated with greater flexibility for programs in designing and
implementing their selection process. Fewer requirements related to the
selection process would reduce administrative burden for programs.
Impact of Changes to Enrollment and Attendance
This proposed rule would streamline the ERSEA-related requirements
into one newly proposed section, Sec. 1301.03, that would focus
specifically on attendance and enrollment. This new section would
require programs to track attendance for each child, consistent with
Sec. 1302.16(a) of the current Performance Standards, to comply with
all applicable Federal and state statutes and state regulations
pertaining to attendance procedures when there are child safety
concerns due to absence(s), and maintain its funded enrollment level
and fill any vacancy as soon as possible, but not to exceed 30 days,
aligned with Sec. 1302.15(a) of the current Performance Standards.
One result of streamlining ERSEA-related requirements into Sec.
1301.03 is fewer Federal requirements. With respect to enrollment
(current Sec. 1302.14(d) and Sec. 1302.15), programs would no longer
be required to pursue continuity in a child's enrollment for the
following year, make efforts to maintain enrollment in a different
service area for children in specific populations, and regularly
examine enrollment processes to streamline the experience for families.
With respect to attendance (current Sec. 1302.16), programs would
no longer be required to contact a family within one hour of program
start time for unexpected absences, use specific strategies to promote
attendance, analyze causes of absenteeism if average monthly attendance
falls below 85 percent, or reengage a family when a child ceases to
attend.
ACF does not quantify the costs or savings from these changes for
several reasons. First, ACF expects variation in the extent to which
programs implement these flexibilities. Second, the changes are
duplicative of requirements in the Act, therefore ACF assumes they
would not generate costs or savings. Third, programs must abide by all
applicable Federal and state statutes and state regulations that apply
to attendance procedures regarding
[[Page 51309]]
child safety concerns due to absence(s). While there may be additional
administrative effort initially to ensure alignment with these other
policies, ACF anticipates this would be minimal and transitional, as
well as offset by less burden in the long term because there are fewer
Federal requirements and less duplication.
Non-quantified benefits of these changes include increased program
innovation with enrollment and attendance practices and reduced
administrative burden associated with prescriptive process-oriented
requirements that detract from staff capacity to direct to children and
families.
Impact of Changes to Suspension and Expulsion
This NPRM proposes to remove current Sec. 1302.17 regarding
suspension and expulsion to restore state and local authority. Programs
would no longer be required to follow the process outlined in Sec.
1302.17(a) or (b) regarding suspension and expulsion. The removal of
these requirements at the Federal level is not an endorsement of
suspension and expulsion as approaches to address persistent and
serious behavioral concerns; rather, it is allowing programs to
determine their own discipline policies, within the context of state
and local licensing requirements, and tailored to each individual child
and situation.
ACF does not quantify the costs or savings of this policy change
given expected variation across programs in their implementation and
whether programs maintain some processes from current regulation.
Additionally, many state licensing standards do address suspension and
expulsion in varying ways. ACF assumes programs will resort to
suspension or expulsion sparingly, in line with current practice, and
given requirements to maintain full enrollment and to comply with
applicable state licensing requirements.
Non-quantifiable benefits include reduced administrative burden for
programs from decreased documentation and fewer Federal requirements;
more local control and decision-making; greater program discretion to
establish discipline policies that balance support to individual
children with the safety of the learning environment; reduced burnout
for staff; and more staff capacity for classroom management and
instruction.
Impact of Changes to Fees
The NPRM proposes to remove Sec. 1302.18 of the current
Performance Standards, which outlines the policy on fees. ACF does not
quantify any costs associated with removing this requirement because it
remains in the Act. The benefit of its removal from the standards is
reduced duplication with the Act.
C. Estimated Impact of Education and the Learning Environment
Provisions
The rule includes several proposed policy changes in the design and
implementation of education services, intended to reduce prescriptive
Federal requirements, increase flexibility for Head Start programs, and
improve child and family outcomes. This NPRM proposes to remove
policies in current Subpart B--Program Structure and Subpart C--
Education and Child Development Program services, including eliminating
Federal requirements for center-based and family child care group size
and service duration; removing detailed requirements related to home-
based program design and implementation (e.g., maximum caseloads,
number of home visits, number of group socializations); and removing
per-child facility square footage requirements, and removing overly
prescriptive requirements related to education services (e.g., teaching
practices, organization of the learning environment, and requirements
for naptime and daily routines). Additionally, the rule proposes to
remove regulatory provisions that are duplicative of statutory
requirements in the Head Start Act, including provisions related to
program conversion, curriculum, and child screenings and assessments.
The proposed regulations include establishing a minimum duration
requirement for physical activity during the program day; adding a new
requirement for English-only instruction for children's education
services; and requiring programs to provide educational materials and
instruction to parents demonstrating the value of healthy marriage.
ACF does not quantify the costs or cost savings associated with
many of these changes due to significant variation in how programs may
choose to implement flexibilities and the absence of consistent data on
current practices at the level of detail required for quantitative
analysis. Programs may experience modest administrative cost savings
from reduced recordkeeping, reporting, and compliance activities
associated with the removal of detailed regulatory requirements.
However, the magnitude of these savings is uncertain and likely varies
across grant recipients depending on program structure, state
requirements, and existing practices.
For center-based program structure in current Sec. 1302.21, while
ACF quantifies above the estimated cost savings associated with the
removal of ratio requirements, we do not quantify all of the costs or
savings associated with other proposed changes under current Sec.
1302.21, including the removal of requirements for group size, square
footage, and licensing. Group size and square footage requirements for
center-based settings are interconnected with ratios; therefore, to
avoid double-counting possible cost savings in this RIA, we do not
quantify savings associated with the proposed removal of these
policies. Further, many states have requirements in place for square
footage and group size as part of licensing. Regarding licensing, the
proposed rule would require programs to be licensed (see proposed Sec.
1301.09(a)), whereas the current standards require center-based
programs to meet licensing requirements. We do not anticipate a
difference in cost associated with this policy change that we can
quantify in this RIA. However, ACF acknowledges that there may be a
larger role for states to play in monitoring programs per their own
licensing standards, as previously some states may have relied on OHS
to ensure programs met licensing requirements as part of Federal
monitoring. More detail on licensing requirements is discussed in
Estimated Impact of Safety and Transportation Provisions.
The proposed changes to current Sec. 1302.21 reflected in proposed
Sec. 1301.05 are expected to provide non-quantifiable benefits such as
increased flexibility and local control. For example, eliminating
Federal group size and ratio requirements will allow programs to align
with applicable state and local licensing standards, which will reduce
duplication and give programs more autonomy to design classroom
structures that better reflect community needs and available resources.
It can allow programs to increase ratios and group sizes to serve more
eligible children in classrooms, as long as they remain compliant with
state and local requirements and ensure children's safety. Similarly,
reducing service duration requirements may provide programs with
greater discretion to determine schedules that align with families'
preferences and workforce availability. Removing per-child facility
square footage requirements may further increase flexibility in
facility design and space utilization and facilitate the ability to
serve more children in a classroom, so
[[Page 51310]]
long as programs are compliant with state requirements for square
footage.
The proposed changes to center-based program structure requirements
may also result in non-quantifiable costs for some families. To the
extent that programs choose to reduce duration--annual hours or days of
service--families may need to secure alternative child care
arrangements, which could impose additional financial costs or lost
work time for families. However, programs remain responsible for
understanding the needs of their community and fully enrolling their
programs; ACF encourages programs to consider decisions on duration
within the context of family and community need to minimize the impact
on families.
Additionally, the removal of prescribed group size and ratio
requirements could result in children receiving less individualized
attention from teaching staff. Ultimately, the impact of these changes
will vary and depend on program-level decisions, and local regulatory
contexts and are therefore not separately quantified.
Next, cost reductions associated with the removal of prescriptive
requirements for home-based program structure in current Sec. 1302.22,
including home visitor caseloads, service duration, and group
socializations, are quantified earlier in the RIA. The proposed rule
may result in changes to how programs structure and deliver home
visiting services. The estimated reductions in personnel expenditures
associated with these changes may reflect, in part, adjustments in the
frequency, duration, or intensity of home visiting services. In light
of these changes, programs may achieve efficiencies by adjusting
service delivery models without proportionate reductions in service
quality or effectiveness. However, to the extent that these services
provide value to participating families, such changes may represent a
reduction in program benefits to families. As a result, ACF considers
the potential for a cost associated with reduced service intensity,
which may partially offset estimated cost savings described above.
Because these effects depend on program-level implementation decisions
and family responses, the net impact on benefits is uncertain and is
not separately quantified in this analysis.
Next, ACF does not quantify all of the costs or cost savings
associated with eliminating or revising requirements for family child
care (FCC) program structure in current Sec. 1302.23, including group
size, ratios, and service duration. In particular, we do not quantify
the removal of service duration requirements, as the FCC program option
represents a very small share of all Head Start programs (approximately
1.3% of enrollment). Regarding group size and ratios, FCC programs will
be required to comply with relevant state and local laws. It is
feasible that an FCC program could yield reductions in annual operating
costs if they choose to increase ratios or group sizes to meet state
allowed thresholds, or if a program chooses to reduce operating hours
(service duration) per the flexibility allowed under this proposed
rule. However, a reduction in operating hours could have costs for
families who may need to find alternative care or miss out on work to
care for children. Under both the current and proposed regulations, FCC
providers are required to be licensed. Given the continued
applicability of state and local licensing requirements, and the
limited scale of FCC slots, ACF expects any costs associated with this
change to be minimal.
Additionally, ACF expects that removing certain FCC program
structure requirements would also result in non-quantifiable benefits
such as increased flexibility in program design and expanded service
capacity in some communities. For instance, if Head Start-funded FCC
homes in a given state are allowed to have higher group sizes or ratios
per state licensing requirements than current Head Start regulations
allow, these FCC homes could choose to enroll more children. At the
same time, FCC homes also have the option to maintain their current
group size and ratios. Programs will continue to be subject to
applicable state and local licensing requirements for group size and
ratio in FCC homes, which provide ongoing safeguards for health and
safety. ACF acknowledges that the proposed removal of the child
development specialist role as quantified in analyses above may result
in added burden on some FCC homes that depend on the support of those
staff.
Choices that programs make regarding structural program features
may also influence service delivery. Current standards establish
requirements related to staff-child ratios, group size, home visitor
caseload limits, minimum home visit frequency, and periodic oversight
of family child care providers. The proposed rule would defer more of
these operational decisions to local programs or state licensing
frameworks. This flexibility may allow programs to adjust staffing
patterns, service duration and intensity, or delivery models in ways
that better reflect individual family needs, local conditions, or
resource constraints.
ACF also does not quantify the costs associated with the
requirement to provide a minimum duration of daily physical activity.
Based on available information and program expectations, ACF
anticipates that most Head Start programs already incorporate
substantial opportunities for physical activity into daily schedules
consistent with current best practices and the long-standing emphasis
of Head Start on children's physical health and development. As a
result, this proposed provision is not expected to represent a
significant change for most programs and is therefore anticipated to be
cost neutral or involve negligible costs. Instead, the proposed
requirement establishes a clear and consistent minimum baseline across
programs, ensuring greater uniformity in implementation and aligning
with broader Federal priorities related to child health and wellness,
including the MAHA agenda. The requirement to provide a minimum
duration of daily physical activity may result in non-quantifiable
benefits for enrolled children, as it would promote improved health and
development outcomes for children, including enhanced physical fitness,
motor skill development, and overall well-being. While many programs
may already meet or exceed this threshold, establishing a consistent
baseline ensures that all children have access to regular movement as
part of their daily Head Start experience.
ACF does not quantify a cost for proposed Sec. 1301.04(b) which
requires snack and meal times to be structured and used as learning
opportunities that support teaching staff-child interactions and foster
communication and conversations that contribute to a child's learning,
development, and socialization. While the inclusion of this regulation
in the streamlined proposed regulations reflects the administration's
commitment to Make America Healthy Again and ensure healthy eating is a
core component of Head Start classrooms, the proposed requirements
align closely enough to previous Head Start requirements that ACF
expects they would have negligible costs or savings for programs.
The proposed removal of prescriptive requirements in current Sec.
1302.31 related to teaching practices, including the organization of
the learning environment, and the structure of daily routines,
including naptime, may result in non-quantifiable benefits. These
changes may provide programs with greater flexibility to tailor
instructional approaches, classroom environments,
[[Page 51311]]
and daily schedules to local needs, and the developmental needs of
enrolled children. Programs may adopt varied approaches to implement
teaching practices, structuring learning environments, and organizing
routines, including naptime, which may better reflect community
preferences and program models. This flexibility may also reduce
administrative burden and allow staff to focus more on direct
interactions with children. A potential non-quantifiable cost is that
removing these requirements may lead to increased variability in
teaching practices, learning environments, and daily routines,
including naptime, across programs. As the standards proposed for
removal are more about how a program structures and organizes the
educational day and teaching practices, ACF anticipates negligible
changes in program costs. And over half of states require a rest
opportunity or have other requirements related to naptime in licensed
child care settings.\17\ Further, the Act still clearly requires
programs to support educational development of children and implement
research-based curricula so we anticipate programs will continue many
of these practices, but with more flexibility in implementation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ National Association for Regulatory Administration. (2013).
2011-2013 Child Care Licensing Study. https://www.naralicensing.org/assets/docs/ChildCareLicensingStudies/2011-2013_child%20care%20licensing%20study.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notably, this rule also proposes a new requirement to conduct all
education to children in English. Proposed provision 1301.04(a)(1)
specifies that if a child's native language is not English, and the
child does not speak English, a program must prioritize teaching
English to the child. Under the proposed regulations in Sec.
1301.17(d), an Indian Head Start agency would not be subject to Sec.
1301.04(a) so long as the language being spoken in the tribal program
relates to the furtherance of tribal heritage. This proposed policy
change aligns with E.O. 14224 and reflects Secretarial and ACF
priorities.
Non-quantifiable benefits of this proposed policy may include
increases in children's English language acquisition, particularly for
children who are non-native speakers of English, which may facilitate
enhanced participation in English-language classrooms in kindergarten
and beyond. Earlier English proficiency may also support communication
with broader community systems and may contribute to longer-term
educational and economic opportunities. In addition, a uniform English-
language approach may simplify curriculum implementation, staff
training, and classroom practices, and may reduce the need for
additional instructional materials or specialized language supports in
some settings.
ACF quantifies costs associated with this proposed requirement
above. ACF recognizes that English-only instruction may result in
additional costs or burden for programs serving a greater share of dual
language learners or operating in predominantly non-English-speaking
communities, such as Puerto Rico and certain communities in Migrant and
Seasonal Head Start programs. While the proposed change may promote
English language acquisition and consistency in service delivery, it
may also involve tradeoffs related to access to services.
As referenced in the preamble, the proposed regulations for Sec.
1301.06(a) would require center-based and family child care programs to
structure education and child development services to recognize
parents' roles as children's primary teachers and nurturers. This
change aligns with current regulations (Sec. 1302.34(a)) so there are
no anticipated changes in impact. The proposed regulations for Sec.
1301.06(b) require programs to implement strategies to engage parents
and family members in their children's learning and development and
support parent-child relationships, including specific strategies for
father engagement, and provide educational material and instruction
that demonstrates healthy marriage as a positive good. While the
proposed regulations add a specific emphasis on engaging fathers and on
providing educational material and instruction that demonstrates the
value of healthy marriage, overall, the proposed regulations would
greatly reduce the specificity in requirements for parent and family
engagement, which may allow programs to adopt more individualized and
locally responsive approaches to engaging families. ACF does not
anticipate that the specific requirement to develop strategies to
engage fathers or to provide educational material and instruction on
healthy marriage will result in significant additional costs for
programs, given the strong emphasis programs already have on engaging
with and supporting parents and families, including through the use of
parenting curricula.
Non-quantified benefits of the proposed changes to family
engagement standards might also include increased local autonomy and
the ability for programs to tailor services to the specific needs of
their communities and families. Reduced administrative burden may allow
staff to dedicate more time to direct services for children and
families, including more flexible and responsive approaches to
partnering with families in their child's education. ACF anticipates
that the proposed requirement to provide educational materials and
instruction demonstrating the value of healthy marriage would be well
received by many programs and families, offering another source of
information and support for families. This proposed requirement may
introduce implementation challenges for some programs if certain
families are less receptive to the content.
Finally, the proposed removal of regulatory provisions that
duplicate statutory requirements is intended to clarify expectations
and reduce redundancy for programs without altering underlying
obligations. For example, the rule proposes to remove regulatory
provisions related to the conversion of Head Start Preschool slots to
Early Head Start slots because these requirements are duplicative of
those already specified in the Act (Sec. 645(a)(5)(A)). As such, ACF
does not anticipate any substantive changes to program operations or
decision-making processes related to conversion of slots.
The rule also proposes to remove detailed regulatory requirements
related to child screenings and assessments, while retaining the core
statutory requirements in the Act, including requirements related to
the referral and support of children who may be or are eligible for
services under IDEA (see sections in this rule on Services for Children
with Disabilities for more details). Reducing prescriptive Federal
requirements would provide programs with greater flexibility to conduct
screening and assessment on the timeline that accounts for families'
readiness. This may also reduce administrative burden on staff and
allow staff to focus more on instruction, as well as using assessment
data to support children's development. At the same time, removing
detailed requirements may lead to increased variability in how and when
children are screened and assessed. Notably, programs still have the
flexibility to conduct screenings early in the program year if desired,
as well as to determine the frequency with which to conduct assessments
of children's developmental progress. Overall, while these changes may
introduce variability in implementation, ACF anticipates that the
flexibility for programs in the proposed regulations would yield
important benefits for programs, staff, children, and families.
Overall, ACF expects the proposed changes related to the teaching
and
[[Page 51312]]
learning environment to reduce administrative burden, enhance program
flexibility, and support more locally responsive service delivery.
Program enrollees would benefit from programs having much more
flexibility to design their services in a way that best meets
individual needs and supports strong outcomes for children and
families. Finally, ACF expects that programs may be able to serve
additional enrollees in Head Start with cost savings garnered in other
areas (e.g., higher ratios or group sizes; reduced duration).
D. Estimated Impact of Health and Nutrition Provisions
This NPRM proposes several policy changes related to health and
nutrition services. The impact of removing Federal requirements to
conduct health determinations, assist families in navigating health
systems, facilitate access to health care and insurance, conduct tooth
brushing activities, and provide monthly mental health consultation
have been quantified earlier in this RIA. However, several other
requirements in current 1302 Subpart D, including the requirement to
maintain a Health and Mental Health Services Advisory Committee, obtain
advance authorization for health, mental health, and developmental
procedures, and requirements related to family support services for
health and mental health are proposed for removal because they are
overly prescriptive. These changes have not been quantified in this RIA
because ACF assumes many programs may continue aligning with current
practice and therefore the rescission of these policies would not bear
a significant cost to programs.
Many of the nutrition service requirements in existing Sec.
1302.44 are proposed for removal because they are overly prescriptive
or duplicative with requirements in the Act and therefore assumed to be
cost negligible. The proposed rule introduces a new requirement for
programs to serve children nutrient dense, whole foods that are
compatible with a healthy and nutritious diet or, where applicable,
provide an opportunity for infants to be served breastmilk during the
day. This proposed change aligns with the administration's MAHA agenda
by emphasizing the critical role of health and nutrition in early
childhood development. Given Head Start's longstanding emphasis on
supporting children's health and nutrition as a core component of
program services, ACF expects that many programs already align with
this proposed requirement and therefore we do not anticipate this
policy change would result in significant additional costs for
programs.
Lastly, the proposed rule clarifies that programs must collaborate
with parents to promote children's health and well-being by addressing
discussion topics, including the importance of physical activity and
healthy eating and the negative health consequences of sugar-sweetened
beverages and grain-based desserts--a clarification on parent
collaboration that we assume to be cost negligible for programs.
Collectively, these changes would reduce administrative burden and
provide programs greater flexibility in designing and implementing
health and nutrition services that best meet their communities' needs,
while still underscoring these services as a core component of Head
Start programs. Although the proposed rule would remove several
prescriptive regulatory requirements related to health, oral health,
and mental health service delivery, programs would retain discretion
regarding how these services are structured, subject to statutory
requirements and other applicable Federal or state laws. In communities
where Head Start has historically played a substantial role in
facilitating health care access, reductions in program-facilitated
services could have implications for families, depending on the
availability of alternative health services. Importantly, non-
quantified benefits of requiring programs to serve nutrient dense,
whole foods include improved nutrition for children, which can enhance
dietary quality, support healthy growth, and reduce the risk of obesity
and diet-related conditions.\18\ Improved nutrition is also associated
with better attention, behavior, and school readiness.\19\
Additionally, early exposure to whole foods may promote healthier long-
term eating patterns.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Larruy-Garc[iacute]a, A., Mahmood, L., Miguel-Berges, M.L.,
Masip, G., Seral-Cort[eacute]s, M., De Miguel-Etayo, P., & Moreno,
L.A. (2024). Diet quality scores, obesity and metabolic syndrome in
children and adolescents: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Current Obesity Reports, 13(4), 755-788. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13679-024-00589-6.
\19\ Brki[cacute], D., Concetti, C., R[eacute]mond-Derbez, N., &
Hauser, J. (2026). Relationship between nutrition, brain, cognition,
learning, and behavior in school-age children: Systematic evidence
and future opportunities. Nutrition Reviews. Advance online
publication. https://doi.org/10.1093/nutrit/nuaf280.
\20\ Nansel, T.R., Channell-Doig, A., Lipsky, L.M., Burger, K.,
Shearrer, G., Siega-Riz, A.M., & Ma, Y. (2024). Prospective
associations of infant food exposures and appetitive traits with
early childhood diet quality. The International Journal of
Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 21(1), 143. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-024-01686-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Estimated Impact of Safety and Transportation Provisions
The proposed rule streamlines safety and transportation
requirements by removing duplicative Federal requirements found in
current Sec. 1302.47 (safety practices) and Sec. Sec. 1303.70-1303.75
(transportation). This includes the proposed removal of safety
requirements related to facilities, equipment and materials, background
checks, safety training, hygiene practices, administrative safety
procedures, and disaster preparedness. Similarly, transportation
requirements related to vehicles, vehicle operation, trip routing,
safety procedures, and transportation of children with disabilities are
proposed for removal. Instead, the proposed rule would require that
programs be licensed by their state, tribal, or local entity and comply
with all relevant Federal and State statutes. If exempt from licensing,
programs must meet CCDF basic health and safety requirements. Based on
available data on licensing status, ACF estimates that approximately 26
percent of Head Start service locations are not licensed under state
child care licensing requirements. These locations commonly include
programs that are license-exempt, operating under public school or
local education agency authority; home-based, home visiting, or other
non-center-based service models; and sites licensed, permitted, or
overseen through another authority or partner rather than through the
standard state child care licensing process. Smaller shares reflect
Tribal programs, alternative oversight structures, sites that are
closed or not yet operational, and locations in the process of
obtaining or renewing licensure. ACF assumes that state licensing
requirements and CCDF basic health and safety requirements are largely
duplicative of existing safety and transportation requirements and
therefore we do not quantify a cost associated with this policy change.
Further, these proposed changes do not represent a reduced emphasis on
ensuring the safety of children in Head Start programs; rather, these
changes would reduce burden on programs that are currently required to
meet multiple sets of overlapping statutory and regulatory requirements
related to child safety. By requiring programs to be licensed and to
comply with all applicable Federal, state, and local laws and
regulations, the proposed regulatory framework would still ensure the
safety of children.
Although the proposed rule would remove duplicative Federal
requirements related to safety and
[[Page 51313]]
transportation, many of these requirements will continue to be required
by state or local regulation and programs will retain discretion to
implement safety practices that exceed these requirements. Non-
quantifiable benefits of streamlining the current safety and
transportation requirements include making requirements less burdensome
and complicated for programs to implement and ensuring programs can
easily identify the set of safety and transportation requirements they
should adhere to. Although the proposed provisions reduce the level of
specificity currently required, programs would continue to bear the
responsibility and obligation to ensure children's health and safety.
F. Estimated Impact of Services for Children With Disabilities
Provisions
The proposed rule maintains protections for services for children
with disabilities by requiring programs to comply with all applicable
Federal and state statutes and regulations regarding providing services
for children with disabilities. Although the requirements in current
1302 Subpart F, including requirements related to additional services
for children with disabilities and their parents, are proposed for
removal, ACF assumes this change would not generate significant cost or
cost savings for programs because the core requirements that pertain to
services for children with disabilities remain in the Act and will
still apply to programs.
The proposal to replace current 1302 Subpart F with a requirement
to comply with all applicable Federal and state statutes and
regulations regarding providing services for children with disabilities
is intended to reduce duplication of regulations while still
maintaining the protections required for children with disabilities.
The proposed changes would provide programs with additional flexibility
to carry out these requirements in a way that best meets the needs of
enrolled families as long as they are compliant with all other state
and Federal laws and regulations. This flexibility may also enable
programs to allocate resources more efficiently while maintaining
compliance with applicable laws and regulations.
G. Estimated Impact of Services for Pregnant Women Provisions
This NPRM proposes to streamline requirements for providing
services to pregnant women, while still ensuring programs provide
important support to pregnant and postpartum women. Many of the
requirements in current Sec. Sec. 1302.80-82 are proposed for removal,
including the requirement to conduct health care determinations and
facilitate access to health insurance for pregnant women, which have
already been quantified earlier in this RIA (see Health and Mental
Health Services). Other regulations proposed for removal include the
requirement to provide services that help reduce barriers to healthy
maternal and birthing outcomes; ACF assumes this has nominal cost
savings and would decrease administrative burden for programs. In
addition, the proposed rule removes detailed requirements on family
partnership services for enrolled pregnant women because these
requirements are duplicative of the Act and therefore do not represent
a substantive change that would result in associated costs.
The NPRM also proposes to remove the requirement for programs to
track all services provided to enrolled pregnant women. Removal of this
requirement would result in nominal cost savings to programs as
overarching requirements to track services are retained through the
Act. Programs would benefit from reduced administrative burden and
prescriptive regulations. While this change may result in less formal
documentation, ACF expects programs would continue to provide
responsive and comprehensive services to enrolled pregnant and
postpartum women.
Newborn visits will remain required, however, the NPRM proposes to
remove the requirement that visits occur within two weeks of birth. ACF
assumes the additional flexibility in scheduling the newborn visit
would be cost neutral for programs and therefore we do not quantify its
impacts in this RIA. Non-quantifiable benefits associated with removing
the specified timeframe for newborn visits include increased
flexibility for programs and families to schedule visits at a time
convenient for them. ACF acknowledges that this flexibility may result
in increased variability in when programs schedule newborn visits. ACF
encourages programs to schedule visits as early as possible while
leveraging the additional flexibility provided by this policy change to
meet the needs of the families served.
H. Estimated Impact of Family Engagement and Program Transition
Provisions
The proposed rule includes requirements related to family
engagement in education and child development services and family
support services for health and nutrition, which are discussed in
further detail in the education and health and nutrition sections.
Additionally, this proposed rule rescinds provisions under current 1302
Subpart E--Family and Community Engagement Program Services and 1302
Subpart G--Transition Services to reduce duplication with the Act.
Because requirements for family and community engagement and transition
services remain under the Act, this change is not quantified as ACF
does not anticipate behavior change that would result in substantial
costs or cost reductions.
Non-quantified benefits of rescinding provisions under current 1302
Subpart E--Family and Community Engagement Program Services include
increased flexibility for programs in conducting family needs
assessments. Since specific requirements under the current regulations
would no longer apply, this proposed rule provides programs with the
flexibility to implement services such as family needs assessments
based on the needs of the community the program serves and
differentiate based on the strengths and needs of individual families.
Without the caseload requirements, programs will have the flexibility
to distribute caseloads to family service workers in ways that align to
the needs of families being served and the program's capacity. For
example, a family service worker could take on a higher caseload of
families with fewer identified needs, and another family service worker
could take on a lower caseload of families with more identified needs.
This proposed revision may also benefit programs that have workforce
challenges such as recruiting and training family service workers.
Additionally, programs would have flexibility in how they
operationalize their community engagement efforts, such as coordination
with public and private entities as long as they meet the requirements
outlined in the Act. Programs would continue to have flexibility in
participating in state or local QRIS and data sharing agreements, these
optional regulations have been removed to reduce regulatory burden.
Non-quantified benefits of rescinding provisions under current 1302
Subpart G--Transition Services include increased flexibility for
programs in supporting children and families in their educational
transitions. Programs would be able to identify ways to structure their
transition practices that best suit the needs of the children,
families, and community. Additionally, fewer requirements around
transition services would reduce administrative burden for programs.
[[Page 51314]]
I. Estimated Impact of Management Systems and Administrative Cost
Provisions
The proposed changes in this NPRM related to management systems
would rescind current requirements in 1302 Subpart I-Human Resources
Management, 1302 Subpart J-Program Management and Quality Improvement,
and 1303 Subpart A-Financial Requirements. These would be replaced with
proposed Sec. 1301.12 (Personnel and records policies), proposed Sec.
1301.13 (Program goals, continuous improvement, and reporting), and
proposed Sec. 1301.14 (Limitations on administrative costs).
With the exception of the proposed administrative cost cap, the
proposed regulations largely align with existing requirements and
represent a continuation of current practice. As such, they are not
expected to result in significant new costs or benefits.
In addition to previously identified cost reductions- such as those
associated with the proposed removal of staff qualification
requirements, coaching requirements, staff break requirements, and
certain data use requirements in program management, as well as
reducing allowable administrative costs--the policies proposed for
removal are expected to provide overall benefits by increasing
flexibility for programs. Many core requirements are retained either in
the proposed regulations or in statute.
The proposed removal of requirements related to written personnel
policies, background checks, and standards of conduct is expected to
reduce administrative burden and improve efficiency. These requirements
often overlap with existing Federal, state, local, and Tribal
requirements. For instance, under state licensing requirements and the
Act, programs would still be required to have background checks for
staff. Eliminating duplicative Federal requirements allows programs to
align more directly with applicable local and state policies. While
this increased flexibility provides clear, though unquantifiable,
benefits, ACF recognizes that it may also create some uncertainty about
applicable requirements. ACF intends to issue additional guidance in
the future to maintain clarity for grant recipients.
Eliminating dual language learner communication requirements has
staffing cost implications that intersect with the costs described in
the section on One-Time Costs with Requirement for English-Only
Instruction. At the same time, this change introduces additional
staffing flexibility that is not easily quantifiable. Given ongoing
workforce shortages, programs may benefit from being able to hire staff
who do not speak specific languages, increasing their ability to fully
staff classrooms and serve more children and families. However, ACF
acknowledges that reduced language capacity may negatively affect
communication with non-English speaking families and weaken family
engagement. Technology-based translation tools may help mitigate some
of these impacts.
The removal of staff health, mental wellness, and break
requirements is expected to reduce scheduling complexity and short-term
staffing costs by allowing programs greater flexibility in staffing
patterns. ACF recognizes that these provisions can support staff
retention and improve workplace conditions, and programs may choose to
continue such practices where feasible. At the same time, such
requirements are overly prescriptive and unnecessary at the Federal
level. Removing the Federal requirements would allow programs to
prioritize service delivery with greater flexibility, particularly in
the context of broader changes to staff qualification requirements.
Removing Federal requirements related to initial health
examinations and communicable disease screening reduces administrative
burden for programs. Though many state and local regulations already
require staff health screenings and programs retain responsibilities
for ensuring the health and safety of children enrolled in their
program, ACF expects that programs are likely to continue some of these
practices.
Proposed changes to volunteer requirements provide programs with
greater flexibility in how volunteers are used. Programs must still
comply with applicable state, Tribal, and local laws regarding
communicable disease screening, and in most cases, criminal background
checks will still be required for individuals involved in the care or
supervision of children through licensing requirements. These changes
may allow programs to more effectively use volunteers during high-need
times, such as transitions or peak supervision periods. ACF recognizes
that programs not subject to licensing requirements may have greater
flexibility, which could introduce some risk. However, all programs
remain responsible for ensuring child safety, and ACF encourages
programs to maintain appropriate safeguards when utilizing volunteers.
Current requirements related to management systems, monitoring,
coordinated approaches, goal-setting, continuous improvement, and
reporting can be resource-intensive for programs. These often require
dedicated administrative staff, data systems, and compliance processes,
and are sometimes experienced by programs as duplicative or
burdensome--particularly with respect to data collection, monitoring,
and reporting. Streamlining these requirements, while retaining key
elements in statute and regulation, is expected to reduce
administrative burden and allow programs to operate more flexibly and
responsively to community needs. However, ACF recognizes that reduced
specificity in Federal requirements may lead to greater variability
across programs.
Finally, the proposed removal of 1303 Subpart A-Financial
Requirements would primarily eliminate provisions that duplicate
statutory and other Federal requirements. As such, this change is not
expected to result in meaningful costs or benefits for program
implementation. Impacts related to administrative cost limitations are
discussed separately in Sections E (Reduction of Allowable
Administrative Costs from 15 Percent to 5 Percent) and F (Additional
Considerations Affecting Administrative Costs).
J. Estimated Impact of Changes to Designation Renewal, Monitoring,
Suspension, and Appeals
To provide context for the potential impacts of the proposed
changes for DRS conditions, ACF reviewed recent DRS cohort data on
agencies subject to open competition or Tribal consultation. Based on
available OHS data from the fiscal year 2024 and 2025 DRS cohorts of
grant recipients, approximately 13 percent of Head Start grants in
those cohorts (132 of 1,038 grants) were designated for competition or
Tribal consultation. Of those agencies, approximately 74 percent (97 of
132 grants) were designated for competition based on two or more
deficiencies only, approximately 12 percent (16 of 132 grants) based on
CLASS only, and approximately 5 percent (6 of 132 grants) based on both
deficiencies and CLASS. The remaining 10 percent (13 of 132 grants)
were identified for competition based on fiscal findings, including
nine with two or more audit findings, one with questioned costs, and
three with a going concern. Of those 13 grants, three also met the
deficiency condition. No grants were required to compete due to
debarment from receiving Federal or State funds or disqualification
from the CACFP. These data provide context on the baseline frequency
with which agencies meet
[[Page 51315]]
one or more designation renewal conditions under the current regulatory
framework.
ACF notes important limitations in the availability and
comparability of audit-related information used for designation renewal
purposes. In particular, data on the ``two or more audit findings''
condition are limited due to the timing of DRS implementation in 2020,
audit submission timelines, and temporary extensions related to the
prior COVID-19 public health emergency. As a result, fiscal year 2025
represents the first year in which OHS was able to review more than one
audit for most grants, limiting the ability to fully assess baseline
conditions related to this DRS criterion.
To provide additional context on classroom quality measures,
approximately 93 percent of Head Start grants that received a CLASS
review during fiscal years 2024 or 2025 met or exceeded applicable
CLASS: Pre-K thresholds, while approximately 7 percent fell below one
or more threshold levels and were therefore designated for competition
due to this criterion. The proposed rule would remove the requirement
to use CLASS: Pre-K as the sole measure of classroom quality and
eliminate the associated thresholds, while maintaining the statutory
requirement to assess classroom quality using a valid and reliable
observational instrument. Although ACF anticipates continuing to use
CLASS: Pre-K for the foreseeable future, this change provides
flexibility to incorporate additional or alternative measures over
time. ACF does not quantify the possible effect of this change on
future designation renewal outcomes, as it will depend on future policy
decisions regarding measurement approaches and thresholds, as well as
program performance.
Under the current regulatory framework, fiscal conditions related
to going concern risk and audit findings are combined into a single
designation renewal condition. The proposed regulation would separate
these into two independent conditions, such that an agency meeting both
criteria would now meet two distinct DRS conditions rather than one.
This change is structural in nature and is not expected to
independently affect the number of agencies subject to competition, as
designation renewal outcomes depend on the interaction of multiple
conditions and future program performance.
More broadly, the proposed rule maintains ACF's statutory
monitoring responsibilities under section 641A(c) of the Act, including
the requirement to conduct monitoring reviews and identify deficiencies
where applicable. However, ACF anticipates that implementation of the
proposed regulatory framework may require updates to monitoring
protocols, tools, and guidance to align with the proposed structure of
regulatory requirements. While these updates may influence how
designation renewal conditions are assessed in practice, ACF cannot
predict or quantify how competition outcomes may change until
monitoring protocols are aligned with a final rule. Accordingly, ACF
does not quantify costs associated with these updates, as they reflect
internal process adjustments and variation in implementation.
With respect to enforcement actions, available data indicate that
program suspensions and terminations (and thus appeals) are a
relatively rare outcome and reflect a high threshold for intervention.
For example, ACF understands approximately two agencies over the past
two years have been subject to suspension actions. The proposed rule
would not alter ACF's statutory authority to issue suspensions or
terminations; rather, it would remove duplicative regulatory language
while preserving all underlying statutory requirements and enforcement
mechanisms. As a result, ACF does not quantify changes in suspension
outcomes or appeals procedures in this RIA, as these actions are driven
by serious or systemic program concerns and are expected to remain
infrequent under the proposed regulatory framework.
K. Estimated Impact of Tribal Program Provisions
The proposed rule would reorganize and streamline requirements
specific to Tribal Head Start programs into Sec. 1301.17, aligning
regulatory text more closely with statutory provisions in the Head
Start Act. The proposed section reiterates existing statutory
requirements related to designation, eligibility, and the DRS, and
clarifies processes for Tribal program governance, including the
designation of alternative agencies in cases of relinquishment,
termination, or denial of refunding. The rule also introduces a new
provision proposing to exempt Tribal programs from the English-only
requirement in proposed Sec. 1301.04(a) when language use is in the
Tribal program is related to the furtherance of Tribal heritage. In
addition, several regulatory provisions specific to Tribal
flexibilities are proposed for removal because they are either
duplicative of statute or no longer necessary due to broader
flexibilities that would be extended to all programs under this NPRM.
ACF does not quantify the costs or cost savings associated with
these changes in this RIA. The proposed rule primarily reorganizes,
clarifies, or removes duplicative regulatory text rather than
introducing new substantive requirements. As such, ACF does not
anticipate significant additional costs for Tribal programs specific to
the proposed regulations in Sec. 1301.17. To the extent that programs
experience administrative efficiencies from streamlined regulations or
reduced duplication, any associated cost savings are expected to vary
and are not readily quantifiable. Non-quantified benefits of these
proposed changes may also include improved clarity and accessibility of
requirements specific to Tribal programs. Consolidating Tribal
provisions into a single section may reduce administrative complexity
and support more consistent understanding of applicable requirements
among Tribal grant recipients. Aligning regulations more closely with
statutory language may also reduce confusion and support more efficient
program administration. Additionally, the removal of Tribal-specific
regulatory flexibilities that are no longer necessary--because similar
flexibilities are extended to all programs--may promote greater access
across Head Start grant recipients while maintaining longstanding
statutory flexibilities unique to Tribal programs. Tribal programs will
continue to benefit from statutory provisions that support self-
determination, including flexibility in eligibility criteria, service
delivery, and resource allocation.
However, Tribal programs may incur minor, short-term administrative
costs to update policies, procedures, and training materials to reflect
the reorganized regulatory structure. The removal of certain Tribal-
specific regulatory provisions may reduce regulatory specificity, which
could create some initial uncertainty or require additional technical
assistance as programs interpret how flexibilities apply under the
proposed framework. To the extent that the rule provides less detailed
procedural guidance, programs may also rely more on statutory language
or Federal guidance, which could require additional administrative
effort in certain circumstances. ACF anticipates that these costs are
expected to be minimal and transitional in nature.
Overall, while the benefits of these proposed provisions are not
readily quantifiable, ACF expects the proposed changes to improve
regulatory clarity, reduce administrative burden, and support Tribal
sovereignty and
[[Page 51316]]
culturally responsive service delivery, while maintaining all
applicable statutory protections and flexibilities for Tribal Head
Start programs.
L. Estimated Impact of Program Flexibility Provisions
The proposed rule introduces increased program flexibility through
a broad waiver provision. ACF acknowledges that increased program
flexibility in the proposed rule may produce unquantified costs or cost
reductions associated with variation in program implementation across
local programs. In 2025, ACF issued approximately 1,000 waivers--some
to the same programs--on a variety of topics where waivers are
allowable under statute or current regulations. Common waivers include
Head Start Preschool teacher qualification requirements, the 10%
disability requirement, transportation, and non-Federal share. Each
waiver is carefully reviewed by ACF staff to determine if the program
meets the requirements. Waiver rates vary based on leadership
priorities and changes in communities served by Head Start. ACF
anticipates that, in the future, waiver requests and approval rates
would continue to fluctuate based on these factors under the proposed
regulations. ACF invites public comment on which proposed regulations
programs may be most likely to request a waiver for, while
understanding that waivers are not allowable for the proposed
requirements related to nutrition, physical activity, and eligibility
and that ACF would ultimately determine which waivers to approve based
on the specific circumstances and evidence presented in a program's
individual request.
Non-quantified benefits of the proposed waiver provision in Sec.
1301.18 include reduced burden on programs, if a particular proposed
regulation presents undue burden for a program to comply with. The
proposed waiver provision can also allow programs to modify service
delivery with increased flexibility to meet local community needs or
maximize resources for direct service delivery. As a result, the
proposed rule could generate potential benefits such as innovation in
service delivery, improved alignment with local needs, or reduced
administrative costs.
Transition and Implementation Considerations
In addition to the ongoing cost changes described above, programs
may incur one-time administrative costs associated with adjusting,
transitioning to, and implementing the proposed regulatory framework.
These transition activities may include reviewing and understanding the
final rule and applicable statutory requirements, determining how
requirements continue to apply under the proposed framework, updating
written program policies, revising internal guidance documents,
modifying eligibility verification procedures, and providing staff
orientation or training on the updated requirements. Programs may also
review and update governance procedures, service delivery protocols,
and administrative documentation to align with the proposed regulatory
changes.
To account for these impacts, we adopt an assumption that each Head
Start agency would spend a total of 24 to 56 hours per agency (with a
primary estimate of 40 hours), spread across directors, education
managers, disability managers, health managers, and other management
staff to review and understand the final rule, align requirements
across statute and regulation, update program policies and procedures,
and provide staff orientation as needed. The primary estimate of 40
hours per agency is intended to capture not only policy and procedural
updates, but also the administrative burden associated with
interpreting and implementing the proposed framework, including
understanding requirements that continue to apply through statute. This
analysis assumes 8 hours of time spent per management staff member,
with the primary estimate assuming 5 management staff members, the low
estimate assuming 3 management staff members, and the high estimate
assuming 7 management staff. To value the time spent on these
activities, we adopt a fully loaded hourly wage of $41.81 per hour,
reflecting a mix of wages across several roles. The hourly compensation
rate applied in this analysis is based on the BLS Occupational
Employment and Wage Statistics for Education and Childcare
Administrators, Preschool and Daycare (SOC 11-9031), May 2025 mean
hourly wage of $31.15, from which this analysis applies a 2 percent
inflation adjustment to express the estimate in constant 2026 dollars,
resulting in a mean hourly wage of $31.77. We then apply a 24 percent
adjustment to account for fringe benefits, resulting in $41.81 per
hour. We assume that this impact will primarily occur in the first year
of the time horizon of our analysis, and thus we do not adjust these
upwards to account for other provisions of the proposed rule. For each
Head Start agency, this results in an estimated cost of $1,003.36 to
$2,341.17 (primary estimate: $1,672.26).
Across nearly 1,526 Head Start agencies, we estimate the total one-
time transition impact to range from $1.5 million to $3.6 million
(primary estimate: $2.6 million), all occurring in 2027. These
estimates reflect limited administrative adjustments rather than the
development of new systems or program structures. In addition, ACF
intends to issue sub-regulatory guidance to clarify the relationship
between statutory requirements and the proposed regulatory framework,
which is expected to reduce uncertainty and minimize the level of
effort required by grantees to understand and interpret the policy
changes. After the first year of implementation, ACF estimates there
may be future cost savings over time as programs have fewer Federal
requirements to understand, interpret, and implement.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU26.042
[[Page 51317]]
Distributional Effects
Consistent with Office of Management and Budget Circular A-4, this
section evaluates how the proposed regulatory changes may
differentially affect subpopulations of children, families, staff, and
communities. The proposed rule would primarily modify regulatory
requirements governing program operations and increase local program
flexibility while introducing certain new eligibility and instructional
provisions.
Workforce and Geographic Effects
Several provisions of the proposed rule may influence workforce
demand within Head Start programs. First, the proposed removal of
Federal staffing ratio requirements, family service worker caseload
limits, the child development specialist role, and certain service
frequency requirements may reduce demand for specific staff roles
depending on program implementation decisions.
Workforce effects are expected to vary by location and program type
depending on local implementation choices, labor markets, and state
regulatory requirements. Programs that maintain current staffing
structures may experience minimal workforce changes, while others may
adjust staffing models to align with proposed operational flexibility.
The projected cost savings in prior sections of the RIA reflect
lower expenditures to serve the same number of children with fewer
staff. For example, under the removal of the ratio requirement, the
primary scenario reflects a 50 percent realization of the estimated
reduction, corresponding to approximately $668 million in reduced
costs. (This estimate preliminarily omits transition costs to workers
who experience employment disruption.\21\ ACF invites comment that
would facilitate estimation of the number of workers experiencing these
costs.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Bartik, T.J. (2015), The social value of job loss and its
effect on the costs of U.S. environmental regulations, Review of
Environmental Economics and Policy, 9(2): 179-197. Kuminoff, N.V.,
Schoellman, T., & Timmins, C. (2015), Environmental regulations and
the welfare effects of job layoffs in the United States: A spatial
approach, Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 9(2): 198-
218.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Without a family service worker caseload requirement, we anticipate
that many programs would revert toward staffing patterns that were in
place prior to implementation of this requirement. However, the effects
are expected to vary at the local level because programs currently have
a wide range of family service worker caseloads relative to funded
enrollment. Even when looking only at quartile ranges, programs range
from approximately 25 to 50 funded slots per family service worker,
which reflects a narrower measure yet still demonstrates substantial
variation across programs.
Second, the proposed changes to administrative cost limits may have
workforce implications depending on programs' organizational structure.
Smaller or single-site programs may have fewer opportunities to
distribute fixed administrative costs across multiple sites or funding
streams, while larger multi-site agencies may have greater capacity to
centralize administrative functions and realize economies of scale.
States with the largest number of entities that have fewer than 200
funded slots include New York, Texas, California, Pennsylvania, and
North Carolina. Approximately 14 percent of grants report only one
service location, spanning 42 states, the District of Columbia, and
Puerto Rico. States with the largest share of single-site grants
relative to total service locations include Wyoming, New Mexico,
Alaska, Connecticut, Montana, Nebraska, and Kansas, where single-site
grants represent approximately 5 to 10 percent of all service
locations.
There are also geographic factors that could contribute to
distributional effects. Because the proposed rule would defer more
extensively to state licensing and policy frameworks in areas such as
staff-child ratios, group size, and health and safety requirements,
distributional effects may vary across states. In states where
licensing requirements permit higher ratios or larger group sizes than
current Federal standards (proposed for removal), programs may modify
staffing patterns consistent with state requirements. In states with
licensing requirements that are comparable to, or more stringent than,
current Federal standards, program operations may change little. In
particular, in states where licensing allows higher ratios there may be
relatively larger reductions in staff expenses, while in states with
lower ratios, the effect on staffing levels is expected to be more
limited.
Federal Effects on Children and Families
Eligibility and Enrollment Requirements
Changes to recruitment procedures, wait list management, and
reserved slot provisions may also affect enrollment patterns. Programs
will retain discretion in how they prioritize recruitment and
enrollment within statutory eligibility requirements. As a result,
participation patterns may vary across communities depending on local
implementation decisions.
Suspension and Expulsion Policies
The removal of Federal regulatory prohibitions on expulsion and
limitations on suspension increases local program discretion in
responding to behavioral concerns. Programs may adopt different
behavioral management approaches under the proposed framework.
Program Duration and Intensity
The reduction of Federal minimum service duration requirements for
Head Start Preschool and the removal of prescriptive home-based service
requirements will allow programs to modify program schedules or service
delivery intensity if desired. Effects may vary across communities
depending on local labor market conditions, parental employment
patterns, and the availability of alternative early childhood programs
in communities where Head Start programs choose to reduce hours of
operation. The additional flexibility from these proposed policy
changes may also allow programs to reallocate staff time or resources
toward locally prioritized activities, potentially improving service
alignment with community needs.
Health and Mental Health Services
The proposed rule would remove several prescriptive regulatory
requirements related to health, oral health, and mental health service
delivery. Programs will retain discretion regarding how these services
are structured, subject to statutory requirements and other applicable
Federal or state laws.
Overall Distributional Considerations
Taken together, the proposed regulatory changes would increase
local flexibility and reduce Federal prescriptiveness. These changes
are expected to result in shifts in the composition of children and
families accessing Head Start services across demographic, linguistic,
and geographic lines. Some subpopulations may experience changes in
program access or service delivery depending on local implementation
decisions.
At the same time, reductions in certain prescriptive requirements
may allow programs to reallocate resources, strengthen emphasis on core
health, nutrition, and physical activity priorities, and expand overall
enrollment capacity. To the extent resources are redirected toward
[[Page 51318]]
additional slots, broader access to services may offset some localized
shifts in program composition. The net distributional effects would
depend on program-level decisions made under the proposed regulatory
framework and the interaction of Federal flexibility with state and
local policies.
VIII. Tribal Consultation Statement
Tribal Consultation refers to the government-to-government
engagement between the Federal government and Federally recognized
American Indian and Alaska Native Tribes. It is designed to give Tribes
meaningful, timely input on policies, programs, and actions that may
affect them. Consultation helps agencies identify unintended impacts on
Tribes early, improve policy outcomes by incorporating Tribal
expertise, and reduce the risk of litigation, delays, or policy
reversals.
All Federal agencies are required to conduct consultation in
accordance with executive orders and Federal policy, consistent with
the Federal trust responsibility and the United States' unique
government-to-government relationship with Federally recognized Indian
Tribes. The requirement to conduct Tribal consultation is a core legal
and policy obligation of the Federal government. Tribes are sovereign
governments, and consultation is the primary mechanism through which
Federal agencies seek Tribal input on policies, programs, and actions
that have Tribal implications.
Even when consultation is not written in a program's statute,
agencies are still required to consult under:
Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments), which directs all Federal agencies to
consult with Tribes on policies that have Tribal implications.
OMB and departmental policies (including HHS policy) that
operationalize Consultation expectations across the Federal government.
These policies make Consultation a government-wide requirement,
rather than optional or program-specific. Additionally, in some cases,
such as Head Start, Tribal Consultation is also mandated by program-
specific authorizing statutes, which impose additional legal
requirements beyond government-wide Consultation obligations. Section
640(l)(4)(A-D) of the Head Start Act states that the Secretary shall
conduct an annual Tribal Consultation in each affected Head Start
region, with Tribal governments operating Head Start including Early
Head Start programs.
Consultations are often held in conjunction with other Tribal
meetings or conferences, to ensure the opportunity for most of the 151
Tribes that operate Head Start and Early Head Start programs to attend
and voice their concerns regarding service delivery. In accordance with
ACF Tribal Consultation Policy, OHS must provide written summaries
after Tribal Consultation that capture: issues raised by Tribes,
recommendations offered, and OHS responses and decisions. OHS submit
the report to the Secretary of Health and Human Services (the
Secretary) at the end of the year.
As noted previously, the publication of this NPRM initiates a
public comment period during which ACF invites comments from all
interested parties, including Tribal governments. Through this open
comment process, ACF ensures that a broad range of voices are heard,
including Tribal Leaders, and consistent with the statute's emphasis on
consultation.
List of Subjects
45 CFR Part 1301
Administrative practice and procedure, Education of disadvantaged.
45 CFR Part 1302
Dental health, Diseases, Education of disadvantaged, Grant
programs--social programs, Health care, Homeless, Immunization,
Indians, Individuals with disabilities, Maternal and child health,
Mental health programs, Migrant labor, Nutrition, Quarantine, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Safety, Volunteers.
45 CFR Part 1303
Administrative practice and procedure, Education of disadvantaged,
Grant programs--social programs, Individuals with disabilities, Motor
vehicles, Privacy, Real property acquisition, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
45 CFR Part 1304
Diseases, Early learning and development, Education of
disadvantaged, Grant programs--health, Grant programs--social programs,
Indians, Scholarships and fellowships.
45 CFR Part 1305
Administrative practice and procedure.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, ACF proposes to revise 45
CFR, chapter XIII, subchapter B to read as follows.
CHAPTER XIII--ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
SUBCHAPTER B--THE ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, HEAD START
PROGRAM
PART 1301--Head Start Performance Standards
Sec.
1301.01 Committees.
1301.02 Determining eligibility.
1301.03 Attendance and enrollment.
1301.04 Teaching and learning environment.
1301.05 Group size and ratio.
1301.06 Parent and family engagement in education and child
development services.
1301.07 Child nutrition.
1301.08 Family support services for health and nutrition.
1301.09 Safety and transportation practices.
1301.10 Services for children with disabilities.
1301.11 Enrolled pregnant and postpartum women and families.
1301.12 Personnel and records policies.
1301.13 Program goals, continuous improvement, and reporting.
1301.14 Limitations on administrative costs.
1301.15 Application and eligibility to purchase, construct, and
renovate facilities.
1301.16 Basis for determining if an agency is subject to open
competition.
1301.17 Tribes.
1301.18 Program Flexibility.
1301.19 Appeals.
1301.20 Definitions.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9801 et seq.
Sec. 1301.01 Committees.
(a) Parent committees. A program may establish a parent committee
comprised exclusively of parents of currently enrolled children. The
parent committee's role is to advise staff in developing and
implementing local program policies, activities, and services to ensure
they meet the needs of children and families.
(b) Committee guidelines. Programs can determine the bylaws of any
committee including but not limited to length of a committee member's
term and election procedures.
Sec. 1301.02 Determining eligibility.
(a) Eligibility requirements. A pregnant woman or a child is
eligible if they meet the eligibility requirements detailed in Sec.
645(a)(1).
(b) Foster Children. Children in foster care qualify for program
eligibility.
(c) Verifying eligibility. The following must be verified to
determine program eligibility:
(1) Income. Program staff must use tax forms, pay stubs, or other
proof of income to determine the family income
[[Page 51319]]
meets statutory requirements for the relevant time period.
(2) To verify whether a family is eligible for, or in the absence
of child care, would be eligible for public assistance, the program
must have documentation from either the state, local, or tribal public
assistance agency that shows the family either receives public
assistance, or that shows the family is eligible to receive public
assistance.
(3) To verify whether a child is in foster care, program staff must
accept either a court order or other legal or government-issued
document, a written statement from a government child welfare official
that demonstrates the child is in foster care, or proof of a foster
care payment.
(4) Self attestation does not satisfy the eligibility requirements.
(d) Transition from Early Head Start. 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.
(e) Records. A program must keep eligibility determination records
for each participant for those currently enrolled, as long as they are
enrolled, and, for one year after they have either stopped receiving
services; or are no longer enrolled and must be made available to HHS
upon request. Records include copies of any documents or official
statements that are deemed necessary to verify eligibility.
(f) Program policies and procedures on violating eligibility
determination regulations. A program must report staff who violate
eligibility determination regulations to the responsible HHS official.
(g) Homelessness. Children experiencing homelessness qualify for
program eligibility and must be treated in accordance with the Head
Start Act.
Sec. 1301.03 Attendance and enrollment.
(a) Promoting regular attendance. A program must track attendance
for each child.
(b) Applicable regulations and statutes. All applicable Federal and
state statutes and state regulations apply to attendance procedures
regarding child safety concerns due to absence(s).
(c) Funded enrollment. A program must maintain its funded
enrollment level and fill any vacancy as soon as possible, but not to
exceed 30 days.
Sec. 1301.04 Teaching and learning environment.
(a) Language. Except as provided in 1301.17(d), a program must
conduct all education to children in English.
(1) If a child's native language is not English, and does not speak
English, a program must prioritize teaching English to the child.
(b) Nutrition. Snack and meal times must be structured and used as
learning opportunities that support teaching staff-child interactions
and foster communication and conversations that contribute to a child's
learning, development, and socialization. Programs are encouraged to
meet this requirement with family style meals when developmentally
appropriate.
(c) Physical activity. A program must recognize physical activity
as important to learning and integrate intentional movement and
physical activity into curricular activities and daily routines in ways
that support health and learning. A program must provide a minimum of
30 minutes of physical activity for every three and a half hours that
the child participates in the program. Weather permitting, the activity
should take place outside.
Sec. 1301.05 Group size and ratio.
A Head Start program must establish and publish both a maximum
group size and a ratio of children to staff that is consistent with
applicable state and local laws and Child Care and Development Fund
regulations. The published group size and ratio must be in a location
and format visible to parents.
Sec. 1301.06 Parent and family engagement in education and child
development services.
(a) Importance of parents. Center-based and family child care
programs must structure education and child development services to
recognize parents' roles as children's primary teachers and nurturers.
(b) Engaging parents and family members. A program must implement
strategies to engage parents and family members in their children's
learning and development and support parent-child relationships,
including specific strategies for father engagement, and provide
educational material and instruction that demonstrate healthy marriage
as a positive good.
Sec. 1301.07 Child nutrition.
(a) 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.
(b) A program must use staff or consultants to support nutrition
services in ways that support development and learning. For bottle-fed
infants, this approach must include holding infants during feeding to
support socialization. Staff and consultants must serve nutrient dense,
whole foods that are compatible with a healthy and nutritious diet that
conforms to USDA requirements in 7 CFR part 226. Or, where applicable,
properly store breastmilk and provide an opportunity for infants to be
served breastmilk during the day.
Sec. 1301.08 Family support services for health and nutrition.
(a) Parent collaboration. Programs must collaborate with parents to
promote children's health and well-being by providing nutrition and
physical education support services.
(b) Opportunities. Collaboration with parents must include
discussing their child's nutritional status with staff, including the
importance of physical activity and healthy eating, and the negative
health consequences of sugar-sweetened beverages and grain-based
desserts, as well as how to select and prepare nutritious foods that
meet the family's nutrition and food budget needs.
Sec. 1301.09 Safety and transportation practices.
(a) Programs must be licensed by their state, tribal, or local
entity and comply with all Federal and State statutes, and regulations
regarding safety and transportation practices for children. If exempt
from licensing, programs must meet CCDF basic health and safety
requirements.
(b) Programs must prevent children from being exposed to lead in
water and paint in Head Start facilities.
Sec. 1301.10 Services for children with disabilities.
A program must comply with all applicable Federal and state
statutes and regulations regarding providing services for children with
disabilities.
Sec. 1301.11 Enrolled pregnant and postpartum women and families.
(a) Newborn visits. A program must provide a newborn visit with
each mother and baby and offer support including providing
comprehensive services through referrals that, at a minimum include
nutritional counseling and food assistance.
(b) Educational information. A program must provide enrolled
pregnant women, mothers, fathers, 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 risk of
alcohol, drugs, and smoking, and the
[[Page 51320]]
benefits of substance use treatment, labor and delivery, postpartum
recovery, and infant care and safe sleep practices.
Sec. 1301.12 Personnel and records policies.
(a) Personnel. A program must comply with all applicable Federal
and state statutes and regulations regarding staff, contractor, and
volunteer background checks, including work authorization verification,
staff standards of conduct, and other affiliated human resource
requirements.
(b) Records. A program must establish policies, protections, and
rights equivalent to those in FERPA, 20 U.S.C. 1232g, for the
confidentiality of any personally identifiable information (PII) in
child records.
(c) Hiring considerations. Programs shall not require or
incentivize the attainment of postsecondary education credits, hours,
or credentials unless the program demonstrates that such educational
attainment is necessary for the position based on specified skills
required for the position that can only be attained through a specific
postsecondary education pathway. Programs shall provide explicit
alternatives to postsecondary education for demonstrating required
skills, such as through assessments, industry-recognized credentials,
or relevant work experience.
Sec. 1301.13 Program goals, continuous improvement, and reporting.
(a) Establishing program goals. A program must establish goals and
measurable outcomes including provisions of evidence-based educational
practices, health, nutritional, and family engagement to further
promote the school readiness of enrolled children.
(b) Ongoing assessment of program goals. A program must conduct a
self-assessment of the program's progress towards meeting goals
established under paragraph (a) of this section and submit the findings
to HHS.
(c) Reporting. A program must submit to HHS:
(i) any incident regarding 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
(ii) any significant incident that affects the health and safety of
a child that occurs in the setting where Head Start services are
provided immediately, but no later than, seven calendar days following
the incident.
Sec. 1301.14 Limitations on administrative costs.
Allowable costs to develop and administer a Head Start program
cannot exceed 5 percent of the total approved program costs, which
includes both Federal costs and non-Federal match.
Sec. 1301.15 Application and eligibility to purchase, construct, and
renovate facilities.
(a) Application. An application must be submitted to apply for
funds to purchase, construct, or renovate a facility.
(b) Cost-effective. Before a grant recipient can apply for funds to
purchase, construct, or renovate a facility it must establish that the
proposed construction of a facility is more cost-effective than the
purchase of available facilities or renovation.
Sec. 1301.16 Basis for determining if an agency is subject to open
competition.
A Head start agency will be required to compete for its next five
years of funding whenever it is determined that one or more of the
following conditions existed during the award period of the current
grant:
(a) Deficiencies. An agency has had two or more deficiencies across
reviews conducted under section 641A(c)(1)(A), (B), (C), or (D) of the
Act.
(b) Goals. An agency has not, based on a review conducted under
section 641A(c)(1)(A), (C), or (D) of the Act, produced suitable
results towards achieving program goals for improving the school
readiness of children participating in its program in accordance with
requirements of section 641A(g)(2) of the Act.
(c) Classroom quality: An agency has been determined not to be
delivering classroom quality as measured under section 641A(c)(2)(F) of
the Act. Educational attainment of providers and staff beyond the
requirements stated in the Act does not constitute a basis for
determining if an agency is subject to open competition.
(d) Revocation of license. An agency has had a revocation of its
license to operate a Head Start center or program by a State or a local
licensing agency.
(e) Suspension: An agency has been suspended from the Head Start
program and the suspension has not been overturned or withdrawn after
the initial opportunity to show cause.
(f) Debarred. An agency has been debarred from receiving Federal or
state funds from any Federal or state department or agency or has been
disqualified from the CACFP any time during the relevant time period
covered.
(g) Failure. An agency is at risk of failing to continue
functioning as a going concern within the current project period.
(h) Audit findings. An agency has two or more audit findings of
material weakness or questioned costs associated with its Head Start
funds in audit reports submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse.
(i) Other measures. Any other measure as specified in the Head
Start Act.
Sec. 1301.17 Tribes.
(a) Consultation. In the case of an Indian Head Start agency
determined not to be achieving suitable outcomes, HHS will recognize
unique government-to-government relationships and engage in
consultation with the tribe to develop a plan to improve the outcomes
of the Head Start Program.
(1) The plan must be implemented within six months of HHS's
determination, and must be followed by a reevaluation of the plan's
implementation not more than six months following implementation.
(2) If the Indian Head Start agency is still not delivering
suitable outcomes, HHS 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) Non-Indian Head Start eligibility. 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. If
an Indian Head Start agency becomes available, then a non-Indian Head
Start agency is no longer eligible to carry out an Indian Head Start
program.
(c) Alternate agency. An Indian tribe whose Head Start grant has
been terminated, relinquished, designated for competition or which has
been denied refunding as a Head Start agency, may identify an
alternative agency, and request HHS to designate such agency as an
alternative agency to provide Head Start services to members of the
tribe if:
(1) The tribe was the only agency that was receiving Federal
financial assistance to provide Head Start services to members of the
tribe; and,
(2) The tribe would be otherwise precluded from providing such
services to its members because of the termination or denial of
refunding.
(3) If the tribe does not identify an agency and request that the
agency be appointed as the alternative agency, HHS will seek a
permanent replacement grant recipient.
[[Page 51321]]
(4) The alternative agency must meet all requirements established
in the Head Start Act and cannot be prohibited from designation as
detailed in section 646(e)(2).
(d) Language. An Indian Head Start agency is not subject to 45 CFR
part 1301.04(a) so long as the language being spoken relates to the
furtherance of tribal heritage.
Sec. 1301.18 Program Flexibility.
(a) Waivers. A program may request to waive any specific
requirement in this chapter except those detailed in (b) of this
section, so long as the waiver is submitted in writing to HHS, states
how a reprieve from the regulation will not negatively impact the
health or safety of children in care, and does not request to violate
any Federal or State statutes.
(b) Unallowable waivers. A program may not receive a waiver from
HHS from any requirement relating to nutrition, physical activity, or
eligibility.
(c) Locally-designed program option variations. Programs may
request to operate a locally-designed program option, including a
combination of program options, to better meet the unique needs of
their communities or to demonstrate or test alternative approaches for
providing program services.
(1) A program's request to operate a locally-designed variation may
be approved by HHS through the end of a program's current grant or, if
the request is submitted through a grant application for an upcoming
project period, for the project period of the new award.
Sec. 1301.19 Appeals.
(a) Agency appeals. An agency has the right to an appeal following
a final decision by HHS to terminate financial assistance or deny
refunding of an application and shall follow procedures as outlined in
45 CFR part 16 as well as Sec. 646 of the Head Start Act.
(b) Prospective delegate agency appeals. If a Head Start Agency
denies, or fails to act on, a prospective agency's funding application,
the prospective delegate agency may appeal within 30 days of the
agency's decision or 120 days after the agency's inaction on the
prospective delegate's application. Once the appeal is filed, the Head
Start agency must respond to HHS and the prospective delegate agency
within 30 days. The decision that is then rendered is final and not
subject to additional appeals.
Sec. 1301.20 Definitions.
For the purposes of this subchapter, the following definitions
apply:
Agency means the body that receives the Head Start grant.
Construction means new buildings, and excludes renovations,
alterations, additions, or work of any kind to existing buildings.
Denial of Refunding means the refusal of a funding agency to fund
an application for a continuation of a Head Start program for a
subsequent program year when the decision is based on a determination
that the grant recipient has improperly conducted its program, or is
incapable of doing so properly in the future, or otherwise is in
violation of applicable law, regulations, or other policies.
Development and Administrative Costs means costs incurred in
accordance with approved Head Start budget which do not directly relate
to the provision of program component services, including services to
children with disabilities.
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.
Enrolled (or any variation of) means a child has been accepted and
attended at least one class for center-based or family child care
option or at least one home visit for the home-based option.
Facility means a structure, appropriate for use in carrying out a
Head Start program and used primarily to provide Head Start services,
including services to children and their families, or for
administrative purposes or other activities necessary to carry out a
Head Start program.
Family means all persons living in the same household who are
supported by the child's parent(s)' or guardian(s)' income; and are
related to the child's parent(s) or guardian(s) by blood, marriage, or
adoption; or are the child's authorized caregiver or legally
responsible party.
Financial viability means that an organization is able to meet its
financial obligations, balance funding and expenses and maintain
sufficient funding to achieve organizational goals and objectives.
Foster care means the same as defined in 45 CFR part 1355.20(a).
Funded enrollment means the number of participants which the Head
Start grant recipient is to serve as indicated on the grant award.
Going concern means an organization that operates without the
threat of liquidation for the foreseeable future, a period of at least
12 months.
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
HHS 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 HHS 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 migratory or seasonal
programs.
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.
Indian Head Start agency means a program operated by an Indian
tribe (as defined by the Act) or designated by an Indian tribe to
operate on its behalf.
Parent means a Head Start child's mother or father, other family
member who is a primary caregiver, foster parent or authorized
caregiver, guardian, or the person with whom the child has been placed
for purposed of adoption pending a final adoption decree.
Participant means a pregnant woman or child who is enrolled in and
received 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.
Personally identifiable information (PII) means the same as defined
in 34 CFR part 300.32.
Program means a Head Start Preschool, Early Head Start, Migrant or
Seasonal Head Start, Tribal or program authorized under the Act and
carried out by an agency or delegate agency, to provide ongoing
comprehensive child development services.
Program costs mean costs incurred in accordance with an approved
Head Start budget which directly relate to the provision of program
component
[[Page 51322]]
services including services to children with disabilities.
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 after 1986.
Relevant time period means:
(1) The 12 months preceding the month in which the application is
submitted; or
(2) During the calendar year preceding the calendar year in which
the application is submitted, whichever more accurately reflects the
needs of the family at the time of the application.
School readiness goals means the expectations of children's status
and progress across domains of language and literacy development,
cognition and general knowledge, approaches to learning, physical well-
being and motor development, and social and emotional development that
will improve their readiness for kindergarten.
Staff means paid adults who have responsibilities related to
children and their families who are enrolled in programs.
Total approved costs mean the sum of all costs of the Head Start
program approved for a given budget period by HHS, as indicated on the
Financial Assistance Award. Total approved costs consist of the Federal
share plus any approved non-Federal match, including non-Federal match
above the statutory minimum.
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr,
Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.
[FR Doc. 2026-16134 Filed 8-6-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4184-87-P