Head Start Performance Standards, 61293-61453 [2016-19748]
Download as PDF
Vol. 81
Tuesday,
No. 172
September 6, 2016
Part II
Department of Health and Human Services
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Administration for Children and Families
45 CFR Chapter XIII
Head Start Performance Standards; Final Rule
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4717
Sfmt 4717
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
61294
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
401–1195 (not a toll free call). Deaf and
hearing impaired individuals may call
the Federal Dual Party Relay Service at
1–800–877–8339 between 8 a.m. and 7
p.m. Eastern Time.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Administration for Children and
Families
45 CFR Chapter XIII
Table of Contents
RIN 0970–AC63
Head Start Performance Standards
Office of Head Start (OHS),
Administration for Children and
Families (ACF), Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This final rule modernizes the
Head Start Program Performance
Standards, last revised in 1998. In the
Improving Head Start for School
Readiness Act of 2007, Congress
instructed the Office of Head Start to
update its performance standards and to
ensure any such revisions to the
standards do not eliminate or reduce
quality, scope, or types of health,
educational, parental involvement,
nutritional, social, or other services
programs provide. This rule responds to
public comment, incorporates extensive
findings from research and from
consultation with experts, reflects best
practices, lessons from program input
and innovation, integrates
recommendations from the Secretary’s
Advisory Committee Final Report on
Head Start Research and Evaluation,
and reflects the Obama Administration’s
deep commitment to improve the school
readiness of young children. These
performance standards will improve
program quality, reduce burden on
programs, and improve regulatory
clarity and transparency. They provide
a clear road map for current and
prospective grantees to support highquality Head Start services and to
strengthen the outcomes of the children
and families Head Start serves.
DATES: Effective Date: Provisions of this
final rule become effective November 7,
2016.
Compliance Date(s): To allow
programs reasonable time to implement
certain performance standards, we
phase in compliance dates over several
years after this final rule becomes
effective. In the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section below, we provide
a table, Table 1: Compliance Table,
which lists dates by which programs
must implement specific standards.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Colleen Rathgeb, Division Director of
Early Childhood Policy and Budget,
Office of Early Childhood Development,
at OHS_Final_Rule@acf.hhs.gov or (202)
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
I. Executive Summary
II. Tables
Table 1: Compliance Table
Table 2: Redesignation Table
III. Background
a. Statutory Authority
b. Purpose of This Rule
c. Rulemaking and Comment Processes
d. Overview of Major Changes From the
NPRM
IV. Discussion of General Comments on the
Final Rule
V. Discussion of Section by Section
Comments on the Final Rule
a. Program Governance
b. Program Operations
1. Subpart A Eligibility, Recruitment,
Selection, Enrollment and Attendance
2. Subpart B Program Structure
3. Subpart C Education and Child
Development Program Services
4. Subpart D Health Program Services
5. Subpart E Family and Community
Engagement Program Services
6. Subpart F Additional Services for
Children With Disabilities
7. Subpart G Transition Services
8. Subpart H Services to Enrolled Pregnant
Women
9. Subpart I Human Resources
Management
10. Subpart J Program Management and
Quality Improvement
c. Financial and Administrative
Requirements
1. Subpart A Financial Requirements
2. Subpart B Administrative Requirements
3. Subpart C Protections for the Privacy of
Child Records
4. Subpart D Delegation of Program
Operations
5. Subpart E Facilities
6. Subpart F Transportation
d. Federal Administrative Procedures
1. Subpart A Monitoring, Suspension,
Termination, Denial of Refunding,
Reduction in Funding and Their Appeals
2. Subpart B Designation Renewal
3. Subpart C Selection of Grantees Through
Competition
4. Subpart D Replacement of American
Indian and Alaska Native Grantee
5. Subpart E Head Start Fellows Program
e. Definitions
VIII. Regulatory Process Matters
a. Regulatory Flexibility Act
b. Regulatory Planning and Review
Executive Order 12866
1. Need for Regulatory Action: Increasing
the Benefits to Society of Head Start
2. Cost and Savings Analysis
i. Structural Program Option Provisions
ii. Educator Quality Provisions
iii. Curriculum and Assessment Provisions
iv. Administrative/Managerial Provisions
3. Benefit Analysis
4. Accounting Statement
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
5. Distributional Effects
6. Regulatory Alternatives
c. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
d. Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act of 1999
e. Federalism Assessment Executive Order
13132
f. Congressional Review
g. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
Tribal Consultation Statement
I. Executive Summary
Head Start currently provides
comprehensive early learning services
to more than 1 million children from
birth to age five each year through more
than 60,000 classes, home visitors, and
family child care partners nationwide.1
Since its inception in 1965, Head Start
has been a leader in helping children
from low-income families enter
kindergarten more prepared to succeed
in school and in life. Head Start is a
central part of this Administration’s
effort to ensure all children have access
to high-quality early learning
opportunities and to eliminate the
education achievement gap. This
regulation is intended to improve the
quality of Head Start services so that
programs have a stronger impact on
children’s learning and development. It
also is necessary to streamline and
reorganize the regulatory structure to
improve regulatory clarity and
transparency so that existing grantees
can more easily run a high-quality Head
Start program and so that Head Start’s
operational requirements will be more
transparent and seem less onerous to
prospective grantees. In addition, this
regulation is necessary to reduce the
burden on local programs that can
interfere with high-quality service
delivery. We believe these regulatory
changes will help ensure every child
and family in Head Start receives highquality services that will lead to greater
success in school and in life.
In 2007, Congress mandated the
Secretary to revise the program
performance standards and update and
raise the education standards.2 Congress
also prohibited elimination of, or any
reduction in, the quality, scope, or types
of services in the revisions.3 Thus, these
regulatory revisions are additionally
intended to meet the statutory
requirements Congress put forth in the
bipartisan reauthorization of Head Start
in 2007.
1 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Administration for Children and Families (2015).
Office of Head Start Program Information Report,
2014–2015. Washington, DC: Author.
2 See https://www.congress.gov/congressionalreport/110th-congress/house-report/439/1 and 42
U.S.C. 9836A(a)(1)(B).
3 42 U.S.C. 9836A(a)(2)(C)(ii).
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
The Head Start Program Performance
Standards are the foundation on which
programs design and deliver
comprehensive, high-quality
individualized services to support the
school readiness of children from lowincome families. The first set of Head
Start Program Performance Standards
was published in the 1970s. Since then,
they have been revised following
subsequent Congressional
reauthorizations and were last revised
in 1998. The program performance
standards set forth the requirements
local grantees must meet to support the
cognitive, social, emotional, and healthy
development of children from birth to
age five. They encompass requirements
to provide education, health, mental
health, nutrition, and family and
community engagement services, as
well as rules for local program
governance and aspects of federal
administration of the program.
This final rule builds upon extensive
consultation with researchers,
practitioners, recommendations from
the Secretary’s Advisory Committee
Final Report on Head Start Research and
Evaluation,4 and other experts, public
comment, as well as internal analysis of
program data and years of program
input. In addition, program monitoring
has also provided invaluable experience
regarding the strengths and weaknesses
of the previous program performance
standards. Moreover, research and
practice in the field of early childhood
education has expanded exponentially
in the 15 years since the program
performance standards governing
service delivery were last revised,
providing a multitude of new insights
on how to support improved child
outcomes.
The Secretary’s Advisory Committee,
which consisted of expert researchers
and practitioners chartered to provide
‘‘recommendations for improving Head
Start program effectiveness’’ concluded
early education programs, including
Head Start, are capable of reducing the
achievement gap, but that Head Start is
not reaching its potential.5 As part of
their work, the Committee provided
recommendations for interpreting the
results of both the Head Start Impact
Study (HSIS),6 a randomized control
4 Advisory Committee on Head Start Research
and Evaluation: Final Report. (2012). Washington,
DC: Office of Head Start, Administration for
Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services. See https://www.acf.hhs.gov/
sites/default/files/opre/eval_final.pdf.
5 Ibid, (p.1).
6 Puma, M., Bell, S., Cook, R., Heid, C., Broene,
P., Jenkins, F., & Downer, J. (2012). Third grade
follow-up to the Head Start impact study final
report. U.S. Department of Health and Human
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
trial study of children in Head Start in
2002 and 2003 through third grade, and
the Early Head Start Research and
Evaluation Project (EHSREP),7 which
was initiated in 1996 and followed
children who were eligible to
participate in Early Head Start. The
Committee concluded that these
findings should be interpreted in the
context of the larger body of research
that demonstrates Head Start and Early
Head Start ‘‘are improving family wellbeing and improving school readiness of
children at or below the poverty line in
the U.S. today.’’ 8 The Committee agreed
the initial impact both Head Start and
Early Head Start have demonstrated
‘‘are in line with the magnitude of
findings from other scaled-up programs
for infants and toddlers . . . and centerbased programs for preschoolers . . .’’
but also acknowledged ‘‘larger impacts
may be possible, e.g., by increasing
dosage in [Early Head Start] and Head
Start or improving instructional factors
in Head Start.’’9 The Committee also
addressed the finding that these impacts
do not seem to persist into elementary
school, stating the larger body of
research on Head Start provides
‘‘evidence of long-term positive
outcomes for those who participated in
Head Start in terms of high school
completion, avoidance of problem
behaviors, avoidance of entry into the
criminal justice system, too-early family
formation, avoidance of special
education, and workforce attachment.’’
Overall, the report determined a key
factor for Head Start to realize its
potential is ‘‘making quality and other
improvements and optimizing dosage
within Head Start [and Early Head
Start].’’ The final rule aims to capitalize
on the advancements in research,
available data, program input, public
comment, and these recommendations
in order to accomplish the critical goal
of helping Head Start reach its full
potential so more children reach
kindergarten ready to succeed.
This final rule reorganizes previous
program performance standards to make
Services Office of Planning, Research and
Evaluation.
7 Cohen, R.C., Vogel, C.A., Xue, Y., Moiduddin,
E.M., Carlson, B.L., Twin Peaks Partners, L.L.C., &
Kisker, E.E. (2010). Early Head Start Children in
Grade 5: Long-Term Follow-Up of the Early Head
Start Research and Evaluation Project Study
Sample. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, Administration for
Children and Families, Office of Planning,
Research, and Evaluation, (6933).
8 Advisory Committee on Head Start Research
and Evaluation: Final Report. (2012). Washington,
DC: Office of Head Start, Administration for
Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services. See https://www.acf.hhs.gov/
sites/default/files/opre/eval_final.pdf.
9 Ibid. (p. 30).
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61295
it easier for grantees to implement them
and for the public to understand the
broad range of Head Start program
services. Our previous program
performance standards consisted of
1,400 provisions organized in 11
different sections that were amended in
a partial or topical fashion over the past
40 years. This approach resulted in a
somewhat opaque set of requirements
that were unnecessarily challenging to
interpret and overburdened grantees
with process-laden rules.
This rule has four distinct sections:
(1) Program Governance, which outlines
the requirements imposed by the Head
Start Act (the ‘‘Act’’) on Governing
Bodies and Policy Councils to ensure
well-governed Head Start programs; (2)
Program Operations, which outlines all
of the operational requirements for
serving children and families, from the
universe of eligible children and the
services they must be provided in
education, health, and family and
community engagement, to the way
programs must use data to improve the
services they provide; (3) Financial and
Administrative Requirements, which
lays out the federal requirements Head
Start programs must adhere to because
of overarching federal requirements or
specific provisions imposed in the Act;
and (4) Federal Administrative
Procedures, which governs the
procedures the responsible HHS official
takes to determine the results of
competition for all grantees, any actions
against a grantee, whether a grantee
needs to compete for renewed funding,
and other transparency-related
procedures required in the Act.
We also reorganized specific sections
and streamlined provisions to make
Head Start requirements easier to
understand for all interested parties—
grantees, potential grantees, other early
education programs, and members of
the general public. We reorganized
subparts and their sections to eliminate
redundancy, and we grouped together
related requirements. Additionally, we
systematically addressed the fact that
many of our most critical provisions
were buried in subparts that made them
difficult to find and interpret, and did
not reflect their centrality to the
provision of high-quality services. For
example, we created new subparts or
sections to highlight and expand, where
necessary, upon these important
requirements.
We also streamlined requirements and
minimized administrative burden on
local programs. In total, we significantly
reduced the number of regulatory
requirements without compromising
quality. We give programs greater
flexibility to determine how best to
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
61296
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
achieve their goals and administer a
high-quality Head Start program
without reducing expectations for
children and families. We anticipate
these changes will help move Head Start
away from a compliance-oriented
culture to an outcomes-focused one.
Furthermore, we believe this approach
will support better collaboration with
other programs and funding streams. We
recognize that grantees deliver services
through a variety of modalities
including child care and state prekindergarten programs. Additionally,
we removed other overly prescriptive
requirements related to governing
bodies, appeals, and audits.
We include several provisions to
support local flexibility to meet
community needs and to promote
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
innovation and research. We give Head
Start programs additional flexibility in
the structural requirements of program
models, such as group size and ratios.
Further, we permit local variations for
effective and innovative curriculum and
professional development models,
giving flexibility from some of these
requirements if the Head Start program
works with research experts and
evaluates the effectiveness of their
model. We also support local innovation
through a process to waive individual
eligibility verification requirements,
which will allow better coordination
with local early education programs
without reducing quality. Collectively,
these changes will allow for the
development of innovative program
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
models, alleviate paperwork burdens,
and support mixed income settings.
We believe the benefits of these
changes will be significant for the
children and families Head Start serves.
Strengthening Head Start standards will
improve child outcomes and promote
greater success in school as well as
produce higher returns on taxpayer
investment. Reorganizing, streamlining,
and reducing the requirements in the
regulation will make Head Start less
burdensome for existing grantees and
more approachable for potential
grantees, which may result in more
organizations competing for Head Start
grants. These changes are central to the
Administration’s belief that every child
deserves an opportunity to succeed.
II. Tables
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
61297
Table 1: Compliance Table
PERFORMANCE STANDARD
COMPLIANCE
DATE
Early Head Start center-based service duration
(unless granted a waiver under § 1302.24)
§1302.21(c)(l): By August 1, 2018, a program must provide 1,380 annual
hours of planned class operations for all enrolled children.
August 1, 2018
A program that is designed to meet the needs of young parents enrolled in
public school settings may meet the service duration requirements in
§1302.21(c)(l)(i) if it operates a center-based program schedule during the
school year aligned with its local education agency requirements and
provides regular home-based services during the summer break.
Head Start center-based service duration:
50 percent at 1,020 annual hours
(unless granted a waiver under § 1302.24)
§1302.21(c)(2)(iii) and (v): By August 1, 2019, a program must provide
1,020 annual hours of planned class operations over the course of at least
eight months per year for at least 50 percent of its Head Start center-based
funded enrollment.
A Head Start program providing fewer than 1,020 annual hours of planned
class operations or fewer than eight months of service is considered to meet
the requirements described in paragraphs §1302.21(c)(2)(iii) and (iv) if its
program schedule aligns with the annual hours required by its local education
agency for grade one and such alignment is necessary to support partnerships
for service delivery.
Head Start center-based service duration:
100 percent at 1,020 annual hours
(unless granted a waiver under § 1302.24)
August 1, 2019
August 1, 2021
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
ER06SE16.001
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
§1302.21(c)(2)(iv): By August 1, 2021, a program must provide 1,020 annual
hours of planned class operations over the course of at least eight months per
year for all of its Head Start center-based funded enrollment.
Early Head Start home-based service duration
(unless granted a waiver under§ 1302.24)
61298
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
§1302.22(c)(l): By August 1, 2017, an Early Head Start home-based
program must provide one home visit per week per family that lasts at least
an hour and a half and provide a minimum of 46 visits per year; and, provide,
at a minimum, 22 group socialization activities distributed over the course of
the program year.
Curricula for center-based and family child care programs
August 1, 2017
§1302.32(a)(l)(ii) and (iii): Implement curricula that are aligned with the
Head Start Early Learning Outcomes Framework: Ages Birth to Five and, as
appropriate, state early learning and development standards; and are
sufficiently content-rich to promote measurable progress toward development
and learning outlined in the Framework; and, have an organized
developmental scope and sequence that include plans and materials for
learning experiences based on developmental progressions and how children
learn.
August 1, 2017
§1302.32(a)(2): A program must support staffto effectively implement
curricula and at a minimum monitor curriculum implementation and fidelity,
and provide support, feedback, and supervision for continuous improvement
of its implementation through the system of training and professional
development.
§1302.32(b): A program that chooses to make significant adaptations to a
curriculum or a curriculum enhancement described in §1302.32(a)(l) to
better meet the needs of one or more specific populations must use an
external early childhood education curriculum or content area expert to
develop such significant adaptations. A program must assess whether the
adaptation adequately facilitates progress toward meeting school readiness
goals, consistent with the process described in § 13 02.1 02(b) and (c).
Assessment
August 1, 2017
A program must regularly use information from §1302.33(b)(l) along with
informal teacher observations and additional information from family and
staff, as relevant, to determine a child's strengths and needs, inform and
adjust strategies to better support individualized learning and improve
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
ER06SE16.002
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
§1302.33(b)(l) through (3):
A program must conduct standardized and structured assessments, which
may be observation-based or direct, for each child that provide ongoing
information to evaluate the child's developmental level and progress in
outcomes aligned to the goals described in the Head Start Early Learning
Outcomes Framework: Ages Birth to Five. Such assessments must result in
usable information for teachers, home visitors, and parents and be conducted
with sufficient frequency to allow for individualization within the program
year.
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
61299
teaching practices in center-based and family child care settings, and improve
home visit strategies in home-based models.
Ifwarranted from the information gathered from §1302.33(b)(l) and (2) and
with direct guidance from a mental health or child development professional
and a parent's consent, a program must refer the child to the local agency
responsible for implementing IDEA for a formal evaluation to assess a
child's eligibility for services under IDEA.
§1302.33(c)(2) and (3): If a program serves a child who speaks a language
other than English a program must use qualified bilingual staff, contractor, or
consultant to:
• Assess language skills in English and in the child's home language, to
assess both the child's progress in the home language and in English
language acquisition;
• Conduct screenings and assessments for domains other than language
skills in the language or languages that best capture the child's
development and skills in the specific domain; and,
• Ensure those conducting the screening or assessment know and
understand the child's language and culture and have sufficient skill
level in the child's home language to accurately administer the
screening or assessment and to record and understand the child's
responses, interactions, and communications.
§1302.35(d)(l) through (3): A program that operates the home-based option
must:
• Ensure home-visiting and group socializations implement a
developmentally appropriate research-based early childhood homebased curriculum that:
o Promotes the parent's role as the child's teacher through
experiences focused on the parent-child relationship and, as
appropriate, the family's traditions, culture, values, and
beliefs;
o Aligns with the Head Start Early Learning Outcomes
Framework: Ages Birth to Five and, as appropriate, state early
learning standards, and, is sufficiently content-rich within the
Framework to promote measurable progress toward goals
outlined in the Framework; and,
o Has an organized developmental scope and sequence that
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
August 1, 2017
ER06SE16.003
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
If a program serves a child who speaks a language other than English and
qualified bilingual staff, contractors, or consultants are not able conduct
screenings and assessments, a program must use an interpreter in conjunction
with a qualified staff person to conduct screenings and assessments as
described in §1302.33(c)(2)(i) through (iii).
Curriculum for home-based programs
61300
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
•
includes plans and materials for learning experiences based on
developmental progressions and how children learn.
Support staff in the effective implementation of the curriculum and at
a minimum monitor curriculum implementation and fidelity, and
provide support, feedback, and supervision for continuous
improvement of its implementation through the system of training and
professional development.
o If a program chooses to make significant adaptations to a
curriculum or curriculum enhancement to better meet the
needs of one or more specific populations, a program must
partner with early childhood education curriculum or content
experts; and, assess whether the adaptation adequately
facilitates progress toward meeting school readiness goals
consistent with the process described in §1302.102(b) and (c).
Quality Rating and Improvement Systems (QRIS) and
Data systems
§1302.53(b)(2): A program, with the exception of American Indian and
Alaska Native programs, must participate in its state or local Quality Rating
and Improvement System (QRlS) if:
• Its state or local QRlS accepts Head Start monitoring data to
document quality indicators included in the state's tiered system;
• Participation would not impact a program's ability to comply with the
Head Start Program Performance Standards; and,
• The program has not provided the Office of Head Start with a
compelling reason not to comply with this requirement.
August 1, 2017
§1302.53(b)(3): Data systems. A program, with the exception of American
Indian and Alaska Native programs unless they would like to and to the
extent practicable, should integrate and share relevant data with state
education data systems, to the extent practicable, if the program can receive
similar support and benefits as other participating early childhood programs.
Complete background check procedures
§1302.90(b)(2): A program has 90 days after an employee is hired to
complete the background check process by obtaining whichever check listed
in § 1302.90(b)(1) was not obtained prior to the date of hire; and, child abuse
and neglect state registry check, if available.
August 1, 2017
§1302.90(b)(5): A program must conduct the complete background check for
each employee, consultant, or contractor at least once every five years which
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
ER06SE16.004
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
§1302.90(b)(4): A program must ensure a newly hired employee, consultant,
or contractor does not have unsupervised access to children until the
complete background check process described in § 1302.90(b)(1) through (3)
is complete.
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
61301
must include each of the four checks listed in §1302.90(b)(1) and (2), and
review and make employment decisions based on the information as
described in §1302.90(b)(3), unless the program can demonstrate to the
responsible HHS official that it has a more stringent system in place that will
ensure child safety.
Child Development Specialist staff qualification
§1302.91(e)(4)(ii): By August 1, 2018, a child development specialist, as
required for family child care in §1302.23(e), must have, at a minimum, a
baccalaureate degree in child development, early childhood education, or a
related field.
August 1, 2018
Home visitor staff qualifications
§1302.91(e)(6)(i): A program must ensure home visitors providing homebased education services have a minimum of a home-based CDA credential
or comparable credential, or equivalent coursework as part of an associate's
or bachelor's degree.
Coordinated coaching strategy and coaching staff qualifications
August 1, 2018
§1302.92(c): A program must ensure coaches meet staff
qualifications in §1302.91(f) and must implement a research-based,
coordinated coaching strategy for education staff as described in § 1302.92(c).
August 1, 2017
Management of program data
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
August 1, 2017
ER06SE16.005
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
§1302.101(b)(4): At the beginning of each program year, and on an ongoing
basis throughout the year, a program must design and implement programwide coordinated approaches that ensure the management of program data to
effectively support the availability, usability, integrity, and security of data.
A program must establish procedures on data management, and have them
approved by the governing body and policy council, in areas such as quality
of data and effective use and sharing of data, while protecting the privacy of
child records in accordance with subpart C of part 1303 and applicable
federal, state, local, and tribal laws.
61302
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Table 2—Redesignation Table
This final rule reorganizes and
redesignates the Head Start Program
Performance Standards under
subchapter B at 45 CFR chapter XIII. We
believe our efforts provide current and
prospective grantees an organized road
map on how to provide high-quality
Head Start services.
To help the public readily locate
sections and provisions from the
previous performance standards that are
reorganized and redesignated, we
included redesignation and distribution
tables in the NPRM. The redesignation
table listed the previous section and
identified the section we proposed
would replace it. The distribution table
in the NPRM listed previous provisions
and showed whether we removed,
revised, or redesignated them. We
believe the public may continue to find
the redesignation table useful here, so
we included an updated version of it
below.
TABLE 2—REDESIGNATION TABLE
New section
1301.1 .............................................
1301.20 ...........................................
1301.10 ...........................................
1301.11 ...........................................
1301.20 ...........................................
1301.21 ...........................................
1301.30 ...........................................
1301.31 ...........................................
1301.32 ...........................................
1301.33 ...........................................
1301.34 ...........................................
1302.1 .............................................
1302.2 .............................................
1302.5 .............................................
1302.10 ...........................................
1302.11 ...........................................
1302.30 ...........................................
1302.31 ...........................................
1302.32 ...........................................
1303.1 .............................................
1303.2 .............................................
1303.10 ...........................................
1303.11 ...........................................
1303.12 ...........................................
1303.14 ...........................................
1303.21 ...........................................
1303.22 ...........................................
1304.1 .............................................
1304.3 .............................................
1304.20 ...........................................
1304.21 ...........................................
1304.22 ...........................................
1304.23 ...........................................
1304.24 ...........................................
1304.40 ...........................................
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Previous section
1303.2
1305
1303.3
1303.12
1303.4
1303.4
1303.10
1302.90, 1302.102
1303.5
1303.31
1304.5, 1304.7
1304.1
1305
1304.2, 1304.3, 1304.4
1304.20
1304.20
1304.30
1304.31
1304.32
1304.1, 1303.30
1305
1304.1
1304.3
1304.4
1304.5
1304.6
1304.6
1302.1
1305
1302.42, 1302.33, 1302.41, 1302.61, 1302.46, 1302.63
1302.30, 1302.31, 1302, 1302.35, 1302.60, 1302.90, 1302.34, 1302.33, 1302.46, 1302.21
1302.47, 1302.92, 1302.15, 1302.90, 1302.41, 1302.42, 1302.46
1302.42, 1302.44, 1302.31, , 1302.90, , 1302.46
1302.46, 1302.45
1302.50, 1302.52, 1302.80, 1302.18, 1302.34, 1302.51, 1302.30, 1302.18, 1302.81, 1302.46, 1302.52,
1302.70, 1302.71, 1302.72, 1302.22, 1302.82
1302.53, 1302.63, 1302.70, 1302.71
1301.1, 1301.3 1302.102, , 1301.4
1302.101, 1302.90, 1303.23, 1302.102, 1301.3, 1303.32
1302.101, 1302.91, 1302.90, 1302.91, 1302.21, 1303.3, 1302.93, 1302.94, 1302.92, 1301.5
1302.31, 1302.21, 1302.47, 1302.22, 1302.23
1302.102, 1304.2
1302.10
1305
1302.11, 1302.102, 1302.20
1302.12
1302.13, 1302.14,
1302.14
1302.12, 1302.15, 1302.70
1302.16
1302.18
1304.4
1305
1302.101, 1302.21, 1302.90, 1302.23, 1302.20
1302.91
1302.92
1302.20, 1302.21, 1302.22, 1302.23
1302.20
1302.21, 1302.24, 1302.17, 1302.102, 1302.34, 1302.18
1302.22, 1302.101 , 1302.91, 1302.35, 1302.44, 1302.23, 1302.31, 1301.4, 1302.47, 1302.45, 1302.24
1304.10
1304.41 ...........................................
1304.50 ...........................................
1304.51 ...........................................
1304.52 ...........................................
1304.53 ...........................................
1304.60 ...........................................
1305.1 .............................................
1305.2 .............................................
1305.3 .............................................
1305.4 .............................................
1305.5 .............................................
1305.6 .............................................
1305.7 .............................................
1305.8 .............................................
1305.9 .............................................
1305.10 ...........................................
1306.3 .............................................
1306.20 ...........................................
1306.21 ...........................................
1306.23 ...........................................
1306.30 ...........................................
1306.31 ...........................................
1306.32 ...........................................
1306.33 ...........................................
1307.1 .............................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
61303
TABLE 2—REDESIGNATION TABLE—Continued
Previous section
New section
1307.2 .............................................
1307.3 .............................................
1307.4 .............................................
1307.5 .............................................
1307.6 .............................................
1307.7 .............................................
1307.8 .............................................
1308.1 .............................................
1308.3 .............................................
1308.4 .............................................
1308.5 .............................................
1308.6 .............................................
1308.18 ...........................................
1308.21 ...........................................
1309.1 .............................................
1309.2 .............................................
1309.3 .............................................
1309.4 .............................................
1309.21 ...........................................
1309.22 ...........................................
1309.31 ...........................................
1309.33 ...........................................
1309.40 ...........................................
1309.41 ...........................................
1309.43 ...........................................
1309.52 ...........................................
1309.53 ...........................................
1310.2 .............................................
1310.3 .............................................
1310.10 ...........................................
1310.14 ...........................................
1310.15 ...........................................
1310.16 ...........................................
1310.17 ...........................................
1310.20 ...........................................
1310.21 ...........................................
1310.22 ...........................................
1310.23 ...........................................
1305
1304.11
1304.12
1304.13
1304.14
1304.15
1304.16
1302.60
1305
1302.101, 1302.61, 1302.63, 1303.75
1302.12, 1302.13
1302.33, 1302.42, 1302.34, 1302.33
1302.47
1302.61, 1302.62, 1302.34
1303.40
1303.41
1305
1303.42, 1303.44, 1303.45, 1303.48, 1303.50
1305, 1303.51, 1303.48, 1303.50, 1303.46, 1303.47, 1303.48, 1303.55, 1303.3
1303.49, 1303.51
1303.44, 1303.47
1303.56
1303.53
1303.54
1303.43
1303.55
1303.56
1303.70
1305
1303.70, 1303.71, 1303.72
1303.71
1303.72
1303.72
1303.72
1303.73
1303.74
1303.75
1303.70
III. Background
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
a. Statutory Authority
This final rule is published under the
authority granted to the Secretary of the
Department of Health and Human
Services under sections 640, 641A, 642,
644, 645, 645A, 646, 648A, and 649 of
the Head Start Act, Public Law 97–35,
95 Stat. 499 (42 U.S.C. 9835, 9836a,
9837, 9839, 9840, 9840a, 9841, 9843a,
and 9844), as amended by the
Improving Head Start for School
Readiness Act of 2007, Public Law 110–
134, 121 Stat. 1363. In these sections,
the Secretary is required to establish
performance standards for Head Start
and Early Head Start programs, as well
as federal administrative procedures.
Specifically, the Act requires the
Secretary to ‘‘. . . modify, as necessary,
program performance standards by
regulation applicable to Head Start
agencies and programs. . .’’ and
explicitly directs a number of
modifications, including ‘‘scientifically
based and developmentally appropriate
education performance standards
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
related to school readiness that are
based on the Head Start Child Outcomes
Framework’’ and to ‘‘consult with
experts in the fields of child
development, early childhood
education, child health care, family
services . . ., administration, and
financial management, and with persons
with experience in the operation of
Head Start programs.’’ 10 Not only did
the Act mandate such significant
revisions, there was also bipartisan and
bicameral agreement in Congress that its
central purpose was to update and raise
the education standards and practices in
Head Start programs.11 12 As such, these
program performance standards
substantially build upon and improve
the standards related to the education of
children in Head Start programs.
10 See
section 42 U.S.C. 9836A (a)(1) and (2).
https://beta.congress.gov/crec/2007/11/14/
CREC-2007-11-14-pt1-PgH13876-4.pdf.
12 See https://beta.congress.gov/crec/2007/11/14/
CREC-2007-11-14-pt1-PgS14375-2.pdf.
11 See
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
b. Purpose of This Rule
This rule meets the statutory
requirements Congress put forth in its
2007 bipartisan reauthorization of Head
Start and addresses Congress’s mandate
that called for the Secretary to review
and revise the Head Start Program
Performance Standards.13 Program
performance standards are the
foundation upon which Head Start
programs design and deliver
comprehensive, high-quality
individualized services to support the
school readiness of children from lowincome families. They set forth
requirements local grantees must meet
to support the cognitive, social,
emotional, and healthy development of
children from birth to age five. They
encompass requirements to provide
education, health, mental health,
nutrition, and family and community
engagement services, as well as rules for
local program governance and aspects of
federal administration of the program.
13 See https://beta.congress.gov/crec/2007/11/14/
CREC-2007-11-14-pt1-PgS14375-2.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
61304
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Program performance standards in this
final rule build upon field knowledge
and experience to codify best practices
and ensure Head Start programs deliver
high-quality services to the children and
families they serve.
This final rule strengthens program
standards so that all children and
families receive high-quality services
that will have a stronger impact on child
development and outcomes and family
well-being. The program performance
standards set higher standards for
curriculum, staff development, and
program duration, all based on research
and effective practice, while
maintaining Head Start’s core values of
family engagement, parent leadership,
and providing important comprehensive
services to our nation’s neediest
children. At the same time, the final
rule makes program requirements easier
for current and future program leaders
to understand and reduces
administrative burden so that Head Start
directors can focus on delivering highquality early learning programs that
help put children onto a path of success.
c. Rulemaking and Comment Processes
We sought extensive input to develop
this final rule. We began the rulemaking
process with consultations, listening
sessions, and focus groups with Head
Start staff, parents, and program
administrators, along with child
development and subject matter experts,
early childhood education program
leaders, and representatives from Indian
tribes, migrant and seasonal
communities, and other constituent
groups. We heard from tribal leaders at
our annual tribal consultations. We
studied the final report of the
Secretary’s Advisory Committee on
Head Start Research. We consulted with
national organizations and agencies
with particular expertise and
longstanding interests in early
childhood education. In addition, we
analyzed the types of technical
assistance requested by and provided to
Head Start agencies and programs. We
reviewed findings from monitoring
reports and gathered information from
programs and families about the
circumstances of populations Head Start
serves. We considered advances in
research-based practices with respect to
early childhood education and
development, and the projected needs of
expanding Head Start services. We also
drew upon the expertise of federal
agencies and staff responsible for related
programs in order to obtain relevant
data and advice on how to promote
quality across all Head Start settings and
program options. We reviewed the
studies on developmental outcomes and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
assessments for young children and on
the workforce by the National Academy
of Sciences.14 15 We also reviewed the
standards and performance criteria
established by state Quality Rating and
Improvement Systems, national
organizations, and policy experts in
early childhood development, health,
safety, maternal health, and related
fields.
We published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) on June 19, 2015 to
solicit comments from the public. We
extended the notice of proposed
rulemaking comment period 30 days
past our original deadline to September
17, 2015, to allow for more feedback
from parents, grantees, and the Head
Start community in general. We
received, analyzed, and considered
approximately 1,000 public comments
to develop this final rule. Commenters
included Head Start parents, staff, and
management; national, regional, and
state Head Start associations;
researchers; early childhood, health,
and parent organizations; policy think
tanks; philanthropic foundations;
Members of Congress; and other
interested parties.
d. Overview of Major Changes From the
NPRM
The public comments addressed a
wide range of issues. We made many
changes to the program performance
standards in response to those
comments, which range from minor to
significant. The most significant
changes fall under several categories:
Service duration, the central and critical
role of parents in Head Start, staff
qualifications to support high-quality,
comprehensive service delivery, and
health promotion.
First, we made changes to this final
rule in response to the many public
comments we received on the proposal
to increase the duration of services
children receive in Head Start. The
changes to the service duration
requirements in the final rule reflect
concerns about local flexibility and
access to Head Start for low-income
children and their families. Instead of
requiring all Head Start center-based
programs to operate for at least 6 hours
per day and 180 days per year as
proposed in the NPRM, we changed the
requirement to a minimum of 1,020
annual hours of planned class
operations, which grantees will phase in
14 National Academy of Sciences (October, 2008)
Early Childhood Assessment: Who, What, How.
Washington, DC.
15 National Academy of Sciences (April, 2015)
Transforming the Workforce for Children Birth
through Age 8: A Unifying Foundation. Washington,
DC.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
for all of their center-based slots over
five years. Similarly for Early Head
Start, we changed the requirement in
the NPRM for center-based programs to
operate at least 6 hours per day and 230
days per year to 1,380 annual hours in
this rule, and allow two years for
programs to plan and implement this
increase in service duration. These
requirements balance the importance of
increasing service duration with
allowing greater local flexibility and
more time for communities to adapt and
potential funding to be secured.
Research supports the importance of
longer preschool duration in achieving
meaningful child outcomes and
preparing children for success in
school.16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Shorter
preschool programs may not have as
much time to adequately support strong
early learning outcomes for children
and provide necessary comprehensive
services.24 25 26 In addition, the long
16 Robin, K.B., Frede, E.C., Barnett, W.S. (2006.)
NIEER Working Paper—Is More Better? The Effects
of Full-Day vs Half-Day Preschool on Early School
Achievement. NIEER.
17 Votruba-Drzal, E., Li-Grining, C.P., &
Maldonado-Carreno, C. (2008). A developmental
perspective on full- versus part-day kindergarten
and children’s academic trajectories through fifth
grade. Child Development, 79, 957–978.
18 Lee, V.E., Burkam, D.T., Ready, D.D.,
Honigman, J., & Meisels, S.J. (2006). Full-day vs.
half-day kindergarten: In which program do
children learn more? American Journal of
Education, 112, 163–208.
19 Li, W. (2012). Effects of Head Start hours on
children’s cognitive, pre-academic, and behavioral
outcomes: An instrumental variable analysis.
Presented at Fall 2012 Conference of the
Association for Public Policy Analysis and
Management.
20 Heckman, J.J., Moon, S.H., Pinto, R., Savelyev,
P.A., & Yavitz, A. (2010). The rate of return to the
HighScope Perry Preschool Program. Journal of
Public Economics, 94, 114–128.
21 Walters, C.R. (2015). Inputs in the Production
of Early Childhood Human Capital: Evidence from
Head Start, American Economic Journal: Applied
Economics, 7(4), 76–102.
22 Wasik, B. & Snell, E. (2015). Synthesis of
Preschool Dosage: Unpacking How Quantity,
Quality and Content Impacts Child Outcomes.
Temple University, Philadelphia, PA.
23 Yoshikawa, H., Weiland, C., Brooks-Gunn, J.,
Burchinal, M.R., Espinosa, L.M., Gormley, W.T.,
Ludwig, J., Magnuson, K.A., Phillips, D., & Zaslow,
M.J. (2013). Investing in Our Future: The Evidence
Base on Preschool Education. Policy Brief.
Foundation for Child Development.
24 DeCicca, P. (2007). Does full-day kindergarten
matter? Evidence from the first two years of
schooling. Economics of Education Review, 26(1),
67–82.; Cryan, J.R., Sheehan, R., Wiechel, J., &
Bandy-Hedden, I. G. (1992). Success outcomes of
full-day kindergarten: More positive behavior and
increased achievement in the years after. Early
Childhood Research Quarterly, 7(2), 187–203.
25 Lee, V.E., Burkam, D.T., Ready, D.D.,
Honigman, J., & Meisels, S.J. (2006). Full-Day versus
Half-Day Kindergarten: In Which Program Do
Children Learn More? American Journal of
Education, 112(2), 163–208.
26 Walston, J.T., and West, J. (2004). Full-day and
Half-day Kindergarten in the United States:
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
summer break in most Head Start
programs likely results in summer
learning loss that undermines gains
children make during the program
year.27 28 29 Furthermore, part-day
programs can undermine parents’ job
search, job training, and employment
opportunities.
In the NPRM, we proposed to increase
the positive impact of Head Start
programs serving three- to five-year-olds
by increasing the minimum hours and
days of operation and to codify longstanding interpretation of continuous
services for programs that serve infants
and toddlers, in concert with increasing
standards for educational quality.
Specifically, the NPRM proposed to
require programs to serve three- to fiveyear-olds for at least 6 hours per day
and 180 days per year and to require
programs to serve infants and toddlers
for a minimum of 6 hours per day and
230 days per year. Our proposal was
consistent with research demonstrating
the necessity of adequate instructional
time to improve child outcomes and
aligned with recommendations from the
Secretary’s Advisory
Committee.30 31 32 33 34 35 However,
Findings from the Early Childhood Longitudinal
Study, Kindergarten Class of 1998–99 (NCES 2004–
078). U.S. Department of Education, National
Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC:
U.S. Government Printing Office.
27 Allington, R.L. & McGill-Franzen, A. (2003).
The Impact of Summer Setback on the Reading
Achievement Gap. The Phi Delta Kappan, 85(1),
68–75.; Fairchild, R. & Noam, G. (Eds.) (2007).
Summertime: Confronting Risks, Exploring
Solutions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Wiley.
28 Downey, D.B., von Hippel, P.T. & Broh, B.A.
(2004). Are Schools the Great Equalizer? Cognitive
Inequality During the Summer Months and the
School Year. American Sociological Review, 69(5),
613–635.
29 Benson, J., & Borman, G.D. (2010). Family,
Neighborhood, and School Settings Across Seasons:
When Do Socioeconomic Context and Racial
Composition Matter for the Reading Achievement
Growth of Young Children? Teacher’s College
Record, 112(5), 1338–1390.
30 Advisory Committee on Head Start Research
and Evaluation: Final Report. (2012). Washington,
DC: Office of Head Start, Administration for
Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services.
31 Curenton, S.M., Justice, L.M., Zucker, T.A., &
McGinty, A.S. (2014). Language and literacy
curriculum and instruction. Chapter 15 in in
Handbook of Response to Intervention in Early
Childhood, Buysee, V., & Peisner-Feinberg, E.
(Eds.). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing.
32 Ginsburg, H.P., Ertle, B., & Presser, A.L. (2014).
Math curriculum and instruction for young
children. Chapter 16 in Handbook of Response to
Intervention in Early Childhood, Buysee, V., &
Peisner-Feinberg, E. (Eds.). Baltimore: Paul H.
Brookes Publishing.
33 Justice, L.M., Mcginty, A., Cabell, S.Q., Kilday,
C.R., Knighton, K., & Huffman, G. (2010). Language
and literacy curriculum supplement for
preschoolers who are academically at risk: A
feasibility study. Language, Speech, and Hearing
Services in Schools, 41, 161–178.
34 Ginsburg, H.P., Ertle, B., & Presser, A.L. (2014).
Math curriculum and instruction for young
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
though the research is clear that longer
duration matters, there is no clarity on
an exact threshold or combination of
hours and days needed to achieve
positive child outcomes. Therefore, in
response to a significant number of
public comments on the NPRM,
including comments from the national,
state, and regional Head Start
associations, the final rule defines full
school day and full school year services
as 1,020 annual hours for Head Start
programs and defines continuous
services as 1,380 annual hours for Early
Head Start programs, instead of setting
a minimum number of hours per day
and days per year for each program.
These adjusted requirements will give
programs more flexibility to design their
program schedules to better meet
children and community needs as well
as align with local school district
calendars, where appropriate.
To further address the comments
about service duration and ensure a
smooth transition for children and
families, the final rule also includes a
staggered approach to increasing service
duration for Head Start preschoolers
over the next five years. This gradual
transition will allow programs more
time to plan and implement changes
while also increasing families’ access to
full school day Head Start services and
ensuring more children receive the
high-quality early learning services to
help them arrive at kindergarten ready
to succeed. The final rule also gives the
Secretary the authority to reduce the
proportion of each grantee’s centerbased slots required to operate for a full
school day and full school year if the
Secretary determines that such a
reduction is needed to avert a
substantial reduction in slots. We
believe the requirements in the final
rule strike an appropriate balance
between setting the policy research
demonstrates will best support positive
outcomes for children and families,
while minimizing reduction in the
number of children and families Head
Start can serve.
Second, we received comments that
expressed concern that the proposed
changes to family engagement services
and governance would result in a
reduction in emphasis on family
engagement processes, parent
leadership, and parent influence on
program policy. This was not our intent.
children. Chapter 16 in Handbook of Response to
Intervention in Early Childhood, Buysee, V., &
Peisner-Feinberg, E. (Eds.). Baltimore: Paul H.
Brookes Publishing.
35 Clements, D.H., & Sarama, J., (2008).
Experimental evaluation of the effects of a researchbased preschool mathematics curriculum. American
Educational Research Journal, 45(2), 443–494.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61305
The intent of the NPRM was for the
family engagement standards to
incorporate the changes made to
governance in the 2007 reauthorization
and align with the groundbreaking work
Head Start has led through the
development of the Parent, Family, and
Community Engagement Framework.
Family engagement has always been at
the foundation of Head Start, and as
such, the final rule retains many of the
proposed improvements to family
services that integrate research-based
practices and provide greater local
flexibility to help programs better meet
family needs. However, given the
perception that the changes would limit
the role of parents and families in Head
Start, the final rule includes several
changes to more effectively reflect and
maintain the important role of Head
Start parents in leading Head Start
programs, as well as the importance of
family engagement to the growth and
success of Head Start children.
Specifically, we restore a requirement
for parent committees, maintain and
strengthen family partnership services
(including goal setting), and strengthen
the requirements for impasse
procedures to make it clear that the
policy council plays a leadership role in
the administration of programs, rather
than functioning in an advisory
capacity. It is our expectation that the
revisions to the final rule will ensure all
grantees, programs, and parents
understand the foundational role
parents of Head Start children play in
shaping the program at the local and
national level.
Third, this final rule includes several
changes in response to comments that
suggested Head Start should use the
revision of the program performance
standards to set a higher bar for the
delivery of quality comprehensive
services. Specifically, this final rule
includes a greater emphasis on staff
qualifications and competencies for
health, disabilities, and family services
managers, as well as staff who work
directly with children and families in
the family partnership process. The
qualification requirements represent
minimum credentials we believe are
critical to ensuring high-quality
services. However, because we also
recognize the important role of
experience and community connections
for such staff, these requirements are
only for newly hired staff and, in some
cases, give programs the flexibility to
support staff in obtaining the credentials
within 18 months of hire.
In response to public comments that
the NPRM was not strong enough in
addressing some serious public health
issues, this final rule includes changes
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
61306
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
that place a greater emphasis on certain
health concerns, including childhood
obesity prevention, health and
developmental consequences of tobacco
products and exposure to lead and
support for mental health and social and
emotional well-being. Given the
prevalence of childhood obesity across
the nation, especially among lowincome children, we maintained
important health and nutrition
requirements and made specific changes
to ensure Head Start actively engage in
its prevention in the classroom and
through the family partnership process.
Given the serious health and
developmental consequences of
children’s exposure to tobacco products,
including second and third hand smoke,
and to lead, we have explicitly required
that programs offer parents
opportunities to learn about these health
risks and safety practices they can
employ in their homes. We significantly
strengthened the breadth and clarity on
the requirements for programs to use
mental health consultants to ensure
Head Start programs are supporting
children’s mental health and social and
emotional well-being. The final rule
includes new provisions in the
requirements for health, education, and
family engagement services that elevate
the role of Head Start programs in
addressing these public health
problems.
Additionally, through ongoing tribal
consultations and the public comment
process, we received important feedback
from the American Indian and Alaska
Native community. We made a number
of changes specifically related to
American Indian and Alaska Native
programs based on these public
comments and the unique and
important sovereign relations with tribal
governments. We added a new
provision that for the first time makes it
explicit that programs serving American
Indian and Alaska Native children may
integrate efforts to preserve, revitalize,
restore, or maintain tribal language into
their education services. We also
clarified that, due to tribal sovereignty,
American Indian and Alaska Native
programs only need to consider whether
or not they will participate in early
childhood systems and activities in the
state in which they operate.
In addition to these changes, the final
rule maintains numerous changes
proposed in the NPRM to strengthen
program performance standards so all
children and families receive highquality services that will improve child
outcomes and family well-being. We
maintained and made important
changes to strengthen service delivery.
For example, we updated the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
prioritization criteria for selection and
recruitment; made improvements to
promote attendance; prohibited
expulsion for challenging behaviors;
strengthened services for children who
are dual language learners (DLLs); and
ensured critical supports for children
experiencing homelessness or in foster
care. Throughout the final rule we have
made changes in response to public
comments to make language clearer or
more focused on outcomes rather than
processes.
IV. Discussion of General Comments on
the Final Rule
We received approximately 1,000
public comments on the NPRM with
many commenters supporting our
overall approach to revising the Head
Start Program Performance Standards.
Commenters appreciated our
reorganization and streamlining, and
agreed this made the standards more
transparent and easier to understand.
Commenters generally supported our
approach to systems-based standards
that are more focused on outcomes and
less prescriptive and process-laden.
They did note that how OHS monitored
these standards would affect their
implementation and impact.
Commenters also appreciated our
research-based approach. They noted
our education and child development
standards focused on the elements most
important for supporting strong child
outcomes. Commenters supported
standards in the NPRM to improve
services to children who are DLLs and
their families. Commenters also
supported our emphasis on reducing
barriers and improving services to
children experiencing homelessness and
children in foster care. Overall,
commenters agreed our proposal would
improve program quality, clarify
expectations, and reduce burden on
programs.
We received a range of comments on
our proposal to increase the minimum
service duration for Head Start and
Early Head Start programs. Some
commenters supported the proposal to
increase duration, citing the research
base and its importance to achieving
strong child outcomes. Many
commenters stated that without
sufficient funds, this would lead to a
reduction in the number of children and
families Head Start served and this
would be an unacceptable outcome.
Other commenters raised concern or
opposition for a variety of other reasons.
We discuss and respond to these
concerns in detail our discussion of part
1302, subpart B.
Many commenters were concerned
that the NPRM overall reflected a
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
reduced commitment to the role of
parents in Head Start. They also pointed
to specific proposals in different
subparts and sections, which they stated
contributed to a diminished role for
parents. It was not our intent to
diminish the role of parents in the Head
Start program, and we have revised
provisions in the final rule to ensure our
intent for parent engagement is
appropriately conveyed. We believe
parent engagement is foundational to
Head Start and essential to achieving
Head Start’s mission to help children
succeed in school and beyond. We
address specific comments on parent
involvement and engagement and our
responses in the discussions of the
relevant sections.
Many commenters believed there
were excessive references to the Act.
They asked that the final regulation
translate the references to the Act with
specific language or brief excerpts from
the Act. We maintained the same
approach as we proposed in the NPRM
to reference the provisions in the Act so
that the regulation will not become
obsolete if the provisions in the Act
change. However, we intend to issue a
training and technical assistance
document that integrates language from
the Act into the same document as the
program performance standards to
address commenters’ interest in having
a single document.
We also received other general
comments or comments not tied to a
specific section or provision of the rule.
For example, some commenters offered
general support for the Head Start
program and noted it was important for
Head Start to continue. One commenter
thought we should have included
examples of excellent Head Start
programs. Commenters stated their
overall opposition to the Head Start
program or the NPRM as a whole, and
others did not want Head Start program
to continue to receive funding.
Commenters stated that services for
DLLs were emphasized too heavily in
the regulation or that the standards for
DLLs were too prescriptive. We believe
DLLs are an appropriate priority in the
regulation because the provisions reflect
requirements in the Act and because it
is important programs effectively serve
DLLs because they are a rapidly growing
part of both Head Start and the broader
United States population. Commenters
also offered specific suggestions on
ways to clarify, enhance, or add
language relevant to serving culturally
and linguistically diverse children and
families, including children who are
DLLs throughout the NPRM. We
incorporated some of the suggestions
into the final rule but felt some were
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
already adequately covered while others
were not feasible to include in
regulation. We discuss these comments
as appropriate in the relevant sections of
the preamble.
Commenters also pointed out
technical problems, such as incorrect
cross references, typographical errors, or
small inconsistencies in related
provisions. We corrected these errors
and made other needed technical
changes, including edits to ensure
descriptive titles throughout the final
rule. Commenters also requested that we
update existing data collections to
account for changes in the program
performance standards. As we make
changes to the Head Start Program
Information Report (PIR) and other data
collections we sponsor, we will
consider the final rule, but this is not a
regulatory issue.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
V. Discussion of Section by Section
Comments on the Final Rule
We received many comments about
changes we proposed to specific
sections in the regulation. Below, we
identify each section, summarize the
comments, and respond to them
accordingly.
Program Governance; Part 1301
This part describes program
governance requirements for Head Start
agencies. Program governance in Head
Start refers to the formal structure in
place ‘‘for the oversight of quality
services for Head Start children and
families and for making decisions
related to program design and
implementation’’ as outlined in section
642(c) of the Act. The Act requires this
structure include a governing body and
a policy council, or a policy committee
at the delegate level. These groups have
a critical role in oversight, design and
implementation of Head Start and Early
Head Start programs. The governing
body is the entity legally and fiscally
responsible for the program. The policy
council is responsible for the direction
of the program and must be made up
primarily of parents of currently
enrolled children. Parent involvement
in program governance reflects the
fundamental belief, present since the
inception of Project Head Start in 1965,
that parents must be involved in
decision-making about the nature and
operation of the program for Head Start
to be successful in bringing about
substantial change.36
We revised previous program
governance requirements primarily to
conform to the Act. We received many
36 See Federal Register, 40 FR 27562, June 30,
1975.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
comments on part 1301. Below we
discuss these comments and our
rationale for any changes to the
regulatory text in this subpart.
General Comments
Comment: Many commenters offered
reactions to part 1301. Commenters
expressed general support for the
requirements, indicating they reflect the
statutory requirements, improve
transparency, maintain the important
role of parents, and increase local
flexibility.
Other commenters stated this part was
unnecessarily complicated for parents,
policy council members, and staff to
follow as presented in the NPRM. Many
commenters suggested all governance
requirements be clearly stated in the
rule rather than referenced with
statutory citation in order to improve
clarity and reduce burden for programs,
parents, and others.
Response: As noted previously, we
maintained the approach to cross
reference to the Act so that the
regulations will not become obsolete if
the provisions in the Act change.
However, we plan to issue a training
and technical assistance document that
incorporates the language from the Act
with the regulatory language.
Comment: Some commenters
suggested we failed to address the role
of shared governance in the Head Start
program, and that we relied too heavily
on the Act, which is vague and
ambiguous, and leaves grantees
wondering about the proper balance
between the role and responsibility of
the governing body and the policy
council. These commenters ask that we
include more specificity about shared
governance in the final rule.
Response: We continue to believe the
best approach is to align the governance
requirements in the rule with the
language and requirements specified in
the Act. The statutory language has
directed the governance of Head Start
programs since it was passed in 2007
and there have not been any significant
problems with this approach.
Comment: Commenters asked that we
include ‘‘Tribal Council’’ wherever the
phrase ‘‘governing body’’ occurs.
Response: We do not believe this is
necessary, since the tribal council is
acting as the governing body.
Section 1301.1 Purpose
This section reiterates the
requirement in section 642(c) of the Act
regarding the structure and purpose of
program governance. The structure as
outlined in the Act includes a governing
body, a policy council, and, for a
delegate agency, a policy committee. We
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61307
restored the requirement from the
previous performance standards that
programs also have parent committees
as part of the governance structure, and
we discuss this requirement in more
detail in § 1301.4. This section
emphasizes that the governing body has
legal and fiscal responsibility to
administer and oversee the program,
and the policy council is responsible for
the direction of the program including
program design and operations and
long- and short-term planning goals and
objectives.
Comment: Commenters recommended
that we revise the language in this
section to state clearly that each agency
must establish a policy council.
Response: We proposed in the NPRM
to use the term ‘‘policy group’’ to
encompass the policy council and the
policy committee more concisely. We
defined ‘‘policy group’’ to mean ‘‘the
policy council and policy committee at
the delegate level.’’ After further
consideration and in response to
comments, we reverted to using ‘‘policy
council and policy committee at the
delegate level.’’ It is lengthier but
clearer. Instead of introducing a new
term, we are remaining consistent with
the Act.
Comment: Some commenters raised
concerns with the policy council being
responsible for the direction of the Head
Start program. Commenters stated it was
unclear how the policy council could be
effective in that role. Others said both
the governing body and the policy
council should be responsible for the
direction of the program or that this
responsibility should rest solely with
the governing body.
Response: We maintained the
language proposed in the NPRM
because it is the statutory requirement
in the Act that the policy council is
responsible for the direction of the Head
Start and Early Head Start programs.
Section 1301.2 Governing Body
In the NPRM, this section described
training requirements; however, we
moved training requirements to § 1301.5
and this section now pertains to the
governing body.
This section includes requirements
for the composition of the governing
body and its duties and responsibilities.
It aligns with the Act’s detailed
requirements for the composition and
responsibilities of the governing body.
This section requires governing body
members use ongoing monitoring
results, data from school readiness
goals, the information specified in
section 642(d)(2) of the Act, and the
information in § 1302.102 to conduct
their responsibilities. Paragraph (c)
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
61308
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
permits a governing body, at its own
discretion, to establish advisory
committees to oversee key
responsibilities related to program
governance, consistent with section
642(c)(1)(E)(iv)(XI) of the Act. Below we
address comments and requests for
clarification.
Comment: We received some
comments on the governing body’s
duties and responsibilities that
addressed the duties and
responsibilities of both the governing
body and the policy council together.
Some commenters requested we provide
a clear illustration of the responsibilities
and powers of the governing body and
policy council by including a chart or
diagram. Commenters also provided
specific suggestions for revisions, such
as: Add language from the previous
performance standards on the duties
and responsibilities of the governing
body and policy council; remove
language specific to ongoing monitoring
and school readiness goals, as this is
addressed in another section; and
require that program goals inform the
governing body and policy council.
Response: We did not include a
diagram or chart in this rule because we
believe the governance provisions in the
rule and in the Act are clear. In response
to comments, we added to paragraph
(b)(2) a cross-reference to the
requirement in § 1302.102 related to
establishing and achieving program
goals. By adding this cross reference, we
are requiring governing bodies to use
this information to conduct their
responsibilities.
Comment: Some commenters offered
support and raised concerns about the
governing body’s duties and
responsibilities as laid out in paragraph
(b). Some commenters supported the
requirement that the governing body use
ongoing monitoring results and school
readiness goals to conducts it
responsibilities, in addition to what is
required in section 642(d)(2) of the Act.
Some commenters suggested we
enhance or clarify language about when
programs needed to report to the
responsible HHS official. Commenters
also requested clarification about the
governing body’s responsibility to
establish, adopt, and update Standards
of Conduct, including reporting any
violations to the regional office and
about self-reporting requirements for
immediate deficiencies.
Response: The Act specifies that the
governing body is responsible for
establishing, adopting, and periodically
updating written standards of conduct,
so we believe this is addressed because
we incorporated this requirement from
the Act. We revised § 1302.90(a) to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
clarify the role of the governing body in
standards of conduct, which we had
inadvertently left out of that standard.
We did not revise the requirement about
self-reporting because it is addressed in
§ 1302.102.
Comment: Many commenters stated
the proposed rule was unclear about
conflicts of interest. Commenters
requested clarification about this
provision and recommended adding
language that mirrors the IRS Form 1023
Instructions, Appendix A, Sample
Conflicts of Interest Policy.
Response: We did not make changes
to this language. There is guidance in
the nonprofit community about the
various ways to structure and apply a
conflict of interest policy. If an agency
wants to adopt the IRS rules, that would
be one option, but it might not be the
right option for all programs.
Additionally, the governing body is
required to develop a written conflict of
interest policy, which can provide
greater clarity than the overarching
federal requirements.
Comment: We received comments on
advisory committees described in
paragraph (c). Some commenters
requested additional clarification,
including who the advisory board is and
what groups should be included and
whether the governing body may
establish more than one advisory
committee. Others commenters
suggested revisions to the advisory
committee’s role advisory committee
with respect to the governing body. For
example, commenters stated that all
areas of program governance, especially
supervision of program management,
should be left in the hands of the Board
of Directors or the established governing
body. Some commenters noted that
advisory committees should not make
decisions about program governance
because that is not advisory in nature.
Other commenters made specific
suggestions for the language related to
advisory committees, such as
eliminating the composition
requirements, eliminating the
requirement that advisory committees
be established in writing, and
differentiating between advisory
committees that act as sub-boards versus
other advisory committees.
Response: To improve clarity, we
revised and streamlined paragraph (c).
We clarified that governing bodies may
establish one or more advisory
committees. We removed some of the
more prescriptive requirements, such as
written procedures or composition
requirements, and explicitly required
that when the advisory committee is
overseeing key responsibilities related
to program governance, it is the
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
responsibility of the governing body to
establish the structure, communication
and oversight in a way that assures the
governing body retains its legal and
fiscal responsibility for the Head Start
agency. This allows the governing body
flexibility to structure their advisory
committee but requires that they retain
legal and fiscal responsibility for the
Head Start agency. We also require the
governing body to notify the responsible
HHS official of its intent to establish
such an advisory committee.
Section 1301.3 Policy Council and
Policy Committee
In this section, we retain a number of
requirements from the previous program
standards and included requirements to
conform to the Act. In paragraph (a), we
retain the requirement for agencies to
establish and maintain a policy council
at the agency level and a policy
committee at the delegate level,
consistent with section 642(c)(2) and (3)
of the Act. Paragraph (b) outlines the
composition of policy councils, and
policy committees at the delegate level,
consistent with the Act. Paragraph (c)
outlines the duties and responsibilities
for the policy council and the policy
committee to conform to the Act and is
largely unchanged from the NPRM.
Paragraph (d) addresses the term of
service for policy council and policy
committee members.
Comment: Commenters recommended
we include all of the statutory language
from section 642(c)(2)(A) of the Act in
this section, rather than summarizing
that the policy council has
responsibility for the direction of the
program. Another recommended the
policy committee at the delegate level
be renamed to ‘‘Policy Action
Committee’’ to eliminate programs from
using ‘‘PC’’ for both policy council and
policy committee.
Response: We did not revise the
concise reference to the policy council
having responsibility for the direction of
the program, although the Act’s more
expansive language is still part of the
requirement. We maintain the
terminology as it exists in the Act and
did not rename ‘‘policy committee’’ at
the delegate level.
Comment: Commenters supported the
standard in paragraph (b) to require
proportional representation on the
policy council by program option but
also recommended revisions and asked
for additional clarification. For example,
commenters requested clarification on
what proportional representation means
and how to implement it within
different program types.
Other commenters expressed support
for the requirement that the majority of
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
policy council members be parents but
requested that language be added to the
rule, rather than just citing the Act.
Others requested clarification on how
appropriate composition will be
maintained and consistent with the Act
when parents drop out.
Response: We revised paragraph (b) to
clarify that parents of children currently
enrolled in ‘‘each’’ program option must
be proportionately represented on the
policy council or the policy committee.
We believe programs should have the
flexibility to specify in their policies
and procedures how the composition
requirements will be maintained when
parents drop out and did not make
revisions to address this.
Comment: Commenters expressed
disagreement with language in the
preamble to the NPRM stating, ‘‘We
propose to remove current
§ 1304.50(b)(6) which excludes staff
from serving on policy councils or
policy committees with some
exceptions. . .’’. Commenters expressed
confusion and stated this language has
been interpreted to mean staff would be
allowed to participate as a policy
council or policy committee member.
Though one commenter expressed
support for allowing staff to serve on the
policy council because they have field
experience and skills to make informed
decision, the commenters generally
stated it is a conflict of interest and
could inhibit parent driven decisionmaking.
Response: In the NPRM, we proposed
to remove § 1304.50(b)(6), which
excludes staff from serving on policy
councils or policy committees with
some exceptions, because it is
superseded by the Act. In other words,
the conflict of interest language in the
Act, as well as the Act’s clarity on who
can serve on the policy council, means
we no longer need the prohibition on
staff serving on policy council or policy
committee. However, commenters noted
the exception related to substitute
teachers is helpful and clarifying for
programs. Therefore, we added the
majority of the language on this topic
from the previous performance
standards back into paragraph (b)(2) to
ensure clarity.
Comment: Commenters stated the Act
gives the policy council responsibilities
outside its scope of authority, and that
the final rule should be modified to
include language from the previous
regulation related to duties and
responsibilities. Commenters
recommended we instead should focus
the responsibilities of the policy council
on program issues.
Response: In the final rule, we
maintained the alignment with the Act
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
with respect to the duties and
responsibilities of the policy council.
We did not add the requested language
from the previous regulation because it
has been superseded by the Act.
Comment: Some commenters
requested that we clarify in the final
rule the role of the policy council in
hiring and terminating staff.
Response: We did not include a
specific provision on the role of policy
council in hiring and terminating
program staff because we rely on the
language in section 642(c)(2)(D)(vi) of
the Act.
Comment: Many commenters
supported allowing programs to
establish in their bylaws five one-year
terms for policy council members as
opposed to three. Commenters said the
change would support continuity,
increase understanding of the
complexities of the Head Start program
and regulation, and promote investment
in the policy council.
Some commenters opposed the option
of extending policy council terms from
three one-year terms to five. They stated
that five years is too long, that parents
may not have children in the program
for five years, and that a shorter term
would allow for more new members.
Response: We did not revise this
provision. This rule provides programs
the discretion to establish in their
bylaws the number of one-year terms of
policy council members up to five oneyear terms. Programs have the discretion
of setting a lower limit.
Comment: We received comments
about the term ‘‘reasonable expenses’’ in
paragraph (e). Commenters
recommended we add a definition of
‘‘reasonable expenses,’’ allow that all
participants on the policy council/
committee be reimbursed for
‘‘reasonable expenses,’’ and allow
agencies to develop their own policies
and procedures to determine eligibility
based on the need of their communities.
Response: We did not clarify the
definition of ‘‘reasonable’’ but allow
programs to make a determination. We
clarified that eligibility for the
reimbursement is only for low-income
members.
Section 1301.4 Parent Committees
Comment: We received many
comments about our proposal to remove
the requirement for the parent
committee. Some commenters
supported the proposal to remove the
parent committee requirement. They
emphasized that there are more
meaningful and inclusive ways to
engage parents that could allow for
individual program flexibility and
innovation. These commenters
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61309
suggested that the focus should instead
be on providing opportunities for
parents to learn about their children and
engage them in teaching and learning
and on family engagement outcomes.
Some commenters supported the
removal of the parent committee
requirement with reservations, but were
concerned about the challenges it would
pose for electing policy council
representatives, about the loss of the
benefits to parents previously derived
from participation in parent committees,
and about the perceived erosion of a
core philosophy of Head Start. Others
asked that the revised requirement
ensure a structure for representing
parent views and offering parents other
opportunities for engagement.
Many commenters opposed the
removal of parent committees.
Commenters urged that we reinstate the
parent committee requirement as it
existed in the previous standards. These
commenters stressed that parents are
foundational to Head Start and that
parent committees are a long-standing
cornerstone of the program. They stated
removing the requirement for parent
committees would weaken Head Start
parent engagement and diminish
parents’ role. Commenters noted that
parent committees stimulate parent
participation in the program, help
parents develop leadership, advocacy
and other useful skills, and are critical
to developing membership for policy
council. Commenters disagreed with our
statement in the NPRM that parent
committees do not work in all models,
such as Early Head Start—Child Care
Partnership (EHS–CCP) grantees, and
suggested we help these grantees learn
how to incorporate this valuable
experience for parents in order to infuse
a higher level of quality into child care
settings. Commenters were also
concerned that the removal of parent
committee would result in the loss of inkind contributions from parent
involvement.
Some commenters opposed the
removal of the parent committee
requirement and asked that we make
modifications or recommended
alternative language in the final rule if
the parent committee requirement is
removed. These commenters stated
similar concerns to those who requested
that we reinstate the requirement, but
made suggestions for the final rule, such
as to allow individual programs to
determine the design and structure of
parent committees, or to support
flexibility in local design of parent
committees and proposals for alternate
mechanisms to engage families. Some of
these commenters believed that parent
committees are not for all parents. These
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
61310
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
commenters asked that programs be
required to have a process in place that
ensures all parents of enrolled children
have local site opportunities to actively
share their ideas, that parents
understand the process for elections or
nominations to serve on the policy
council, and that a communication
system exist to share information
between parents attending local sites
and the policy council and governing
body.
Response: We restored a requirement
for a parent committee in this part and
in a new § 1301.4. We also note that a
parent committee is part of the formal
governance structure in § 1301.1. This
section clearly outlines the
requirements for a program in
establishing a parent committee and the
minimum requirements for parent
committees, which are consistent with
all of the substantive requirements from
the previous performance standards. We
maintain the requirement that a program
must establish a parent committee
comprised exclusively of parents of
currently enrolled children as early in
the program year as possible and that
the parent committee must be at the
center level for center-based programs
and at the local program level for other
program options. In addition, in
response to comments, we require
programs to ensure parents of currently
enrolled children understand the
process for elections to policy council or
policy committee or other leadership
roles. Also as suggested by commenters,
we allow programs flexibility within the
structure of parent committees to
determine the best methods and
strategies to engage families that are
most effective in their communities as
long as the parent committee carries out
specific minimum responsibilities. It
requires that parent committees (1)
advise staff in developing and
implementing local program policies,
activities, and services to ensure they
meet the needs of children and families,
and (2) participate in the recruitment
and screening of Early Head Start and
Head Start employees, both of which are
retained from the previous performance
standards. In response to comments we
have added a requirement that the
parent committee have a process for
communication with the policy council
and policy committee at the delegate
level.
Section 1301.5 Training
This section describes the training
requirements for the governing body,
advisory committee members, and the
policy council. It reflects section
642(d)(3) of the Act that requires
governing body and policy council
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
members to have appropriate training
and technical assistance to ensure they
understand the information they
received and can oversee and
participate in the agency’s programs
effectively. We moved this section from
§ 1301.2 in the NPRM to this placement
in the final rule to improve overall
clarity of part 1301. We discuss
comments and our responses below.
Comment: We received comments
that requested clarification or suggested
ways to improve clarity. We also
received comments that expressed
opposition for the requirement. For
example, commenters requested
clarification on what is considered
‘‘appropriate’’ training and what is
included in training. One commenter
requested clarification on the inclusion
of advisory committee members in the
training. Commenters recommended we
move this section out of § 1301.2, and
others recommended we improve clarity
by cross-referencing training
requirements in another section. Some
commenters opposed our requirement
that governing bodies be trained on the
standards because they thought it was
unrealistic to expect Boards to have
knowledge of all the operating standards
and it detracted from getting input from
governing bodies on program outcomes.
Response: We retained this
requirement because it is required by
the Act and because we believe
governing bodies cannot effectively
fulfill their program management
responsibilities unless they have an
understanding of the broader program
requirements. Since governing bodies
can choose to establish advisory
committees, we included advisory
committee members, who may be
different individuals than governing
body members, in this requirement.
To improve clarity, we moved these
standards from § 1301.2 to this section
so that it follows sections with the
requirements for all components of an
agency’s formal governance structure.
We revised the section to include a
cross reference to training requirements
in § 1302.12.
Section 1301.6 Impasse Procedures
This section on impasse procedures
was found in § 1301.5 in the NPRM and
is now § 1301.6 in the final rule. It
describes procedural requirements for
resolving disputes between an agency’s
governing body and policy council. We
received many comments on our
proposed impasse procedures. Many
commenters believed our proposed
impasse procedures weakened the role
of parents in the Head Start program.
They stated that we relegated the policy
council, the majority of which is
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
comprised of parents, to an advisory
role by allowing the governing body the
final decision when an impasse
remained unresolved. In response to
comments, we revised the impasse
procedures. A discussion of the
comments and our response is below.
Comment: Many commenters opposed
our proposal for the dispute resolution
and impasse procedures. Commenters
stated our impasse procedure proposal
contributed to a broader weakening of
the role of parents in Head Start because
it tilted the power balance toward the
governing body and away from the
policy council. They also stated that the
standards conflicted with other program
performance standards in this section
and requirements in the Act. For
example, they stated the proposal
conflicted with the requirement for
‘‘meaningful consultation and
collaboration about decisions of the
governing body and policy council.’’
Commenters stated that conflicts often
result from issues related to the
direction of the program, which is the
responsibility of the policy council.
These commenters suggested that the
proposed requirements amount to
capitulation to the will of the governing
body and are not actually impasse
procedures, in contradiction with the
Act’s requirement. Others commenters
noted further contradiction given the
standards would require the governing
body and policy council to work
together yet exclude the policy council
and allow the governing body to make
the final decision. Some commenters
stated that they embrace shared
governance and provided examples of
how the voice of parents has been
critical to their decision-making during,
for example, sequestration or previous
impasses. Commenters made
recommendations, such as adding
formal mediation, strengthening the
language related to ‘‘meaningful
consultation and collaboration about
decisions of the governing body and the
policy council,’’ referring to the impasse
procedures as a consensus-building
process, and establishing an
independent arbitrator or third party to
resolve disputes between the governing
body and policy council.
We also received comments
supporting the impasse procedures
proposed in the NPRM. Some of these
commenters stated that it is appropriate
for the governing body, since they bear
legal and fiscal responsibility, to make
the ultimate decisions on issues related
to the Head Start program after taking
into consideration the recommendations
of the policy council and policy
committee, if applicable. Further,
commenters asked for additional
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
clarification about our proposed
requirements, including the timeline for
resolution.
Response: For clarity, we included the
statutory language that requires
‘‘meaningful consultation and
collaboration about decisions of the
governing body and policy council,’’
and we maintained requirements from
the previous performance standards
about these bodies jointly establishing
written procedures for resolving internal
disputes. We revised the requirements
in this section to clarify the role of
policy councils in the governance of
Head Start programs, including
processes to resolve conflicts with the
governing body in a timely manner, and
we included more specificity about
what impasse procedures must include
in order to better articulate the balanced
process. In paragraph (b), we included
a new standard that requires that in the
event the decision-making process does
not result in a resolution of the impasse,
the governing body and policy council
must select a mutually agreeable third
party mediator and participate in a
formal process that leads to a resolution.
In paragraph (c), we require the
governing body and policy council to
select a mutually agreeable arbitrator,
whose decision will be final, if no
resolution resulted from mediation. Due
to tribal sovereignty, we excluded
American Indian and Alaska Native
programs from the requirement in
paragraph (c) to use an arbitrator.
Program Operations; Part 1302
Overview
In § 1302.1, we made a technical
change to remove paragraph (a) because
the content of this paragraph was
already included in the statutory
authority for this rule and for this part
and is therefore unnecessary to repeat
here. Therefore what was paragraph (b)
in the NPRM is an undesignated
paragraph in the final rule.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Eligibility, Recruitment. Selection,
Enrollment and Attendance; Subpart A
In this subpart, we combined all
previous requirements related to child
and family eligibility, and program
requirements for the recruitment,
selection, and enrollment of eligible
families. We updated these standards to
reflect new priorities in the Act,
including a stronger focus on children
experiencing homelessness and children
in foster care. We added new standards
to reflect the importance of attendance
for achieving strong child outcomes.
Further, we included new standards to
clarify requirements for children with
persistent and disruptive behavioral
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
issues as well as new standards to
support programs serving children from
diverse economic backgrounds, when
appropriate. Commenters supported our
reorganization of these requirements
and our emphasis on special
populations. Commenters were
particularly appreciative of the
standards throughout the section that
were designed to reduce barriers to the
participation of children experiencing
homelessness. We made technical
changes for improved clarity. We
discuss additional comments and our
responses below.
General Comments
Comment: Commenters recommended
adding language that specifically
encouraged the recruitment and
enrollment of children who are
culturally and linguistically diverse,
and/or prioritizing linguistically diverse
children for enrollment.
Response: We do not think it is
necessary to explicitly encourage
recruitment or prioritization of
culturally and linguistically diverse
children. Twenty-nine percent of Head
Start children come from homes where
a language other than English is the
primary language.37 Additionally, as
described in § 1302.11(b)(1)(i), the
community assessment requires
programs to examine the eligible
population in their service area,
including race, ethnicity, and languages
spoken. A program must then use this
information when it establishes
selection criteria and prioritization of
participants, as described in
§ 1302.14(a)(1).
Section 1302.10 Purpose
This section provides a general
overview of the content in this subpart.
We received no comments directly for
this section but made changes to be
consistent with revisions in § 1302.11.
Section 1302.11 Determining
Community Strengths, Needs, and
Resources
This section includes the
requirements for how programs define a
service area for their grant application
and the requirements for a community
assessment. We streamlined the
standards to improve clarity and reduce
bureaucracy. In addition, we eliminated
a prohibition on overlapping service
areas, added new data as required by the
Act for consideration in the community
assessment to ensure community needs
are met, and aligned the community
37 U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Administration for Children and Families
(2015). Office of Head Start Program Information
Report, 2014–2015. Washington, DC: Author.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61311
assessment to a program’s five-year
grant cycle. We also required that
programs consider whether they could
serve children from diverse economic
backgrounds in addition to the
program’s eligible funded enrollment in
order to support mixed-income service
delivery, which research suggests
benefits children’s early learning.38 39
Below, we summarize and respond to
the comments we received.
Comment: Many commenters opposed
or expressed concern about our proposal
to eliminate the prohibition on
overlapping service areas. For example,
commenters stated that overlapping
service areas will be confusing and will
cause conflict because of competition
between grantees. Many commenters
suggested we include a process for
mediation when there are disputes.
Commenters supported our decision to
remove the prohibition on overlapping
service areas.
Response: We believe removing the
prohibition on overlapping service areas
gives greater flexibility to local
programs in a manner that will benefit
the children and families they serve.
Grantees may request additional
guidance through the system of training
and technical assistance. Therefore, we
did not reinstate the prohibition on
overlapping service areas in this rule.
Comment: We received a few different
recommendations for additional criteria
for defining service area. For example,
many commenters recommended we
include parents’ job locations as part of
the service area.
Response: While the service area is
based on children’s residence, this rule,
as well as the previous regulation, is
silent on whether a program can enroll
a child that lives outside of the service
area if their parents work in that area.
We believe programs already have the
flexibility to determine whether a child
should be enrolled at a program closer
to a parent’s workplace and will clarify
any existing sub-regulatory guidance to
reflect this flexibility. We made no
changes to this provision.
Comment: We received suggestions
for paragraph (b)(1) to more explicitly
address the purpose and the goal of the
community needs assessment, to add
additional or change criteria to the data
(either on the five-year cycle or
annually), and to provide more
guidance on how programs should
38 Mashburn, A.J., Justice, L., M., Downer, J.T., &
Pianta, R.C. (2009). Peer effects on children’s
language achievement during pre-kindergarten.
Child Development, 80(3), 686–702.
39 Henry, G.T., & Rickman, D.K., (2007). Do peers
influence children’s skill development in
preschool? Economics of Education Review, 26(1),
100–112.
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
61312
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
obtain data for the community needs
assessment.
Response: We made changes to the
section title and clarified that the
community assessment should be
strengths-based. We think these
changes, together with using the full
name of the community assessment—
‘‘community wide strategic planning
and needs assessment’’—better reflect
the purpose of the assessment. We
revised paragraph (b)(1) to clarify that
this list is not exhaustive, and
reorganized the list to make it more
logically flow. We also revised
paragraph (b)(1)(ii) to also include
prevalent social or economic factors that
impact their well-being. We did not
believe additional data requirements
were necessary because programs
already have the flexibility to include
other relevant data in their community
assessments. We clarified in paragraph
(b)(1)(ii) that homelessness data should
be obtained in collaboration with
McKinney-Vento liaisons to the extent
possible, but it is important that all
programs consider the prevalence of
homelessness in their community,
however possible. The U.S. Interagency
Council on Homelessness has identified
data gaps in tribal communities on
young children experiencing
homelessness, so we recognize tribal
programs may need to utilize alternative
methods to ensure they fully consider
the prevalence of homelessness in their
communities.
Comment: We received comments
about our proposal in paragraph (b)(1) to
change the community assessment from
a three-year to a five-year timeline that
would align with a program’s five-year
grant cycle. Some commenters
supported this change because it
removed unnecessary burden on
programs. Commenters expressed
concern that communities change
rapidly and that five years is not
frequent enough to review community
needs.
Response: We think we strike the
right balance between ensuring
programs regularly assess and work to
meet their community needs through an
annual re-evaluation of particular
criteria described in paragraph (b)(2)
and § 1302.20(a)(2) and reduction of
undue burden through alignment of the
community assessment to the five-year
grant cycle. We made no revisions to
this timeline.
Comment: Many commenters
recommended we change the
requirement in paragraph (b)(2) that
programs must annually review and
update the community assessment to
reflect any significant changes to the
availability of publicly-funded full-day
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
pre-kindergarten. These commenters
expressed concern that public prekindergarten programs may not meet the
needs of at-risk families because they do
not offer a full spectrum of
comprehensive services. Commenters
offered specific suggestions for other
community demographics to be
considered in the annual review.
Response: Since the requirement to
conduct community assessments was
changed from every three years to every
five years, this provision was intended
to ensure programs annually capture
what may be quickly changing
demographic and policy landscape
characteristics in their community.
Emergence or expansion of publicly
funded pre-kindergarten may offer new
opportunities for partnerships and
collaborations or it may offer new
opportunities to extend the hours
children receive services. We retained
the standard that programs review and
update the annual assessment to reflect
any increase in the availability of
publicly-funded pre-kindergarten
including but not limited to ‘‘full-day’’
programs. In addition, we clarify that
this review and update should take into
account whether the pre-kindergarten
available meets the needs of the
population of the grantee serves. We
revised paragraph (b)(2) to also include
significant shifts in community
resources, because community
demographics was too narrow.
Comment: We received some
comments in support of our proposed
standard in paragraph (b)(3) for
programs to consider whether
characteristics of the community allow
them to operate classes with children
from diverse economic backgrounds.
These commenters noted research
demonstrates participation in mixedincome classes is beneficial to children
from low-income families and stated the
standard would support a broader
notion of innovative funding models.
We also received many comments
requesting additional guidance to
ensure this standard did not result in
fewer services for income eligible
children.
Response: The intent of this
requirement is for Head Start programs
to consider whether it is feasible to
implement a mixed-income delivery
model. Research finds such models to
be beneficial to the educational
outcomes of children from low-income
families.40 41 However, we revised this
40 Mashburn, A.J., Justice, L.M., Downer, J.T., &
Pianta, R.C. (2009). Peer effects on children’s
language achievement during pre-kindergarten.
Child Development, 80(3), 686–702.
41 Henry, G.T., & Rickman, D.K. (2007). Do peers
influence children’s skill development in
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
paragraph to clarify programs must not
enroll children from diverse economic
backgrounds if it would result in them
serving less than their eligible funded
enrollment. In addition, to both support
consideration of innovative funding
models and clarify our intent that
children funded through other sources
must not receive services instead of
children eligible for Head Start, we
revised paragraph (b)(3), and
§§ 1302.15(d) and 1302.18(b)(2).
Section 1302.12 Determining,
Verifying, and Documenting Eligibility
This section includes the process for
programs to determine, verify, and
document child and family eligibility
for Head Start programs. We reorganized
these requirements to clarify and better
reflect best practices in the field. We
also made technical and structural
changes to standards that caused
confusion in the field after publication
in February 2015 of the final rule on
eligibility, to eliminate duplication, and
to update terms such as replacing ‘‘landbase’’ with ‘‘service area.’’
Comment: Commenters suggested
changes to paragraph (a), which
provides an overview of the process to
determine, verify, and document
eligibility. Suggestions included a
recommendation to delineate more
specific conditions under which
alternative methods for eligibility
determination would be approved and
when in-person interviews would
always be required.
Response: We made one revision to
paragraph (a). We noted that telephone
interviews could be permitted when it
was more convenient for the family and
eliminated the need to document the
reason. Otherwise we made no revisions
as we think paragraph (a)(3) is broad
enough to provide flexibility and
encourage innovation at the local level.
Comment: Many commenters
expressed concern about the age
provisions in paragraph (b). For
example, some supported children
transitioning to Head Start as soon as
they turn three years old, whereas
others suggested children stay in Early
Head Start until the next program year.
Others suggested that transitions should
be based on developmental needs rather
than birthdays. Many commenters were
concerned about how the standards in
this paragraph and paragraph (j)
interacted with the allocation of funds
for Early Head Start-Child Care
Partnerships (EHS–CC Partnerships).
Specifically, commenters were
concerned that EHS–CC Partnerships
preschool? Economics of Education Review, 26(1),
100–112.
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
can serve children up to 48 months of
age for family child care, and paragraph
(b)(1) states a ‘‘child must be an infant
or a toddler younger than three years
old.’’
Response: The ages children are
eligible for Early Head Start are defined
by the Act and not subject to regulatory
change. The rule sets forth reasonable
flexibility for transitioning children to
Head Start or other early learning
programs when they turn three years of
age. Additional standards for this
transition are in subpart G. Thus, we
made no changes to provisions in this
section regarding children turning three
years of age. Further, the EHS–CC
Partnerships appropriation explicitly
allowed serving children up to 48
months old for family child care, which
supersedes regulatory language.
Comment: Commenters noted Head
Start eligibility in paragraph (b) should
not be tied to compulsory school
attendance because in some states that
would mean Head Start would have to
serve children up to age six or seven.
Response: It is clear from program
data that standard practice is that Head
Start programs serve children until they
are eligible for kindergarten. However,
the Act explicitly references eligibility
up to compulsory school age. In
addition, we think the final rule allows
flexibility in the very rare circumstances
it is needed. We made no revisions to
these provisions.
Comment: We received many
comments on eligibility requirements in
paragraphs (c), (d), (e), (f), and (g). For
example, commenters recommended
changes for income eligibility,
continuous eligibility between Early
Head Start and Head Start programs,
new groups for categorical eligibility,
and flexibility to reallocate funds at
program discretion between Early Head
Start and Head Start programs.
Commenters also recommended changes
in paragraph (j) of this section to
address continuous eligibility.
Commenters recommended we change
prioritization requirements.
Commenters also requested additional
clarification for some of the proposed
criteria, including on the definition of
public assistance and absence of child
care.
Response: Most suggestions for
amendments to eligibility would require
legislative action by Congress and
cannot be changed through regulation.
For other suggestions, we want to allow
local programs the flexibility in their
selection process to determine which
children and families are most in need.
Therefore, we made no revisions to
income eligibility, groups for categorical
eligibility, or prioritization
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
requirements. We made technical
changes in this section to clarify that
categorical eligibility is not a separate
term used for eligibility. In addition, we
made changes in paragraph (c)(1)(ii) to
clarify that families are eligible if the
child is receiving a Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
child-only payment. Finally we made
technical changes in paragraph (d)(1) to
correct the wording that implied
individuals were ineligible at 100–130%
of poverty. Programs may request
additional guidance through the system
of training and technical assistance.
Comment: Commenters recommended
modifying standards to allow programs
to participate in a community wide and/
or statewide recruitment and intake
processes.
Response: Programs already have the
flexibility to participate in such systems
and are expected to collaborate with
community partners to ensure they are
serving the children most in need. No
revisions were made regarding this
issue.
Comment: We received some
comments about verification standards
for public assistance described in
paragraph (i). Some commenters
supported the standards, noting they
would ensure uniform practices across
programs. Others opposed them or
expressed concerns, with some stating
they would be costly, and would delay
enrollment. Commenters requested
additional clarification for standards in
this paragraph, including what was
meant by ‘‘all’’ tax forms.
Response: We agree that the
verification standards for public
assistance will ensure uniform practices
across programs and believe this is
important to program integrity even if it
may cause some delays, so we have not
changed this language. We added
language to the standard in paragraph
(i)(1)(i) to include proof of income from
individuals who are self-employed. This
is meant to clarify that income sources
from informal work, such as day
laborers, should be included for income
eligibility. Additionally we removed
‘‘all’’ before tax forms. We realize that
programs want to be conscientious
about proper eligibility verification so
we will continue to provide guidance
and support about the implementation
of these standards as requested.
Comment: As noted previously, some
commenters submitted suggestions
about eligibility duration standards in
paragraph (j). Some commenters
recommended changes that would
facilitate eligibility from Early Head
Start to Head Start. Commenters noted
that the standard in paragraph (j)(4) can
complicate a program’s enrollment of
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61313
over-income slots if an eligible family
becomes more self-sufficient during
their time in Head Start.
Response: The Act sets forth the
requirements for the re-determination of
eligibility for Head Start after Early
Head Start so we do not have authority
to change these standards. We believe
programs have enough flexibility in
their prioritization criteria in paragraph
(j)(4), so we did not make changes.
Comment: Commenters requested
clarification of the standards in
paragraph (m) about eligibility training.
For example, commenters were
confused by outdated language in
paragraph (m)(3).
Response: To improve clarity of this
paragraph, technical changes were made
to eliminate language in paragraph
(m)(3), which was unnecessary and
confusing because it noted an outdated
timeline tied to the final eligibility rule
published in February 2015.
Section 1302.13 Recruitment of
Children
This section maintained and
streamlined standards from the previous
rule about the goal of recruitment efforts
and some specific efforts a program
must make.
Comment: We received some
comments on this section, including
requests for clarification and
recommendations for additional
emphasis on recruitment of certain
populations.
Response: Programs are required to
serve children with disabilities as at
least 10 percent of their funded
enrollment. Therefore, requiring active
recruitment for this specific population
is appropriate. We added that programs
should also actively recruit other
vulnerable populations, including
homeless children and children in foster
care, and provided programs with the
flexibility to define these populations
based on their community assessment.
Section 1302.14 Selection Process
This section describes the selection
process and specific criteria programs
must use to weigh the selection of
eligible children. It includes a new
requirement for programs to prioritize
serving younger children if they operate
in a service area with high-quality
publicly funded pre-kindergarten. This
section also included standards to
conform with provisions from the Act
that require at least 10 percent of a
program’s total enrollment to be
children eligible for services under the
Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (IDEA). Commenters appreciated
the emphasis on a priority for children
experiencing homelessness and children
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
61314
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
in foster care. We address these and
other suggestions below.
Comment: For a number of reasons,
many commenters opposed the standard
in paragraph (a)(3) that would require
programs to prioritize serving younger
children if publicly-funded prekindergarten is available for a full
school day. For example, commenters
were concerned this requirement would
limit families with 4-year-olds from
receiving the full range of
comprehensive services and supports
offered by Head Start. They were also
concerned it would interfere with or
even unravel partnerships with
publicly-funded pre-kindergarten
programs. Some commenters stated this
provision interfered with tribal
sovereignty. Some commenters
supported greater priority for younger
children and some recommended we
include additional standards to further
this goal. Commenters also
recommended that American Indian and
Alaska Native programs be exempt from
this requirement.
Response: We have maintained this
requirement because we believe
programs should be serving more 3year-olds and infants and toddlers in
areas where there is high-quality,
accessible pre-kindergarten for 4-yearolds. We revised this standard to reflect
that the high-quality publicly funded
pre-kindergarten must be accessible for
the requirement to apply and clarified
that this priority is part of the selection
criteria programs establish as described
in paragraph (a)(1). This, for example,
would give programs flexibility to weigh
other criteria that would not disrupt
programs serving siblings or a child
with a disability if it was determined
this was the best placement. We also
clarified that this prioritization would
not be required if it interfered with
partnerships with local educational
agencies. Finally, we revised this
requirement to clarify that American
Indian and Alaska Native and Migrant
and Seasonal Head Start programs must
only consider this prioritization.
Comment: We received some
comments about the requirement in
paragraph (b) for 10 percent of a
program’s funded enrollment to be
composed of children eligible for
services under IDEA. Some commenters
supported this standard. Some
commenters stated it was a difficult
standard to meet in rural communities,
and others recommended it be
calculated across a grantee’s Early Head
Start and Head Start enrollment. Some
commenters requested additional
clarification, and some commenters
requested we add specific criteria for
the waiver for this standard and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
requested children with disabilities be
given the first priority on any waiting
list until the 10 percent requirement is
met.
Response: This standard is required
by the Act. Therefore, we cannot revise
its calculation. We slightly revised the
language in paragraph (b)(1) to better
clarify the 10 percent is calculated from
a program’s total funded enrollment.
Our current waiver process evaluates
whether programs are making
reasonable efforts to comply with the 10
percent requirement. Nationally, more
than 12 percent of Head Start
enrollment is comprised of children
with disabilities, so we do not believe
a change is necessary.42
Comment: Some commenters
recommended changes to waiting list
requirements in paragraph (c). Some
recommended less focus on a waitlist
and some recommended more focus and
specificity.
Response: We believe the standard in
paragraph (c) is appropriate to ensure
any openings during the program year
get filled promptly. We made no
revisions.
Section 1302.15
Enrollment
This section reorganized and revised
previous standards about enrollment. It
includes requirements about how
quickly programs must fill vacancies
and efforts they must undertake to
maintain enrollment of eligible children
for subsequent years. It includes
standards to reduce barriers to enroll
children experiencing homelessness.
This section includes new standards
about reserving slots for pregnant
women, children experiencing
homelessness, and children in foster
care. This section also includes a new
standard to allow the enrollment of
children who are funded through nonHead Start sources, including private
pay. Further, this section includes a
standard that clarified current policy
that required programs to follow their
state immunization enrollment and
attendance requirements. We moved the
standard from § 1302.17(c) in the NPRM
to paragraph (f) to improve clarity. We
received many comments on this
section, which we discuss below.
Comment: We received comments
opposed to our proposal in paragraph
(a) that programs must fill any vacancy
within 30 days because the previous
performance standards did not require
programs to fill a vacancy within 60
days of the end of the program year.
42 U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Administration for Children and Families
(2015). Office of Head Start Program Information
Report, 2014–2015. Washington, DC: Author.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Commenters expressed a variety of
reasons for their opposition, such as
difficulty meeting all of the
comprehensive service requirements in
the allotted time period.
Response: We retained this provision
with minor technical changes because
we believe the provision of
comprehensive services is beneficial to
children—even during a period of 60
days or less. In addition, in some
programs, 60 days represents onequarter of the program year and
allowing such a long period of vacancy
represents lost opportunity and wasted
funds. Furthermore, enrollment within
the last 60 days of the program year will
facilitate service delivery for the
following program year.
Comment: We received comments
that the standard proposed on eligibility
duration that appeared in paragraph
(b)(2) of the NPRM was redundant and
unnecessary because of standards in
§ 1302.12(j)(2) and (3).
Response: We agree and have struck
the provision that was paragraph (b)(2)
in the NPRM.
Comment: We received many
comments recommending changes to
the standard in paragraph (b)(2)
(formerly paragraph (b)(3) of the NPRM)
that allows a program to maintain a
child’s enrollment for a third year under
exceptional circumstances as long as
family income is re-verified. For
example, some commenters
recommended we strike this provision
because it was inconsistent with
§ 1302.12(b)(2) and the Act. Other
commenters requested we define
‘‘exceptional circumstances’’ for better
clarity. Many commenters
recommended the standard be clarified
to apply specifically to Head Start and
include services for five-year-olds in
states where compulsory education does
not begin until age six.
Response: This standard is not new
and we do not believe it has caused
significant confusion in the past.
However, we made revisions to clarify
this requirement is specific to Head
Start. Programs may request additional
guidance, if needed.
Comment: Some commenters
recommended we revise paragraph (b)
to establish continuous eligibility for
children from the time they enroll in
Early Head Start until they enter
kindergarten.
Response: As previously noted,
eligibility is set by statute. Such a
change is outside the scope of this rule.
Comment: We received many
comments that supported the provision
in paragraph (b)(3) (formerly paragraph
(b)(4) in the NPRM) that programs
maintain enrollment for children who
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
are homeless or in foster care. Some
commenters expressed concern about
the proposed standard. Commenters
supporting the provision noted its
importance to support stability and
continuity for children experiencing
homelessness and children in foster
care. Some commenters stated the
standard should be made stronger. Some
commenters were concerned about the
provision and recommended it be struck
because maintaining enrollment would
be too costly.
Response: We retained this provision
with no revisions. Programs may request
technical assistance to support their
efforts to maintain enrollment for these
children.
Comment: We received comments
that supported the provision in
paragraph (c) to require a program to use
their community assessment to
determine if there are families
experiencing homelessness or children
in foster care in the area who could
benefit from services and allowing
programs flexibility to reserve up to
three percent of slots for special
populations. Commenters noted its
importance in Head Start serving
vulnerable children. Others supported
the standard but recommended we
expand it in a variety of ways. Others
recommended changes, such as making
the slot reservation a requirement
instead of an allowance, adding
additional subgroups for whom slots
could be reserved, or allowing up to six
percent of slots be reserved. Some
commenters requested additional
guidance on implementation.
Response: We believe we have
achieved an appropriate balance
between reserving slots for particularly
vulnerable children while maintaining
availability for other eligible children
who need Head Start services. Reserved
enrollment slots will not be counted as
under-enrollment. Programs may
request additional guidance on
implementation as necessary. We made
no revisions to this standard.
Comment: Some commenters
expressed concern about the flexibility
to reserve slots for the specified
populations and concerns about the
timeline allowed for such reservation, as
described in paragraph (c). Some
commenters were concerned the slots
would remain unused throughout the
year and some were concerned that it
was unrealistic to fill the slots within 30
days. Others were concerned that the
record keeping would be too
burdensome.
Response: The rule is clear that if the
reserved enrollment slot is not filled
within 30 days, the slot becomes vacant
and then must be filled within an
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
additional 30 days. We believe we have
achieved an appropriate balance
between reserving slots for particularly
vulnerable children for an appropriate
length of time while maintaining
availability for other eligible children.
We believe this provision will foster
enrollment of particularly vulnerable
children and do not agree that it is too
burdensome. We note that programs are
allowed but not required to reserve such
slots.
Comment: We received comments in
support of and opposed to the standard
proposed in paragraph (d) for programs
to consider the feasibility to enroll
children from diverse economic
backgrounds who would be funded from
other sources. Commenters were
concerned this standard could lead to
serving fewer Head Start eligible
children. Other commenters requested
clarifications.
Response: As noted previously, we
revised a related standard in
§ 1302.11(b)(3) to better clarify that
programs must consider the feasibility
of operating mixed-income programs
but that they must not enroll children
from diverse economic backgrounds if it
would result in a program serving less
than their eligible funded enrollment.
We believe this additional clarification
addresses commenters’ concerns that
the proposed standard would mean
fewer eligible Head Start children
would be served. To further clarify our
intent, we revised the standard in
paragraph (d) to reduce redundancy and
make it clear that children from diverse
economic backgrounds who are funded
with other sources are not considered
part of a program’s eligible funded
enrollment. We think § 1302.11, which
addressed how a program should
consider their community assessment, is
the more appropriate placement for
consideration of the feasibility of mixedincome groups.
Section 1302.16 Attendance
This section included provisions to
support attendance. Research finds that
attendance is essential for children to
benefit from program experiences that
promote success in preschool and
beyond.43 44 45 Therefore, in addition to
43 Ehrlich, S.B., Gwynne, J.A., Pareja, A.S., &
Allensworth, E.M. (2013). Preschool Attendance in
Chicago Public Schools. Research Summary.
University of Chicago Consortium on Chicago
School Research.
44 Community Action Project Tulsa County.
(2012). Attendance Works Peer Learning Network
Webinar.
45 Connolly, F., & Olson, L.S. (2012). Early
Elementary Performance and Attendance in
Baltimore City Schools’ Pre-Kindergarten and
Kindergarten. Baltimore Education Research
Consortium.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61315
provisions from the Act to address
systemic issues of a program’s low
monthly average daily attendance, we
included new proposals to emphasize
the importance of regular attendance for
each child. Commenters generally
supported the new emphasis and some
commenters noted it would help
programs identify family needs.
However, many commenters opposed or
expressed concern about the specific
proposals and offered alternative
suggestions. We discuss these comments
below.
Comment: We received many
comments about the requirement in
paragraph (a)(1) that programs contact
parents if a child is unexpectedly absent
and the parent has not contacted the
program within one hour. Many
commenters opposed the requirement,
and stated it was too prescriptive and
cumbersome. Some commenters also
found the provision unclear and
objected to the one-hour timeline. Some
commenters supported the one-hour
timeline because it promoted child
safety and reduced the risk of a child
being left in a car or on a bus.
Response: We believe it is critically
important that programs contact parents
in a very timely manner to ensure
children’s well-being. We revised the
requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) and
(2) to be more systems-focused and have
clarified that the program must ‘‘attempt
to’’ contact the parent because it may
not always be possible to reach the
parent. However, we believe it is
important for programs to ensure
children’s well-being by contacting
parents when children are unexpectedly
absent and parents have not contacted
the program within one hour of program
start time, so we have maintained this
requirement.
Comment: We received many
comments on the provision in paragraph
(a)(2) about steps a program must take
to improve attendance for children who
have four or more consecutive
unexcused absences or are frequently
absent. Some commenters were
generally supportive of this provision.
Many commenters expressed concerns
that the requirements were too
prescriptive or too costly for programs.
Some commenters were concerned that
since low attendance was often linked
to family crises, home visits would pose
significant challenges. Many
commenters stated the emphasis on
attendance should be more systemsfocused. Commenters recommended
alternative language. Some commenters
requested additional guidance for
implementation.
Response: We believe regular and
consistent attendance is essential for
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
61316
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
programs to support children’s early
learning. We also think that inconsistent
attendance often indicates a program
needs to make more efforts to engage
with and support families. We think it
is very important for programs to realize
the importance of regular attendance
and work with families when
appropriate to foster regular attendance.
Therefore, we retained a strong focus on
supporting attendance in the final rule.
To further strengthen this requirement
and clarify when frequent absences
must be addressed, we revised
paragraph (a)(2)(iii) to reflect that
programs must conduct a home visit or
other direct contact with parents if
children experience multiple
unexplained absences, such as two or
more consecutive unexplained
absences. Unexplained absences would
not include days a child is sick if the
parent let the program know that the
child was out because of an illness. We
also added paragraph (a)(2)(iv) to
require programs to use individual child
attendance data to identify children
with patterns of absence that put them
at risk of missing ten percent of program
days per year and develop appropriate
strategies to improve individual
attendance among identified children,
such as direct contact with parents or
intensive case management as
necessary. Programs may request
technical assistance to address the
causes of absenteeism.
Comment: Some commenters stated
the requirement about program-wide
attendance in paragraph (b) should be
triggered at a lower percentage for
infants and toddlers.
Response: We believe the 85 percent
threshold is appropriate for Early Head
Start and Head Start programs and has
been the long-standing threshold in the
previous Head Start regulation. We
retained this provision as proposed.
Comment: We received many
comments about the provision in
paragraph (c)(1), which provides
flexibility to support the attendance of
children experiencing homelessness.
Many commenters were concerned
about the reference to birth certificates
in our proposal for fear it implied
programs can require birth certificates
for enrollment. Many commenters
supported the flexibility but were
concerned about how to satisfy federal
and state requirements when they are in
conflict. Some commenters were
concerned this standard would pose a
public health concern.
Response: Birth certificates are not
required for enrollment. We have
revised paragraph (c) to eliminate
confusion. Additionally, in order to
address the conflict between the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
program performance standards and
state licensing requirements and any
public health concerns, we have
clarified that programs must defer to
state licensing requirements. However,
since it is important that children
without proper immunizations get up to
date and attend Head Start as soon as
possible, we also strengthened the
standard to require programs to work
with families to get children immunized
as soon as possible.
Comment: Some commenters stated
the provision in paragraph (c)(2) about
providing transportation for children
experiencing homelessness where
possible was too stringent. Some
commenters stated it was not strong
enough and recommended requirements
that mirror those in the McKinneyVento Act. Some commenters requested
additional clarification about using
program funds if community resources
are unavailable.
Response: A program may use
program funds to provide transportation
to all children in the program or to a
subset, such as homeless children.
However, approximately 40 percent of
programs provide transportation
services. We believe the requirement for
programs to use community resources if
available to transport homeless children
while allowing but not requiring the use
of program funds to do so is the
appropriate approach, and have not
changed this provision.
Section 1302.17
Expulsion
Suspension and
This section outlines the program
performance standards pertaining to the
suspension and expulsion of Head Start
children. These standards codify longstanding practice to prohibit expulsion
of Head Start children. However, given
recent research that indicates
suspensions and expulsions occur at
high rates in preschool settings,46 47 48
we explicitly require all programs to
prohibit expulsion and limit suspension
in Head Start and Early Head Start
settings and further require programs to
take steps, based on best practices, to
support the social, emotional and other
development of children who
demonstrate serious behavioral issues.
46 Gilliam, W.S. (2005). Prekindergarteners left
behind: Expulsion rates in state prekindergarten
systems. New York, NY: Foundation for Child
Development.
47 Gilliam, W.S., & Shahar, G. (2006). Preschool
and child care expulsion and suspension: Rates and
predictors in one state. Infants & Young Children,
19, 228–245.
48 Lamont, J.H., Devore, C.D., Allison, M.,
Ancona, R., Barnett, S.E., Gunther, R., & Young, T.
(2013). Out-of-school suspension and expulsion.
Pediatrics, 131(3), e1000–e1007.
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
In general, many commenters were
supportive of the standards described in
this section. However, some
commenters expressed concern about
the implementation of these standards
if, for example, parents refuse mental
health consultation, programs lack
specialized staff, and alternative
placements for children are not
available. Below, we summarize and
respond to these and other comments on
this section.
Comment: Commenters recommended
we define ‘‘suspension’’ and
‘‘expulsion.’’
Response: We did not add definitions
for these terms. We note that other
Federal laws contain requirements and
safeguards when children with
disabilities are suspended or expelled.
IDEA’s discipline procedures apply to
children with disabilities as defined in
section 602(3) of IDEA in Head Start
Programs. See IDEA section 615(k), 20
U.S.C. 1415(k) and 34 CFR 300.530
through 300.536.
There are other safeguards for
children who are not served under IDEA
but who are protected under Section
504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
(Section 504), 29 U.S.C. 794, and Title
II of the Americans with Disabilities Act
(Title II), 42 U.S.C. 12131 et seq.,
because they satisfy the definition of
disability in those Acts. Those statutes,
IDEA, Section 504, and Title II also do
not contain definitions for the terms
‘‘suspension’’ or ‘‘expulsion.’’ We
expect programs to consider their
ordinary and customary meanings.
However, we think this section makes
clear our expectations about supporting
children instead of suspending and
expelling them.
Comment: Some commenters
suggested we revise the suspension
requirements in paragraph (a) to provide
more support for children who may be
temporarily suspended for challenging
behavior. Others recommended we
completely prohibit suspension instead
of requiring programs to severely limit
the use of suspension. Some
commenters suggested we require
programs document the support services
provided to each child during a
temporary suspension and upon their
return. Commenters also recommended
we require programs to conduct home
visits during any temporary suspension.
Other commenters requested we require
specific interventions, such as early
childhood mental health consultation
before a temporary suspension is
permitted.
Response: We agree that instances
where temporary suspensions are
appropriate should be considered
extremely rare. Young children with
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
challenging behaviors should be
supported and not excluded. Therefore,
the provision in paragraph (a)(1)
requires the program to prohibit or
severely limit the use of suspension. We
agree that our requirements for
limitation on suspension did not
appropriately focus enough on
preventive and support services. We
revised paragraphs (a)(3) and (4) to
ensure appropriate support services in
the extremely rare circumstances where
programs consider suspension for the
safety of children or staff. We revised
paragraph (a)(3) to require programs to
engage with mental health consultants
and parents before a program decides on
a temporary suspension. In addition, we
revised paragraph (a)(4) to engage with
a mental health consultant and parents
and provide supportive services such as
home visits, and written plans of action,
to support a child during a temporary
suspension to facilitate their full
participation in all program activities.
Comment: Many commenters
generally supported our requirements,
described in paragraph (b), to prohibit
expulsion. Many commenters
appreciated our focus on positive
interventions instead of punishment,
indicated that they already prohibit
expulsion in their programs, or wanted
clarification that expulsion would not
be permitted under any circumstances.
Some commenters suggested that Head
Start programs do not suspend or expel
children often enough to warrant federal
requirements, and questioned why such
requirements were necessary.
Some commenters were concerned
about an outright prohibition on
expulsion in paragraph (b). Commenters
were worried it limited their options
and raised concerns about how to
effectively and safely implement this in
their programs. Commenters raised a
number of different issues, including
parents refusing mental health
consultation or disagreeing that their
child needs additional services; danger
to other children and staff; liabilities to
programs; programs not having the
specialized staff or access to appropriate
services; and potential conflicts with
state licensing. Some commenters
suggested that expulsion should be
allowed as a last resort for programs,
that in some instances the threat of
expulsion prevents parents from being
disruptive to programs, and suggested
that keeping children in the program
may not be in their best interest. Finally,
some commenters requested additional
guidance on how to effectively and
appropriately implement these
requirements, some expressing concern
about losing funding if programs are
‘‘forced’’ to suspend a child.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
Commenters also offered
recommendations they felt made the
requirement stronger, including
requiring programs to provide staff with
access to in-service training to prevent
child suspension and expulsion,
implementing specific strategies to
address challenging behaviors such as
trauma assessments, and providing extra
funding to hire additional trained staff.
Some commenters suggested we add a
requirement for parents to consent to
mental health consultation to address
their concern.
Response: We do not think young
children should be expelled from Head
Start because of their behavior. Though
we do not believe it to be a widespread
problem in Head Start, recent research
finds that preschool children are being
expelled at alarming rates nationwide.49
Stark racial and gender disparities exist
in these practices. Young boys of color
are suspended and expelled at much
higher rates than other children in early
learning programs and African
American girls are suspended at much
higher rates than other girls.50
Suspension and expulsion in the
preschool early years is related to less
educational achievement later and
negative long-term outcomes.51 52 For
these reasons, HHS has recommended
this problem receive immediate
attention from the early childhood and
education fields.53 It is Head Start’s
mission to provide high-quality early
education to vulnerable children and
therefore, it is especially critical that
Head Start ensure children with
challenging behaviors are supported,
rather than expelled.
We understand commenters’ concerns
but believe we struck the appropriate
balance. Children and staff will be best
supported by our firm stance against
expulsion; our requirements for best
practice for prevention and intervention
for children’s mental health and social
and emotional well-being in § 1302.45;
requirements in paragraph (a)(2) that
permit a program to temporarily
suspend a child if there is a serious
safety threat that cannot be addressed
49 Gilliam, W.S., & Shahar, G. (2006) Preschool
and Child Care Expulsion and Suspension: Rates
and Predictors in One State. Infants and Young
Children, 19(3), 228–245.
50 U.S. Department of Education, Civil Rights Data
Collection (2016). Retrieved from: https://
www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/2013-14first-look.pdf,
51 Lamont, J.H., Devore, C.D., Allison, M.,
Ancona, R., Barnett, S.E., Gunther, R., & Young, T.
(2013). Out-of-school suspension and expulsion.
Pediatrics, 131(3), e1000–e1007.
52 American Psychological Association, Zero
Tolerance Task Force Report (2008). An evidentiary
review and recommendations.
53 https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/ecd/
expulsion_suspension_final.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61317
through the provision of reasonable
modifications; and our requirements in
paragraph (b)(2) for supportive best
practices when a child exhibits
persistent and serious challenging
behaviors. As a last resort, as described
in paragraph (b)(3), a program may
transition a child directly to a more
appropriate placement if it has explored
and documented all possible steps and
collaborated with all parties involved in
the child’s care. Programs should
provide children with the
accommodations they need based on
screenings and evaluations while they
are awaiting a more appropriate
placement.
We believe it is critical to support
parents from the time their children
enroll in Head Start and to partner with
them to address challenging behaviors.
We understand that some parents may
be reluctant to engage in mental health
consultations. Programs must work to
support a program-wide culture that
promotes child mental health and social
and emotional well-being as described
in § 1302.45 and as part of that process,
take steps to normalize the mental
health consultation process. We revised
§ 1302.45(a)(3) to require programs
obtain parental consent for mental
health consultation services when they
enroll children in the program. This
should facilitate mental health
consultation and help remove stigma
around behavioral supports.
Finally, we agree it is important for
programs to have the tools necessary to
address behavioral problems in children
without the use of suspension and
expulsion. Programs are required under
§ 1302.92(c)(4) to implement a system of
professional development that supports
teachers’ ability to address challenging
behaviors. Finally, Head Start has a
long-standing history of preventing
suspension and expulsion practices, and
as such, programs should be able to
budget accordingly.
Comment: Some commenters
suggested revisions to the requirements
in paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) that detailed
specific steps programs must take to
support a child when they exhibit
persistent and serious challenging
behaviors. For example, commenters
stated it was unrealistic to require
programs consult with a child’s
physician since programs cannot
compel physicians to participate in a
consultation process. Some commenters
also stated the phrase ‘‘exhaustive
steps’’ was too subjective and requested
clarification.
Response: We agree and made
revisions accordingly. We revised both
paragraphs to require consultation with
a child’s teacher instead of their
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
61318
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
physician, and revised paragraph (b)(2)
to include consideration of the
appropriateness of providing needed
services and supports under Section 504
of the Rehabilitation Act. We also
revised both paragraphs to replace
‘‘exhaustive steps’’ with ‘‘explore all
possible steps and document all steps
taken.’’ We think this reflects best
practice, clarifies our intent, and gives
programs appropriate flexibility to
implement best practices that are most
appropriate for a particular child.
Comment: Many commenters stated
we needed to revise our expulsion
requirements to allow programs to
transfer children with behavioral
problems to the home-based option.
Some commenters stated a classroom
setting was not developmentally
appropriate for some children.
Response: We believe programs must
make significant efforts to support the
full integration of all children into every
program option. Effective
implementation of the requirements to
support children’s mental health and
social and emotional well-being,
described in § 1302.45 will support
positive learning environments,
integrate preventive efforts to address
problem behaviors, and engage mental
health consultants to support families
and staff when challenging behaviors
arise. These types of comprehensive
services are foundational to Head Start.
If a child exhibits problem behaviors in
the classroom, the child may be eligible
for appropriate special education and
related services, to be included in an
Individualized Education Program (IEP)
developed in accordance with section
614(d) of the IDEA or an Individualized
Family Service Plan (IFSP) developed in
accordance with section 635 of the
IDEA, or it may be appropriate to
provide the child needed supports
under Section 504 if the child satisfies
the definition of disability in section
705(9)(b) of the Rehabilitation Act. We
think moving a child to a home-based
option without first exploring all the
possible steps described in paragraph
(b)(2) is a form of expulsion. If a child
is exhibiting persistent and serious
challenging behaviors in the classroom
setting, programs must implement the
process described in paragraphs (b)(2)
and (3) to facilitate the child’s safe
participation in the program. Only as a
last resort, and after exploring all
possible steps and documenting all
steps taken, programs may determine if
a child needs an alternate placement
such as on-going participation in a
home-based program model.
Comment: Some commenters
recommended we explicitly prohibit
suspension or expulsion of children for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
poor attendance or because they are
picked up late from the program.
Response: We agree children should
not be suspended or expelled for poor
attendance or parental tardiness. In
§ 1302.16(a)(1) and (2), we already
describe steps programs must take if a
child is unexpectedly absent, has
multiple consecutive unexpected
absences, or is frequently absent.
Comment: Many commenters stated
our requirement in paragraph (c) that
states parent participation is voluntary
and not required as a condition of a
child’s enrollment was too vague.
Response: This requirement was also
in the previous Head Start Program
Performance Standards. We moved this
provision to § 1302.15(f) to improve
clarity.
Section 1302.18 Fees
This section describes our policy on
fees. We maintain the overarching
policy that programs are prohibited
from charging parents of eligible
children a fee for their child’s
participation in a Head Start program.
We made revisions to improve clarity.
Comment: Some commenters
requested clarification of the
requirement in paragraph (b)(1). For
example, some commenters requested
clarity on how long the program day
could be, and how long the additional
funded hours could be. Additionally,
some commenters expressed concern
about whether they would be able to
assess fees for the pre-k funded portion
of the day.
Response: Hours per day, and thereby
additional funded hours, depend on the
length of the day the program is
operating Head Start. Programs may
assess fees only for additional hours
beyond the Head Start day. The ability
to assess fees for hours beyond the Head
Start day is subject to state and local
requirements. We revised this provision
to improve clarity.
Comment: Commenters requested
clarity about the impact that paragraph
(b)(2) would have on cost allocation.
Specifically, some commenters
expressed concern that programs should
not be able to ‘‘double dip’’ in funding,
stating that we would need to ensure
additional funds go to additional
services. Other commenters asked
whether collected fees would supplant
current funding. Some commenters
requested clarity about whether private
pay children would be considered Head
Start children or would be counted as
part of enrollment.
Response: All grantees receiving Head
Start funds are required to comply with
the provisions of 45 CFR part 75,
Uniform Administrative Requirements,
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Cost Principles, and Audit
Requirements. Part 75 includes
regulations requiring that all costs be
allocated among multiple funding
sources in accordance with relative
benefits received. These regulations
assure that programs cannot ‘‘double
dip’’ or charge the same expense to
more than one funding source. Head
Start is designed to increase the number
of low-income children receiving highquality, comprehensive early education
services that help facilitate healthy
development, including physical and
social and emotional development, and
prepare them for school success. To
meet this goal, it is critical that Head
Start funds do not supplant existing
services. Existing laws and regulations
addressing cost allocation and nonsupplantation are not re-stated in the
proposed regulation. However, to
improve clarity, we revised paragraphs
(b)(1) and (2) to better articulate when
fees may be charged to enrolled and
non-enrolled families.
Comment: Some commenters
supported the standard in paragraph
(b)(2) to encourage mixed income
settings and the ability of Head Start
programs to charge a fee to private pay
or otherwise funded children. Other
commenters expressed concern about
these provisions or explicitly opposed
the requirement in paragraph (b)(2) that
allowed programs to charge fees to
children who are not Head Start eligible
to encourage mixed-income settings. For
example, some commenters were
concerned this would put Head Start in
competition with other private pay
providers in the community or were
concerned about unintended
consequences for eligible children in
terms of access.
Response: Research on peer
influences suggests that low-income
children achieve better learning
outcomes in mixed-income settings.54 55
We do not believe that allowing Head
Start programs to operate mixed-income
classes will have a negative impact on
other private pay providers in a
community. This requirement does not
allow programs to serve fewer eligible
children than their Head Start funded
enrollment. However, to further clarify
our intent mixed-income settings must
in no way displace Head Start eligible
children, we revised §§ 1302.11(b)(3),
54 Mashburn, A.J., Justice, L.M., Downer, J.T., &
Pianta, R.C. (2009). Peer effects on children’s
language achievement during pre-kindergarten.
Child Development, 80(3), 686–702.
55 Henry, G.T., & Rickman, D.K. (2007). Do peers
influence children’s skill development in
preschool? Economics of Education Review, 26(1),
100–112.
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
1302.15(d), and paragraph (b)(2) in this
section.
Comment: Some commenters asked
for clarification or suggested revisions
for additional specificity in paragraph
(b)(2). For example, commenters
requested clarity about the definition of
‘‘diverse economic backgrounds’’ and
whether over-income tuition could be
applied to non-federal match
requirements. Some commenters asked
for clarity about whether paragraph
(b)(2) allows programs to charge fees to
Head Start eligible children during the
non-Head Start portion of the day.
Additionally, commenters requested
clarity about whether Head Start
children can be expelled if their parents
do not pay the fees for non-Head Start
hours. Some commenters suggested that
expulsion should be possible, because
otherwise it would be impossible to
hold parents accountable for paying
fees. Other commenters suggested that
we ensure Head Start children cannot be
turned away if the portion of day
funded by child subsidies requires fee
and the parents cannot pay.
Response: We believe that it is
important for programs to have local
flexibility to define what economic
diversity means in their own
communities so did not include a
definition. Any non-federal match must
support services to Head Start eligible
children during the Head Start day.
Programs can charge fees to Head Start
eligible children during the non-Head
Start portion of the day. However,
programs cannot predicate a child’s
participation in the Head Start portion
of the day on enrollment in the nonHead Start portion of the day or
payment of any fees.
Comment: Some commenters
requested clarification about the
proposed regulations covering fees for
services under Part C of IDEA in
paragraph (b)(3). Commenters noted the
provision referenced Part B of IDEA, not
Part C.
Response: We agree with commenters
that the reference to IDEA in paragraph
(b)(3) was incorrect and unnecessary.
We removed this requirement.
Comment: Commenters noted that
both standard fees and ‘‘de facto fees’’
should be prohibited, including
requiring parents to provide diapers,
formula, or food and asked whether fees
for special events like field trips were
included.
Response: We have codified the
requirement to provide diapers and
formula in Head Start programs in
§ 1302.42(e)(1) of the standards and
clarified here that fees are not allowed
for activities, such as field trips, that are
part of the Head Start day.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
Program Structure; Subpart B
In this subpart, we combined all
previous performance standards related
to program options into one coherent
section and indicated different
requirements for Head Start and Early
Head Start when necessary. We set
standards for how programs should
choose a program option; defined the
requirements for ratios, group size, and
service duration for each of the program
options; and outlined the waiver
requirements to operate locally designed
program options. The majority of the
comments submitted on the NPRM
provided input on this subpart. In
particular, most commenters raised
concerns with the proposal to increase
the service duration for Head Start
children to a full school day and full
school year. We discuss the comments
and our rationale for any changes other
than technical changes to the regulatory
text below.
Section 1302.20
Structure
Determining Program
This section describes how programs
must select a program option and
develop a program calendar. The
provisions in this section also require
that all program options provide
comprehensive services, outline the
process for conversion of Head Start
slots to Early Head Start slots, allow
American Indian and Alaska Native
programs to reallocate funding, and
clarify what are considered Head Start
and Early Head Start hours of service.
Comment: Commenters expressed
some concerns about the proposed
provision in paragraph (a)(1) that
programs annually consider whether
local needs would be better met through
conversion of existing part-day to fullday slots or full-day to full working day
slots. Some stated that annual
consideration was too often and too
burdensome and suggested less frequent
alternatives. In addition, the proposals
in paragraphs (a)(2) and (3) created
some confusion. Some commenters
opposed the provision that programs
consider conversion to a full year
program and others found the language
unclear in regards to whether this
conversion was mandatory and whether
full year meant calendar or academic
year. Commenters requested
clarification on the proposal in
paragraph (a)(3) that requires programs
to try to identify alternate funding
sources before using program resources
to cover extended hours because they
found the term ‘‘extended hours’’
confusing and were unsure how meeting
this requirement would be evaluated.
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61319
Response: We revised paragraphs
(a)(1) and (2) and struck paragraph (a)(3)
from the NPRM to improve clarity of
what is required of programs. The
requirement for programs to annually
consider whether they should convert to
a full year program was not meant to
require actual conversion but rather for
programs to annually consider whether
such a conversion would better meet the
needs of their community. Paragraph
(a)(2) now makes clear that
consideration of conversion and ways to
promote continuity of care should take
place as part of the annual review of the
community assessment described in
§ 1302.11(b)(2). In addition, we replaced
the term ‘‘extended hours’’ in what was
paragraph (a)(3) in the NPRM with ‘‘full
working day services’’ for improved
clarity in paragraph (a)(2) in the final
rule. We believe annual reconsideration
of whether a program’s model is
meeting local needs is appropriate.
Comment: We received comments on
provisions in paragraphs (a)(1) and (3)
of the NPRM regarding conversion to
Early Head Start. Some commenters
strongly supported these provisions.
Some stated that annual consideration
was too often and too burdensome and
suggested less frequent alternatives.
Some commenters requested that
additional clarification be added to the
regulation, such as noting that
conversion was allowable for grantees
who did not currently operate Early
Head Start and that regional offices
should approve or deny conversion
requests within a stated timeline. Other
commenters suggested the standards
should explicitly allow a reduction in
funded enrollment for programs that
choose to convert Head Start slots to
Early Head Start slots.
Response: No changes were made to
the provisions regarding conversion of
slots to Early Head Start, which we
believe are appropriately addressed in
paragraph (c), with the exception of a
technical correction that the policy
council would also need to approve the
request and a clarification that programs
should update their school readiness
goals to reflect the ages of children they
serve. There are no statutory or
regulatory prohibitions to prevent
grantees that do not currently operate
Early Head Start from converting slots.
We agree that a reduction in funded
enrollment is a likely outcome of
conversion because of the higher
relative costs of serving infants and
toddlers, but this does not need to be
included in the regulation. We
understand there is concern about the
time required to process conversion
requests but note that the process
follows the clear requirements set forth
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
61320
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
in statute and further clarified in this
rule.
Comment: Some commenters asked
for clarification about whether a
blended or braided funding model
would be allowed to achieve the full
school day requirement. Some sought
additional clarification about which
Head Start standards would need to be
met during hours of operation not
funded by Head Start. Some
commenters also sought additional
clarification about which hours must
meet Head Start standards and noted
that they would not be able to meet
Head Start standards for before and after
care. Similarly, commenters asked for
clarification about whether the ratio and
group size requirements only referred to
program hours funded by Early Head
Start or Head Start.
Response: The NPRM intended to
convey that hours of service that meet
Head Start standards would be counted
toward calculation of Head Start service
duration, regardless of whether those
hours were funded by federal Head Start
funding or another source. We
understand the need for innovative
funding models to leverage funds to
more efficiently meet the needs of
children and families. To eliminate
confusion about whether these funding
models are an allowable approach to
meet the service duration minimum
requirements, we added paragraph (d) to
clearly state that programs may consider
hours of service that meet the Head Start
Program Performance Standards,
regardless of the source of funding, as
hours of planned class operations. We
encourage programs to continue to seek
innovative ways to fund their program
models while meeting high-quality
standards throughout the day. However,
we acknowledge that ratio requirements,
as well as all Head Start program
performance standards, apply only
during the hours of planned class
operations for Head Start and Early
Head Start.
Section 1302.21 Center-Based Option
This section defines the setting for the
center-based program option and sets
requirements for ratios, group size,
service duration, calendar planning,
licensing, and square footage. Most
comments addressed the service
duration proposal for Head Start centerbased programs.
Comment: The NPRM proposed to
increase the minimum hours and days
of program operation for Head Start
preschoolers in the center-based option.
The majority of comments addressed
this proposal. The NPRM also proposed
making the double session model only
available as a locally designed program
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
option, instead of as a standard program
model. Some commenters supported the
proposed increase in the hours per day
and days per year, regardless of
available funding. Some specifically
supported the move to full school day
(minimum of 6 hours per day) or full
school year (minimum of 180 days per
year), and still others supported both
provisions as the standard option for
Head Start. Reasons for their support
included: Significant increases in school
readiness; the strong research base;
alignment with state pre-K and K–12
systems; increases in the employment
rates of low-income parents; child needs
for more time to reach learning goals;
doubling the amount of time Head Start
children would be exposed to highquality instruction and services; and
better meeting parent needs. Others
recommended we re-calculate the cost
per child needed for each grantee to
move to the proposed standard dosage
for center-based services.
Some commenters supported the
proposal to increase program duration
for Head Start preschoolers, but only if
funding is available to support the
changes. These commenters noted the
research base and potential
improvement for children’s outcomes,
but stated that they would not support
the policy without adequate funding
because it would deprive many children
of early learning opportunities due to a
decrease in available Head Start slots.
Some commenters generally agreed we
should increase program duration for
Head Start preschoolers, but they also
raised concerns. We discuss those
concerns in more detail below.
Some commenters suggested
alternative minimums to the 180 days
per year and 6 hours per day proposed
in the NPRM. Some suggested that the
requirements for the length of day and
year be shorter than those proposed in
the NPRM, but longer than previous
standards. Commenters suggested taking
an annual hours approach to program
duration, such as 1,020 or 1,080 hours
per year for Head Start preschoolers, to
allow programs greater flexibility to
design what works best for their
community. Other commenters
suggested requiring a specific percent of
slots for each grantee, such as 50 or 75
percent, meet an increased duration
requirement and allowing the remaining
slots to be more flexible. Other
commenters suggested that the
minimum duration requirements should
vary based on child age. Some suggested
that the increase in duration should be
encouraged, or optional, but not
required. Some commenters asked if
programs currently operating at a lower
dosage would be ‘‘grandfathered in’’ and
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
allowed to continue operating under the
old program performance standards.
Others suggested that the required hours
per day should be less than what would
trigger a nap requirement under local
licensing rules. Some commenters
recommended allowing programs to
offer a ‘‘menu’’ of varied program
models based on community
assessments with an ability to shift slots
between models over the course of the
grant to meet changing needs. Some
other commenters suggested that the
increased duration requirements for
Head Start (180 days) should align with
the requirements for Early Head Start
(230 days). Some commenters asked
why duration requirements are not
higher than those proposed in the
NPRM, given the research on summer
learning loss and evidence that children
benefit from longer duration, and the
need for a longer day to accommodate
working families.
Many commenters raised concerns
about the impact of these changes on
partnerships and collaborations with
public schools. Commenters proposed
alternative minimums or suggested that
programs be allowed to align their
calendar with the local school district or
state requirements for K–12, to facilitate
partnerships with schools. Some noted
that their school district or state tracks
time in hours per year and suggested
that this same flexibility be applied to
Head Start. Commenters also raised
concerns about the challenges of
operating longer than their local
schools. Specific concerns included
disruptions to transportation, facility
space, and food service; the ways
service days are calculated; and union
agreements. Some commenters stated
that double sessions are sometimes the
best option when working with school
districts due to space limitations and
transportation. Others stated that
attendance is low when Head Start is in
session but the school district is not.
The majority of commenters either
opposed or expressed significant
concerns with the provisions to increase
the program day and year for Head Start
preschoolers, with many citing multiple
reasons for their concerns or opposition.
Some of these commenters were
generally against the proposal to
increase program duration, without
going into specific reasons for their
opposition. Many commenters were
concerned or opposed due to the loss of
Head Start slots that would occur
without appropriate funding. In this
context, some were specifically
concerned with the elimination of
double sessions and only being able to
serve half the number of children in
their community. Some commenters
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
agreed that children would benefit from
the increased exposure to Head Start,
but they felt that this benefit was not
worth other children and families no
longer receiving Head Start services.
Some suggested that the reduction in
the number of slots could cause
additional instability in already fragile
communities and that there are no other
high-quality early childhood education
options available in some communities.
Some commenters suggested delaying
implementation of the new
requirements until sufficient funding is
in place to prevent enrollment
reduction. Others expressed that any
additional money should be used to
increase access to Head Start, as
opposed to program duration.
Some commenters stated that the
increased duration was not
developmentally appropriate for
preschoolers. Some noted that
transportation in rural areas would
make the day even longer for children.
Some suggested that a 6-hour day may
not be appropriate for certain groups of
children, such as 3-year-olds, children
with challenging behaviors or special
needs, or DLLs. Some commenters
asserted that a longer year is not
appropriate for preschoolers. Others
specifically stated that moving to a
program that operates five days per
week (as opposed to 4 days) is not
appropriate for children this age.
Many commenters expressed concern
or opposition to the proposed operation
minimums for preschoolers because
they would limit the ability of programs
to address the unique needs of the local
communities and families they serve
and/or because the proposed
requirements do not take into account
parental choice or preferences.
Commenters stated the proposed
requirements would prevent creative
and innovative program designs that
would be more responsive to
community needs. Some commenters
said that it does not support the cultural
values of all families, such as American
Indian and Alaska Native or immigrant
families.
Some commenters opposed or
expressed concerns about the proposed
increase in service duration for Head
Start because of the logistical challenges
programs would face, including
significant disruptions to community
collaborations. Some commenters stated
that collaborations they use for
transportation would be severely
disrupted. Others noted they would lose
access to facilities because their
community partnership would not be
able to provide full-day space. Many of
these commenters raised concerns about
the lack of adequate or reasonably
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
priced facilities in their area. Some
commenters were concerned with the
challenges they would face finding
enough high-quality teachers for new
classes. Some commenters raised
concerns about negative impacts on
partnerships with child care providers
and family eligibility for child care
subsidies to provide families with care
for a full working day. Some
commenters noted that children who
currently receive full day services
through the combination of a half-day of
Head Start and half-day of state pre-k
could be negatively impacted by the
duration proposal.
Some commenters opposed or
expressed concerns about the proposed
increase in duration for Head Start
preschoolers because of the potential
impact on teachers and other staff. Some
commenters were concerned about the
loss of staff jobs that would result
without adequate funding to support the
increased duration, noting this would
have a negative impact on the economy
and local community. Commenters were
concerned about how the move to a
longer school day or longer school year
would increase the burden on teachers
and reduce time for other necessary
activities, which would undermine
program quality. Some suggested that
this would increase teacher stress,
burnout, and turnover. These issues
were of particular concern to some
programs that believed they would have
to move from a 4-day per week to a 5day per week schedule. Commenters
were also concerned that the proposed
model would make it more difficult to
recruit and retain highly qualified staff.
Commenters noted the need to pay
teachers more in order to offset the
workload associated with the increased
program duration. Some commenters
were concerned about the loss of staff
jobs that would result without adequate
funding to support the increased
duration and stated this would have a
negative impact on the economy and
local community.
Some commenters stated that the
research cited in the NPRM was not
adequate or appropriate to justify the
longer day and/or year for Head Start
preschoolers. Some commenters stated
that longer duration is not necessarily
an indicator of higher program quality.
Some commenters stated that moving to
full school day services would not
increase instructional time because of
time that would need to be devoted to
naps, meals, and transitions. Some
commenters expressed concern with
increasing duration for Head Start
preschoolers because their state or
municipality still has part-day, partweek, or optional kindergarten, or part-
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61321
day state-funded preschool. Some
commenters expressed concern about
state licensing laws that would become
applicable with a longer program day.
Some commenters raised concerns
about the impact on their non-federal
share match if they served fewer
families.
Response: We made significant
changes in paragraph (c) to the
requirements for service duration for
preschoolers in Head Start center-based
settings. We believe, and research
indicates, that strong child outcomes are
best fostered through high-quality early
education programs that provide at least
a full school day and full school year of
services and that children are best
served if Head Start programs continue
to move toward this goal. We do not
agree that the increased service duration
is developmentally inappropriate for
preschoolers, including three-year-olds,
or that the research we cited is
inadequate to justify these proposals.
While the research does not identify a
specific threshold, there is ample
research that points to increased
duration in achieving positive child
outcomes.56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66
56 Lee, V.E., Burkam, D.T., Ready, D.D.,
Honigman, J., & Meisels, S.J. (2006). Full-Day versus
Half-Day Kindergarten: In Which Program Do
Children Learn More? American Journal of
Education, 112(2), 163–208.
57 Walston, J.T., and West, J. (2004). Full-day and
Half-day Kindergarten in the United States:
Findings from the Early Childhood Longitudinal
Study, Kindergarten Class of 1998–99 (NCES 2004–
078). U.S. Department of Education, National
Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC:
U.S. Government Printing Office.
58 Sloan McCombs, J. et al., (2011). Making
Summer Count. How Summer Programs Can Boost
Children’s Learning. Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND
Corporation.
59 Downey, D.B., von Hippel, P.T. & Broh, B.A.
(2004). Are Schools the Great Equalizer? Cognitive
Inequality During the Summer Months and the
School Year. American Sociological Review, 69(5),
613–635.
60 Ehrlich, S.B., Gwynne, J.A., Sorice, E. (2014).
Preschool Attendance in Chicago Public Schools:
Relationships with Learning Outcomes and Reasons
for Absences. University of Chicago Consortium on
Chicago School Research. Research Report.
61 Peisner-Feinberg, E.S., Schaaf, J.M., LaForett,
D.R., Hildebrandt, L.M., & Sideris, J. (2014). Effects
of Georgia’s Pre-K Program on children’s school
readiness skills: Findings from the 2012–2013
evaluation study. Chapel Hill: The University of
North Carolina, FPG Child Development Institute.
62 Barnett, W.S., Jung, K., Youn, M.J., and Frede,
E.C. (2013). Abbott Preschool Program Longitudinal
Effects Study: Fifth Grade Follow-Up. National
Institute for Early Education Research Rutgers—The
State University of New Jersey.
63 Gormley, G.T., Gayer, T., Phillips, D., &
Dawson, B. (2005). The effects of universal pre-k on
cognitive development. Developmental Psychology,
4(6), 872–884.
64 Weiland, C., & Yoshikawa, H. (2013). Impacts
of a prekindergarten program on children’s
mathematics, language, literacy, executive function,
and emotional skills. Child Development, 84, 2112–
2130.
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
Continued
06SER2
61322
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Many Head Start programs, as well as
State funded preschool programs
already operate for a full school day and
a full school year.
However, we agree with commenters
about the negative effects of
implementing this model in such a way
that could lead to significant reductions
in the number of children and families
served by Head Start programs, and
recognize the need to allow programs
and communities sufficient time to
thoughtfully plan and adjust their
operations. Therefore, we made
significant changes to the service
duration minimums in subpart B for
Head Start preschoolers in center-based
settings that we believe strike the right
balance of giving more children access
to a program with full school day and
full school year services, while allowing
greater local flexibility and more time
for communities to adapt and potential
funding to be appropriated.
Revisions in paragraph (c)(2) specify a
timeline, process, and requirements for
programs to phase in full school day
and full school year services for all
preschool children served in centerbased settings. In this rule, we require
that each program offer full school day
and full school year services, defined as
1,020 annual hours, for at least 50
percent of its Head Start center-based
funded enrollment by August 1, 2019,
and for all of its Head Start center-based
funded enrollment by August 1, 2021.
Exceptions to these requirements may
be granted through a simplified waiver
process, described in § 1302.24 and
discussed in further detail in that
section below. Paragraph (c)(2)(i)
specifies that until the new requirement
in paragraph (c)(2)(iv) or (v) is effective,
programs that operate five days per
week must provide at least 160 days per
year of planned class operations for a
minimum of 3.5 hours per day and
programs that operate 4 days per week
must provide at least 128 days per year
of planned class operations for a
minimum of 3.5 hours per day. In
paragraph (c)(2)(ii) double session
variations are in effect permitted until
July 31, 2021, which gives grantees
operating double session slots ample
time to plan for full implementation of
the new duration standards. Until this
time, double session programs must
65 Walters, C.R. (2015). Inputs in the Production
of Early Childhood Human Capital: Evidence from
Head Start, American Economic Journal: Applied
Economics, 7(4), 76–102.
66 Yoshikawa, H., Weiland, C., Brooks-Gunn, J.,
Burchinal, M.R., Espinosa, L.M., Gormley, W.T.,
Ludwig, J., Magnuson, K.A., Phillips, D., & Zaslow,
M.J. (2013). Investing in Our Future: The Evidence
Base on Preschool Education. Policy Brief.
Foundation for Child Development.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
operate for the same minimums
described above. These service duration
minimums in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and
(ii) are consistent with the previous
program performance standards.
Paragraphs (c)(2)(iii) and (iv) set forth
an incremental timeline and process for
grantees to shift their programs to
provide at least a full school day and a
full school year of services to all
preschoolers in center-based settings.
We made this service duration
requirement less burdensome by
changing the requirement to a total of
1,020 hours annually, as opposed to a
minimum number of days per year and
hours per day as proposed in the NPRM.
This annual hours approach will allow
more local flexibility and is consistent
with how the majority of states set
minimum requirements for how local
education agencies set their calendars.
In Head Start, it will provide programs
greater flexibility to design schedules
that meet the unique needs of their
communities while maintaining high
standards for the amount of
instructional time children receive. As
stated in paragraph (c)(2)(iii), each
grantee will have until August 1, 2019
to provide at least 1,020 annual hours of
planned class operations over the course
of a minimum of 8 months to at least 50
percent of its Head Start center-based
funded enrollment. As noted later,
‘‘hours of planned class operations’’ is
defined in part 1305 to clarify that only
the hours when children are scheduled
to attend count towards the 1,020
annual hours requirement. Paragraph
(c)(2)(iv) states that by August 1, 2021
programs must provide at least 1,020
annual hours of planned class
operations over the course of at least 8
months for all of their Head Start centerbased funded enrollment.
Programs may design a variety of
different schedules within the minimum
requirements that meet the specific
needs of their families, communities,
and staff. For example, programs may
choose to operate for four or five days
a week for either an 8-month program
year or year-round, depending on the
length of the day they select, as long as
they meet the 1,020 annual hour
minimum. This flexibility will allow
programs to address many of the
concerns that were raised in the
comments, such as alignment of the
summer break with the local education
agency’s calendar, the availability of
facilities, the continuation of
partnerships, and state licensing
requirements. We clarify in § 1302.20(d)
that all hours of service that meet the
program performance standards may be
considered Head Start hours regardless
of their source of funding.
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
We believe the flexibility of the
annual hours requirement will also
allow programs to design schedules to
minimize additional staff burden that
would exacerbate challenges with
attracting and retaining qualified staff.
There are a variety of successful Head
Start models across the country where
programs currently provide full school
day and full school year services. To
address anticipated challenges,
programs may choose to develop
budgets that increase staff salaries to
reflect the additional workload and to
design innovative schedules that build
adequate time for teacher planning and
other activities into each week.
Although some commenters were
concerned that instructional time would
not increase under increased duration
minimums due to time required for
naps, meals, and transitions, we believe
having the chance to nap during the
Head Start day can be very beneficial to
consolidate learning and improve
overall health.67 68 69 If a program feels
their children would be best served by
a day without a nap at Head Start, we
designed a flexible enough requirement
for programs to design a schedule that
would not necessitate a nap under state
licensing requirements.
Some commenters believed parents
do not want or need Head Start services
for a longer program day and year. If
parents in a particular community truly
do not want full school day or full
school year services and a program can
demonstrate its model effectively
supports child learning, then the
program can apply for a waiver in
accordance with the requirements
described in § 1302.24.
Paragraph (c)(3) provides the
Secretary the discretion to lower the
required percentage of funded
enrollment slots for which grantees
must offer 1,020 annual hours of
planned class operations to the
percentage the Secretary estimates
available appropriations can support.
This provision will allow the Secretary
the flexibility to balance the important
policy goal of providing all preschoolers
with a full school day and a full school
year of services in Head Start with the
67 Bates, J. E., Viken, R. J., Alexander, D. B.,
Beyers, J., & Stockton, L. (2002). Sleep and
adjustment in preschool children: Sleep diary
reports by mothers relate to behavior reports by
teachers. Child Development, 73(1), 62–75.
68 Lam, J. C., Mahone, E. M., Mason, T. B., &
Scharf, S. M. (2011). The effects of napping on
cognitive function in preschoolers. Journal of
Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 32(2), 90.
69 Kurdziel, L., Duclos, K., & Spencer, R. M.
(2013). Sleep spindles in midday naps enhance
learning in preschool children. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, 110(43), 17267–
17272.
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
disruption and potential slot loss such
a policy might create in the absence of
sufficient funding.
In response to concerns about service
duration requirements disrupting
partnerships with local education
agencies, and to reduce burden on
programs that would need to seek
waivers in these types of situations,
paragraph (c)(2)(v) clarifies that a
program providing fewer than 1,020
annual hours of planned class
operations or fewer than 8 months of
service will be considered to meet the
service duration requirements if their
program schedule aligns with the
annual hours provided by their local
education agency’s requirements for
first grade and such alignment is
necessary to support partnerships for
service delivery.
Additionally, commenters were
concerned about the availability of
adequate facilities to serve children for
a full school day and a full school year.
Congress appropriated $294 million in
fiscal year (FY) 2016 for grantees to
increase service duration. Our cost
estimates included in the Regulatory
Impact Analysis are for annual
operating costs, and we anticipate that
a portion of the first annual awards will
be available for the purchase or
renovation of facilities before programs
begin serving children at the higher
duration. We also encourage programs
to consider partnerships with school
districts and child care centers to use
existing facilities, which have proven to
be successful models for many current
Head Start and Early Head Start-Child
Care Partnership grantees.
Comment: In addition to proposing to
increase service duration for
preschoolers, the NPRM proposed to
codify long-standing interpretation for
Early Head Start in the Act, which
describes it as a ‘‘continuous’’ program.
We have long interpreted this to mean
a minimum of a full school day and fullyear of services for infants and toddlers,
and defined this in the NPRM as a
minimum of 230 days of service per
year for a minimum of 6 hours per day.
Some commenters wrote in support of
the proposal. Others expressed concerns
or opposed the proposal for multiple
reasons, including concern about a long
day for infants, parents would not want
services for this long, and program
quality would decrease because teachers
would have less preparation and
professional development time. Some
commenters suggested slightly lower
minimums, using annual hours or
weeks instead of number of days, and/
or recommended changing the
requirement to allow time for activities
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
like professional development, parentteacher conferences, and holidays.
Response: We believe it is important
to retain the continuous service model
for Early Head Start that has existed
since the program’s inception. However,
to provide greater local flexibility and
alignment with the policy decision
made for Head Start preschoolers, we
changed the NPRM requirement from a
minimum number of hours per day and
days per year to a total number of
annual hours of planned class
operations. This requirement of 1,380
annual hours can be found in paragraph
(c)(1) and must be met by August 1,
2018. Based on our latest data,70
approximately three-quarters of children
attending Early Head Start center-based
programs already receive services for
1,380 hours. In paragraph (c)(1)(ii), we
also consider Early Head Start centerbased programs that are designed to
meet the needs of young parents
enrolled in public school settings to
meet the annual hours requirement if
their program schedule aligns with the
schedule of their local education agency
(LEA), and they provide regular homebased services over the summer break.
This specifically supports the
innovative models local programs
develop to support teen parents and
their children.
Comment: Commenters requested
clarification on the definition of days (or
hours) of planned class operation and
whether it would include activities such
as professional development,
transportation time, and other types of
activities or emergencies. Some
commenters recommended that the
required duration be inclusive of these
types of activities. Some commenters
were also confused about the definition
of ‘‘full year’’ services, interpreting the
requirement as a full calendar year
without a summer break. Others were
unclear about whether programs would
still be allowed to operate 4 days per
week under the increased minimums.
Response: As noted above, we added
a definition to part 1305 for ‘‘hours of
planned class operations’’ to clarify that
these are hours when children are
scheduled to attend and to specify what
activities are and are not included in
this calculation. Activities such as
professional development, teacher
planning, parent-teacher conferences,
classroom sanitation, and transportation
do not count toward the hours of
planned class operations. Programs can
choose to structure their calendar year
to include a summer, holiday, and other
breaks to be responsive to their
70 Submitted by grantees through the FY 2015
Grant Application Budget Instrument.
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61323
community’s cultural traditions and
family needs while still meeting the
minimum service duration requirements
described in paragraph (c). Similarly,
programs can choose to operate 4 days
per week as long as they meet the
service duration minimums. We made
additional minor changes to the
calendar planning provisions in
paragraph (c)(5) to further simplify and
clarify the process.
Comment: Commenters wrote in
response to the proposed teacher:child
ratios and group size for the centerbased option described in this section.
Some commended the proposal for
maintaining strong ratios and group size
because it demonstrated commitment to
quality and allowed individualization
and good classroom management.
Others expressed concern that the ratios
were too high for all ages and should be
lowered. Others recommended greater
flexibility. Some commenters requested
more flexibility to set ratios for infants
that would still meet high standards but
align with their state licensing
requirements. Some commenters asked
for clarification or flexibility on ratios
during naptime and other program
hours. For example, some were
specifically concerned about or seeking
flexibility to allow ratios to be met by
persons other than teachers. Some
commenters were confused about
whether class size and group size had
the same meaning. We received
comments both in support of and
against our proposal for how programs
should determine the age of the majority
of children in a class to set ratios and
group size.
Response: We believe this provision
allows for the right balance of flexibility
while also recognizing the importance
of continuity of care. However, in
paragraph (b)(2), we added new
regulatory language to allow a group
size of nine without needing a waiver
for infant and toddler classes when the
teacher to child ratio is 1:3 or lower. In
paragraph (b)(1)(i), we clarify that brief
absences of a teaching staff member that
cause the group to be out of ratio for less
than five minutes are acceptable. In
paragraph (b)(1)(ii), we clarify that
during naptime, one teaching staff
member may be replaced by an adult
who does not meet the teaching
qualifications required. Thus, while the
adult to child ratio requirement remains
unchanged during naptime, additional
flexibility is granted in how a program
must meet that ratio. We believe this
provides reasonable flexibility while
maintaining high standards. Teachers
that are present or staff that are
substituted during nap times must have
completed the safety training required
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
61324
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
for their role as staff in
§ 1302.47(b)(4)(i), including safe sleep
practices. Ratios and group size
requirements for double sessions are
also now included in paragraph (b), as
double sessions are now permitted as a
standard option until the year 2021, and
after but only as a locally designed
option. These requirements are
consistent with the previous regulation
for double sessions. We did not make
any changes to the provision in
paragraph (b)(1) regarding
determination of the primary age of the
class. Throughout subpart B, we
substituted the word ‘‘group’’ or ‘‘class’’
for ‘‘classroom’’ and replaced ‘‘class
size’’ with the more commonly used
‘‘group size’’ to eliminate confusion.
Because of this change, and to make
clear that the importance of the learning
environment as described in § 1302.31
applies to all groups regardless of the
characteristics of the physical space, we
have added a new paragraph (d)(3) to
clarify appropriate ways to make
divisions among groups when they are
not in physically separate classrooms.
Comment: Commenters also wrote
about our proposal in paragraph (b)(2) to
support continuity of care through
consideration of mixed age groups for
children under 36 months of age. Some
found the mixed age groups concept to
suggest developmentally inappropriate
practice. Others wrote in support of
continuity of care practices because of
the benefits to children and their
parents. Some offered slight changes to
the regulatory language and others
recommended we provide guidance on
implementation of best practices for
continuity of care.
Response: We recognize there was
some confusion about what mixed age
groups might mean in practice.
However, we believe best practices for
continuity of care will be best delivered
through technical assistance and
guidance and not through the regulatory
process. The provisions in this section
facilitate but do not require continuity
of care practices.
Comment: Commenters wrote in
regard to the center-based licensing and
square footage requirements in
paragraph (d). Some commenters
expressed concern about licensing
requirements in relation to schools,
seeking greater clarification and noting
that some states do not require public
schools to be licensed. Commenters also
requested clarity on whether programs
have to meet licensing standards, or be
licensed. Some comments supported
and some opposed the center-based
square footage requirements, while
some stated they were too strict, others
suggested they were not strong enough,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
and others commended the proposal to
exclude square footage requirements
from the waiver.
Response: We modified the provision
in paragraph (d) to make it clear that
programs must meet local or state
licensing requirements regardless of
whether the licensing entity requires
that they be licensed. However, we are
not requiring that all center-based
programs actually be licensed because
some states or local jurisdictions may
not be able to license entities, such as
schools, that are not required to be
licensed by state or local law. We
believe this provision ensures quality
and child safety while allowing for the
appropriate amount of local flexibility
and variance in types of grantees. As
proposed in the NPRM, licensing and
square footage requirements will not be
eligible for waivers.
Section 1302.22 Home-Based Option
This section defines the setting for the
home-based program option for Head
Start and Early Head Start and sets
requirements for home visitor caseload,
service duration, and licensing. We
received many comments about our
proposal to limit home-based models as
a standard option to Early Head Start
only. We discuss these and other
comments below.
Comment: Some commenters were in
favor of removing home-based as a
standard option for preschoolers.
Commenters stated that home-based
models do not meet the educational
needs of preschool-age children.
Commenters also expressed that, given
the significant federal investment in
home visiting through the Maternal,
Infant, and Early Childhood Home
Visiting (MIECHV) program, limited
available Head Start funding should be
targeted towards providing access to
center-based programs rather than
home-based programs for preschool-age
children.
Alternatively, many commenters
opposed the removal of the home-based
option as a standard option for Head
Start preschoolers, citing a number of
different reasons. Commenters stated
that home-based was the most
appropriate delivery model in particular
communities, such as rural areas,
communities where home schooling is
prevalent, and areas with large
immigrant or non-English speaking
populations. Some commenters
suggested that the home-based option is
a more appropriate setting for young
children, children with severe special
needs, disabilities, health problems, or
behavior issues, and parents who
request home-based to meet children’s
individual needs. Some commenters
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
stated that center-based programs may
not be what parents want for their child.
Further, these commenters suggested
that many parents are not familiar with
resources in the community, do not
speak English, or have other barriers
that prevent them from taking their
children to center-based care. Some
commenters cited research or included
data demonstrating that home visiting
improves outcomes for preschool
children.
Response: We agree that a home-based
preschool option for Head Start may be
appropriate for certain communities,
which is why we proposed programs
could apply to operate the model
through the waiver process. However, to
reduce burden on grantees, we
reinstated home-based as a standard
option for preschoolers in paragraph
(c)(2) of this section. Though research
indicates that high quality, full-day and
full-year center-based settings produce
strong outcomes for preschoolers, we
recognize that there may be a small
number of situations where the homebased model best meets the needs of the
child and family. For example, as
commenters suggested, in communities
with a high home schooling rate,
parents would likely prefer home-based
services. We do not believe, however,
that this model should be used as a
means of excluding children from
center-based settings. We also do not
believe this model should be the only
one available to preschoolers and
therefore require that it may not be the
only option available for Head Start
unless the program seeks and receives a
locally designed option within the
parameters established in § 1302.24. We
believe the greater clarity in the
community needs provisions in subpart
A and the system of program
management and quality improvement
in subpart J will help programs ensure
that the program options they offer truly
meet the early learning needs of
children and the local needs of the
community. Clear minimum
requirements for the number of home
visits and group socializations for
preschoolers in the home-based option
have been added in paragraph (c)(2),
along with expectations for meeting
those minimums in paragraph (c)(3) and
for maximum caseloads per home
visitor in paragraph (b). These
requirements are consistent with the
previous standards.
Comment: Commenters also
addressed the proposal to increase the
service duration for the Early Head Start
home-based model to 46 home visits
and 22 group socializations per year.
Some supported the proposal to
increase the number of home visits or
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
suggested a higher number. Other
commenters expressed concerns about
or opposition to the proposed
minimums. Some cited the need for
home visitors to have time for
paperwork, professional development,
and other duties. Some noted difficulty
getting families to complete 46 home
visits and described family cancellation
of scheduled home visits as a key
inhibitor. Some of these commenters
requested flexibility to allow for visits
cancelled by the family. Further, some
commenters suggested that the group
socialization minimum was too high.
Others suggested that 22 was an
acceptable minimum number of
socializations but requested flexibility
for the number of socializations per
month. Some commenters objected to
the language that programs not replace
home visits with medical or social
services visits with the home visitor.
Response: Early Head Start was
established by Congress as a continuous
program. As with the Early Head Start
center-based model, the NPRM proposal
codified long-standing interpretation of
a ‘‘continuous program’’ for Early Head
Start in the home-based model by
requiring 46 home visits per year. We
retained this requirement in paragraph
(c)(1)(i). We believe this level of service
delivery is central to a successful homebased model and therefore no changes
are being made to allow home visits or
group socializations to be replaced by
medical or social service appointments
for the purposes of meeting service
duration minimums. However, this does
not limit the flexibility of programs to
use scheduled home visit time to
identify needs and schedule necessary
medical or social service appointments.
Home visitors should have the
flexibility to determine how to best meet
their families’ immediate needs and still
reach the minimum visits focused on
child development and education.
However, we believe greater flexibility
for meeting the number of group
socializations is appropriate and
changed the requirement in paragraph
(c)(1)(ii) to clarify that the number of
required group socializations are for
each family, not each child. In addition,
instead of prescribing two group
socializations per month, the standards
require the group socializations to be
distributed over the course of the
program year. Although we expect
programs to space group socializations
relatively evenly throughout the year,
we believe this change will maintain
high-quality while allowing local
flexibility to address shifting and
unexpected needs and schedules of the
families programs serve. To address the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
confusion about requirements to make
up cancelled visits, paragraph (c)(3)
clarifies that a program must make up
planned home visits or scheduled group
socializations if canceled by the
program in order to meet minimum
service duration requirements, and that
they should attempt to make up planned
home visits when cancelled by the
family.
Comment: Many commenters
questioned the need to require licensing
for group socialization sites.
Commenters believed this requirement
would put an unreasonable burden on
programs by limiting the locations for
socializations. Many also stated that
group socialization sites should only
need to be licensed if they occur in
Head Start facilities. Further, some
commenters wanted clarification on the
conflict between paragraph (a) and (d),
noting that community facilities
(including libraries and churches),
homes, and field trip locations likely
would not be licensed.
Response: The language to require
licensing for group socialization sites
existed in the previous regulation, but
we agree this is potentially confusing,
unnecessarily limiting, and that not all
group socialization sites need to be
licensed. However, we do believe it is
important that all sites are safe for
children and their families. Therefore,
to clarify our intent, we removed the
proposed licensing requirement for
group socialization sites and replaced it
with a requirement in paragraph (d) that
the areas for learning, playing, sleeping,
toileting, preparing food, and eating in
facilities used for group socializations
meet relevant safety standards.
Comment: Some commenters wrote in
reference to the proposal in paragraph
(b) that ‘‘programs must maintain
appropriate ratios during all hours of
program operation’’ and noted this
language was unnecessary for the homebased option.
Response: We agree that including
ratio requirements for the home-based
option was an error and removed that
requirement.
Section 1302.23 Family Child Care
Option
This section defines the family child
care setting and the relationship
between the program and the family
child care provider, and sets
requirements for ratios, group size,
service duration, licensing, and the
involvement of a child development
specialist. Within this section,
commenters asked for clarity regarding
the relationship with the family child
care providers and the program or the
requirements for ratios and group size.
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61325
Comment: As described in the
preamble for § 1302.21, we received
many comments on the service duration
requirements for center-based and
family child care programs, some in
favor and some opposed. The comments
typically addressed the service duration
proposal generally without explicitly
referring to the family child care option.
Response: Because the previous
program performance standards
required that family child care programs
operate for hours that meet the needs of
families, nearly all family child care
providers already meet the increased
duration requirements of 1,020 annual
hours for Head Start and 1,380 annual
hours for Early Head Start. In fact, most
family child care programs provide
many more hours than these minimums
to meet family needs. Therefore, we
removed the service duration
requirements in § 1302.23(c) proposed
in the NPRM, and instead require that
family child care programs must operate
for sufficient hours to meet the child
care needs of families and cannot
operate for less than 1,380 hours per
year in paragraph (c).
Comment: Some commenters had
concerns or questions about
requirements specifically related to
programs that operate in a family child
care setting. Some commenters
supported the family child care
employment requirements in paragraph
(a)(1) because it is important to ensure
transparency and a successful
partnership. Some commenters
suggested the need for greater clarity
regarding the ability for programs to
either employ or contract with family
child care providers. Others opposed
the requirement that the program be the
employer of the family child care
provider, stating that it was overly
restrictive and could hinder innovative
employment strategies. Some sought
additional guidance and other
commenters were unclear about,
opposed to, or had concerns about the
proposed ‘‘legally binding agreement’’
between the program and family child
care providers, and recommended we
define this phrase.
Some commenters requested general
clarity on the family child care option
section, including requirements for
ratios and group sizes, as well as
expectations for identifying alternate
sources of funding for extended hours
and expectations under paragraph (a)(2)
regarding accessibility and the
definition of ‘‘as appropriate.’’ A
commenter recommended that grantees
be required to annually share a list of
their family child care contracts with
the State Collaboration Office for better
collaboration with the subsidy program.
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
61326
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Response: We adjusted the language
in paragraph (a)(1) to clarify that a
program must either have a legally
binding agreement with family child
care providers or be the employer of the
provider(s). We also considered
terminology that could be used in place
of ‘‘legally binding agreement,’’ such as
‘‘legally enforceable agreement or
contract,’’ but determined that the
original phrase accurately represents the
necessary legal relationship and is
inclusive of contracts. We also adjusted
the language in paragraph (a)(2) to
clarify that programs using the family
child care option need to be able to
accommodate children and families
with disabilities. Additionally, we
revised paragraph (b) to improve clarity
of the ratio and group size requirements
for the family child care option. We will
not require grantees to share a list of
family child care contracts with the
State Collaboration Office as we do not
believe that this is necessary for
successful collaboration with subsidy
programs.
Comment: Some commenters asked
for clarification about the standard in
paragraph (b)(4) that requires family
child care programs to maintain
appropriate ratios during all hours of
operation.
Response: In paragraph (b)(4), we
restored standards from the previous
rule to clarify how family child care
programs maintain appropriate ratios.
Specifically, we revised paragraph (b)(4)
to require programs to make substitute
staff and assistant providers available
and required a family child care
program to ensure providers have
systems to ensure the safety of any child
not within view for any period.
Section 1302.24 Locally-Designed
Program Option Variations
This section describes the
requirements for programs to request a
waiver to operate a locally designed
program option. The comments we
received on this section mainly
addressed the timeline and process for
approval of waivers.
Comment: Commenters expressed a
range of opinions on the proposed
locally-designed option waiver process.
Some commenters were in favor of
requiring a waiver based on evidence of
community needs and child progress,
and noted these requirements would
promote accountability, objectivity, and
continuous improvement for grantees in
evaluating their program design, but
still allow for innovation. Others were
concerned about the process being
burdensome and time-consuming and
recommended alternative periods and
processes for approval. Commenters
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
were concerned that the criteria that
would be used to approve or deny
waivers for locally-designed program
options would be inconsistent or unfair
and requested clarification about what
evidence of outcomes would be
sufficient to justify approval of a waiver.
Commenters expressed concern about
waivers being approved in a timely
manner.
Commenters also recommended
changes to limit the use of waivers.
Some commenters recommended
locally-designed options should be
standard program options and should
not require a waiver. Others
recommended retaining all program
options from the previous regulation as
standard options instead of requiring a
waiver, or other structures such as
having a number of standard duration
options that would include part-day/
part-year services.
Some commenters expressed support
for requiring approval for a locallydesigned option every two years,
particularly for programs that would
seek to waive the requirements for
increased service duration, but others
opposed this requirement because it
would be too burdensome for programs
and suggested longer approval periods.
Many of these commenters
recommended a five-year period of
approval that would align with the
community assessment and the five-year
grant cycle and would strike a better
balance between accountability and
burden. Some commenters
recommended that programs be allowed
to shift their program options annually
or within their five-year grant if local
needs warrant a change without
requiring a new waiver.
Response: We made a number of
changes to the locally-designed program
option waiver described in this section.
As described in paragraph (b), we have
changed the period of approval for
locally designed option waivers to the
full project period of the grant to align
with the new five-year grant cycles. In
addition, due to other changes made in
subpart B, we believe many fewer
programs will seek waivers, which will
improve the timeliness of the process to
review and make determinations. In
order to ensure programs thoughtfully
determine the appropriate program
design that supports their long-term
goals, we revised paragraph (a) to link
the waiver request to achieving program
goals in subpart J.
We revised paragraph (c) to clarify
exactly which requirements may be
waived. Paragraph (c) more clearly
states that the responsible HHS official
may waive one or more of the
requirements contained in § 1302.21(b),
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
(c)(1)(i), (c)(2)(iii), and (c)(2)(iv);
§ 1302.22(b) and (c); and § 1302.23(b)
and (c). These requirements include
ratios and group size in center-based
settings for children 24 months and
older, Early Head Start service duration,
Head Start service duration
requirements for the percentage of each
grantee’s slots operating at 1,020 hours,
caseload and service duration
requirements for the home-based option,
and ratios, group size, and service
duration for the family child care
option. However, if a waiver of group
size for children over 24 months is
permitted, paragraph (c)(2) specifies
upper limits that are allowable under a
waiver, which are included to ensure
program quality and child safety.
Additionally, paragraph (c)(1) clarifies
that waivers are not allowable for ratios
or group size for children under 24
months, which is discussed in more
detail below. Provisions in the NPRM
specific to double session requirements
under a locally-designed option were
struck because double sessions have
been retained as a standard option until
August 2021. We added additional
language in paragraph (c)(3) to clarify
the minimum center-based service
duration requirements Head Start
programs must meet when seeking a
waiver from the 1,020 annual hours
provisions in § 1302.21(c)(2)(iii) and
(iv).
We revised paragraph (c)(4) and
added paragraph (c)(5) to clarify what
programs must demonstrate in order to
receive a waiver. Specifically, in
paragraph (c)(4) we require programs
seeking any waiver under this section to
provide evidence that their locallydesigned variation effectively supports
appropriate development and progress
in children’s early learning outcomes. In
addition, in paragraph (c)(5), we require
programs seeking waivers of service
duration to also provide supporting
evidence that their variation better
meets the needs of parents than the
options described in §§ 1302.21 through
1302.23 and to evaluate the
effectiveness of the variation in
supporting appropriate development
and progress in children’s early learning
outcomes. We believe local flexibility is
important but that tax dollars should be
spent on program models that are
effective in helping close the
achievement gap.
Comment: Commenters stated
American Indian and Alaska Native
programs should not be required to
apply for locally-designed option
waivers for some of the provisions in
subpart B, and specifically requested a
tribal exemption from some of the
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
requirements, including extending the
length of the day and length of the year.
Response: We provided greater
flexibility in subpart B for programs to
design their program schedules in a way
that best meets their community needs,
including the ability to determine the
length of summer breaks and the length
of the day, while still ensuring
American Indian and Alaska Native
children reap the full benefits of greater
exposure to high-quality early learning.
We think this will allow most programs
to accommodate important cultural
practices and subsistence activities.
However, when this additional
flexibility is not adequate to meet
community needs, we believe it is
appropriate that tribal programs, like all
programs, would be able to apply for a
locally-designed option.
Comment: Some commenters
addressed the standard in paragraph
(c)(1) to allow programs to seek waivers
from ratio requirements for classes
serving children who are at least two
years old. Some opposed the proposal to
allow programs to apply for a waiver for
teacher:child ratios for two-year-olds
because such waivers would decrease
program quality and lessen children’s
individualized care. Others supported
this waiver because it would allow
programs the flexibility to better address
extreme unmet need in their
communities. Some commenters
recommended that we set upper limits
for ratios approved by waivers so that
flexibility could be sought without
compromising quality.
Response: We agree with the need for
clear limits to group size and
teacher:child ratios in locally-designed
options so that high-quality is
maintained. Therefore, waiver
requirements are clarified in paragraph
(c)(2)(i) to specify that even with a
waiver, a class serving children 24 to 36
months of age may have no more than
ten children. Furthermore, in paragraph
(c)(2)(ii), we clarify even with a waiver,
a class that serves predominantly threeyear-old children must have no more
than twenty children and in paragraph
(c)(2)(iii), a class that serves
predominantly four-year-old children
must have no more than twenty-four
children. As proposed in the NPRM,
ratios and group size may not be waived
for children younger than 24 months of
age.
Comment: Some commenters opposed
the proposal to remove the combination
option as a standard option. Some
commenters felt combination options
met their community and parent needs
better than the proposed center-based or
family child care options, which were
the only program options for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
preschoolers included in the NPRM.
Some stated they were against the
removal of the combination option
because it is an essential part of their
service delivery for rural, isolated
communities with no other services and
not enough children for a center-based
program.
Response: We acknowledge there may
be some instances in which a
combination option can effectively serve
a community but think these services
are best achieved through the locallydesigned option variation described in
this section. This locally designed
waiver process will ensure these more
unique program models are specifically
designed to respond to community
needs while effectively meeting
children’s developmental and learning
needs and that tax dollars are being
effectively spent. As noted below, in
changing the waiver approval process
from two years to five years, we believe
we struck the appropriate balance
between accountability and flexibility.
Effective Dates of Subpart B Program
Structure Provisions
In the NPRM, we specifically
requested comment on the effective
dates of the service duration
requirements throughout subpart B. We
received many comments on what the
effective dates should be and discuss
those comments and our responses
below. The effective date of this rule
and dates for specific requirements that
will go into effective after the remainder
of the regulation are included in the
compliance table in the Dates section.
Comment: Commenters raised
concerns with the timeline for phasing
in the increased service duration
requirements. Many of these
commenters stated that one year after
the rule is final is too fast for careful
planning and implementation. Some
commenters suggested that grantees be
allowed to phase the requirements in as
part of their five-year grant cycle, to
allow for thoughtful planning among
many stakeholders, time to consider
funding options, and time to find
adequate facilities and qualified
teachers. Some commenters suggested
that the effective date of the duration
provisions should be tied to
Congressional appropriation of funds.
Response: We acknowledge the
importance of giving grantees sufficient
time for thoughtful planning,
consideration of community needs, and
management of logistics when
increasing the duration of their centerbased services. Accordingly, we
adjusted the effective dates of the
increased service duration provisions to
better facilitate thoughtful
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61327
implementation. However, we are also
mindful of moving forward to ensure
more children receive the higher levels
of service duration that we think are
important to achieve strong child
outcomes.
The requirements for Early Head Start
center-based and home-based service
duration in §§ 1302.21(c)(1) and
1302.22(c)(1) are effective August 1,
2018 and August 1, 2017, respectively.
The majority of Early Head Start
programs already operate in accordance
with the service duration requirements
we establish in this final rule. Therefore,
only a small share of Early Head Start
programs must increase their service
duration to meet the new requirements.
Additionally, funding in FY 2016 is
available to support all Early Head Start
center-based programs that need to
increase their service duration and there
should be time and resources for them
to meet these minimums by 2018.
The requirement for 50 percent of
each grantee’s Head Start center-based
slots to operate for a full school day and
full school year in § 1302.21(c)(2)(iii) is
effective on August 1, 2019, which is
approximately three years following the
publication of this final rule. This
interim requirement will mean many
more families will have access to the
educational services for a full school
day and full school year within three
years. This requirement will increase
from 50 percent to 100 percent effective
August 1, 2021, as described in
§ 1302.21(c)(2)(iv). This effective date is
approximately five years following the
publication of this final rule. The
gradual phase-in allows ample time for
grantees to plan implementation and
align changes with their five-year grant
cycle if they choose. The service
duration provisions for the Head Start
home-based option described in
§ 1302.22(c)(2), which are unchanged
from the previous performance
standards, do not require a delayed
phase-in.
We also revised the service duration
requirement for the family child care
option described in § 1302.23(c) to
reflect language from previous standards
to state that programs must meet the
child care needs of families. Although
the provision is not explicit that family
child care programs must operate for a
minimum of 1,380 annual hours, most
family child care programs provide
many more hours than this to meet
family needs and therefore this
provision does not require a delayed
phase-in.
We clarify in § 1302.24(d) that
programs currently approved to operate
program models that do not meet the
requirements described in subpart B of
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
61328
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
this rule, such as combination options,
may continue to operate in their existing
approved program option until July 31,
2018. However, programs must have
either an approved waiver to operate a
locally designed program option that
meets the requirements in § 1302.24 or
adopt one or more of the standard
program options described in §§ 1302.21
through 1302.23 no later than August 1,
2018.
While we believe the respective
August 1, 2018 and August 1, 2019
effective dates of the center-based
service duration provisions described in
§§ 1302.21(c)(1) and (c)(2)(iii) should
give the vast majority of programs
enough time to make changes to their
service delivery, there may be
unforeseen circumstances that arise
which may necessitate additional time
to complete the transition without
disrupting services to children.
Therefore, under § 1302.21(c)(4),
programs may request a one-year
extension of the increased service
duration requirements for center-based
Head Start and Early Head Start
described in § 1302.21(c)(1) and
(c)(2)(iii) if necessary to prevent
displacement of children enrolled in the
program at the time this rule becomes
effective.
Education and Child Development
Program Services; Subpart C
In this subpart, we combined all
previous program standards related to
education and child development
services. We significantly updated and
restructured these requirements to
reflect the Act, current research, and
best practices in teaching and learning,
to strengthen curriculum requirements,
and to integrate the Head Start Early
Learning Outcomes Framework: Ages
Birth to Five. We also corrected an
imbalance between Early Head Start and
Head Start education standards with a
unifying birth to five approach.
We received comments on all sections
of this subpart. Overall, commenters
were supportive and positive about the
provisions in subpart C. Commenters
noted the subpart provided a much
clearer picture of what high-quality
early education looks like, reflected
research on how children learn, and
appreciated our strong focus on
practices that promote intentional and
effective teaching. Commenters also
expressed their support for our focus on
intentional teaching practices but
recognizing and requiring play and
exploration as important to developing
school readiness. Commenters
supported the curriculum requirements,
including the integration of professional
development into curriculum
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
implementation. They also agreed with
our provisions to use assessments to
individualize services. Commenters
supported the integration of the Head
Start Early Learning Outcomes
Framework: Ages Birth to Five through
subpart C and appreciated our birth to
five approach.
We made some changes in response to
public comments that further strengthen
this subpart. For example, we modified
some language and structure to ensure
the subpart consistently and
appropriately addressed children from
birth to age five. In addition, we made
changes to further strengthen and clarify
effective services for DLLs. There were
some recommendations we thought
were too prescriptive, did not reflect
best practice or research, were outside
the scope of this regulation, sought
guidance more appropriate for technical
assistance, or were not consistent with
current research-based practices.
Therefore, we did not make changes
based on these comments. We address
additional comments below.
General Comments
Comment: Some commenters
recommended adding language
throughout this subpart to recognize
family child care providers separately
from teachers.
Response: While we recognize the
unique role of family child care
providers, we believe that it is
important that family child care
providers be recognized as the teachers
of the children they serve, and therefore
use the term teachers in §§ 1302.30
through 1302.34 to be inclusive of
family child care providers.
Comment: Some commenters
expressed concern there were instances
throughout this subpart that did not use
language appropriate for infants and
toddlers.
Response: This subpart addresses
Head Start children of all ages. We only
included separate standards when
developmental differences made it
appropriate to do so. We made revisions
throughout the subpart, including for
example, requirements for responsive
care, a broader reference to children’s
learning experiences as well as
activities, and changes discussed in
detail below above developmental scope
and sequence in curricula. These
changes ensure all sections are
appropriate for children from birth to
age 5.
Comment: Some commenters
suggested we specifically include the
principles of universal design (UD) and
universal design for learning (UDL) in
requirements for curriculum objectives,
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
learning materials and spaces, teaching
practices, and assessments.
Response: Though we did not revise
the regulation to specifically reference
UDL, many of its principles are long
standing Head Start and Early Head
Start requirements that are expanded
and enhanced in this final rule. We also
did not incorporate the suggestion to
require that programs adhere to UD. We
agree that UD principles are beneficial
for all users of a facility but think we
can effectively promote the principles of
UD through technical assistance
provided for renovation and
construction projects.
Comment: Some commenters
suggested that we needed to address
teacher compensation in order for this
subpart to be effectively implemented.
Response: We agree that teacher
compensation is vitally important to
attracting and retaining effective
teachers. However, addressing
compensation is outside the scope of
this regulation because teacher
compensation is determined by
Congressional appropriations and local
decisions.
Comment: Some commenters stated
that the regulation failed to recognize
that supporting the home language of
DLLs is important in and of itself,
separate from the goal of supporting
English acquisition.
Response: We believe there is clear
language in § 1302.31(b)(2) that
emphasizes the importance of
supporting the home language of DLLs,
separate from the goal of English
acquisition. The Act requires that Head
Start programs support the acquisition
of English for children who are DLLs.
Section 1302.30 Purpose
This section provides an overarching
statement of the general purpose and
goals for education services in centerbased, family child care, and homebased settings for Early Head Start and
Head Start programs. We received some
suggestions for this section.
Comment: Some commenters
recommended the section include a
statement that the goal of Head Start is
to close the achievement gap.
Response: The purpose of Head Start
is stated in the Act and is the foundation
for this section, so we made no changes.
Section 1302.31 Teaching and the
Learning Environment.
This section includes the key
research-based elements of teaching
practices and the learning environment
and is central to preparing children to
succeed in school. It provides programs
with the elements for delivering a more
intentional and focused education and
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
learning experience that will better
promote skill growth and stronger child
outcomes without micromanaging local
decision-making and creating undue
burden.
Commenters were very supportive
and expressed that the section
appropriately reflected best practice and
effectively elevated the research-based
teaching practices that support
children’s learning and
development.71 72 73 74 75 Commenters
supported the alignment with the
Framework as well as the explicit
recognition of nurturing and responsive
interactions as components of effective
teaching practices. Commenters noted
the benefits of integrating each child’s
assessment information into teaching
practices and supported the focus on
development of skills children need to
enter kindergarten ready to succeed.
Commenters also appreciated the
inclusion of play and exploration as key
aspects of effective education
programming. Others praised our
approach to include meals and daily
routines in the education section
because it denoted their importance as
opportunities for learning experiences
and activities. We made some changes
in response to comments, including
minor structural changes to clarify our
intent. Additional comments are
addressed below.
Comment: Some commenters thought
this section should include additional
integration of professional development.
Response: We agree that integration of
professional development to support
effective teaching practices is a key
component of a high-quality early
education program. Therefore, we
specifically addressed this in paragraph
(a) to ensure the system of
individualized and ongoing professional
development supports teachers and in
curriculum requirements in § 1302.32.
71 Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2001). Early
teacher-child relationships and the trajectory of
children’s school outcomes through eighth grade.
Child Development, 72(2), 625–638.
72 Burchinal, M., Howes, C., Pianta, R., Bryant, D.,
Early, D., Clifford, R., & Barbarin, O. (2008).
Predicting child outcomes at the end of
kindergarten from the quality of pre-kindergarten
teacher–child interactions and instruction. Applied
Development Science, 12(3), 140–153.
73 National Institute of Child Health and Human
Development (NICHD) Early Child Care Research
Network. (2000). Characteristics and quality of
child care for toddlers and preschoolers. Applied
Developmental Science, 4(3), 116–135.
74 Rowe, M. L. (2008). Child-directed speech:
relation to socioeconomic status, knowledge of
child development and child vocabulary skill.
Journal of Child Language, 35(1), 185.
75 Zimmerman, F. J., Gilkerson, J., Richards, J. A.,
Christakis, D. A., Xu, D., Gray, S., & Yapanel, U.
(2009). Teaching by listening: the importance of
adult-child conversations to language development.
Pediatrics, 124(1), 342–349.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
While professional development
revisions to this section were limited to
those changes, we also increased the
standards for the quality of professional
development in subpart I.
Comment: Some commenters
suggested that paragraph (b)(2) include
a focus on ‘‘biliteracy’’ in addition to
bilingualism. Commenters noted that
the term biliteracy expands on the goals
of bilingualism to include a focus on
reading, and eventually writing, in the
home language.
Response: We agree with this
suggestion and we incorporated
‘‘biliteracy’’ into paragraph (b)(2) as well
as in the home-based option in
§ 1302.35(c)(4).
Comment: Commenters asked for
clarification and raised concerns about
paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (ii) related to
finding bilingual staff or interpreters to
work with DLLs, such as lack of
bilingual staff with appropriate
credentials, especially in rural areas;
lack of interpreters due to the rarity of
some languages; and a high diversity of
languages in the same class. Some
commenters suggested this may be
particularly challenging with refugee
populations.
Response: Based on the best research
available, we believe it is critically
important to support the development
of both English and the home language
for children who are DLLs.76 77 78 79 80
Additionally, we believe that all
teachers, including those who only
speak English, can support the
development of DLLs. However, we also
understand that in certain instances,
such as when there are multiple nonEnglish languages in the same class, it
may be difficult to have program staff or
interpreters present that speak all
languages. In these instances, we
encourage programs to collaborate with
outside entities to ensure the presence
of multiple languages in the class.
Further we require programs to work to
76 Bialystok, E. (2001). Bilingualism in
development: Language, Literacy, & Cognition.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
77 Genesee, F., Paradis, J., & Crago, M.B. (2004).
Dual language development and disorders: A
handbook on bilingualism and second language
learning. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
78 Castro, D. C. & Espinosa, L. M. (2014).
Developmental characteristics of young dual
language learners: Implications of policy and
practice in infant and toddler care. Zero To Three,
January, 2014.
79 Espinosa, L. (2010). Getting it right for young
children from diverse backgrounds: Applying
research to improve practice. Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Pearson.
80 McCAbe, A., Tamis-LeMOnda, C.S., Bornstein,
M.H., Cates, C.B., Golinkoff, R., et al. (2013).
Multilingual children: Beyond Myths and towards
Best Practices. Society for Research in Child
Development: Social Policy Report, 27 (4).
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61329
identify e volunteers who can be trained
to work in the classroom that can
provide high-quality input in children’s
home language(s). We added new
language to the final rule under
paragraph (b)(2)(iii) to reflect these
realities.
Comment: Some commenters
recommended we add more specificity
to paragraphs (b) and (c), including on
the structure of the day, the data
teachers use to plan, and the types of
learning experiences provided.
Response: We believe it is important
to include the key elements of the
teaching and learning environment so
programs clearly understand the
components they need to implement to
have high-quality education
programming. However, flexibility is
also needed to allow for innovation,
individualization for a class or a child,
and effective implementation.
Therefore, we did not incorporate the
suggested revision.
Comment: Some commenters noted
the term ‘‘classroom’’ in paragraph (c)
was not inclusive of family child care
terminology.
Response: We agree and revised
paragraph (c) to reference ‘‘learning
environments’’ instead of ‘‘classrooms.’’
Comment: Some commenters opposed
or expressed concern about the proposal
in paragraph (e)(1) to require an age
appropriate approach that
accommodates children’s need to nap or
rest. Some were concerned about
logistical challenges such as cost,
staffing, and space. Some commenters
supported the proposal to promote
learning through approaches to rest,
noting that adequate rest is closely tied
to learning and health.
Response: We made no changes to the
requirements to have an intentional and
age appropriate approach to children’s
need to nap or rest except to clarify for
programs serving preschoolers, it
applied for programs operating 6 or
more hours per day. Though
maximizing learning time is important,
research shows a clear link between
adequate sleep and learning.81 82 83 We
believe this provision will support
children’s health and increase the
81 Bates, J. E., Viken, R. J., Alexander, D. B.,
Beyers, J., & Stockton, L. (2002). Sleep and
adjustment in preschool children: Sleep diary
reports by mothers relate to behavior reports by
teachers. Child Development, 73(1), 62–75.
82 Lam, J. C., Mahone, E. M., Mason, T. B., &
Scharf, S. M. (2011). The effects of napping on
cognitive function in preschoolers. Journal of
Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 32(2), 90.
83 Kurdziel, L., Duclos, K., & Spencer, R. M.
(2013). Sleep spindles in midday naps enhance
learning in preschool children. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, 110(43), 17267–
17272.
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
61330
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
learning children can gain from other
portions of the day. Moreover, most
states already require center-based
programs to provide naps if they operate
for fewer hours than the 6-hour
threshold. Therefore, many programs
are already subject to a more stringent
requirement.
Comment: Some commenters opposed
the proposal in paragraph (e)(2) that
replaced the requirement for family
style meals with an approach that was
less prescriptive but retained most of
the key characteristics of family style
meals and ensured mealtimes were
considered part of the learning day.
Some commenters felt strongly that
family style meals were integral to Head
Start’s culture. Commenters also raised
concerns about eliminating an
important research-based requirement
because family style meals are
important to teach lifelong healthy food
habits and they support socialization
and conversation during mealtime.
Some commenters seemed concerned
that family style meals would be
prohibited under our proposal or that
the proposal conflicted with
requirements in the Child and Adult
Care Food Program (CACFP).
Some commenters wrote in support of
our proposal to replace the family style
meal requirement with a less
prescriptive proposal that focused on
meals as a time for learning,
socialization, and conversation. Some
commenters stated that our proposal
allowed for better collaboration with
community partners like schools, while
still retaining important parts of family
style meals. Others agreed it would
support intentional teacher practices,
focus on conversations, learning, and
socialization, and eliminate overly
prescriptive requirements.
Many commenters recommended we
change the provision to explicitly
encourage family style meals. Some of
these commenters noted that the
proposal included many central
characteristics of family style meals and
appreciated our focus on mealtime as a
learning activity. They also noted they
understood the benefits of our approach
since it made it easier to partner with
other programs because some of the
specifics of family style meals were
logistically challenging for some
partnerships. However, these
commenters strongly recommended we
add language to encourage use of family
style meal so it would be consistent
with CACFP and because the benefits
were important.
Response: We believe it is essential
that programs structure and implement
meals and snacks in ways that support
development and learning. Family style
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
meal service is one effective method of
accomplishing this goal. Therefore, we
revised the provision in paragraph (e)(2)
to make clear that programs are
encouraged but not required to meet the
requirement to support development
and learning during meals times
through the use family style meals when
children are old enough for this to be
developmentally appropriate practice.
This is consistent with CACFP, which
encourages but does not require family
style meals. However, we also believe it
is appropriate to not be overly
prescriptive, to support partnerships,
and to allow flexibility in how a
program promotes learning during
meals.
Comment: Some commenters
expressed support for our retention of
requirements in paragraph (e)(2) that
children be given sufficient time to eat,
should not be forced to finish their food,
and that food should not be used as a
reward or punishment. Some
commenters wrote that we should add
requirements around food activities,
including retaining a requirement from
the previous program standards about
participating in food activities.
Response: We agree that participating
in food activities can be part of good
practice but think this is overly
prescriptive and did not make these
suggested changes.
Comment: Some commenters
recommended we add requirements for
physical activity, including parameters
about how much time children should
be physically active. They suggested
requirements based on the National
Health and Safety Performance
Standards: Guidelines for Out-of-Home
Childcare, including that we require at
least 60 minutes of moderate to vigorous
physical activity for children in Early
Head Start and at least 90 minutes of
moderate to vigorous physical activity
for children in Head Start.
Response: We agree that physical
activity is important for young children.
Not only is it important for children’s
health, but movement and physical
activity are important to children’s
learning and development.84 85 86
84 Becker, D. R., McClelland, M. M., Loprinzi, P.,
& Trost, S. G. (2014). Physical activity, selfregulation, and early academic achievement in
preschool children. Early Education &
Development, 25(1), 56–70.
85 Timmons, B. W., LeBlanc, A. G., Carson, V.,
Connor Gorber, S., Dillman, C., Janssen, I., . . . &
Tremblay, M. S. (2012). Systematic review of
physical activity and health in the early years (aged
0–4 years). Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and
Metabolism, 37(4), 773–792.
86 Hodges, E. A., Smith, C., Tidwell, S., & Berry,
D. (2013). Promoting physical activity in
preschoolers to prevent obesity: a review of the
literature. Journal of Pediatric Nursing, 28(1), 3–19.
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Developmentally appropriate practice is
clear that young children need to move
and be physically active. For example,
the Office of Head Start’s initiative I Am
Moving I Am Learning has been wellreceived by programs and helped
institute healthy practices. However, we
do not believe we should dictate to local
programs the amount of time children
should engage in such activities. To
ensure that programs recognize the role
of physical activity in children’s
learning and health, we added a new
provision in paragraph (e)(4) that reads:
‘‘A program must recognize physical
activity as important to learning and
integrate intentional movement and
physical activity into curricular
activities and daily routines in ways
that support health and learning. A
program must not use physical activity
as a reward or punishment.’’ We believe
this provision will allow local programs
to implement policies appropriate to
their program design and the needs of
their children.
Comment: Some commenters
recommended we include new
requirements with specific limitations
on screen time.
Response: We agree that children
should have limited exposure to screen
time and believe that if programs are
implementing the standards in this
section for nurturing, responsive, rich
learning environments and experiences
that effectively support strong child
outcomes, screen time will, by
necessity, not be available or will be
appropriately limited to interactive
educational activities that evidence
shows support learning. However, as
even the meaning of screen time is
currently evolving and the research on
technology use and children’s learning
is an emerging field, we chose not to
add any specific requirements.
Section 1302.32 Curricula
This section includes requirements
for the curriculum or curricula programs
use. It reflects new requirements from
the Act, the current role and use of
curricula in the early education field,
and a deeper understanding of the
curriculum qualities associated with
improved child outcomes. This applies
to center-based and family child care
programs. Curriculum requirements for
home-based programs are found in
§ 1302.35. Some commenters were
supportive of the curriculum provisions.
We also received comments with
concerns and suggestions that we
discuss below.
Comment: Commenters were
generally supportive of our curriculum
provisions. They stated the section
included important changes that would
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
raise the quality of curriculum and its
implementation. Commenters noted the
importance of the requirements for
content rich curricula, and the benefits
of requiring a clear scope and sequence
and integration of professional
development and support for teachers.
They also supported the focus on
implementation fidelity and the
qualities of an effective curriculum,
including alignment with early learning
standards.
Response: We believe it is essential
that programs intentionally review the
curriculum or curricula they are using
to ensure it meets each criterion in the
final rule and appropriately supports
children’s development and learning. In
some instances, we believe it will be
necessary for programs to use curricula
enhancements to ensure their
programming is sufficiently content rich
and to achieve strong child outcomes.
We expect programs to be thorough in
reviewing their curriculum and the
professional development system that
supports teachers’ implementation of
curriculum. For this reason, as proposed
in the NPRM, programs have
approximately one year after
publication of this rule to implement
this standard.
Comment: Some commenters
recommended we include a list of
acceptable curricula to ensure programs
use effective ones and to help guide
state pre-kindergarten curriculum
choices.
Response: Development of curricula
that can effectively impact child
outcomes is a growing field. Programs
should not just accept the publisher’s
word that their curriculum meets Head
Start standards, but should
continuously evaluate its effectiveness
as part of the program management
approach. We did not include a specific
list of acceptable curriculum so
programs have the flexibility to
implement appropriate curricula for the
children they enroll, supplement
curricula as needed, and make changes
as the field advances.
Comment: Some commenters
expressed concerns about the provision
in paragraph (a)(1)(iii) that requires
curriculum to include an ‘‘organized
developmental scope and sequence.’’
Others supported this standard. Some
commenters were concerned that ‘‘scope
and sequence’’ would not be interpreted
in a developmentally appropriate
manner. Others were concerned its
interpretation was not clear for infants
and toddlers.
Response: We revised paragraph
(a)(1)(iii) to clarify our meaning of
developmental scope and sequence.
This standard now reads: ‘‘has an
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
organized developmental scope and
sequence that includes plans and
materials for learning experiences based
on developmental progressions and how
children learn.’’ We made similar
changes to the comparable provision for
curricula in home-based programs in
§ 1302.35 for the same reasons. As part
of this revision, we moved our
requirement that curricula be
sufficiently content-rich to promote
measurable progress to paragraph
(a)(1)(ii). This reorganization was for
clarity; we did not change the
substance.
Comment: Some commenters were
concerned the curriculum requirements
were not developmentally appropriate.
Some were confused about narrative in
the NPRM’s preamble that noted that
research finds that strong child
outcomes for children are supported by
activities that intentionally engage
children in activities like math or
language for 15 to 20 minutes multiple
times each week.
Response: We are clear in paragraph
(a)(1) that programs must implement
developmentally appropriate curricula
and we do not believe any of the criteria
required in paragraph (a)(1) are
developmentally inappropriate.
Therefore, we do not need to revise this
section to address this concern. Neither
the proposed rule nor the final rule
included any requirements about the
specific amount of time teachers should
spend on any particular activity.
Content-rich curriculum, in which
children intentionally engage in a math
activity (for example), does not require
children sit still or be passive recipients
of rote instruction. For example, if
implemented correctly, content-rich
learning activities are interesting,
appropriate, and engaging for children.
Developmentally appropriate practice
and effective intentional teaching with
young children does not mean rote
instruction, sitting still for lengthy
periods while adults talk at them, or
‘‘drill and kill.’’ Such teaching practices
would not meet the requirements in this
subpart.
Comment: Commenters supported the
provisions in what were paragraphs
(a)(2) and (3) that addressed
professional development support for
curriculum implementation and fidelity
of implementation. Some commenters
offered suggestions for further clarifying
and strengthening the goals of these
provisions.
Response: We retained the two key
concepts of the provisions in paragraph
(a)(2)—professional development—and
paragraph (a)(3)—curriculum fidelity,
but integrated and streamlined them
into paragraph (a)(2) to improve clarity
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61331
and implementation. Our revisions
place more focus on staff support and
are less compliance oriented. In
paragraph (a)(2), we more clearly
articulate the important requirement of
supporting all teachers with support,
feedback, and supervision in order to
continuously improve curriculum
implementation. In addition, whereas in
the proposed rule, curriculum fidelity
kits were likely the main way programs
would comply with paragraph (a)(3), we
revised paragraph (a)(2) to focus on the
requirement not the method. We made
similar changes to the comparable
provisions for home-based programs in
§ 1302.35 for the same reasons.
Comment: Many commenters
expressed concern or sought clarity on
the provisions in paragraph (b) that
proposed requirements for when
programs sought to make significant
adaptations to curriculum. Many
commenters requested greater flexibility
in curriculum requirements in
paragraphs (a) and (b) so programs who
serve culturally diverse communities for
whom curricula have not been designed
or validated. Some commenters were
not clear how much adaptation would
necessitate partnerships with
researchers. Others thought the
provision was too burdensome and
unnecessary. Some supported the
requirement and suggested we make it
more stringent.
Response: We agree our proposal in
paragraph (b) lacked sufficient clarity
and flexibility. We revised paragraph (b)
to require that programs that need to
make significant adaptations to a
curriculum or curriculum enhancement,
must partner with early childhood
education curriculum or content
experts. For example, programs would
not need to seek external expertise if
they are adding a research-based
curriculum supplement to an
underlying curriculum in order to make
it sufficiently content rich. Programs
would also not need to seek external
expertise if they were supplementing
the curriculum’s set of picture books if
they were replacing them with books
that reflect the diversity of culture and
languages spoken in the classroom.
However, a program seeking to
significantly adapt a curriculum by
translating major portions of it to
respond to the needs of children
learning more than one language would
need to seek external review by a
curriculum expert to ensure such
translation maintained the scientifically
valid characteristics of the underlying
curriculum. This will ensure programs
implement high-quality curricula that
meet the requirements in paragraph (a).
We eliminated the proposed
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
61332
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
requirement for a research evaluation of
the adaptation to improve flexibility,
but still encourage programs to partner
with outside evaluators. To ensure
accountability, paragraph (b) requires
programs to assess whether the
adaptation adequately facilitates
progress toward meeting school
readiness goals as part of the program
management process described in
subpart J. We believe this provision
provides better clarity and strikes the
right balance between flexibility and
maintaining high standards for
curriculum quality. We made similar
changes to the comparable provision for
home-based programs in § 1302.35 for
the same reasons. We note that
paragraph (a)(1) allows curricular
enhancements and does not require the
partnerships described in paragraph (b).
Likewise, small changes to curricula to
make them more culturally appropriate
for the children being served do not
require the partnerships described in
paragraph (b). While not required, we
encourage programs to work with a
researcher or evaluator to examine their
adaptations, if possible. We retain the
requirement from the NPRM that
programs must report curricula
variations to the responsible HHS
official.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Section 1302.33
Assessments
Child Screenings and
This section applies screening and
assessment requirements to all program
options and includes significant
revisions to the previous program
performance standards in order to
integrate advances from research, reflect
best practice, and implement provisions
from the Act. It includes requirements
for the appropriate use of
developmental screening and ongoing
child assessment that are integral to
high-quality programs.
Commenters supported many of the
changes in this section, including the
clear process for referral for formal
evaluation and the updates to
individualize services for children. We
made changes to strengthen and clarify
the provisions in this section.
Comment: Some commenters noted
the importance of maintaining the 45day requirement for developmental
screenings in paragraph (a)(1), but some
commenters stated the timeline for
screening was too short and some stated
it was too long. Some commenters noted
we dropped the timeline from the
previous regulation for developmental
screenings in Migrant and Seasonal
Head Start programs, and many
commenters noted we inadvertently
dropped the requirement to programs to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
obtain screenings instead of only
explicitly completing them.
Response: The final rule retains the
45-day timeline for developmental
screening. We believe it is both
reasonable and important to complete
screenings quickly so that
individualized needs can be promptly
identified. We restored the 30-calendar
day timeline for Migrant and Seasonal
Head Start programs to paragraph (a)(1),
which is consistent with the previous
regulation and was inadvertently
dropped from the proposed rule. In
addition, in paragraph (a)(1), we
clarified that a program can meet the
development screening requirement
either by completing it themselves or
obtaining the results from another
source, and that the screening must be
current.
Comment: Some commenters noted
that what was paragraph (a)(2) in the
NPRM for programs to adhere to a
prompt timeline for referrals that they
cannot control.
Response: We made revisions in
paragraph (a)(3) to address these
concerns. We believe it is important for
programs to refer children to the local
agency responsible for determining
IDEA eligibility for a formal evaluation
as soon as possible, and not to exceed
timelines required under IDEA, but
understand programs cannot control
how quickly the IDEA agency completes
the formal evaluation.
Comment: We received comments
both in support and opposition of the
proposal in what was paragraph (a)(3) in
the NPRM to waive the 45-day
developmental screening requirement
for children with a current
individualized family service plan
(IFSP) or IEP. Some commenters
supported the proposal and noted it was
good to eliminate redundant and
unnecessary screening. Some
commenters opposed the provision and
stated that relying only on an IFSP or
IEP would lead programs to miss
important information about the
children they serve.
Response: We revised the final rule to
remove the provision to waive the 45day screening for children with a
current IFSP or IEP. We note that
developmental screenings are not overly
time consuming, are not a burden for
children, and agree that there is the
potential for developmental issues to be
missed if a program only relies on an
IFSP or IEP. We believe that screenings
can also serve as an important
mechanism to build teacher-family
partnerships, celebrate children’s
developmental milestones, and provide
valuable information to both teachers
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
and families on supporting children’s
holistic development, across settings.
Comment: Some commenters
supported our proposal in paragraph
(a)(5) for programs to help parents
access services and support if their
child has a significant delay in one or
more areas of development that were
likely to interfere with the child’s
development and school success. Some
commenters suggested this was an
important provision because it would
ensure a specific at-risk population was
better served. Some commenters
supported the provision but stated that
it was too vague and that further
information or definitions were needed
to clarify what we meant by ‘‘significant
delay’’ and ‘‘supports and services.’’
Some commenters also recommended
referencing Section 504 and the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
requirements or clarity about these
services being provided in the natural
environment. Some commenters who
supported the provision stated that
these children should be counted in the
program’s calculation for meeting the
requirement that 10 percent of children
in Head Start be eligible for services
under IDEA.
Many commenters were opposed to
our proposal in paragraph (a)(5). They
acknowledged it would be an important
service but opposed it because of
associated costs. Other commenters
opposed the provision for reasons that
included: They did not think programs
had the expertise to make the decision
or provide the services; they believed it
was inappropriate if other specialists
already deemed special education
services unnecessary; or they were
concerned it would undermine their
partnerships with local educational
agencies. Some commenters felt it was
unnecessary because programs already
individualize services. Some
commenters agreed it could be helpful
to children but that it should be a
recommendation not a requirement.
Other commenters who opposed the
requirement requested that if we
implemented the provision, the children
should count toward the program’s 10
percent disability enrollment
requirement.
Response: We believe that when a
formal assessment finds a child has a
significant delay, it is important that the
program work with parents to address
the identified needs, even if the child is
not found eligible for early intervention
or special education and related services
under IDEA. Therefore, the final rule
retains the policy in paragraph (a)(5) but
makes changes to the provision to better
clarify what is and is not expected of the
program. We clarified that programs are
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
required to partner with parents to
determine if needed supports and
services are available through a child’s
health insurance and/or whether it is
appropriate to provide supports for the
child pursuant to Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act if the child satisfies
the definition of disability in section
705(9)(b) of the Rehabilitation Act.
A program may use Head Start funds
for such services and supports when
other funding is not available but the
program is not required to do so. Family
service, health, or other appropriate
staff, together with the parents, must try
to identify resources that can help
provide the child with the services and
supports they need. We think this
clarifies what we mean by ‘‘supports
and services’’ and did not define the
term. We also note that the provision
explicitly requires this determination be
made with guidance from a mental
health or child development
professional to ensure staff with
appropriate expertise guide the
determination of the child’s needs. We
did not define ‘‘significant delay’’ so the
mental health consultant and local
experts can have appropriate flexibility.
Comment: Many commenters wrote in
support of the general approach to child
assessment in paragraph (b), including
its research base and its clarity on using
and integrating assessment information
into individualization and teaching
practices. However, many commenters
expressed concern about the term
‘‘standardized and structured
assessment’’ in paragraph (b)(1) and
sought greater clarity on its meaning.
Response: We added language to
paragraph (b)(1) to clarify that the
standardized and structured
assessments may be ‘‘observation-based
or direct.’’
Comment: Some commenters
recommended we add requirements
about the frequency of assessments or
made other suggestions for paragraph
(b), such as how the data are reported.
Response: We did not revise
paragraph (b) to include requirements
about the frequency of assessments
because we believe those
determinations are best made at the
local level. However, we made small
changes in paragraph (b)(2) to further
strengthen how programs use
assessments. Specifically, paragraph
(b)(2) was revised to require program
‘‘regularly’’ use assessment and other
information to support individualized
learning and that such assessment data
be used to ‘‘inform’’ strategies for
individualization.
Comment: Some commenters were
unclear about the need to assess DLLs
in multiple languages if they are
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
proficient in English, as proposed in
paragraph (c)(2). Some recommended
that DLLs only be assessed in their nonEnglish language if they struggle with
English. Some commenters stated that
assessment in both languages should not
be required for program participation
and asked whether programs will seek
parental input or consent for screenings
and assessments in both languages.
Response: Assessing the language
development of a DLL child in both
English and his/her home language
provides a more complete picture of the
child’s language development,
including potential strengths or
concerns, even if the child is proficient
in English. Additionally, as stated in
§ 1302.34(b)(6), program staff must
inform parents and family members
about the purposes and results of
screenings and assessments and discuss
children’s progress.
Comment: Commenters were
concerned with the feasibility of
assessing DLLs in their home language
as proposed in paragraph (c)(2).
Commenters raised concerns such as:
lack of valid, reliable assessments in
less common languages; feasibility of
having interpreters for all languages;
and burden on staff to assess children in
both languages. Some commenters
requested clarification, such as if it is
acceptable for an English-speaking staff
person to use a Spanish interpreter to
conduct assessments with DLLs and, for
assessments conducted in both
languages, if teachers should record the
higher of the two scores.
Response: We strongly believe that
programs should assess DLLs in their
home language with valid, reliable
assessments, when feasible. While
Spanish is the home language of most
DLLs in Head Start, we recognize that
there are over 140 other languages
spoken by Head Start children and that
valid, reliable assessments are not
available in every language spoken by
children in Head Start. We revised
paragraph (c)(2)(ii) and added new
language at paragraph (c)(2)(iii) in the
final rule to reflect this reality including
mechanisms that support accurate and
appropriate assessment processes. We
also revised paragraph (c)(3) to
acknowledge when interpreters may be
necessary to work in conjunction with
qualified staff that do not speak the
language. Finally in paragraph (c)(4) we
clarified that only in instances where an
interpreter and qualified staff are not
available can screenings and
assessments be done in English, but it
is particularly important that programs
gather and use other information and
structured observations over time about
the child development, including
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61333
information from the family about home
language use. Assessments with DLLs
should be conducted with the same
frequency as that for all children—as
noted in paragraph (b)(1), assessments
must be conducted with sufficient
frequency to allow for individualization
within the program year.
Comment: Some commenters were
concerned that requirements for serving
DLLs might not support parental choice,
including the requirement in paragraph
(b)(2) to assess children in both
languages, and the focus on exposure to
English for infants and toddlers in
§ 1302.31(b)(2)(i).
Response: We believe assessing
children’s language skills in both
English and their home language is
necessary to accurately capture DLL
children’s language development.
Additionally, the Act requires Head
Start programs support the acquisition
of English for DLL children.
§ 1302.34 Parent and Family
Engagement in Education and Child
Development Services
This section includes provisions to
ensure that center-based and family
child care programs structure their
education services to recognize parents’
important roles in their child’s
education. It primarily reflects the
previous requirements replaced by the
final rule but reorganizes them for better
clarity and implementation.
Many commenters expressed an overarching concern that the proposed rule
diminished the role of the parents,
though commenters generally supported
this section and noted it retained the
important philosophy that parents are
children’s first and most important
teachers. Some commenters also
recommended changes, some of which
we felt were too prescriptive or
unnecessary to support best practice.
Other comments are discussed below.
Comment: Some commenters
recommended changes to further clarify
the important role of parents and
suggested greater alignment with the
Parent Family and Community
Engagement Framework.
Response: We revised this section to
clarify and strengthen the standards. For
example, the section heading has been
changed from ‘‘Parent involvement’’ to
‘‘Parent and family engagement in
education and child development
services’’ to better reflect the intent of
this section and align the work
programs have done with the Parent,
Family, and Community Engagement
Framework. In addition, changes were
made in paragraph (a) to better reflect
parents’ central role in children’s
education. We added a new provision in
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
61334
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
paragraph (b)(2) to strengthen the
engagement between teaching staff and
parent. In addition, we made changes in
paragraphs (b)(4), (6), and (7) to better
distinguish which engagement activities
are appropriate for parents as opposed
to families.
Comment: Some commenters stated
that we required too many home visits,
and others suggested we require more
home visits. Some commenters opposed
the requirement in paragraph (b)(7) for
teachers to complete a home visit before
the start of the program year, if possible,
while others supported it.
Response: In response to comments
seeking some clarification, we made a
few small structural changes to the
provision that is now found in
paragraph (b)(7) to clarify the home visit
requirement. However, we did not
revise the number of required teacher
home visits. Further, we note that
paragraph (b)(7) states that one visit
should take place before the program
year begins ‘‘if feasible.’’ We believe that
home visits before the start of the
program year reflects best practice but
that sufficient flexibility is provided
when it truly is not feasible. As before,
teachers can do more than two home
visits if they feel that is appropriate.
Comment: Some commenters
recommended combining the provisions
in this section with those in § 1302.51.
Response: We agree that both this
section and § 1302.51 address activities
to engage parents and families in their
children’s learning. However, we did
not combine the sections because this
section specifically addresses services
and philosophies related to children’s
educational services and § 1302.51
includes parent services and are better
organized in the parent engagement
subpart.
Section 1302.35 Education in HomeBased Programs
This section includes the
requirements for education services in
home-based programs. It codifies and
builds upon the guidance and technical
assistance we provided to home-based
programs for many years. We discuss
comments and changes we made to the
proposed rule below.
Comment: Some commenters
supported the use of research or
evidenced-based home visiting
curriculum, the use of promising
practices, and recommended we specify
particular home visiting programs or
curricula or asked for clarifications
about the requirement.
Response: We believe the use of a
research-based home visiting
curriculum is critical to ensuring homebased services improve child and family
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
outcomes. We did not revise the section
to require a particular curriculum for
serving children in the home-based
program because we believe programs
should have local flexibility to select a
curriculum that best meets the needs of
the children and families they serve. We
clarified the language around
adaptations of curricula in the same way
as in § 1302.32 for center-based and
family child care programs.
Comment: Some commenters
suggested we include language that
clearly states home visits are to help
parents understand their child’s
development and to support responsive
interactions between parent and child.
Some commenters further requested
clarification about how the Head Start
Early Learning Outcomes Framework:
Ages Birth to Five applies to homebased because it does not include family
goals.
Response: We agree that home visits
must reflect the critical role of helping
parents support the early learning and
development of their children.
Therefore, we revised paragraph (b)(1)
to clarify that home visitors must be
able to effectively communicate with
parents directly or through an
interpreter. In addition, we reordered
the home-based education section to put
the parent and the home-based
experiences in paragraph (c) prior to the
discussion of curriculum now found in
paragraph (d), to emphasize the central
role of parents in successful home-based
services. We believe this addresses the
comments and that further revision is
not necessary. Further, the Head Start
Early Learning Outcomes Framework:
Ages Birth to Five describes what
children ages birth to five should know
and do. We have the same expectations
for all children enrolled in any Head
Start option.
Comment: Many commenters
suggested that we require components
of the Parent, Family, and Community
Engagement Framework (PFCEF) to be
included in the home visit experiences
in what was paragraph (d) and is now
paragraph (c).
Response: Programs are required to
use the PFCEF as part of their family
engagement services, which are already
required in paragraph (b)(4). Therefore,
we did not make this revision.
Section 1302.36 Tribal Language
Preservation and Revitalization
This section provides support for
programs serving American Indian and
Alaska Native children that wish to or
are already engaging in tribal language
revitalization efforts. We added this as
a new section based on reviewer
comments about our inconsistent
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
inclusion and meaning of the phrase
‘‘Native language’’ in the proposed
standards in the NPRM.
Comment: Some commenters
expressed concern about the
inconsistency of the inclusion of
‘‘Native language’’ for American Indian
and Alaska Native children and
requested clarity on the intent of these
provisions in §§ 1302.31 and 1302.35.
Response: We revised the language in
§§ 1302.31 and 1302.35 to clarify the
intent of these provisions with respect
to American Indian and Alaska Native
children. Additionally, we added this
new section to clarify that programs
serving American Indian and Alaska
Native children may choose to engage in
efforts to preserve, revitalize, restore, or
maintain the tribal language(s) for these
children.
Health Program Services; Subpart D
In this subpart, we updated program
performance standards related to health,
nutrition, mental health, and safety. We
retained the core health services from
the previous program performance
standards, including screening, ongoing
care and follow-up care both because
the Act clearly links health, mental
health, and nutritional services as
important supports to foster children’s
school readiness and because research
demonstrates a strong link between
child health, school readiness, and longterm outcomes.87 88 89 We further
strengthened the requirements with an
emphasis on oral health and parent
education in health issues. We also
updated the mental health requirements
to reflect best practice, to ensure
programs use mental health services to
improve classroom management, and to
support staff in effectively addressing
challenging behaviors. We also
streamlined program performance
standards to make it easier for programs
to find what they need and to
implement what we require. We
received many comments on this
subpart. Commenters generally
supported our reorganization and
streamlined requirements. Some noted
their support for our continued
emphasis on health services as central
to Head Start. Many commenters offered
recommendations for additional
changes. In response to comments, we
87 Currie, J.M. (2005). Health disparities and gaps
in school readiness. The Future of Children, 15(1),
117–138.
88 Janus, M., & Duku, E. (2007). The school entry
gap: Socioeconomic, family, and health factors
associated with children’s school readiness to learn.
Early Education and Development, 18(3), 375–403.
89 Bruner, C. (2009). Connecting child health and
school readiness. (Issue Brief No. 9). Denver, CO:
The Colorado Trust.
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
made technical changes, clarified
requirements, and further strengthened
health, nutrition, and mental health
services. We also improved family
support services and strengthened and
clarified safety practices. We discuss
comments and our responses below.
General Comments
Comment: Some commenters were
concerned we diminished the
importance of health services in Head
Start.
Response: We do not believe we
diminished the importance of health
services in Head Start. The rule is clear
that programs are required to promote
the health and well-being of all children
in Head Start. We believe this is central
to Head Start’s mission of helping
children succeed in school and in life.
The rule clearly articulates the many
health services programs must provide
and allows programs better flexibility to
focus on improved delivery of health
and well-being services instead of
process-laden requirements.
Comment: Some commenters
recommended we replace the word
‘‘dental’’ with ‘‘oral’’ throughout the
rule to reflect current scientific and
clinical terminology.
Response: We agree ‘‘oral’’ is a more
appropriate description than ‘‘dental.’’
Therefore, we replaced the word
‘‘dental’’ with ‘‘oral’’ throughout the
regulation.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Section 1302.40
Purpose
In this section, we outline the overall
goal of this subpart, which is to ensure
programs provide high-quality health,
mental health, and nutrition services
that support each child’s growth and
school readiness. To improve clarity, we
moved the requirement for programs to
establish and maintain a Health Services
Advisory Committee from subpart E to
this section.
Comment: Some commenters
suggested we include oral health in the
list of health services included under
this section. Other commenters
recommended we include the word
‘‘culturally’’ in the description of
appropriate services.
Response: We agree oral health is an
important element of overall health and
might not automatically be recognized
as included under health. So, we added
‘‘oral health’’ to the list of health
services. We also agree health practices
need to be culturally appropriate and
revised paragraph (a) to improve clarity
about service delivery.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
Section 1302.41 Collaboration and
Communication With Parents
This section requires programs
collaborate and communicate with
parents about their children’s health in
a linguistically and culturally
appropriate manner and communicate
with them about health needs and
concerns in a timely manner. It also
includes program requirements for
advance authorization from parents and
for sharing policies for health
emergencies. We received some
comments on this section.
Comment: We received some
comments requesting clarification on
communication and collaboration with
parents. For example, commenters
noted that an example offered in the
NPRM preamble did not appear in the
regulation text. Other commenters asked
which ‘‘health emergency policies’’
referenced in paragraph (b)(2) programs
must share with parents.
Response: The preamble in the NPRM
provided explanation and rationale for
the proposed requirements. We offered
examples as guidance to make the rule
more accessible to readers. We did not
revise the requirement about sharing
policies for health emergencies because
we think it is appropriately described.
Most programs share their health
emergency policies with parents
through a parent handbook or other
vehicle.
Section 1302.42
and Care
Child Health Status
This section includes requirements
for programs to determine children’s
source of care, to support parents in
ensuring children are up-to-date for
preventive and primary medical and
oral health care, and to support parents
to ensure children receive ongoing
necessary care. It also requires programs
to determine if children have health
insurance and supports families in
accessing health insurance if they do
not. It also includes requirements for
extended follow-up care where
appropriate and clarifies use of program
funds for medical and oral health
services. Commenters generally
supported this section but also
requested clarification and offered
additional suggestions. We address
these comments below.
Comment: We received many
comments about the timelines in
paragraphs (a) and (b) that describe
requirements for determining whether a
child has an ongoing source of health
care and insurance coverage, to assist
families in accessing care and health
coverage, and to determine if children
are up-to-date on preventive and
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61335
primary medical and oral health care.
Some commenters stated that the 30-day
and 90-day timelines in paragraphs (a)
and (b) were too long and would result
in delayed services. Some commenters
stated the 30-day timeline in paragraph
(a)(1) was too short. Many commenters
requested additional clarification on the
timelines. For example, many
commenters requested more specificity
about what we meant by ‘‘as quickly as
possible’’ in paragraph (a)(2). Some
commenters suggested we clarify the
definition for ‘‘program entry’’ to
distinguish it from ‘‘enrollment.’’ They
stated that the perceived distinction
between the two terms could result in
unintended consequences, such as
programs delaying child enrollment
because they cannot obtain required
health information before children
actually attend the program.
Response: We retained the 30-day and
90-day timelines from the previous
standards, which we believe are
appropriate to ensure children’s needs
are addressed in a timely manner and
have not presented problems for most
programs to meet. However, to improve
clarity about when the timelines begin,
we replaced the phrase, ‘‘from the
child’s enrollment’’ with ‘‘after the child
first attends the program or, for the
home-based program option, receives a
home visit’’ in paragraphs (a)(1), (b)(1),
(b)(2) and (b)(3) to clarify when
requirements must be met.
Comment: Some commenters
recommended we revise paragraph
(a)(2) to recognize the unique role that
Indian Health Services plays for many
children enrolled in tribal Head Start
programs.
Response: We acknowledge the role
Indian Health Services plays for
children enrolled in American Indian
Alaska Native Head Start programs.
However, we did not think it was
necessary to provide additional clarity
in paragraph (a)(2). Paragraph (a) clearly
does not exclude any source of
continuous and accessible health care.
Comment: Some commenters
recommended changes or requested
more clarity to the requirements in
paragraph (b)(1)(i) to determine if
children are up-to-date on preventive
and primary care. For example, some
commenters requested we specifically
include oral health care services. Some
commenters suggested we waive the
Early and Periodic Screening,
Diagnostic and Treatment (EPSDT)
requirement for blood lead testing
because of concerns that local doctors
refuse to do blood lead tests for children
who are at low risk based on a lead risk
assessment. Others suggested we allow
programs to substitute a lead risk
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
61336
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
assessment in lieu of blood lead testing.
Some commenters requested more
clarity about the meaning of ‘‘health
care professional’’ as it relates to oral
health. Others requested more clarity
about the qualifications of health care
professionals.
Response: We revised paragraph
(b)(1)(i) to improve clarity. We amended
this paragraph to include ‘‘dental
periodicity schedule’’ to clarify
programs must determine whether the
child is up-to-date on both medical
health and oral health care. We agree
that our use of the term ‘‘health care
professional’’ to apply to both health
and oral health was confusing. So, we
amended this provision to include ‘‘oral
health care professional’’ as well as
‘‘health care professional.’’ We did not
specify qualifications for health care
professionals, because state
requirements vary. We expect programs
to ensure that health and oral health
professionals are qualified in their
respective areas per state requirements.
We did not make revisions to the
requirements related to EPSDT because
we do not have the authority to
promulgate a regulation that contradicts
how states implement EPSDT,
especially in light of the potential
serious health consequences of elevated
lead levels.
Comment: Some commenters stated
that paragraphs (b)(1)(ii) and (iii)
suggested parents were not capable of or
bore no responsibility to get their
children up to date on immunizations.
They believed the requirement would
force programs to undermine the role of
parents when they provide this service.
Response: It was not our intent to
undermine the role of parents in getting
children up-to-date with preventive and
primary medical and oral health care.
We consolidated what were paragraphs
(b)(1)(ii) and (iii) in the NPRM into
paragraph (b)(1)(ii) and revised the
language to more clearly articulate our
intent. We expect programs to help
parents, as necessary, in their efforts to
ensure their children are up-to-date
with preventive and primary care. For
those children who are not up to date,
paragraph (b)(1)(ii) requires that
programs must assist parents to make
arrangements to bring their children up
to date and to directly facilitate health
services only with parental consent.
Comment: Some commenters were
concerned that paragraph (b)(2) required
programs to conduct all hearing and
vision screenings, rather than accept
screening results from another source.
In addition, commenters suggested that
children should be screened for ‘‘mental
and physical trauma,’’ as well as hearing
and vision.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
Response: We revised paragraph (b)(2)
to clarify that programs must either
conduct or obtain hearing and vision
screenings. We did not make revisions
to specifically include screening for
mental and physical trauma. Local
programs may, with parent consent,
implement such screening as indicated,
particularly if they serve populations
with known or likely exposure to
trauma.
Comment: Some commenters
suggested revisions to paragraph (b)(4)
that requires a program to identify
children’s nutritional health needs and
describes specific information they must
take into account. For example, some
commenters opposed requirements to
collect so much specific health
information because it was an unhelpful
‘‘paper chase’’ and unnecessarily
burdensome since health care providers
already collect this data and provide
follow up as necessary. Some
commenters opposed our requirements
that programs collect hematocrit or
hemoglobin for each child. Some
commenters suggested we require
programs to collect additional
information about children’s health
status, such as sweetened beverage
consumption, physical activity, screen
time levels, and consumption of healthy
foods such as whole grains, fruits, and
vegetables. Some commenters asked for
clarification about what follow-up was
necessary based on the health
information. Some commenters objected
to the requirement accounting for all
children’s body max index (BMI) when
BMI is not generally used for children
under age two. Other commenters
expressed concern about whether Head
Start staff are qualified to interpret BMI
and suggested programs with concerns
about children’s weight, BMI, or growth
refer families to their physicians for
further assessment. Commenters
requested clarification, including a
timeline to identify nutrition needs.
Response: We believe it is appropriate
to require programs collect some
information about each child’s
nutritional health status to help meet
the individual needs of children.
However, we revised paragraph (b)(4) so
that rather than requiring programs to
collect and track data on all children,
many of whom would fall within typical
or acceptable ranges, we require
programs to identify each child’s
nutritional health needs, taking into
account available health information,
including the child’s health records, and
family and staff concerns. In addition,
in paragraph (c), we required programs
to work with parents to ensure children
obtain necessary referral, follow up
appointments, and treatments. Programs
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
may collect height and weight data
directly as a means to more regularly
track growth and as part of the required
periodic observations or use other
appropriate strategies for new or
recurring concerns. We also revised
paragraph (d) to include examples of
how programs would use health
information that may affect children’s
development, learning, or behavior.
Comment: Commenters suggested we
revise paragraph (c)(3) to state topical
fluoride or varnish can be used for all
children, not just for those that live in
areas where the water is not fluoridated.
Response: We revised paragraph (c)(3)
to clarify programs must provide oral
health preventive care for all children
including, access to topical fluoride
treatments and, as indicated, fluoride
supplements.
Comment: Some commenters
requested we require programs to
provide diapers and formula for infants
and toddlers during the portion of the
day they attend the program.
Response: In paragraph (e)(1), we
codified a long-standing expectation
that programs must provide formula and
diapers as needed by children during
the time they attend the program.
Section 1302.43 Oral Health Practices
In this section, we require programs to
promote effective oral health hygiene
with daily tooth brushing. Research
demonstrates a link between oral health,
dental pain, and children’s attendance
in preschool programs, as well as their
ability to effectively engage in class
activities.90 91 92 93 We discuss the
comments we received on this section
below.
Comment: Commenters offered a
number of suggestions for this section.
Some recommended we change the title
of this section to ‘‘Tooth brushing and
other evidence or best practice based
preventive oral health practices.’’ Some
commenters recommended we include
greater specificity. For example, some
recommended we include requirements
for cleaning infant gums, to use
90 Abanto, J., Carvalho, T. S., Mendes, F. M.,
¨
Wanderley, M. T., Bonecker, M. and Raggio, D. P.
(2011), Impact of oral diseases and disorders on oral
health-related quality of life of preschool children.
Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology, 39,
105–114. doi: 10.1111/j.1600–0528.2010.00580.x.
91 U.S. General Accounting Office. (2000). Oral
Health: Dental Disease Is a Chronic Problem Among
Low Income and Vulnerable Populations.
Washington, DC: General Accounting Office.
92 Schechter N. 2000. The impact of acute and
chronic dental pain on child development. Journal
of the Southeastern Society of Pediatric Dentistry
6(2), 16.
93 Altarum Institute. 2007. Issue Brief: Oral
Health Is Critical to the School Readiness of
Children in Washington, DC. Washington, DC:
Altarum Institute.
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
toothpaste that contains fluoride, to
implement tooth brushing as soon as a
child’s first tooth emerges, or to ensure
children brush their teeth two times per
day, for two minutes each time.
Response: We revised the title of this
section from ‘‘Tooth brushing’’ to ‘‘Oral
health practices’’ to better reflect the
connection between tooth brushing and
oral health status. We also revised this
section to require that all children with
teeth, not just those age one or older,
have their teeth brushed at least once
per day with toothpaste that contains
fluoride. We did not make further
revisions to this section because we did
not think further specificity was
appropriate or supported by strong
evidence.
Section 1302.44 Child Nutrition
This section details program
performance standards for Head Start
programs to meet each child’s
nutritional requirements and feeding
needs. This section includes nutrition
service requirements, including how
much food should be offered and
requirements for supporting
breastfeeding. It also includes
requirements about use of funds.
Nutrition is one of the founding
principles of Head Start programs. Good
nutrition supports children’s ability to
grow, develop, and achieve and
maintain a healthy weight. Commenters
suggested revisions and sought
clarification. Based on comments we
received, we made some changes to
improve clarity and further strengthen
requirements. We address comments
below.
Comment: Some commenters
recommended we specify in paragraph
(a)(1) that nutrition services must be
culturally and developmentally
appropriate to ensure they respond to
the needs of enrolled children.
Response: We agree and made this
revision.
Comment: Some commenters
recommended we add additional
requirements to paragraph (a)(2). For
example, some commenters suggested
we require programs to make drinking
water available to children. They stated
that if children were able to satisfy thirst
with water, they may be less likely to
consume large amounts of sugar
sweetened beverages. Other comments
suggested we require programs to serve
a varied diet with an emphasis on fruits,
vegetables, and whole grains rather than
meet a proportion of children’s daily
nutritional needs.
Response: We revised this section to
add a new requirement at paragraph
(a)(2)(ix) to require programs make safe
drinking water available to children
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
during the program day. We did not
make revisions to emphasize fruits,
vegetables, and whole grains because we
think the requirement that programs
meet the nutritional needs of children
and adhere with CACFP requirements
on meal patterns is sufficiently
prescriptive.
Comment: We received some
comments about how our requirements
in this section interact with CACFP
requirements. For example, some
commenters requested we remove the
requirement in paragraph (a)(2)(iii)
about food being high in nutrients and
low in fat, sugar, and salt because it is
redundant with CACFP. Some other
commenters expressed concern or
sought clarification about or exemption
from CACFP requirements because of
burden and cost.
Response: We did not revise
paragraph (a)(2)(iii) because we believe
it is necessary to emphasize the
importance of healthy food that is high
in nutrients and low in salt, fat and
sugar over and above CACFP
requirements regarding the nutrition
content of food. We did not revise
paragraph (a)(1)(iv) because we think it
is sufficiently clear. In addition, we note
that we require programs to use
reimbursement from CACFP, unless, as
might occur in a home-based option,
CACFP is not available. In that case,
programs may use Head Start or Early
Head Start funds for allowable food
costs as we state in paragraph (b). We
have no authority to change CACFP
requirements and made no revisions.
Comment: Commenters suggested we
retain the provision from the previous
program performance standards that
required programs to involve parents
and appropriate community agencies in
planning, implementing, and evaluating
the program’s nutrition services.
Response: We did not retain the
previous standard that programs engage
parents and the community in nutrition
services. While we think this can be a
valuable method to ensure cultural
appropriateness and respond to local
nutrition related issues, we recognize it
may be difficult for some programs to
regularly do this. We encourage
programs to maintain this practice as
much as they can, but we want to
provide local flexibility to identify the
approach.
Comment: Some commenters
indicated that the word ‘‘appropriate’’
in paragraph (a)(2)(vii) that modifies
snacks could vary widely in
interpretation and suggested we replace
‘‘appropriate’’ with ‘‘healthy.’’
Response: We agree this requirement
is clearer if we indicate snacks and
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61337
meals should be ‘‘healthy’’ and revised
the paragraph accordingly.
Comment: We received comments
about our requirement to promote
breastfeeding in paragraph (a)(2)(viii).
Commenters were generally supportive
of our focus on breastfeeding. Some
commenters recommended we require
programs to train staff on how to
properly handle and store breast milk.
Other commenters recommended we
require programs to either ensure staff
complete lactation counselor training or
provide referrals to lactation counselors
or consultants. Others asked us to
clarify whether programs must have
breastfeeding rooms in each center.
Response: We did not think it was
necessary to add a requirement for
programs to train staff on how to
properly handle and store breast milk
because we think that is unnecessarily
prescriptive in detailing how a program
must meet the requirement that they
properly store and handle breast milk.
Many programs will find state licensing
already requires this. We also did not
require programs to ensure staff
complete lactation counselor training.
However, we amended paragraph
(a)(2)(viii) to require programs provide
referrals to lactation consultants or
counselors if necessary. Finally, neither
the NPRM nor the final rule required
programs to have separate rooms for
breastfeeding in each center. Programs
may meet the requirement in
§ 1302.44(a)(2)(viii) to promote
breastfeeding with a designated private
area with a comfortable chair, an outlet
for a pump, and access to a sink for
hand washing to accommodate the
needs of mothers who breastfeed or
pump milk.
Section 1302.45 Child Mental Health
and Social and Emotional Well-Being
This section includes the
requirements for services programs must
provide related to child mental health
and the support of children’s social and
emotional well-being. Early childhood
mental health and healthy social and
emotional well-being has been clearly
linked to children’s school readiness
outcomes. Research estimates between 9
percent and 14 percent of young
children experience mental health or
social and emotional issues that
negatively impact their development.94
The standards described in this section
support programs in creating a culture
that promotes positive mental health
and social and emotional well-being,
94 Brauner, C. B., & Stephen, B. C. (2006).
Estimating the prevalence of early childhood
serious emotional/behavioral disorder. Public
Health Reports, 121, 303–310.
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
61338
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
including supporting positive staff-child
interactions and parental knowledge of
mental health. Research also
demonstrates that the use of mental
health consultation services has distinct
benefits, including improved child
behavior, staff job satisfaction, and
overall effectiveness of early childhood
programs.95 96 97 Therefore, this section
also includes specific requirements for
what mental health consultants must do
to assist programs, staff, and parents.
In general, commenters supported
strengthening mental health
consultation in Head Start, but
suggested ways to improve the
standards to ensure a clear
understanding of the importance of
mental health, the qualifications of a
mental health consultant, and the role
that the mental health consultant plays
in improving programs’ ability to
address mental health problems,
including challenging behaviors. We
address these and other comments
below and describe changes we made to
this section to ensure that programs
have the tools to successfully promote
the mental health and social and
emotional well-being of all children.
Comment: Commenters suggested we
refer to social-emotional well-being
rather than ‘‘child mental health’’ to
reduce the prejudice and discrimination
around mental health services and
improve parent and staff understanding
of what mental health means for
children.
Response: We agree and revised the
title of this section as well as the
requirements throughout to more
accurately mirror how the field of early
childhood discusses children’s mental
health and behavior by more broadly
defining child mental health and social
and emotional well-being.
Comment: Commenters requested
clarification about who can serve as
mental health consultants and the role
of mental health consultants in the
program. For example, commenters
asked about the necessary qualifications
of mental health consultants and the
amount of time mental health
consultants must spend in the program.
95 Gilliam, W.S., & Golan, S. (2006). Preschool
and child care expulsion and suspension: Rates and
predictors in one state. Infants and Young Children,
19(3), 228–245.
96 Perry, D. F., Dunne, M. C., McFadden, L., &
Campbell, D. (2008). Reducing the risk for
preschool expulsion: Mental health consultation for
young children with challenging behaviors. Journal
of Child and Family Studies, 17(1), 44–54.
97 Brennan, E. M., Bradley, J. R., Allen, M. D., &
Perry, D. F. (2008). The evidence base for mental
health consultation in early childhood settings:
Research synthesis addressing staff and program
outcomes. Early Education and Development, 19(6),
982–1022.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
Commenters also noted a shortage of
mental health consultants who are
licensed, particularly in rural and tribal
areas, and suggested sharing best
practice information about effective
mental health consultation in such
programs. Some commenters
misinterpreted this section to remove
requirements for programs to use mental
health consultants and were in favor of
only utilizing mental health consultants
on an as-needed basis. Other
commenters suggested that additional
funds would be needed to implement
these standards.
Response: We agree that it is
important for programs to understand
the importance of mental health and the
role of mental health consultants in
promoting the well-being of Head Start
children. We revised this section to
include that programs must ensure
mental health consultants assist the
program, staff and parents and clarified
how programs must support a culture of
promoting children’s mental health and
social and emotional well-being. We
clarified the qualifications of mental
health consultants in § 1302.91(e)(8)(ii).
We understand that access to mental
health consultants, particularly those
with knowledge and experience serving
young children, may not be available in
all communities, and that there may be
a particular struggle in tribal and rural
areas, but we believe access to mental
health consultants in all programs is
critically important. In order to
acknowledge this difficulty, we only
require knowledge and experience
working with young children if
consultants with this knowledge and
experience are available in the
community.
To address the level of utilization of
mental health consultants, we revised
paragraph (a)(2) to reinstate the
requirement from the previous
regulation that a program must ‘‘secure
mental health consultation services on a
schedule of sufficient and consistent
frequency.’’ We also clarified that
programs must ensure that mental
health consultants are available to
partner with staff and families in a
timely and effective manner.
Additionally, to improve clarity, we
added a new paragraph (b)(6) to
reference the use of mental health
consultants as required in § 1302.17.
While we understand the concerns some
commenters describe related to cost,
Head Start has a long-standing history of
using mental health consultants who are
certified and licensed and we expect
programs to meet these requirements
within their existing budgets and may
use a variety of strategies, including the
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
use of technology, when capacity is an
issue.
Comment: Some commenters
recommended that the standards be
revised to require parental consent for
consultation.
Response: To help normalize the
mental health consultation process and
reduce prejudice and discrimination
around use of mental health
consultants, we revised paragraph (a)(3)
to require programs to obtain parental
consent for mental health consultation
services when they enroll children in
the program.
Comment: Commenters suggested we
add specific strategies for addressing
mental health issues and challenging
behaviors, including home visits,
Applied Behavior Analysis, and traumainformed care. Some commenters
suggested we require programs track
and evaluate mental and behavioral
health practices in programs.
Response: While we agree that these
strategies can be effective in supporting
children with behavioral and mental
health problems, we think it is
important to give programs flexibility to
address individual child needs in the
most appropriate way. Therefore, we do
not prescribe specific practices or
strategies, but have revised paragraph
(b)(1) to reflect the concept in paragraph
(a) that programs must implement
strategies to identify and support
children with mental health and social
and emotional concerns and their
families.
Comment: Some commenters
recommended the inclusion of mental
health services within the context of
home visiting or family child care
options so that these services will be
more effectively integrated throughout
various program settings.
Response: We agree that mental
health consultants should support staff
in all Head Start program models and
revised paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) to
clarify our intent.
Comment: Commenters further
suggested that internalizing or
withdrawn behaviors should be
explicitly referenced throughout the
requirements to broaden the focus of
child mental health beyond behaviors
that can disrupt classes. Commenters
also noted these problems need to be
both identified as well as supported.
Response: We also added paragraph
(b)(4) to explicitly include both
internalizing and externalizing
problems as issues for mental health
consultants to assist staff to address.
Comment: Commenters stated that
this section does not reflect the
important role of parents and parental
mental health.
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Response: We agree that parents are
critical to the promotion of child mental
health and did not intend for the
requirements to exclude them. We have
added paragraph (b)(5) to explicitly
include parents.
Section 1302.46 Family Support
Services for Health, Nutrition, and
Mental Health
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
This section includes the
requirements that address health
education and support services that
programs must deliver to families. It
consolidated requirements from the
previous rule to improve clarity and
transparency. This section highlights
the critical importance of parental
health literacy, which has been linked
to the health and long-term outcomes of
young children.98 99 Commenters
supported this section and our
reorganization. Commenters also offered
suggestions to expand, reduce, and
reorganize the requirements. We discuss
comments and our responses below.
Comment: We received some
comments with broad suggestions for
this section. For example, commenters
suggested we include a specific
emphasis on father involvement.
Commenters expressed concerns that
staff do not have time to comply with
the section’s requirements and that the
requirements are too broad. Others
recommended we move this section to
follow § 1302.41.
Response: We did not make revisions
to address these comments. This section
addresses parents, which is defined to
encompass mothers and fathers.
Strategies to promote father engagement
are included in subpart E. In addition,
we believe these requirements are
critical to supporting child and family
outcomes and are an essential part of
Head Start’s comprehensive twogeneration approach. Finally, we think
the organization of subpart D clearly
conveys requirements and did not revise
the order of the sections.
Comment: Some commenters
suggested revisions to increase the
emphasis on health literacy and parent
collaboration.
Response: We made slight revisions to
paragraph (a), which we believe
appropriately emphasizes parent
collaboration, including for individuals
with low health literacy.
98 Herman, A., & Jackson, P. (2011). Empowering
low-income parents with skills to reduce excess
pediatric emergency room and clinic visits through
a tailored low literacy training intervention. Journal
of Health Communications, 15(8), 895–910.
99 Dewalt, D.A., & Hink, A., (2009). Health
Literacy and Child Health Outcomes: A Systematic
Review of the Literature. Pediatrics, 124(3), 265–
274.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
Comment: Some commenters
recommended we expand services in
paragraphs (b)(1) related to nutrition,
breastfeeding, tobacco, lead exposure,
safe sleep and mental health. Some
expressed concern that the requirements
did not appropriately reflect the
important role of parents and parental
mental health and suggested revisions.
They also recommended we revise our
terminology about mental health to
more clearly indicate the breadth of
issues that should be addressed.
Response: We agree and revised these
three paragraphs to better clarify the
topics on which programs must offer to
collaborate with parents to include
health and developmental consequences
of tobacco and lead exposure, safe sleep,
healthy eating and the negative health
consequences of sugar-sweetened
beverages; breastfeeding support and
treatment options for parental mental
health or substance abuse problems; and
more broadly defined child mental
health and social and emotional wellbeing.
Comment: Some commenters
recommended we include requirements
to specifically assist children and
families accessing health insurance for
which they are eligible.
Response: We agree that programs
play an important role in assisting
families who need health insurance. We
revised paragraph (b)(2)(i) to specify
that programs provide information
about public and private health
insurance and designated enrollment
periods.
Section 1302.47 Safety Practices
This section includes the
requirements for strong safety practices
and procedures that will ensure the
health and safety of all children. Basic
health and safety practices are essential
to ensure high-quality care. In some
instances, we moved away from
prescribing extensive detail when it is
unnecessary to maintain a high standard
of safety. Instead, we allow programs
flexibility to adjust their policies and
procedures according to the most up to
date information about how to keep
children safe. To ensure programs are
equipped with adequate instruction on
how to keep children safe at all times,
we encourage programs to consult a new
ACF resource called Caring for Our
Children Basics (Basics).100 The section
includes health and safety requirements
for facilities, equipment, materials,
background checks, safety training,
safety practices, administrative safety
procedures, and disaster preparedness
100 https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/hslc/tta-system/
health/docs/caring-for-our-children-basics.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61339
plans. These recommendations were
informed by research and best practice.
We received many comments on this
section including suggestions to expand,
reduce, and clarify requirements. We
address the comments we received on
this section below.
Comment: Many commenters
appreciated our focus on health and
safety systems instead of extensive
checklists and recommended
monitoring protocols reflect this
approach.
Response: We agree that the systems
approach reflected in this rule is
preferable to a checklist approach and
have made a number of small changes
to further support the systems approach,
including in paragraphs (b)(1)(ix) and
(b)(2)(v) adding that programs must
keep facilities and materials safe
through an ongoing system of
preventive maintenance. This systems
approach will also be reflected in
monitoring in the future.
Comment: Some commenters
recommended we rely on state licensing
for health and safety standards and not
include different health and safety
standards.
Response: Many states have stringent
health and safety regulations, but some
do not. In addition, not all Head Start
programs are state licensed. Therefore,
we retained this section in the final rule;
however, we have made some language
changes to align the health and safety
training for staff to the health and safety
requirements in the CCDBG Act. This
will relieve the burden of different or
conflicting licensing standards.
Comment: Some commenters
addressed our provision in paragraph (a)
that programs should consult Caring for
our Children Basics for additional
information to develop and implement
adequate safety policies and practices
detailed further in the subpart. Some
commenters appreciated the flexibility
we afforded programs under this section
though noted that reduced specificity
may compel programs to consult other
authorities. Some commenters
supported our inclusion of Caring for
Our Children Basics and some suggested
we require the specifics
recommendations from Basics and
include them in the regulation. Some
commenters objected to the requirement
and offered alternatives. For example,
some commenters recommended we
require programs to either ‘‘follow’’
Basics or ‘‘consult’’ Basics so our intent
is clearer. Some commenters stated the
requirements in Basics were
unnecessarily high and costly. Other
commenters requested additional
clarification or expressed concern about
what would happen if there were
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
61340
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
inconsistencies between Basics and
state or local standards. Some seemed
confused about the difference between
Caring for Our Children and Caring for
Our Children Basics or pointed out
differences between the two documents.
Some commenters were concerned
about potential inconsistencies if Basics
is updated more frequently than Head
Start Program Performance Standards.
Some commenters were concerned we
would find programs to be out of
compliance if they failed to meet all the
recommendations included under
Basics.
Response: We believe our reference to
Basics will help clarify minimum health
and safety expectations across early
childhood settings. Many programs
already exceed what Caring for Our
Children Basics recommends as best
practice. Other programs may need
guidance in establishing their policies,
procedures and systems and Basics will
be a useful resource guide for these
programs. Furthermore, Basics
represents a uniform set of health and
safety standards and provides specific
guidance to assist programs in achieving
the standards identified in this
regulation. We believe Basics will be an
important resource for programs and
useful tool for achieving consistency
across programs. Therefore, we retained
our requirement in paragraph (a) that
encourages programs to consult Basics
in developing their safety standards and
training.
Comment: We received comments
requesting clarification on the
introductory text in paragraph (b) and
paragraph (b)(1). For example, a
commenter suggested we delete ‘‘at a
minimum’’ in the introductory text in
paragraph (b) to improve clarity. In
addition, some commenters suggested
we require family child care providers
store guns and ammunition so children
cannot readily access them. They also
recommended we require programs to
train staff on safe gun and ammunition
storage procedures. Other commenters
noted we omitted food preparation from
paragraph (b)(1)(viii). Others suggested
we require smoke-free environments
and promote smoke-free environments
for children to families and other
caregivers.
Response: We agree the placement of
‘‘at a minimum’’ in the introductory text
in paragraph (b) was confusing and
moved it to paragraphs (b)(1), (2), (4),
(5), (6), and (7) to improve clarity. We
did not include revisions on gun safety
because we think the requirement in
paragraph (b)(1)(vii) that states facilities
must be free from guns or firearms that
are accessible to children is sufficient.
Local programs may elect to provide
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
training on storage safety but we did not
require it. We revised paragraph
(b)(1)(viii) to clarify that facilities have
separate toileting and diapering areas
from areas for food preparation. This
reflects an important basic requirement
from the previous program standards.
We agree smoke-free environments are
important. We did not make revisions to
address this comment because
paragraph (b)(1) already requires
facilities be free from pollutants and we
prohibit smoking in all Head Start
facilities under the terms of grant
awards.
Comment: We received comments
about our requirement in paragraph
(b)(2) that all equipment and materials
meet standards set by the Consumer
Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and
the American Society for Testing and
Materials, International (ASTM). Some
commenters agreed with this
requirement. Commenters were
concerned about the complexity and
cost of meeting CPSC and ASTM
standards. Some commenters suggested
we reference the full names of the CPSC
and the ASTM to improve clarity.
Response: We agree with commenters
that it may be difficult for programs to
identify all equipment and materials
that are covered by the CPSC and the
ASTM. Our understanding is that most
equipment and material used in early
childhood programs is labeled as
compliant with applicable standards. In
order to reduce potential burden for
programs, we struck what was
paragraph (b)(2)(iii) and revised
paragraph (b)(2) to specify that indoor
and outdoor play equipment, feeding
chairs, strollers, and cribs must meet the
applicable ASTM or CPSC standards
and other materials and equipment used
in the care of enrolled children must
also meet those standards as applicable.
We also included the full names of these
entities for better clarity.
Comment: Some commenters
recommended we include more
specificity in paragraph (b)(2)(i).
Specifically, they suggested we include
specific language from Caring for Our
Children about ensuring all indoor and
outdoor equipment and materials and
play spaces are clean and safe and
appropriately disinfected.
Response: We did not revise
paragraph (b)(2)(i) to make it more
specific. We expect programs to
determine what they must do to provide
safe and healthy environments and
encourage them to consult Caring for
Our Children Basics or other similar
resources for additional guidance.
Comment: We received comments on
paragraph (b)(4) that address safety
training. Commenters requested more
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
clarification, such as what topics
programs must include in the initial
training and how often they must offer
this training. They also asked us to
clarify what positions are included
under ‘‘all staff.’’ Other comments
offered recommendations for additional
specificity to the required staff training
topics. For example, some commenters
recommended additional specificity
about safe sleep practices, and some
commenters suggest we add cold
weather safety.
Response: We agree that we were not
clear enough about which staff needed
safety training and whether it was
necessary for all staff to be trained on
all required topics. Therefore, we
revised paragraph (b)(4) to clarify what
safety training was required for staff
with regular child contact in paragraph
(b)(4)(i) and what safety training was
necessary for staff without regular child
contact in a new requirement at
paragraph (b)(4)(ii). We have also
clarified that the areas of training
provided should be appropriate based
on staff roles and ages of children they
work with. Further, we did not specify
in paragraph (b)(4) of this section what
topics programs must include in the
initial training and how often must they
offer this training. We expect programs
to design training curricula and
determine how often this training must
be provided in order to ensure staff are
properly trained to keep children safe.
We did not make revisions to address
other requests for more specificity
because we did not think we did not
believe that level of prescription was
necessary to ensure child safety.
Comment: Commenters recommended
we replace ‘‘spills of bodily fluids,’’
with ‘‘exposure to blood and body
fluids’’ in hygiene practices.
Response: We revised this
requirement accordingly, now found at
paragraph (b)(6)(iii).
Comment: We received many
comments about safety requirements for
addressing child food allergies, which
we addressed primarily in what was
paragraph (b)(8)(vi) in the NPRM and is
paragraph (b)(7)(vi) in the final rule.
Many commenters were concerned the
requirement created privacy concerns
and offered alternative suggestions.
Some commenters were concerned
standards were not strong enough and
parents might decline to enroll their
child. Specific recommendations
included: Implementation of a system to
share allergy information with relevant
staff; to have a training system to ensure
staff are prepared to manage allergy
related emergencies; posting a list under
a sign indicating that there is
confidential information; and making
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
sure all staff are aware of all allergies
and using scan cards that include
allergy information.
Response: A program’s most critical
responsibility is to keep children safe.
We did not make changes to the food
allergy requirements in paragraph
(b)(7)(vi). We require programs to
implement administrative safety
procedures, including posting child
allergy information prominently where
staff can view where food is served. We
do not believe this requirement creates
privacy concerns. We believe that with
the very young children that Head Start
serves, the threat posed by any staff or
volunteer who is serving food not
knowing about a child’s allergy is a far
greater threat than others knowing about
a child’s food allergy. We have also
made this clear in subpart C of part 1303
on Protections for the Privacy of Child
Records.
Comment: We received comments
about the requirement in paragraph (c)
that programs must report any safety
incidents in accordance with
§ 1302.102(d)(1)(ii). For example,
commenters requested clarification
about the timeline or suggested the
reporting requirement was unnecessary.
We received many comments about
§ 1302.102(d)(1)(ii) to which this
requirement in paragraph (c) is aligned.
Response: We revised
§ 1302.102(d)(1)(ii) to reflect the many
comments we received on that
requirement. We discuss those
comments and our revision in subpart J.
We think those revisions provide
sufficient clarity for this provision.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Family and Community Engagement
Program Services; Subpart E
This subpart includes program
requirements for family and community
engagement services. It requires
programs integrate family engagement
into all systems and program services. It
also includes the strategies and
approaches programs must use for
family engagement and strengthens the
requirements for offering parent
activities that promote child learning
and development. Further, it details the
family partnership process, including
identification of family strengths and
needs and individualized family
partnership services. Finally, it details
program requirements for community
partnerships and coordination with
other programs and systems. This
subpart retains many provisions from
the previous program standards but
consolidates, clarifies, and reorganizes
them and strengthens them with a
greater focus on family services
outcomes instead of processes and a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
requirement to offer research-based
parenting curriculum.
We received many comments on this
subpart. Some commenters supported
the improved flexibility, attention to
children’s learning, and integration of
family engagement. However, many
commenters were concerned this
subpart contributed to an overarching
theme of a weakened role for parents.
We believe parents are foundational to
Head Start’s success and that Head
Start’s two-generation approach is
integral to its impact on the children
and families it serves. It was not our
intent to diminish the role of parents in
the NPRM. The NPRM built on the
groundbreaking work of the Parent,
Family and Community Engagement
Framework (PFCEF) to focus on systemwide parent, family, and community
supports that would create a roadmap
for progress in achieving the types of
outcomes that lead to positive and
enduring change for children and
families. However, it was clear from
public comments that we needed to
revise provisions to ensure the integral
role of parents in Head Start is
appropriately reflected in the final rule.
We discuss public comments as well as
our responses and revisions below.
General Comments
Comment: Many commenters
expressed concern that family
partnership services were too focused
on child development and learning and
recommended we revise them to focus
more broadly on strategies to enhance
families’ social and economic wellbeing and leadership skills. In addition
to recommending revisions to separate
parent and family services from child
learning and development, some
commenters offered specific
suggestions, such as identification of
economic well-being as part of family
well-being and pilot programs to
support two-generation practices.
Response: Section 636 of the Head
Start Act specifies the purpose of Head
Start is to improve the school readiness
of children and provide services to
families that support children’s
cognitive, social, and emotional
development and school readiness.
Research shows that family social and
economic well-being greatly impacts
children’s development and school
readiness,101 102 103 104 105 which is why
101 Kingston, S., Huang, K. Y., Calzada, E.,
Dawson-McClure, S., & Brotman, L. (2013). Parent
involvement in education as a moderator of family
and neighborhood socioeconomic context on school
readiness among young children. Journal of
Community Psychology, 41(3), 265–276.
102 Soltis, K., Davidson, T.M., Moreland, A.,
Felton, J., & Dumas, J.E. (2015). Associations among
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61341
two-generation approaches like Head
Start are so important. We revised
§ 1302.50(a) to further clarify the
purpose of parent and family
engagement as supporting children’s
learning and development. We made
substantial revisions in §§ 1302.50 and
1302.52 to clarify that family
partnership services should include the
depth and breadth appropriate to
support families. We also revised
§§ 1302.50(b)(3) and 1302.52(a) to
clarify that family well-being includes
family safety, health, and economic
stability. Thus, we believe the final rule
appropriately reflects the statutory
requirement that family engagement
services be provided to improve
children’s learning and development
and the importance of strong family
partnership services in support of that
purpose.
Comment: Many commenters broadly
recommended revisions to emphasize
the key role of parents in all areas of
program operations.
Response: We agree that parents
should be engaged in all aspects of
program operations. Effective,
comprehensive family engagement
depends upon strategies that support
family well-being and family
engagement being embedded throughout
systems and services. We believe the
rule accomplishes this integration and
note that collaboration with parents and
families and parent and family
engagement and services are integrated
into all program services. In addition to
the extensive parent and family services
required in this subpart and in Program
Governance, parent and family
engagement services are integrated
throughout program operations. For
example, we integrate these services in
the education subpart (e.g., § 1302.34),
the health services subpart (e.g.,
§§ 1302.41 and 1302.46), the disabilities
subpart (e.g., § 1302.62), the transitions
subpart (§§ 1302.70(c) and 1302.71(b)),
personnel policies (e.g., §§ 1302.90(a)
and 1302.92(c)(3)), and program
management (subpart J). However, we
did make some revisions to address this
parental stress, child competence, and schoolreadiness: Findings from the PACE study. Journal
of child and family studies, 24(3), 649–657.
103 Fantuzzo, J., McWayne, C., Perry, M. A., &
Childs, S. (2004). Multiple dimensions of family
involvement and their relations to behavioral and
learning competencies for urban, low-income
children. School Psychology Review, 33(4), 467–
480.
104 McWayne, C., Fantuzzo, J., Cohen, H. L., &
Sekino, Y. (2004). A multivariate examination of
parent involvement and the social and academic
competencies of urban kindergarten children.
Psychology in the Schools, 41(3), 363–377.
105 Barnard, W. M. (2004). Parent involvement in
elementary school and educational attainment.
Children and Youth Services Review, 26, 39–62.
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
61342
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
concern. As previously noted, we
reinstated parent committees as part of
the governing structure in part 1301.
Also as previously noted, we revised the
family engagement section title in the
Education and Child Development
subpart to reflect the broader nature of
parent and family engagement. In
addition, to reflect that family and
community program services in this
subpart are not limited to partnership
services, we revised the subpart title to
read ‘‘Family and Community
Engagement Program Services.’’ We also
revised § 1302.50(b)(1) to recognize
parents as children’s primary ‘‘teachers
and nurturers’’ to more specifically
define the parent’s role.
Comment: Many commenters
recommend we reorganize part 1302 to
place subpart E—Family and
Community Engagement Program
Services—before subpart C—Education
and Child Development Services. They
stated this would help convey the
centrality of parent engagement to Head
Start.
Response: We agree that parent
engagement is foundational to Head
Start. We think this is appropriately
reflected in this subpart as well as in
parent-related provisions integrated into
every other subpart in part 1302—
Program Operations. Therefore, we do
not think reorganizing the subparts is
necessary to reflect parents’ essential
roles in the lives of their children and
as partners in the Head Start program.
We did not reorder any subparts in part
1302.
Comment: Some commenters
recommended we do more to integrate
the Parent, Family, and Community
Engagement Framework (PFCEF) into
the rule. For example, some commenters
recommended we include the PFCEF
title and outcomes definitions into the
rule. Others recommended we add more
specificity related to the PFCEF and/or
stronger requirements to track and
measure progress in the outcomes
included in the PFCEF.
Response: We agree programs have
made important progress in service
delivery through integration of the
PFCEF in their systems and services.
Therefore, this subpart included many
of those key strategies and approaches,
including a strong focus on family
engagement outcomes. In response to
comments, we revised the final rule to
provide clearer identification of PFCEF
outcomes in § 1302.52(b), alignment of
the individualized family partnership
services to the PFCEF outcomes in
§ 1302.52(c)(1), and stronger
requirements for tracking outcomes in
§ 1302.52(c)(3).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
Section 1302.50 Family Engagement
This section included the
fundamental requirements that apply
broadly to all parent and family
engagement activities as well as general
parent and family program practices. It
requires programs to integrate family
engagement strategies into all systems
and program services and details
fundamental requirements for
approaches to family engagement. To
address overarching concerns about
conveying the centrality of family
engagement and the important role of
parents, we made some structural and
other revisions to requirements in this
section. In addition to some of the
revisions to paragraph (a) that we
previously noted, we made revisions
such as changing the section title from
‘‘In general’’ to ‘‘Family engagement’’
and deleting the reference to community
partnerships to clearly differentiate
requirements in the sections related to
family engagement in §§ 1302.50,
1302.51, and 1302.52 from the
requirements for community
engagement in § 1302.53. We also added
the title ‘‘Family engagement approach’’
to paragraph (b) and changed the
structure for the lead-in to paragraph (b)
so that its requirements for family
engagement are clearly delineated. We
discuss comments and our responses
below.
Comment: Some commenters
suggested revising the requirement in
what was paragraph (b)(2) in the NPRM
and has been moved to paragraph (b)(6)
in the final rule to ensure information
is provided in a family’s preferred
language to ensure that they access and
participate in services. Another
commenter recommended we explicitly
require materials be accessible to
families who are ‘‘low literacy’’ or not
proficient in English.
Response: Though we agree it is
important that programs make
information and services available in
the languages spoken by enrolled
families, we also understand that
programs may have a dozen or more
languages represented among their
enrollment at any one time and that
some languages may be spoken by only
a few members of a community. We
believe that our requirement in what is
now paragraph (b)(6) is appropriately
specific. We also have confidence that
programs will consider the needs of the
families they enroll, including literacy,
in their interactions with families.
Comment: Some commenters
supported the father engagement
requirement in what was paragraph
(b)(3) in the NPRM. Other commenters
stated that father engagement should not
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
be mandated. Some offered additional
suggestions, such as adding the term
‘‘male’’ to father engagement to include
the men who participate in raising
children who are not their biological
fathers and explicitly adding services
for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and
transgender (LGBT) parents.
Response: The definitions of ‘‘family’’
and ‘‘parent’’ under part 1305 allow for
many variations of people who may
have the role of parents or guardians or
as authorized caregivers. We have
retained a focus on ‘‘father
engagement,’’ which is in paragraph
(b)(1) in the final rule, because research
demonstrates that child outcomes
improve when fathers are positively
involved. This does not preclude the
engagement of other males who may
have significant roles in children’s lives
so we do not think we need a broader
requirement. While the regulation
requires that programs implement
strategies to engage fathers in their
children’s learning and development,
this is not the same as mandating father
engagement for every father. In fact, the
requirement in § 1302.15(f) explicitly
states that parent participation is not
required. Because of the inclusive
definitions we provide for ‘‘parent’’ and
‘‘family,’’ we did not amend the section
to specifically list LGBT parents.
Comment: Some commenters
recommended replacing the phrase
‘‘responsive to and reflect’’ with
‘‘incorporates’’ in paragraph (b)(2).
Response: We agree and made this
revision.
Comment: Commenters believed the
provisions in this section weakened
family services, and requested changes
to ensure that Head Start’s twogeneration approach to addressing
family needs is not diminished. Some of
these commenters requested that Head
Start programs be allowed to utilize
innovative two-generation approaches
to deliver services to families of
enrolled children.
Response: As stated previously, it was
not the intent of the NPRM to diminish
or weaken the critical role that Head
Start programs play in supporting
families of enrolled children. In
addition, Head Start programs have
always been allowed to utilize twogeneration approaches to deliver
services to families of enrolled children,
and many already do. However, we
added a provision in paragraph (b)(4) to
clarify that programs should implement
innovative strategies to address
prevalent needs of families across the
program. This provision further
acknowledges that in order to
implement such strategies effectively,
programs may need to leverage
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
community partnerships or other
funding sources.
Section 1302.51 Parent Activities To
Promote Child Learning and
Development
This section includes requirements
for activities programs must provide to
parents to assist them in promoting
child development and learning. It
included a new requirement that
programs offer the opportunity for
parents to participate in research-based
parenting curriculum. We revised this
section to include the requirement for
working with parents to support regular
child attendance from § 1302.50(b)(1) in
the NPRM. We believe it is more
appropriately placed in this section. We
also addressed the concern that we did
not adequately reflect the important role
of parents in children’s learning with
revisions in the introductory text in
paragraph (a) and paragraph (a)(1).
Comment: As previously noted, some
commenters recommended we combine
the requirements of this section with the
requirements of § 1302.34. Others
recommended a reorganization to
amplify the importance of supporting
children’s learning as a purpose for
family engagement.
Response: We did not make this
revision. We believe § 1302.34
appropriately integrates parent and
family engagement into center-based
and family child care education services
that are focused on the child. The
activities in this section are parentfocused. We think this organization
better conveys the importance of
integrated family engagement services
throughout program operations and
reflects which staff will primarily
engage in the service delivery.
Comment: Some commenters
suggested adding language to the
regulation on informing parents about
the importance of bilingualism.
Response: We agree that programs
should provide parents with
information about brain development,
including bilingualism. We added
paragraph (a)(3) to reflect this
suggestion.
Comment: Some commenters
supported the requirement in paragraph
(b) for a research-based parenting
curriculum, noting it would raise
program quality. Some requested further
clarification, such as a list of acceptable
curricula or whether adaptations could
be made to the curricula. Others
recommended we add more strengthsbased language to the requirement.
Some commenters opposed this
requirement for reasons such as cost and
concern appropriate research-based
curricula were unavailable or suggested
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
participation be optional because it
would be burdensome to working
parents.
Response: We think this requirement
will improve the quality of service
delivery. We do not think further
clarification is necessary, but agree that
the requirement should be strengthsbased and revised paragraph (b) to
reflect that characteristic. We also
clarified that significant adaptations
could be made to better meet the needs
of the populations served, but that in
such cases programs must work with an
expert to develop these adaptations.
Technical assistance is available on
available research-based parenting
curricula through the Early Childhood
Learning and Knowledge Center. We
note that parent participation is never
required as criteria for a child’s
enrollment in Head Start.
Section 1302.52 Family Partnership
Services
This section details the family
engagement service requirements
programs must provide to identify
family needs and goals and provide
services and supports to help meet
family needs and achieve their goals. It
requires a family partnership services
approach that is initiated as early as
possible, shaped by parent interest and
need, focused on outcomes instead of
process, and effectively targeted
program and staff resources based on
need to ensure appropriate levels of
service intensity. We designed this
section to align with the Parent, Family,
and Community Engagement
Framework that has helped programs
develop an ongoing process of
individualized services based on family
strengths and needs instead of the
development of a single written plan.
Many commenters strongly opposed our
elimination of a specific family
partnership plan. Though we intended
to strengthen family engagement
services with requirements that detail
an ongoing outcomes-focused process,
commenters believed this section
diminished family engagement services
and contributed to an overall weaker
role for parents in Head Start. We
address these and other comments
below.
Comment: Many commenters strongly
suggested we restore the written family
partnership agreement. Commenters
articulated concern that removal of the
requirement for a written agreement
weakened family services in Head Start.
Other commenters thought that
eliminating the requirement for a
written agreement meant we eliminated
the family goal setting process. Though
some commenters agreed that the paper
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61343
document can become more of a
paperwork process than the means to
supporting families in identifying and
achieving goals, they still felt that the
written agreement is an important step
in formalizing the process. Some
commenters expressed support for the
increased local flexibility afforded by
not requiring a written agreement.
Response: We intended for this
subpart and this section specifically to
streamline requirements, place an
emphasis on outcomes over process,
and allow more local flexibility to
implement effective processes and
strategies for meeting family service
outcomes. We did not intend for this
section to diminish the program’s twogeneration approach or the strength and
breadth of family services.
We made revisions to this subpart and
section to clarify our intent for the
family partnership services, including
that it must include a family partnership
agreement. We added this provision in
§ 1302.50(b)(3). We also added
§ 1302.50(b)(5) in the final rule to
require a program’s family engagement
approach to include partnership with
families to identify needs, interests,
strengths, goals, services and resources
that support parents. As previously
noted, we revised paragraph (a) in this
section to clarify that family well-being
includes family safety, health, and
economic stability. Also as previously
noted, we revised paragraph (b) to
strengthen alignment between intake
and family assessment procedures and
identification of family strengths and
needs to the outcomes of the Parent,
Family, and Community, Engagement
Framework. These changes help clarify
that the rule does not narrow the
breadth or depth of family services that
are ultimately aimed at promoting the
school readiness of children.
Finally, we made significant revisions
to paragraph (c) to detail the full process
of family partnership services. In
paragraph (c)(1), we require programs to
offer individualized services that
identify family interests, needs, and
aspirations related to the family
engagement outcomes in the PFCEF. In
paragraph (c)(2), we require programs to
help families achieve their identified
outcomes. In paragraph (c)(3), we
require programs to establish and
implement a family partnership
agreement process, including a family
partnership agreement, to review family
progress, revise goals, evaluate and track
whether identified needs and goals are
met, and adjust strategies on an ongoing
basis. In paragraph (c)(4), we provide
programs with flexibility to target
resources to ensure appropriate levels of
service intensity.
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
61344
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
We believe the revisions to this
section and to § 1302.50 strengthen
program quality through a focus on
outcomes instead of process, dispel
concerns about the rule diminishing
family partnership services, and will
ensure programs implement strong and
effective family partnership services
that strengthen families and improve
child outcomes.
Comment: Some commenters
suggested we clarify whether parent
goals should focus on the parent or the
parent’s goals for the child. Others
recommended that we be more explicit
about data and performance indicators
related to family services and wellbeing.
Response: We believe this subpart
provides appropriate flexibility for
parents to identify their needs, goals,
and aspirations so we did not include
additional specificity about the types of
goals parents set. We revised this
section to reframe a requirement that
was in paragraph (c)(2) in the NPRM
and paragraph (c)(3) in the final rule to
ensure programs review, evaluate, and
track family needs and goals and
appropriate strategies on an ongoing
basis.
Section 1302.53 Community
Partnerships and Coordination With
Other Early Childhood and Education
Programs
This section includes program
requirements for community
partnerships. It largely maintains
provisions from the previous
performance standards about ongoing
collaborative relationships and
partnerships with community
organizations. It requires programs take
an active role in promoting coordinated
systems of comprehensive early
childhood services. It added a new
requirement for a memorandum of
understanding with the appropriate
local entity responsible for managing
publicly funded preschool programs to
reflect requirements from the Head Start
Act. It also added new requirements for
coordination with state and local
Quality Rating and Improvement
Systems and state data systems to
ensure that we are maximizing access to
services, reducing duplication and
fostering informed quality
improvement.
We reorganized and retitled this
section to improve clarity. For example,
we reorganized §§ 1302.50 and 1302.54
so community partnership requirements
were solely consolidated under
§ 1302.53. We reorganized this section
to describe program requirements for
ongoing collaborative relationships and
partnerships with community
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
organizations in paragraph (a). We
moved what was paragraph (a) in the
NPRM to paragraph (b) in the final rule
and restructured requirements for
memorandum of understanding, QRIS,
and data systems to fall under paragraph
(b) to better articulate the linkages
between these three requirements and
those in paragraph (b) that require
programs take an active role in
promoting coordinated systems of
comprehensive early childhood
services. We also revised and moved the
requirement to participate in statewide
longitudinal data systems from subpart
J to this section.
We also moved the requirement about
Health Services Advisory Committees
from paragraph (c) to § 1302.40(b). In
addition, we renamed this entire section
‘‘Community partnerships and
coordination with other programs and
systems’’ to more clearly identify its
applicability and purpose. We received
many comments on this section. We
discuss them and our responses below.
Comment: We received many
comments on the community
partnership requirements described in
what is now paragraph (a) but was
paragraph (b) in the NPRM. Many
commenters suggested we add new
partners with which programs should
establish collaborative relationships and
partnerships, such as programs funded
through the Runaway Homeless Youth
Act, financial partners, and school
boards. Other commenters were
concerned we removed explicit mention
of nutrition and housing assistance
agencies. Some commenters
recommended we not add any specific
community partnerships and let
programs decide based on community
data. Some commenters requested
additional clarification, such as for
greater specificity for coordinating
community plans or whether we will
allocate funds to comply with this
section of the regulation.
Response: We agree that there are a
variety of potential partners with the
capacity to help meet the
comprehensive needs of children and
families. However, rather than continue
to add to the list of potential specific
partnerships, we believe programs will
appropriately assess their family and
community needs and identify
partnerships that will support their
service delivery. In addition, we note
this section promotes local flexibility in
the development of community
partnerships and there is no
requirement for a program to have
community plan. Programs may request
additional assistance for guidance with
the development of community plans
and partnerships. Finally, Congress
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
appropriates funds for the Head Start
program. We do not have the authority
to provide additional funds.
Comment: We received many
comments about our proposal, now
found in paragraph (b)(2), that stated
programs should participate in their
state or local QRIS under certain
conditions. Some commenters
supported this requirement for reasons
including: it increases a program’s
marketability; it improves information
available to parents; it can reduce
inefficiencies and inequities by aligning
Head Start programs with other child
care and state pre-kindergarten
programs; it encourages quality
improvement; it could direct more
families to Head Start; and it makes
progress toward common indicators of
quality across programs. Some
commenters asked for clarification, such
as how to incentivize participation in
QRIS. Other commenters suggested
revisions, such as moving it to another
section or adding criteria for specific
subgroups such as DLLs.
Many commenters opposed this
requirement and recommended its
removal. Commenters expressed a
number of reasons including: QRIS is
not available in every state; it is
duplicative of monitoring, licensing,
and NAEYC accreditation; it would be
too costly and burdensome; and
research is mixed on its benefits to
programs or families.
Response: We believe it is important
that Head Start programs participate in
state or local quality improvement
efforts and that the value of QRIS
outweighs the challenges, including
giving parents more informed choices
about the quality of programs. While it
is true that most local education
agencies are exempt from licensing,
Preschool Development Grants require
participation in QRIS. We believe this
signals recognition of the value of QRIS
participation and that as participation
occurs across the spectrum of programs;
it will continue to strengthen both local
programs and the QRIS itself. We also
recognize that there may be challenges
that make it difficult for all programs to
participate in QRIS, including wait
times, and a lack of validated systems.
However, we also understand that
unqualified mandated participation
could lead to duplication in monitoring
and rating and that the conditions as we
outlined them in the NPRM may have
been too stringent. Therefore, we
modified this provision in the final rule.
Specifically we removed the qualifier
that the tiers must be validated and
added a condition that the state must
accept Head Start monitoring data as
evidence of meeting indicators in the
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
QRIS tiers and that participation must
not impact a program’s ability to meet
Head Start standards. We believe the
final rule sets a strong and reasonable
way for Head Start programs to
participate in these important state
systems without duplication and
burden.
Comment: Some commenters opposed
the requirement for tribal programs
specifically, stating that it was not
appropriate in these service areas.
Response: We agree that state and
local QRIS systems are not comparably
structured to serve in tribal areas as they
are in other service areas. Therefore, we
revised paragraph (b) to clarify that
tribal programs only need to consider
whether participation in state or local
QRIS would benefit their programs and
families.
Comment: Some commenters
requested we combine the two
standards on Statewide Longitudinal
Data System (SLDS): one in this section
and another in § 1302.101 on partnering
with the SLDS, and requested
clarification of the requirements.
Response: We agree with this
comment and think that the two mostly
duplicative requirements may lead to
confusion. Thus, we removed the
requirement from § 1302.101 and
combined it into § 1302.53. In the
process, we dropped the terms ‘‘early
childhood data systems,’’ ‘‘statewide
data system,’’ and ‘‘Statewide
Longitudinal Data System’’ and replaced
them with ‘‘state education data
systems’’ to make it non-program
specific and less confusing.
Additional Services for Children With
Disabilities; Subpart F
This subpart includes the standards
for additional services for children with
disabilities and their families. These
provisions align with the Act and reflect
requirements that children must be
identified and receive services as
prescribed in IDEA, focus on effective
service delivery instead of outdated or
unused documentation, and incorporate
best practices. In order to communicate
its critical importance, we also
incorporated requirements for the full
inclusion and participation of children
with disabilities in all program
activities, including but not limited to
children eligible for services under
IDEA. Commenters generally supported
our overall approach to serve children
with disabilities and their families. We
discuss these and additional comments
below.
General Comments
Comment: Some commenters were
concerned our elimination of what was
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
part 1308 in the prior rule meant we
eliminated requirements for services to
children with disabilities.
Response: While there is no longer a
part 1308, the final rule preserves the
critical role of Early Head Start and
Head Start programs in screening and
referring children with suspected
disabilities and as a program where
children with disabilities are prioritized
for services and fully integrated into
every aspect of service delivery. We
believe the final rule builds upon Head
Start’s long-standing commitment to
serving children with disabilities and
strengthens these services through part
1302. The final rule reflects the
appropriate role of local agencies
responsible for implementing IDEA, as
required by IDEA, for evaluation,
eligibility for services, establishment of
an IFSP or IEP, and implementation of
early intervention services or special
education and related services, as
appropriate.
Comment: Some commenters
suggested we include additional
services or specific approaches to
service delivery in this subpart. For
example, some commenters suggested
audiology services or Applied
Behavioral Analysis be added under this
subpart.
Response: It is not our role to identify
the specific type of special education
and related services used with children
with disabilities. We think audiology
screening for all children is essential
and require it under subpart D, which
addresses health services. We did not
make revisions.
Comment: Commenters suggested
adding a requirement to ensure DLLs
struggling with English acquisition are
not misidentified as having a
developmental delay or disability. Some
commenters suggested that staff should
receive training to work with DLLs who
also have disabilities.
Response: We believe these topics are
more appropriate for technical
assistance or guidance.
Section 1302.60 Full Participation in
Program Services and Activities
This section includes an outline of the
requirements contained in this subpart
and an assurance that all children with
disabilities, including but not limited to
those who are eligible for services under
IDEA, receive all applicable program
services and are able to fully participate
in all program activities.
Comment: Many commenters
recommended we revise this section to
include specific reference to inclusive
program practices.
Response: We agree that it is essential
to specify that services should be
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61345
provided in the least restrictive possible
setting and made revisions to reflect this
clarification.
Section 1302.61 Additional Services
for Children
This section describes the additional
services programs must provide to
children with disabilities and children
referred for but awaiting the
determination of IDEA eligibility by the
local agency responsible for
implementing IDEA. It requires
programs meet the individualized needs
of children with disabilities and provide
any necessary modifications and
supports necessary to support the full
participation of children with
disabilities. It includes a new
requirement for programs to provide
individualized services and supports to
the maximum extent possible to
children awaiting determination of
IDEA eligibility. Further, it includes
additional services for children with an
IFSP or IEP. Commenters were generally
supportive of this section but raised
some concerns and suggestions, which
we discuss below.
Comment: Some commenters offered
unqualified support for this section, but
others expressed concerns about the
proposal in paragraph (b) to provide
services and supports while children are
awaiting determination of IDEA
eligibility. For example, concerns
included program staff may not have the
expertise to know what services should
be provided, the cost of services. Some
commenters stated the standard was
unnecessary because programs already
individualize services for children.
Response: There is sometimes a
significant delay in local agencies
determining eligibility for IDEA and the
development of an IFSP or IEP; even
though both IDEA Part C and Part B
have timelines for conducting
evaluations, and for developing an IFSP
or IEP once the eligibility determination
has been made. Therefore, we think it is
important that programs review all
reasonable avenues for providing
services that maximally support a
child’s individual needs, including
services and supports for which the
child may be eligible through insurance
pending an eligibility determination
under IDEA and the development of an
IFSP or IEP. However, we made
revisions to paragraph (b) to clarify our
expectations including that programs
should work with parents to determine
if services and supports are available
through a child’s health insurance and/
or whether they should be provided
pursuant to Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act if the child satisfies
the definition of disability in section
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
61346
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
705(9)(b) of the Rehabilitation Act.
When such supports are not available
through alternate means while the
evaluation results are pending, though
staff are not required to provide early
intervention services or special
education and related services,
programs must individualize program
services based on available information
such as parent input and child
observation, screening, and assessment
data. We also clarify in paragraph (b)
that program funds may be used for this
purpose.
Comment: Some commenters stated
they would like to be able to include
children who receive services while
IDEA eligibility is pending, as described
in paragraph (b), in the calculation to
meet the requirement that ten percent of
total enrollment are children with
disabilities.
Response: Though we understand that
not all children with disabilities are
eligible for services under IDEA, the Act
stipulates that children must have an
IFSP or IEP under IDEA to be counted
as a child with a disability. Therefore,
we have no authority to change how the
ten percent requirement is calculated.
We did not revise this provision.
Comment: Some commenters
suggested we require the local
educational agency to operate and
coordinate with the Head Start program,
similar to how Head Start is required to
form agreements with the local
educational agency.
Response: We appreciate that this
would foster collaboration but we have
no authority over local educational
agencies. Programs are encouraged to
develop ongoing working relationships
with local agencies responsible for
implementing IDEA.
Comment: Some commenters offered
suggestions to further strengthen and
clarify the standards for additional
services for children with an IFSP or
IEP.
Response: In response to these
comments, we revised paragraph
(c)(1)(iii) and added a new standard at
paragraph (c)(1)(v). The revision to
paragraph (c)(1)(iii) clarifies that many
elements of an IFSP or IEP will be
implemented by ‘‘other appropriate
agencies, related service providers and
specialists.’’ Our addition at paragraph
(c)(1)(v) clarifies that most services can
be effectively delivered within the
classroom setting. Providing services in
the ‘‘natural environment’’ reduces
transitions, increases inclusion, and
increases the opportunity for gains to be
generalized. We think it is an important
stipulation that programs should work
with parents and agencies responsible
for implementing IDEA so that IFSPs
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
and IEPs specify that services be
delivered within children’s own classes
or family child care homes, if
determined appropriate for the child.
Section 1302.62 Additional Services
for Parents
This section described the additional
services programs must implement to
support the parents of children with
disabilities. These standards reorganize,
clarify, and build upon previous
regulations.
Comment: A commenter
recommended that programs be required
to provide information to their state
parent and health assistance centers.
Another commenter recommended we
clarify some of the difference between
Parts B and C of IDEA.
Response: Though we agree this can
be useful information, it is not
universally applicable and can be
effectively provided as guidance or
technical assistance so we did not make
revisions. We believe our definition of
‘‘local agency responsible for
implementing IDEA’’ is sufficiently
clear and did not add further
clarification.
Section 1302.63 Coordination and
Collaboration With the Local Agency
Responsible for Implementing IDEA
This section describes program
requirements to coordinate and
collaborate with the local agency (or
agencies) responsible for implementing
IDEA. This section retains many
provisions from the previous regulation
but streamlines and updates them to
focus less on planning and more on
service delivery. We believe
coordination and collaboration with the
local agencies responsible for
implementing IDEA reflect an essential
partnership in meeting the needs of
children with disabilities in Head Start.
Commenters generally supported this
section.
Comment: Commenters expressed
concern that children with disabilities
sometimes are required to leave Early
Head Start or Head Start or be dually
enrolled to receive special education
and related services at another site and
offered recommendations to strengthen
our standards.
Response: We fully support the
requirements of IDEA that services must
be provided in the least restrictive
possible environment. We revised
paragraph (b) to address concerns about
dually enrolled children and the setting
in which children receive services.
Transition Services; Subpart G
This subpart describes requirements
for supporting transitions for children
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
and families as they move between
programs and settings. This subpart
reorganizes and updates previous
standards to reflect best practice for
better clarity and implementation.
Commenters supported many of the
provisions in subpart G, such as the
detailed requirements for activities to
support transitions into kindergarten or
other early childhood programs, the
requirements for transitions of children
with IEPs or IFSPs, the language focused
on supporting transitions for children in
migrant and seasonal Head Start
programs, and the removal of the
requirement to have a staff-parent
meeting at the end of the year. We
received other comments on this
subpart and respond to them below.
General Comments
Comment: Some commenters
suggested that implementing the
additional supports for transitions
between Early Head Start to Head Start
and from Head Start to kindergarten will
impact programmatic procedures and
budgets, and that additional funding
will be needed. Others were concerned
this subpart placed too much burden on
the program from which a child is
exiting and suggested revisions.
Response: We believe the transition
services in this subpart are critical to
support child development from birth to
age five and beyond. This rule supports
the transition process and continuity of
services regardless of where families
seek services, but we do not believe they
are substantially different than current
practice. However, we agree that
programs cannot control the receiving
school or program, but our language
supporting transitions and collaborating
with community partners is sufficiently
flexible to allow for these realities.
Therefore, we did not revise the
provisions.
Comment: Some commenters
recommended that we include
requirements for programs to assess
their transition practices to ensure they
effectively minimize the number of
transitions and promote smooth
transitions for children and families.
Response: Although we encourage
programs to assess all aspects of their
programming as part of the continuous
quality improvement process, we do not
agree that requiring programs to
specifically assess their transitions
practices is necessary.
Section 1302.70 Transitions From
Early Head Start
This section describes what programs
are required to do to support successful
transitions for children leaving Early
Head Start. The requirements in this
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
section also support parents’ continued
involvement in their child’s education.
Comment: Commenters expressed
concern about the requirement in
paragraph (b)(2) on the timing of moving
children from Early Head Start to Head
Start after their third birthday. Some
commenters recommended we allow a
child who turns three after the
kindergarten cut-off date to remain
enrolled in Early Head Start until the
child transitions into Head Start or to
another program at the beginning of the
next program year. Also, some
commenters recommended we clarify
the phrase ‘‘a limited number of
additional months’’ in paragraph (b)(2)
because this timeframe is vague.
Response: The Act sets the age
requirements for Early Head Start. We
encourage programs to use ongoing
planning processes to make informed
choices based on individual needs and
development for appropriate enrollment
options into Head Start, prekindergarten, or other community based
programs, to the extent available in their
communities. Additionally, we used the
phrase ‘‘a limited number of additional
months’’ to provide programs with
flexibility to determine the appropriate
number of months to extend a child’s
enrollment to ensure a smooth
transition. Children that turn three after
the date of eligibility for kindergarten
can enroll in Head Start if there is a
space available during the program year.
Therefore, we did not revise the
provision.
Comment: Some commenters
supported the requirements in
paragraph (d) for Early Head Start and
Head Start to work together to support
continuity of services from birth to five.
Some commenters recommended
specific revisions, including adding a
requirement to paragraph (d) for
programs to serve families with the
highest demographic risk.
Response: Prioritization requirements
are described in subpart A, so we have
not made changes to this section.
Section 1302.71 Transitions From
Head Start to Kindergarten
In this section, we outline the services
programs must implement to support
successful transitions from Head Start to
kindergarten. We received comments
from the public and address them
below.
Comment: One commenter suggested
we change the phrase ‘‘transition to
kindergarten’’ to ‘‘transition to school’’
throughout this section to better
emphasize that broader transitions may
occur between Head Start and the
public school system, such as state
preschool.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
Response: This section focused on
supports for transitions to kindergarten,
while § 1302.72 already addressed
transitions to other early childhood
education programs.
Comment: One commenter expressed
concern that the language in paragraph
(b)(2)(iii) on transition services to
prepare parents to exercise their rights
and responsibilities including options
for their child to participate in language
instruction educational programs, does
not reflect the intent of Section 1112 of
the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA), as referenced in
the Act, and that programs should tell
parents about the range of educational
options available to DLLs when they
enter elementary school. This
commenter suggested that we should
not promote native language instruction
over other options. Additionally, other
commenters requested clarification
about whether Head Start programs are
required to judge the appropriateness of
different instructional approaches for
DLLs in public schools.
Response: As described in section
642A of the Act, Head Start programs
are required to help parents of DLL
children understand the information
provided to them under Section 1112 of
ESEA. We believe that paragraph
(b)(2)(iii) is consistent with this
requirement; however, for clarity, we
removed the explicit mention of ‘‘native
language instruction.’’ Further, Head
Start programs are not expected to judge
the appropriateness of different
instructional approaches for DLLs;
rather, programs should help make
parents aware of different options for
language instruction programs in the
elementary school setting. We made
appropriate edits to paragraph (b)(2)(iii)
to clarify this intent.
Comment: Some commenters stated
that requirements in this section were
too challenging and burdensome. For
example, some commenters expressed
concern that collaboration with school
districts receiving Head Start children is
challenging and highlighted
collaboration to determine the
availability of summer school
programming for children entering
kindergarten as an example.
Response: We believe that supporting
successful transitions of children and
families into school is critical for
supporting child development and
continued parental involvement in
children’s education. We do not agree
that this section is too burdensome or
challenging so we did not make changes
in response to these comments.
Comment: Some commenters
suggested we include additional
requirements in this section to make
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61347
transition services stronger. For
example, commenters recommended we
expand transition services to encompass
after care in kindergarten and suggested
we include more requirements on
community collaborations in this
subpart.
Response: We think we focus on the
key components of transition services to
support families when children
transition to kindergarten. As always,
we encourage programs to identify the
individual needs of Head Start children
and families and work to meet those
needs. Additionally, we believe that
community collaborations are
sufficiently addressed in § 1302.53(a),
which requires programs take an active
role in promoting a coordinated system
of comprehensive early childhood
services among community agencies
and partners, so additional requirements
about community collaboration were
unnecessary.
Comment: One commenter
recommended we permit programs to
continue to provide comprehensive
services to a subset of very at-risk
families after those children transition
to elementary school.
Response: Head Start is not
authorized or funded to serve children
and families after they leave Head Start.
Section 1302.72 Transitions Between
Programs
In this section, we included three new
provisions that will support transitions
for children and families who might not
otherwise receive such services.
Comment: Some commenters
explicitly supported the provision for
programs to make significant efforts to
support transitions for children
experiencing homelessness or in foster
care when they move out of the
community. Because of their high
mobility rate, one commenter suggested
that programs should anticipate
transitions for these children, and that
the language in paragraph (a) should
include support for transitions to other
early childhood programs, not just Head
Start, as well as connections to other
types of community services that can
support these children.
Response: We agree with the
suggestion to support transitions to
other early childhood programs if Early
Head Start or Head Start services are not
available. We edited paragraph (a) to
reflect this.
Comment: Some commenters
expressed concerns about the
requirement in paragraph (b) to provide
transition services to families who
decide to enroll their children in other
high-quality early education programs
in the year prior to kindergarten.
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
61348
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Challenges described include difficulty
identifying participation in other
programs by children who do not return
to Head Start and lack of mandates on
other public programs. Commenters
asked for clearer definitions of the terms
‘‘high quality’’ and ‘‘practical and
appropriate,’’ as well as guidance on
determining the quality of other
programs. One commenter stated that
this transition strategy does not promote
the continuity of care emphasized in the
NPRM.
Response: We agree the term ‘‘high
quality’’ is vague and difficult to
determine during a transition process;
therefore, we struck the term from this
provision. The intent of this provision is
to support the transition process,
regardless of where families seek
services. To allow for program
flexibility, we retained the phrase ‘‘as
practical and appropriate.’’ We will
continue to provide guidance on these
terms, as requested by grantees.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Services to Enrolled Pregnant Women;
Subpart H
This subpart describes services Early
Head Start programs must provide to
pregnant women enrolled in their
programs. Long standing research
clearly demonstrates the importance of
prenatal care and the effectiveness of
prenatal interventions to facilitate
healthy pregnancies 106 107 108 109 110 and
improve child outcomes that affect later
school readiness 111 112 113 114 115 among
106 Olds, D.L., Henderson, Jr., C.R., Tatelbaum, R.,
& Chamberlin, R. (1986) Improving the Delivery of
Prenatal Care and Outcomes of Pregnancy: A
randomized Trial of Nurse Home Visitation.
Pediatrics, 77(1), 16–28.
107 Villar, J., Farnot, U., Barros, F., Victora, C.,
Langer, A., & Belizan J.M. (1992) A Randomized
Trial of Psychosocial Support during High Risk
Pregnancies, The New England Journal of Medicine,
327(18), 1266–1271.
108 Olds, D.L., & Kitzman, H. (1993). Review of
Research on Home Visiting for Pregnant Women
and Parents of Young Children. The Future of
Children, 3(3), 53–92.
109 McLiaghlin, F.J., Altemeier, W.A.,
Christensen, M.J., Sherrod, K.B., Dietrich, M.S., &
Stern, D.T. (1992). Randomized Trial of
Comprehensive Prenatal Care for Low-Income
Women: Effect on Infant Birth Weight. Pediatrics,
89(1), 128–132.
110 Alexander, G.R., & Korenbrot, C.C. (1995). The
Role of Prenatal Care in Preventing Low Birth
Weight. The Future of Children, 5(1), 103–120.
111 Larson, C. P. (1980). Efficacy of Prenatal and
Postpartum Home Visits on Child Health and
Development. Pediatrics, 66(2), 191–197.
112 Olds, D.L., Henderson, Jr., C.R., & Kitzman, H.
(1994). Does Prenatal and Infancy Nurse Home
Visitation have Enduring Effects on Qualities of
Parental Caregiving and Child Health at 25 to 50
Months of Life? Pediatrics, 93(1), 89–98.
113 Olds, D.L., & Kitzman, H. (1990). Can Home
Visitation Improve the Health of Women and
Children at Environmental Risk? Pediatrics, 86(1),
108–116.
114 Hack, M. Klein, N.K., & Taylor, H.G. (1995).
Long-term Developmental Outcomes of Low Birth
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
at-risk women. While most of this
subpart is structurally different from
§ 1304.40 in the previous rule, it
expands upon services we have always
required to codify best practices and
also highlights the importance of
prenatal health care and education.
Commenters generally supported this
subpart. We discuss specific comments
and our responses below.
General Comments
Comment: Commenters supported our
overall approach that creates a
standalone subpart for services to
pregnant women as well as individual
new requirements for services to
pregnant women. Some commenters
opposed the additional requirements we
proposed for pregnant women while
other commenters suggested programs
would require additional funds if they
increased services to pregnant women.
Response: We understand the
concerns some commenters described,
especially related to cost. However,
pregnant women are enrolled in Early
Head Start programs, and therefore,
funding is provided for these services.
This subpart primarily reflects current
practice that was not included in the
regulation. We retained this section to
codify practices related to pregnant
women.
Comment: Some commenters
recommended programs carefully
consider when to enroll pregnant
women so that their children will be
able to enroll in the Early Head Start
program.
Response: While we agree with this
comment, we do not think there is a
need for a program performance
standard to require such consideration.
Comment: Some commenters
suggested that the entire subpart should
refer to expectant families rather than
pregnant women, or requested
clarification about the scope of services
required for a pregnant mother of an
enrolled child who is not herself
enrolled in Early Head Start.
Response: This subpart pertains only
to enrolled pregnant women, and we
revised § 1302.80(a) to further clarify
this. While we made it clear that
relevant services should include the
entire expectant family, wherever
possible, pregnant women are the family
member who is enrolled in Early Head
Start. Further, § 1302.46 describes
services for expectant families of
enrolled children that may be relevant,
but programs must only provide
Weight Infants. The Future of Children, 5(1), 176–
196.
115 Reichman, N. E. (2005). Low birth weight and
school readiness. The Future of Children, 15(1), 91–
116.
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
opportunities to learn about healthy
pregnancy and post-partum care to
expectant parents of enrolled children
who are not themselves enrolled. We
did not make revisions based on these
comments.
Section 1302.80 Enrolled Pregnant
Women
This section describes the services
programs must provide to enrolled
pregnant women. It requires programs to
assess whether or not enrolled pregnant
women have access to an ongoing
source of health care and health
insurance, and if not, to facilitate their
access to such care and insurance. It
also includes a requirement for a
newborn visit. We received comments
on this section and discuss them below.
Comment: One commenter explicitly
opposed the new requirement in
paragraph (b) to assist pregnant women
in accessing health insurance.
Response: Ensuring pregnant women
have health insurance is critical to
ensuring they receive adequate prenatal
care.116 117 118 We did not revise the
provision.
Comment: Some commenters
requested clarity about what we meant
by ‘‘as quickly as possible’’ in regard to
the requirement in paragraph (b) that
programs support access to health care
for pregnant women. Commenters
suggested 30 or 45 days.
Response: While we agree that 30 or
45 days are both reasonable
interpretations of ‘‘as quickly as
possible,’’ in some cases this
requirement should be met more
quickly, and in other cases challenges
may arise that prevent programs from
providing these services within those
timeframes. Therefore, it is not
appropriate to regulate a precise time
frame. We did not revise the provision.
Comment: Some commenters
recommended we require programs to
refer families to emergency shelters or
transitional housing in cases of
domestic violence or homelessness.
Response: Paragraph (c) already
requires programs to refer families to
emergency shelters or transitional
housing, as appropriate.
Comment: Many commenters
suggested we revise what was
§ 1302.82(b) to require programs to offer
116 Marquis, M. & Long, S. (2002). The role of
public insurance and the public delivery system in
improving birth outcomes for low-income pregnant
women. Medical Care (40), 1048–1059.
117 Howell, E. (2001). The Impact of the Medicaid
expansions for pregnant women: A synthesis of the
evidence. Medical Care Research Review,(58) 3–30.
118 Phillippi, J. C. (2009). Women’s perceptions of
access to prenatal care in the United States: A
literature review. Journal of Midwifery & Women’s
Health, 54(3), 219–225.
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
but not necessarily provide a newborn
home visit within two weeks because
families should have the right to refuse.
Some commenters asked that programs
be allowed to consider cultural practices
and length of hospital stays or illness in
requiring an initial home visit at two
weeks.
Response: The initial home visit is
planned with the pregnant woman and
her family as part of prenatal services
that a program provides and the timing
of the visit can reflect the beliefs and
circumstances of the family. We
clarified this intent by revising what is
now § 1302.80(d) to require that
programs must schedule a home visit
within two weeks.
Comment: Commenters requested
clarification about the qualifications for
the ‘‘health staff’’ mentioned in what
was § 1302.82(b) who perform the twoweek postpartum visit.
Response: We removed the reference
to ‘‘health staff’’ in what is now
§ 1302.80(d) to clarify programs have
flexibility to staff the home visit in a
manner that is appropriate for
individual family needs. We now call
this visit a newborn visit.
Section 1302.81 Prenatal and
Postpartum Information, Education, and
Services
This section strengthens program
performance standards pertaining to
enrolled pregnant women by requiring
programs to ensure all enrolled pregnant
women have opportunities to learn
about various relevant topics. It also
makes clear that programs must address
needs for appropriate supports for
emotional well-being, nurturing and
responsive caregiving, and father
engagement during pregnancy and early
childhood.
Comment: Some commenters
suggested we revise paragraph (a) and
the title of this section to clarify the
expectation for the level of service
delivery.
Response: For clarification, we have
changed the title of this section and the
phrase in paragraph (a) to ‘‘prenatal and
postpartum information, education, and
services.’’
Comment: Some commenters
suggested that maternal and paternal
depression should be included in the
list of prenatal and postpartum services
described in paragraph (a). Some
commenters explicitly suggested that
expectant families be screened for both
prenatal and postnatal depression.
Response: We revised the language in
paragraph (a) to include parental
depression.
Comment: Commenters recommended
we require programs to use tools and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
resources to assess risk factors and
needs of expectant families. Further,
some commenters requested inclusion
of explicit requirements regarding the
hours and days or number of home
visits required for pregnant women.
Response: We believe we struck the
right balance in allowing programs to
determine the specific ways to achieve
the outcomes and do not think
additional prescriptive federal
requirements are necessary. We did not
make these changes.
Comment: Some commenters
suggested additions to the required
educational services regarding oral
health for both pregnant women and
newborns during the newborn home
visit.
Response: We do not believe that
discussing later oral health is an
appropriate focus of this newborn home
visit. We did not revise the provision.
Comment: Some commenters
requested guidance about the
availability of prenatal educational
materials. Other commenters suggested
that we issue guidance to make
programs aware of the educational
materials available free of charge
through the CACFP regarding nutrition,
physical activity, and breastfeeding.
Response: As commenters noted,
there are materials available through
USDA, and other sources that could be
used, free of charge to provide prenatal
educational services to pregnant women
and their families. We believe programs
can easily access this information and
do not think changes are needed to the
regulation.
Section 1302.82 Family Partnership
Services for Enrolled Pregnant Women
This section describes requirements
for programs to provide family
partnership services for enrolled
pregnant women.
Comment: Some commenters wanted
this section to include specific language
for including fathers and father
engagement in family partnership
services for enrolled pregnant women.
Response: We agree that the language
should more explicitly reflect the role of
fathers and revised paragraphs (a) and
(b) accordingly.
Human Resources Management;
Subpart I
In this subpart, we combined all
previous performance standards related
to human resources management into
one coherent section. This subpart
includes requirements for personnel
policies, staff qualifications, training
and professional development, and staff
health and wellness and volunteers. We
renamed the subpart Human Resources
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61349
Management to better encompass the
requirements in this subpart. We
received many comments on this
subpart. We summarize and respond to
these comments below.
Section 1302.90 Personnel Policies
This section requires programs to
establish written personnel policies and
procedures, sets forth a background
check process, standards of conduct for
staff, consultants, and volunteers, and
staffing requirements when programs
serve DLLs. We received many
comments on our background check
requirements. We discuss these and
other comments on this section below.
Comment: Commenters supported the
general requirement in paragraph (a)
that programs develop written
personnel policies and procedures.
Many commenters asked us to provide
more clarity about the policy council’s
role in hiring and firing staff. Some
commenters asked us to require
programs to make policies and
procedures available to all staff. Some
commenters asked us to prescribe
exactly what program policies and
procedures must contain.
Response: We revised paragraph (a) to
read, ‘‘A program must establish written
personnel policies and procedures that
are approved by the governing body and
policy council or policy committee and
that are available to all staff.’’ We
purposely devised this rule to be less
prescriptive to afford programs
flexibility and autonomy so we did not
include additional specificity about
personnel policies and procedures other
than what is required in paragraphs (b),
(c), and (d) in this section. We revised
this paragraph to clarify that staff have
access to the personnel policies and
procedures and to reflect the Act’s
requirement that the governing body
and policy council or policy committee
must review and approve the program’s
personnel policies and procedures. We
relied on the Act for the governance
requirements on hiring and firing so we
did not make any changes.
Comment: Commenters generally
supported our background check
requirements in paragraph (b), noting
that they were in the best interests of
children and align with the Head Start
Act and Child Care Development Block
Grant Act of 2014 (CCDBG).
Commenters expressed some concern
with potential costs associated with the
requirements. Some commenters
recommended additional alignment,
such as with provisions from Section
658(H) of CCDBG that require programs
to complete the background check
process within 45 days. Some
commenters asked us to mirror exactly
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
61350
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
what the Act states about background
checks to minimize conflict. They did
not interpret the Act to require
fingerprints with criminal history
records checks. Others requested
additional amendments such as limits to
fees a program may charge to process
criminal history checks, mandates for
confidentiality, an appeal process, and
an exemption for some employees.
Some commenters recommended we
rename paragraph (b) to improve clarity.
Response: We believe our background
check requirements align with the Act
and generally align with section 658(H)
of CCDBG. However, we did not change
the timeframe we prescribed for
programs to complete background
checks. We believe 90 days is
appropriate, particularly since the Act
requires Head Start programs to
complete one of the checks before hire.
We did not address background check
fees in this rule. We understand
programs may bear costs associated with
background checks and we encourage
programs to use the resources available
to them and consider ways to allocate
funds differently to cover these costs.
We do not think it is the best interest
of Head Start children to allow
exemptions from the background
checks. In regard to concerns about
privacy, we expect programs will
address confidentiality in their written
policies and procedures because
paragraph (c)(1)(iv) requires programs to
ensure all staff, consultants, and
volunteers comply with confidentiality
policies. We did not require programs to
establish a background checks appeal
process. If either prospective or current
employees decide to challenge
background check findings, we
encourage programs to direct them to
the state, tribal, or federal agency that
conducted the check. We agree the title
of paragraph (b) was not clear enough
and have renamed it ‘‘Background
checks and selection procedures.’’
Comment: Some commenters
expressed concern about the legality of
asking prospective employees for their
dates of birth. Other commenters were
concerned if we did not reference Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
programs could use background checks
to discriminate in hiring practices
against protected individuals such as
African Americans and Hispanics.
Response: Dates of birth are probably
the most important factor needed to
identify an individual and are necessary
to conduct background checks. The Age
Discrimination in Employment Act of
1967 does not prohibit an employer
from asking for date of birth or age. In
fact, the U.S. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
specifically ruled that an employer that
asks for date of birth or age does not
automatically violate that act. As a best
practice, the EEOC urges employers to
clearly disclose to applicants why they
need birth dates.119 Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) requires
employers to screen individuals based
on criminal history in a manner that
does not significantly disadvantage
protected individuals, such as Hispanics
and African Americans. In § 1303.3 we
include Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
among the other federal laws Head Start
programs need to comply with.
Comment: Some commenters found
our structure for paragraph (b) to be
confusing and asked us to clarify
whether programs must complete the
background check before a person was
hired or within 90 days. Commenters
offered suggestions, such as adding a
provision that required programs to hire
individuals who otherwise cleared one
of the checks before they were hired or
to limit their access to children until all
background checks are cleared.
Response: We agree that our structure
for paragraph (b) made it difficult to
clearly understand what type of
background check needed to be
conducted before or after an individual
is hired. We did not change the
background check requirements but we
revised paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) to
improve clarity. Paragraph (b)(1) now
clearly requires programs to obtain
either state or tribal criminal history
records with fingerprint checks or
federal criminal history records with
fingerprints before an individual is
hired. Paragraph (b)(2)(i) now clearly
requires programs have 90 days after an
individual is hired to obtain whichever
criminal history check listed in
paragraph (b)(1) they could not obtain
before hire. It also states in paragraph
(b)(2)(ii) and (iii) that programs have 90
days after an employee is hired to
complete background checks with child
abuse and neglect registries, if available,
and sex offender registries. To ensure
child safety while the all of the
background checks are being completed,
we added paragraph (b)(3) to require
programs ensure the new employee will
not have unsupervised access to
children until their full background
check process is complete.
Comment: Some commenters were
concerned we would find programs
either non-compliant or deficient if
there were no child abuse and neglect
registries in their state. Some
commenters suggested we should
specify whether programs must use state
119 See www.eeoc.gov/facts/age.html for more
facts about age discrimination.
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
or national sex offender registry and we
should require programs to conduct
searches on the National Crime
Information Center.
Response: We require programs to
obtain checks from the national sex
offender registry and state child abuse
and neglect and sex offender registries,
if available. We think the regulation is
strong on ensuring child safety and do
not think it is necessary to require
programs to check the National Crime
Information Center.
Comment: Some commenters
recommended we require programs to
conduct background checks on
volunteers, contractors, and family child
care providers.
Response: We agree contractor and
family child care providers are required
to have background checks. To clarify
our intent we added the phrase
‘‘directly or through contract’’ to
paragraph (b)(1) and clarify that
transportation staff and contractors are
also subject to these requirements,
consistent with the policy proposed in
the NPRM. We also clarify that all staff,
consultants, and contractors are subject
to this requirement. We do not require
background checks for volunteers
because there is some evidence this
stifles parent volunteering and
engagement, which is fundamental to
Head Start’s two-generation approach.
Additionally, as described in paragraph
(c)(1)(v) and § 1302.94(b), programs
must ensure children are never left
alone with volunteers.
Comment: Many commenters were
concerned about language in the
preamble about programs providing
justification for hiring individuals with
arrests or convictions in relation to what
was paragraph (b)(3) in the NPRM and
is now paragraph (b)(4). Commenters
noted this caused unnecessary
bureaucracy and a few thought it
contradicted the Act.
Response: Paragraph (b)(4) in this rule
requires programs to review each
employment application to assess
relevancy. It does not conflict with the
Act and does not require written
justifications.
Comment: We received some
comments about disqualification factors.
Some commenters suggested we revise
what is now paragraph (b)(4) to clarify
that school-based grantees can use
whichever state-imposed
disqualification factors apply to them.
Some commenters suggested we allow
tribes to use tribal disqualification
factors. Some commenters asked us to
list specific pre-employment or
disqualification factors.
Response: We revised paragraph
(b)(4), which was paragraph (b)(3) in the
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
NPRM, to clarify programs must use
‘‘applicable state or tribal Child Care
Development Fund (CCDF)
disqualification factors in any
employment decisions.’’ However,
because pre-employment and
disqualification factors vary by state and
tribe, we did not list those factors here.
Comment: Most commenters
supported the requirement in what was
paragraph (b)(4) in the NPRM but is now
paragraph (b)(5) to conduct complete
background checks every five years.
They believed what we proposed aligns
with background checks across multiple
early childhood programs and with
typical hiring practices. Some
commenters opposed this requirement
because it would impose undue costs
for programs. Many commenters
suggested exemptions for programs that
have a more stringent system in place.
Some commenters offered other
alternatives to the five-year requirement,
like use of consumer reporting agencies
because they are fast and more
comprehensive, and background checks
more frequently than every five years.
Response: We agree that our five-year
requirement that now appears in
paragraph (b)(5) in the NPRM aligns
with other program requirements and
with typical hiring practices. We
understand there may be costs
associated with background checks.
However, we believe child safety is
paramount. Therefore, we expect
programs to use resources available to
them and to allocate funds differently,
if necessary, to cover these costs. We
revised paragraph (b)(5) to exempt a
program from the five-year requirement
if the program can demonstrate it has a
more stringent system in place that will
ensure child safety.
Comment: Some commenters asked us
to clarify the requirement in what was
paragraph (b)(5) and is now paragraph
(b)(6) about consideration of current and
former program parents for employment
vacancies. They requested we clarify
that programs are not required to
consider otherwise qualified parents for
positions if they do not apply.
Response: We revised paragraph (b)(6)
to clarify that parents should be
considered only for jobs for which they
apply.
Comment: Some commenters asked us
to define: ‘‘background check,’’ ‘‘before
and individual is hired,’’ ‘‘clearance by
registries,’’ employment application,’’
and the term ‘‘hire’’ as distinct from the
phrase ‘‘an offer of employment.’’
Response: We did not define these
terms or phrases. Programs should
consider their ordinary and customary
meanings.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
Comment: Commenters generally
supported the standards of conduct
described in paragraph (c). Some noted
their support of the requirements in
what is now paragraph (c)(1)(ii) that
prohibit staff from using food or
physical activity or outdoor time as a
reward or punishment. Some
commenters requested we add more
specificity to the requirements in
paragraph (c)(1)(ii). For example, some
requested we expressly ban physical,
mechanical, and chemical restraint, as
well as seclusion. Some commenters
stated that the terms ‘‘isolation,’’
‘‘sarcastic,’’ ‘‘derogatory,’’ and
‘‘humiliation’’ were subjective and
asked us to define them. Some
commenters recommended we delete
the list of what staff must not do and
include a standard by which staff
should aspire to conduct themselves
instead.
Response: We do not think our
standards of conduct in paragraph
(c)(1)(ii) require more specificity. We
made small changes to this paragraph to
improve clarity that did not change
meaning. For example, the prohibition
on public or private humiliation, that
was found in paragraph (c)(1)(ii)(I) in
the NPRM, was moved to paragraph
(c)(1)(ii)(F). We agree it was appropriate
to add a requirement to the standards of
conduct that expressed the positive and
supportive behavior all staff,
consultants, and volunteers must
exhibit. This standard can be found at
paragraph (c)(1)(i) and standards
describing prohibitions that were in
paragraph (c)(1)(i) in the NPRM are now
found at paragraph (c)(1)(ii).
We did not define ‘‘isolation,’’
‘‘sarcastic,’’ ‘‘derogatory,’’ and
‘‘humiliation’’ because we expect
programs to consider these terms’
ordinary and customary meanings.
Furthermore, we did not amend
paragraph (c) to use the terms physical,
mechanical, and chemical restraint or
seclusion. We believe our standards of
conduct clearly convey prohibition on
restraint. Furthermore, the requirement
now found in paragraph (c)(1)(ii)(B) that
expressly prohibits isolation as a form of
discipline and the requirement in
paragraph (c)(1)(v) that prohibits staff
from leaving children alone or
unsupervised at any time more clearly
convey our prohibition on seclusion.
Comment: Some commenters
suggested we reference staff,
contractors, and volunteers in paragraph
(c)(1)(iii) so programs understand who
must adhere to standards of conduct.
Response: We agree that we must
clarify standards of conduct described
in paragraph (c)(1) apply to staff,
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61351
consultants, contractors, and volunteers.
We revised paragraph (c) accordingly.
Comment: Some commenters
requested we reaffirm Head Start’s
policy that does not exclude same sex
couples and add ‘‘sexual orientation’’ to
what is now paragraph (c)(1)(iii)
Response: We agree, and we revised
paragraph (c)(1)(iii) accordingly.
Comment: Commenters generally
supported that personnel policies
include appropriate penalties for staff
that violate standards of conduct.
Commenters asked us to clarify
paragraph (c)(2), which requires
personnel policies and procedures to
include appropriate penalties for staff
who violate the standards of conduct.
Commenters requested to know who
determines appropriate penalties.
Response: We expect programs to
designate staff that will determine
appropriate penalties. We think local
programs are best suited to determine
who that staff should be so we did
revise the provision. We also clarified in
paragraph (c)(2) that personnel policies
and procedures must include
appropriate penalties for consultants
and volunteers, as well as staff, who
violate the standards of conduct.
Comment: Some commenters raised
concerns with the requirement in
paragraph (d)(1) about communication
that is effective with DLLs and their
families. Some commenters were
concerned about the rarity of certain
languages and corresponding lack of
interpreters or qualified teachers.
Commenters pointed out that, in some
instances, staff who speak the second
language are sometimes not proficient in
English and it is costly for programs to
train them.
Response: The prior performance
standards required that programs be
able to communicate effectively with
families, either directly or through an
interpreter. This has been a longstanding requirement and expectation in
Head Start. If program staff, interpreters,
or translators do not speak all languages
of the families in the program, then
other support services should be
utilized, such as interpretation services
available via phone and other methods.
We revised paragraph (d)(1) to take into
account those extremely limited
circumstances where interpretation
services are not available by phone and
other methods and to clarify the
requirement by including ‘‘to the extent
feasible.’’
Comment: Some commenters raised
concerns with the standard in paragraph
(d)(2) that requires programs to have at
least one staff member who speaks the
home language of DLLs in classes where
the majority of children speak the same
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
61352
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
non-English language. Commenters
were concerned about the lack of
qualified bilingual staff, particularly for
infant groups. Some commenters asked
whether a waiver will be available for
this requirement, and how to find
interpreters.
Response: The prior performance
standards required that at least one staff
member or home visitor speak the
language of the majority of children in
the class or home-based program. This
has been a long-standing requirement
and expectation in Head Start. When the
majority of children speak the same
language, we believe it is imperative
that staff be able to provide the children
with high-quality language experiences.
There is not a waiver available for this
requirement.
Section 1302.91 Staff Qualification
and Competency Requirements
This section includes requirements
for staff qualifications and
competencies. We raised many staff
qualifications over those in the previous
performance standards, as required by
the Act. In response to comments, we
included some new staff qualification
requirements for child and family
services management staff, family
services staff, and mental health
consultants. We also restructured the
section to improve clarity. We discuss
comments and our responses below.
Comment: Some commenters offered
general comments that addressed the
entire section. Some requested guidance
on how to measure sufficient
knowledge, training, and experience, as
it relates to requirements throughout
this section. Other commenters
suggested we require all staff in all
program options to have the knowledge
and ability to work with children with
disabilities. Some commenters noted the
need to fund and implement strategies
with higher education to ensure degree
and credential programs include
appropriate coursework content specific
to the infant, toddler, and preschool
workforce. Other commenters suggested
that the credential or degree
requirements for bilingual staff be more
flexible, as it is very difficult to find
bilingual staff who are also qualified in
early childhood education. Further,
some commenters recommended we
require programs to review state early
childhood workforce requirements on a
regular basis to ensure that Head Start’s
requirements support and enhance
state-based career ladders.
Response: We revised paragraph (a) to
integrate professional development to
support program service staff so they
have the knowledge, training,
experience, and competencies to fulfill
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
their roles and responsibilities. We
think programs should be continuously
supporting staff in fulfilling their roles
and responsibilities. We also revised
paragraphs in this section to expand
competencies for teachers, assistant
teachers, family child care providers,
and home visitors to include working
with children with disabilities and DLLs
to support effective service delivery.
While we recognize recruitment of
bilingual staff who are qualified in early
childhood education may be
challenging, we believe children who
are dual language learners need highlyqualified teachers in order to achieve
meaningful child outcomes.
Additionally, while we agree access to
appropriate coursework and financing is
critical for a well-trained workforce,
many of these challenges are beyond the
scope of this final rule.
Comment: Commenters generally
supported our proposal, in paragraph (i)
of the NPRM and now found in
paragraph (b), to require Early Head
Start and Head Start program directors
hired after the effective date of this final
rule to have at least a baccalaureate
degree. Some commenters were
concerned this requirement would make
it too difficult for programs to hire and
retain directors. Some commenters
suggested we allow programs to
implement an alternate approach, such
as allowing time for directors to acquire
appropriate degrees or restricting the
requirement to new hires. Other
commenters supported a stronger
requirement for directors and suggested
we require directors to have a master’s
degree. Some commenters suggested
additional requirements regarding
experience or competencies.
Response: We retained our standard
to require at least baccalaureate degrees
for program directors as proposed in the
NPRM. We revised the minimum
background experience requirement to
include administration in addition to
supervision of staff and fiscal
management. However, we retained
local flexibility to define other
necessary experience and competencies
including experience in early
childhood.
Comment: Some commenters
supported our standard in what was
paragraph (h)(3) in the NPRM that
allowed flexibility for programs to
establish qualifications for their fiscal
officer based on an assessment of their
needs and secure regularly scheduled or
ongoing services of a fiscal officer. Other
commenters suggested that fiscal
functions should be led by a qualified
accounting professional with expertise
in understanding the operational risks,
the potential for misalignment of
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
funding, and the financial reporting
associated with federal funding.
Response: We revised the standard for
fiscal officer qualifications, now found
in paragraph (c), to clarify that programs
must consider the fiscal complexity of
their organization to ensure fiscal
officers have sufficient knowledge and
experience to fulfill their role. We also
require newly hired fiscal officers to be
certified public accountants or have a
baccalaureate degree in a related field.
Comment: The NPRM did not
specifically address qualifications for
staff who manage family services, health
services, and disabilities services other
than to require in paragraph (a) that all
staff and consultants have sufficient
knowledge, training, and experience to
fulfill their roles and responsibilities.
The NPRM did not retain language from
the previous program performance
standards about disabilities and health
managers because we thought it was
vague and not helpful for programs.
Some commenters opposed our
approach and interpreted it to mean we
were removing services area
management. Commenters suggested we
require all supervisors have a
baccalaureate degree. Other commenters
suggested we require all supervisory
staff to have knowledge of and training
on reflective supervision. Further, some
commenters provided explicit
suggestions for qualifications that the
health services manager should be
required to have, such as a minimum of
an associate’s or bachelor’s degree in
health, public health, nursing, or a
related field, or an early childhood
education degree with health-related
certification or licensure. In addition,
some commenters suggested
qualifications for disabilities managers,
including a bachelor’s degree with a
certification in early childhood special
education or related field. Finally, some
of these commenters also suggested
adding competencies for disabilities
managers, such as experience working
in an early childhood education setting.
Response: We did not intend for the
NPRM to signal the removal of service
area management. Our goal in omitting
references to service area management
was to increase local flexibility to better
meet the variety of needs in programs of
differing size. However, we revised the
rule to require degree qualifications for
newly hired family services, health, and
disabilities managers. Specifically, as
stated in paragraph (d)(1), staff
responsible for the management and
oversight of family services, health
services, and services to children with
disabilities hired after the effective date
of this rule, must have at a minimum,
a baccalaureate degree, preferably
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
related to one or more of the disciplines
they oversee. Programs should not
interpret this requirement to mean they
must have different people for
disabilities management, family services
management, and health services
management. Due to the varying sizes
and complexities of program structures,
we think programs must have the
flexibility to decide on their own
appropriate staffing patterns to meet
these oversight and management
responsibilities.
Comment: In what was paragraph (e)
in the NPRM, we proposed minimum
requirements for education
coordinators, as required by the Act.
Some commenters recommended
phasing in a requirement for education
coordinators to have a master’s degree.
Some commenters requested additional
flexibility in the requirement, such as
allowing the degree to be in elementary
education or family studies or allowing
relevant coursework combined with a
degree in an unrelated field.
Additionally, some respondents
suggested that education coordinators
should have experience working
explicitly with the age group of the
classes they oversee.
Response: We believe the requirement
as written is sufficient to ensure highquality services and retained this
requirement as proposed, now found in
paragraph (d)(2). We did not include
additional flexibility since minimum
requirements for education coordinators
are set by the Act. We made small
technical revisions.
Comment: We specifically solicited
comments on the appropriate
qualifications for Early Head Start
teachers, which was described in
paragraph (b)(1) and now is located at
paragraph (e)(1). We received a variety
of different recommendations. For
example, some commenters suggested
we retain requirements from the Act
that Early Head Start teachers have at
least CDA. Some commenters suggested
the CDA is adequate only if staff work
closely with a coach, and some
commenters recommended we require
an associate’s degree in early education.
Others recommended we require a
baccalaureate, and some supported
phasing in baccalaureate requirements.
Some commenters supported allowing
one teacher in an Early Head Start class
to meet a higher qualification and for
the second teacher to have the current
CDA qualification. Some commenters
requested clarification of the term
‘‘equivalent course work,’’ and offered
suggestions. Some commenters
expressed concern that increasing
qualifications would impact programs’
ability to hire parents and other
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
community members who accurately
reflect and can address the culturally
and linguistically diverse needs and
experiences of children and families,
particularly in programs serving rural,
migrant, and tribal populations.
Response: We maintained the staff
qualification requirements for Early
Head Start as proposed. Lowering these
requirements is beyond the scope of this
rule because they are set by the Act. We
did not raise the requirement to a
baccalaureate degree, although we agree
with recommendations from the
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
report 120 that a lead teacher in every
class with a bachelor’s degree and
demonstrated competencies is optimal.
Grantees are encouraged to implement
effective career and professional
development models and might find it
particularly effective to have at least one
lead teacher with higher credentials and
another teacher who meets the
minimum qualifications. We do not
define ‘‘equivalent course work’’
because different colleges and
universities describe majors and classes
in a variety of ways; programs must
evaluate the content and relevancy of
the individual courses their teachers
have taken.
Comment: We specifically solicited
comments on the appropriate
qualifications for Head Start teachers. In
general, commenters supported
requiring bachelor’s degrees for all Head
Start teachers. Some commenters
suggested that all staff working directly
with children and families should have
a bachelor’s degree. Other commenters
expressed concern about compliance
with higher standards, given the
difficulties they already face in finding
appropriately credentialed staff. These
commenters were especially concerned
with adding new credential
requirements without designated
funding to achieve the higher standards.
Some commenters requested we allow
degrees to be in a related field such as
elementary education or family studies.
Some commenters suggested the teacher
qualification requirements should
mirror language of other federal
programs that supports alternative
pathways and demonstrated
competencies in lieu of credentials.
Others recommended partnering with
the Department of Education on an early
education TEACH campaign in order to
recruit highly qualified teachers. Other
commenters suggested allowing
programs to use proxy indicators of
120 Institute of Medicine (IOM) and National
Research Council (NRC). 2015. Transforming the
workforce for children birth through age 8: A
unifying foundation. Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press.
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61353
competence such as years of experience,
completed training, or CLASS scores as
a way to maintain employment of
individuals who do not meet degree
requirements. Some commenters were
concerned that the broad language of
‘‘equivalent coursework’’ may create
unnecessary confusion in the field as to
whether Teach for America candidates
may be hired; and suggested that
clarifying language be included in the
final rule.
Finally, commenters described
challenges in recruiting and retaining
qualified staff members who speak the
community’s language and understand
its nuances. These commenters
expressed concern that increasing
qualifications would impact programs’
ability to hire parents and other
community members who accurately
reflect and can address the culturally
and linguistically diverse needs and
experiences of children and families,
particularly in programs serving rural,
migrant, and tribal populations.
Response: In paragraphs (e)(2) and (3),
we maintained the staff qualification
requirements for Head Start teachers as
proposed and as required by the Act.
Lowering these requirements is beyond
the scope of this rule because
minimums are set by the Act. The Act
also does not grant us authority to allow
exemptions or proxy indicators of
currently employed teachers who do not
meet qualification requirements. As
noted earlier, we are in agreement with
the NAS report that having teachers
with a baccalaureate degree in every
class is optimal.121 We have updated the
statutory reference in paragraph (e)(2)(ii)
to include all of the alternative
credentials, including Teach for
America.
Comment: We received some
comments on our requirement in what
is now paragraph (e)(3) for
qualifications for assistant teachers.
Some commenters requested
clarification on whether or not assistant
teachers with a CDA credential must
also be enrolled in a program leading to
an associate or baccalaureate degree, or
if assistant teachers without a CDA
credential must be enrolled in either a
degree program or CDA credential
program. Some commenters suggested
we should encourage assistant teachers
to attain associate’s degree as a career
ladder towards becoming a teacher.
Other commenters expressed concern
that two years is not long enough for an
assistant teacher to attain a credential or
degree. Some commenters expressed
confusion about the difference between
teacher assistants and teacher aides.
121 Ibid.
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
61354
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Response: As required by the Act, the
provision in paragraph (e)(3) requires
Head Start assistant teachers have at
least a minimum of a CDA credential or
be enrolled in a CDA credential program
to be completed within two years of the
time of hire. We revised this provision
to clarify that the minimum requirement
also permits a state-awarded certificate
that meets or exceeds the requirements
for a CDA credential. While assistant
teachers with a CDA credential or stateawarded equivalent are not required to
be enrolled in a program that will lead
to an associate or baccalaureate degree,
assistant teachers that are enrolled in a
program that will lead to such a degree
meet the qualification requirements. We
consider assistant teachers to be a
second educational staff person working
within a preschool setting who supports
the teacher in implementing planned
curricular activities with the children. A
teacher aide is a third person who may
or may not provide direct curriculum
support.
Comment: We specifically solicited
comments on the appropriate
qualifications family child care
providers, which was addressed in
paragraph (g) in the NPRM and now is
found in paragraph (e)(4)(i). Some
commenters objected to our proposal in
what is now paragraph (e)(4)(i) to
shorten the timeline for family child
care providers to attain credentials from
two years to eighteen months.
Conversely, some commenters suggested
we require family child care providers
meet the same qualifications as centerbased teachers.
Response: We retained the
requirements for family child care
providers as proposed. We believe our
requirement in paragraph (e)(4)(i)
appropriately balances the need to
strengthen requirements and
acknowledge funding realities and the
ability of higher education to support
degrees in early childhood. We did not
substantively revise the provision.
Comment: Some commenters
suggested the requirement in what is
now paragraph (e)(4)(ii) that a child
development specialist have at a
minimum, an associate degree in child
development or early childhood
education is too low, given their
responsibilities. Some commenters
requested we define ‘‘child
development specialist’’ as it relates to
family child care.
Response: We agree the work that
child development specialists do with
family child care providers to support
high-quality service delivery in family
child care settings, as described in
§ 1302.23(e) requires a higher level of
expertise. Therefore we amended what
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
is now paragraph (e)(4)(ii) to more
clearly link the duties of the child
development specialist as described in
§ 1302.23(e) and require child
development specialists have a
baccalaureate degree in child
development, early childhood education
or a related field.
Comment: Some commenters
supported our focus on both staff
qualifications and the staff
competencies for teaching staff we
described in what were paragraphs
(b)(2) and (c)(2) and are now found in
paragraph (e)(5). Some commenters
suggested additional competencies for
teaching staff including understanding
the birth to five developmental
continuum; partnering with and
engaging parents in their child’s
education; effective team teaching;
culturally and linguistically responsive
practices; second language acquisition;
administering assessments; and the
capacity and desire to expand skills,
knowledge and abilities.
Response: Programs have the
flexibility to determine the appropriate
competencies to ensure high-quality
staff and program effectiveness within
their own communities. However, we
revised paragraph (e)(5) to add use of
assessment and promoting the progress
of children with disabilities and dual
language learners.
Comment: Many commenters
expressed concern with or opposed our
proposal to require home visitors have
at least a CDA in what was paragraph (f)
in the NPRM. Concerns with our
proposal included: it was more
important to focus on home visitor
skills; home visitors are already trained
and certified in other home visiting
curriculum and that a CDA would be an
inefficient use of funds; time should be
provided to allow home visitors to
obtain a CDA; and our proposal would
disqualify home visitors with sociology,
psychology, or other possibly relevant
degrees.
Some commenters supported our
proposal for home visitors to have a
minimum of a CDA, although some of
these commenters suggested their
support was conditional on additional
funds to raise home visitor salaries
accordingly. Some commenters
suggested additional flexibility for staff
to meet this requirement such as an
alternative or equivalent credential.
Many commenters recommended we
revise the standard to allow the home
visitor to have a CDA or equivalent
coursework or be enrolled in
coursework to earn a CDA. Some
commenters suggested that the
minimum requirement of a CDA was too
low and recommended we require at
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
least an associate’s degree in early
childhood, child development or a
related field with equivalent coursework
that could be attained within a realistic
timeframe. Some commenters suggested
we set a national percentage goal for
home visitors with bachelor’s degrees.
Response: We believe our minimum
requirement of a CDA for home visitors,
now found in paragraph (e)(6)(i) is
reasonable and in fact, given the
complex nature of their work, that it is
preferable for such staff to have an
associate’s or baccalaureate degree in a
relevant field. We revised this
requirement to clarify the credentials
necessary for this position. In order to
allow adequate time for staff to obtain
a CDA, we are delaying the requirement
to comply with this provision for two
years. We also revised competency
requirements in paragraph (e)(6)(ii) to
include supporting children with
disabilities and DLLs, and building
respectful, culturally responsive, and
trusting relationships with families.
Comment: The NPRM required all
staff, including family services, health,
and disabilities staff, to have sufficient
knowledge, training, and experience to
fulfill their roles and responsibilities. It
did not retain vague language from the
prior program performance standards
about family services, health, and
disabilities staff. We specifically
requested comments on specific degree
requirements for these staff. We
received comments in support and
opposition of our approach. Some
commenters praised our removal of
these provisions, and stated it would
increase local flexibility for programs to
set their own qualifications and better
address their professional needs. Other
commenters disagreed, and instead
suggested we at least restore the
previous requirements and suggested we
include new degree competencies and
qualifications, such as a minimum of a
baccalaureate. Some commenters
provided specific recommendations for
strengthening qualifications for family
service workers, such as a requirement
that they, at a minimum, have an
associate’s degree in social work or a
related field.
Response: We agree with the concerns
commenters raised about child and
family services staff and made revisions
accordingly. We added a new
requirement in paragraph (e)(7) to
require newly hired staff who work on
family partnership services have at least
a credential or certification in social
work, human services, family services,
counseling or a related field within
eighteen months of hire. We believe it
is optimal for these staff to have an
associate’s or baccalaureate degree in a
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
related field. We restored health
professional qualification requirements
in paragraph (e)(8)(i), and we expanded
requirements for competencies to
include assistant teachers and family
child care providers in paragraph (e)(5).
Comment: Some commenters offered
suggestions for the requirement for
mental health consultants in what is
now paragraph (e)(8)(ii). Some
requested clarification about what it
meant to ‘‘support’’ mental health
services. Some commenters suggested
mental health consultants be licensed or
certified, demonstrate specific
competencies, or have a degree in social
work, professional counseling, or
marriage and family therapy. Other
commenters opposed the requirement
that a mental health consultant be
licensed or certified, citing inadequate
funding.
Response: We think it is important
that mental health consultants are
licensed or certified mental health
professionals so they have the training
needed to provide the appropriate scope
of services to young children and
families. To strengthen the standard, we
revised what is now paragraph (e)(8)(ii)
to require that mental health consultants
have, to the extent possible, knowledge
of and experience in serving young
children and their families. We also
removed the language that referenced
staff who ‘‘support’’ mental health
services to improve clarity. We did not
address other suggested requirements,
because we believe that local programs
need flexibility to determine the best
approach to ensure mental health
consultants are able to meet child and
family needs.
Comment: Some commenters
requested clarification for our use of the
term ‘‘nutritionist’’ in what is now
paragraph (e)(8)(iii). Commenters were
concerned it could be interpreted to
include a person who lacks formal
education or training in the area of
nutrition. Some commenters suggested
we require registered dieticians and
licensed nutritionists oversee all
nutrition services.
Response: We believe the requirement
that nutrition services be provided by
registered dieticians and nutritionists is
sufficient to ensure high-quality
services.
Comment: Some commenters
suggested we modify staff qualification
requirements for migrant and seasonal
and American Indian and Alaskan
Native programs because these programs
often find it difficult to hire staff with
either credentials or degrees. For
example, some commenters
recommended we broaden the
requirement for using child
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
development specialists with associate’s
degrees in family child care to apply to
migrant and seasonal programs because
of challenges to find bilingual qualified
staff in rural communities. Commenters
recommended we allow migrant or
seasonal Head Start programs to have
lower staff qualifications than other
Head Start programs and help them
obtain degrees.
Response: Although we understand
the challenges migrant and seasonal and
American Indian and Alaskan Native
programs face, we require these
programs to hire qualified staff to work
with children. However, we encourage
programs to implement individualized
professional development plans for all
staff.
Comment: Some commenters
suggested we add specific qualifications
for coaches, such as a minimum of a
bachelor’s degree in in early childhood
education or child development. Some
commenters suggested we require
coaches to demonstrate specific areas of
knowledge, skills, and experience.
Response: We agree that in order for
coaches to effectively support education
staff they should have a minimum of a
baccalaureate degree in early childhood
education or a related field. Therefore,
we have added a requirement in
paragraph (f).
Comment: Some commenters
requested clarification about teachers
and providers working within
community child care partnership sites
need to meet the staff qualification
requirements. They stated that increased
requirements for Early Head Start
programs could harm partnerships with
community child care programs.
Response: Teachers and family child
care providers must meet staff
qualification requirements. Grantees
funded with EHS–CC Partnership funds
are allowed 18 months following receipt
of the award to help staff attain the
required credentials or degrees.
Section 1302.92 Training and
Professional Development
In this section, we describe
requirements for staff training and
professional development. We require a
coordinated system of professional
development, including individualized
coaching for all educators, including
family child care providers.
Commenters generally supported our
integrated systems approach, and noted
support for our more individualized
professional development. Others cited
research in support of our coaching
requirements. We made revisions to
strengthen professional development
and training for all staff and to improve
clarity of coaching requirements. We
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61355
discuss these and other comments
below.
Comment: Some commenters opposed
our decision to omit a previous standard
for staff performance appraisals because
they stated these appraisals are an
important way to identify professional
development needs and to provide data
to develop a training and technical
assistance plan.
Response: We do not believe we need
specific requirements for the process by
which programs assess staff. Instead, we
focused this section on requiring
programs to implement a system to
ensure all staff members receive the
supportive training and development
they need to provide high-quality
services. Programs that value staff
performance appraisals may continue to
use this method as part of their system.
We did not revise this provision.
Comment: Some commenters
expressed concerned about the burden
of ‘‘all day’’ orientations for program
consultants.
Response: Paragraph (a) requires
programs to provide an orientation to all
new staff, consultants, and volunteers.
We did not include any reference to ‘‘all
day’’ or any prescribed length of
orientations. We feel the intent of the
provision is clear as written. Therefore,
we did not revise this provision.
Comment: Many commenters
expressed concern about the
requirement in what was paragraph (b)
about training and professional
development having academic credit, as
appropriate. Commenters recommended
we revise the requirement to include
continuing education units (CEUs).
Some commenters misunderstood the
intent of the requirement, pointing out
that training on CPR, Sudden Infant
Death Syndrome (SIDS), etc. could not
bear academic credit.
Response: Paragraph (b) requires
programs establish and implement a
systematic approach to staff training and
development. We did not intend to
require that all staff training within the
required system provide academic
credit. Rather, academic credit should
be sought, when appropriate, for such
training and staff development in order
to support staff progress toward degrees
and other goals. We did not revise this
provision.
Comment: Some commenters
requested clarification about whether
coaching hours would count toward the
requirement for 15 clock hours of
professional development. Some
commenters expressed concerns that
coaching hours will not be eligible for
state registry professional development
trainings.
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
61356
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Response: We consider coaching
hours applicable toward meeting the 15
clock hours of professional development
per year, assuming the coaching hours
are designed to assist staff in increasing
knowledge and acquiring new skills to
help them provide high-quality services
within the scope of their job
responsibilities. Whether coaching
hours are eligible for state registries is
beyond the purview of this rule.
Comment: Some commenters request
that parent engagement strategies be
included in training and professional
development.
Response: We revised what was
paragraph (b)(2) and is now paragraph
(b)(3) to require training for all staff on
best practices for family engagement
strategies. In addition, to appropriately
address professional development for
child and family services staff who are
not education staff, we included a new
requirement in paragraph (b)(4) to
require training for family services,
health, and disabilities staff to build on
their knowledge, experience, and
competencies to improve child and
family outcomes. We also amended
paragraph (b)(5) to include partnering
with families as an area of the
professional development for education
staff.
Comment: Some commenters
suggested there were disparities in
training opportunities between lead
teachers and teacher assistants.
Response: We believe it is important
for the entire teaching team to receive
appropriate training and professional
development. Paragraphs (b)(5) and (c)
require research-based approaches to
professional development for all
education staff, which includes assistant
teachers.
Comment: Some commenters
requested the training and professional
development system explicitly include
additional subjects, such as physical
activity, outdoor play, positive behavior
supports, and children with disabilities.
Response: We revised what is now
paragraph (b)(5) to include partnership
with families, supporting children with
disabilities and their families, and use
of data to individualize learning
experiences. We did not include other
revisions to broaden the focus of the
requirement. This paragraph
appropriately emphasizes professional
development for education staff on the
central aspects of effective teaching. We
think it is important this section focus
on these key skills for education staff.
Programs can choose to provide
professional development on other
topics if they determine it best meets the
needs of the children and families they
serve.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
Comment: Many commenters were
concerned about our requirement in
what is now paragraph (b)(5) to require
research-based approaches to
professional development for education
staff. Commenters expressed a variety of
concerns, such as cost, and requested
further clarification about the term
‘‘research-based approaches.’’ Other
commenters supported our emphasis on
research-based professional
development and noted this was
important to improving Head Start
quality.
Response: We believe effective
professional development is central to
the delivery of high-quality education
services that foster strong child
outcomes. We think the requirement in
paragraph (b)(5) is important to ensure
program quality. There is existing
guidance at at the Early Childhood
Learning and Knowledge Center
(ECLKC) 122 about research-based
approaches professional development
and professional development. We
believe this a reasonable minimum
threshold that will ensure programs are
able to demonstrate outcomes for
teacher development. Therefore, we did
not revise this provision.
Comment: We received many
comments on our proposal to require
coaching be a part of the research-based
approaches to professional
development. Many commenters
opposed it because of concerns such as
cost. Some commenters strongly
supported it, and pointed to research
that demonstrated its importance in
high-quality implementation and strong
child outcomes. Some commenters
stated the requirement was too
prescriptive and placed too much
burden on programs, especially rural
programs, and staff. Other commenters
requested we include more specificity
and requirements for the proposed
coaching systems, such as additional
qualifications or expanding the
requirement beyond education staff.
Commenters also requested additional
clarification, such as a definition of
‘‘intensive’’ coaching or which staff
members are covered by the coaching
requirement. Some commenters
requested clarification about whether
coaching could include online, remote
and video supported coaching or if the
requirement could be phased in, in
order to build the capacity of coaching
over time.
Response: We revised the structure of
the coaching requirements to improve
clarity. Coaching requirements are now
found in paragraph (c) instead of
122 https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/hslc/tta-system/
pd/pds/Mentoring/edudev_art_00050_081105.html.
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
paragraphs (b)(4) and (5) in the NPRM.
We restructured these requirements to
improve clarity, made revisions to the
structure of this section and specifically
to paragraph (c) to clarify the coaching
requirements apply to education staff,
and revised paragraph (c)(1) to
incorporate a strengths-based approach.
In paragraph (c)(1), we require programs
to implement a research-based
coordinated coaching strategy that
assesses all education staff to identify
their strengths and areas of needed
support and to identify which staff
would benefit most from intensive
coaching. In paragraph (c)(2), we require
programs to provide intensive coaching
to, at a minimum the education staff
identified as most benefiting from
intensive coaching. In paragraph (c)(3),
we require programs to provide other
forms of research-based professional
development to education staff who do
not receive intensive coaching. In
paragraphs (c)(4) and (5), we require
specific elements of the coaching
system.
The intent of these requirements is to
ensure all programs utilize researchbased coaching strategies, whether the
strategies are employed via online or
video supported methods is up to the
grantee to determine. We acknowledge
there are costs associated with
implementing coaching strategies, but
think is important for high-quality
service delivery. We believe we
appropriately balance local flexibility
with requirements to include basic
features that research indicates will
support progress. The requirement
allows programs flexibility to define
much of the structural and goal setting
aspects of their coaching strategy,
including staffing patterns. Moreover,
the effective date of the coaching
requirement is delayed for
approximately one year after this rule is
published so programs have sufficient
time for effective implementation.
Additionally, we revised what is now
paragraph (d) to add more flexibility to
address concerns that the coaching
provisions were too prescriptive.
Comment: Commenters requested we
include language in coordinated
coaching strategies in what is now
paragraph (c) about a range of embedded
professional development approaches.
Response: Paragraph (c)(2) requires
intensive coaching for a subset of staff
members. Paragraph (c)(3) requires
programs provide other forms of
research-based professional
development to education staff who do
not receive intensive coaching.
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Section 1302.93 Staff Health and
Wellness
This section includes requirements
for staff health and wellness, including
staff health checks to ensure child safety
and standards to support staff wellness.
We discuss comments and our
responses below.
Comment: We received many
comments on the standards in
paragraph (a) that address initial health
examinations and periodic
reexaminations for staff members. Some
commenters requested clarification
about the tuberculosis screening
requirement in paragraph (a) for the
initial health examination, including
why it is the only mandatory screening.
Other commenters recommended we
revise paragraph (a) to describe the
purpose and aspects of the initial health
exam and others offered suggestions
about the periodic re-examination.
Some commenters recommend we
include a reference to the Health
Services Advisory Committee (HSAC) in
this section. Many commenters stated
that paragraph (a) conflicted with state
requirements and would therefore make
some collaborations difficult.
Response: We revised paragraph (a) to
be consistent with state, tribal, and local
laws, which will support collaborations.
We also struck the specific requirement
for screening for tuberculosis and
instead reference that health
examinations include screenings or tests
for communicable diseases, as
appropriate. This provides local
flexibility to respond to local health
needs and meet applicable
requirements. We think it is too
prescriptive to define how often a health
re-examination should occur and did
not prescribe the required timeframe.
We also do not think it is necessary to
prescribe requirements related to
occupational health exams. Programs
may want to use recommendations for
doctors, jurisdiction, or the HSAC. We
did think it was necessary to reference
the HSAC in this section.
Comment: Some commenters
recommend the standard in paragraph
(b) should be strengthened to include
activities beyond making mental health
and wellness information available. For
example, commenters suggested we
broaden the focus of health and
wellness or add a new standard for a
daily staff health check. Some
commenters recommend we note that an
Employee Assistance Program could be
used to implement these standards.
Some commenters noted staff
compensation contributed to stress and
mental health problems and should be
addressed.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
Response: We agree we should
strengthen paragraph (b), but that most
of the specific suggestions were too
prescriptive. We also believe it is
important for programs to have
flexibility to develop their own
approach to ensure staff wellness. We
revised paragraph (b) to specify that
programs must provide regularly
scheduled opportunities to learn about
health topics. Staff compensation is
outside the purview of this regulation.
We agree that the Employee Assistance
Program could be helpful but do not
think it is appropriate to prescribe that
level of specificity.
Section 1302.94 Volunteers
This section includes requirements
related to the utilization of volunteers.
We address comments below.
Comment: Some commenters
recommended that we provide a
definition for a regular volunteer and
some commenters suggested we require
volunteers receive an orientation on
program and class procedures.
Response: We revised the requirement
in paragraph (a) about screening for
communicable diseases to be consistent
with staff requirements in § 1302.93.
What constitutes a regular volunteer can
vary by program so we did not define
this term. Section 1302.92(a) already
requires volunteers to receive an
orientation on the goals and underlying
philosophy of the program and on the
ways they are implemented. We think
this is sufficient.
Program Management and Quality
Improvement; Subpart J
This subpart establishes the roles and
responsibilities for a program’s
management system and sets
requirements for a data-driven
management system for continuous
improvement toward high-quality
service delivery. It also sets forth
requirements for the implementation of
this rule. We received many comments
on this subpart, most of which address
the timeline for implementation of the
final rule. Other commenters offered
positive feedback on the management
requirements or requested technical
changes for clarity. We discuss the
comments and our rationale for any
changes to the regulatory text in this
section.
General Comments
Comment: Some commenters
supported our requirement that
programs implement a coordinated
approach to serving DLLs and offered
further suggestions to increase the focus
on DLLs throughout program
management. Specifically, these
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61357
commenters suggested requirements for
programs to identify DLLs as a focal
point of the process of ongoing
monitoring and self-improvement for
achieving program goals in § 1302.100.
Commenters also requested a revision to
§ 1302.101(b)(2) to indicate how their
coordinated approach should be
evaluated. Finally, commenters
suggested revising § 1302.102 to require
programs set goals related to first and
second language development for DLLs.
Response: The requirements in this
subpart apply to all children, including
special populations. This subpart also
ensures the intentional implementation
of a coordinated management approach
for the full and effective participation of
children who are DLLs and their
families. We do not believe it is
necessary to further emphasize
particular populations within
individual requirements throughout
program management.
Section 1302.100
Purpose
This section provides a general
requirement for programs to implement
management systems and a process of
ongoing monitoring and continuous
improvement for achieving program
goals. Aside from the overarching
comment related to DLLs discussed
above, we did not receive comments on
this section.
Section 1302.101
Management System
This section describes the
implementation of a program’s
management system by requiring regular
and ongoing staff supervision to support
continuous program improvement. This
section also outlines requirements for
programs to establish coordinated
approaches to ensure professional
development, services for dual language
learners, services for children with
disabilities, and data management. We
received many comments on this
section, including suggestions for
strengthening management system
requirements and requests for
clarification.
Comment: We heard from
commenters about the proposal to
remove the requirement to have written
plans for management systems. Some
commenters opposed the removal of
written plans, suggesting they are
critical to building effective
management systems. Other
commenters praised the elimination of
the written plans, noting that the
removal of this requirement would
reduce unnecessary bureaucracy. Still
other commenters requested guidance or
clarification regarding the removal of
this requirement.
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
61358
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Response: We agree programs may
find written plans to be valuable. We
expect these programs will continue to
use written planning to coordinate their
management systems and ensure that all
staff are able to fully implement them.
However, the intention of removing
written plans as a requirement is, as
some commenters noted, to shift the
focus from compliance with prescribed
plans to monitory progress toward goals.
We did not restore this requirement.
Comment: Some commenters
suggested that, for clarity, we eliminate
the phrase ‘‘adequate record keeping’’ in
paragraph (a) and create a new standard
to address record keeping so that all of
the requirements in paragraph (a) were
not explicitly linked to record keeping.
Response: We agree and untethered
adequate record keeping from the other
provisions in paragraph (a) and instead
added a new paragraph (a)(4) to reflect
this requirement.
Comment: Some commenters
suggested revisions to the reference to
promoting continuity of care in
paragraph (a)(3). Some commenters
thought it should be deleted because it
is already covered by the full range of
services described in subparts C through
H. Other commenters suggested this
requirement be linked directly to
services for infants and toddlers.
Response: We believe continuity of
care is critically important, and
therefore we emphasize it in this
section, despite its representation
throughout the broader set of standards.
Further, while we agree that continuity
of care is of particular importance to
infants and toddlers, we believe it is
also important for preschoolers.
Therefore, we did not revise this
requirement.
Comment: Some commenters
suggested we specifically include
reflective supervision, particularly for
Early Head Start staff, as part of the
regular and ongoing supervision
required in paragraph (a)(2).
Response: We require programs to
implement research-based professional
development in subpart I and regular
and ongoing supervision under this
subpart. Reflective supervision could be
a component of both of these strategies.
Therefore, Early Head Start programs
may use reflective supervision if it helps
them to ensure continuous quality
improvement. However, we believe
local flexibility for individual programs
to determine the best approach to
ensuring their management system
provides regular and ongoing
supervision, as long as the approach is
research-based and effectively supports
achieving program goals. Therefore, we
did not revise this requirement.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
Comment: Some commenters
supported and others opposed the
requirement that programs integrate
Head Start data with other early
childhood data systems and work with
the state’s K–12 Statewide Longitudinal
Data System (SLDS) to share relevant
data. Most of these commenters
expressed concerns about the burden for
programs to participate in their state’s
SLDS and recommended that it should
be encouraged to the extent practical but
not required. Commenters also
expressed concerns with the varied
capacity of states to partner effectively
with Head Start providers to share, use,
and interpret data which leads to
barriers for programs to participate such
as poor data infrastructure in the state’s
SLDS, statutory roadblocks, or lack of an
SLDS in the state. Commenters stated
that programs should not be held fully
responsible with SLDS integration since
it is beyond the abilities of most
individual Head Start programs.
Commenters also requested we advocate
for the SLDS to send reports and
information to programs that participate
with their SLDS. One commenter
recommended that tribes be explicitly
exempt from any requirement to
participate in their state’s SLDS.
Response: We revised and reorganized
the standards previously provided in
§ 1302.101(b)(4)(iii) to § 1302.53(b)(3).
There, we clarified that a program
should participate in their state
education data system to the extent
practicable and only if the program can
receive the same support and benefits as
other participating early childhood
programs. Since state education data
systems can vary greatly from state to
state and the practicality of a program
to participate in these systems can also
vary, we provided programs flexibility
as steps are taken to share data with
their state within their capacity and
existing supports provided. Regarding
an exemption for tribes, we agree and
added that AIAN programs are exempt
from any requirement to participate in
their state education data systems,
unless an AIAN would choose to
participate in the statewide data system
to the extent practicable. Further, in
paragraph (b)(4), we clarified that AIAN
programs can determine whether or not
they will participate in such data
systems.
Comment: Commenters expressed
concern with the requirement proposed
in § 1302.101(b)(4) of the NPRM to align
data collections and definitions to the
Common Education Data Standards
(CEDS) due to the burden on programs
(e.g., time, additional staff, and
expense), and some commenters
indicated that the responsibility to align
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
with CEDS should not be on any
individual program. Some commenters
stated that the definitions in CEDS are
not appropriate for all Head Start
programs. Some commenters requested
guidance on how to fulfill this
requirement.
Response: We agree it is premature to
promulgate standards encouraging
programs to engage with CEDS since the
early childhood data standards are not
as far into development as the K–12
standards and there is insufficient
information on the benefits and
utilization of CEDS at the individual
school level or early childhood setting.
Additionally, CEDS is meant to be
voluntary. As a result, we removed this
standard.
Comment: Some commenters
requested that programs be allowed to
disclose PII from child records to the
SLDS administrator to facilitate data
sharing with the SLDS.
Response: According to
§ 1303.22(c)(2), a program is allowed to
disclose PII from child records without
parental consent to federal or state
officials, in connection with an audit or
evaluation of education or child
development programs, as long as the
program maintains oversight of child
records through a written agreement or
other means. Therefore, officials
representing a state entity that manages
a state education data system, such as
an SLDS, would fall under this
description and a program would be
allowed to disclose the necessary PII to
such an official.
Comment: Some commenters opposed
the requirement of a data governance
body or council described in paragraph
(b)(4) and stated that it is an excessive
and costly requirement. Some
commenters were in favor of the
requirement. Commenters also
requested clarity on the definition of
this group, including its purpose, role,
and function; how it differs from other
governing groups, specifically the board
of directors, policy council, and
governing board; and whether it applies
to Early Head Start programs.
Response: We believe programs have
established systems that focus on the
security of data, an important goal, but
this has overshadowed effective data
sharing with other relevant entities. We
shifted the focus to encompass a balance
between the security, availability,
usability, and integrity of data through
these provisions. However, commenters
misinterpreted our intent, primarily due
to the terminology used. Therefore, we
changed the term ‘‘data governance’’ to
‘‘data management’’ in this paragraph
and we removed the reference to a
‘‘body or council’’ to focus less on the
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
process and more on the desired
outcome of establishing procedures to
ensure data quality and effective data
use and sharing, while protecting the
privacy of child records. For this same
reason, we also removed the
requirement to consult with experts and
advisors on early childhood data
systems in their state. Programs are still
encouraged to do this but including it as
a standard distracts from the overall
focus on outcomes instead of process.
To clarify that this requirement also
applies to Early Head Start, we changed
‘‘Head Start data’’ to ‘‘data.’’
Comment: A commenter requested we
require programs to align their data
systems with one another.
Response: We disagree with this
suggestion. Programs use multiple data
systems and not every data system used
can or should be aligned. For example,
a data system used for salaries, wages,
and fringe benefits would not align with
a data system for the administration of
children immunizations. Thus,
requiring programs to align their data
systems is too broad of a requirement
and could create more complications
than benefits.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Section 1302.102
Goals
Achieving Program
This section describes the program
goal setting process with respect to
quality improvement. It is reorganized
from the previous rule to better convey
the importance of establishing goals for
effective health and safety practices, all
elements of high-quality service
provision, and continuous quality
improvement for all programs, not just
those with identified quality issues or
deficiencies. It includes requirements
for each aspect of the cycle of
continuous quality improvement
including planning; goal setting; and
monitoring short- and long-term
progress towards achieving goals. This
section also describes reporting
requirements as they relate to ongoing
monitoring and self-assessment.
Commenters made a number of
recommendations for strengthening this
section, and we made small changes to
the language for clarification throughout
the section. We discuss specific
comments and responses below.
Comment: Some commenters
recommended we require a system that
sets benchmarks for child and family
outcomes, based on nationally normed
assessment measures, and outlines
strategies for tracking progress in order
to support program improvement
efforts, professional development, and
evaluation. These commenters suggest
that such a system would better ensure
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
children enter school performing on par
with their more advantaged peers.
Response: We believe that it is
important for programs to have local
flexibility to set their own goals and
measure children and families’ progress
towards those goals. We do not think it
is appropriate for us to set a single
standard all programs must use to assess
the continuous improvement of their
program.
Comment: Commenters requested we
require programs to set goals for the
outcomes of educational and other
services, rather than for the provision of
these services. Some commenters also
suggested that programs should be
required to set goals for the recruitment,
retention, and development of qualified
staff. Other commenters suggested we
reduce the types of program goals that
are required. These commenters stated
that too many goals would prevent
programs from being able to focus and
achieve desired outcomes.
Response: We believe we have
achieved an appropriate balance for the
goal-setting requirements. We encourage
programs to set additional goals if it
helps them effectively meet the needs of
their community and ensure continuous
quality improvement. The intent of this
requirement is to set a minimum.
Comment: Many commenters
requested programs be allowed to align
revisions to their goals, as described in
paragraph (a), with their five-year grant
cycle.
Response: While we understand that
programs may wish to revisit their goals,
especially their long-term strategic goals
described in paragraph (a)(1) with their
five-year grant cycle, we feel continuous
quality improvement requires programs
to thoughtfully re-evaluate their goals
on an ongoing basis. Additionally, the
replacement of the Head Start Child
Development and Early Learning
Framework for three to five-year-olds
with the Head Start Early Learning
Outcomes Framework: Ages Birth to
Five should result in a re-evaluation of
programs’ school readiness goals to
ensure they are promoting the school
readiness of all children in all domains.
We did not revise this provision.
Comment: Many commenters praised
the clear link of the Head Start Early
Learning Outcomes Framework: Ages
Birth to Five (HSELOF) to school
readiness goals in paragraph (a)(3).
Other commenters requested we allow
programs to align with both HSELOF
and their state early learning standards.
Further, some commenters expressed
confusion about the relationship
between performance goals and school
readiness goals.
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61359
Response: The requirement in
paragraph (a)(3) is for all programs to
align with both HSELOF and their state
early learning standards, where state
standards are applicable. We previously
issued guidance describing the
relationship between school readiness
goals and program goals. This guidance
clarifies that school readiness goals are
a subset of program goals. However, we
agree that the terminology ‘‘program
performance goals’’ is confusing.
Therefore, we revised the term
throughout subpart J to ‘‘program
goals.’’ We also re-ordered the list of
goals that programs must establish in
this section to reflect a hierarchy of
goals, starting with broad, strategic longterm goals.
Comment: Many commenters noted
that the monitoring system will need to
be aligned with the outcomes-focused
approach to continuous quality
improvement described in the section,
and the requirements in paragraph (b).
Response: The monitoring process
will be revised to align with these
program performance standards.
Comment: Commenters offered
suggestions for strengthening data use
for continuous quality improvement in
paragraph (c). Some commenters
recommended we include requirements
for best practices in using data to
improve instruction, including how
often data must be reviewed and used
to inform services. Others suggested
strengthening requirements for
continuous improvement by referencing
feedback loops, which they thought
would allow programs to be proactive
rather than reactive. These commenters
also suggested that programs should be
required to develop and implement
policies and procedures that guide staff
collaboration on the review,
interpretation, and use of data to
advance policy and practice
improvements and professional learning
goals.
Response: We do not agree that we
should set such specific requirements
for the process by which individual
programs ensure continuous quality
improvement. Rather, we focus on
requiring programs to implement a
system to ensure continuous quality
improvement but leave the details of
how each program will achieve this up
to local communities to determine.
Comment: Some commenters
suggested we require additional areas of
data collection, aggregation and analysis
to ensure continuous program
improvement in all areas of program
services. Suggestions included adding
family engagement, home visits, group
socializations, and staff development.
Some commenters suggested that the
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
61360
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
requirement included too many areas
for data collection, aggregation, and
analysis, stating that grantees need to be
able to focus their efforts on a limited
set of specific goals for program
improvement.
Response: We believe we have
achieved an appropriate balance for data
requirements. Programs are encouraged
to collect additional data, as necessary,
in order to inform their own goals and
ensure continuous quality
improvement. The intent of this
requirement is to set a minimum for
service areas grantees must collect data
on.
Comment: Some commenters stated
that it is inappropriate to aggregate data
for infants and toddlers, especially in
small programs with very few children
in similar developmental age ranges, or
that it is inappropriate to directly assess
infants and toddlers three times per
year.
Response: The requirement to
aggregate and analyze child-level
assessment data three times per year in
paragraph (c)(2)(ii) is not new. Guidance
already exists on the topic of assessment
and data aggregation for infants and
toddlers and can be found at https://
eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/hslc/tta-system/
ehsnrc/school-readiness/
SchoolReadiness.htm. This guidance
clarifies that aggregation and analysis of
data is possible for infants and toddlers
and does not have to done by child age.
Further, we revised paragraph (c)(2)(ii)
to refer programs to the definition of
child-level assessment data in part 1305,
which includes observation-based as
well as direct assessments. We believe
this change addresses concerns about
frequent direct assessment of infants
and toddlers.
Comment: Some commenters noted
that we should add an exception for
programs less than 90 days to the
requirement to aggregate and analyze
data three times per year.
Response: We agree and revised
paragraphs (c)(2)(ii) and (iii) and a
requirement in paragraph (c)(2)(iii) to
clarify that programs operating for fewer
than 90 days only have to aggregate and
analyze their data twice per year.
Comment: Some commenters asked us
to define ‘‘lessons’’ in paragraph (c)(iv),
formerly paragraph (c)(2)(iii) in the
NPRM.
Response: We revised the requirement
to read ‘‘information,’’ rather than
‘‘lessons’’ to clarify our intent.
Comment: Some commenters
requested we provide justification for
requiring reports.
Response: The Secretary has broad
statutory authority under section
641A(a)(1) of the Act to establish
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
standards to ensure the health and
safety of children and appropriate
program operation.
Comment: Many commenters
suggested that the requirements in
paragraph (d)(1)(ii), formerly paragraph
(d)(1)(iii) in the NPRM, were too vague.
Specifically, many commenters
requested clarity about what risks
should be reported under paragraph
(d)(1)(iii)(C) in the NPRM. As proposed,
commenters suggested the requirement
would include everything from chicken
pox to a bite from a classmate to an
outbreak of influenza at a nearby
nursing home. Commenters also
requested clarity on which reasons for
program closure under paragraph
(d)(1)(iii)(B) in the NPRM need to be
reported. For example, commenters
asked whether programs needed to
report when they close due to inclement
weather. Finally, commenters stated the
requirement in paragraph (d)(1)(iii)(D)
in the NPRM was too vague and
requested clarity on what legal
proceedings, involving which related
parties, would need to be reported.
Response: We agree with commenters
that the proposed requirements in
paragraphs (d)(1)(ii) and (iii) in the
NPRM were unclear and we made
revisions to clarify our intent. We
revised and restructured these standards
into paragraph (d)(1)(ii) and struck
paragraph (d)(1)(iii) to clarify that
programs must report significant
incidents, rather than ‘‘risks,’’ related to
health and safety or financial and
administrative circumstances, to the
responsible HHS official. Therefore,
inclement weather closings, for
example, would not apply to the
requirement in what is now paragraph
(d)(1)(ii)(B) and risks such as a nearby
outbreak of influenza or minor incidents
such as child biting a classmate are
clearly not included. Finally, we revised
what is now (d)(1)(ii)(C) to better clarify
that we only require programs to report
legal proceedings that are directly
related to program operations.
Comment: Some commenters noted
that the community assessment is too
long to include in the annual selfassessment. These commenters
suggested amending the requirement to
include only a synopsis or summary of
the most recent community assessment.
Additionally, some commenters
suggested that inclusion of the
community assessment in the selfassessment should be aligned with each
grantee’s five-year grant cycle, such that
grantees would only be required to
include it when their grant cycle is
being renewed.
Response: We revised paragraph (d)(2)
to allow for a summary of the most
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
recent community assessment to be
included in the annual self-assessment.
We also clarified that programs must be
publish and disseminate the report.
Section 1302.103 Implementation of
Program Performance Standards
This section includes requirements to
ensure programs implement the
program performance standards
effectively and to provide flexibility to
programs in meeting the requirements of
subpart B, if any currently enrolled
Head Start children could be displaced.
Comment: Many commenters
requested consistent guidance,
communication, and training and
technical assistance to grantees related
to the implementation of the final
performance standards, and explicitly
the move to full day programs.
Response: The final rule includes a
compliance table that outlines that dates
by which programs have to be in
compliance with the new standards. It
shows that many of the provisions go
into effect 60 days after publication but
that others, such as some of the
provisions related to curriculum,
assessment, and coaching, do not
require compliance until August 2017
and that the requirement for a longer
day and year are further delayed. We
think this staggered phase-in timeline
will give programs adequate time to
implement these changes in a
thoughtful way with support from OHS
and our training and technical
assistance system.
Financial and Administrative
Requirements; Part 1303
This part lays out financial and
administrative requirements for
agencies.
Section 1303.1 Overview
This part specifies the financial and
administrative requirements for
programs consistent with various
sections in the Act. Subpart A outlines
the financial requirements; subpart B
focuses on administrative requirements;
subpart C implements statutory
provisions related to personally
identifiable data, information, and
records; subpart D outlines the
requirements for the operation of
delegate agencies; subpart E implements
statutory provisions related to facilities;
and subpart F describes transportation
requirements. We received comments
on each of these subparts. We
summarize comments and provide our
response below.
Financial Requirements; Subpart A
This subpart reorganizes, revises, and
streamlines the financial requirements
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
in subparts A, B, C, and D of part 1301
in the previous performance standards.
This purpose of these changes is to
organize the requirements in a more
logical order, conform to recent changes
in regulations that govern all federal
grants, and reduce the administrative
burden on agencies.
Section 1303.2
Purpose
This section specifies that the purpose
of this subpart is to establish
requirements for program
administration and grants management
that apply to all grants under the Act.
A summary of comments and our
responses is below.
Comment: Some commenters were
pleased we removed the accounting
system certification we required in the
previous performance standards at
§ 1303.11. They stated that it resulted in
added cost for programs with limited or
no gain.
Response: We agree the certification
was an unnecessary burden to grantees
and their financial professionals.
Comment: Some commenters
suggested that we should not have
removed the annual audit requirement
in § 1301.12 of the previous
performance standards. Many
commenters recommended we clarify
that an annual audit is still an allowable
expense for programs of all sizes.
Response: The Office of Management
and Budget establishes audit
requirements and specified their
requirement related to all federally
required audits in the Uniform
Guidance. Audits are a permissible
expense regardless of program size. No
changes to this section are necessary.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Section 1303.3
Other Requirements
This section displays in a chart an
updated list of HHS regulations that
apply to all grants made under the Act.
We received many comments on this
chart.
Comment: Commenters suggested we
clarify what is required for issuance of
a Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal
Number System (DUNS) number and
annual or reoccurring reporting
requirements.
Response: We did not make changes
in response to this comment. We believe
that the cross-reference to 2 CFR 25.10
CCR (Central Contractor Registration)/
DUNS provides grantees with sufficient
DUNS information to support initial and
ongoing compliance and reporting
requirements.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
61361
Section 1303.4 Federal Financial
Assistance, Non-federal Match, and
Waiver Requirements
in the Act. Training is available on how
to identify administrative and
development costs.
This section consolidates into one
section the financial assistance, nonfederal match, and waiver requirements
that were in §§ 1301.20 and 1301.21 of
the previous performance standards. We
did not receive comments on this
section but made two technical changes
to the regulatory text in the final rule.
First, we used the term ‘‘non-federal
match’’ throughout, instead of ‘‘nonfederal share match’’ or ‘‘non-federal
share matching’’ to be consistent and to
more closely align with the Uniform
Guidance. Second, we modified the
language to state that a waiver of all or
a portion of non-federal match could be
approved ‘‘for’’ the budget period
instead of ‘‘during’’ the budget period.
Since waivers after the close of the
budget period are possible, we wanted
to ensure the language reflects that
allowable activity.
Administrative Requirements; Subpart B
This subpart outlines the
requirements for agency conduct, the
limitations and prohibitions to which
agencies must adhere, and the
requirements for insurance and
bonding.
Section 1303.5 Limitations on
Development and Administrative Costs
This section affirms the requirement
in section 644(b) of the Act that agencies
not exceed the 15 percent cap on
development and administration. It also
implements the requirement in section
644(b) of the Act that the Secretary
establish criteria for determining the
costs of developing and administering a
program and the total costs of such a
program. In contrast to § 1301.32(b)
through (f) of the previous performance
standards, this section represents a
simplified and streamlined approach
that requires grantees to categorize,
identify, and allocate costs in order to
determine whether they meet the 15
percent administrative cap. This section
also specifies the requirements related
to waivers of the cap on development
and administration.
We received comments on this section
and made one technical change to the
regulatory text in the final rule. We
removed the language requiring that a
waiver not exceed 12 months to provide
for the possibility of longer budget
periods like those used for the Early
Head Start-Child Care partnerships.
Comment: Some commenters believed
it would be helpful if we train grantees
on how to appropriately identify
development and administrative costs.
Other commenters suggested we
increase the limit on administrative and
development costs we proposed in
paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
Response: We did not increase the
limit on administrative and
development costs specified in
paragraph (a)(1) because it is established
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Section 1303.10 Purpose
This section specifies that grantees
must observe standards of organization,
management, and administration and
conduct activities in a manner
consistent with the Act. We received
comments related to these general
requirements.
Comment: Some commenters
supported the requirement that grantees
observe stated standards of organization,
management and administration but
urged us to include a new standard that
requires employers to pay living wages,
or provide compensation levels at parity
with elementary school teaching staff or
the average compensation level for
comparable work in the area.
Response: We did not change this
requirement. We continue to require
grantees to establish wages that are
comparable to those paid in their
community based on the wage
comparability provision in the Act.
Comment: Some commenters
expressed concern that we eliminated
previous language that required each
agency to provide reasonable access to
information and records.
Response: We believe the issue of
access to information and records is
already adequately addressed by other
applicable federal and state law and a
Head Start specific provision is not
necessary.
Comment: Some commenters asked
that we consider equipment to be any
item with a value of $25,000 or more.
Response: The fiscal regulations at 45
CFR part 75 govern the definition of
equipment and we cannot adopt
contrary requirements in these
regulations.
Comment: Some commenters
requested we allow agencies with Head
Start and Early Head Start awards to
prepare a single budget.
Response: Head Start and Early Head
Start awards use separate Central
Accounting Numbers (CANs) and fiscal
regulations require separate accounting
for those funds.
Section 1303.11
Prohibitions
Limitations and
This section consolidates into one
place the sections in the Act that place
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
61362
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
limitations or prohibitions on agencies.
These sections pertain to union
organizing, the Davis Bacon Act,
limitations on compensation,
nondiscrimination, unlawful activities,
political activities and obtaining
parental consent. We received
comments on this section.
Comment: Some commenters
recommended removal of the
requirement that programs comply with
the Davis-Bacon Act or requested that
we limit the application of the DavisBacon Act to new major projects only.
Response: The Act requires
compliance with the Davis-Bacon Act,
including the definition of covered
projects. We cannot eliminate this
requirement through the regulatory
process.
Comment: Some commenters
suggested that Head Start program
employees should not be allowed to
engage in union organizing.
Response: Section 644(e) of the Act
states that Head Start funds may not be
used to assist, promote, or deter union
organizing. We retained this prohibition
in this section by referencing the Act.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Section 1303.12
Bonding
Insurance and
This section requires that grantees
maintain a documented process to
identify risks and provide proof of
appropriate coverage in their grant
application. Our approach to require
grantees to assess their own risks and
determine appropriate cost-effective
coverage is a less prescriptive approach
that section § 1301.11 of the previous
performance standards. We received
comments on this section.
Comment: Some commenters said
removing specific requirements for
insurance provides too much leeway,
creates risk of liability and that
appropriate coverage should be defined,
with a minimum threshold or reference
to state child care licensing
requirements and suggested we remove
the requirement that the process of
identifying risks consider the risk of
losses resulting from fraudulent acts by
individuals authorized to disburse Head
Start funds.
Response: We did not change this
requirement in response to comments.
We believe that implementation of an
intentional risk assessment process is an
important aspect of grantee fiscal
viability and may dictate varying
amounts of insurance coverage
depending on the grantee’s unique
circumstances. We believe assurance
that Head Start funds are not lost to
fraudulent acts is an important part of
identifying risks.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
Protections for the Privacy of Child
Records; Subpart C
This subpart outlines the
requirements for programs to ensure the
protection of child records, including
requirements for parental consent and
instances where disclosure of children’s
personally identifiable information (PII)
without parental consent is allowable.
We added standards that ensure the
protection of the confidentiality of PII
contained in child records. These
standards align with the policies,
protections, and rights found in the
Family Educational Rights and Privacy
Act (FERPA), as appropriate for Head
Start and Early Head Start programs. We
received comments on all sections of
this subpart. Overall, commenters were
supportive and positive about these
standards, especially the alignment to
FERPA and the emphasis placed on
parent rights in respect to their child’s
record.
Section 1303.20
Procedures
Establishing
This section outlines required
procedures that support the sections
that follow on confidentiality of PII in
child records. We respond to the
comments we received below.
Comment: Commenters requested
clarification on whether programs are
required to have procedures for parents
to inspect a child’s record or challenge
the sharing of the child’s PII, and
suggested we reference this subpart in
subpart D Health Program Services to
ensure programs consider the privacy of
child records in health program
services.
Response: According to § 1303.20, a
program must establish procedures to
protect the confidentiality of any PII in
child records. As part of these
procedures, programs must ensure
parents have the right to inspect, ask to
amend, and obtain copies of their
child’s records, request hearings, and
inspect written agreements. This
subpart is not specified in subpart D
since the protections of the privacy of
child records should be considered
throughout the entire final rule. We also
added breaches of PII to the issues that
programs must report in
§ 1302.102(d)(1)(ii).
Comment: Commenters requested
federal support and training
opportunities on this subpart to ensure
proper implementation, especially for
programs without a deep understanding
of privacy rules and while programs
link data to their state and federal data
systems. Some commenters
recommended we require capacity
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
building for data privacy as part of staff
training.
Response: We are committed to
providing support for programs to
understand, build capacity, and comply
with the new privacy regulations.
Programs must ensure staff, consultants,
and volunteers comply with program
confidentiality policies in accordance
with § 1302.90(c)(1)(iv).
Section 1303.21 Program Procedures—
Applicable Confidentiality Provisions
In this section, we describe in
paragraph (a) that when FERPA’s
confidentiality requirements apply (i.e.,
for educational agencies and institutions
that maintain education records), the
confidentiality requirements in this
subpart do not apply because those
educational agencies and institutions
must comply with FERPA. Similarly, we
describe in paragraph (b) that the Head
Start confidentiality requirements in
this subpart also do not apply when
IDEA’s confidentiality provisions apply
(i.e. a program collects, uses, or
maintains early intervention records of
infants and toddlers with disabilities
referred to or eligible under Part C of the
IDEA or education records of children
with disabilities referred to or eligible
under Part B of the IDEA). Therefore,
the Head Start confidentiality
requirements in this subpart do not
apply to the records of those children
covered by IDEA or programs covered
by FERPA. Commenters raised specific
concerns and requested clarity, and our
responses are discussed below.
Comment: Commenters requested we
provide guidance and clarity on how
other privacy laws apply including state
laws and the Children’s Online Privacy
Protection Act (COPPA).
Response: A program must comply
with other applicable federal, state, or
local privacy laws such as COPPA,
which applies to all programs, the
Children’s Internet Protection Act
(CIPA) which applies to programs in the
E-Rate program, and the Protection of
Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA),
which applies to programs administered
by the U.S. Department of Education
(ED) receiving federal funds.
Comment: Some commenters
expressed concern that it will be
burdensome and confusing for some
programs to comply with FERPA and
this subpart, and that we make this
subpart consistent with FERPA or
provide guidance on how to comply
with both.
Response: We agree that we are not
duplicating under Head Start the
confidentiality protections that already
apply under FERPA and IDEA. The
provisions we are promulgating are very
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
similar to FERPA. However, we want to
reiterate that when programs comply
with FERPA or IDEA for the records of
those children and programs covered
under FERPA and/or IDEA, then this
subpart does not apply. Thus, we are
eliminating any perceived burden and
duplication. We changed and
restructured the language in this section
to implement these provisions.
Section 1303.22 Disclosures With, and
Without, Parental Consent
In this section, we describe provisions
programs must follow to protect the
privacy of child records and to share
data. Most commenters in this section
made recommendations or requested
clarifications related to specific needs of
Head Start programs, which are
discussed below.
Comment: Commenters recommended
several changes to this section to reflect
FERPA, such as: Add an exception to
parental consent for disclosing PII
classified as ‘‘directory information’’;
include the entire criteria in FERPA on
a written agreement; remove the term
‘‘disaster’’ from § 1303.22(c)(4); add
other FERPA requirements on the
disclosure of PII without parental
consent for a lawfully issued subpoena
or judicial order; require the class of
recipients be specified within the
consent form; and permit disclosure
without parental consent to a school the
child intends to enroll or is already
enrolled.
Response: We intended to align this
section with FERPA while meeting the
needs of Head Start and Early Head
Start programs, and therefore a direct
replication of FERPA would not be
appropriate. In regards to directory
information, we believe that a list of
names, addresses, photographs, and
other information that may fall under
directory information can be harmful if
disclosed without parental consent for
the vulnerable population we serve, and
therefore no change was made. In
regards to the written agreement, our
intent is for the program to determine
the reasonable method to maintain
control appropriate for the disclosure
including a written agreement, direct
supervision, and/or other methods. We
updated § 1303.22(c)(1) through (3) to
focus on our intent which provides
programs flexibility without being
overly prescriptive. In regards to
‘‘disaster,’’ the term refers to an
emergency such as a natural or
manmade disaster. We agreed with the
recommendations to include the class of
recipients in the consent form and to
permit disclosure in compliance with a
subpoena without consent, similar to
what FERPA permits, and these changes
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
have been made. Lastly, the disclosure
without parental consent related to a
child’s enrollment or transfer is already
addressed in § 1303.22(b), and parental
consent is not required.
Comment: Commenters recommended
we add clarify, replace, or define terms
in this section including, ‘‘dependency
matters’’ as this could refer to any case
involving a dependent child and an
adult caregiver, ‘‘case plan,’’ and ‘‘foster
care.’’ Commenters expressed concern
that these terms could differ from state
to state.
Response: We disagree on defining
dependency matters. However, it is not
our intent that any case involving a
dependent child and an adult caregiver
inherently involves dependency
matters, so we clarified that the court
proceedings must directly involve
dependency matters. Foster care is
defined in part 1305. The definition for
‘‘case plan’’ was added to part 1305.
Comment: Commenters expressed
concern that posting child allergy
information prominently as described in
§ 1302.47(b)(7)(vi) violates the privacy
of children.
Response: We believe it is critical that
food allergies are prominently displayed
in areas wherever food is served to
mitigate a serious health and safety risk
for infants, toddlers, and preschool aged
children. We also believe programs
should be able to address other serious
health and safety risks without parental
consent to disclose PII. As a result, we
added a ‘‘serious health and safety risk
such as a serious food allergy’’ to
§ 1303.22(c)(4) of this section.
Comment: Some commenters
recommended that violators of the
privacy rule be given the opportunity to
self-correct before any sanctions are
applied.
Response: Any violations of the
privacy rule will be handled through
existing monitoring and Head Start
enforcement mechanisms.
Comment: Commenters requested an
exception to release PII without consent
in the case of reporting child abuse or
neglect if they are required to do so by
law.
Response: States receiving funds
under the Child Abuse Prevention and
Treatment Act (CAPTA) from HHS are
required to enact laws mandating the
reporting of known and suspected
instances of child abuse and neglect.
States must also ensure that the
disclosure is made only to persons or
entities determined by the State to have
a need for the information. To ensure
this section of the regulation does not
conflict with federal, state, local, or
tribal laws that require reporting of
child abuse or neglect, we added
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61363
§ 1303.22(c)(8) which allows the
disclosure of PII without parental
consent to an appropriate party to
address suspected or known child
maltreatment to comply with applicable
federal, state, local, or tribal laws on
reporting child abuse and neglect. We
do not specify the persons who may
access the records and under what
circumstances since these vary by state.
Comment: Commenters expressed
concern that a program would apply the
five-year rule that used to appear in
§ 1303.22(d) automatically after a single
violation of a written agreement which
could lead to conflicts with state and
local mandatory reporting requirements;
that barring third parties from accessing
child records for any violation of the
written agreement is too broad; and the
annual review of the written agreement
seems arbitrary.
Response: We agree with the concerns
on the five-year rule, and we modified
the provision to allow a program greater
flexibility in handling third party
violations. A program must review the
written agreement annually, but only
update it if necessary.
Comment: Commenters expressed
concern that programs will not be
allowed to share data with partners
critical to Head Start programs such as
community partners, health partners,
contractors, consultants, subrecipients,
and volunteers. Commenters requested
that we clarify data sharing with
community partners; the term
‘‘educational interest’’; and the term
‘‘official.’’
Response: A program may disclose PII
from a child record without consent to
a partner if the partner meets one of the
conditions in § 1303.22(c). A partner
will most likely qualify as an ‘‘official
acting for the program’’ if they are
directly or indirectly providing program
services for which the agency would
otherwise use an employee. If a
community partner does not qualify
under any condition in § 1303.22(c), we
recommend programs build written
consent into the enrollment process for
these partners. We removed
‘‘educational interests’’ and replaced it
with plain language for clarity. We
added language to § 1303.22(c)(1)
through (3) to clarify the term official.
Section 1303.23 Parental Rights
In this section, we focus on parents’
rights. We recognize that parents should
be at the forefront when it comes to the
collection, use, and sharing of the PII in
respect to their child’s record. Most
commenters in this section supported
the rights provided to parents. Other
commenters raised concerns, which are
discussed below.
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
61364
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Comment: Some commenters
requested we provide an additional
requirement for programs to annually
inform the parent on what data are
being collected, how and why the data
are used, and how the data are being
safeguarded.
Response: The parental consent form
coupled with the annual notice already
provides this information to the parent.
We believe that requiring details on
each data element collected, how each
is used and for what exact purpose, and
the specific security measures taken to
protect the data would be excessive and
burdensome.
Comment: Commenters both agreed
and disagreed with informing parents of
their rights annually due to the
conflicting perceived level of effort
required by the program. Another
commenter noted a conflicting
requirement that allowed a parent the
right to obtain a copy of the child record
even when court ordered the contents
related to disclosure not be disclosed or
when it involves a child abuse or
neglect case.
Response: We believe that it is
important that the program annually
notify parents of their rights. However,
this notification does not necessarily
need to be individualized for every
parent. For instance, the program could
include a standard handout as part of
the material the parent will already
receive during the program year. This
flexibility reduces burden on programs.
In regards to the conflicting information,
we added language in § 1303.23(d) to
ensure the parents’ right to a copy of a
record does not conflict with a court
order.
Comment: Some commenters
expressed concern with programs
making decisions on how to effectively
share data and what specific data to
share.
Response: We agree that it can be
challenging for programs to make
decisions about how to share data and
what data to share. Programs may
request guidance through the training
and technical assistance system.
Additionally, we did not intend for
programs to share all PII during a
disclosure, therefore we added
§ 1303.22(f) to limit the program to only
disclose the PII that is necessary for the
purpose of the disclosure.
Section 1303.24 Maintaining Records
In this section, we describe
recordkeeping requirements related to
the protection of child privacy.
Programs must maintain, with each
child’s record, a list of all individuals,
agencies, or organizations that obtained
access to PII from child records. The list
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
must indicate the expressed interests
that each person, agency, or
organization had to obtain this
information. Recordkeeping of
disclosures to program officials or
parents are not required since it would
be too burdensome for programs.
Programs must ensure that only parents,
officials, and appropriate staff have
access to records. We received some
comments on this section, discussed
below.
Comment: Some commenters
requested we provide the amount of
time a child record must be maintained
and how IDEA relates to record
maintenance.
Response: Depending on the type of
data involved and the context in which
the data are being used, there may be
requirements for destruction of data
with which programs must comply. We
do not address information about other
applicable program requirements,
including those that may apply under
IDEA, as that is beyond the scope of this
regulation, but note that programs may
be subject to record retention
requirements for children they are
serving based on applicable Federal and
State statutes of limitations. However,
when no other requirement exists, a
program must destroy child records
within a reasonable timeframe after the
child has been served—this was added
to § 1303.24(a). We also added a
restriction to data destruction in
§ 1303.23(a)(4) to protect the parental
right to inspect a record.
Comment: Some commenters pointed
out an inconsistency between the NPRM
preamble and proposed regulatory text.
Specifically, for § 1303.24(b), the NPRM
preamble required a program maintain
information of all requested access to PII
from child records, but the proposed
regulation stated that information on
these parties is only maintained when a
disclosure of PII is actually made. The
commenters preferred the proposed
regulatory text.
Response: We agree that programs
must only maintain this information
when a disclosure is actually made. It is
not necessary to maintain records on
each request for PII from child records
if the program does not make a
disclosure of PII in response to the
request.
Delegation of Program Operations;
Subpart D
This subpart consolidates previous
performance standards on delegation of
program operations into one section and
revises requirements to conform with
the Act. Section 641A(d) of the Act
requires agencies to establish
procedures that relate to its delegate
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
agencies and that provide further
specifics related to evaluation,
corrective actions, and terminations. We
discuss and analyze the comments on
this section below.
Section 1303.30 Grantee
Responsibility and Accountability
In this section, we clarify that a
grantee is accountable for its delegate
agencies. That means the grantee retains
legal authority and financial
accountability for the program when
services are provided by delegate
agencies. Consequently, the grantee
must support and oversee delegate
agencies and ensure they provide highquality services to children and families
and meet all applicable regulations. We
also clarify a grantee may not terminate
a delegate agency without showing
cause and must establish a process for
delegate agencies to appeal adverse
decisions. We discuss the few
comments we received on this section
below.
Comment: One commenter stated the
phrase ‘‘bears financial accountability’’
in the fourth sentence in this paragraph,
implied the grantee was responsible for
any financial debt a delegate incurred.
The commenter recommended we
clarify the grantee bears responsibility
for those allowable transactions it
authorizes that are directly related to the
Head Start program provided by
delegate agencies.
Response: When the phrase ‘‘bears
financial accountability’’ is taken in
context of the entire section, it implies
the grantee is responsible for the use of
Head Start funds by the delegate.
Therefore, we did not make any changes
to this section.
Comment: One commenter asked us
to allow programs to terminate delegate
agencies ‘‘at will’’ with provisions that
cause the least amount of undue stress
and harm as possible to children and
families served.
Response: We did not allow grantees
to terminate delegate agencies ‘‘at will.’’
Grantees can only terminate delegate
agencies, if the grantee shows cause
why termination is necessary and the
grantee’s decision to terminate cannot
be arbitrary or capricious.
Section 1303.31 Determining and
Establishing Delegate Agencies
Under this section in the NPRM, we
proposed to require an agency that
enters into an agreement with another
entity to serve children to determine if
the agreement meets the definition of
‘‘delegate agency’’ in section 637(3) of
the Act. We proposed this performance
standard to clarify that if an entity meets
the definition of delegate in the Act, it
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
is a delegate, regardless of what a
grantee calls the entity to which it has
delegated all or part of the responsibility
for operating the program.
Comment: The NPRM proposed a
requirement for HHS to approve the
delegate agency before the grantee may
delegate program operations. One
commenter suggested that a delegate
agreement be considered as approved if
HHS had not approved or denied it 60
days before the program year starts.
Response: We believe HHS approval
of delegates is important. We did not
change the requirement.
Comment: One commenter asked
whether or not programs could
grandfather in existing delegate
relationships or must they still have
written agreements.
Response: All grantee/delegate
relationships must have written
agreements approved by the responsible
HHS official. This is not a new
provision.
Comment: Some commenters asked us
to differentiate between ‘‘delegate
agency’’ and ‘‘contractors.’’ Another
commenter asked if partners and family
child care homes were considered
delegates and if so does the grantee
provide appeal procedures of the
agreement is terminated. If family child
care homes are considered delegates, the
commenter recommended for us to add
the following language to paragraph (a)
to clarify that a grantee, partner, or
family child care home can mutually
agree to decline a delegate/grantee
relationship: ‘‘. . . unless the grantee
and the entity negotiate to form a
contractual rather than a delegate
relationship.’’ This will provide
flexibility to the entity regarding the
requirement to form a policy committee
or other delegate responsibility.
Response: A ‘‘delegate agency’’ is a
public, private nonprofit (including a
community based organization, as
defined in section 9101 of the
Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801), or for
profit organization or agency to which a
grantee has delegated all or part of the
responsibility of the grantee for
operating a Head Start program.
Generally, a ‘‘contractor’’ either
performs work or provides goods at a
certain price or within a certain time.
We did not make any changes to
paragraph (a) in this section. Family
child care providers do not meet our
definition for ‘‘delegate agency’’ because
they do not meet the first part of that
definition. They are our partners under
the Early Head Start Child Care
Partnership (EHS–CCP). Under EHS–
CCP, new or existing Early Head Start
grantees partner with regulated center-
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
based or family child care providers
who agree to meet Head Start program
performance standards.
Section 1303.32 Evaluations and
Corrective Actions for Delegate
Agencies
This section includes requirements
from section 641A(d) of the Act with
respect to the evaluation of delegate
agencies and corrective actions in the
event of a deficiency.
Comment: Some commenters asked us
to include the actual language of section
641A(d) of the Act rather than cite to it
and to clarify that the Act’s requirement
for each Head Start agency to establish
procedures to evaluate and defund
delegate agencies and for delegate
agencies to appeal defunding decisions
may be satisfied with provisions on
those topics in its delegate agency
agreement(s).
Response: We refer to the Act when
possible to streamline and to make the
regulation read better. We did not make
any changes to this section.
Section 1303.33 Termination of
Delegate Agencies
In this section, we clarify that a
grantee cannot terminate a delegate
agency without showing cause and the
grantee’s decision to terminate cannot
be arbitrary or capricious. To align with
section 641A(d)(1)(C) of the Act, we
require grantees to establish procedures
to defund a delegate agency. We also
require grantees to establish procedures
that are fair and timely for a delegate
agency to appeal a defunding decision.
Furthermore, we removed the appeal
procedures for delegate agencies that
were under part 1303 subpart C in the
previous rule. The reason being,
grantees are accountable for the services
their delegate agencies provide to
children and families. We believe they
must have the necessary tools at their
disposal to remove delegate agencies.
We believe the previous system
inappropriately tied the hands of
grantees and had become overly
burdensome.
We address the comments we
received on this section below.
Comment: Some commenters
supported our proposal to eliminate
complex delegate agency appeals
procedures. They believed this provided
helpful flexibility to Head Start agencies
that, for reasons of cost or inadequate
delegate agency performance, may find
it necessary to terminate a delegate
agency relationship.
Response: We agree that grantees are
ultimately accountable for their
delegates. Consequently, grantees must
be able to remove delegates when
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61365
necessary, without having to go through
an overly burdensome process.
Furthermore, we believe grantees are in
the best position to provide appeal
processes for delegate agencies. We have
not changed this provision.
Facilities; Subpart E
This subpart implements the statutory
requirements related to facilities in
section 644(c), (f), and (g) of the Act. It
clarifies and reorganizes requirements
for grantees when they apply to use
Head Start funds to purchase, construct
or make major renovations to facilities.
This subpart logically organizes all
relevant information and requirements
for protecting the federal interest under
a broad variety of circumstances. It also
removes requirements that are not Head
Start-specific but rather are overarching
requirements for managing federal
grants and aligns all remaining
provisions with the Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost
Principles, and Audit Requirements for
Federal Awards. We address comments
we received on each section within this
subpart below.
Section 1303.40 Purpose
This section clarifies that the whole of
subpart E applies to major renovations.
It explains these provisions apply only
to minor renovations and repairs when
they are included in a purchase and are
part of the purchase costs. We address
the one comment we received on this
section below.
Comment: One commenter noted that
it may be necessary to us to clarify that
information contained in a Program
Instruction and its application be made
clear in this section.
Response: We integrated the
information from Program Instructions
into this section and into our definition
for ‘‘purchase’’ in part 1305. We did not
make any changes here.
Section 1303.41 Approval of
Previously Purchased Facilities
Our previous regulation did not
address refinancing. But as interest rates
have fallen, grantees have asked us for
permission to apply for more
advantageous loan terms. In this section,
we allow grantees that have purchased
facilities beginning in 1987 and that
continue to pay purchase costs or seek
to refinance indebtedness to apply for
funds to meet costs associated with
refinancing. We also revised the
language to clarify that a purchase
includes both principal and interest
payments on approved loans in
accordance with section 644(g)(2) of the
Act. We received comments on this
section and address them below.
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
61366
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Comment: One commenter asked why
we included ‘‘1987’’ in this section.
Response: The ‘‘1987’’ date is
consistent with the Act. The date notes
it is allowable to use funds to purchase
or continue the purchase of facilities
after December 31, 1986. We revised the
language to more closely mirror the Act.
Comment: One commenter asked us
to remove language that requires
grantees to obtain HHS permission to
refinance an existing mortgage.
Response: We did not remove
language that requires grantees to get
HHS permission to refinance an existing
mortgage. Refinancing of existing
indebtedness may result in crosscollateral or cross-default provisions
that put facilities subject to a federal
interest at risk of foreclosure for debt
not associated with the Head Start
program.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Section 1303.42 Eligibility To
Purchase, Construct, and Renovate
Facilities
This section prescribes what grantees
must show to be eligible to construct or
renovate a facility. It also clarifies
grantees that apply for funds to
purchase, construct or renovate a
facility must establish that the facility
will be available to Indian tribes, rural,
or other low-income communities. We
received multiple comments on this
section. We address those comments
below.
Comment: Commenters suggested we
clarify in paragraph (a) how a grantee
can establish that preliminary eligibility
requirements are satisfied.
Response: We did not revise language
in this section to prescribe how a
grantee can establish preliminary
eligibility to purchase, construct, or
renovate a facility. We believe that a
grantee may demonstrate preliminary
eligibility in a variety of ways and that
a prescriptive process might create
compliance challenges for some
grantees.
Comment: Some commenters felt we
created an unnecessary cost burden
because we require a certified appraiser
to address availability of suitable
facilities in paragraph (b) of this section.
These commenters believed a real estate
professional’s opinion was sufficient.
Response: We agree availability of
suitable facilities can be adequately
established, at lower cost, by an
independent real estate professional
familiar with the local commercial real
property market. Therefore, we revised
paragraph (b) to clarify a real estate
professional’s opinion is sufficient.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
Section 1303.43
To Pay Fees
Use of Grant Funds
This section clarifies the type and
extent of pre-project costs, such as
project feasibility studies and
professional fees, we may approve
before a grantee applies for funding to
purchase, construct, and renovate
facilities.
Comment: One commenter asked us
to revise this section to allow grantees
to use funds from their then-current
Head Start grant for facilities projects or
apply for and receive funds under the
noted section.
Response: We did not revise this
section to allow grantees to use existing
grant funds for fees and costs associated
with a facilities project. We believe that
can be addressed through existing
facilities regulations at 45 CFR part 75.
Section 1303.44 Applications To
Purchase, Construct, and Renovate
Facilities
This section focuses on the process
grantees must use to apply for funds to
purchase, construct, and renovate
facilities. We address comments we
received on this section below.
Comment: One commenter queried
whether the facilities application
process is applicable to all uses of funds
for facilities activities or only when
additional funds are requested. Another
suggested we should add a performance
standard that requires the responsible
HHS official to promptly review and
make final decisions regarding
completed applications under this
subpart.
Response: General language in
§ 1303.40 refers to facilities purchased,
constructed or renovated with grant
funds and applies to all defined
activities regardless of how funding is
awarded. Therefore, we did not make
changes here.
We also did not require the
responsible HHS official to promptly
review and make final decisions. The
primary reason being facilities
applications require substantial
information and some applications are
incomplete when submitted. The length
of time the responsible HHS official may
need to help a grantee submit a
complete application and determine
availability of funding varies.
Comment: One commenter noted in
paragraph (a)(2) of this section a deed or
proof of legal ownership should not be
the sole requirement for renovations on
leased facilities. Grantees should be able
to present a proposed lease agreement.
Response: We currently require
grantees to submit a proposed lease in
paragraph (b)(1) in this section currently
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
requires submission of a proposed lease
agreement and landlord consent. A
slight amendment was made to remove
the requirement that the submitted copy
by an ‘‘official’’ copy since leases are
not subject to official certification.
Comment: One commenter contended
value appraisals for major renovations
to leased properties were an
unnecessary expense. The commenter
also suggested we should allow grantees
to submit bids and/or procurement
documents in lieu of appraisals.
Response: Since a grantee does not
obtain title to leased property subject to
major renovations, we agree that an
appraisal is not needed in that limited
circumstance. We revised paragraph
(a)(7) accordingly. However, we did not
revise paragraph (a)(7) to allow grantees
to submit bids and/or procurement
documents in lieu of appraisals. We
believe a licensed appraisal to establish
value ensures consistency and accuracy.
Comment: One commenter suggested
we should eliminate the required Phase
I environmental assessment of proposed
facilities sites in paragraph (a)(12)
because remediation would increase
project costs and prove to be an
impediment to facilities projects on
leased property. Another commenter
suggested we should not require
environmental assessments for major
renovations.
Response: We did not remove this
performance standard. We rely on
environmental assessments to ensure we
only fund those activities that result in
safe and healthy care environments for
children, families and staff whether the
facility is owned or leased.
Comment: One commenter asked us
to reduce the lease term requirement for
modular units on property not owned
by the grantee from 15 years to 10 years.
Response: Modular units often
represent a substantial expenditure. We
believe that a lease term of 15 years will
assure grantees have a location for the
modular unit for a period of occupancy
long enough to use the full value of the
federal investment in the modular unit.
Section 1303.45 Cost Comparison To
Purchase, Construct, and Renovate
Facilities
We require grantees to compare costs
to renovate, to lease an existing facility,
or to construct a new facility to
determine which activity would be most
cost effective to meet program needs.
Grantees must be able to demonstrate
that they have compared costs and
weighed options so we know our
investment in a particular facility
activity is cost-effective and servicerelevant. This section allows grantees
greater flexibility to describe projects
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
and to compare costs to other
alternatives within their service areas.
We address the one comment we
received on this section below.
Comment: One commenter asked us
to revise the last sentence in paragraph
(a)(1) in this section so that it refers to
a ‘‘comparable alternative facility.’’
Response: We did not revise
paragraph (a)(1). We believe the term
‘‘alternative,’’ allows for the possibility
of a non-comparable facility, such as
one that might be made usable through
major renovations.
Section 1303.46 Recording and Posting
Notices of Federal Interest
This section focuses on federal
interest and clarifies when grantees
must file notices of federal interest and
what the notices must contain. We
address comments we received on this
section below.
Comment: Some commenters
contended grantees would not be able to
file federal interest notices until the
purchase, construction, or major
renovation was either complete or at
least when these activities have begun
or when a grantee obtains ownership or
begins occupancy.
Response: To protect federal interest
in acquired facilities or in facilities
undergoing major renovations with
federal funds, we believe the notice of
federal interest must be filed as early as
possible to avoid the superior placement
of liens for materials and services that
would compromise priority of the
federal interest. Therefore, we did not
revise paragraphs (b)(1)–(3).
Comment: Some commenters felt the
performance standard in paragraph
(b)(4) that requires grantees to post the
notice of federal interest on the exterior
and the interior of modular units, could
be cost prohibitive.
Response: We did not revise
paragraph (b)(4). Posting the notice of
federal interest on the exterior of the
property informs all third parties that
there is federal interest in the property.
The exterior notice of federal interest for
a modular unit can be as simple as a
single-page laminated weatherproof
copy of the interior notice firmly
attached to the exterior of the modular
unit, which would involve minimal
cost.
Comment: Commenters liked our
streamlined definition for ‘‘major
renovations,’’ but asked us to either
define or clarify what we mean by
‘‘federal interest.’’
Response: We agree our former
definition for ‘‘major renovations’’ was
difficult for grantees to apply.
We did not change our definition for
‘‘federal interest,’’ because we believe it
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
fully advises grantees of when a federal
interest is created and how property that
is being used to meet non-federal match
is treated. We believe what we mean by
‘‘federal interest’’ is more detailed and
complete in this final rule.
Section 1303.47 Contents of Notices of
Federal Interest
This section comprehensively
explains what notices of federal interest
must contain when a grantee owns a
facility, when a grantee leases a facility,
and when a grantee occupies a modular
unit. We received some comments on
this section, which we address below.
Comment: One commenter asked us
to strike the term ‘‘or minor’’ from
paragraph (a)(4).
Response: We revised paragraph (a)(4)
to remove the phrase ‘‘or minor’’
because minor renovations or repairs are
not subject to this subpart unless they
are part of a purchase.
Comment: One commenter
recommended we remove the
performance standard in paragraph
(a)(8) that requires the governing body
to formally approve the notice of federal
interest because it was unnecessarily
prescriptive.
Response: We believe as the entity
fiscally and legally responsible for the
grantee, the governing body should be
made aware of any notices of federal
interest the grantee files. However,
given the governing body must approve
all facilities applications, we agree they
do not also need to approve the notice
of federal interest. We revised paragraph
(a)(8) accordingly.
Comment: Commenters asked us to
clarify whether a recorded lease could
serve as a notice of federal interest.
Other commenters noted the reference
in paragraph (b)(1)(vi) of this section to
notices of federal interest on leased
property should have referred to
§ 1303.50(b)(1) through (4). Another
commenter stated landlords may be
unwilling to lease to Head Start grantees
if a notice of federal interest for major
renovations to leased property is
required.
Response: We revised paragraph
(b)(1)(vi), so it is clear a recorded lease
that includes requisite provisions can
serve as a notice of federal interest for
leased property subject to major
renovations. We also revised paragraph
(b)(1)(vi) so that it references paragraph
(b)(1)(i) through (v).
Finally, we did not revise this
performance standard to accommodate
situations where landlords may be
unwilling to lease to Head Start grantees
if a notice of federal interest for major
renovations to leased property is
required. We believe requiring
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61367
recognition of the federal interest
resulting from major renovations in
lease agreements filed in the public
record protects the ongoing use of
improved properties for Head Start
purposes during the useful life of the
improvements financed with Head Start
funds.
Comment: Commenters asked us to
clarify what the word ‘‘proof’’ in
paragraph (c)(3) meant.
Response: We replaced the word
‘‘proof’’ with the phrase ‘‘[A] statement
that.’’
Section 1303.49 Protection of Federal
Interest in Mortgage Agreements
Funding for facilities often includes
both federal funds and mortgage
proceeds. As funding for facilities has
become more complex, it is common to
find federal funds and mortgages on the
same property. In order to protect
federal interest, we require grantees to
ensure that any mortgage agreements
they have include specific provisions
that would mitigate our risk of loss and
ensure the property remains for Head
Start purposes.
This section prescribes what mortgage
agreements must contain. We address
comments we received on this section
below.
Comment: Commenter indicated the
term ‘‘a real property . . . agreement’’
made paragraph (b) in the section
unclear. The commenter asked us to
reference any default under ‘‘an
agreement described in § 1303.49(a)
instead.
Response: We revised paragraph (b)
accordingly.
Section 1303.50 Third Party Leases
and Occupancy Arrangements
Grantees may use federal funds to
renovate leased property, often at
substantial cost. This section requires
grantees to have leases in place for 30
years for construction of a facility and
at least 15 years for a renovation or
placement of a modular unit to protect
federal interests in these unusual cases
where the government is putting major
costs into facilities on land that they do
not own. We address comments we
received on this section below.
Comment: Some commenters asked us
to not apply paragraph (a) in this section
to existing leases that did not meet term
requirements.
Other commenters suggested there
should be a flexible approach to lease
term lengths that depended on the cost
of the facilities project, individual
circumstances of the grantee,
community and nature of the facilities
project or, that we adopt a fixed period
of 10 years. Some commenters also
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
61368
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
noted that five-year grant cycles did not
align with 15 or 30 year leases.
Response: We revised paragraph (a) to
clarify that its terms did not apply to
existing leases prior to the effective date
of the regulations. We did not take a
flexible approach to lease term lengths.
Given that facilities activities involve
substantial Head Start funds and are
intended to be available for Head Start
use as needed during the useful life of
the facility, we made lease term lengths
consistent. We also set term lengths to
ensure grantees are subject to
comparable lease term length
requirements, regardless of location.
Finally, we believe long term occupancy
agreements for the full useful life of
major renovations and purchases are
needed to protect the Head Start funds
used for major renovations and
purchase of facilities located on leased
property.
It is understood that migrant and
seasonal Head Start programs may not
utilize leased premises for entire
program years. However, given the high
dollar cost of major renovations and
purchase of facilities, we believe that
long term occupancy agreements, even
if for limited portions of the program
year, are needed. If a facility is no longer
needed for program purposes, grantees
can request disposition of the leasehold
interest in the property.
Section 1303.51 Subordination of the
Federal Interest
This section emphasizes that only the
responsible HHS official can
subordinate federal interest to a lender
or other third party. Grantees cannot
subordinate federal interest on their
own. The HHS official must agree to
subordination in writing. In addition to
a written agreement, the mortgage
agreement or security agreement for
which subordination is requested must
comply with § 1303.49, and the amount
of federal funds already contributed to
the facility must not exceed the amount
provided by the lender seeking
subordination. We address comments
we received on this section below.
Comment: Commenters indicated that
limiting subordination of the federal
interest to circumstances where the
amount requested exceeds the amount
of federal funding in the property would
result in reluctant lenders.
Response: We revised this
performance standard to integrate the
possibility of subordination to a lesser
debt if certain conditions are met.
Section 1303.52 Insurance, Bonding,
and Maintenance
Our experience has demonstrated that
grantees have not maintained sufficient
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
insurance for replacement of facilities
that are substantially damaged or
destroyed, particularly through floods
and other natural disasters. After
Hurricane Sandy, we realized we had to
be more vigilant to protect grantees
against loss.
In this section, we require grantees to
obtain flood insurance if their facilities
are located in areas the National Flood
Insurance Program defines as high risk.
We also clarify for grantees that physical
damage or destruction insurance must
cover full replacement value.
We address comments we received on
this section below.
Comment: One commenter noted that
the cost of flood insurance should be
included in the Cost and Savings
Analysis so as not to create an unfunded
mandate upon the grantee.
Response: We did not make any
changes here because flood insurance is
an allowable cost to the Head Start
award and can be included in the
grantee’s application for funding.
Comment: One commenter asked us
to revise paragraph (b)(3) to read, ‘‘A
grantee must submit to the responsible
HHS official, within 10 days after
coverage begins, copies of applicable
certificates of insurance.’’
Response: We revised paragraph (b)(3)
to clarify what insurance coverage must
be proven but leaves it to the grantee to
choose what documents to present to
prove coverage.
Section 1303.53 Copies of Documents
This section adds notices of federal
interest to the list of required
documents grantees must provide to the
responsible HHS official. It also requires
grantees to give copies of notices of
federal interest to the responsible HHS
official after they have filed the notices
in their jurisdiction’s property records.
This is particularly important because
notices of federal interest do not fully
protect the federal share until the
notices are filed in the appropriate
property records. We address comments
we received on this section below.
Comment: One commenter was
concerned that if we include leases in
this section, we might create a situation
wherein large numbers of leases would
have to be reviewed annually.
Response: We do not require grantees
to submit documents listed in this
section annually. Furthermore, these
documents are only necessary when
related to purchase, construction or
major renovation, so we believe the
volume of submissions will be
manageable. We revised this section to
clarify these documents must be
submitted when Head Start funds are
used for the noted facilities activities.
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Section 1303.54 Record Retention
This section clarifies what documents
grantees must retain as records. This
section does not change the basic
retention period, which is aligned with
general requirements in the Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost
Principles, and Audit Requirements for
Federal Awards. We did not receive any
comments on this section.
Section 1303.55 Procurement
Procedures
This section summarizes general
procurement procedures as context for
grantees. We did not receive any
comments on this section.
Section 1303.56 Inspection of Work
This section aligns the elements of the
final inspection report with those
required in the engineer or architect’s
certification that accompanies the initial
facilities project application. We
address comments we received on this
section below.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that we do not require
project architects to certify compliance
with regulations beyond his control
such as licensing and Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act.
Response: We did not make any
changes here. We believe the project
architect is a qualified professional
familiar with the project, who can
express an opinion as to whether a
facility subject to purchase, construction
or major renovation with Head Start
funds meets all applicable federal, state,
and local requirements.
Transportation; Subpart F
This subpart describes the
requirements for programs related to
transportation services. We received
comments on this subpart. Some
commenters supported the requirements
in this section and stated that without
transportation provided by the program,
many high need families would be
unable to access the program as they do
not have private vehicles or access to
public transportation. Other
commenters expressed concerns or
asked for clarifications. These
comments are discussed in further
detail below along with our responses.
General Comments
Comment: Some commenters asked
about the applicability of the regulation
including for field trips or transporting
children and parents to medical
appointments. Some commenters
expressed concern about the cost of
transportation services or specific
elements, such as requiring bus
monitors. One commenter asked about
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
the relative cost, quality, and
compliance of contractual versus
directly provided transportation.
Response: Incidental transportation as
described under the definition of
‘‘transportation services’’ in part 1305 is
exempt from the requirements of this
subpart. This includes taking a sick
child home or taking a child and parent
on a medical visit. Field trips are not
incidental transportation and therefore
are subject to the requirements of this
subpart. Additionally, we recognize that
providing transportation is expensive,
but that many high need children would
not be able to participate in Head Start
without transportation services. No
program is required to transport all or
any children, but if high need families
require transportation services to access
the program, such services should be
part of the program design. Programs
should also regularly assess the cost and
quality of their transportation service
and make informed decisions about the
safest and most cost efficient options.
We did not make any changes to the
regulation in response to these
comments.
Section 1303.70 Purpose
This section describes transportation
services and waiver options for
programs. We received some comments
on this section, which are discussed
below.
Comment: Some commenters objected
to the requirement in paragraph (b) that
programs not offering transportation
services make reasonable efforts to assist
families who might otherwise have
difficulty ensuring their child’s
participation. Some commenters
indicated this provision could be
especially difficult in rural areas and
should therefore be removed. Some
commenters requested more clarity
about what constitutes ‘‘reasonable
assistance.’’
Response: This provision is intended
to ensure that programs that do not
provide transportation ensure that lack
of such service does not pose a barrier
to participation in the program for the
highest need children and families.
Many rural Head Start programs, for
example, provide transportation because
not doing so would greatly limit the
number of the highest need children
who could participate. We expect that
when a program has determined
transportation is not a needed service,
there are available alternatives.
Therefore we retained this requirement,
but added an example of reasonable
assistance to paragraph (b).
Comment: One commenter suggested
that programs must ensure compliance
with the requirements of this subpart
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
when obtaining Head Start
transportation services by coordinating
with another human service agency.
Response: We agree with this
comment but do not think it requires a
revision to the regulation. As defined in
part 1305, Head Start transportation
services include ‘‘the planned
transporting of children to and from
sites where an agency provides services
funded under the Head Start Act.’’
Therefore services provided through a
coordinating agency would have to meet
the requirements of this subpart. Each
program is responsible for ensuring that
the transportation services it provides,
whether directly, through a coordinated
effort with an LEA or community
partner, or through a contractual
arrangement, meet these requirements.
Comment: Some commenters asked
for additional information about the
circumstances under which a waiver
can be issued and how decisions
regarding waiver approval are made.
Response: Per the regulation, we will
only consider waivers in circumstances
where adherence to this subpart would
create a safety hazard or, for preschool
children, a major program disruption in
relation to the requirements for child
restraint systems or bus monitors, such
that a waiver is in the best interest of
enrolled children. We did not make any
changes to these provisions. Typically,
programs receiving transportation
services through a partnership with a
local education agency are the only ones
approved for waivers. Programs can find
information about applying for a
transportation waiver through the Head
Start Enterprise System (HSES) or by
contacting their program official.
Section 1303.71
Vehicles
This section describes the
requirements for vehicles used to
transport children. We received some
comments on this section, which are
discussed below.
Comment: One commenter requested
additional information about allowable
alternate vehicles.
Response: The definition of
‘‘allowable alternate vehicle’’ is
provided in part 1305 and refers to a
vehicle designed for carrying eleven or
more people, including the driver, that
meets all the Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standards applicable to school
buses, except 49 CFR 571.108 and
571.131. It is a vehicle that may not look
like a traditional school bus, but has the
required safety features such as
compartmentalized seating, rollover
protection, joint impact strength, and
fuel system integrity. We did not make
any changes to this provision.
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61369
Comment: One commenter objected to
the removal of the former requirement
that safety equipment be strategically
placed and marked.
Response: While we expect each
program to store such equipment where
it is safe from children but accessible in
an emergency, we agree that such
equipment should be clearly labeled.
We amended paragraph (b) to specify
this.
Section 1303.72 Vehicle Operation
This section describes safety
requirements during vehicle operation,
driver qualification and application
review requirements, and requirements
for driver and bus monitor training. We
received some comments on this
section, discussed below.
Comment: One commenter suggested
that we allow reasonable
accommodation related to the
requirements of the commercial driver’s
license (CDL) and that drivers should
follow applicable Department of
Transportation (DOT) regulations,
including for drug and alcohol testing.
Response: In addition to possessing
an appropriate CDL, drivers providing
Head Start transportation services must
meet applicable DOT, tribal, state, and
local requirements for their jurisdiction.
There are requirements for drug and
alcohol testing associated with a CDL.
Therefore, we did not make any
revisions to this provision.
Comment: Some commenters
expressed concern that the requirement
to review a driver candidate’s record
through the National Driver Register
could delay the hiring of needed
drivers.
Response: While we understand the
concerns about the expediency of
various background checks, we believe
it is very important to use available
sources that may provide information
about the safety record of driver
candidates. Therefore, we retained this
requirement to check the National
Driver Register where available.
Comment: One commenter expressed
concern that standards articulated the
requirement for child safety restraint
systems, but did not actually require
that children be seated while using
them.
Response: We agree that safety
restraint systems only afford protection
if they are properly used. We amended
§ 1303.72(a)(1) to specify that each child
should be seated in a child restraint
system appropriate to the child’s age,
height and weight.
Comment: Some commenters referred
to the requirement in paragraph (d) that
drivers receive training in first aid. One
suggested that Cardio Pulmonary
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
61370
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Resuscitation (CPR) also be required.
Another suggested it is not necessary to
require first aid training for drivers.
Response: We agree that drivers
should have both first aid and CPR
training. This is required in § 1302.47,
and is therefore deleted from the list of
training requirements in this section.
Section 1303.73 Trip Routing
This section establishes requirements
for the safe and efficient planning of
transportation routes.
Comment: Some commenters had
concerns about the length of bus routes,
including that some bus routes exceed
an hour due to the geography of the
service area and that complying with
the trip routing safety requirements
results in longer trips.
Response: Programs must keep trips
under one hour, to the extent possible.
We recognize that in some areas, such
as rural areas, routes may be longer than
an hour. We encourage programs to
train bus monitors to provide
meaningful interactions, discussion,
songs, etc. with children during the time
on the bus. We also understand that
such things as requiring no U turns and
curbside pick-up and drop off may
extend routes. However, as the majority
of school bus related child fatalities
occur before boarding or after exiting
the bus, we believe these safety
provisions are necessary. We did not
make any changes to these provisions.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Section 1303.74 Safety Procedures
This section describes the safety
procedures programs must adhere to as
part of transportation. We did not
receive any comments on this section
and therefore did not make any changes
to these provisions.
Section 1303.75 Children With
Disabilities
This section describes requirements
for transporting children with
disabilities. Below we discuss the
comments we received on this section
and our corresponding responses.
Comment: Some commenters
supported the provision in paragraph (a)
of this section that children with
disabilities must be transported in the
same vehicles used to transport other
children whenever possible. Other
commenters raised questions or
concerns including a request to retain a
previous provision to ensure special
transportation requirements in a child’s
IEP or IFSP are followed, and a question
about whether a program must ensure
that drivers from other agencies are
trained.
Response: In paragraph (b), we
retained the provision that ensures
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
special transportation requirements in a
child’s IEP or IFSP are followed; this
provision was also retained in the
NPRM. All Head Start transportation
services, including those for children
with disabilities, must meet the
requirements of this regulation, whether
they are provided directly,
contractually, or through agreement
with a local educational agency or other
partner.
Federal Administrative Procedures; Part
1304
Monitoring, Suspension, Termination,
Denial of Refunding, Reduction in
Funding, and Their Appeals; Subpart A
This subpart focuses on monitoring,
areas of noncompliance, deficiencies,
and quality improvement plans. It
outlines what happens when a grantee
is suspended, when a grantee is
terminated, when a grantee’s financial
assistance or application for refunding
is denied, and when a grantee’s
assistance is reduced. It also clarifies the
appeals process for certain adverse
actions. We analyze the comments
received on this subpart below.
Section 1304.1 Purpose
This section lays out the Secretary’s
authority to monitor whether grantees
meet program performance standards
and to prescribe notice and appeal
procedures. We did not receive any
comments on this section.
Section 1304.2 Monitoring
This section clarifies our authority to
monitor grantees to ensure they comply
with the Act, all program performance
standards, and other federal regulations.
We also clarify for programs that a
deficiency can develop from an
uncorrected area of noncompliance and
from monitoring findings that show
either a grantee’s systemic or substantial
material failure to comply with
standards. We received comments from
the public on this section and we
discuss those comments below.
Comment: Some commenters urged us
to take the lead to streamline Early Head
Start, Head Start, and Child Care and
Development Fund monitoring
requirements and practices so that
programs can focus more on
performance and outcomes and less on
monitoring compliance with detailed
regulation. These commenters suggest
for ACF to work more collaboratively
with other federal partners to coordinate
approaches to monitoring, and
evaluating and supporting continuous
quality improvement of early learning
programs and their impacts. One
commenter urged us to take the lead to
build better integration between Early/
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Head Start data and state/local data
systems.
Response: We will continue to work
to better align Early Head Start, Head
Start, and Child Care and Development
Fund monitoring requirements and
practices where possible. We will also
continue to work with other federal
partners to coordinate approaches to
monitoring. We will continue to work
with partners to facilitate better
integration between Early/Head Start
data and state/local data systems.
Comment: Some commenters asked us
to define ‘‘immediate deficiencies,’’ to
prescribe how these deficiencies can be
resolved, set time frames to correct areas
of noncompliance and deficiencies, and,
establish a deficiency review board that
is independent of the regional office.
Response: We defer to the Act’s
definition for ‘‘deficiency,’’ at section
637. Deficiencies are not determined at
the regional level, though they were
many years ago. Now, the Director of the
Office of Head Start determines all
deficiencies independently.
Comment: One commenter asked us
to consider whether CLASS scores that
fall below national norms, should be a
non-compliance issue rather than a
deficiency. The commenter believes
data, including CLASS results, should
be used as flashlight to illuminate paths
to professional development and the
central tenet of Head Start, continuous
improvement.
Response: We did not propose any
changes to the designation renewal
system at former part 1307 in the
NPRM. As we did not invite comments
on the designation renewal system in
the NPRM, we cannot respond to this
comment here.
Section 1304.3 Suspension With
Notice
This section includes the program
performance standards for suspensions
with notice. Although we retained,
without change, most performance
standards in this section, we proposed
a few changes in the NPRM. We
received comments on what we
proposed in the NPRM and we address
them below.
Comment: Some commenters
complained paragraph (g) in this section
gives the HHS official unilateral
authority to impose additional
suspensions indefinitely without having
to verify in writing that deficiencies still
exist. They argue that this practice
conflicts with section 646(a)(5)(A) of the
Act which requires the Secretary to
prescribe procedures to assure that the
Secretary may suspend financial
assistance, ‘‘for not more than 30 days
. . .’’ To comply with the Act, they
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
asked us to remove the sentence:
‘‘Nothing in this section precludes the
HHS official from imposing suspension
again for an additional 30 days if the
cause of the suspension has been
corrected.’’
Response: Paragraph (g) in this
section does not violate section
646(a)(5)(A) of the Act. If a grantee has
not satisfactorily corrected what led to
the suspension in 30 days, HHS has the
ability to impose another suspension for
30 days.
Section 1304.4 Emergency Suspension
Without Advance Notice
In this section, we discuss the
circumstances that warrant emergency
suspension without notice. We
proposed a few small changes in the
NPRM, specifically we added the term
‘‘emergency situation’’ to the reasons we
can suspend without notice, to be more
closely aligned with the Act. And we
proposed to no longer allow grantees to
use contributions during the suspended
period to count toward in-kind match.
We received comments on this section
and discuss those comments below.
Comment: Some commenters believed
paragraph (b) was worded awkwardly.
To make the paragraph read better, the
commenter asked us to make the
following changes: Delete the phrase
‘‘by any means’’ in paragraph (b)(2);
reword paragraph (b)(3); and clarify
what the ‘‘informal meeting’’ is in
paragraph (b)(4). The commenter also
pointed out something was missing in
paragraph (c).
Response: We revised the language in
paragraphs (b)(1)(iv), (b)(2) and (3), and
(c) for clarification.
Comment: Some commenters noted if
we allow the responsible HHS official to
impose additional 30 days suspensions,
then in effect we have terminated the
program. If a Head Start program loses
funding for 60, 90, or more days, the
program is likely to be so financially
handicapped that the result could be the
same as a termination of funding.
Response: We disagree that
suspension is tantamount to
termination. We only use suspension
when such measure is allowed under
the Act and usually in extraordinary
circumstances. From 2013 to 2015, we
issued 5 summary suspensions. Of the
5 summary suspensions, 4 resulted in
termination.
Comment: Some commenters
recommended we describe how
programs should appeal findings to the
HHS official.
Response: We did not prescribe how
programs should appeal findings to the
HHS official. There is no formal process
for how programs must appeal findings
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
to the HHS official. However, regardless
of how evidence is presented to the
HHS official, we will consider it.
Section 1304.5 Termination and
Denial of Refunding
In this section describe the
circumstances under which HHS can
terminate, and, deny refunding or
reduce funding. We also discuss appeal
procedures for terminations and denials
of refunding. We address the one
comment we received on this section
below.
Comment: Some commenters asked us
to define ‘‘financial viability’’ again
because our proposed definition was too
broad and too subjective. A commenter
proposed the following definition:
‘‘Financial viability means that an
organization is able to meet its financial
obligations as they become due.’’
Response: We did not revise our
definition for ‘‘financial viability.’’
However, we will clarify here what we
mean by the phrase ‘‘balance funding
and expenses.’’ The phrase ‘‘balance
funding and expenses’’ refers to the
status of a grantee’s funds and
obligations by the end of the funding
period. We understand throughout a
funding period, funding and expenses
will not always remain balanced.
However, they should balance by the
end of the funding period.
Section 1304.6 Appeal for Prospective
Delegate Agencies
Section 646(a)(1) of the Act requires
appeal procedures for certain conflicts
between delegates and grantees. The Act
requires a timely and expeditious
appeal to the Secretary for an entity who
wants to serve as a delegate and whose
application has been rejected or not
acted upon.
The previous regulation included an
additional step that allowed prospective
delegate agencies to appeal application
decisions to the grantee first. This extra
step added nothing to the application
appeal process beyond extending it.
Therefore, in the NPRM, we proposed to
eliminate this extra step. We also
proposed to eliminate the
reconsideration process. We address the
one comment we received on this
section below.
Comment: According to one
commenter, because we eliminated the
appeal between prospective delegate
agencies and grantees and require only
the appeal to ACF, there may be
occasions where a grantee wishes to
reconsider its decision about a
prospective delegate agency.
Response: Granted, there may be
occasions where a grantee wishes to
reconsider its decision about a delegate
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61371
agency. We did not prohibit a grantee
that chooses to reconsider its decision
about a prospective delegate agency, but
we did not require the grantee to do so
either.
Section 1304.7 Legal Fees
This section focuses on grantees’ right
to attorneys and attorney fees. In the
NPRM, we proposed to revise this
section to align with section 646(a)(4)(C)
of the Act, which requires the Secretary
to prescribe procedures that prohibit a
Head Start agency from using program
grant funds to pay attorney fees and
costs incurred during an appeal. This
section also addresses when an agency
may apply for reimbursement of fees
and the procedures for doing so.
Comment: Some commenters asked us
to clarify whether delegate agencies can
seek reimbursement for legal fees.
Response: No. Delegate agencies
cannot seek reimbursement for legal
fees. The Act only speaks to the
reimbursement of legal fees for the
grantee appealing an HHS decision.
Designation Renewal; Subpart B
We did not make changes to the
content of this subpart and therefore did
not invite comments in the NPRM. We
made technical changes to reorder what
was part 1307, where this subpart was
located in the previous rule, in a logical
order for this rule. Although we did not
invite comments, some commenters
raised concerns about the Designation
Renewal System and offered suggestions
for alternate approaches. As prescribed
by the Administrative Procedures Act,
because we did not give notice of any
potential changes we cannot make any
changes in the final rule.
Selection of Grantees Through
Competition; Subpart C
Section 641(d)(2) of the Act outlines
the specific criteria the Secretary must
use to select grantees and allow
consideration of ‘‘other factors’’ and we
refer to this citation in our regulatory
text. This subpart revises previous
program performance standards to
reflect a more transparent and
streamlined process for Head Start grant
competitions and outline the other
factors that are considered. We received
comments on this section and discuss
them below.
Comment: Commenters were
concerned about removing the previous
criteria for grantee selection regarding
opportunities for employment and for
the direct participation of parents in
planning, conducting, and
administering the program.
Response: In the Act, Congress
included an extensive list of criteria that
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
61372
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
must be considered when selecting from
among qualified applicants. This list
includes family and community
involvement, and thus by referencing
section 641(d)(2) of the Act, these
important concepts are covered by this
section of the regulation. This list
includes the important participation of
families and communities.
Replacement of American Indian and
Alaska Native Grantees; Subpart D
This subpart outlines the
requirements for replacing American
Indian and Alaska Native Head Start
programs. We did not receive any
comments on this section and did not
make any changes.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Head Start Fellows Program, Subpart E
This subpart outlines the
requirements for administration of the
Head Start Fellows Program. We did not
receive any comments on this section
and did not make any changes.
Definitions; Part 1305
In this part, we include definitions
from all sections of the previous rule for
ease of grantee and prospective grantee
understanding and transparency. In the
previous rule, definitions were attached
to each section. We consolidated
definitions that were repeated in
multiple sections in the previous rule.
In addition, we removed many
definitions that were either not
meaningful or did not add to the widely
understood meaning. We also removed
definitions when it was clearer to
incorporate their meaning into the
provisions themselves or when the
terms were not included in the final
rule. We restored definitions from the
previous rule that were not included in
the NPRM when we used these terms in
the final rule. We added some new
definitions to this part in order to
support other revisions throughout the
rule or to provide technical clarity
including their statutory basis in the
Act, and reference the definitions in
other relevant pieces of legislation
where appropriate. Finally, we made a
technical change to add a section on the
purpose of this part, and renamed and
redesignated the proposed section
§ 1305.1 to § 1305.2 in this final rule.
We received many comments on this
part. Many commenters requested that
we add additional definitions. Others
asked that additional details be
included in previous or proposed
definitions. Others pointed out
inconsistencies between definitions and
asked for clarification. Finally,
commenters asked that definitions from
the Act and other statutes be spelled out
in the rule. We discuss and respond to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
each of these categories of comments
below.
Comment: Many commenters
requested a definition for ‘‘planned
operation.’’
Response: In light of the changes to
the service duration requirements for
center-based programs in § 1302.21(c)
that remove the term ‘‘planned
operation,’’ we have deleted the
definitions for ‘‘hours of operation’’
because they are no longer necessary.
We added a definition for ‘‘hours of
planned class operations.’’
Comment: Many commenters
requested definitions that were not in
the previous rule or the NPRM
including: authorized caregiver,
directory information, entry, highquality pre-K, noncompliance,
inclusion, LEA, frequently absent,
unexcused absence, material,
standardized and structured
assessments, seclusion/restraint, and
research-based.
Response: We did not include
definitions for directory information,
entry and seclusion/restraint because
they are not used in the performance
standards and so need no definition. We
did not define frequently absent or
unexcused absence to allow programs
reasonable flexibility to define those
terms to best meet the needs of the
families they serve. We did not define
authorized caregiver, LEA,
noncompliance, material or inclusion
because we are using their widely
understood meaning. We did not define
high-quality pre-K but changed the
language in § 1302.14(a)(3) to include
that pre-kindergarten must be
comprehensive and available for a full
school day. Similarly we did not define
standardized and structured
assessments but added in
§ 1302.33(b)(1) that they may
observation-based or direct. We did not
include a definition for deficiency
because if it defined by the Act and we
rely entirely on that statutory definition.
Comment: Many commenters asked
that definitions from statutes, including
the Head Start Act, IDEA, and
McKinney-Vento, be restated as
definitions in this rule.
Response: We did not define terms
when we are relying on the definition
from other statues.
Comment: Many commenters
requested clarification of definitions
that were in the previous rule or the
NPRM, such as enrolled, family, and
federal interest.
Response: We have modified the
definition of enrolled to clarify that a
child is not considered enrolled until
they attend the program for center-based
and family child care or received a
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
home visit for home-based. We do not
believe the definitions of family or
federal interest needed changes.
Comment: Commenters pointed out
that the definition of Migrant or
Seasonal Head Start Program did not
limit agricultural work to ‘‘the
production and harvesting of tree and
field crops,’’ while the definition of
migrant family did limit it in this way.
Response: We removed this phrase to
make the definitions consistent.
Comment: Some commenters
suggested adding language to the
regulation stating that DLLs should be
defined and identified in a consistent
manner. Some also suggested including
a definition for DLLs in the regulation.
Response: We do not agree that we
should require programs to identify
DLLs in a consistent manner in
regulation, as this would unnecessarily
limit program flexibility to develop their
own processes for identifying DLLs.
However, we do agree that it is
important to incorporate a definition for
‘‘dual language learner’’ into regulation.
We added a definition to part 1305 that
is consistent with definitions used by
experts in the field. This definition is
inclusive of children who have a home
language other than English, as well
children who have home languages of
both English and another non-English
language.
VI. Regulatory Process Matters
a. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA),123 as amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act, requires federal agencies
to determine, to the extent feasible, a
rule’s economic impact on small
entities, explore regulatory options for
reducing any significant economic
impact on a substantial number of such
entities, and explain their regulatory
approach.
This final rule will not result in a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. It
is intended to ensure accountability for
federal funds consistent with the
purposes of the Improving Head Start
for School Readiness Act of 2007 124 and
is not duplicative of other requirements.
b. Regulatory Planning and Review
Executive Order 12866
Executive Order 12866 requires
federal agencies to submit significant
regulatory actions to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for
review. The Order defines ‘‘significant
regulatory actions,’’ generally, as any
123 5
U.S.C. 605(b).
U.S.C. 9801
124 42
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
regulatory action that is likely to result
in a rule that may (1) have an annual
effect on the economy of $100 million
or more or adversely affect in a material
way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition,
jobs, the environment, public health or
safety, or state, local, or tribal
governments or communities; (2) create
a serious inconsistency or otherwise
interfere with an action taken or
planned by another agency; (3)
materially alter the budgetary impact of
entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan
programs or the rights and obligations of
recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel
legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President’s priorities, or
the principles set forth in this Executive
Order.125 This final rule is different
from many rules in the federal
government in that it will not require
Head Start programs to spend more or
less money on Head Start services,
rather it will require programs to spend
the money they are awarded in different
ways. Nonetheless, given that the cost of
the rule exceeds $100 million and that,
if fully implemented, the costs will
either be borne by the federal
government in the form of additional
appropriations for Head Start or by
Head Start programs in the form of loss
of slots for eligible children and teacher
employment, we have determined this
rule represents a significant regulatory
action as defined by Executive Order
12866. Given both the directives of the
Order and the importance of
understanding the costs savings, and
benefits associated with these
requirements both with and without
additional appropriations, we describe
the costs, savings, and benefits
associated with this final rule as well as
available regulatory alternatives below.
1. Need for Regulatory Action
The purpose of Head Start, as
prescribed by the Act, is to ‘‘promote
the school readiness of low-income
children by enhancing their cognitive,
social, and emotional development.’’ 126
This mission is based upon decades of
scientific research that documents the
strong and lasting impact of children’s
experiences in their first five years of
life on brain development, learning, and
health,127,128,129 and the significant
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
125 Executive
Order 12866 section 3(f)(1).
U.S.C. 9831
127 National Scientific Council on the Developing
Child (2007). The Timing and Quality of Early
Experiences Combine to Shape Brain Architecture:
Working Paper No. 5. Cambridge, MA: Author.
128 Anda R.F., Felitti V.J., Bremner J.D., Walker
J.D., Whitfield C., Perry, B.D., Dube, S.R., & Giles,
W.H. (2006). The enduring effects of abuse and
related adverse experiences in childhood. A
126 42
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
economic impact of such benefits on
children individually and on society as
a whole. A wealth of research suggests
that participation in early learning
programs can help support optimal
child development during these crucial
first five years, particularly for children
from low-income families, with benefits
for society lasting well into
adulthood.130 131 132 133 However,
provision of consistently high-quality
early learning experiences is central to
reaping these benefits from early
learning programs, including Head Start
programs. The congressionally
mandated, randomized control trial
study of Head Start’s impact did not
show lasting effects on the outcomes
measured beyond the end of the Head
Start program years for all children.
Specifically, while the Impact Study
found effects at the end of participation
in Head Start, by third grade the control
and treatment groups showed no
significant differences.134 However,
recent reanalysis of data from the Head
Start Impact Study suggests that those
programs that were full-day had a more
positive impact on children’s cognitive
outcomes.135 In order for Head Start to
achieve its mission to be an effective
tool in supporting children’s success in
kindergarten and beyond, all programs
must be high quality. Decades of best
practices, the latest research in early
education, expert advice, the Secretary’s
Advisory Committee’s
recommendations, and Congressional
mandates from the Act, all demonstrate
that more can be done to ensure all
convergence of evidence from neurobiology and
epidemiology. European Archives of Psychiatry and
Clinical Neuroscience, 256(3), 174–186.
129 National Scientific Council on the Developing
Child (2010). Early Experiences Can Alter Gene
Expression and Affect Long-Term Development:
Working Paper No. 10. Cambridge, MA: Author.
130 Heckman, J.J., Moon, S.H., Pinto, R., Savalyev,
P.A. & Yavitz, A. (2010). The Rate of Return to the
High/Scope Perry Preschool Program. Journal of
Public Economics, 94(1–2), 114–128.
131 The Council of Economic Advisers.
(December, 2014). The Economics of Early
Childhood Investments. Washington, DC: Authors.
132 Reynolds, A.J., Temple, J.A., Robertson, D.L.,
Mann, E.A. (2002). Age 21 Cost-Benefit Analysis of
the Title I Chicago Child-Parent Centers.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(4),
267–303.
133 Yoshikawa, H., Weiland, C., Brooks-Gunn, J.,
Burchinal, M., . . .Zaslow, M. (2013). Investing in
our future: The evidence base on preschool
education. Foundation for Child Development.
134 Puma, M., Bell, S., Cook, R., Heid, C., Broene,
P., Jenkins, F., & Downer, J. (2012). Third grade
follow-up to the Head Start impact study final
report. US Department of Health and Human
Services Office of Planning, Research and
Evaluation.
135 Walters, C. (2014). Inputs in the production of
early childhood human capital: Evidence from
Head Start. American Economic Journal: Applied
Economics, 7(4), 76–102.
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61373
Head Start programs provide
consistently high-quality early learning
experiences that prepare children for
kindergarten and have long-term effects
on their academic success. These
findings all culminate in the need for
policy changes. Additionally, we
streamlined requirements and
minimized administrative burden on
local programs anticipate these changes
will help move Head Start away from a
compliance-oriented culture to an
outcomes-focused one. Furthermore, we
believe this approach will support better
collaboration with other programs and
funding streams. We believe the final
rule, which incorporates these needed
changes, will empower all programs to
achieve this goal.
2. Cost and Savings Analysis
In this section, we first summarize
and respond to comments we received
on the Regulatory Impact Analysis in
the NPRM. Then, we describe the data
sources and general methodology used
to calculate costs and savings
throughout this analysis. We also
summarize the total estimated costs and
cost savings associated with this rule,
split into four categories: costs and cost
savings borne by Head Start, costs and
cost savings borne by other parties,
opportunity costs, and transfer costs.
Finally, we itemize the cost and cost
savings estimates associated with
individual provisions and describe the
assumptions, methodology, and data
used to calculate each estimate.
Comment and Response
Comment: Many commenters noted
that new requirements would impose
additional costs. Some of the costs that
commenters highlighted were already
accounted for in the Regulatory Impact
Analyses of the NPRM including costs
associated with increased duration,
background checks, curriculum
requirements, mentor coaching,
additional staff qualifications, the
waiver application process, providing
annual notice to parents of release of
personally identifiable information, and
costs to implement the changes to the
Head Start Program Performance
Standards (HSPPS). Other commenters
explicitly suggested that the Regulatory
Impact Analysis underestimated the
costs associated with the provisions it
addressed, such as the cost of additional
facilities or other start-up including cots
for naptime, in the estimate for
increasing Head Start center-based
duration. Some of these commenters did
not provide evidence or a rationale to
support these claims. Other commenters
suggested costs in their community
would be higher for a variety of reasons.
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
61374
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Response: We estimate the costs
associated with increasing duration,
additional background checks, new
curriculum requirements, coaching,
additional staff qualifications, the
waiver application process, providing
annual notice to parents of release of
personally identifiable information, and
many other new requirements in the
HSPPS in this Regulatory Impact
Analysis. We acknowledge there are
additional costs associated with
facilities and other start-up activities for
increasing duration Given the period of
ramp-up that most programs will need
to implement the duration requirements
with additional funding, we anticipate
that a portion of any first 12-month
operational award will be available for
the purchase or renovation of facilities
and other start-up activities before
programs begin serving children at the
higher duration. Nonetheless, we have
included an estimate of start-up costs
and assumed that these one-time costs
will be borne the year prior to the
effective dates for duration requirements
to reflect the additional costs that would
be incurred if these requirements were
implemented without adequate funding.
In addition, we have adjusted estimates
throughout this analysis to reflect
revisions to requirements in response to
public comments, for example, the final
rule requires 1,020 annual hours rather
than prescribing 6 hours per day and
180 days per year for Head Start centerbased programs, and the final rule
reinstates the requirement for parent
committees. While we understand that
costs of specific provisions will vary
across communities, we use the best
available data to estimate the cost for all
Head Start programs, on average.
Comment: Some commenters
expressed concerns related to costs that
the NPRM would have imposed or they
perceived the NPRM to impose. These
costs include the cost of group
socialization sites needing to be
licensed, costs in rural areas if the
home-based option for preschool was
removed as a standard option, reduced
benefits from the elimination of family
partnership agreements, transportation
for child health services, partnering
with universities to adapt curricula,
decreased in-kind matches in volunteer
hours and engagement due to reduced
enrollment, loss of transportation when
partnering with an LEA because of full
day requirements, and services to
children with significant delays who do
not yet have IEPs or IFSPs.
Response: Throughout the preamble
of the final rule, we address comments
suggesting concerns related to
requirements that would have imposed
unnecessary or unaccounted for costs.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
We revised the final rule to provide
greater flexibility or prevent unintended
consequences that would have resulted
in additional costs for many of the
concerns commenters noted. For
example, the final rule requires 1,020
annual hours rather than prescribing 6
hours per day and 180 days per year for
Head Start center-based programs. The
final rule also allows programs to align
their schedules with their local
education agency to maintain or
facilitate partnerships. These changes
address concerns about costs that would
arise from disrupted partnerships with
local education agencies and costs
associated with extending the year in
cases where 1,020 annual hours are
already being provided through a
slightly shorter year.
Comment: Some commenters
expressed concerns about costs that are
implicitly required in current regulation
but more explicitly required in the
revision of the HSPPS including
tracking and analyzing data for
continuous quality improvement,
providing mental health consultation
services, and appropriate training for
staff or volunteers involved in the
transportation of children.
Response: Although we recognize
there are costs associated with these
services, the purpose of the Regulatory
Impact Analysis is to estimate the costs
associated with new requirements.
Tracking and analyzing data for
continuous quality improvement,
providing mental health consultation
services, and appropriate training for
staff or volunteers are requirements that
existed in the previous performance
standards so those costs have not been
quantified here. However, in the
Benefits Analysis section, we have
noted that the clarity the final rule
provides should lead to improved
compliance with these and other
requirements which should be
associated with improved child safety
and stronger child and family outcomes.
Comment: Some commenters
suggested that the Regulatory Impact
Analysis should incorporate costs
associated with prioritizing three year
olds for enrollment in Head Start. These
commenters highlighted the lower
group size and ratio requirements for
three-year-olds as an indication of
greater cost.
Response: We would consider
prioritizing three-year olds and thereby
serving fewer children in Head Start a
conversion that would not change the
grantee’s overall budget and would not
be supported by additional funds.
Therefore we have not accounted for
any monetary costs associated with this
provision here. While we recognize that
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
this would lead to a reduction in slots,
it would actually be an increase in the
number of children served by early
childhood programs overall, because the
prioritization is only required if there
are programs in the community serving
four-year olds. Further, we lack data to
support a reasonable assumption about
how often and at what point in the
future other programs in Head Start
communities would be available to
serve four-year-olds. Therefore, we have
not quantified these costs to programs or
any transfer of benefits here.
Comment: Many commenters
suggested specific costs associated with
new requirements in the NPRM that are
being maintained in the final rule and
that were not addressed in the original
Regulatory Impact Analysis, including
use of a parenting curriculum,
attempting to contact parents if they
have not notified the program that their
children will be absent, participation in
state Quality Improvement Rating
Systems, and participation in state
longitudinal data systems.
Response: We have estimated costs
associated with these requirements in
the Regulatory Impact Analysis below.
Comment: Many commenters
expressed the desire for the Head Start
Performance Standards to require and
account for increased teacher
compensation.
Response: We agree that teacher
compensation is vitally important to
attracting and retaining effective
teachers. However, addressing
compensation is outside the scope of
this regulation because teacher
compensation is determined by
congressional appropriations and local
decisions. Nonetheless, our cost
estimates for increasing duration
assume costs will be driven in large part
by additional pay for teacher’s time,
such that programs that must increase
their duration as a result of this rule
could increase teacher pay in a
commensurate fashion if sufficient
funds are available.
Comment: Some commenters
suggested the Regulatory Impact
Analysis should include mention of the
benefits associated with longer duration
allowing parents to work.
Response: We agree and have revised
the discussion of potential benefits to
include the benefits associated with
allowing more Head Start parents to
work.
Comment: Some commenters
suggested revisions to our cost estimates
for specific provisions. Commenters
suggested we revise the assumption that
there would be no additional
administrative costs associated with
transforming double session programs
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
into single session, full school day and
full school year programs. Commenters
also suggested that the regulatory
impact analysis should build in cost of
living increases overtime to reflect the
true cost of the rule.
Response: We have revised our
estimates in response to these
comments. With regard to
administrative costs we no longer
assume a reduction in the cost estimate
for increasing duration based on lower
administrative costs. In addition, while
the Regulatory Impact Analysis reports
costs in real dollars, we have added a
table in the section on the implications
of Congressional and Secretarial action
that reflects the costs of the rule,
adjusted for cost of living increases over
time, to ensure the full cost and the
potential slot loss associated with those
costs are clearly articulated.
Data Sources and Methodology
The majority of the estimates in this
regulatory impact analysis utilize two
Office of Head Start internal datasets:
The Grant Application and Budget
Instrument (GABI) and the Program
Information Report (PIR). Whenever
possible, in this regulatory impact
analysis, estimates are based upon these
datasets. When a data point is necessary
to estimate the cost of any provision that
cannot be drawn from the GABI or PIR,
other data sources are utilized. These
data sources are described or cited in
the narrative of the relevant cost
estimates.
The Head Start GABI is a uniform
OMB approved application and budget
instrument to standardize the format for
the collection of program-specific data
grantees provide with a continuation
grant application. Head Start grantees
provide a range of data on their
proposed budgets including non-federal
share, any other sources of funding,
program options, and program
schedules.
The PIR is a survey of all grantees that
provides comprehensive data on Head
Start, Early Head Start and Migrant
Head Start programs nationwide. Data
collection for the PIR is automated to
improve efficiency in the collection and
analysis of data. Head Start achieves a
100 percent response rate annually from
approximately 2,600 respondents.
These datasets have some limitations.
For example, depending on where
programs are in the application process
or if they are submitting competitive
applications, rather than continuation
applications, the GABI data can be
incomplete. We addressed this
limitation in two ways. For grantees that
had not submitted GABI data in FY
2015 due to DRS transitions or other
factors, we used their FY 2014 GABI
data. In addition, to account for missing
data, we determined which specific
grantees did not have program
schedules in the 2015 GABI data, and
then determined the funded enrollment
associated with those specific grantees
using data from the Head Start
Enterprise System. Through this
analysis, we learned that 11 percent of
Head Start funded enrollment slots and
13 percent of Early Head Start
enrollment slots are missing from the
2015 GABI data. Therefore, throughout
this analysis, we increase estimates
using GABI data by 11 percent for Head
Start and 13 percent for Early Head
Start. Further, the PIR data is selfreported data that has not been
independently verified.
The methodology we use to estimate
costs and cost savings associated with
individual provisions varies throughout
this analysis. We have included a
description of each methodology in the
Itemized Costs and Cost Savings section
of this analysis. As appropriate,
estimates associated with new salaries
have been doubled to account for fringe
benefits and overhead. Estimates
associated with duration requirements
that increase the hours and days staff
must work and increases to salaries
based on higher credentials are inflated
by one-third to include costs associated
with an increase in fringe benefits but
exclude any additional overhead costs.
Finally, in general, we have rounded
total cost estimates but have not
rounded itemized cost estimates for
transparency of the estimation process.
These unrounded itemized cost
estimates should not be interpreted as
overly precise, but instead represent our
best estimation given limitations.
61375
Summary of Costs and Cost Savings
Throughout this analysis, we identify
and itemize the costs and cost savings
to society associated with the changes
from the previous regulation in three
categories: costs borne by Head Start,
costs borne by other parties, and
opportunity costs. We describe the
calculation of each of these costs in the
appropriate sections throughout this
analysis. The table below summarizes
all of the itemized costs for every year
over a ten year window. The final year
(year ten) represents our best estimation
of costs in year ten and ongoing costs
thereafter. We analyze the costs of the
regulation two ways in the table and
throughout this analysis—we estimate
the costs of the regulation without
consideration of the substantial
resources provided in FY 2016 to
increase duration in Head Start and we
estimate the costs net of these resources
which have already been provided and
are now part of the budget baseline for
the Head Start program, assuming this
funding increase is maintained across
the ten year window. In year 10, the
total cost to Head Start after accounting
for the funding Congress has already
provided to expand duration total
$1,003,152,645; without the $294
million in funding provided in FY 2016
and now part of the budget baseline, the
total cost would be $1,297,152,645. In
year ten and ongoing, costs borne by
other parties total $46,464,140, and
opportunity costs total $4,202,017.
Therefore, we estimate the net cost to
society of the final rule, if fully
implemented, to be $1,053,818,802 in
year ten and ongoing, when the funding
Congress has already provided is taken
into account.
Without additional appropriations in
future years or action by the Secretary
as described in § 1302.21(c)(3) to lower
the requirements described in
paragraphs § 1302.21(c)(2)(iii) and (iv)
of the final rule, Head Start programs
would need to absorb any additional
costs within their current budgets. We
discuss the implications of
Congressional and Secretarial actions, as
well as potential slot and teacher job
loss, in more detail in the Benefits
Analysis section below.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
SUMMARY TABLE OF ALL COSTS BORNE BY HEAD START YEARS 1–5
Year 1
2016–2017 *
Increased Head Start Center-Based (CB) Program Duration, Excluding Duration Funding
Appropriated in FY 2016 ..............................
FY 2016 Funding Appropriated to Expand
Head Start CB Duration ...............................
Net Cost of Head Start CB Duration Increase
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
Year 2
2017–2018 *
Year 3
2018–2019 *
............................
............................
............................
$508,440,805
$508,440,805
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
(263,121,940)
245,318,865
(263,121,940)
245,318,865
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
Year 4
2019–2020 *
06SER2
Year 5
2020–2021 *
61376
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
SUMMARY TABLE OF ALL COSTS BORNE BY HEAD START YEARS 1–5—Continued
Year 1
2016–2017 *
Year 2
2017–2018 *
............................
............................
$30,878,060
30,878,060
30,878,060
............................
............................
............................
............................
(30,878,060)
0
(30,878,060)
0
(30,878,060)
0
............................
............................
$(24,541,262)
42,751
927,603
$6,175,612
8,188,508
(24,541,262)
54,137
834,842
101,688,161
8,188,508
(24,541,262)
60,153
742,082
............................
8,188,508
(24,541,262)
80,899
649,322
124,109,936
8,188,508
(24,541,262)
80,899
556,562
3,540,199
3,540,199
3,540,199
3,540,199
3,540,199
10,472,585
............................
549,046
2,182,809
............................
............................
10,472,585
............................
549,046
3,977,108
141,978,651
4,390,220
10,472,585
5,112,499
549,046
5,515,809
141,978,651
4,390,220
10,472,585
5,112,499
549,046
6,798,912
141,978,651
4,390,220
10,472,585
5,112,499
549,046
7,826,417
141,978,651
4,390,220
............................
............................
(41,180,576)
4,055,157
61,506
............................
333,000
(306,000)
(833,638)
(4,350,000)
(1,152,558)
(2,298,905)
............................
............................
33,983
6,082,338
(41,180,576)
4,055,157
............................
4,117,348
333,000
(306,000)
(833,638)
(4,350,000)
(1,152,558)
(2,298,905)
6,643,811
1,695,928
33,983
6,082,338
(41,180,576)
4,055,157
............................
4,117,348
333,000
(306,000)
(833,638)
(4,350,000)
(1,152,558)
(2,298,905)
6,643,811
1,695,928
33,983
6,082,338
(41,180,576)
4,055,157
............................
4,117,348
333,000
(306,000)
(833,638)
(4,350,000)
(1,152,558)
(2,298,905)
6,643,811
1,695,928
33,983
6,082,338
(41,180,576)
4,055,157
............................
4,117,348
333,000
(306,000)
(833,638)
(4,350,000)
(1,152,558)
(2,298,905)
6,643,811
1,695,928
............................
3,474,474
824,593
3,474,474
824,593
............................
824,593
............................
824,593
............................
Total, Excluding Duration Funding Appropriated in FY 2016 ................................
(46,320,371)
134,637,446
264,118,036
672,906,362
797,951,042
Total, Including Duration Funding Appropriated in FY 2016 ................................
n/a
n/a
n/a
378,906,362
503,951,042
Increased EHS CB Duration, Excluding Duration Funding Appropriated in FY 2016 .........
FY 2016 Funding Appropriated to Expand
EHS CB Duration .........................................
Net Cost of EHS CB Duration Increase ..........
Start-up Costs for Duration Increase for CB
Programs ......................................................
Increased EHS Home-Based (HB) Duration ...
Waiver for Two-Year-Old Ratios ......................
Waiver Applications .........................................
Home Visit for Frequently Absent Children .....
Parent Contact—Unexpectedly Absent Children ..............................................................
Associate’s Degree for Head Start (HS)
Teachers .......................................................
Home-visiting CDA for Home Visitors .............
Credential for New Family Service Workers ...
Bachelor’s Degree for New Management Staff
Mentor Coaching ..............................................
Improving Curriculum .......................................
Monitoring Fidelity of Curriculum Implementation ................................................................
Assessments for Dual Language Learners .....
Removal of Head Start-specific IEPs ..............
Parenting Curriculum .......................................
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) ..........
Criminal Background Checks ..........................
Mediation and Arbitration .................................
Removal of Annual Audits ...............................
Delegate Appeals .............................................
Clarification of Facilities Application Process ..
Community Assessment ..................................
Managerial Planning ........................................
Data Management ...........................................
Participation in QRIS .......................................
Participation in State longitudinal data systems ..............................................................
Implementation Planning .................................
Year 3
2018–2019 *
Year 4
2019–2020 *
Year 5
2020–2021 *
* Year ranges refer Head Start program years, which for these estimates, begin on August 1st of each year and end on or before July 31st.
SUMMARY TABLE OF ALL COSTS YEARS 6–10
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Year 6
2021–2022 *
Increased Head Start CB Program Duration,
Excluding Duration Funding Appropriated in
FY 2016 ........................................................
FY 2016 Funding Appropriated to Expand
Head Start CB Duration ...............................
Net Cost of Head Start CB Duration Increase
Increased EHS CB Program Duration, Excluding Duration Funding Appropriated in FY
2016 ..............................................................
FY 2016 Funding Appropriated to Expand
EHS CB Duration .........................................
Net Cost of EHS CB Duration Increase ..........
Increased EHS HB Duration ............................
Waiver for Two-Year-Old Ratios ......................
Waiver Applications .........................................
Home Visit for Frequently Absent Children .....
Parent Contact—Unexpectedly Absent Children ..............................................................
Associate’s Degree for HS Teachers ..............
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
Year 7
2022–2023 *
Year 8
2023–2024 *
Year 9
2024–2025 *
Year 10
2025–2026 *
$1,128,990,485
$1,128,990,485
$1,128,990,485
$1,128,990,485
$1,128,990,485
(263,121,940)
865,868,545
(263,121,940)
865,868,545
(263,121,940)
865,868,545
(263,121,940)
865,868,545
(263,121,940)
865,868,545
30,878,060
30,878,060
30,878,060
30,878,060
30,878,060
(30,878,060)
0
8,188,508
(24,541,262)
104,650
463,801
(30,878,060)
0
8,188,508
(24,541,262)
20,930
463,801
(30,878,060)
0
8,188,508
(24,541,262)
20,930
463,801
(30,878,060)
0
8,188,508
(24,541,262)
20,930
463,801
(30,878,060)
0
8,188,508
(24,541,262)
20,930
463,801
3,540,199
10,472,585
3,540,199
10,472,585
3,540,199
10,472,585
3,540,199
10,472,585
3,540,199
10,472,585
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
61377
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
SUMMARY TABLE OF ALL COSTS YEARS 6–10—Continued
Year 6
2021–2022 *
Home-visiting CDA for Home Visitors .............
Credential for New Family Service Workers ...
Bachelor’s Degree for New Management Staff
Mentor Coaching ..............................................
Improving Curriculum .......................................
Monitoring Fidelity of Curriculum Implementation ................................................................
Assessments for Dual Language Learners .....
Removal of Head Start-specific IEPs ..............
Parenting Curriculum .......................................
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) ..........
Criminal Background Checks ..........................
Mediation and Arbitration .................................
Removal of Annual Audits ...............................
Delegate Appeals .............................................
Clarification of Facilities Application Process ..
Community Assessment ..................................
Managerial Planning ........................................
Data Management ...........................................
Participation in QRIS .......................................
Participation in State longitudinal data systems ..............................................................
Implementation Planning .................................
Year 7
2022–2023 *
Year 8
2023–2024 *
Year 9
2024–2025 *
Year 10
2025–2026 *
5,112,499
549,046
8,726,123
141,978,651
4,390,220
5,112,499
549,046
9,370,230
141,978,651
4,390,220
5,112,499
549,046
10,014,338
141,978,651
4,390,220
5,112,499
549,046
10,525,534
141,978,651
4,390,220
5,112,499
549,046
10,908,931
141,978,651
4,390,220
33,983
6,082,338
(41,180,576)
4,055,157
............................
4,117,348
333,000
(306,000)
(833,638)
(4,350,000)
(1,152,558)
(2,298,905)
6,643,811
1,695,928
33,983
6,082,338
(41,180,576)
4,055,157
............................
4,117,348
333,000
(306,000)
(833,638)
(4,350,000)
(1,152,558)
(2,298,905)
6,643,811
2,024,583
33,983
6,082,338
(41,180,576)
4,055,157
............................
4,117,348
333,000
(306,000)
(833,638)
(4,350,000)
(1,152,558)
(2,298,905)
6,643,811
2,024,583
33,983
6,082,338
(41,180,576)
4,055,157
............................
4,117,348
333,000
(306,000)
(833,638)
(4,350,000)
(1,152,558)
(2,298,905)
6,643,811
2,024,583
33,983
6,082,338
(41,180,576)
4,055,157
............................
4,117,348
333,000
(306,000)
(833,638)
(4,350,000)
(1,152,558)
(2,298,905)
6,643,811
2,352,595
824,593
............................
965,550
............................
965,550
............................
965,550
............................
1,106,507
............................
Total, Excluding Duration Funding Appropriated in FY 2016 ................................
1,294,396,889
1,295,285,932
1,296,895,589
1,297,406,786
1,297,152,645
Total, Including Duration Funding Appropriated in FY 2016 ................................
1,000,396,889
1,001,285,932
1,002,895,589
1,003,406,786
1,003,152,645
* Year ranges refer Head Start program years, which for these estimates, begin on August 1st of each year and end on or before July 31st.
SUMMARY TABLE OF ALL COSTS BORNE BY OTHER PARTIES AND OPPORTUNITY COSTS YEARS 1–5
Year 1
2016–2017 *
Year 2
2017–2018 *
Year 3
2018–2019 *
Year 4
2019–2020 *
Year 5
2020–2021 *
Costs Borne by Other Parties
Managerial Planning ........................................
Data Management ...........................................
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) ..........
Community Assessment ..................................
Improving Curriculum .......................................
Implementation Planning .................................
Waiver Application ...........................................
Bachelor’s Degree for New Management Staff
Participation in QRIS .......................................
Participation in State longitudinal data systems ..............................................................
Removal of Head Start-specific IEPs ..............
$(1,043,016)
............................
28,679
(352,028)
............................
1,624,843
14,023
1,036,673
............................
$(1,043,016)
741,978
............................
(352,028)
140,396
1,624,843
17,758
1,888,833
888,598
$(1,043,016)
741,978
............................
(352,028)
140,396
............................
19,731
2,619,603
888,598
$(1,043,016)
741,978
............................
(352,028)
140,396
............................
26,537
3,228,982
888,598
$(1,043,016)
741,978
............................
(352,028)
140,396
............................
26,537
3,716,971
888,598
............................
41,180,576
399,268
41,180,576
399,268
41,180,576
399,268
41,180,576
399,268
41,180,576
Subtotal .....................................................
42,489,751
44,745,228
43,853,127
44,469,312
44,957,301
Opportunity Costs
Home Visit for Frequently Absent Children .....
Criminal Background Checks ..........................
Data Management ...........................................
455,721
............................
............................
410,149
838,985
2,393,194
364,577
838,985
2,393,194
319,005
838,985
2,393,194
273,433
838,985
2,393,194
Subtotal .....................................................
455,721
4,384,306
4,338,734
4,293,161
4,247,589
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
* Year ranges refer Head Start program years, which for these estimates, begin on August 1st of each year and end on or before July 31st.
SUMMARY TABLE OF ALL COSTS BORNE BY OTHER PARTIES AND OPPORTUNITY COSTS YEARS 6–10
Year 6
2021–2022 *
Year 7
2022–2023 *
Year 8
2023–2024 *
Year 9
2024–2025 *
Year 10
2025–2026 *
Costs Borne by Other Parties
Managerial Planning ........................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
$(1,043,016)
Frm 00085
Fmt 4701
$(1,043,016)
Sfmt 4700
$(1,043,016)
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
$(1,043,016)
06SER2
$(1,043,016)
61378
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
SUMMARY TABLE OF ALL COSTS BORNE BY OTHER PARTIES AND OPPORTUNITY COSTS YEARS 6–10—Continued
Year 6
2021–2022 *
Year 7
2022–2023 *
Year 8
2023–2024 *
Year 9
2024–2025 *
Year 10
2025–2026 *
Data Management ...........................................
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) ..........
Community Assessment ..................................
Improving Curriculum .......................................
Implementation Planning .................................
Waiver Application ...........................................
Bachelor’s Degree for New Management Staff
Participation in QRIS .......................................
Participation in State longitudinal data systems ..............................................................
Removal of Head Start-specific IEPs ..............
............................
............................
(352,028)
140,396
............................
34,327
4,144,265
888,598
741,978
............................
(352,028)
140,396
............................
6,865
4,450,168
1,119,660
741,978
............................
(352,028)
140,396
............................
6,865
4,756,072
1,119,660
741,978
............................
(352,028)
140,396
............................
6,865
4,998,852
1,119,660
741,978
............................
(352,028)
140,396
............................
6,865
5,180,938
1,350,409
399,268
41,180,576
469,767
41,180,576
469,767
41,180,576
469,767
41,180,576
540,267
41,180,576
Subtotal .....................................................
45,392,386
45,972,388
46,278,292
46,521,072
46,464,140
Opportunity Costs
Home Visit for Frequently Absent Children .....
Criminal Background Checks ..........................
Data Management ...........................................
227,861
838,985
2,393,194
227,861
838,985
2,393,194
227,861
838,985
2,393,194
227,861
838,985
2,393,194
227,861
838,985
2,393,194
Subtotal .....................................................
4,207,017
4,202,017
4,202,017
4,202,017
4,202,017
* Year ranges refer Head Start program years, which for these estimates, begin on August 1st of each year and end on or before July 31st.
SUMMARY TABLE OF NET COST TO SOCIETY YEARS 1–10
Year 1
2016–2017 *
Net Cost to Society, Excluding Duration Funding Appropriated Beginning in FY 2016 .......
Net Cost to Society, Including Duration Funding Appropriated Beginning in FY 2016 .......
Year 2
2017–2018 *
Year 3
2018–2019 *
Year 4
2019–2020 *
Year 5
2020–2021 *
$(3,374,899)
$183,367,712
$311,910,629
$721,269,567
$846,756,665
n/a
n/a
n/a
427,269,567
552,756,665
Year 6
2021–2022 *
Net Cost to Society, Excluding Duration Funding Appropriated Beginning in FY 2016 .......
Net Cost to Society, Including Duration Funding Appropriated Beginning in FY 2016 .......
Year 7
2022–2023 *
Year 8
2023–2024 *
Year 9
2024–2025 *
Year 10
2025–2026 *
$1,343,592,024
$1,344,990,571
$1,346,906,131
$1,347,660,108
$1,347,818,802
1,049,592,024
1,050,990,571
1,052,906,131
1,053,660,108
1,053,818,802
* Year ranges refer Head Start program years, which for these estimates, begin on August 1st of each year and end on or before July 31st.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Itemized Costs and Cost Savings
In the following sections, we itemize
each of the regulatory changes for which
we expect there to be associated costs or
cost savings in the areas of structural
program option provisions, staff quality
provisions, curriculum and assessment
provisions, and administrative/
managerial provisions.
Structural Program Option Provisions
This final rule includes several
provisions that increase the duration of
the Head Start experience for children.
It also includes provisions intended to
improve child attendance. We analyzed
costs associated with the following
specific requirements: minimum of
1,020 hours of planned class operations
for all Head Start center-based programs
in § 1302.21(c)(2)(iii)–(iv) minimum of
1,380 hours for all Early Head Start
center-based programs in
§ 1302.21(c)(1)(i)–(ii); minimum of 46
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
home visits and 22 group socializations
for all Early Head Start home-based
programs in § 1302.22(c)(1)(i) and (ii);
and additional home visits for
chronically absent children, as
appropriate, and contacting parents
when children are unexpectedly absent
in § 1302.16. In all cases, costs are
estimated based on data about whether
programs are currently meeting these
new minimum requirements.
Increased Head Start Center-Based
Program Duration
This final rule increases the minimum
annual hours that Head Start programs
must provide to 1,020 annual hours.
The requirements in § 1302.21(c)(2)(iii)
and (iv) phase in the minimum annual
hour requirement for Head Start such
that each grantee must operate 50
percent of its Head Start center-based
slots at the 1,020 annual hour minimum
by August 1, 2019 and 100 percent of its
PO 00000
Frm 00086
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Head Start center-based slots at this
minimum by August 1, 2021. Further, to
minimize the potential for slot loss as
described above the requirements in
§ 1302.21(c)(3) give the Secretary the
authority to reduce these percentages if
adequate funding is not available to
support the policy.
These changes will increase the
amount of exposure to Head Start
experiences, which research suggests
will, in turn, result in larger impacts on
school readiness and long-term
outcomes.136 137 Research suggests that
previous Head Start minimums are
136 Weiland, C., & Yoshikawa, H. (2013). Impacts
of a prekindergarten program on children’s
mathematics, language, literacy, executive function,
and emotional skills. Child Development, 84, 2112–
2130.
137 Barnett, W.S., Jung, K., Youn, M.J., and Frede,
E.C. (2013). Abbott Preschool Program Longitudinal
Effects Study: Fifth Grade Follow-Up. National
Institute for Early Education Research Rutgers—The
State University of New Jersey.
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
inadequate to achieve strong child
outcomes and effectively promote
school readiness. Specifically, research
on full school day programs,
instructional time, summer learning loss
and attendance demonstrates the
importance of extending the minimum
hours of early learning in Head Start.138
139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
151 152 153
Research finds that pre-
138 Logan, J.A.R., Piasta, S.B., Justice, L.M.,
Schatschneider, C., & Petrill, S. (2011). Children’s
Attendance Rates and Quality of Teacher-Child
Interactions in At-Risk Preschool Classrooms:
Contribution to Children’s Expressive Language
Growth. Child & Youth Forum 40(6), 457–477.
139 Hubbs-Tait, L., McDonald Culp, A., Huey E.,
Culp, R., Starost, H., & Hare, C. (2002). Relation of
Head Start attendance to children’s cognitive and
social outcomes: moderation by family risk. Early
Childhood Research Quarterly, 17, 539–558.
140 Lamdin, D.J. (1996). Evidence of student
attendance as an independent variable in education
production functions. Journal of Educational
Research, 89(3), 155–162.
142 Wong, V. C., Cook, T. D., Barnett, W. S., &
Jung, K. (2008). An effectiveness-based evaluation
of five state prekindergarten programs. Journal of
Policy Analysis and Management, 27, 122–154.
143 Camilli, G., Vargas, S., Ryan, S., & Barnett, W.
S. (2010). Meta-analysis of the effects of early
education interventions on cognitive and social
development. The Teachers College Record, 112,
579–620.
144 Yoshikawa, H., Weiland, C., Brooks-Gunn, J.,
Burchinal, M., . . .Zaslow, M. (2013). Investing in
our future: The evidence base on preschool
education. Foundation for Child Development. New
York, NY.
145 Barnett, W. S., & Hustedt, J. T. (2005). Head
Start’s lasting benefits. Infants & Young Children,
18(1), 16–24.
146 Schweinhart, L. J., Montie, J., Xiang, Z.,
Barnett, W. S., Belfield, C. R., & Nores, M. (2005).
Lifetime effects: The HighScope Perry Preschool
study through age 40. Ypsilanti, MI: HighScope
Press.
147 Aikens, N., Kopack Klein, A., Tarullo, L., &
West, J. (2013). Getting Ready for Kindergarten:
Children’s Progress During Head Start. FACES 2009
Report. OPRE Report 2013–21a. Washington, DC:
Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation,
Administration for Children and Families, U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services.
148 The Council of Economic Advisers.
(December, 2014). The Economics of Early
Childhood Investments. Washington, DC: Authors.
149 Peisner-Feinberg, E. S., Schaaf, J. M., LaForett,
D. R., Hildebrandt, L.M., & Sideris, J. (2014). Effects
of Georgia’s Pre-K Program on children’s school
readiness skills: Findings from the 2012-2013
evaluation study. Chapel Hill: The University of
North Carolina, FPG Child Development Institute.
150 Weiland, C., & Yoshikawa, H. (2013). Impacts
of a prekindergarten program on children’s
mathematics, language, literacy, executive function,
and emotional skills. Child Development, 84, 2112–
2130.
151 Gormley, W., Gayer, T., Phillips, D.A., &
Dawson, B. (2005). The effects of universal Pre-K on
cognitive development. Developmental Psychology,
41, 872–884.
Campbell, F. A., Ramey, C. T., Pungello, E.,
Sparling, J., & Miller-Johnson, S. (2002). Early
childhood education: Young adult outcomes from
the Abecedarian project. Applied Developmental
Science, 6, 42–57.
152 Schweinhart, L. J., Montie, J., Xiang, Z.,
Barnett, W. S., Belfield, C. R., & Nores, M. (2005).
Lifetime effects: The HighScope Perry Preschool
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
kindergarten programs that focus on
intentional teaching and both small
group and one-to-one interactions have
larger impacts on child outcomes.
50 Percent Estimate for the Extension of
Head Start Center-Based Program
Duration
Starting in year four following
publication of this rule (program year
2019–2020), programs are required to
serve 50 percent of their children in
Head Start center-based classrooms for
at least 1,020 hours per year. In this
section, we estimate costs associated
with the additional service provided by
these programs. Note that Migrant and
Seasonal Head Start programs are
excluded from these requirements. We
first estimate the marginal cost per child
for the Head Start services that exist
today, updated to account for teacher
salary increases associated with the
final rule. These salary increases are
discussed later in this analysis. To
estimate this cost, we first calculate the
Head Start cost per child under the final
rule by adding total Head Start grant
expenditures in FY 2015
($6,354,595,188) to teacher salary
increases associated with requirements
in the final rule in § 1302.91(e)
($7,874,124), and divide this sum by FY
2015 Head Start funded enrollment
(791,886). This results in a cost per
child of $8,035, which is an increase of
ten dollars per child from the FY 2015
actual annual Head Start cost per child
of $8,025.
We estimate costs for Head Start
center-based double session and nondouble session programs separately. We
assume grantees will move double
session and non-double sessions, and
three-year-old and four- and five-yearold slots, to 1,020 annual hours
proportionately.
Given that double session programs
include a morning and afternoon
session with the same teacher, we
estimate that for every two children in
these programs, the marginal cost of
providing additional service in line with
the rule’s requirements will be
equivalent to providing Head Start
services to an additional child, resulting
in a cost of $8,035. Therefore, we
estimate for Head Start double session
center-based programs, 31,197 new slots
would need to be created and we
study through age 40. Ypsilanti, MI: HighScope
Press.
153 Ehrlich, S.B., Gwynne, J.A. ....Sorice, E.
(2014). Preschool Attendance in Chicago Public
Schools: Relationships with Learning Outcomes and
Reasons for Absences. University of Chicago
Consortium on Chicago School Research. Reynolds,
A.J. (2000). Success in early intervention: The
Chicago Child-Parent Centers. Lincoln, Nebraska:
University of Nebraska Press
PO 00000
Frm 00087
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61379
estimate the cost to move these slots to
1,020 hours to be $250,664,993.
However, this cost excludes the impact
of the funding already provided by
Congress in FY 2016 to expand
duration. As discussed below, some of
these costs will be covered by that
funding.
We take a different approach to
estimate costs for non-double session
programs. We calculate the number of
Head Start center-based non-double
session slots that operate for fewer than
1,020 annual hours and would need to
be increased in order for each grantee to
meet the 50 percent requirement
(121,116, after inflating values for
missing GABI data). Based on GABI
data, the average number of hours that
a non-double session slot would need to
add in order to reach the 1,020 hours
annually is 290.354 hours. We assume
that programs would choose to increase
their service duration to the 1,020
annual hour requirement in a variety of
ways, some by adding hours to each day
of service and some by adding
additional service days. Based on the
service duration patterns of programs
that currently provide 1,020 or more
annual hours of service, we assume 30
percent of programs would decide to
add only hours to each day of service
already provided, and therefore their
costs would be driven entirely by
teaching salaries. We assume 70 percent
of programs would choose to increase
the number of days they operate per
year to meet the 1,020 annual hour
requirement.
We next estimate the marginal cost
per hour per child for Head Start nondouble session, center-based slots. This
is done using the sum of the average
teacher ($18.70) and average assistant
teacher ($11.99) hourly wages from the
PIR to calculate the cost per classroom
per hour for teaching staff on average
($30.69). Then, we increased this cost
per classroom per hour for teaching staff
by 0.124 percent to account for the
marginal increase in teacher salaries
associated with all teaching staff
meeting the minimum education
requirements described later in this
analysis ($7,874,124). This increase was
calculated by finding the marginal
increase in the cost per child after
accounting for these salary increases
($8,035) from the FY 2015 actual cost
per child for Head Start ($8,025). The
new cost per classroom per hour for
teaching staff is $30.73, on average.
Then, we inflated this cost per
classroom per hour by one-third to
account for fringe benefits, which is
$40.87 (we assumed no additional costs
for overhead). We then assume that
children will be served in classroom
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
61380
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
settings with the maximum allowable
group size. To calculate the marginal
cost per hour, we divide the hourly
wage by the maximum group size for
three-year olds (17) and four- and fiveyear-olds (20) to get an average marginal
cost per hour per child for three-year
olds ($2.40) and four- and five-year olds
($2.04).
We then use FY 2015 PIR data to
calculate the percentage of three-yearolds (42 percent) and four- and fiveyear-olds (58 percent) served by Head
Start center-based programs. To
calculate the cost of increasing the
proportion of slots at 1,020 hours to 50
percent in each grantee by adding only
hours to the day, we take 30 percent of
the share of three-year-olds (42 percent)
and four- and five-year-olds (58 percent)
enrolled in these programs respectively
to find the number of three-year-old
slots (15,179) and four- and five-yearold slots (21,156) that would need
additional hours to meet the
requirement. We then calculate the
average number of annual hours that
non-double session Head Start centerbased slots not currently meeting 1,020
annual hours would need to add to
reach 1,020 hours, which is 290.354
hours. Finally, we multiply the
estimated number of three-year-old slots
(15,179) and four- and five-year-old
slots (21,156) by their respective average
marginal cost per hour per child ($2.40
and $2.04) and by the average number
of hours these slots would need to
increase to reach 1,020 annual hours
(290.354) to get a total estimated cost for
this 30 percent of non-double session
slots of $23,108,599. However, this cost
excludes the impact of the funding
already provided by Congress in FY
2016 to expand duration. As discussed
below, some of these costs will be
covered by that funding.
As discussed above, we anticipate a
different marginal cost per hour per
child for the 70 percent of Head Start
non-double session slots we assume will
meet the 1,020 annual hours by adding
days, because it would be necessary to
extend all of the relevant child and
family services for a longer program
year in addition to the cost per
classroom for teaching staff. In order to
estimate these costs, we divide the
average annual Head Start cost per child
inflated for teacher salary increases as
called for in § 1302.91(e) ($8,035) by the
average number of hours per year
provided across all Head Start centerbased slots (956.49 hours) to get an
average cost per hour of $8.40 to extend
days. Then, to account for fringe
benefits, we inflated 80% of this cost
per hour by one-third (we assume no
additional costs for overhead) because
most programs spend approximately
80% of their budget on personnel. This
results in an average cost per hour of
$10.62 to extend days. We then
multiplied the average number of hours
these slots would need to increase to
reach 1,020 annual hours (290.354) by
the marginal cost per hour per child
($10.62), and by the number of slots that
we estimated would meet 1,020 annual
hours by adding days (84,781) to get an
estimated cost of $261,427,256. Finally,
we estimate the total cost for all Head
Start non-double session center-based
slots to meet the 50 percent
requirement, using these two
approaches, is $284,535,855. However,
this cost excludes the impact of the
funding already provided by Congress
in FY 2016 to expand duration. As
discussed below, some of these costs
will be covered by that funding.
In sum, the total cost for Head Start
double session and non-double session
center-based slots to meet the 50 percent
requirement is $535,200,848 before
accounting for the $294 million in
funding Congress has provided in FY
2016 to expand duration. However,
because we assume that 5 percent of all
programs currently not meeting the
1,020 for 50 percent of their slots will
receive a waiver to continue operating at
their current level of annual hours, we
reduce this estimate by 5 percent for a
total cost borne by Head Start of
$508,440,805 before accounting for the
$294 million in funding Congress has
provided in FY 2016 to expand
duration. These costs will be realized in
years four and five, if the rule is fully
implemented. As noted, Congress
appropriated $294 million in FY 2016 to
increase the duration of Early Head Start
and Head Start programs. Thus, a
substantial share of the $508 million in
costs will be absorbed by this funding,
assuming this funding increase is
maintained across the ten year window.
50% EXTENSION OF HEAD START CENTER-BASED DURATION: COSTS BORNE BY HEAD START
New slots
needed
Total DS slots
Double Session (DS) .......................................................................................
62,393
31,197
Average cost
per child
per hour
Slots
Cost per child
(less admin)
$8,035
Hours needed
Cost
$250,664,993
Cost
15,179
21,156
$2.40
2.04
290.354
290.354
$10,577,515
12,531,084
Subtotal .....................................................................................................
Non-double session adding days (70%) ..........................................................
........................
84,781
........................
10.62
........................
290.354
23,108,599
261,427,256
Total, Excluding Duration Funding Appropriated Beginning in FY 2016 .....................................................................................
535,200,848
Less 5% Waiver, Excluding Duration Funding Appropriated Beginning in FY 2016 ...................................................................
508,440,805
Total, Including Duration Funding Appropriated Beginning in FY 2016 ......................................................................................
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Non-double session adding hours (30%) 3 year olds .....................................
Non-double session adding hours (30%) 4 year olds .....................................
245,318,865
100 Percent Estimate for the Extension
of Head Start Center-Based Program
Duration
Starting in year six following
publication of the final rule (program
year 2021–2022), most programs are
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
required to serve children for at least
1,020 hours. In order to estimate the
cost associated with this requirement for
each grantee to operate all of their Head
Start center-based slots for 1,020 annual
hours, we used the same approach
PO 00000
Frm 00088
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
described above for the 50 percent
requirement. The only difference in the
estimate is that we used GABI data to
calculate the number of slots for which
each grantee would need to increase
duration in order to operate all of its
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
center-based Head Start slots for 1,020
annual hours. As above, we estimate the
cost of increasing double session and
non-double session slots to 1,020 annual
hours separately. Therefore, as
described above, we estimate for Head
Start double session center-based
programs, 72,727 new slots would need
to be created. As a result, starting in
year six following publication of the
final rule, we estimate costs of
$584,363,052 associated with providing
additional service to these children in
line with the requirements of the final
rule. However, this cost excludes the
impact of the funding already provided
by Congress in FY 2016 to expand
duration. As discussed below, some of
these costs will be covered by that
funding.
For Head Start non-double session
center-based programs, we estimate
36,355 slots would meet the 100 percent
requirement by increasing only hours
per day. We estimate the share of threeyear-old slots is 35,746, and the share of
four- and five-year-old slots is 49,821.
Therefore, we estimate the cost of
meeting the 100 percent requirement for
these programs to be $54,419,668. For
Head Start non-double session centerbased programs, we estimate 199,656
slots would meet the 100 percent
requirement by adding days. Therefore,
we estimate the cost of meeting the 100
percent requirement for these programs
to be $615,651,152. Finally, we estimate
the total cost for all Head Start nondouble session center-based slots to
meet the 100 percent requirement, using
these two approaches, is $670,070,820.
However, this cost excludes the impact
of the funding already provided by
Congress in FY 2016 to expand
duration. As discussed below, some of
these costs will be covered by that
funding.
In sum, the estimated total cost for
Head Start double session and nondouble session center-based slots to
meet the 1,020 requirement is
$1,254,433,872 before accounting for the
$294 million in funding Congress has
provided in FY 2016 to expand
61381
duration. This represents an additional
$719,233,024 over the 50 percent
requirement. However, because we
assume that 10 percent of all programs
not currently meeting the 1,020 annual
hours minimum will receive a waiver to
continue operating at their current level
of annual hours, we reduce this estimate
by 10 percent for a total cost borne by
Head Start of $1,128,990,485 before
accounting for the $294 million in
funding Congress has provided in FY
2016 to expand duration. This
represents an additional $620,549,679
over the 50 percent requirement. These
costs will be realized in year six and
annually thereafter, if the rule is fully
implemented. As noted, Congress
appropriated $294 million in FY 2016 to
increase the duration of Early Head Start
and Head Start programs. Thus, a
substantial share of the $1,128,990,485
in costs will be absorbed by this
funding, assuming this funding increase
is maintained across the ten year
window.
100% EXTENSION OF HEAD START CENTER-BASED DURATION: COSTS BORNE BY HEAD START
New slots
needed
Total DS slots
Double Session (DS) .......................................................................................
145,454
72,727
Average cost
per child
per hour
(less admin)
Slots
Cost per child
$8,035
Hours needed
Cost
$584,363,052
Cost
Non-double session adding hours (30%) 3 year olds .....................................
Non-double session adding hours (30%) 4 year olds .....................................
35,746
49,821
$2.40
2.04
290.354
290.354
24,909,586
29,510,082
Subtotal .....................................................................................................
Non-double session adding days (70%) ..........................................................
........................
199,656
........................
10.62
........................
290.354
54,419,668
615,651,152
Total, Excluding Duration Funding Appropriated Beginning in FY 2016 .........................................................
........................
1,254,433,872
Less 10% Waiver, Excluding Duration Funding Appropriated Beginning in FY 2016 .....................................
........................
1,128,990,485
Total, Including Duration Funding Appropriated Beginning in FY 2016 ..........................................................
........................
865,868,545
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Extension of Early Head Start CenterBased Program Duration
Similar to the approach to estimating
the cost of increasing duration for Head
Start, to estimate the costs associated
with the requirement that Early Head
Start center-based programs provide a
minimum of 1,380 annual hours for all
slots, we used GABI and PIR data. We
excluded all programs not required to
meet the 1,380 minimum. Therefore, we
calculated the cost using data from Early
Head Start center-based programs
including American Indian and Alaska
Native programs but excluded all other
program options and Migrant and
Seasonal Head Start. We calculated
estimates for Early Head Start center-
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
based double session and non-double
session programs separately. Double
session programs include a morning and
afternoon session with the same teacher,
therefore, we used the entire FY 2015
Early Head Start cost per child for
center-based services from the GABI
($13,041). Next, we divided the current
Early Head Start funded enrollment in
double session programs (324, which is
inflated for missing GABI data) by 2 to
get a total estimated number of new
Early Head Start slots that would need
to be created to eliminate double
sessions (162). We then multiplied the
resulting number of slots by the average
marginal cost per child. From these
calculations, we estimate the cost of
PO 00000
Frm 00089
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
extending duration for all Early Head
Start center-based double session slots
to be $2,112,642. However, this cost
excludes the impact of the funding
already provided by Congress in FY
2016 to expand duration of Early Head
Start programs. As discussed below, all
of these costs will be covered by that
funding.
For non-double session programs, we
calculated the proportion of Early Head
Start center-based non-double session
slots that operate fewer than 1,380
annual hours (14,270, which is inflated
for missing GABI data). First, we
divided the average annual Early Head
Start cost per child by the average
number of hours per year provided
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
61382
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
across all Early Head Start non-double
session center-based slots (1,627.61
hours) to get an average cost per hour
of $8.01. Then, to account for fringe, we
inflated 80% of this cost per hour by
one-third (we assume no additional
costs for overhead) because most
programs spend approximately 80% of
their budget on personnel. This results
in an average cost per hour of $10.12.
Further, we assumed all Early Head
Start programs would choose to increase
the number of days they operate per
year to meet the 1,380 annual hour
requirement because most Early Head
Start programs already operate for a full
day. In order to estimate the costs
associated with meeting the requirement
for these programs, we assumed they
would need the full average cost per
child per hour, inflated for fringe. Then
we multiplied the adjusted cost per
child per hour ($10.12) by the average
number of hours programs not currently
meeting the 1,380 minimum would
need to add (210.443 hours) by the
number of slots (14,270) that we
estimated would need to move to meet
1,380 annual hours to get an estimated
cost of $30,390,579. However, this cost
excludes the impact of the funding
already provided by Congress in FY
2016 to expand duration. As discussed
below, all of these costs will be covered
by that funding.
In sum, the total cost for Early Head
Start double session and non-double
session center-based slots to meet the
1,380 requirement is $32,503,221 before
accounting for the $294 million in
funding Congress has provided in FY
2016 to expand duration. However,
because we assume that 5 percent of all
programs currently not meeting the
1,380 will receive a waiver to continue
operating at their current level of annual
hours, we reduce this estimate by 5
percent for a total cost borne by Head
Start of $30,878,060 before accounting
for the $294 million in funding Congress
has provided in FY 2016 to expand
duration. These costs will be realized in
year three and annually thereafter. As
noted, Congress appropriated $294
million in FY 2016 to increase the
duration of Early Head Start and Head
Start programs. Thus, the entirety of the
$30,878,060 costs will be absorbed by
this funding.
EXTENSION OF EARLY HEAD START CENTER-BASED DURATION: COSTS BORNE BY HEAD START
Total DS slots
Double Session (DS) .......................................................................................
New slots
needed
324
Non-double session .........................................................................................
162
Average cost
per child
per hour
(less admin)
Slots
Cost per child
(less admin)
Hours needed
Cost
$30,390,579
Total, excluding FY 2016 duration funding ..................................................................................................................................
32,503,221
Less 5% Waiver, excluding FY 2016 duration funding ................................................................................................................
30,878,060
Total, including FY 2016 duration funding ...................................................................................................................................
0
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
In addition to the cost of extending
center-based programs estimated for
Head Start and Early Head Start above,
there are additional costs associated
with facilities and other start-up
activities for increasing duration. If
there is adequate funding to support
these requirements, there will be a
period of ramp-up that most programs
will need to implement the duration
requirements, therefore we anticipate
that a portion of any first 12-month
operational award will be available for
the purchase or renovation of facilities
and other start-up activities before
programs begin serving children at the
higher duration. These costs would be
subsumed in the grant awards to cover
the costs estimated above. However, if
the requirements are implemented in
the absence of adequate additional
funding, these start-up costs would
represent additional costs that should be
estimated here.
In order to estimate the amount of
start-up costs, we rely on historical
information from prior expansions in
which approximately one quarter to one
third of the total operating budget is
needed for start-up activities. However,
since non-double session slots will
require significantly fewer start-up
activities at a significantly lower cost,
$10.12
$2,112,642
210.443
Start-up Costs for Extension of Centerbased Programs
14,270
$13,041
Cost
we assume that, on average, start-up
activities will reflect twenty percent of
the estimated cost to extend slots to
meet the duration requirements.
Therefore, we estimate the cost of startup activities for meeting the Early Head
Start requirement to be $6,175,612, the
cost of start-up activities for meeting the
50 percent requirement in Head Start to
be $101,668,161, the additional cost of
start-up activities for meeting the 100
percent requirement in Head Start to be
$124,109,936. Finally, we assume startup costs will be incurred the year prior
to the effective date for each duration
requirement. We estimate start-up costs
for all requirements will total
$231,973,709.
Cost of
requirement
(Incremental)
EHS Requirement ..........................................................................................................
50% HS Requirement ....................................................................................................
100% HS Requirement ..................................................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00090
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
$30,878,060
508,440,805
620,549,679
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
Start-up costs
(20%)
$6,175,612
101,668,161
124,109,936
06SER2
Year *
Year 2 (2017–2018)
Year 3 (2018–2019)
Year 5 (2020–2021)
61383
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Cost of
requirement
(Incremental)
Total ........................................................................................................................
Start-up costs
(20%)
........................
Year *
231,973,709
* Year ranges refer Head Start program years, which for these estimates, begin on August 1st of each year and end on or before July 31st.
Extension of Early Head Start HomeBased Program Duration
The final rule requires that Early Head
Start home-based programs operate for a
minimum of 46 weeks per year in
§ 1302.22(c)(1). In order to estimate the
cost of this provision, we assumed the
entire FY 2015 Early Head Start cost per
child for home-based services from the
GABI ($9,782). We then calculated the
cost per week by dividing the cost per
child by the average number of weeks
all Early Head Start home-based
programs operate (46.28), which we
estimate is $211.37. We then multiplied
the cost per child per week by the
number of weeks programs not
providing 46 weeks would need to add
to meet the requirement (2.78) to
calculate the cost per slot to meet the
requirement ($587.60). Finally, we
multiplied this cost by the funded
enrollment of programs currently not
meeting the requirement (15,484). We
estimate the total cost of this provision
to be $9,098,342. However, we also
assume that 10 percent of these
programs will receive a waiver to
continue providing their current level of
service; therefore, we estimate the total
cost borne by Head Start of this
provision to be $8,188,508. These costs
will be realized in year two and
annually thereafter.
EXTENSION OF EARLY HEAD START HOME-BASED DURATION: COSTS BORNE BY HEAD START
Cost of
meeting 46
weeks per slot
46 weeks for EHS home-based .......................................................................
Head Start Home-Based Standard
Option
We received comments expressing
concern about our proposal in the
NPRM to remove home-based services
as a standard program option for Head
Start. These comments are described in
detail in the comment and response
portion of this rule. In response to these
comments, we have retained homebased services as a standard option for
preschoolers in the final rule and no
longer estimate costs associated with the
removal of the home-based option for
Head Start.
Waiver Authority for Ratios in Early
Head Start Two-year-old Groups
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
This rule allows, for the first time,
programs to request a waiver of ratios
for groups with two-year-old children.
We believe that programs in states that
allow higher ratios for two-year-olds
groups or mixed age groups may request
waivers to allow them to serve more
children and support continuity as
children approach pre-school. We
anticipate awarding waivers to programs
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
Funded
enrollment
not meeting
requirement
Total cost
Cost reduced
by 10% waiver
$587.60
15,484
$9,098,342
$8,188,508
who propose to serve two-year-old
children at a ratio of 1:5 rather than 1:4,
provided they have sufficient space to
meet square footage requirements and
can demonstrate it meets the needs of
the community, the learning needs of
children, and can ensure the change in
ratio poses no health and safety risk. We
estimate the savings associated with
receipt of this waiver here.
First, we estimated the savings
associated with all two-year old groups
operating with a 1:5 ratio. We used the
total number of two-year-olds currently
being served (61,752 from PIR data) to
find the number of teachers that would
no longer be needed by dividing the
number of two-year-olds by the current
ratio of 1:4 (which yields 15,438
teachers); and then by the 1:5 ratio that
would now be allowed (which yields
12,350 teachers); and taking the
difference (3,088). We then multiply
this number of teachers that would no
longer be needed (3,088) by the average
Early Head Start teacher salary of
$26,491, doubled to account for fringe
and overhead ($52,982) to get a total
potential savings of $163,608,416.
PO 00000
Frm 00091
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
However, while we assume that 20
percent of programs will apply to waive
the ratio requirements for two-year olds
given our experience with the Early
Head Start—Child Care Partnership
grantees, we assume that only
approximately 15 percent of programs
currently serving two-year-olds have
adequate space to accommodate the
larger group size associated with a 1:5
ratio. As such, we estimate only 15
percent of programs will receive the
waiver. Therefore, we estimate that the
actual total savings for this provision
would be $24,541,262. These costs will
be realized in year one and annually
thereafter. While we recognize it is
possible that programs will opt to
purchase, lease, or renovate new space
to become eligible for this waiver, we
believe the costs of such purchase,
lease, or renovation would offset the
savings estimated here and we lack data
to support a reasonable assumption
about the proportion of programs who
would do so, therefore we have not
estimated these costs and cost savings
here.
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
61384
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
WAIVER FOR TWO-YEAR-OLD RATIO: COST SAVINGS BORNE BY HEAD START
Current
number of
teachers
(1:4)
Number of
teachers no
longer needed
Average EHS
teacher salary
Salary inflated
for fringe and
overhead
3,088
$26,491
$52,982
$163,608,416
Total (Reduced by 85% for programs without adequate space) .................................................................................................
24,541,262
Total number of 2 year olds
61,752 ......................................................
New number
of teachers
(1:5)
15,438
Waiver Application Process for LocallyDesigned Program Options
As discussed above, this rule includes
a provision in § 1302.24 that would
require any program wishing to operate
a locally-designed program option to
submit a waiver application explaining
why the local design better meets
community needs. As discussed in
further detail in the discussion of the
rule for § 1302.24, this waiver option
will strengthen program accountability
while maintaining local flexibility. The
rule also includes a provision, as
described above, to allow programs to
request a waiver of teacher to child
ratios for groups serving two-year-old
children. The application process itself
has a cost to grantees which is the focus
of this cost estimate.
In order to estimate the cost
associated with preparing and
submitting waiver applications as
allowed in other sections, we used GABI
data to determine the total number of
grantees that do not meet the new
service duration minimums. Among the
1,412 Head Start grantees (which is
1,271 inflated by 11% for missing GABI
data), 966 (which is 870 inflated by 11
percent for missing GABI data) do not
meet the requirement to provide 1,020
annual hours to 50 percent of slots and
1,036 (which is 933 inflated by 11
percent for missing GABI data) do not
meet the requirement to provide 1,020
annual hours to 100 percent of slots.
12,350
Among all Early Head Start grantees,
822 programs provide center-based or
family childcare services (which is 727
inflated by 13 percent for missing GABI
data) and 739 programs provide homebased services (which is 656 inflated by
13 percent for missing GABI data), 275
(which is 243 inflated by 13 percent for
missing GABI data) do not meet the
1,380 hours for center-based and family
child care programs, and 263 (which is
inflated by 13 percent for missing GABI
data) do not meet the minimums for
home-based programs. Finally, PIR data
indicates there are 995 all Early Head
Start and Migrant or Seasonal Head
Start programs that currently serve twoyear-olds.
We anticipate more waiver requests
will be submitted than will be granted
and estimate that half of the waiver
requests received will be approved,
which is reflected in the above
calculations on increasing program
duration and group ratios. Given the
flexibility built into the duration
requirements in the final rule, we
assume that only 10 percent of Head
Start grantees not meeting the 50
percent requirement will apply for a
waiver (97), 20 percent of Head Start not
meeting the 100 percent requirement
will apply for a waiver (207), 10 percent
of Early Head Start center-based
grantees not meeting the new
minimums will apply for a waiver (28),
and 20 percent of Early Head Start
Total savings
home-based grantees not meeting the
new minimums will apply for a waiver
(53). Finally, we assume that 20 percent
of programs serving two-year-olds will
apply for a waiver (199), even though
only 15 percent of programs will receive
it. Based on these assumptions we
expect a total of 199 waiver applications
in year one, 252 waiver applications in
year 2, 280 waiver applications in year
three, 377 waiver applications in years
four and five, and 487 waiver
applications in year 6. Finally, we
assume upon full implementation of the
rule, programs would choose to reapply
once every five years, resulting in an
estimated 97 waiver applications
annually in year 7 and ongoing.
In order to calculate the costs
associated with these applications, we
assume that each waiver application
will require 8 hours of a program
director’s time at $35.36 per hour.
Therefore, we calculate the cost
associated with the applications by
multiplying the number of applications
by 8 hours of a center director’s hourly
wage ($285.30). Using this method, we
calculate the total cost associated with
these waiver provisions for each year in
the table below. Then we applied the
proportion of Head Start center
director’s salary paid for with Head
Start funds (75.3 percent) to the cost by
year to find the costs borne by Head
Start and the costs borne by other
parties in the table below.
WAIVER APPLICATIONS: TOTAL COST TO SOCIETY
Number of
programs
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
50% HS Center-based duration ......................................................................
100% HS Center-based duration ....................................................................
EHS Center-based duration ............................................................................
EHS Home-based duration ..............................................................................
Two-year-old ratio ............................................................................................
The table below describes the cost to
society disaggregated by costs borne by
Head Start and costs borne by other
parties for years three through ten. We
assumed that programs would only
apply for waivers once the compliance
date of the provision they are requesting
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
97
207
28
53
199
a waiver for has passed. Therefore, we
assumed that the cost of applying for a
waiver from the 50 percent Head Start
center-based duration requirement
would be borne in years three through
five; the cost of applying for a waiver
from the 100 percent Head Start center-
PO 00000
Frm 00092
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Hours
Cost per hour
8
8
8
8
8
$35.36
35.36
35.36
35.36
35.36
Cost
$27,551
59,093
7,988
15,121
56,775
based duration requirement would be
borne in year 6; the cost of applying for
a waiver from the Early Head Start
center-based would be borne beginning
in year 3; the cost of applying for a
waiver from the Early Head Start homebased duration requirement would be
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
borne beginning in year 2; and the cost
of applying for a waiver from the Early
Head Start ratio requirement would be
borne beginning in year 1. Finally, we
assume upon full implementation of the
rule, programs would choose to reapply
61385
once every five years, resulting in the
costs for years seven through ten.
WAIVER APPLICATIONS: COSTS BORNE BY HEAD START AND BY OTHER PARTIES
Year 1
Cost to Society .........................................
Cost to Head Start (75.3%) .....................
Cost borne by other parties .....................
$56,775
42,751
14,023
Home Visits for Frequently Absent
Children
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
The rule includes a new provision in
§ 1302.16 that requires programs to
provide additional services to families
of children who are frequently absent
(for non-illness or IFSP/IEP related
reasons), which may include a home
visit. This requirement will improve
consistent attendance, which is
important because research
demonstrates that attendance is
predictive of school success. For
example, one study conducted in the
Chicago Public Schools shows that
preschool attendance is important for
several reasons: (1) It sets up patterns
for long-term school attendance; (2)
children who regularly attend preschool
perform better on kindergarten entry
assessments tests; and 3) regular
attendance enhances social-emotional
development.154 Another study in Tulsa
found that preschoolers who attended
regularly showed more growth in
literacy skills than their peers who were
frequently absent.155 In Baltimore,
researchers found that 25 percent of
children who were chronically absent in
pre-kindergarten and kindergarten were
retained in later grades, compared to
nine percent of their peers who
regularly attended in these early
years.156
We considered both monetary costs as
well as opportunity costs in estimating
the total cost of this new provision in
§ 1302.16. In order to estimate the
associated monetary costs, we used data
from the Family and Child Experience
154 Allensworth, E.M., Ehrlich, S.B., Gwynne,
J.A., & Pareja, A.S. (2013). Preschool Attendance in
Chicago Public Schools: Relationships with
Learning Outcomes and Reasons for Absences.
155 Community Action Project Tulsa County.
(2012). Attendance Works Peer Learning Network
Webinar.
156 Connolly, F., & Olson, L.S. (2012). Early
Elementary Performance and Attendance in
Baltimore City Schools’ Pre-Kindergarten and
Kindergarten. Baltimore Education Research
Consortium.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
Year 2
$71,896
54,137
17,758
Year 3
Year 4
$79,884
60,153
19,731
Year 5
Year 6
$107,435
80,899
26,537
$107,435
80,899
26,537
$138,977
104,650
34,327
Survey (FACES) and babyFACES, which
are federally funded nationally
representative surveys of Head Start and
Early Head Start programs, respectively.
These studies provided estimates of the
proportion of children in both Head
Start and Early Head Start who are
absent for more than 20 days in a given
school year. For Head Start, FACES data
suggests 5.6 percent of children are
absent for more than 20 days. We used
this proportion as a proxy for the
proportion of children who are
frequently absent, and would trigger the
requirement in the rule for an additional
home visit. For Early Head Start, we
assumed approximately half of this
proportion would be children for whom
absences were explained, given the
frequency of illness among very young
children and thus would not trigger this
requirement. Therefore, we used half
(17 percent) of the proportion from
babyFACES data (34 percent) as a proxy
for children in Early Head Start who are
chronically absent and would thus
trigger additional services, which could
include an extra home visit. Then, we
estimated the number of extra home
visits this requirement will trigger by
multiplying cumulative enrollment for
center-based programs in Head Start and
Early Head Start, respectively, by these
proxy proportions. We estimated the
monetary cost of this provision by
multiplying the number of extra home
visits by the average wage of a teacher
and an assistant teacher for two hours,
because we expect some home visits
will be conducted by teachers or home
visitors and others may be conducted by
the family service worker (usually paid
on par with assistant teachers). Finally,
we assumed that only half of families
would receive an additional home visit
rather than other direct contact as
allowed under the requirement. Using
this method, we estimate the total
monetary cost of this requirement to be
$927,603 starting in year one. However,
we also expect the activities that
programs engage in to address frequent
PO 00000
Frm 00093
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Years 7–10
$27,795
20,930
6,865
and chronic absenteeism, including
home visits, will reduce the number of
children who are frequently and
chronically absent over time. Therefore,
we have estimated a 10% reduction in
the number of frequently and
chronically absent children every year
for the first five years this policy is in
place. This results in a cost of $834,842
in year two, $742,082 in year three
$649,322 in year four, $556,562 in year
five and $463,801 in year six and on an
ongoing basis thereafter.
To calculate the opportunity cost, we
use foregone wages as an estimate for
the value of parents’ time spent meeting
this requirement of one additional home
visit. This represents the value of their
time when they participate in an
additional home visit rather than
working. However, we acknowledge this
is likely an overestimate of opportunity
cost, given the potential for opportunity
cost savings associated with parents’
time if their children resume regular
program attendance. We used the
number from our estimate of children
experiencing chronic absenteeism
(62,858) and assumed one parent per
child. Because Head Start families are
primarily families from low-income
backgrounds, we used the federal
minimum wage and assumed two hours
of time for each parent to meet this
additional requirement for half of
parents of chronically absent children
(because parents of the other half of
these children would receive other
direct contact), which would result in a
monetized opportunity cost of $455,721.
These opportunity costs will be realized
in year one. However, as discussed
above, we expect these activities will
reduce the number of parents of
frequently and chronically absent
children over time. Therefore, we
estimate an opportunity cost of
$410,149 in year two, $364,577 in year
three $319,005 in year four, $273,433 in
year five and $227,861 in year six and
on an ongoing basis thereafter.
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
61386
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
HOME VISITS FOR FREQUENTLY ABSENT CHILDREN: COSTS BORNE BY HEAD START
National
survey
proxy
%
Program type
Estimated
number of
additional
HVs
FE
Estimated
cost of all
potential
additional
HVs
Avg. wage/
2 hours
Estimated
cost of
additional
HVs
provided
HS ....................................................................................
EHS ..................................................................................
5.6
17
874,604
81,649
48,978
13,880
$30.70
25.33
$1,503,625
351,580
$751,812
175,790
Total ..........................................................................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
927,603
Year 1
2016/2017
Year 2
2017/2018
Year 3
2018/2019
Year 4
2019/2020
Year 5
2020/2021
Reduction Over Time .......................................................
$927,603
$934,842
$742,082
$649,322
Year 6
2021/2022
$556,562
$463,801
HOME VISITS FOR FREQUENTLY ABSENT CHILDREN: OPPORTUNITY COSTS
Hourly wage
forgone
Total number of parents
Estimated cost
for all parents
Number of
hours
Estimated cost
for parents
receiving HV
62,858 ..............................................................................................................
$7.25
2
$911,441
$455,721
Total ..........................................................................................................
........................
........................
........................
455,721
Year 3
2018/2019
Year 4
2019/2020
Year 5
2020/2021
Year 1
2016/2017
Year 2
2017/2018
Reduction Over Time ...............................
$455,721
Parent Contact for Unexpectedly Absent
Children
we assumed that 10 percent of children
would be absent on any given day,
which is 91,216 children when applied
to the funded enrollment number for
Head Start and Early Head Start
programs. Then we found the
proportion of Head Start children who
would be absent each day (83.8% or
76,439), and the proportion of Early
Head Start children who would be
absent each day (16.2% or 14,777). We
further assumed one-quarter of these
children, 19,110 in Head Start and 3,694
in Early Head Start, would be
unexpectedly absent or that their parent
would not contact the program within
an hour to report the absence that day.
To estimate the cost of making phone
calls, we assume 5 minutes of
administrative staff or family service
worker time per phone call resulting in
1,592 hours of staff time per day across
all Head Start programs and 308 hours
The rule includes a new provision in
§ 1302.16 that requires programs to
attempt to contact parents if they have
not notified the program that their
children will be absent. This
requirement will ensure child safety and
facilitate more consistent attendance for
all children. The NPRM included a
similar requirement, though the
requirement in the final rule has been
revised in response to comments.
However, the Regulatory Impact
Analysis in the NPRM did not account
for costs associated with this
requirement. In response to comments,
we estimated the costs associated with
contacting parents when they have not
notified the program that their children
will be absent in this section. In order
to estimate the cost of this requirement,
$410,149
$364,577
$319,005
$273,433
Year 6
2021/2022
$227,861
of staff time per day across all Early
Head Start programs. As a proxy for the
hourly wage of this staff person, we
averaged the hourly wage of Head Start
and Early Head Start assistant teachers
($11.72). Then we estimate the cost
associated with this provision per day to
be this hourly wage multiplied by the
number of hours of staff time, which is
$18,650 for Head Start programs and
$3,608 for Early Head Start programs.
Finally, in order to estimate the cost of
this provision annually, we multiplied
the cost per day by the average number
of days currently provided by Head
Start (146.8) for a cost of $2,737,861 per
year in Head Start, and by the average
number of days currently provided by
Early Head Start (222.364) for a cost of
$802,338 per year in Early Head Start.
Finally, we summed these costs for a
total cost per year across all programs of
$3,540,199.
PARENT CONTACT FOR UNEXPECTEDLY ABSENT CHILDREN
Number of
unexpectedly
absent
children
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Number of
absent
children
Hours of
staff time
(5 mins per
call)
Cost per day
Cost per year
Head Start ............................................................................
Early Head Start ..................................................................
76,439
14,777
19,110
3,694
1,592
308
$18,650
3,608
$2,737,861
802,338
Total ..............................................................................
........................
........................
........................
........................
3,540,199
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00094
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Staff Quality Provisions
This rule also includes several
provisions to improve the quality of
staff in Head Start and Early Head Start
programs. Specifically, we analyzed
costs associated with the following
requirements: Minimum of associate’s
degree for all Head Start teachers in
§ 1302.91(e)(2)(ii); minimum of CDA or
equivalent credential for all home
visitors in § 1302.91(e)(6)(i); credentials
for newly hired family services workers
in § 1302.91(e)(7); credentials for newly
hired management staff in
§ 1302.91(d)(1)(i); and mentor coaching
in § 1302.92(d).
Associate’s Degree (AA) for Head Start
Teachers
The Act detailed new degree
requirements for all Head Start teachers.
Specifically, 648A(a)(3)(B) of the Act
codified a minimum requirement that
all Head Start teachers have at least an
associate’s degree. While progress
towards meeting this requirement has
been substantial, according to PIR data,
a small percentage of Head Start
teachers in 2015 (4.2%) did not have
such a degree. In this rule, we added
this requirement into the staff
qualifications section of the
performance standards in
§ 1302.91(e)(2)(ii). Given that some
teachers do not have the minimum
degree, we estimated the cost associated
61387
with this requirement by finding the
respective differences in average salaries
for teachers with no credential and
teachers with a Child Development
Associate (CDA), compared to teachers
with associate’s degrees. We then
multiplied the number of teachers who
currently have no credential or the
number of teachers who currently have
only a CDA by the additional salary for
each group. Finally, we increased the
estimated salary for these teachers by
one-third to account for fringe benefits
(we assumed no additional overhead
costs). Using this method, we estimate
the total cost for Head Start programs to
meet this requirement to be
$10,472,585. These costs will be
realized in year one and annually
thereafter.
ASSOCIATE’S DEGREE FOR HEAD START TEACHERS: COSTS BORNE BY HEAD START
Salary
differential
(between
current and
AA)
Current credential
Inflated for
fringe
Number of
teachers
Cost of
additional
salary after
obtaining AA
CDA .................................................................................................................
None ................................................................................................................
$4,535
3,426
$6,032
4,557
1,314
559
$7,925,457
2,547,128
Total ..........................................................................................................
........................
........................
........................
10,472,585
based curriculum and ensure children
served in this model receive highquality learning experiences. Because
our current PIR data does not
differentiate between credential types
for home visitor salaries, we used a
proxy of the differential percentage of
salary for teachers with associate’s
degrees compared to teachers with
CDAs. We then applied this differential
percentage to the average home visitor’s
salary to estimate the increase in salary
for home visitors who would obtain a
Home-Visiting Child Development
Associate for Home Visitors
In this rule, we also propose to
require that all home visitors have, at a
minimum, a home-based CDA
credential or equivalent in
§ 1302.91(e)(6)(i). This change will
ensure that all home visitors are
equipped with the critical content
knowledge offered through a homebased CDA that will support their
competency to implement a research-
CDA which is $6,029 when inflated by
one-third to account for fringe benefits
(we assumed no additional overhead
costs). Finally, we multiplied this
additional salary by the number of home
visitors who currently have no
credential. This approach gives us an
estimate of the total cost of requiring
higher credentials for home visitors.
Using this method, we estimate the total
cost of meeting this new requirement to
be $5,112,499.
HOME-VISITING CDA: COSTS BORNE BY HEAD START
Current credential
Proportion
of salary
differential
(Teachers:
CDA to AA)
None .........................................................
14.91%
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Credential for New Family Service
Workers
The final rule includes a requirement
in § 1302.91(e)(7) for new family
services staff who work directly with
families on the family partnership
process to earn a credential in family
services within 18 months of hire. In
order to calculate the cost associated
with this requirement, we found the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
Avg. HV salary
Additional
salary
Salary inflated
for fringe
Number of
HVs w/o any
credential
Cost of
additional
salary for
credentialed
HVs
$30,397
$4,533
$6,029
848
$5,112,499
number of family services staff who
currently do not have a credential or
higher qualification (6,196) and
assumed that approximately half of all
family service workers work directly
with families on the family partnership
process for an estimate of 3,098 staff
members whose replacement would
need to earn a credential if the current
worker left their job. We then calculated
PO 00000
Frm 00095
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
an estimate of new staff who would
need to earn a credential by applying
the average turnover rate of 17 percent
for teachers and home visitors as a
proxy (because we do not have data on
turnover of family services staff) for an
annual estimate of 542 staff turning
over. Then we assumed the average cost
for each staff person to get the necessary
credential within 18 months would be
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
61388
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
$1,013, based on an average of costs for
common family development
credentials. Therefore, we estimate the
cost of this provision at $549,046
annually. Given the difficulty, programs
may face in the future finding staff that
already have this credential, we have
assumed this cost will be an ongoing
annual cost. Therefore, these costs will
be realized in year one and annually
thereafter.
CREDENTIAL FOR NEW FAMILY SERVICE WORKERS: COSTS BORNE BY HEAD START
Number of family service workers w/o credential
Proportion of
staff working
directly on
family
partnerships
Estimated
turnover
rate
Total staff
affected
annually
Cost of
credential
Total
estimated
cost
6,196 ....................................................................................
3,098
17%
542
$1,013
$549,046
Bachelor’s Degree for New Management
Staff
In response to comments described in
the preamble of this rule, the final rule
includes a requirement in
§ 1302.91(d)(1) that newly hired staff
who oversee health, disabilities, and
family support services must have a
bachelor’s degree (BA). If a grantee
assigns a separate area manager for each
of these three service areas, it would
result in three additional managers
being required to hold a BA or higher.
However, it is currently common
practice for programs to assign the
duties associated with the oversight of
two service areas to a single manager.
We assume that half of programs assign
oversight of disabilities services to their
Education Coordinator (who is already
required to have a BA), which would
lead to two managers (one for health
and one for family support services)
needing to possess BAs, and that half of
programs would assign oversight of
disabilities and family services or health
to a single manager. Therefore, we
estimate that two managers at each
program will need to possess BAs to
meet this requirement.
We then estimated the number of
supervisors or management staff
affected by the requirement who do not
currently have a BA. We used data from
the PIR on the education level of family
services supervisors because we do not
collect data on the educational
attainment of other service area
managers. Data indicate that 1,255
family services supervisors do not have
a B.A. or higher. This estimate was then
doubled based on the calculations and
assumptions above for an estimate of
2,510 supervisory staff who do not
currently have a B.A. or higher. Because
we do not have turnover information on
management staff, we then applied the
average turnover rate for teachers and
home visitors (17 percent) as a proxy, to
the number of service managers without
a B.A., in order to estimate the total
number of managers without a BA that
would turn-over each year (accounting
for those who acquired a BA in prior
years, through year ten).
Then, in order to determine the
anticipated salary increase for managers
with a B.A,, we averaged the current
salaries for family services, health, and
disabilities managers from the PIR
($44,583) and found the difference
between this salary and the average
salary of education coordinators
($50,252) who are currently required to
have a B.A. to estimate the average
increase in salary for new managers
with a B.A. ($5,669). We then inflated
this additional salary by one-third to
account for fringe benefits (we assumed
no additional overhead) which is
$7,540. We then applied this difference
to the number of staff affected annually.
Further, we applied the average
proportion of management staff salaries’
borne by Head Start (67.8%) to find the
cost borne by Head Start and the cost
borne by other parties in years one
through ten.
BACHELOR’S DEGREE FOR NEW MANAGEMENT STAFF: COSTS BORNE BY HEAD START AND BY OTHER PARTIES
Inflated for other
service areas (2)
Family service supervisors without BA or higher
1,255 ........................................................................................................
2,510
Cost to society
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Year
Year
Year
Year
Year
Year
Year
Year
Year
Year
1 ......................................................................................................
2 ......................................................................................................
3 ......................................................................................................
4 ......................................................................................................
5 ......................................................................................................
6 ......................................................................................................
7 ......................................................................................................
8 ......................................................................................................
9 ......................................................................................................
10 ....................................................................................................
Mentor Coaching
In this rule, we require programs to
have a system of professional
development in place that includes an
intensive coaching strategy for teachers.
As described in further detail in the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
Frm 00096
Fmt 4701
17%
Costs borne by HS
$3,219,482
5,865,941
8,135,412
10,027,894
11,543,388
12,870,387
13,820,398
14,770,409
15,524,386
16,089,869
discussion of the rule for § 1302.92(d),
this change will ensure teaching staff
receive effective professional
development, based on a growing body
of research demonstrating the
effectiveness of intensive professional
PO 00000
Estimated annual
turnover rate
Sfmt 4700
$2,182,809
3,977,108
5,515,809
6,798,912
7,826,417
8,726,123
9,370,230
10,014,338
10,525,534
10,908,931
Estimated increase
in salary
$7,540
Costs borne by other
parties
$1,036,673
1,888,833
2,619,603
3,228,982
3,716,971
4,144,265
4,450,168
4,756,072
4,998,852
5,180,938
development for improving teacher
practices in early care and education
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
61389
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
settings 157 158 159 and research
demonstrating that such strategies
support improved teacher practice in
the classroom and an increase in
classroom quality.160 161 This provision
also gives programs some flexibility to
identify the education staff that would
benefit most from this form of intensive
professional development and direct
their efforts accordingly.
There are various ways that programs
can secure the services of mentor
coaches in order to meet this
requirement. For example, grantees
could hire a full-time mentor coach(es),
mentor coaches could work part time in
multiple programs, or geographically
defined consortiums could be created to
enable grantees to access the services of
mentor coaches. However, for the
purposes of this estimate, we use a
caseload of one coach per 15 teachers or
teaching teams, and an overall salary
comparable to that of an education
manager ($50,252 from PIR), doubled for
fringe benefits and overhead, which is
estimated at $100,504 for each mentor
coach. We assumed a caseload of 15
teachers based on a review of the
literature that suggests caseloads vary
across coaching models but that fulltime coaches, on average, usually
reported caseloads ranging from 13 to
22, though some coaches had much
higher or much lower
caseloads.162 163 164 We then calculated
the total number of mentor coaches
needed to support all education staff by
using 62,495 teachers (the number of
lead Head Start and Early Head Start
teachers) as a proxy for the total number
of teachers and teaching teams that
would receive mentor coaching. We
estimated the cost of providing 4,238
coaches for 63,566 teachers or teaching
teams at $425,935,952. We then assume
that programs will utilize their
flexibility to identify education staff or
teaching teams who would most benefit
from this type of professional
development. We believe that while the
proportion of teachers and teaching
teams receiving coaching will vary by
program, overall this will result in
approximately one-third of teaching
staff receiving intensive coaching on
average. Therefore, our final estimate for
the cost of the requirement is
$141,978,651.
Given the lack of data regarding the
quality and scope of coaching strategies
programs may currently be using, we do
not give any credit for programs that
may already utilize mentor coaches in
this estimate. Further, we acknowledge
that this estimate may be an
underestimate if Congress appropriates
the necessary additional funds to
support increased duration of Head
Start and Early Head Start programs
because additional teaching staff will
need to be hired to support the
transition of double session slots to full
school day and full school year slots.
We estimate that an additional 3,906
teachers would need to be hired to
transition all programs from double
sessions, which would be associated
with an additional cost of $8,723,452
and a new total cost of $150,702,102.
However, this estimate may be an
overestimate if the rule is fully
implemented without additional
funding and the Secretary does not
exercise the discretion to reduce the
duration requirements because the
number of teachers would not increase.
Therefore, a reasonable assumption for
calculating this estimate is to use the
status quo as the basis of the total
number of education staff who may
receive mentor coaching.
These costs will be realized in year
two and annually thereafter.
MENTOR COACHING: COSTS BORNE BY HEAD START
Mentor coach salary, fringe and overhead
Number of
teachers and
FCC providers
Number of
coaches
Estimate for
all teachers
$100,504 ..........................................................................................................
63,566
4,238
$425,935,952
Curriculum and Assessment Provisions
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
This rule includes several provisions
to improve curriculum and assessments.
We analyzed costs associated with the
following specific requirements:
Improving curriculum in
§ 1302.32(a)(1); monitoring the fidelity
of curriculum implementation in
§ 1302.32(a)(2); language assessment in
home language and English for all dual
language learners in § 1302.33(c)(2), and
opportunities for parents to participate
157 Buysse, V., & Wesley, P.W. (2005).
Consultation in Early Childhood Settings.
Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing.
158 Tout, K., Halle, T., Zaslow, M., & Starr, R.
(2009). Evaluation of the Early Childhood Educator
Professional Development Program: Final Report:
Report prepared for the U.S. Department of
Education.
159 Zaslow, M., Tout, K., Halle, T., Vick, J., &
Lavelle, B. (2010). Towards the identification of
features of effective professional development for
early childhood educators: A review of the
literature. Report prepared for the U.S. Department
of Education.
160 Isner, T., Tout, K., Zaslow, M., Soli, M.,
Quinn, K., Rothenberg, L., & Burkhauser, M. (2011).
Coaching in early care and education programs and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
in a parenting curriculum in
§ 1302.51(b). We analyzed savings
associated with the removal of Head
Start designed IEPs from part 1308 of
the previous standards.
Estimate for
⁄ of teachers
13
$141,978,651
In this rule, we include several
provisions intended to improve the
quality of curricula that programs select
in § 1302.32(a)(1). Specifically, these
new provisions will require programs to
critically analyze the curricula they use
to determine whether they are
appropriately aligned with and
sufficiently content-rich to support
growth in the domains outlined in the
Head Start Early Learning Outcomes
Framework: Ages Birth to Five. This
change will ensure all programs select
and implement curricula with the key
qualities that research suggests are
critical to promoting child outcomes.165
166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 For some
Quality Rating and Improvement Systems (QRIS):
Identifying promising features. Child Trends.
161 Lloyd, C.M., & Modlin, E.L. (2012). Coaching
as a key component in teachers’ professional
development: Improving classroom practices in
Head Start settings. Administration for Children
and Families.
162 Howard, E.C., Rankin, V.E., Fishman, M.,
Hawkinson, L.E., McGroder, S.M., Helsel, F.K., et
al. (2013). The Descriptive Study of the Head Start
Early Learning Mentor Coach Initiative. OPRE
Report #2014–5a; Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services, Administration for
Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research
and Evaluation.
163 Isner, Tout, Zaslow, Soli, Quinn, Rothenberg
and Burkhauser (2011). Coaching in Early Care and
Education Programs and Quality Rating and
Improvement Systems (QRIS): Identifying
Promising Features.www.childtrends.org/wp.../
2011-35CoachingQualityImprovement.pdf.
164 Yoshikawa, H., Weiland, C., Brooks-Gunn, J.,
Burchinal, M.R., Espinosa, L.M., Gormley, W.T.,
. . . & Zaslow, M.J. (2013). Investing in our future:
The evidence base on preschool education. Ann
Arbor, MI: Society for Research in Child
Development.
165 Clements, D.H., & Sarama, J. (2008).
Experimental Evaluation of the Effects of a
Research-Based Preschool Mathematics Curriculum.
American Educational Research Journal, 45(2),
443–494.
Improving Curriculum
PO 00000
Frm 00097
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
Continued
06SER2
61390
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
programs, these new provisions may
require purchasing new curricula, or
purchasing curricular add-ons or
enhancements.
In order to estimate the cost
associated with these provisions, we
assumed that education managers
would need to allocate an additional
thirty hours of analysis and planning
time. We estimated the average hourly
rate from the average annual salary of
education managers and determined the
total cost per manager for thirty hours.
We then multiplied the cost by the total
number of all programs to find a total
cost to society of $1,477,847. We then
number of programs by the average cost
of an enhancement to estimate its total
cost ($12,114,000). We then summed the
cost of managerial time and curricular
enhancements ($13,591,847). Since
most licensing will be for three years,
we assumed grantees will conduct a
curriculum assessment process every
three years and divided the cost by
three. This results in an estimated
annual cost of improving curriculum of
$4,530,616, and the annual cost borne
by Head Start is $4,390,220 with an
annual cost borne by other parties of
$140,396. These costs will be realized in
year two and annually thereafter.
found the cost borne by Head Start
($1,056,660) by applying the proportion
of education manager salaries borne by
Head Start funds of 71.5 percent, and
then found the cost borne by other
parties ($421,187). In addition, we
estimated the cost of a curricular
enhancement to be $4,500 for a three
year multi-site license. We know that
most programs routinely upgrade their
curriculum or purchase a new
curriculum. For this cost estimate, we
assumed an average of two-thirds of
programs (1,346) would identify the
need to purchase additional curricular
enhancements, and multiplied that
IMPROVING CURRICULUM: COSTS BORNE BY HEAD START AND BY OTHER PARTIES
Avg. ed
manager
salary
$50,252
Avg. cost of
enhancement
Curricular Enhancement ......................
Number of
programs
$724.79
Number of
programs
$9,000
Estimated cost
to society
Costs borne by
Head Start
Costs borne by
other parties
$1,477,847
$1,056,660
$421,187
Estimated cost
to society
Additional Staff Time ............................
Cost of 30
hours
Costs borne by
Head Start
Costs borne by
other parties
2,039
66% of
programs
2,039
Estimated cost
to society
1,346
$12,114,000
Total ..............................................
........................
........................
........................
$13,591,847
$13,170,660
$421,187
Annual Total ..........................
........................
........................
........................
4,530,616
4,390,220
140,396
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Monitoring Fidelity of Curriculum
Implementation
In addition to the curriculum quality
requirements described in the previous
section, this rule also requires in
§ 1302.32(a)(2) that programs provide
adequate supervision and regular
monitoring of curriculum use to ensure
effective curriculum implementation,
which is critical to reaping the benefits
of using high quality curricula described
above. 174 175
In order to estimate the cost
associated with this provision, we
researched the cost of curriculum
fidelity kits, which help programs assess
how well their teachers are
implementing a particular curricula
through planned activities. At present,
few curricula offer such a kit. However,
based on those that are available, we
assessed the average cost of an
implementation tool kit at $50. We then
multiplied that estimate by the number
of programs to find the total cost of this
provision. We did not estimate
additional staff time, because
monitoring and staff supervision was
required in the previous rule and
individualization of this information is
included in our mentor coaching
estimate. Using this method, we
estimate the cost of fidelity tools for all
programs to be $101,950. However, in
response to comments, we modified the
requirement in the final rule to provide
additional flexibility for programs to
determine how well their curriculum is
being implemented. Therefore, we
assume approximately one-third of
programs will use a fidelity tool and
estimate the total cost of this
requirement to be $33,983. These costs
will be realized in year two and
annually thereafter.
166 Starkey, P., Klein, A., & Wakeley, A. (2004).
Enhancing young children’s mathematical
knowledge through a pre-kindergarten mathematics
intervention. Special issue on Early Learning in
Math and Science, 19(1), 99–120.
167 Bierman, K.L., Domitrovich, C.E., Nix, R.L.,
Gest, S.D., Welsh, J.A., Greenberg, M.T., . . . Gill,
S. (2008). Promoting Academic and SocialEmotional School Readiness: The Head Start REDI
Program. Child Development, 79(6), 1802–1817.
168 Clements, D.H. (2007). Curriculum research:
Toward a framework for ‘‘Research-based
Curricula’’. Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education, 38(1), 35–70.
169 Fantuzzo, J.W., Gadsden, V.L., & McDermott,
P.A. (2011). An integrated curriculum to improve
mathematics, language, and literacy for Head Start
children. American Educational Research Journal,
48, 763–793.
170 Lonigan, C.J., Farver, J.M., Phillips, B.M., &
Clancy-Menchetti, J. (2011). Promoting the
development of preschool children’s emergent
literacy skills: A randomized evaluation of a
literacy-focused curriculum and two professional
development models. Reading and Writing, 24,
305–337.
171 Preschool Curriculum Evaluation Research
Consortium (2008). Effects of preschool curriculum
programs on school readiness (NCER 2008–2009).
Washington, DC: National Center for Education
Research, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S.
Department of Education. Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office.
172 Wasik, B.A., Bond, M.A., & Hindman, A.H.
(2006). The effects of a language and literacy
intervention on Head Start children and teachers.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 63–74.
173 Riggs, N.R., Greenberg, M.T., Kusche, C.A., &
´
Pentz, M.A. (2006). The mediational role of
neurocognition in the behavioral outcomes of a
social-emotional prevention program in elementary
school students: Effects of the PATHS curriculum.
Prevention Science, 7, 91–102.
174 Lieber, J., Butera, G., Hanson, M., Palmer, S.,
Horn, E., Czaja, C., . . . & Odom, S. (2009).
Factors that influence the implementation of a new
preschool curriculum: Implications for professional
development. Early Education and Development,
20(3), 456–481.
175 Landry, S.H., Anthony, J.L., Swank, P.R., &
Monseque-Bailey, P. (2009). Effectiveness of
comprehensive professional development for
teachers of at-risk preschoolers. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 101(2), 448.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00098
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
61391
MONITORING FIDELITY OF CURRICULUM IMPLEMENTATION: COSTS BORNE BY HEAD START
Avg. cost of implementation tool kit
Number of
programs
Estimated cost
for all programs
Estimated cost
of requirement
$50 .......................................................................................................................
2,039
$101,950
$33,983
Assessments for Dual Language Learners
In this rule, we also codify best
practice in assessing dual language
learners (DLL) in § 1302.33(c)(2) by
requiring programs to administer
language assessments to dual language
learners in both English and their home
language, as needed, either directly or
through interpreters. These
requirements will ensure that screening
and assessment data is collected in both
languages to ensure a more complete
understanding of these children’s
knowledge, skills and abilities.176 In
order to estimate the costs associated
with this proposal, we first determined
the number of DLLs across Head Start
and Early Head Start by assuming all
children who speak a language other
than English in the home are DLLs. We
then determined the proportion of DLL
children who speak Spanish in the
home and the number of children who
speak other languages. For the purposes
of this estimate, we assume that all
DLLs who speak Spanish in the home
will receive a direct assessment in
Spanish, and for all DLLs who speak
any language other than Spanish in the
home will be assessed through an
interpreter. For Spanish-speaking DLLs
(265,209 children), we assumed the
average cost of a Spanish-language
assessment tool-kit (using the most
frequently reported assessment as our
proxy) is $200 and the average cost per
pack of 25 assessment forms is $50. We
determined the total number of tool-kits
needed by finding the number of
programs serving at least one Spanishspeaking child (1,651). We determined
the number of packs of assessment
forms needed by dividing the total
number of Spanish-speaking children by
25 (10,610). We then multiplied the cost
of the tool-kit by the number of
programs and the cost of the assessment
forms by the number of children and
summed them to find the total cost of
this provision for children who can be
directly assessed. For DLLs speaking
languages other than Spanish (56,658
children), we found the average hourly
rate for an interpreter from the Bureau
of Labor Statistics and assumed two
hours for each assessment. Finally, we
doubled this hourly wage to account for
fringe and overhead ($46.08) even
though we assume that programs will
utilize the services of interpreters on a
case-by-case basis rather than
employing them as program staff. We
then multiplied that cost by the number
of non-Spanish-speaking DLLs to find
the cost of this provision for children
who need to be assessed through an
interpreter. Finally, we summed these
two estimates to produce a total cost
estimate for the provision: $3,471,519.
These costs will be realized in year two
and annually thereafter.
ASSESSMENTS FOR DUAL LANGUAGE LEARNERS: COSTS BORNE BY HEAD START
Avg. cost of Spanish
assessment
Type of DLL
Spanish-speaking .................................................
Avg. cost of
25 forms
$200
Avg. hourly wage
for interpreter
inflated for fringe
and overhead
$50
Cost/
assessment
Other ....................................................................
$46.08
........................................
Removal of Head Start-Specific IEPs
In § 1302.33(a)(3) of the NPRM, we
explicitly stated Head Start programs
were not required to perform initial
developmental screenings for children
who enter the program with a current
IEP or IFSP. However, in response to
public comments expressing concern
about this provision, it has been
removed from the final rule and we
have reinstated the existing requirement
that programs must perform initial
developmental screenings for all
children, including those with a current
IEP or IFSP. Therefore, we do not have
estimates associated with this provision.
The reauthorization of the Head Start
Act in 2007 removed previously held
authority for Head Start programs to
create their own IEPs for children with
disabilities. As a result, no programs
currently create their own IEPs for
children. Prior to 2007, Head Start
programs frequently created such IEPs
at great cost to programs. In accordance
with OMB Circular A–4, we estimate the
cost/savings associated with all new
provisions in this final rule, including
the removal of this authority and the
extensive regulatory requirements that
accompany it in part 1308 of the
previous rule.
176 Barrueco, S., Lopez, M., Ong, C., & Lozano, P.
(2012). Assessing Spanish-English bilingual
56,658
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00099
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Estimated cost
$860,700
Estimated cost
$5,221,638
6,082,338
In order to estimate the savings
associated with the removal of these
provisions, we first estimated the
number of children in the 2004–2005
program year whose IEP was created by
Head Start, which was the last year in
which the PIR collected this data. PIR
data from that year indicate 14,758
children had IEPs but were not eligible
for services under IDEA. We assumed, at
a minimum, that the IEPs for all of these
children were created through the Head
Start process. In order to estimate the
cost of an IEP, we first assumed 2 hours
of staff time for both the Education
Manager and the Disabilities
Coordinator. We also assumed 4 hours
preschoolers: A guide to best approaches and
measures. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
10,610
Number of children
........................
Screenings for Children With IEPs and
IFSPs
Number of
form packs
1,651
$92.16
Total ..............................................................
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Number of
programs
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
61392
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
cost per IEP to be $2,500 on average. We
multiplied this cost by the number of
IEPs and then added it to the estimated
cost of staff time to determine our total
cost savings to Head Start for this policy
change at $41,180,576. The entire cost
savings associated with the removal of
of Special Education Specialist
consultant work, at $50 per hour on
average. We then multiplied this staff
time by the number of IEPs. We also
researched the cost of a multidisciplinary evaluation and estimated,
based on a sample of state estimates, the
Head Start-specific IEPs is considered a
transfer, because these costs will be
borne by other parties, leading to a net
cost to society of zero dollars. The
transfer of these costs will be realized in
year one and annually thereafter.
REMOVAL OF HEAD START-SPECIFIC IEPS: COST SAVINGS TO HEAD START AND TRANSFER COST
Cost/hour
for staff
Staff/Consultant Time ..............................
Cost of
consultation
$90.39
$200
Cost of evaluation
Multi-disciplinary Evaluation .....................
Number
of IEPs
14,758
Number
of IEPs
$2,500
Cost savings
borne by
head start
$4,285,576
Cost savings
borne by
head start
Transfer cost
Net cost
to society
$4,285,576
Transfer cost
$0
Net cost
to society
14,758
Parenting Curriculum
This rule includes a requirement in
§ 1302.51(b) that programs provide
parents with opportunities to participate
in a parenting curriculum. The NPRM
proposed this requirement but the
Regulatory Impact Analysis in the
NPRM did not account for any costs
associated with the requirement. We
have added this cost estimate in
response to comments that suggested we
$36,895,000
$0
........................
Total ..................................................
$36,895,000
41,180,576
41,180,576
0
should acknowledge the costs
associated with providing these
opportunities to parents here.
In order to estimate the costs
associated with this provision, we
researched the cost of parenting
curricula online and found an average
cost of $1,087 for program-level
materials and $14.25 per parent booklet.
We then estimated that programs would
provide opportunities such that onethird of parents would participate in a
parenting curriculum, which assuming
one parent per child is 318,751 parent
participants. We then found the total
program-level cost to be $2,216,393 and
the total parent-level cost to be
$4,542,202, for a total cost of
$6,758,595. However, given recent
data 177 that suggests that 41% of Head
Start and Early Head Start parents
already participate in parenting classes,
we reduce this estimate by 40% for a
total cost of $4,055,157.
PARENTING CURRICULUM
Number of
programs
Average cost
per parent
Participating
parents
(one-third)
$1,087 ..............................................................................................................
Reduced by 40% .............................................................................................
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Average program-level cost of curriculum
2,039
........................
$14.25
........................
318,751
........................
Administrative/Managerial Provisions
This rule includes several provisions
to improve important managerial and
administrative responsibilities, and to
reduce unnecessary administrative
burden. We analyzed costs associated
with the following specific
requirements: Memoranda of
understanding in § 1302.53(b)(1);
background checks in § 1302.90(b);
mediation and arbitration of disputes
between the governing body and policy
council in § 1301.6; data management
requirements in § 1302.53(b)(2) and (3),
participation in Quality Rating
Improvement Systems and participation
in State longitudinal data systems in
§ 1302.53. We analyzed savings
associated with the following specific
requirements: Removal of annual audits;
removal of delegate appeal process at
the federal level; clarification of the
facilities application process in
§ 1303.40; revision of community needs
assessment in § 1302.11(b)(1); and
revision of managerial planning in
§ 1302.101(b).
177 Auger, A. (2015). Child Care and Community
Services: Characteristics of Service Use and Effects
on Parenting and the Home Environment, Ph.D.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
Memoranda of Understanding (MOU)
This rule includes a new requirement
that programs establish formal
agreements with the local entity
responsible for publicly funded
preschool in § 1302.32. This change
reflects a provision of the Act that
requires MOUs and has been in effect
since 2008. Nonetheless, per the OMB
Circular Requirements for Regulatory
Impact Analysis, we must estimate the
costs associated with the provision, as
PO 00000
Frm 00100
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Total cost
$6,758,595
4,055,157
though no programs have implemented
the statutory change.
In order to estimate the costs
associated with meeting this new
requirement, we first estimated that
establishing an MOU with such entities
will require approximately 2 hours of
management time, based on grantee
experience implementing similar
MOUs. To estimate the cost of that time,
we multiplied the average hourly salary
of all management positions by 2. We
then multiplied that cost by the total
number of programs. Using this method,
we estimated the total cost associated
with this requirement to be $90,185. We
then estimated the proportion of the
estimated cost borne by Head Start by
applying the average proportion of these
management wages borne by Head Start
dissertation. University of California-Irvine School
of Education.
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
(68.2 percent), and found $61,506 is
borne by Head Start and the remaining
$28,679 is borne by other parties. This
may be an over-estimate of cost given
that one purpose of the MOU is to better
coordinate and share local resources,
61393
which may lead to savings, associated
with implementation of the MOU. These
costs will be realized in year one only.
MEMORANDA OF UNDERSTANDING: COSTS BORNE BY HEAD START AND BY OTHER PARTIES
Avg. wage for 2 hours of management time
Avg. cost of
wage borne
by Head Start
Number of
programs
Estimated
total cost
Costs borne
by Head Start
Costs borne
by other
parties
$44.23 ..................................................................................
$30.23
2,039
$90,185
$61,506
$28,679
Criminal Background Checks
This rule includes two new
provisions that strengthen the
requirements programs currently must
meet with regard to criminal
background checks for staff in
§ 1302.90(b). These changes will
provide alignment across federal
programs about the importance and key
characteristics of comprehensive
background checks, which are critical to
ensuring child safety in all early care
and education settings. Specifically, the
first provision requires programs
perform both a state and FBI criminal
background check on all new employees
prior to hire, whereas the previous rule
only required programs to perform one
of the two checks. The second provision
requires programs to renew criminal
background checks for all employees
once every five years. The FBI estimates
the average cost of a criminal
background check is $30. The cost of
state background checks varies
significantly, with some states charging
more than $30. However, some states
cover costs of the checks for early care
providers and other states reduce costs
for a combined FBI and state check.
Therefore, we assume $50 to be the
average cost of both the FBI and state
background check, together, based on
information from the Office of Child
Care’s CCDF State Plans, in producing
our cost estimate. We also assume a $5
cost for checks of Child Abuse and
Neglect registries. The national sex
offender registry can be checked online,
free of charge.
We considered both monetary costs
and opportunity costs when estimating
the cost of the first provision. To
estimate the monetary cost of requiring
both FBI and state background checks
for new hires, we used the average
turnover rate of teachers and home
visitors from the PIR data (17 percent)
and applied it to all staff to estimate the
average number of new hires due to
turnover per year. We then multiplied
the number of new hires (36,438) by the
average cost of the FBI background
check ($30) to estimate the cost
associated with this provision
($1,275,330).
In addition to these monetary costs,
we also estimated the opportunity cost
for new employees prior to hire to meet
this requirement. This represents the
value of time (measured as forgone
earnings) of a prospective employee
during the time, they spend to complete
a background check. To calculate the
opportunity cost, we averaged the
hourly wage for a teacher and an
assistant teacher of $15.35, multiplied it
by 1.5 hours for the estimated time it
would take, and multiplied that by the
average number of new hires due to
turnover per year. We estimate the total
opportunity cost for this provision to be
$838,985.
To estimate the cost of the second
provision, we estimated the number of
staff that would need a background
check renewal every five years by
dividing the total number of staff for all
grantees by 5. Then we multiplied the
cost of a full background check ($55) by
number of staff needing a background
check renewal per year (48,584) for a
total cost of $2,672,120.
In addition, we estimated the cost
associated with administrative staff time
to process each additional background
check. To calculate this, we used the
applicable number of staff that would
need additional background checks per
year both through renewal and
additional checks as staff turnover
(85,022) and divided that number by 6
assuming each application will take
approximately 10 minutes to process.
This provided an estimate for the
number of hours that administrative
staff time to process additional
background checks (12,265) annually.
Finally, we multiplied the number of
hours by the hourly wage of an
administrative assistant, which we
assumed to be the same rate as teacher
assistants ($11.99), to estimate the total
cost of processing at $169,898.
Using this method, we estimate the
total monetary costs associated with the
background check provisions to be
$4,117,348 and the total opportunity
cost to be $838,985. These costs will be
realized in year two and annually
thereafter.
CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECKS: COSTS BORNE BY HEAD START
Avg. cost of
check
Provision
Initial Comprehensive Background Check .......................................................
5-year Renewal ................................................................................................
$35
55
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Hourly wage
Total number
of staff
242,918
242,918
Applicable
staff
Applicable
staff
36,438
48,584
Number of
hours
Estimated cost
$1,275,330
2,672,120
Estimated cost
Staff time to process checks ...........................................................................
$11.99
85,022
14,170
$169,898
Total ..........................................................................................................
........................
........................
........................
4,117,348
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00101
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
61394
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECKS: OPPORTUNITY COSTS
Estimated
time in
hours
Avg. hourly
wage
Provision
Total wage
cost
Applicable
staff
Estimated cost
FBI and State Check ...........................................................
$15.35
1.5
$23.03
36,438
$838,985
Total ..............................................................................
........................
........................
........................
........................
$838,985
Mediation and Arbitration
The rule includes a requirement in
§ 1301.6(b) and (c) that agencies unable
to resolve impasses through their own
decision-making process must
participate in a formal process of
mediation. If agencies do not reach a
resolution with a mediator, they must
pursue arbitration and the arbitrator’s
decision is final. We assume few
grantees will reach an impasse and
fewer grantees will be unable to resolve
the impasse with their own decisionmaking process. For purposes of
Association also states that arbitration
usually takes no more than two weeks.
Therefore, we assume 80 hours at $450
per hour for three programs for a total
cost of $72,000. For mediation, we
assume half the cost of arbitration (both
hourly rate ($225) and length of time (40
hours)), which is consistent with
estimates we saw elsewhere. We
assumed 20 programs would pursue
mediation for a total cost of $261,000.
The total for these two provisions is
$333,000. These costs will be realized in
year one and annually thereafter.
estimating the costs of these provisions,
we assume one percent of programs, or
20 programs, will pursue mediation—
likely an overestimate—and ten percent
of those, or 2 programs, will go on to
pursue arbitration. According to data
from the National Arbitration
Association, the costs of mediation vary
but are significantly lower than
arbitration. They cite the costs of
arbitration services range from $200 to
$700 per hour. To estimate the cost, we
average the hourly cost and assume
$450 per hour. The National Arbitration
MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION: COSTS BORNE BY HEAD START
Avg. hourly
cost
Provision
Number of
hours
Number of
programs
Estimated cost
Mediation .........................................................................................................
Arbitration .........................................................................................................
$225
$450
40
80
20
2
$261,000
72,000
Total ..........................................................................................................
........................
........................
........................
333,000
Parent Committees
This rule eliminates the separate audit
requirement for Head Start programs in
the previous standards in § 1301.12 in
favor of aligning with the Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost
Principles and Audit Requirements for
Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance, 2
CFR part 200). This change will
eliminate unnecessary burden on small
grantees and the Office of Head Start.
The Omni Circular requires a Single
Audit of entities if their total federal
expenditures exceed $750,000. As a
result of this $750,000 threshold, there
are 18 grantees that will no longer be
required to have an audit. Using an
estimate of $17,000 per audit per the
suggestion of regional grants
management staff who oversee audit
procedures, we estimate a savings of
$306,000. These costs will be realized in
year one and annually thereafter.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Removal of Annual Audits
We received comments expressing
concern about the removal of the
requirement that agencies establish
parent committees. As a result, we
restored this requirement in the final
rule. Therefore, there are no monetary or
opportunity cost savings associated with
the removal of parent committees in the
final rule.
REMOVAL OF ANNUAL AUDITS: COST
SAVINGS BORNE BY HEAD START
Cost per audit
Number of
programs
Estimated
savings
$17,000 .............
18
$306,000
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
Delegate Appeals
This rule aligns with section 641A(d)
of the Act, by only requiring grantees to
establish procedures for a delegate
agency to appeal a defunding decision,
which the Act established. As a result,
we eliminate the process by which
current delegates can appeal grantee
decisions to HHS, as outlined in
§ 1303.21. This change will eliminate
unnecessary burden on grantees and the
Office of Head Start. To estimate the
savings associated with the removal of
this process, we determined the number
of delegate appeals that have occurred
across ACF’s 12 regions over two years
(25) and then divided that number by
two to find the average number of
appeals annually (12.5). We obtained an
estimate from a grantee on the costs of
their individual appeal ($66,691) and
PO 00000
Frm 00102
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
multiplied it by two to factor in both the
cost to the grantee and the delegate
agency of the appeal process. We then
divided that total by two based on the
assumption that half of the costs are
spent on the HHS phase of the appeal,
which we removed. We then multiplied
the average cost by the average number
of appeals per year (12.5) to arrive at the
annual savings. We estimate savings of
$833,638 because of this change. These
savings will be realized in year one and
annually thereafter.
DELEGATE APPEALS: COST SAVINGS
BORNE BY HEAD START
Average savings
from removal
of HHS phase
per appeal
Number of
delegate
appeals/year
Estimated
savings
$66,691 ...............
12.5
$833,638
Clarification of Facilities Application
Process
This rule reorders the application
requirements for funds to purchase,
construct or renovate facilities to align
with typical project development in
§ 1303.40. In doing so, we anticipate
savings associated with grantees who
are likely to identify unfeasible projects
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
61395
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
more quickly prior to soliciting costly
professional advice or unnecessary
testing (e.g. environmental), referred to
as soft costs. To estimate the savings
associated with these revisions, we
assumed a per project cost for facilities
projects of $500,000, based on our
experience with facilities costs.
Since the savings would come from
the soft costs that grantees incur at the
beginning of a project—which under our
reordered application process could be
avoided for projects that grantees realize
more quickly are not fundable—we
assume that approximately 30 percent of
the average per project costs, or
$150,000 are for soft costs. Our data
systems do not capture the number of
applications for facility projects each
year, so as a proxy, we used the total
number of facilities with federal interest
for the past 11 years, which is the
timeframe for which we have data, with
that total (4,051) divided by 11 for the
number of facilities with federal interest
per year (368). Based on historical data,
we then estimate that 8 percent of the
368 facilities with federal interest (29
facilities projects) submit un-fundable
applications annually. As a result, we
then multiplied the $150,000 in
estimated soft costs by 29 projects to
determine the savings that would result
if those grantees realized the
unfeasibility of their projects earlier and
never spent those funds. We estimate
the total savings associated with these
revisions to total $4,350,000. These
costs will be realized in year one and
annually thereafter.
CLARIFICATION OF FACILITIES APPLICATION PROCESS: COST SAVINGS BORNE BY HEAD START
Avg. cost of facility project
Avg. ‘‘soft’’
costs
Facilities
with
federal
interest/year
Unfundable
facility
applications/
year
Estimated
savings
$500,000 ..................................................................................
$150,000
368
29
$4,350,000
Community Assessment
This rule also includes provisions that
change the previous requirement for
programs to conduct full community
assessments from every three years to
every five years in § 1302.11(b)(1). This
change will streamline the community
assessment process and eliminate
unnecessary burden on grantees and the
Office of Head Start. We estimated the
current cost of the community
assessment and assumed a reduction in
costs of 40 percent, based on the change
from three to five years. To determine
the average cost of a community
assessment, we incorporated grantee
feedback about both the frequency with
which they choose to perform the
assessment internally versus hiring
consultants, and the average cost, in
staff time and consultant fees,
respectively of those assessments. From
this feedback, we assumed 75 percent of
programs (1,529) perform their
community assessments using Head
Start staff, while the remaining 25
percent (510) hire consultants.
We estimated the costs associated
with Head Start staff time for 75 percent
of programs by calculating the average
hourly wage of the entire management
team (for the director, education
manager, health services manager,
family services manager and disabilities
coordinator combined), and assumed 40
hours of the entire management team’s
time to complete the assessment
($4,965). Note, this is likely an
overestimate because many programs do
not have discrete managers for each
service type. We then multiplied the
cost of these 40 hours by the number of
programs using Head Start staff to
complete their assessments for a total
estimated cost to complete the
assessment of $7,591,485. We then
divided this cost by 3 to get the previous
annual cost ($2,530,495) and by 5 to get
the new annual cost ($1,518,297) and
found the difference to determine the
total annual savings for this approach
($1,012,198).
We estimated the costs associated
with consultants for 25 percent of
programs by the average cost for a
consultant to perform the community
assessment at $6,000 and assumed an
additional 10 hours of the management
team’s time to support the completion of
the assessment ($1,241). We then
multiplied these costs by the number of
programs who choose to hire
consultants for their community
assessment for a total estimated cost to
complete the assessment of $3,692,910.
We then divided this cost by 3 to get the
previous annual cost ($1,230,970) and
by 5 to get the new annual cost
($738,582) and found the difference to
determine the total annual savings for
this approach ($492,388). Finally, we
summed the savings from these
approaches to find the estimated the
savings for this policy change to be
$1,504,586. We then applied the
proportion of management staff salaries
paid for with Head Start funds of 67.9
percent to find the total estimated
savings borne by Head Start of
$1,152,558 and the estimated savings
borne by other parties of $352,028.
These cost savings will be realized in
year one and annually thereafter.
COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT: COST SAVINGS BORNE BY HEAD START AND BY OTHER PARTIES
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Option
External:
Staff time ....................................................
Consult Time ..............................................
Internal:
Staff time ....................................................
Total ....................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Number of
programs
Cost
Jkt 238001
Previous
annual cost
Total cost
Difference
(total savings)
New annual
cost
Cost
savings
borne by
head start
Cost
savings
borne by
other
parties
$1,241
6,000
510
510
$632,910
3,060,000
$210,970
1,020,000
$126,582
612,000
$84,388
408,000
$57,324
408,000
$27,064
....................
4,965
1,529
7,591,485
2,530,495
1,518,297
1,012,198
687,234
324,964
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
1,504,586
1,152,558
352,028
PO 00000
Frm 00103
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
61396
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Managerial Planning
This rule includes two new
provisions that lessen the administrative
planning burden on programs by
reducing the number and
prescriptiveness of planning processes
that are required in § 1302.101(b).
Specifically, the first provision reduces
current planning topics from four in the
previous rule (education, health, family
and community partnerships, and
program design and management) to
two. The second provision significantly
reduces the prescriptiveness of the
disabilities services plan and as a result
significantly reduces the costs
associated with the requirement for that
planning.
In order to estimate the costs
associated with the first provision, we
assumed the four plans required in the
existing rule took approximately two
weeks of the education manager’s time
to develop. Our proposed provision
would reduce the number of required
plans by half. As a result, we assume
one week of the education manager’s
salary as cost savings for each program.
Then we multiplied this salary by the
number of programs to estimate the
savings associated with this provision.
Further, we applied the proportion of
the education manager’s salary paid for
with Head Start funds (71.5 percent) to
determine the cost savings to Head Start
and the cost savings borne by other
parties. For the second provision, we
assumed the disabilities service plan as
outlined in the previous rule took an
average of one week of the disabilities
coordinator’s time. We also assume that
the changes to this provision will result
in an 80 percent decrease in burden,
and as such, estimate the cost savings
per program to be 80 percent of the
disabilities coordinator’s average weekly
wage. We then find estimated cost
savings associated with this provision
both to Head Start and to other parties
by multiplying this amount by the total
number of programs and applying the
proportion of disabilities coordinator’s
salaries paid for with Head Start funds
(64.9 percent). Finally, we sum these
two cost savings to find the total
estimated cost savings for this policy
change to be $3,341,921, the total cost
savings borne by Head Start to be
$2,298,905, and the total cost savings
borne by other parties to be $1,043,016.
These costs will be realized in year one
and annually thereafter.
MANAGERIAL PLANNING: COST SAVINGS BORNE BY HEAD START AND BY OTHER PARTIES
Cost of
staff time/
week
Cost
Savings
per program
Number of
programs
Estimated
cost savings
Cost savings
borne by
head start
Cost savings
borne by
other
parties
Reduction of Plans ...................................
Revision of Disabilities Plan ....................
$966
841
........................
$673
2,039
2,039
$1,969,674
1,372,247
$1,408,317
890,588
$561,357
481,659
Total ..................................................
........................
........................
........................
3,341,921
2,298,905
1,043,016
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Data Management
This rule includes several new
requirements related to data
management, privacy, and data
governance in § 1302.53(b)(2) and (3),
§ 1302.101(b)(4), and part 1303, subpart
C. Specifically, these provisions require
that programs establish procedures
related to the availability, usability,
integrity, and security of data and
communicate, cooperate, and share
information among agencies and their
community partners. For the purposes
of estimating the costs of these
provisions, we focus on three major
elements: Designing and implementing
a program-wide coordinated approach
to data management and sharing data
with other programs and systems
through parental consent and
memoranda of understanding.
First, we estimated the cost to
programs of designing and
implementing a program-wide
coordinated approach to data
management. We assumed one full day
(eight hours) of planning time, using a
cumulative hourly wage of $123.81 for
management staff for all 2,039 programs.
This resulted in a cost of $2,019,589. We
then applied the proportion of
management salaries paid for with Head
Start funds (67.9 percent) to estimate the
total cost borne by Head Start and the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
costs borne by other parties for this
provision. We estimate the total cost to
Head Start to be $1,371,301 and the cost
to other parties to be $648,288.
Second, we estimated the cost of
sharing data in order to coordinate with
other programs and systems. We
assumed these costs entail costs
associated with Head Start staff time
requesting parental consent to share
data and establishing Memoranda of
Understanding (MOU). We assume that
the parental consent process would be
performed by family services workers;
however, since we do not have PIR data
on a family service worker’s hourly
wage, we averaged the hourly wage of
Head Start teachers and assistant
teachers as a proxy for the family
service worker wage ($15.35). To
calculate the cost of the parental
consent process, we further assumed
that each consent process would take 20
minutes of the family service workers’
time and divided that hourly wage by
three to arrive at the cost of each
parental consent ($5.12). Then, we
multiplied the cost per consent by the
number of parents from the PIR
(988,923), for an estimated cost of
$5,063,286.
We also estimated the cost of the
MOU process for all programs. To do so,
we averaged the hourly wages of
PO 00000
Frm 00104
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
management staff and assumed an
average of three MOUs per program. We
chose three MOUs based on the
assumption that most programs would
have an MOU with an educational
agency, a local social services agency,
and some other community partner. We
assumed two hours of a management
staff time per MOU. We used an average
hourly wage for managers of $24.76 and
multiplied it by two hours per each of
three MOUs for an estimated cost of
$148.56 per program. Then we
multiplied this cost by the total number
of programs (2,039) for an estimated cost
of $302,914 for the MOU process. We
then applied the proportion of
management salaries paid for with Head
Start funds (67.9 percent) to estimate the
total cost borne by Head Start and the
total cost borne by other parties for the
MOU process. The cost borne by Head
Start is $205,680, and the cost borne by
other parties is $97,234.
In sum, the total estimated cost of this
provision is $7,385,789, the total
estimated cost borne by Head Start is
$6,643,811, and the total estimated cost
borne by other parties is $741,978.
These costs will be realized in year two
and annually thereafter.
In addition to monetary costs, we also
estimated the opportunity cost
associated with parents’ time spent
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
completing the parental consent
process. To calculate this opportunity
cost, we use foregone wages as an
estimate for the value of parents’ time.
This represents the value of their time
when they participate in an additional
61397
according to 2015 PIR data) to meet this
requirement. Therefore, we estimate the
opportunity cost associated with this
provision to be $2,393,194. This cost
will be realized in year two and
annually thereafter.
home visit rather than working. Because
Head Start families are primarily
families from low-income backgrounds,
we used the federal minimum wage and
assumed twenty minutes of time for one
parent from each family served (988,923
DATA MANAGEMENT: COSTS BORNE BY HEAD START AND BY OTHER PARTIES
Number of
program/
families
Cost of
staff time
Total
estimated
cost
Costs borne
by head
start
Costs borne
by other
parties
Coordinated Approach .........................................................
Consent Process ..................................................................
MOU Process .......................................................................
$990.48
5.12
$148.56
2,039
988,923
2,039
$2,019,589
5,063,286
302,914
$1,374,845
5,063,286
205,680
$644,744
........................
97,234
Total ..............................................................................
........................
........................
7,385,789
6,643,811
741,978
DATA MANAGEMENT: OPPORTUNITY COST
Value of
parent time/
hour
Number of
parents
Time spent
per parent
Opportunity
cost
Consent Process .............................................................................................
$7.25
988,923
20 minutes
$914,216
Total ..........................................................................................................
........................
........................
........................
2,393,194
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Participation in Quality Rating
Improvement Systems
This rule includes a new requirement
that programs participate in their State’s
Quality Rating and Improvement
System if it meets several indicators
described in § 1302.53, including that
the State accepts Head Start monitoring
data as evidence that programs meet
requirements to be assigned a rating in
the State’s tiered system. As a result, we
estimate costs associated with both
management staff time spent
determining whether their state QRIS
meets the indicators which would
trigger participation and management
staff time spent preparing monitoring
reports and filling out paperwork to file
with the State. We also estimate a cost
to States associated with reviewing
Head Start program documentation and
assigning a rating to each program.
While we acknowledge that there may
be additional costs to Head Start and
other parties associated with Head Start
programs who seek to move up within
a state’s tiered system, for example by
opting to participate in observational
ratings such as the Early Childhood
Environmental Rating Scale (ECERS),
programs are not required to do so by
this provision and we do not have data
to support a reasonable assumption of
how many programs would choose to do
so. Therefore we have not estimated
these costs here. Further, we assume
that programs that choose to participate
in such activities to move up within a
state’s system would do so in order to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
reap benefits such as increased subsidy
reimbursement rates or access to
professional development opportunities,
which would, from the program’s
perspective, offset the costs involved.
(From the perspective of society as a
whole, changes in reimbursement
amounts are transfers, increased
resources devoted to professional
development are costs, and any
improved outcomes for Head Start
students that result from the
professional development are benefits.)
In order to calculate the costs
associated with each program
determining whether the QRIS in their
State meets the indicators, we assumed
eight hours of assessment time for the
entire management team, using a
cumulative hourly wage of $124.13 for
management staff for all 2,039 programs.
This resulted in a cost of $2,024,809. We
then applied the proportion of
management salaries paid for with Head
Start funds (67.9 percent) to estimate the
total cost borne by Head Start and the
costs borne by other parties for this
provision. We estimate the total cost to
Head Start to be $1,367,272 and the cost
to other parties to be $657,537.
Then to estimate the cost of program
participation in QRIS in states that meet
the indicators described in § 1302.53,
we first assumed that the Program
Director and the Education Manager
(whose hourly wage is a total of $59.82,
$40.28 of which is borne by Head Start
and $19.55 of which is borne by other
parties) in programs participating in
QRIS would spend 16 hours (or two full
PO 00000
Frm 00105
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
days) preparing monitoring reports and
filling out paperwork to file with the
State. This calculation results in an
estimated cost borne by Head Start of
$644.42 per program and an estimated
cost borne by other parties of $312.73
per program. Then, to estimate the cost
per year, we had to make assumptions
about what percent of programs would
be in States that meet the described in
§ 1302.53. Although we do not think
most States currently meet these
indicators, we assume that States who
want Head Start programs to participate
in QRIS will make adjustments to their
systems over time to meet the indicators
such that the Head Start performance
standards require participation.
Therefore, we assumed that 25% of
programs would participate in the first
year this requirement is in place (2017/
2018), 50% would participate five years
after the requirement is in place (2022/
2023) and that by 2025/2026 75% of
programs would participate. To estimate
the cost in each year, we multiplied the
number of programs participating (510
in 2017/2018, 1,020 in 2022/2023, and
1,529 in 2025/2026). This results in
costs borne by Head Start of $328,656 in
2017/2018, $657,311 in 2022/2023, and
$985,323 in 2025/2026; and costs borne
by other parties of $159,493 in 2017/
2018, $318,985 in 2022/2023, and
$478,165 in 2025/2026.
Then, we further assume additional
costs borne by other parties, in costs to
the State associated with reviewing
Head Start program documentation and
assigning a rating to each program. In
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
61398
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
order to estimate these costs, we
assumed 8 hours of administrative staff
time using the average hourly wage for
administrative assistants from the
Bureau of Labor Statistics 2015 data
($17.55) for a cost of $140.40 per
program participating in QRIS. We then
applied this cost per program to the
$1,695,928 in 2017/2018, $2,024,583 in
2022/2023, and $2,352,595 in 2025/
2026. Finally, the total costs associated
with meeting this requirement which
are borne by other parties are $888,598
in 2017/2018, $1,119,660 in 2022/2023,
and $1,350,409 in 2025/2026.
number of programs participating in
each year as described above to find the
cost borne by States to be $71,569 in
2017/2018, $143,138 in 2022/2023, and
$214,707 in 2025/2026.
In sum, the total costs associated with
meeting this requirement which are
borne by Head Start programs are
PARTICIPATION IN QRIS: COSTS BORNE BY HEAD START AND BY OTHER PARTIES
Cost of staff
time per
program
Number of
programs
Total
estimated
cost
Costs borne
by head
start
(67.9%)
Costs borne
by other
parties
$993.04
2,039
$2,024,809
$1,367,272
$657,537
Determining Participation .....................................................
PARTICIPATION IN QRIS: COSTS BORNE BY HEAD START AND BY OTHER PARTIES
Cost of staff
time per
program
HS Management Staff for Participating Programs .............................................................
State Administrative Staff ..................................
$957.15
$140.40
Number of
programs
2,039
2,039
Estimated cost for
25% of programs
To
Head Start
Estimated cost for
50% of programs
To
other parties
$328,656
n/a
To
Head Start
$159,493
$71,569
To
other parties
$657,311
n/a
$318,985
$143,138
Estimated cost for
75% of programs
To
Head Start
$985,323
n/a
To
other parties
$478,165
$214,707
PARTICIPATION IN QRIS: COSTS BORNE BY HEAD START AND BY OTHER PARTIES
Year 2
2017–2018
Total Costs to Head Start .........
Total Costs to Other Parties .....
$1,695,928
888,598
Year 3
2018–2019
$1,695,928
888,598
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Participation in State Longitudinal Data
Systems
This rule includes a new requirement
in § 1302.53 that programs should
participate in State longitudinal data
systems if they can participate and
benefit in a similar fashion to other
early childhood programs. As a result of
the conditions for participation to be
required, we estimate costs associated
with both management staff time spent
determining whether they should
participate in State longitudinal data
systems and qualified staff (such as a
data analyst or the Education Manager)
time spent preparing program data to be
shared with the State. We also estimate
a cost to States associated with
integrating Head Start data into the state
system. While we acknowledge that the
cost of maintaining State longitudinal
data systems can be costly to States,
there is no evidence to suggest that
States have passed these costs on to
programs that contribute their data to
the system. In this estimate, we have not
estimated costs to Head Start programs
associated with any fee for
participation. If States began to pass
these maintenance costs on to
participating programs the costs
presented below would represent an
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
Year 4
2019–2020
$1,695,928
888,598
Year 5
2020–2021
$1,695,928
888,598
Year 6
2021–2022
Year 7
2022–2023
$1,695,928
888,598
underestimate of the actual costs to
Head Start programs and an equalmagnitude overestimate of the costs to
other parties.
In order to calculate the costs
associated with each program
determining whether the to participate
in State longitudinal data systems, we
assumed four hours of assessment time
for the entire management team, using
a cumulative hourly wage of $124.13 for
management staff for all 2,039 programs.
This resulted in a cost of $1,012,404. We
then applied the proportion of
management salaries paid for with Head
Start funds (67.9 percent) to estimate the
total cost borne by Head Start and the
costs borne by other parties for this
provision. We estimate the total cost to
Head Start to be $683,636 and the cost
to other parties to be $328,768.
Then to estimate the cost of program
participation in State longitudinal data
systems, we first assumed that staff with
qualifications and a salaries equivalent
to the Education Manager, who may or
may not be the Education Manager
(whose hourly wage is a total of $24.16,
$17.27 of which is borne by Head Start
and $6.89 of which is borne by other
parties) in programs participating in
State longitudinal data systems would
spend 40 hours (or one full week)
PO 00000
Frm 00106
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Year 8
2023–2024
$2,024,583
1,119,660
$2,024,583
1,119,660
Year 9
2024–2025
$2,024,583
1,119,660
Year 10
2025–2026
$2,352,595
1,350,409
preparing program data to be shared
with the State. This calculation results
in an estimated cost borne by Head Start
of $690.97 per program and an
estimated cost borne by other parties of
$275.42 per program. Then, to estimate
the cost per year, we had to make
assumptions about what percent of
programs would participate. Given the
costly nature of maintaining State
longitudinal data systems for States, and
the scarcity of grant funds to support
these activities, we have assumed only
a small proportion of programs will be
in States who have longitudinal data
systems that meet the conditions
described in § 1302.53 the first year this
requirement is in place. Further, we
assume only modest growth in the
proportion of programs in such States
over time. Therefore, we assumed that
10% of programs would participate in
the first year this requirement is in place
(2017/2018), 20% would participate five
years after the requirement is in place
(2022/2023) and that by 2025/2026 30%
of programs would participate. To
estimate the cost in each year, we
multiplied the number of programs
participating (204 in 2017/2018, 408 in
2022/2023, and 612 in 2025/2026). This
results in costs borne by Head Start of
$140,957 in 2017/2018, $281,914 in
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
61399
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
administrative assistants from the
Bureau of Labor Statistics 2015 data
($17.55) for a cost of $70.20 per program
participating in State longitudinal data
systems. We then applied this cost per
program to the number of programs
participating in each year as described
above to find the cost borne by States to
be $14.314 in 2017/2018, $28,628 in
2022/2023, and $42,941 in 2025/2026.
2022/2023, and $422,871 in 2025/2026;
and costs borne by other parties of
$56,186 in 2017/2018, $112,371 in
2022/2023, and $168,557 in 2025/2026.
Then, we further assume additional
costs borne by other parties, in costs to
the State associated with integrating
Head Start data into the state system. In
order to estimate these costs, we
assumed 4 hours of administrative staff
time using the average hourly wage for
In sum, the total costs associated with
meeting this requirement which are
borne by Head Start programs are
$824,593 in 2017/2018, $965,550 in
2022/2023, and $1,106,507 in 2025/
2026. Finally, the total costs associated
with meeting this requirement which
are borne by other parties are $399,268
in 2017/2018, $469,767 in 2022/2023,
and $540,267 in 2025/2026.
PARTICIPATION IN STATE LONGITUDINAL DATA SYSTEMS: COSTS BORNE BY HEAD START AND BY OTHER PARTIES
Cost of
staff time
per program
Number of
programs
Total
estimated
cost
Costs borne
by head
start
(67.9%)
Costs borne
by other
parties
$496.52
2,039
$1,012,404
$683,636
$328,768
Determining Participation .....................................................
PARTICIPATION IN STATE LONGITUDINAL DATA SYSTEMS: COSTS BORNE BY HEAD START AND BY OTHER PARTIES
Cost of staff
time per
program
HS Management Staff for Participating Programs .............................................................
State Administrative Staff ..................................
$690.97
70.20
Number of
programs
2,039
2,039
Estimated cost for
10% of programs
To Head
Start
$140.957
n/a
Estimated cost for
20% of programs
To other
parties
To Head
Start
$56,186
14,314
Estimated cost for
30% of programs
To other
parties
$281,914
n/a
To Head
Start
$112,371
28,628
To other
parties
$422,871
n/a
$168,557
42,941
PARTICIPATION IN STATE LONGITUDINAL DATA SYSTEMS: COSTS BORNE BY HEAD START AND BY OTHER PARTIES
Year 2
2017–2018
Total Costs to Head Start .........
Total Costs to Other Parties .....
Year 3
2018–2019
$824,593
399,268
Year 4
2019–2020
$824,593
399,268
Implementation of Changes in the
Program Performance Standards
This rule includes numerous changes
to Head Start’s Program Performance
Standards. As a result, we have
included provisions in § 1302.103 that
require programs to develop a programwide approach to prepare for and
implement these changes, in order to
ensure their effectiveness. In order to
estimate the cost associated with these
provisions, we estimated the costs
associated with Head Start staff time by
calculating the average hourly wage of
the entire management team (for the
director, education manager, health
services manager, family services
manager, and disabilities coordinator
$824,593
399,268
Year 5
2020–2021
$824,593
399,268
Year 6
2021–2022
Year 7
2022–2023
$824,593
399,268
combined), and assumed 40 hours of the
entire management team’s time to
develop the approach ($4,965). Note,
this is likely an overestimate because
many programs do not have discrete
managers for each service type. Using
this method we estimate the total cost
of this provision at $10,123,635. We
then applied the average proportion of
management salaries paid for with Head
Start funds (67.9 percent) to estimate the
total cost borne by Head Start
($6,873,948) and the total cost borne by
other parties ($3,249,687) for planning.
Further, we expect there will be costs
associated with printing and
distribution of hardcopies of the
standards to every grantee. We estimate
the cost of printing and distribution will
Year 8
2023–2024
$965,550
469,767
Year 9
2024–2025
$965,550
469,767
Year 10
2025–2026
$965,550
469,767
$1,106,507
540,267
be $75,000, based on the cost associated
with printing and distributing the new
Head Start Early Learning Outcomes
Framework: Birth to Five, which was
similar in length and was distributed to
the same entities at a cost of $75,000.
Including this cost, the total estimated
cost of implementation planning is
$10,198,635, the cost borne by Head
Start is $6,948,948 and the cost borne by
other parties is $3,249,687. We then
divided the cost borne by Head Start
and the cost borne by other parties in
half, because we believe
implementation planning will be spread
across two years. Therefore, these costs
will be realized in years one and two
only.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING: COSTS BORNE BY HEAD START AND BY OTHER PARTIES
Hourly rate of
management
team
Cost 40 of
hours
Number of
programs
Management Time .....................
Printing and Distribution .............
$124.13
......................
$4,965
......................
2,039
......................
Total ....................................
......................
......................
......................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00107
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Estimated
cost per year
Annual costs
borne by
Head Start
Annual costs
borne by
other parties
$10,123,635
75,000
$5,061,818
32,500
$3,436,974
32,500
$1,624,843
0
10,198,635
5,099,318
3,474,474
1,624,843
Estimated
cost
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
61400
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
3. Benefits Analysis
Overall, the policies included in this
final rule are designed to strengthen
Head Start quality, improve child
outcomes, and increase the return on
taxpayer dollars. As discussed in more
detail in the preamble for this final rule,
these policies will improve teaching
practices, through implementation of
content-rich curriculum, effective use of
assessment data, and strong professional
development. These improvements are
central to our effort to ensure every
child in Head Start receives high quality
early learning experiences that will
build the skills they need to succeed in
school and beyond. In order to
maximize the effectiveness of Head Start
and yield a high rate of return on
investment, we believe it is essential to
pair these improvements to the early
learning experiences provided by Head
Start with increases in program
duration.
In this section, as part of our full
regulatory analysis, we describe our
expectation that this rule will result in
a greater return on the federal
investment in Head Start and outline
our rationale. To do so, we first consider
long-standing economic analysis of the
return on investment through benefits to
society of high quality early education
and summarize the research linking the
most costly provisions—extending
program duration—to the expectation
for increased return on investment.
Then, we describe the expected effect of
the final rule on society by exploring the
benefits of the quality and duration
improvements on children enrolled in
Head Start and their parents and the
potential opportunity costs for children
who might not have access to Head Start
in the future, as well as other
unquantified benefits. Further, we
discuss the implications of both
Congressional and Secretarial actions on
the costs and benefits of this rule to
society as a whole. Finally, we provide
estimates of additional federal funding
needed for overtime, adjusted for cost of
living increases, to support the full
implementation of this rule and we
estimate the potential slot loss and
education staff job loss that may arise
from this rule if the service duration
policies described in part 1302, subpart
B, are fully implemented without
adequate additional funds.
Return on Investment in Early
Childhood
There is no question that high-quality
early learning programs yield significant
benefits to children and society.178 Early
178 Heckman, J.J., Moon, S.H., Pinto, R., Savelyev,
P.A., & Yavitz, A. (2010). The rate of return to the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
learning programs provide a unique
opportunity to intervene and support
children’s development during a period
in which learning and growth is at its
most rapid.179 180 181 Early learning
programs have short and long term
effects on children’s math, reading and
behavior skills, can reduce grade
retention, teen pregnancy, and the need
for special education services, and in
the long-term can increase lifetime
earnings and reduce crime.182 183 184 185
186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 Numerous
HighScope Perry Preschool Program. Journal of
Public Economics, 94, 114–128.
179 National Scientific Council on the Developing
Child (2007). The Timing and Quality of Early
Experiences Combine to Shape Brain Architecture:
Working Paper No. 5. Retrieved from
www.developingchild.harvard.edu
180 Anda R.F., Felitti V.J., Bremner J.D., Walker
J.D., Whitfield C., Perry, B.D., Dube, S.R., & Giles,
W.H. (2006). The enduring effects of abuse and
related adverse experiences in childhood. A
convergence of evidence from neurobiology and
epidemiology. European Archives of Psychiatry and
Clinical Neuroscience, 256(3), 174–186.
181 National Scientific Council on the Developing
Child (2010). Early Experiences Can Alter Gene
Expression and Affect Long-Term Development:
Working Paper No. 10. Cambridge, MA: Author.
182 Aikens, N., Kopack Klein, A., Tarullo, L., &
West, J. (2013). Getting Ready for Kindergarten:
Children’s Progress During Head Start. FACES 2009
Report. OPRE Report 2013–21a. Washington, DC:
Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation,
Administration for Children and Families, U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services.
183 Schweinhart, L.J., Montie, J., Xiang, Z.,
Barnett, W.S., Belfield, C.R., & Nores, M. (2005).
Lifetime effects: The HighScope Perry Preschool
study through age 40. Ypsilanti, MI: HighScope
Press.
184 Barnett, W.S., & Hustedt, J.T. (2005). Head
start’s lasting benefits. Infants & Young Children,
18(1), 16–24.
185 Yoshikawa, H., Weiland, C., Brooks-Gunn, J.,
Burchinal, M., . . . Zaslow, M. (2013). Investing in
our future: The evidence base on preschool
education. Foundation for Child Development. New
York, NY.
186 Camilli, G., Vargas, S., Ryan, S., & Barnett,
W.S. (2010). Meta-analysis of the effects of early
education interventions on cognitive and social
development. The Teachers College Record, 112,
579–620.
187 Wong, V.C., Cook, T.D., Barnett, W.S., & Jung,
K. (2008). An effectiveness-based evaluation of five
state prekindergarten programs. Journal of Policy
Analysis and Management, 27, 122–154.
188 Reynolds, A.J. (2000). Success in early
intervention: The Chicago Child-Parent Centers.
Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press.
189 Schweinhart, L.J., Montie, J., Xiang, Z.,
Barnett, W.S., Belfield, C.R., & Nores, M. (2005).
Lifetime effects: The HighScope Perry Preschool
study through age 40. Ypsilanti, MI: HighScope
Press.
190 Gormley, W., Gayer, T., Phillips, D.A., &
Dawson, B. (2005). The effects of universal Pre-K on
cognitive development. Developmental Psychology,
41, 872–884.
Campbell, F.A., Ramey, C.T., Pungello, E.,
Sparling, J., & Miller-Johnson, S. (2002). Early
childhood education: Young adult outcomes from
the Abecedarian project. Applied Developmental
Science, 6, 42–57.
191 Weiland, C., & Yoshikawa, H. (2013). Impacts
of a prekindergarten program on children’s
PO 00000
Frm 00108
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
evaluations of both small-scale and
large-scale early education programs
demonstrate that the benefits to children
and our society outweigh the financial
costs of funding these programs. Studies
examining the return on investment for
early learning programs find a range of
levels for positive returns. For example,
the Perry Preschool project, a two-year
early learning intervention for children
from low-income families, netted
approximately 7–10 dollars back for
every dollar spent on the program, with
a baseline estimate of $8.60.194 195 Most
of these financial benefits came from
later reductions in crime. Evaluations of
the Chicago Child-Parent Center
program (CPC) also show benefits from
medium and long-term positive effects.
When CPC participants reach age 21,
analyses demonstrates that one and a
half years of CPC preschool
participation yielded a return for society
of $7.10. In comparison to preschool
children who did not participate in
CPC, the preschool participants had
lower rates of special education
placement and grade retention and a
higher rate of high school completion.
They also had lower rates of juvenile
arrests and lower arrest rates for a
violent offense.196 A recent analysis by
some of the country’s premier child
development and early intervention
experts conclude universal prekindergarten returns $3–5 in benefits for
every dollar spent.197 Nobel Prize
winning economist James Heckman
concludes that educational
interventions in the first five years of
life show much greater benefits than
later interventions.198
mathematics, language, literacy, executive function,
and emotional skills. Child Development, 84, 2112–
2130.
192 Peisner-Feinberg, E.S., Schaaf, J.M., LaForett,
D.R., Hildebrandt, L.M., & Sideris, J. (2014). Effects
of Georgia’s Pre-K Program on children’s school
readiness skills: Findings from the 2012–2013
evaluation study. Chapel Hill: The University of
North Carolina, FPG Child Development Institute.
193 The Council of Economic Advisers.
(December, 2014). The Economics of Early
Childhood Investments. Washington, DC: Authors
194 Heckman, J.J., Moon, S.H., Pinto, R., Savalyev,
P.A. & Yavitz, A. (2010). The Rate of Return to the
High/Scope Perry Preschool Program. Journal of
Public Economics, 94(1–2), 114–128.
195 The Council of Economic Advisers.
(December, 2014). The Economics of Early
Childhood Investments. Washington, DC: Authors.
196 Reynolds, A.J., Temple, J.A., Robertson, D.L.,
Mann, E.A. (2002). Age 21 Cost-Benefit Analysis of
the Title I Chicago Child-Parent Centers.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 24(4),
267–303.
197 Yoshikawa, H., Weiland, C., Brooks-Gunn, J.,
Burchinal, M., . . . Zaslow, M. (2013). Investing in
our future: The evidence base on preschool
education. Foundation for Child Development.
198 Heckman, J.J., Moon, S.H., Pinto, R., Savelyev,
P.A., & Yavitz, A. (2010). The rate of return to the
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Taken together, this research suggests
that participation in early learning
programs can help support optimal
child development, particularly for
children from low-income families, with
benefits for society lasting well into
adulthood. However, early learning
programs must be sufficiently high
quality to reap these benefits. The
congressionally mandated, randomized
control trial study of Head Start’s
impact did not show lasting effects on
the outcomes measured beyond the end
of the Head Start program years.199
However, recent reanalysis of data from
the Head Start Impact Study suggests
that those programs that were highquality had greater effects on children,
providing further confidence in the
benefits of participation in high-quality
Head Start programs.200 In addition,
based on monitoring data, including
Classroom Assessment Scoring System
(CLASS), and findings from FACES and
the Head Start Impact Study, we also
know that there is significant variance
in quality among Head Start
programs.201 202 203 Further, longer
program duration may allow more Head
Start parents to work, which would
have benefits to Head Start children and
to society.204 205 In order for Head Start
to achieve its mission to be an effective
tool in supporting children’s success in
HighScope Perry Preschool Program. Journal of
Public Economics, 94, 114–128.
199 Puma, M., Bell, S., Cook, R., Heid, C., Broene,
P., Jenkins, F., & Downer, J. (2012). Third grade
follow-up to the Head Start impact study final
report. US Department of Health and Human
Services Office of Planning, Research and
Evaluation.
200 Walters, C. (2014). Inputs in the production of
early childhood human capital: Evidence from
Head Start. Working paper. https://
eml.berkeley.edu/∼crwalters/papers/HS_2_2014.pdf
201 Office of Head Start (2014). A National
Overview of Grantee CLASS(TM) Scores in 2013.
Washington, DC: Office of Head Start,
Administration for Children and Families, U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services.
202 Aikens, N., Kopack Klein, A., Tarullo, L., & J.
West. (2013). Getting Ready for Kindergarten:
Children’s Progress During Head Start. FACES 2009
Report. OPRE Report 2013–21a. Washington, DC:
Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation,
Administration for Children and Families, U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services.
203 Puma, M., Bell, S., Cook, R., Heid, C., Broene,
P., Jenkins, F., & Downer, J. (2012). Third grade
follow-up to the Head Start impact study final
report. US Department of Health and Human
Services Office of Planning, Research and
Evaluation.
204 Huston, A.C., Duncan, G.J., McLoyd, V.C.,
Crosby, D.A., Ripke, M.N., Weisner, T.S., & Eldred,
C.A. (2005). Impacts on children of a policy to
promote employment and reduce poverty for lowincome parents: new hope after 5 years.
Developmental psychology, 41(6), 902.
205 Huston, A.C., Duncan, G.J., Granger, R., Bos,
J., McLoyd, V., Mistry, R., . . . & Ventura, A. (2001).
Work-based antipoverty programs for parents can
enhance the school performance and social
behavior of children. Child Development, 318–336.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
kindergarten and beyond, and for
society to reap the full benefits of this
investment, every Head Start program is
providing high quality services that will
promote strong and lasting child
outcomes.
Review of Research on Early Education
Duration
The Secretary’s Advisory Committee
recommended Head Start look to
‘‘optimize dosage,’’ and our new
requirements will ensure Head Start
programs become more aligned with
state pre-kindergarten programs that
have shown strong effects over
time.206 207 For example, North Carolina
pre-kindergarten, which is offered to
lower income families and operates 6.5
hours per day and 180 days per year,
demonstrates strong effects. Children
who attend the program make gains in
language, literacy, math, general
knowledge and social skills. At the end
of 3rd grade, children from low-income
families who had attended state prekindergarten scored higher on math
assessments than children from low
income families who did not attend.
Moreover, children who are dual
language learners make gains at even
faster rates than other children.208 New
Jersey’s state pre-kindergarten, which
operates between 6–10 hours per day
and 180–245 days per year shows
significant impacts for child learning.
Children who attend New Jersey prekindergarten show improvements in
language, print awareness, and math at
kindergarten entry, 1st grade, and 2nd
grade. Gains still exist in language arts,
literacy, math, and science at 4th and
5th grade. They also show a 40 percent
decrease in grade retention and a 31
percent decrease in special education
placement.209
Other states with service duration
consistent with our minimum annual
hours find strong results for children.
For example, Georgia pre-kindergarten,
which operates 6.5 hours per day and
206 Weiland, C., & Yoshikawa, H. (2013). Impacts
of a prekindergarten program on children’s
mathematics, language, literacy, executive function,
and emotional skills. Child Development, 84, 2112–
2130.
207 Barnett, W.S., Jung, K., Youn, M.J., and Frede,
E.C. (2013). Abbott Preschool Program Longitudinal
Effects Study: Fifth Grade Follow-Up. National
Institute for Early Education Research Rutgers—The
State University of New Jersey.
208 Peisner-Feinberg, E.S., Schaaf, J.M., LaForett,
D. R., Hildebrandt, L.M., & Sideris, J. (2014). Effects
of Georgia’s Pre-K Program on children’s school
readiness skills: Findings from the 2012–2013
evaluation study. Chapel Hill: The University of
North Carolina, FPG Child Development Institute.
209 Barnett, W.S., Jung, K., Youn, M.J., and Frede,
E.C. (2013). Abbott Preschool Program Longitudinal
Effects Study: Fifth Grade Follow-Up. National
Institute for Early Education Research Rutgers—The
State University of New Jersey.
PO 00000
Frm 00109
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61401
typically runs 180 days per year, finds
medium to large effects on children’s
language, literacy, and math skills at
kindergarten entry.210 Tulsa prekindergarten also shows strong effects
for children in language and math skills.
This program operates 180 days per year
and is mainly a full-day program for
low-income children. There is some
evidence that full-day attendance in
Tulsa supports better outcomes for low
income and minority children.211
Boston pre-kindergarten, which also
operates for a full school day and school
year, demonstrates large effects on
children’s language and math skills.212
Only a small amount of research with
young children has been able to isolate
the impact of service duration on child
learning, but what does exist links
increasing the length of the program day
and program year to improved
children’s outcomes. For example, a
randomized control study in which one
group of children attended prekindergarten for 8 hours per day for 45
weeks and another group of children
attended the same program for 2.5–3
hours per day for 41 weeks found that
by the spring of kindergarten, the
children who had attended full-day prekindergarten had improved almost twice
as much on vocabulary and math skills
compared to the children who attended
half day.213 Research with children in
child care settings found 30 hours of
participation each week to be necessary
for low and middle income children to
see stronger learning outcomes.214
Moreover, research on effective
teaching practices for children at risk of
school difficulties also support the need
for full-day operation. A meta-analysis
of pre-kindergarten programs found that
those that focused on intentional
teaching and small group and one-toone interactions had larger impacts on
210 Peisner-Feinberg, E. S., Schaaf, J.M., LaForett,
D. R., Hildebrandt, L.M., & Sideris, J. (2014). Effects
of Georgia’s Pre-K Program on children’s school
readiness skills: Findings from the 2012–2013
evaluation study. Chapel Hill: The University of
North Carolina, FPG Child Development Institute.
211 Gormley, G.T., Gayer, T., Phillips, D., &
Dawson, B. (2005). The effects of universal pre-k on
cognitive development. Developmental Psychology,
4(6), 872–884.
212 Weiland, C., & Yoshikawa, H. (2013). Impacts
of a prekindergarten program on children’s
mathematics, language, literacy, executive function,
and emotional skills. Child Development, 84, 2112–
2130.
213 Robin, K.B., Frede, E.C., Barnett, W.S. (2006).
Is More Better? The Effects of Full-Day vs. Half-Day
Preschool on Early School Achievement. NIEER
Working Paper.
214 Loeb, S., Bridges, M., Bassok, D., Fuller, B.,
Rumberger, R., (2005). How much is too much? The
influence of preschool centers on children’s social
and cognitive development. Working paper.
National Bureau Of Economic Research.
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
61402
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
child outcomes.215 It is very difficult for
a half-day program to provide sufficient
time for teachers to conduct learning
activities and intentional instruction in
small group and one-on-one interactions
in the areas of skill development experts
believe are important to later school
success.
Researchers believe meaningful skill
development in language, literacy, and
math requires intentional, frequent, and
specific methods of instruction and
teacher-child interactions. These types
of interactions are often complex,
require a variety of types of interactions
and intensities, and for many children
in Head Start, need to be conducted in
small groups to allow sufficient
individualized scaffolding and skill
development.216 Experts believe math
curriculum and instruction must
support development of broad and deep
mathematical thinking and knowledge,
including development of abstract
thought and reasoning.217 Targeted
instruction and small group activities
are teaching practices that are
particularly important to include for
supporting the learning of children who
are behind.218 219 Language and literacy
experts believe teachers must take an
active role in supporting language and
literacy development for children at risk
of reading difficulties. That requires
systematic and explicit instruction to
foster vocabulary breadth and depth.
Research with toddlers and preschool
age children also finds that greater
exposure to rich vocabulary enrichment
allows for better scaffolding that can
lead to improved language and
literacy.220 221 As such, experts
215 Camilli, G., Vargas, S., Ryan, S., & Barnett,
W.S. (2010). Meta-analysis of the effects of early
education interventions on cognitive and social
development. Teachers College Record, 112(3),
579–620.
216 Justice, L.M., Mcginty, A., Cabell, S.Q., Kilday,
C.R., Knighton, K., & Huffman, G. (2010). Language
and literacy curriculum supplement for
preschoolers who are academically at risk: A
feasibility study. Language, Speech, and Hearing
Services in Schools, 41, 161–178.
217 Ginsburg, H.P., Ertle, B., & Presser, A.L.
(2014). Math curriculum and instruction for young
children. Chapter 16 in Handbook of Response to
Intervention in Early Childhood, Buysee, V., &
Peisner-Feinberg, E. (Eds.). Baltimore: Paul H.
Brookes Publishing.
218 Buysse, V., Peisner-Feinber, E.S., Saikakou, E.,
& LaForett, D.R. (2014). Recognition & response: A
model of response to Intervention to promote
academic learning in early education. Chapter 5 in
Handbook of Response to Intervention in Early
Childhood, Buysee, V., & Peisner-Feinberg, E.
(Eds.). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing.
219 Justice, L.M., McGinty, A., Cabell, S.Q.,
Kilday, C.R., Knighton, K., & Huffman, G. (2010).
Language and literacy curriculum supplement for
preschoolers who are academically at risk: A
feasibility study. Language, Speech, and Hearing
Services in Schools, 41, 161–178.
220 Harris, Golinkoff, & Hirsh-Pasell (2011).
Lessons for the Crib for the Classroom: How
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
recommend in addition to integration
into group learning and free play,
language and literacy instruction should
be explicitly structured and sequenced
in 15–20 minutes small group session at
least three times per week.222 Math
experts have similar time estimates for
supporting adequate high quality
learning experiences.223 224
Research on summer learning loss
demonstrates the importance of
extending the minimum days of
operation in Head Start. Research on
reading skills found high-income
students gained skills over summer
break, middle-income students
maintained their skill level, and
children from lower income families
lost skills.225 Experts conclude the
average student loses one month worth
of skills and development over the
summer break.226 The amount of
learning loss is even greater for children
from low income families who may not
have as much access to educational
resources and experiences during the
summer and who are already behind
their more advantaged peers and need
extra time to learn skills and strengthen
development.227 228 229 230 231 This pattern
Children Really Learn Vocabulary. In Handbook of
Early Literacy Research, Vol 3. Ed by D. Dickinson
and S. Neuman (NY: Guilford). 49–65.
221 Dickinson, D.K., Flushman, T.R., & Freiberg,
J.B. (2009). Learning, reading, and classroom
supports: Where we are and where we need to be
going. In B. Richards, M.H. Daller, D.D. Malvern, P.
Meara, J. Milton, & Trefers-Daller (Eds.). Vocabulary
Studies in First and Second Language Acquisition:
The Interface Between Theory and Application. (pp.
23–38). Hampshire, England: Palgrave-McMillan.
222 Curenton, S.M., Justice, L.M., Zucker, T.A., &
McGinty, A.S. (2014). Language and literacy
curriculum and instruction. Chapter 15 in in
Handbook of Response to Intervention in Early
Childhood, Buysee, V., & Peisner-Feinberg, E.
(Eds.). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing.
223 Clements, D.H., Sarama, J., Wolfe, C.B., &
Spitler, M.E. (2012). Longitudinal evaluation of a
scale-up model for teaching mathematics with
trajectories and technologies: persistence of effects
in the third. American Educational Research
Journal.
224 Clements, D.H., & Sarama, J., (2008).
Experimental evaluation of the effects of a researchbased preschool mathematics curriculum. American
Educational Research Journal, 45(2), 443–494.
225 Benson, J., & Borman, G.D. (2010). Family,
Neighborhood, and School Settings Across Seasons:
When Do Socioeconomic Context and Racial
Composition Matter for the Reading Achievement
Growth of Young Children? Teacher’s College
Record, 112(5), 1338–1390.
226 Sloan McCombs, J. et al., (2011). Making
Summer Count. How Summer Programs Can Boost
Children’s Learning. Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND
Corporation.
227 Alexander, K.L., Entwisle D.R., & Olson L.S.
(2007). Lasting consequences of the summer
learning gap. American Sociological Review, 72,
167–180.
228 Ibid.
229 Sloan McCombs, J. et al., (2011). Making
Summer Count. How Summer Programs Can Boost
Children’s Learning. Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND
Corporation.
PO 00000
Frm 00110
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
is also true for the youngest children in
elementary school. Analysis of the ECLS
finds that children from families with
higher incomes learn more over the
summer between kindergarten and 1st
grade than do children from families
with lower incomes.232 In fact,
researchers believe the effects of
summer learning loss for children from
low-income families is cumulative and
that the disparity in summer gains and
losses over the first four summers of
elementary school is greater than the
differential between children from high
and low income families at school
entry.233 Experts also conclude summer
learning loss in elementary school
predicts poor academic achievement in
high school.234
Research on attendance also finds
exposure to additional learning time is
important for skill development.235 236
Research with elementary school
children has shown an increase in
school attendance predicted improved
reading scores.237 A recent study of
preschool attendance in Chicago found
that even when accounting for
children’s skill level at the beginning of
preschool, attendance predicted better
academic outcomes at the end of
preschool and beyond and that
attendance was most beneficial for
children starting preschool with the
lowest skills. Children who missed
more preschool had lower math, letter
recognition, and social-emotional skills
and were also rated as lower on work
habits by their teachers.238
230 Allington, R.L. & McGill-Franzen, A. (2003).
The Impact of Summer Setback on the Reading
Achievement Gap. The Phi Delta Kappan, 85(1),
68–75.
231 Fairchild, R. & Noam, G. (Eds.) (2007).
Summertime: Confronting Risks, Exploring
Solutions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Wiley.
232 Burkam, D.T., Ready, D.D., Lee, V.E. &
LoGerfo, L.F. (2004). Social-Class Differences in
Summer Learning Between Kindergarten and First
Grade: Model Specification and Estimation.
Sociology of Education, 77, 1–3
233 Alexander, K.L., Entwisle D.R., & Olson L.S.
(2007). Lasting consequences of the summer
learning gap. American Sociological Review, 72,
167–180.
234 Ibid.
235 Logan, J.A.R., Piasta, S.B., Justice, L.M.,
Schatschneider, C., & Petrill, S. (2011). Children’s
Attendance Rates and Quality of Teacher-Child
Interactions in At-Risk Preschool Classrooms:
Contribution to Children’s Expressive Language
Growth. Child & Youth Forum 40(6), 457–477.
236 Hubbs-Tait, L., McDonald Culp, A., Huey E.,
Culp, R., Starost, H., & Hare, C. (2002). Relation of
Head Start attendance to children’s cognitive and
social outcomes: moderation by family risk. Early
Childhood Research Quarterly, 17, 539–558.
237 Lamdin, D.J. (1996). Evidence of student
attendance as an independent variable in education
production functions. Journal of Educational
Research, 89(3), 155–162.
238 Ehrlich, S.B., Gwynne, J.A. . . . Sorice, E.
(2014). Preschool Attendance in Chicago Public
Schools: Relationships with Learning Outcomes and
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
In sum, providing high-quality early
education is not a simple task.
Standards must be high to create
learning environments that allow
teachers to facilitate effective early
learning experiences and support must
be provided that continuously builds
teachers’ skills and knowledge. Taken
together this research clearly indicates
previous Head Start minimums for
program operations are inadequate to
achieve the results researchers and
economists have shown are possible.
Although the evidence does not point to
a particular threshold for the length of
the day or length of the year that is
necessary to ensure positive child
outcomes, the research is clear that
children will benefit from more
exposure to early learning experiences
than our previous minimums provide.
Costs and Benefits to Society
It is our expectation that this rule will
be implemented with sufficient funds to
avoid slot loss resulting from costs
associated with this rule. In FY 2016,
Congress appropriated $294 million
specifically to increase service duration
for Early Head Start and Head Start
programs, which cover some of the costs
of the duration requirements in this
final rule. The President’s FY 2017
Budget includes a request for an
additional $292 million. Collectively
these funds would allow all programs to
increase service duration so that at least
50 percent of their Head Start centerbased slots and 100 percent of their
Early Head Start center-based slots
would meet the respective new
minimums of 1,020 and 1,380 annual
hours by August 1, 2018, as required in
this rule. Congress would need to
appropriate additional funds to support
the full implementation of the Head
Start center-based service duration
requirement by February 1, 2020, the
date by which the Secretary will decide
whether to lower the percentage of slots
required to increase duration based on
an assessment of the availability of
sufficient appropriations to mitigate
substantial slot loss. If fully funded, this
rule would result in a significant
increase in the quality of Head Start and
the associated benefits of Head Start
participation for all children. Ample
research, also discussed above,
demonstrates the potential for early
education programs to produce large
returns on investment to society through
benefits associated with short and long
term effects on children’s math, reading
and behavior skills; reduced grade
Reasons for Absences. University of Chicago
Consortium on Chicago School Research. Research
Report.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
retention, teen pregnancy, need for
special education services, crime, and
delinquency; and increased lifetime
earnings.239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248
249 250 This research, coupled with
research indicating the importance of
adequate duration in early learning
programs, would suggest that extending
program duration and increasing
program quality will result in additional
benefits for any child enrolled in a Head
Start program that does not already meet
or exceed the bar set for program quality
in this rule. The relative size of these
additional benefits will likely vary from
program to program and it is not
possible for this analysis to quantify the
precise benefit. Additionally, if the rule
is fully implemented with adequate
239 Aikens, N., Kopack Klein, A., Tarullo, L., &
West, J. (2013). Getting Ready for Kindergarten:
Children’s Progress During Head Start. FACES 2009
Report. OPRE Report 2013–21a. Washington, DC:
Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation,
Administration for Children and Families, U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services.
240 Schweinhart, L.J., Montie, J., Xiang, Z.,
Barnett, W.S., Belfield, C.R., & Nores, M. (2005).
Lifetime effects: The HighScope Perry Preschool
study through age 40. Ypsilanti, MI: HighScope
Press.
241 Barnett, W.S., & Hustedt, J.T. (2005). Head
start’s lasting benefits. Infants & Young Children,
18(1), 16–24.
242 Yoshikawa, H., Weiland, C., Brooks-Gunn, J.,
Burchinal, M., Zaslow, M. (2013). Investing in our
future: The evidence base on preschool education.
Foundation for Child Development. New York, NY.
243 Camilli, G., Vargas, S., Ryan, S., & Barnett,
W.S. (2010). Meta-analysis of the effects of early
education interventions on cognitive and social
development. The Teachers College Record, 112,
579–620.
244 Wong, V.C., Cook, T.D., Barnett, W.S., & Jung,
K. (2008). An effectiveness-based evaluation of five
state prekindergarten programs. Journal of Policy
Analysis and Management, 27, 122–154.
245 Reynolds, A.J. (2000). Success in early
intervention: The Chicago Child-Parent Centers.
Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press.
246 Schweinhart, L.J., Montie, J., Xiang, Z.,
Barnett, W.S., Belfield, C.R., & Nores, M. (2005).
Lifetime effects: The HighScope Perry Preschool
study through age 40. Ypsilanti, MI: HighScope
Press.
247 Gormley, W., Gayer, T., Phillips, D.A., &
Dawson, B. (2005). The effects of universal Pre-K on
cognitive development. Developmental Psychology,
41, 872–884.
Campbell, F.A., Ramey, C.T., Pungello, E.,
Sparling, J., & Miller-Johnson, S. (2002). Early
childhood education: Young adult outcomes from
the Abecedarian project. Applied Developmental
Science, 6, 42–57.
248 Weiland, C., & Yoshikawa, H. (2013). Impacts
of a prekindergarten program on children’s
mathematics, language, literacy, executive function,
and emotional skills. Child Development, 84, 2112–
2130.
249 Peisner-Feinberg, E.S., Schaaf, J.M., LaForett,
D.R., Hildebrandt, L.M., & Sideris, J. (2014). Effects
of Georgia’s Pre-K Program on children’s school
readiness skills: Findings from the 2012–2013
evaluation study. Chapel Hill: The University of
North Carolina, FPG Child Development Institute.
250 The Council of Economic Advisers.
(December, 2014). The Economics of Early
Childhood Investments. Washington, DC: Authors.
PO 00000
Frm 00111
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61403
funding, there may be benefits
associated with additional teacher jobs,
higher staff salaries, and increased
support for parental work. Finally, this
rule increases clarity of Head Start
requirements which should lead to
greater compliance, which should in
turn, result in improved child safety and
stronger child and family outcomes.
However, it is also not possible for this
analysis to quantify these benefits.
If the Secretary exercises this
authority, the final rule would result in
a smaller benefit to society than the
fully funded rule, because fewer
children would benefit from greater
exposure to high-quality early learning
experiences. However, if the Secretary
does not exercise this authority, this
rule could result in a decrease of as
many as 123,000 slots, depending upon
appropriations and whether programs
are able to absorb any costs of the rule
within their current operating budgets.
This slot loss has costs to society
because fewer children will have access
to Head Start in the future; although
these costs have been estimated in
preceding portions of this regulatory
impact analysis, the quantification does
not account for the relative size of these
potential costs, which likely vary from
program to program and from child to
child (perhaps most notably in the form
of diminishing returns to Head Start
exposure). Additionally, if the rule is
fully implemented without adequate
funding, there may be costs associated
with job loss, however it is not possible
for this analysis to quantify them.
Further, this cost to society may be
mitigated by the availability of other
early learning programs, given findings
from the Head Start Impact Study that
indicate a wide range of early childhood
education utilization among children
who do not have access to Head Start.251
In this case, determining how the loss
of slots impacts society depends on how
benefits differ between Head Start and
the alternative early childhood
education programs. Among children
whose future Head Start slots are
eliminated, children who enroll in
alternative early childhood education
programs of similar quality would not
experience a loss of benefits, while
children who enroll in programs of
lower quality or no program at all would
experience lost benefits. To be sure,
quality and affordable early learning
programs for poor families are limited
and there is significant unmet need. A
251 Puma, M., Bell, S., Cook, R., Heid, C., Broene,
P., Jenkins, F., & Downer, J. (2012). Third grade
follow-up to the Head Start impact study final
report. US Department of Health and Human
Services Office of Planning, Research and
Evaluation.
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
61404
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
reduction in Head Start slots may is
unlikely to not be fully absorbed by
other programs given that other early
learning programs are not universally
available to all children and these
programs only currently serve a fraction
of the eligible population. The total
benefit to society of the rule would
depend upon the relative size of the
benefits to children who receive greater
exposure to high-quality early learning
experiences compared to the lost
benefits for children who no longer have
access to Head Start.
Continuing to operate under widely
varying minimums for program
duration, in the face of the mounting
evidence provided here, limits Head
Start’s overall effectiveness and
undermines Head Start’s mission. This
rule is designed to ensure every child in
Head Start receives the highest quality
program. The requirements to extend
program duration are inextricably
linked to reaping the full range of
benefits that researchers and economists
have demonstrated are possible.
Implications of Congressional and
Secretarial Actions
The costs of this rule vary over the
next ten years of implementation based
upon compliance dates and staff
turnover. In FY 2016, Congress
appropriated $294 million to pay for
programs to increase service duration.
As a result and as explained throughout
this analysis, the costs associated with
increasing the service duration
requirements in this rule are reduced.
Further, the President’s FY 2017 Budget
requests an additional $292 million to
further support quality improvements. If
Congress provides additional resources
in FY 2017 and beyond, the costs
associated with this rule would be
borne, in part or whole, by the federal
government rather than by Head Start
programs. In this scenario, there may
not be any slot loss associated with the
requirements in this rule. Rather, the
full additional potential benefits of
higher quality services would be
realized for all children who attend
Head Start.
In the table below, we have estimated
the amounts Congress would need to
appropriate in order to support the full
implementation of the requirements to
increase Head Start center-based
program duration. Note that we have
assumed Early Head Start center-based
duration will be fully funded using the
FY 2016 appropriation for expansion of
program duration. In order to capture
the full cost of the Head Start centerbased requirements over time, we have
adjusted the necessary funding levels to
account for cost of living increases as
forecasted in the OMB Economic
Assumptions for MSR. As the table
demonstrates, in order to fully support
the requirements to increase program
duration, Congress would need to
appropriate $264 million in FY 2018 or
earlier to support the 50% requirement
and an additional $711 million in FY
2020 or earlier to support the 100%
requirement.
Cost of policy
(less the FY16
appropriation),
before
adjustment for
COLAs
(million)
Appropriation
needed,
adjusted for
COLAs (in addition to FY16
appropriation)
(million)
Additional
appropriation,
adjusted for
COLAs (if
$264 received
by FY2018)
(million)
Appropriation year
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
50% Requirement for
HS CB programs.
100% Requirement
for HS CB programs.
Effective date
Secretarial
determination
date
Fiscal Year 2018 ......
August 1, 2019 .........
February 1, 2018 .....
$245
$264
........................
Fiscal Year 2020 ......
August 1, 2021 .........
February 1, 2020 .....
866
975
$711
If Congress does not appropriate
adequate funds, § 1302.21(c)(3) of the
final rule gives the Secretary the
authority to reduce the requirements for
service duration based on an assessment
of what available funds can support. In
this scenario, as in the scenario where
adequate funds are appropriated, there
would be no slot or teacher job loss
associated with the duration
requirements in this rule.
However, if the Secretary does not
exercise this authority, the duration
requirements in this rule could result in
a decrease of as many as 107,762 slots
slots (full estimate described below),
depending upon appropriations and
whether programs are able to absorb any
costs of the rule within their current
operating budgets. This slot loss has
costs to society because fewer children
will have access to Head Start in the
future. The total benefit to society of the
rule would depend upon the relative
size of the benefits to children who
receive greater exposure to high-quality
early learning experiences compared to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
the lost benefits for children who no
longer have access to Head Start. Both
Congressional and Secretarial decisions
have important implications for the
number of children served by the
program and the characteristics of the
program.
Although we are unable to quantify
the associated costs and benefits that
would arise from these implementation
scenarios, it is important to keep these
factors in mind as we consider both the
societal costs and savings and the costbenefit analysis of this final rule.
Potential Slot Loss
In order to estimate slot loss as
programs adjust their budgets in the
absence of additional funding, we first
determined the proportion of current
funded enrollment that are Head Start
slots (83.8 percent) and Early Head Start
slots (16.2 percent), respectively. We
then applied this proportion to the total
monetary cost associated with this rule,
in each out-year, in FY 2016 dollars,
and divided the cost that would be
PO 00000
Frm 00112
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
borne in Head Start slots by the average
cost per slot for Head Start in FY 2015
($8,035) and the cost that will be borne
in Early Head Start by the average cost
per slot for Early Head Start in FY 2015
($12,189), which is inclusive of the cost
per child for Early Head Start-Child
Care Partnerships. We use FY 2015
average costs because it is the most
recent year for which we have final
data. In this case, we did not inflate the
Head Start cost per child to incorporate
teacher salary increases or additional
service hours because we believe the
current cost per child is the best
indicator for the number of slots
programs would need to cut to absorb
new costs. We also assumed that the
additional $294 million appropriated in
FY 2016 will fully fund Early Head Start
duration ($30,878,060) and support
some proportion of all Head Start
grantees slots serving children for 1,020
hours.
Without additional funding, the net
costs of this rule borne by Head Start,
if fully implemented could be
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
associated with a reduction in slots
(number of children served) of as many
as 123,614 by year ten. However, it is
important to note that we believe these
are overestimates of the actual potential
slot loss, because many of the costs
estimated in this section, aside from the
increases in duration, represent changes
in how programs will use existing funds
rather than additional new costs that
would result in slot loss. As stated
earlier, this slot loss would not occur if
the Secretary exercises discretion
provided in the rule to reduce the
duration requirements or if sufficient
appropriations are provided by Congress
to support the policy. This would also
be an overestimate if Congress
appropriates additional funds to support
the full implementation of this rule or
if the Secretary exercises the authority
61405
to reduce the service duration
requirements.
The table below describes the share of
costs in years one through ten borne by
Head Start and Early Head Start
programs and the potential slot loss
associated with those costs in each year.
Costs vary by year based upon effective
dates of individual provisions and
whether those costs are one-time or
ongoing.
POTENTIAL SLOT LOSS
[If Congress does not appropriate sufficient funding in future years and the Secretary does not use the discretion provided in the Final Rule to
lower the duration requirements]
Year 1
2016/2017 *
Year 2
2017/2018 *
Year 3
2018/2019 *
Year 4
2019/2020 *
Year 5
2020/2021 *
Share of Costs, Including FY 2016 Funding Appropriated for Duration Increases
HS ........................................................................................
EHS ......................................................................................
$0
0
$105,964,210
28,673,236
$188,593,130
44,646,846
$350,403,218
28,503,144
$455,190,660
48,760,382
Potential Slot Loss
HS ........................................................................................
EHS ......................................................................................
0
0
13,188
2,352
23,471
3,663
43,610
2,338
56,651
4,000
Total .....................................................................................
0
15,540
27,134
45,948
60,651
Year 6
2021/2022 *
Year 7
2022/2023 *
Year 8
2023/2024 *
Year 9
2024/2025 *
Year 10
2025/2026 *
Share of Costs Including FY 2016 Funding Appropriated for Duration Increases
HS ........................................................................................
EHS ......................................................................................
$971,741,327
28,655,562
$972,486,346
28,799,587
$973,835,238
29,060,351
$974,263,621
29,143,165
$974,050,651
29,101,994
Potential Slot Loss
HS ........................................................................................
EHS ......................................................................................
120,939
2,351
121,031
2,363
121,199
2,384
121,252
2,391
121,226
2,388
Total ..............................................................................
123,289
123,394
123,583
123,643
123,614
* Year ranges refer Head Start program years, which for these estimates, begin on August 1st of each year and end on or before July 31st.
** The costs and slot loss estimates in this table take into account the $294 million appropriated for increased duration, and assume that this
funding is applied beginning in Year 3 for Early Head Start and Year 4 for Head Start, when the initial duration requirement would be effective,
and is maintained throughout the ten year window. This table also assumes that the share of HS and EHS slots is stable over time.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Potential Education Staff Job Loss
In order to estimate the total potential
number of education staff jobs that may
be lost if a slot reduction occurs as a
result of full policy implementation
without additional funding, we first
reduced the costs of the rule borne by
Head Start by the cost of eliminating the
option for double sessions for Head
Start and Early Head Start. Double
session programs typically have the
same teacher operate a morning and
afternoon session with different groups
of children. Therefore, we assume
double session teachers would not lose
their jobs, even if fewer children are
served in those programs because they
would teach one group of children for
a longer session. We also assumed that
the additional $294 million
appropriated in FY 2016 will fully fund
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
Early Head Start center-based duration
increase (estimated at $30,878,060). To
determine the costs borne by Head Start
(not including duration) that may be
associated with education staff job loss
for Early Head Start, we subtracted
center-based duration costs from the
total costs borne by Early Head Start
programs ($59,980,054), which is
$29,101,994.
In order to estimate the education
staff job loss for Head Start that would
be associated with costs borne by Head
Start programs, we assumed that an
equal distribution of double session and
non-double session Head Start centerbased slots will be increased using
supplemental duration funds out of the
FY 2016 appropriation of $294 million
which will support all grantees
providing 1,020 hours for at least one-
PO 00000
Frm 00113
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
third of their slots. Based on this
assumption, we divided the
$263,121,940 appropriated in FY 2016
for duration (less the cost of the Early
Head Start center-based duration
increase) by two, which is $131,560,970.
We then subtracted the $131,560,970
from the non-double session Head Start
share of the total costs ($652,809,539) to
find the cost of non-double session slots
not supported by FY 2016
appropriations, which is $521,248,569.
Then, we divided the $521,248,569 for
Head Start by the average cost per child
for Head Start, or $8,035, and the nonduration costs for Early Head Start
($29,101,994) by the average cost per
slot for Early Head Start, or $12,189, to
find the number of slots in Head Start
(64,872) and Early Head Start (2,388)
associated with these costs.
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
61406
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Then, to account for education staff to
child ratios and caseloads that differ by
the program option and the age of the
child, we applied current percentages
from the Program Information Report
(PIR) for the proportion of Head Start
slots that are center-based, home-based,
and other program options (including
family child care, locally designed, and
combination programs), which are 96
percent, 2.2 percent, and 1.8 percent
respectively. These proportions result in
62,277 Head Start center-based slots,
1,427 home-based, and 1,168 other
program option slots, assuming
programs would reduce center-based,
home-based, and other program options
proportionately in the face of
insufficient funds. Finally, we applied
the proportion of three- versus fouryear olds in Head Start from the PIR to
find 27,679 three-year-old and 34,599
four-year old center-based slots.
We also applied the proportion of
Early Head Start slots that are center-
based, home-based/pregnant women,
and other program options (including
family child care, locally designed, and
combination programs), 47 percent, 48
percent, and 5 percent respectively, to
calculate that there would be 1,122
Early Head Start center-based slots,
1,146 home-based/pregnant women
slots, and 119 other program option
slots, assuming programs would reduce
center-based, home-based/pregnant
women, and other program options
proportionately in the face of
insufficient funds. Finally, we applied
the appropriate education staff to child
ratios and caseloads for center-based
program options by age, home-based,
other program options to determine the
total number of Head Start and Early
Head Start education staff jobs that
would potentially be lost.
If fully implemented without
additional funding, this rule could
result in a reduction of as many as 7,372
education staff jobs by year ten.
4. Accounting Statement—Table of
Quantified Costs, and Transfers
As required by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB)
Circular A–4, we have prepared an
accounting statement table showing the
classification of the impacts associated
with implementation of this final rule.
We decided to use a 10-year window for
this regulatory impact analysis. As
required by OMB, we discount costs at
3 percent and 7 percent and have
included total present value as well as
annualized value of these estimates in
our analyses below.
We also include costs borne by other
parties, opportunity costs and cost
transfer, separate from costs borne by
Head Start, here, because they impact
the total cost to society of the rule.
SUMMARY OF COSTS AND DISCOUNTING
[In millions]
Year 1
2016/2017
Costs Borne by Head Start, excluding duration funding appropriated beginning in FY 2016 ......................................
Net Costs Borne by Head Start, including duration funding
appropriated beginning in FY 2016 ..................................
Costs Borne by Other Parties ..............................................
Opportunity Costs ................................................................
Costs to Society (Undiscounted), excluding duration funding appropriated beginning in FY 2016 ............................
3% Discount .........................................................................
7% Discount .........................................................................
Costs to Society (Undiscounted), including duration funding appropriated beginning in FY 2016 ............................
3% Discount .........................................................................
7% Discount .........................................................................
Year 2
2017/2018
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Year 4
2019/2020
Year 5
2020/2021
$(46)
$135
$264
$673
$798
(46)
42
0.5
135
45
4
264
44
4
379
44
4
504
45
4
(3)
(3)
(3)
183
178
171
312
294
272
721
660
589
847
752
646
(3)
(3)
(3)
183
178
171
312
294
272
427
391
349
553
491
422
Year 6
2021/2022
Costs Borne by Head Start, excluding duration funding appropriated beginning in FY 2016 ......................................
Net Costs Borne by Head Start, including duration funding
appropriated beginning in FY 2016 ..................................
Costs Borne by Other Parties ..............................................
Opportunity Costs ................................................................
Cost to Society (Undiscounted), excluding duration funding
appropriated beginning in FY 2016 ..................................
3% Discount .........................................................................
7% Discount .........................................................................
Costs to Society (Undiscounted), including duration funding appropriated beginning in FY 2016 ............................
3% Discount .........................................................................
7% Discount .........................................................................
Year 3
2018/2019
Year 7
2022/2023
Year 8
2023/2024
Year 9
2024/2025
Year 10
2025/2026
$1,294
$1,295
$1,297
$1,297
$1,297
1,000
45
4
1,001
46
4
1,003
46
4
1,003
47
4
1,003
46
4
1,344
1,159
958
1,345
1,126
896
1,347
1,095
839
1,348
1,064
784
1,348
1,033
733
1,050
905
748
1,051
880
700
1,053
856
656
1,053
832
613
1,053
808
573
* Year ranges refer Head Start program years, which for these estimates, begin on August 1st of each year and end on or before July 31st.
** Note these costs do not include the potential lost benefits of children who may no longer have access to Head Start or the impact on children who attend other early education programs.
In total, we estimate the 10-year
present value of the costs associated
with new requirements in this final rule
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
to be $7,358 million when discounted at
3 percent, and $5,886 million when
discounted at 7 percent before
PO 00000
Frm 00114
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
accounting for the $294 million in
funding Congress has provided in FY
2016 to expand duration. We estimate
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
61407
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
the annualized costs of new
requirements in this final rule to be
$838 million when discounted at 3
percent, and $783 million when
discounted at 7 percent before
accounting for the $294 million in
funding Congress has provided in FY
2016 to expand duration. As noted,
Congress appropriated $294 million in
FY 2016 to increase the duration of
Early Head Start and Head Start
programs. Thus, a substantial share of
the costs in this rule will be absorbed by
this funding. Accounting for the funding
Congress has already provided in FY
2016 to increase duration, we estimate
the 10-year present value of the costs to
be $5,632 million when discounted at 3
percent, and $4,502 when discounted at
7 percent. The annualized costs of new
requirements in this final rule, when
taking into these amounts already
appropriated for duration, would be
$641 million when discounted at 3
percent and $599 million when
discounted at 7 percent.
COSTS TO SOCIETY DISCOUNTED AND ANNUALIZED
[In millions]
Annualized
(years 1–10)
Discounted
3%
Cost to
2016
Cost to
2016
Society, excluding duration funding appropriated beginning in FY
.............................................................................................................
Society, including duration funding appropriated beginning in FY
.............................................................................................................
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
5. Distributional Effects
As part of our regulatory analysis, we
considered whether the final rule will
disproportionately benefit or harm a
particular subpopulation. If adequate
funds are not appropriated, the final
rule has the potential to result in a
reduction in the number of children
being served by Head Start and an
improvement in quality for the much
larger group of low-income children
who continue to participate. We do not
expect the children who may lose access
to Head Start if the funding is not
provided to be systematically different
in terms of meaningful subpopulations
from the children who will be receiving
greater benefits from higher quality
services. We also acknowledge that if
adequate funds are not appropriated, as
many as 7,372 teachers, assistant
teachers, and home visitors could no
longer be employed. Again, while these
teachers would be economically
harmed, the remaining 110,933 teachers,
assistant teachers, and home visitors
whose employment is not terminated,
should receive pay increases because of
working longer hours and longer
program years. We do not expect the
teachers who are no longer employed to
be systematically different in terms of
meaningful subpopulations from the
teachers who will see increased pay
because of this rule.
We also considered whether there
would be a differential impact of the
final rule, specifically the requirements
to increase duration, on either children
or teachers based upon geographic
location or tribal affiliation. While we
found significant variation at the state
level with regard to the proportion of
slots that provide 1,020 annual hours in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
Sfmt 4700
Discounted
7%
$7,358
$5,886
641
599
5,632
4,502
Extension of Head Start Center-Based
Program Duration
The rule requires Head Start centerbased programs to provide a minimum
of 1,020 annual hours for all children by
August 1, 2021, but gives the Secretary
Fmt 4701
Discounted
3%
$783
6. Regulatory Alternatives
As part of our full regulatory analysis,
we have considered several regulatory
alternatives, which we outline below.
Specifically, we have considered
alternatives to the policy changes we
have determined to be our largest costdrivers: Extension of Head Start centerbased program duration and mentor
coaching. We consider alternatives to
these policy changes by analyzing the
effect of the net cost in dollars, slots,
and education staff jobs of making no
change to the existing rule, as well as
other more costly policy changes. In
fact, the requirements in this rule for
Head Start center-based duration
represent an alternative to the
requirements proposed in the NPRM.
Justifications for the policies set by this
rule are embedded throughout the
discussion of comments received.
However, we do provide additional
rationale for not opting to propose or
finalize the more costly regulatory
alternatives in this section.
Frm 00115
Discounted
7%
$838
Head Start and 1,380 annual hours in
Early Head Start, there are no systematic
differences based on the region of the
country (e.g., North vs. South; Midwest
vs. West, etc.). Further, if the rule is
fully implemented, some children in
every state will benefit from increased
duration. We also found no systematic
differences between tribal programs and
non-tribal programs with regard to
meeting the new minimums.
PO 00000
10 year total
authority to reduce this requirement to
mitigate slot loss from the duration
requirements in the event that Congress
does not appropriate adequate funds to
support the policy. As described in great
detail above, these requirements will
increase the amount of instructional
time in Head Start programs, which
research suggests is critical to reaping
the full benefits of the other quality
improvements in the rule.252 253 In our
cost analysis, we estimated the cost of
the Head Start center-based duration
requirement, if fully implemented to be
$1,128,990,485. Once the expected
proportion of the FY 2016 appropriation
to increase program duration in Head
Start is applied, the cost of these
requirements is $865,868,544. These
requirements are associated with a
potential loss of between 0 and 107,762
slots and between 0 and 5,475 education
staff jobs, depending upon
appropriations and Secretarial action.
As part of our full regulatory analysis,
we considered three alternatives to this
policy change.
First, we considered the alternative of
making no change to our previous
minimums, thus eliminating the
associated cost of $865,868,544. Using
the methodology enumerated above,
making no change to this policy would
be associated with up to 107,762 fewer
slots lost and 5,475 fewer education
252 Weiland, C., & Yoshikawa, H. (2013). Impacts
of a prekindergarten program on children’s
mathematics, language, literacy, executive function,
and emotional skills. Child Development, 84, 2112–
2130.
253 Barnett, W.S., Jung, K., Youn, M.J., and Frede,
E.C. (2013). Abbott Preschool Program Longitudinal
Effects Study: Fifth Grade Follow-Up. National
Institute for Early Education Research Rutgers—The
State University of New Jersey.
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
61408
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
staff no longer employed. However, not
making this change would also prevent
the significant predicted increase in
impacts on child outcomes we have
described in the Benefits Analysis
section. We believe that strong child
outcomes are best fostered through highquality early education programs that
provide at least a full school day and
full school year of services and that
children are best served if Head Start
programs continue to move toward this
goal and there is ample research that
points to increased duration in
achieving positive child outcomes.
254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Therefore we have not included this
alternative in the final rule.
We also considered the alternative
proposed in the NPRM to extend the
minimum Head Start year to 180 days
254 Lee, V. E., Burkam, D. T., Ready, D. D.,
Honigman, J., & Meisels, S. J. (2006). Full-Day
versus Half-Day Kindergarten: In Which Program
Do Children Learn More? American Journal of
Education, 112(2), 163–208.
255 Walston, J.T., and West, J. (2004). Full-day and
Half-day Kindergarten in the United States:
Findings from the Early Childhood Longitudinal
Study, Kindergarten Class of 1998–99 (NCES 2004–
078). U.S. Department of Education, National
Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC:
U.S. Government Printing Office.
256 Sloan McCombs, J. et al., (2011). Making
Summer Count. How Summer Programs Can Boost
Children’s Learning. Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND
Corporation.
257 Downey, D.B., von Hippel, P.T. & Broh, B.A.
(2004). Are Schools the Great Equalizer? Cognitive
Inequality During the Summer Months and the
School Year. American Sociological Review, 69(5),
613–635.
258 Ehrlich, S.B., Gwynne, J.A., . . . Sorice, E.
(2014). Preschool Attendance in Chicago Public
Schools: Relationships with Learning Outcomes and
Reasons for Absences. University of Chicago
Consortium on Chicago School Research. Research
Report.
259 Peisner-Feinberg, E. S., Schaaf, J. M., LaForett,
D. R., Hildebrandt, L.M., & Sideris, J. (2014). Effects
of Georgia’s Pre-K Program on children’s school
readiness skills: Findings from the 2012–2013
evaluation study. Chapel Hill: The University of
North Carolina, FPG Child Development Institute.
260 Barnett, W.S., Jung, K., Youn, M.J., and Frede,
E.C. (2013). Abbott Preschool Program Longitudinal
Effects Study: Fifth Grade Follow-Up. National
Institute for Early Education Research Rutgers—The
State University of New Jersey.
261 Gormley, G.T., Gayer, T., Phillips, D., &
Dawson, B. (2005). The effects of universal pre-k on
cognitive development. Developmental Psychology,
4(6), 872–884.
262 Weiland, C., & Yoshikawa, H. (2013). Impacts
of a prekindergarten program on children’s
mathematics, language, literacy, executive function,
and emotional skills. Child Development, 84, 2112–
2130.
263 Walters, C. R. (2015). Inputs in the Production
of Early Childhood Human Capital: Evidence from
Head Start, American Economic Journal: Applied
Economics, 7(4), 76–102.
264 Yoshikawa, H., Weiland, C., Brooks-Gunn, J.,
Burchinal, M.R., Espinosa, L.M., Gormley, W.T.,
Ludwig, J., Magnuson, K.A., Phillips, D., & Zaslow,
M.J. (2013). Investing in Our Future: The Evidence
Base on Preschool Education. Policy Brief.
Foundation for Child Development.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
and the Head Start day to 6 hours. Using
the same method employed in our
original cost analysis in the NPRM. We
updated the original cost analysis by
using 2015 data, inflating for missing
GABI data, and inflating by 20% to
reflect changes made to the final rule
cost estimate in response to comments
that account for fringe benefits and
remove the assumption that additional
administrative costs will not be
necessary to support increased
duration). These changes provide
comparable estimates for weighing the
potential impacts of regulatory
alternatives. Using this method, the total
costs of this alternative (NPRM
proposal) would be $ 1,308,629,691.
Once the expected proportion of the FY
2016 appropriation to increase program
duration in Head Start is applied, the
cost of these requirements is
$1,045,507,751. These costs would
result in a total of 130,119 slots lost and
10,392 education staff no longer
employed as a result of this provision
alone. The additional associated costs of
this alternative, compared to the
requirements in the final rule, would be
$179,639,207, which would result in as
many as 22,357 additional slots lost and
4,917 additional education staff no
longer employed.
Again, research clearly demonstrates
that strong child outcomes are best
fostered through high-quality early
education programs that provide at least
a full school day and full school year of
services, however, research does not
specify a threshold for this
effect.265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275
265 Lee, V. E., Burkam, D. T., Ready, D. D.,
Honigman, J., & Meisels, S. J. (2006). Full-Day
versus Half-Day Kindergarten: In Which Program
Do Children Learn More? American Journal of
Education, 112(2), 163–208.
266 Walston, J.T., and West, J. (2004). Full-day and
Half-day Kindergarten in the United States:
Findings from the Early Childhood Longitudinal
Study, Kindergarten Class of 1998–99 (NCES 2004–
078). U.S. Department of Education, National
Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC:
U.S. Government Printing Office.
267 Sloan McCombs, J. et al., (2011). Making
Summer Count. How Summer Programs Can Boost
Children’s Learning. Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND
Corporation.
268 Downey, D.B., von Hippel, P.T. & Broh, B.A.
(2004). Are Schools the Great Equalizer? Cognitive
Inequality During the Summer Months and the
School Year. American Sociological Review, 69(5),
613–635.
269 Ehrlich, S.B., Gwynne, J.A., . . . Sorice, E.
(2014). Preschool Attendance in Chicago Public
Schools: Relationships with Learning Outcomes and
Reasons for Absences. University of Chicago
Consortium on Chicago School Research. Research
Report.
270 Peisner-Feinberg, E. S., Schaaf, J. M., LaForett,
D. R., Hildebrandt, L.M., & Sideris, J. (2014). Effects
of Georgia’s Pre-K Program on children’s school
readiness skills: Findings from the 2012–2013
evaluation study. Chapel Hill: The University of
North Carolina, FPG Child Development Institute.
PO 00000
Frm 00116
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Given this, we believe it is important to
allow programs to design a variety of
different schedules within the minimum
requirements that meet the specific
needs of their families, communities,
and staff. We believe the flexibility of
the annual hours, rather than the
specified hours per day and days per
year of this regulatory alternative will
allow programs to address many of the
concerns that were raised in the
comments, such as alignment of the
summer break with the local education
agency’s calendar, the availability of
facilities, the continuation of
partnerships, and state licensing
requirements.
Finally, we considered the alternative
of requiring Head Start center-based
programs to provide a minimum of
1,020 annual hours for all children by
August 1, 2021, but not giving the
Secretary authority to reduce this
requirement to mitigate slot loss in the
event that adequate funds to support the
policy are not appropriated. This policy
would guarantee, in the event that
Congress does not appropriate adequate
funds to support the policy, at least
some children would lose access to
Head Start and some education staff
would no longer be employed by Head
Start.
However, the negative effects of
implementing this model in such a way
that could lead to significant reductions
in the number of children and families
served by Head Start programs, may
outweigh the benefits. Therefore, we
specify an incremental timeline and
process for grantees to shift their
programs to provide at least a full
school day and a full school year of
services to all preschoolers in centerbased settings, which will allow
programs to extend their service
duration models thoughtfully. Further,
we gave the Secretary the discretion to
271 Barnett, W.S., Jung, K., Youn, M.J., and Frede,
E.C. (2013). Abbott Preschool Program Longitudinal
Effects Study: Fifth Grade Follow-Up. National
Institute for Early Education Research Rutgers—The
State University of New Jersey.
272 Gormley, G.T., Gayer, T., Phillips, D., &
Dawson, B. (2005). The effects of universal pre-k on
cognitive development. Developmental Psychology,
4(6), 872–884.
273 Weiland, C., & Yoshikawa, H. (2013). Impacts
of a prekindergarten program on children’s
mathematics, language, literacy, executive function,
and emotional skills. Child Development, 84, 2112–
2130.
274 Walters, C. R. (2015). Inputs in the Production
of Early Childhood Human Capital: Evidence from
Head Start, American Economic Journal: Applied
Economics, 7(4), 76–102.
275 Yoshikawa, H., Weiland, C., Brooks-Gunn, J.,
Burchinal, M.R., Espinosa, L.M., Gormley, W.T.,
Ludwig, J., Magnuson, K.A., Phillips, D., & Zaslow,
M.J. (2013). Investing in Our Future: The Evidence
Base on Preschool Education. Policy Brief.
Foundation for Child Development.
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
lower the required percentage of funded
enrollment slots for which grantees
must offer 1,020 annual hours of
planned class operations to the
percentage the Secretary estimates
available appropriations can support.
This balances the important policy goal
of providing all preschoolers with a full
school day and a full school year of
services in Head Start with the
disruption and potential slot loss such
a policy might create in the absence of
sufficient funding in a way that this
regulatory alternative would not.
We believe the policy set by this final
rule represents a balance between
61409
empowering Head Start programs to
ensure all Head Start children receive
enough high quality early learning
experiences to improve their outcomes,
and ensuring as many children from
low-income families as possible are
served by Head Start.
REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES: HEAD START CENTER-BASED DURATION
Status quo
Costs Borne by Head Start, excluding FY 2016 duration
funding ..................................................................................
Costs Borne by Head Start, including FY 2016 duration funding .........................................................................................
Slot Loss ..................................................................................
Job Loss ..................................................................................
NPRM proposal *
100% to 1,020 for
Head Start
Center-based
without Sec.
authority
Final rule
0
$1,308,629,691
$1,128,990,485
$1,128,990,485
..............................
0
0
1,045,507,751
130,119
10,392
865,868,544
107,762
5,475
865,868,544
0–107,762
0–5,475
* Note the NPRM proposal cost estimate has been inflated to reflect changes made to the final rule cost estimate that account for fringe benefits and remove the assumption that additional administrative costs will not be necessary to support increased duration.
Mentor Coaching
In this rule, we require programs to
have a system of professional
development in place that includes an
intensive coaching strategy. As with our
other largest cost drivers, as part of our
full regulatory analysis, we considered
two alternatives to this policy change.
Specifically, we considered the
alternative of not requiring mentor
coaches for any teaching staff, thus
eliminating the associated cost of
$141,978,651. This alternative would be
associated with 16,694 fewer slots
potentially lost and 1,902 fewer
educations staff potentially no longer
employed. However, a growing body of
research demonstrates the effectiveness
of intensive professional development
for improving teacher practices in early
care and education settings 276 277 278 and
that such strategies support improved
teacher practice in the classroom and an
increase in classroom quality.279 280 This
alternative would not allow children to
reap the benefits of higher quality early
learning programs, through improved
teaching practices.
We also considered the alternative of
requiring mentor coaches for all
teaching staff, rather than allowing
programs to allocate mentor coaches to
the teachers who need intensive
professional development, most (an
estimated one-third of all teaching staff).
Using the same method employed in our
original cost analysis, the additional
associated costs of this alternative
would be $425,935,952 total or
$283,957,301 more than our final
policy, which would result in 50,083
total or 33,389 additional slots
potentially lost and 5,707 total or 3,805
additional education staff potentially no
longer employed. As described in
previous sections, we strongly believe
that more intensive, focused
professional development is critical to
improving teaching quality and thereby
increasing impacts on child outcomes.
However, we believe it would be
inefficient to mandate that every teacher
receive intensive individualized
coaching when local professional
development needs may need to be met.
Our requirement will achieve our goal
of improving teacher practices by
targeting teachers most in need of
coaching to improve their teaching
practices while still maintaining local
flexibility for individualized
professional development.
REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES: MENTOR COACHING
Status quo
(no coaching)
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Cost ............................................................................................................................
Potential slot loss .......................................................................................................
Potential job loss .......................................................................................................
276 Buysse, V., & Wesley, P. W. (2005).
Consultation in Early Childhood Settings.
Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing.
277 Tout, K., Halle, T., Zaslow, M., & Starr, R.
(2009). Evaluation of the Early Childhood Educator
Professional Development Program: Final Report:
Report prepared for the U.S. Department of
Education.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
0
0
0
278 Zaslow, M., Tout, K., Halle, T., Vick, J., &
Lavelle, B. (2010). Towards the identification of
features of effective professional development for
early childhood educators: A review of the
literature. Report prepared for the U.S. Department
of Education.
279 Isner, T., Tout, K., Zaslow, M., Soli, M.,
Quinn, K., Rothenberg, L., & Burkhauser, M. (2011).
PO 00000
Frm 00117
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Coaching for all
teachers
$425,935,952
50,083
5,707
Final rule
(coaching for onethird of teachers)
$141,978,651
16,694
1,902
Coaching in early care and education programs and
Quality Rating and Improvement Systems (QRIS):
Identifying promising features. Child Trends.
280 Lloyd, C. M., & Modlin, E. L. (2012). Coaching
as a key component in teachers’ professional
development: Improving classroom practices in
Head Start settings. Administration for Children
and Families.
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
61410
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
f. Congressional Review
The Congressional Review Act (CRA)
allows Congress to review ‘‘major’’ rules
issued by federal agencies before the
rules take effect.283 The CRA defines a
major rule as one that has resulted or is
likely to result in (1) an annual effect on
the economy of $100 million or more;
(2) a major increase in costs or prices for
consumers, individual industries,
federal, state or local government
agencies, or geographic regions; or (3)
significant adverse effects on
competition, employment, investment,
productivity, or innovation, or on the
ability of United States-based
enterprises to compete with foreignbased enterprises in domestic and
export markets.284 This regulation is a
major rule because it will likely result
in an annual effect of more than $100
million on the economy.
d. Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act of 1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act of 1999 requires federal agencies to
determine whether a policy or
regulation may negatively affect family
well-being. If the agency determines a
policy or regulation negatively affects
family well-being, then the agency must
prepare an impact assessment
addressing seven criteria specified in
the law. This rule does not have any
impact on the autonomy or integrity of
the family as an institution.
Accordingly, we concluded it was not
necessary to prepare a family
policymaking assessment.282
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA) 281 was enacted to avoid
imposing unfunded federal mandates on
state, local, and tribal governments, or
on the private sector. Most of UMRA’s
provisions apply to proposed and final
rules for which a general notice of
proposed rulemaking was published,
and that include a federal mandate that
may result in expenditures by state,
local, or tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector of
$100 million or more (adjusted annually
for inflation) in any one year. The
current threshold after adjustment for
inflation is $146 million, using the most
current (2015) implicit price deflator for
the gross domestic product. This final
rule does not impose unfunded
mandates on state, local, and tribal
governments, or on the private sector.
g. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
e. Federalism Assessment Executive
Order 13132
Executive Order 13132 requires
federal agencies to consult with state
and local government officials if they
develop regulatory policies with
federalism implications. Federalism is
rooted in the belief that issues that are
not national in scope or significance are
most appropriately addressed by the
level of government close to the people.
This final rule does not have substantial
direct impact on the states, on the
relationship between the federal
government and the states, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with section 6 of Executive
Order 13132, it is determined that this
final rule does not have sufficient
federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a federalism summary
impact statement.
281 2
U.S.C. 1501 et seq.
Law 105–277.
283 5
282 Public
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA), P.L. 104–13, minimizes
government imposed burden on the
public. In keeping with the notion that
government information is a valuable
asset, it also is intended to improve the
practical utility, quality, and clarity of
information collected, maintained, and
disclosed.
Regulations at 5 CFR part 1320
implemented the provisions of the PRA
and § 1320.3 of this part defines a
‘‘collection of information,’’
‘‘information,’’ and ‘‘burden.’’ A
‘‘collection of information’’ is broadly
defined and includes any requirement
or request for persons to collect,
maintain, or publicly disclose
information. ‘‘Information’’ is defined in
as any statement or estimate of fact or
opinion, regardless of form or format,
whether numerical, graphic, or narrative
form, and whether oral or maintained
on paper, electronic or other media.
‘‘Burden’’ means the total time, effort, or
financial resources expended by persons
to collect, maintain, or disclose
information. Burden includes actions
for the purposes of information request
such as reviewing instructions,
acquiring and using technology and
systems, adjusting the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements,
completing and reviewing the collection
of information, and transmitting the
information. The PRA only counts as
burden the net additional burden
needed to comply with information
request. Time, effort, and resources to
collect information that would be
284 5
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
incurred by persons in the normal
course of their activities are excluded
from the burden.
Section 1320.11(f) of 5 CFR part 1320
requires an agency to explain in the
final rule how information collections
proposed in an NPRM respond to any
comments received or the reasons such
comments were rejected. We did not
receive any comments directly related to
information collections we proposed in
the NPRM. Therefore, we did not make
any changes here.
Below, we describe information
collections and their burden estimates:
Title: Head Start Grants Administration
Description: We require information
collections related to the protection for
the privacy of child records. We require
programs to collect parents’ written
consent before they disclose personally
identifiable information from a child’s
records. We require programs to notify
parents annually of their rights
described in §§ 1303.20 through 1303.24
and of applicable definitions in part
1305. We also require programs to
maintain, with each child record,
information on all individuals, agencies,
or organizations that have obtained
access to personal identifiable
information from child records.
Title: Head Start Performance Standards
Description: We require a new
information collection to codify best
practice in assessing dual language
learners. Specifically, we require
programs to administer language
assessments to dual language learners in
both English and their home language,
either directly or through interpreters.
We also strengthen background check
procedures to require state/tribal or
federal criminal background checks, as
well as clearance through available
child abuse and neglect and sex
offender registries. This requirement is
consistent with the Office of Child
Care’s requirement to minimize burden
on programs that operate with both
Head Start and Child Care Development
Funds. This increases the recordkeeping burden related to criminal
record checks.
Description of Respondents and
Burden Estimate: The total annual
burden hours estimated is 1,019,473
hours. For some items, we calculated
burden hours for individual children
and families, for other items, we
calculated burden hours for staff.
The table below lists burden hour
estimates and indicates our bases for
these estimations. See the Regulatory
U.S.C. 802(a).
U.S.C. Chapter 8.
Frm 00118
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
61411
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Impact Analysis section for cost
estimations.
OMB Control
No.
Information collection
Number of
respondents
Number of
responses per
respondent
Average
burden per
response
Total burden
hours
Annual Reporting Burden Estimates
N/A .......................................................................................
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A .................
N/A
Annual Recording Keeping Burden Estimates
Head Start Grants Administration:
§ 1303.22, 1303.24 Parental Consent, Annual Notice, and Recordkeeping of PII Disclosure.
Head Start Performance Standards:
§ 1302.33 Language Assessments of Dual Language Learners.
Head Start Performance Standards:
§ 1302.90 Background Checks ..................................
0970–0423
988,923 (F)
1
20 minutes .....
329,641
0970–0148
332,651 (C)
1
2 hours ...........
665,302
0970–0148
73,591 (S)
1
20 minutes .....
24,530
Annual Third-Party Disclosure Burden Estimates
N/A .......................................................................................
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A .................
N/A
Total Burden Hours ......................................................
........................
........................
........................
........................
1,019,473
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Key: C = Children, F = Families, S = Staff.
For informational purposes, currently
approved collections of information that
will no longer be required are described
below:
• Head Start Grants Administration.
This rule removed certain requirements
for grantee agencies including the
submission of audits, accounting
systems certifications, and provisions
applicable to personnel management.
• Appeal Procedures for Head Start.
Grantees and Current or Prospective
Delegate Agencies—This rule removed
the appeal procedures by delegate
agencies that came from denials or
failure to act by grantees. It also
removed the appeal procedures by a
grantee of a suspension continuing for
more than 30 days.
• Head Start Program Performance
Standards. Numerous record-keeping
requirements were removed which will
result in a decrease in burden, i.e.
documentation of the level of effort
undertaken to establish community
partnerships, written records of roles
and responsibilities for each governing
body members, the annual written and
approval of plans for implementation
services for each program area,
provisions applicable to personnel
management, and record-keeping and
sharing of a set of community services
and resources.
• Purchase, Construction and Major
Renovation of Head Start Facilities. We
removed some requirements that
involved collection of information that
will result in a reduction in burden,
including the submission of drawings
and specifications, costs related to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
installation of modular unit, statement
of procurement procedure for modular
units, and obtaining an independent
analysis of the cost comparison.
Tribal Consultation Statement
The Office of Head Start conducts an
average of 5 Tribal Consultations each
year for those tribes operating Head
Start and Early Head Start. The
consultations are held in geographic
areas across the country—Southwest,
Northwest, Midwest (Northern and
Southern), and Eastern. The
consultations are often held in
conjunction with other tribal meetings
or conferences, to ensure the
opportunity for most of the 150 tribes
served through OHS to be able to attend,
and voice their concerns and issues for
their HS/EHS programs. A report is
completed after each consultation, and
then a final report is compiled and
submitted to the Secretary at the end of
the year, summarizing the consultations.
For the past several years, the primary
issues raised have been around Head
Start requirements which are the subject
of this regulation and ensuring tribes
have sufficient funding to meet those
requirements. Language and culture are
also a primary topic, particularly Head
Start supporting efforts to preserve and
revitalize language within each tribe,
which is specifically addressed in this
final rule. Teacher credentials, and,
Monitoring, and fiscal issues were also
common themes across the
consultations, which have allowed us to
gather valuable information that
informed the development of this rule.
PO 00000
Frm 00119
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Through the notice and comment
process we also received comments
from tribal communities, including form
the National Indian Head Start Directors
Association which informed the
development of this final rule.
List of Subjects
45 CFR Part 1301
Education of disadvantaged.
45 CFR Part 1302
Education of disadvantaged, Grant
programs—social programs, Homeless,
Immunization, Migrant labor,
Individuals with disabilities, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements,
Indians, Health care, Oral health,
Mental health programs, Nutrition,
Safety, Maternal and child health,
Volunteers.
45 CFR Part 1303
Administrative practice and
procedure, Education of disadvantaged,
Grant programs—social programs,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Privacy, Real property,
acquisition, Individuals with
disabilities, Transportation, Motor
vehicles.
45 CFR Part 1304
Education of disadvantaged, Grant
programs—social programs, Designation
renewal system, Scholarships and
fellowships, Indians.
45 CFR Part 1305
Definitions.
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
61412
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Approved: June 10, 2016.
Mark H. Greenberg,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Children and
Families.
Sylvia M. Burwell,
Secretary.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, under the authority at 42
U.S.C. 9801 et seq., subchapter B of 45
CFR chapter XIII is revised to read as
follows:
SUBCHAPTER B—THE ADMINISTRATION
FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, HEAD
START PROGRAM
PART 1300—[Reserved]
PART 1301—PROGRAM
GOVERNANCE
PART 1302—PROGRAM OPERATIONS
PART 1303—FINANCIAL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS
PART 1304—FEDERAL
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES
PART 1305—DEFINITIONS
PART 1300—[Reserved]
PART 1301—PROGRAM
GOVERNANCE
§ 1301.3 Policy council and policy
committee.
Sec.
1301.1 Purpose.
1301.2 Governing body.
1301.3 Policy council and policy
committee.
1301.4 Parent committees.
1301.5 Training.
1301.6 Impasse procedures.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9801 et seq.
§ 1301.1
In general.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
An agency, as defined in part 1305 of
this chapter, must establish and
maintain a formal structure for program
governance that includes a governing
body, a policy council at the agency
level and policy committee at the
delegate level, and a parent committee.
Governing bodies have a legal and fiscal
responsibility to administer and oversee
the agency’s Head Start and Early Head
Start programs. Policy councils are
responsible for the direction of the
agency’s Head Start and Early Head
Start programs.
§ 1301.2
Governing body.
(a) Composition. The composition of a
governing body must be in accordance
with the requirements specified at
section 642(c)(1)(B) of the Act, except
where specific exceptions are
authorized in the case of public entities
at section 642(c)(1)(D) of the Act.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Agencies must ensure members of the
governing body do not have a conflict of
interest, pursuant to section 642(c)(1)(C)
of the Act.
(b) Duties and responsibilities. (1) The
governing body is responsible for
activities specified at section
642(c)(1)(E) of the Act.
(2) The governing body must use
ongoing monitoring results, data on
school readiness goals, other
information described in § 1302.102,
and information described at section
642(d)(2) of the Act to conduct its
responsibilities.
(c) Advisory committees. (1) A
governing body may establish advisory
committees as it deems necessary for
effective governance and improvement
of the program.
(2) If a governing body establishes an
advisory committee to oversee key
responsibilities related to program
governance, it must:
(i) Establish the structure,
communication, and oversight in such a
way that the governing body continues
to maintain its legal and fiscal
responsibility for the Head Start agency;
and,
(ii) Notify the responsible HHS
official of its intent to establish such an
advisory committee.
Jkt 238001
(a) Establishing policy councils and
policy committees. Each agency must
establish and maintain a policy council
responsible for the direction of the Head
Start program at the agency level, and a
policy committee at the delegate level.
If an agency delegates operational
responsibility for the entire Head Start
or Early Head Start program to one
delegate agency, the policy council and
policy committee may be the same
body.
(b) Composition. (1) A program must
establish a policy council in accordance
with section 642(c)(2)(B) of the Act, or
a policy committee at the delegate level
in accordance with section 642(c)(3) of
the Act, as early in the program year as
possible. Parents of children currently
enrolled in each program option must
be proportionately represented on the
policy council and on the policy
committee at the delegate level.
(2) The program must ensure
members of the policy council, and of
the policy committee at the delegate
level, do not have a conflict of interest
pursuant to sections 642(c)(2)(C) and
642(c)(3)(B) of the Act. Staff may not
serve on the policy council or policy
committee at the delegate level except
parents who occasionally substitute as
staff. In the case of tribal grantees, this
PO 00000
Frm 00120
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
exclusion applies only to tribal staff
who work in areas directly related to or
which directly impact administrative,
fiscal, or programmatic issues.
(c) Duties and responsibilities. (1) A
policy council is responsible for
activities specified at section
642(c)(2)(D) of the Act. A policy
committee must approve and submit to
the delegate agency its decisions in each
of the following areas referenced at
section 642(c)(2)(D)(i) through (vii) of
the Act.
(2) A policy council, and a policy
committee at the delegate level, must
use ongoing monitoring results, data on
school readiness goals, other
information described in § 1302.102,
and information described in section
642(d)(2) of the Act to conduct its
responsibilities.
(d) Term. (1) A member will serve for
one year.
(2) If the member intends to serve for
another year, s/he must stand for reelection.
(3) The policy council, and policy
committee at the delegate level, must
include in its bylaws how many oneyear terms, not to exceed five terms, a
person may serve.
(4) A program must seat a successor
policy council, or policy committee at
the delegate level, before an existing
policy council, or policy committee at
the delegate level, may be dissolved.
(e) Reimbursement. A program must
enable low-income members to
participate fully in their policy council
or policy committee responsibilities by
providing, if necessary, reimbursements
for reasonable expenses incurred by the
low-income members.
§ 1301.4
Parent committees.
(a) Establishing parent committees. A
program must establish a parent
committee comprised exclusively of
parents of currently enrolled children as
early in the program year as possible.
This committee must be established at
the center level for center-based
programs and at the local program level
for other program options. When a
program operates more than one option,
parents may choose to have a separate
committee for each option or combine
membership. A program must ensure
that parents of currently enrolled
children understand the process for
elections to the policy council or policy
committee and other leadership
opportunities.
(b) Requirements of parent
committees. Within the parent
committee structure, a program may
determine the best methods to engage
families using strategies that are most
effective in their community, as long as
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
the program ensures the parent
committee carries out the following
minimum responsibilities:
(1) Advise staff in developing and
implementing local program policies,
activities, and services to ensure they
meet the needs of children and families;
(2) Have a process for communication
with the policy council and policy
committee; and
(3) Within the guidelines established
by the governing body, policy council or
policy committee, participate in the
recruitment and screening of Early Head
Start and Head Start employees.
§ 1301.5
Training.
An agency must provide appropriate
training and technical assistance or
orientation to the governing body, any
advisory committee members, and the
policy council, including training on
program performance standards and
training indicated in § 1302.12(m) to
ensure the members understand the
information they receive and can
effectively oversee and participate in the
programs in the Head Start agency.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
§ 1301.6
Impasse procedures.
(a) To facilitate meaningful
consultation and collaboration about
decisions of the governing body and the
policy council, each agency’s governing
body and policy council jointly must
establish written procedures for
resolving internal disputes between the
governing board and policy council in a
timely manner that include impasse
procedures. These procedures must:
(1) Demonstrate that the governing
body considers proposed decisions from
the policy council and that the policy
council considers proposed decisions
from the governing body;
(2) If there is a disagreement, require
the governing body and the policy
council to notify the other in writing
why it does not accept a decision; and,
(3) Describe a decision-making
process and a timeline to resolve
disputes and reach decisions that are
not arbitrary, capricious, or illegal.
(b) If the agency’s decision-making
process does not result in a resolution
and an impasse continues, the
governing body and policy council must
select a mutually agreeable third party
mediator and participate in a formal
process of mediation that leads to a
resolution of the dispute.
(c) For all programs except American
Indian and Alaska Native programs, if
no resolution is reached with a
mediator, the governing body and policy
council must select a mutually agreeable
arbitrator whose decision is final.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
PART 1302—PROGRAM OPERATIONS
Sec.
1302.1
Overview.
Subpart A—Eligibility, Recruitment,
Selection, Enrollment, and Attendance
1302.10 Purpose.
1302.11 Determining community strengths,
needs, and resources.
1302.12 Determining, verifying, and
documenting eligibility.
1302.13 Recruitment of children.
1302.14 Selection process.
1302.15 Enrollment.
1302.16 Attendance.
1302.17 Suspension and expulsion.
1302.18 Fees.
Subpart B—Program Structure
1302.20 Determining program structure.
1302.21 Center-based option.
1302.22 Home-based option.
1302.23 Family child care option.
1302.24 Locally-designed program option
variations.
Subpart C—Education and Child
Development Program Services
1302.30 Purpose.
1302.31 Teaching and the learning
environment.
1302.32 Curricula.
1302.33 Child screenings and assessments.
1302.34 Parent and family engagement in
education and child development
services.
1302.35 Education in home-based
programs.
1302.36 Tribal language preservation and
revitalization.
Subpart D—Health Program Services
1302.40 Purpose.
1302.41 Collaboration and communication
with parents.
1302.42 Child health status and care.
1302.43 Oral health practices.
1302.44 Child nutrition.
1302.45 Child mental health and social and
emotional well-being.
1302.46 Family support services for health,
nutrition, and mental health.
1302.47 Safety practices.
Subpart E—Family and Community
Engagement Program Services
Subpart F—Additional Services for Children
With Disabilities
1302.60 Full participation in program
services and activities.
1302.61 Additional services for children.
1302.62 Additional services for parents.
1302.63 Coordination and collaboration
with the local agency responsible for
implementing IDEA.
Subpart G—Transition Services
1302.70 Transitions from Early Head Start.
1302.71 Transitions from Head Start to
kindergarten.
1302.72 Transitions between programs.
Subpart H—Services to Enrolled Pregnant
Women
1302.80 Enrolled pregnant women.
PO 00000
Frm 00121
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61413
1302.81 Prenatal and postpartum
information, education, and services.
1302.82 Family partnership services for
enrolled pregnant women.
Subpart I—Human Resources Management
1302.90 Personnel policies.
1302.91 Staff qualification and competency
requirements.
1302.92 Training and professional
development.
1302.93 Staff health and wellness.
1302.94 Volunteers.
Subpart J—Program Management and
Quality Improvement
1302.100 Purpose.
1302.101 Management system.
1302.102 Achieving program goals.
1302.103 Implementation of program
performance standards.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9801 et seq.
§ 1302.1
Overview.
This part implements these statutory
requirements in Sections 641A, 645,
645A, and 648A of the Act by describing
all of the program performance
standards that are required to operate
Head Start, Early Head Start, American
Indian and Alaska Native and Migrant
or Seasonal Head Start programs. The
part covers the full range of operations
from enrolling eligible children and
providing program services to those
children and their families, to managing
programs to ensure staff are qualified
and supported to effectively provide
services. This part also focuses on using
data through ongoing program
improvement to ensure high-quality
service. As required in the Act, these
provisions do not narrow the scope or
quality of services covered in previous
regulations. Instead, these regulations
raise the quality standard to reflect
science and best practices, and
streamline and simplify requirements so
programs can better understand what is
required for quality services.
Subpart A—Eligibility, Recruitment,
Selection, Enrollment, and Attendance
§ 1302.10
Purpose.
This subpart describes requirements
of grantees for determining community
strengths, needs and resources as well
as recruitment areas. It contains
requirements and procedures for the
eligibility determination, recruitment,
selection, enrollment and attendance of
children and explains the policy
concerning the charging of fees.
§ 1302.11 Determining community
strengths, needs, and resources.
(a) Service area. (1) A program must
propose a service area in the grant
application and define the area by
county or sub-county area, such as a
municipality, town or census tract or
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
61414
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
jurisdiction of a federally recognized
Indian reservation.
(i) A tribal program may propose a
service area that includes areas where
members of Indian tribes or those
eligible for such membership reside,
including but not limited to Indian
reservation land, areas designated as
near-reservation by the Bureau of Indian
Affairs (BIA) provided that the service
area is approved by the tribe’s governing
council, Alaska Native Villages, Alaska
Native Regional Corporations with landbased authorities, Oklahoma Tribal
Statistical Areas, and Tribal Designated
Statistical Areas where federally
recognized Indian tribes do not have a
federally established reservation.
(ii) If the tribe’s service area includes
any area specified in paragraph (a)(1)(i)
of this section, and that area is also
served by another program, the tribe
may serve children from families who
are members of or eligible to be
members of such tribe and who reside
in such areas as well as children from
families who are not members of the
tribe, but who reside within the tribe’s
established service area.
(2) If a program decides to change the
service area after ACF has approved its
grant application, the program must
submit to ACF a new service area
proposal for approval.
(b) Community wide strategic
planning and needs assessment
(community assessment). (1) To design
a program that meets community needs,
and builds on strengths and resources,
a program must conduct a community
assessment at least once over the fiveyear grant period. The community
assessment must use data that describes
community strengths, needs, and
resources and include, at a minimum:
(i) The number of eligible infants,
toddlers, preschool age children, and
expectant mothers, including their
geographic location, race, ethnicity, and
languages they speak, including:
(A) Children experiencing
homelessness in collaboration with, to
the extent possible, McKinney-Vento
Local Education Agency Liaisons (42
U.S.C. 11432 (6)(A));
(B) Children in foster care; and
(C) Children with disabilities,
including types of disabilities and
relevant services and resources
provided to these children by
community agencies;
(ii) The education, health, nutrition
and social service needs of eligible
children and their families, including
prevalent social or economic factors that
impact their well-being;
(iii) Typical work, school, and
training schedules of parents with
eligible children;
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
(iv) Other child development, child
care centers, and family child care
programs that serve eligible children,
including home visiting, publicly
funded state and local preschools, and
the approximate number of eligible
children served;
(v) Resources that are available in the
community to address the needs of
eligible children and their families; and,
(vi) Strengths of the community.
(2) A program must annually review
and update the community assessment
to reflect any significant changes
including increased availability of
publicly-funded pre-kindergarten(including an assessment of how the
pre-kindergarten available in the
community meets the needs of the
parents and children served by the
program, and whether it is offered for a
full school day), rates of family and
child homelessness, and significant
shifts in community demographics and
resources.
(3) A program must consider whether
the characteristics of the community
allow it to include children from diverse
economic backgrounds that would be
supported by other funding sources,
including private pay, in addition to the
program’s eligible funded enrollment. A
program must not enroll children from
diverse economic backgrounds if it
would result in a program serving less
than its eligible funded enrollment.
§ 1302.12 Determining, verifying, and
documenting eligibility.
(a) Process overview. (1) Program staff
must:
(i) Conduct an in-person interview
with each family, unless paragraph
(a)(2) of this section applies;
(ii) Verify information as required in
paragraphs (h) and (i) of this section;
and,
(iii) Create an eligibility
determination record for enrolled
participants according to paragraph (k)
of this section.
(2) Program staff may interview the
family over the telephone if an inperson interview is not possible or
convenient for the family.
(3) If a program has an alternate
method to reasonably determine
eligibility based on its community
assessment, geographic and
administrative data, or from other
reliable data sources, it may petition the
responsible HHS official to waive
requirements in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and
(ii) of this section.
(b) Age requirements. (1) For Early
Head Start, except when the child is
transitioning to Head Start, a child must
be an infant or a toddler younger than
three years old.
PO 00000
Frm 00122
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
(2) For Head Start, a child must:
(i) Be at least three years old or, turn
three years old by the date used to
determine eligibility for public school in
the community in which the Head Start
program is located; and,
(ii) Be no older than the age required
to attend school.
(3) For Migrant or Seasonal Head
Start, a child must be younger than
compulsory school age by the date used
to determine public school eligibility for
the community in which the program is
located.
(c) Eligibility requirements. (1) A
pregnant woman or a child is eligible if:
(i) The family’s income is equal to or
below the poverty line; or,
(ii) The family is eligible for or, in the
absence of child care, would be
potentially eligible for public assistance;
including TANF child-only payments;
or,
(iii) The child is homeless, as defined
in part 1305; or,
(iv) The child is in foster care.
(2) If the family does not meet a
criterion under paragraph (c)(1) of this
section, a program may enroll a child
who would benefit from services,
provided that these participants only
make up to 10 percent of a program’s
enrollment in accordance with
paragraph (d) of this section.
(d) Additional allowances for
programs. (1) A program may enroll an
additional 35 percent of participants
whose families do not meet a criterion
described in paragraph (c) of this
section and whose incomes are below
130 percent of the poverty line, if the
program:
(i) Establishes and implements
outreach, and enrollment policies and
procedures to ensure it is meeting the
needs of eligible pregnant women,
children, and children with disabilities,
before serving pregnant women or
children who do not meet the criteria in
paragraph (c) of this section; and,
(ii) Establishes criteria that ensure
pregnant women and children eligible
under the criteria listed in paragraph (c)
of this section are served first.
(2) If a program chooses to enroll
participants who do not meet a criterion
in paragraph (c) of this section, and
whose family incomes are between 100
and 130 percent of the poverty line, it
must be able to report to the Head Start
regional program office:
(i) How it is meeting the needs of lowincome families or families potentially
eligible for public assistance, homeless
children, and children in foster care,
and include local demographic data on
these populations;
(ii) Outreach and enrollment policies
and procedures that ensure it is meeting
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
the needs of eligible children or
pregnant women, before serving overincome children or pregnant women;
(iii) Efforts, including outreach, to be
fully enrolled with eligible pregnant
women or children;
(iv) Policies, procedures, and
selection criteria it uses to serve eligible
children;
(v) Its current enrollment and its
enrollment for the previous year;
(vi) The number of pregnant women
and children served, disaggregated by
the eligibility criteria in paragraphs (c)
and (d)(1) of this section; and,
(vii) The eligibility criteria category of
each child on the program’s waiting list.
(e) Additional allowances for Indian
tribes. (1) Notwithstanding paragraph
(c)(2) of this section, a tribal program
may fill more than 10 percent of its
enrollment with participants who are
not eligible under the criteria in
paragraph (c) of this section, if:
(i) The tribal program has served all
eligible pregnant women or children
who wish to be enrolled from Indian
and non-Indian families living within
the approved service area of the tribal
agency;
(ii) The tribe has resources within its
grant, without using additional funds
from HHS intended to expand Early
Head Start or Head Start services, to
enroll pregnant women or children
whose family incomes exceed lowincome guidelines or who are not
otherwise eligible; and,
(iii) At least 51 percent of the
program’s participants meet an
eligibility criterion under paragraph
(c)(1) of this section.
(2) If another program does not serve
the approved service area, the program
must serve all eligible Indian and nonIndian pregnant women or children who
wish to enroll before serving overincome pregnant women or children.
(3) A program that meets the
conditions of this paragraph (e) must
annually set criteria that are approved
by the policy council and the tribal
council for selecting over-income
pregnant women or children who would
benefit from program services.
(4) An Indian tribe or tribes that
operates both an Early Head Start
program and a Head Start program may,
at its discretion, at any time during the
grant period involved, reallocate funds
between the Early Head Start program
and the Head Start program in order to
address fluctuations in client
populations, including pregnant women
and children from birth to compulsory
school age. The reallocation of such
funds between programs by an Indian
tribe or tribes during a year may not
serve as a basis for any reduction of the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
base grant for either program in
succeeding years.
(f) Migrant or Seasonal eligibility
requirements. A child is eligible for
Migrant or Seasonal Head Start, if the
family meets an eligibility criterion in
paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section;
and the family’s income comes
primarily from agricultural work.
(g) Eligibility requirements for
communities with 1,000 or fewer
individuals. (1) A program may
establish its own criteria for eligibility
provided that it meets the criteria
outlined in section 645(a)(2) of the Act.
(2) No child residing in such
community whose family is eligible
under criteria described in paragraphs
(c) through (f) of this section, may be
denied an opportunity to participate in
the program under the eligibility criteria
established under this paragraph (g).
(h) Verifying age. Program staff must
verify a child’s age according to program
policies and procedures. A program’s
policies and procedures cannot require
families to provide documents that
confirm a child’s age, if doing so creates
a barrier for the family to enroll the
child.
(i) Verifying eligibility. (1) To verify
eligibility based on income, program
staff must use tax forms, pay stubs, or
other proof of income to determine the
family income for the relevant time
period.
(i) If the family cannot provide tax
forms, pay stubs, or other proof of
income for the relevant time period,
program staff may accept written
statements from employers, including
individuals who are self-employed, for
the relevant time period and use
information provided to calculate total
annual income with appropriate
multipliers.
(ii) If the family reports no income for
the relevant time period, a program may
accept the family’s signed declaration to
that effect, if program staff describes
efforts made to verify the family’s
income, and explains how the family’s
total income was calculated or seeks
information from third parties about the
family’s eligibility, if the family gives
written consent. If a family gives
consent to contact third parties, program
staff must adhere to program safety and
privacy policies and procedures and
ensure the eligibility determination
record adheres to paragraph (k)(2) of
this section.
(iii) If the family can demonstrate a
significant change in income for the
relevant time period, program staff may
consider current income circumstances.
(2) To verify whether a family is
eligible for, or in the absence of child
care, would be potentially eligible for
PO 00000
Frm 00123
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61415
public assistance, the program must
have documentation from either the
state, local, or tribal public assistance
agency that shows the family either
receives public assistance or that shows
the family is potentially eligible to
receive public assistance.
(3) To verify whether a family is
homeless, a program may accept a
written statement from a homeless
services provider, school personnel, or
other service agency attesting that the
child is homeless or any other
documentation that indicates
homelessness, including documentation
from a public or private agency, a
declaration, information gathered on
enrollment or application forms, or
notes from an interview with staff to
establish the child is homeless; or any
other document that establishes
homelessness.
(i) If a family can provide one of the
documents described in this paragraph
(i)(3), program staff must describe efforts
made to verify the accuracy of the
information provided and state whether
the family is eligible because they are
homeless.
(ii) If a family cannot provide one of
the documents described in this
paragraph (i)(3) to prove the child is
homeless, a program may accept the
family’s signed declaration to that effect,
if, in a written statement, program staff
describe the child’s living situation that
meets the definition of homeless in part
1305 of this chapter.
(iii) Program staff may seek
information from third parties who have
firsthand knowledge about a family’s
living situation, if the family gives
written consent. If the family gives
consent to contact third parties, program
staff must adhere to program privacy
policies and procedures and ensure the
eligibility determination record adheres
to paragraph (k) of this section.
(4) To verify whether a child is in
foster care, program staff must accept
either a court order or other legal or
government-issued document, a written
statement from a government child
welfare official that demonstrates the
child is in foster care, or proof of a foster
care payment.
(j) Eligibility duration. (1) If a child is
determined eligible under this section
and is participating in a Head Start
program, he or she will remain eligible
through the end of the succeeding
program year except that the Head Start
program may choose not to enroll a
child when there are compelling reasons
for the child not to remain in Head
Start, such as when there is a change in
the child’s family income and there is
a child with a greater need for Head
Start services.
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
61416
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
(2) Children who are enrolled in a
program receiving funds under the
authority of section 645A of the Act
remain eligible while they participate in
the program.
(3) If a child moves from an Early
Head Start program to a Head Start
program, program staff must verify the
family’s eligibility again.
(4) If a program operates both an Early
Head Start and a Head Start program,
and the parents wish to enroll their
child who has been enrolled in the
program’s Early Head Start, the program
must ensure, whenever possible, the
child receives Head Start services until
enrolled in school, provided the child is
eligible.
(k) Records. (1) A program must keep
eligibility determination records for
each participant and ongoing records of
the eligibility training for staff required
by paragraph (m) of this section. A
program may keep these records
electronically.
(2) Each eligibility determination
record must include:
(i) Copies of any documents or
statements, including declarations, that
are deemed necessary to verify
eligibility under paragraphs (h) and (i)
of this section;
(ii) A statement that program staff has
made reasonable efforts to verify
information by:
(A) Conducting either an in-person, or
a telephone interview with the family as
described under paragraph (a)(1)(i) or
(a)(2) of this section; and,
(B) Describing efforts made to verify
eligibility, as required under paragraphs
(h) through (i) of this section; and,
collecting documents required for third
party verification that includes the
family’s written consent to contact each
third party, the third parties’ names,
titles, and affiliations, and information
from third parties regarding the family’s
eligibility.
(iii) A statement that identifies
whether:
(A) The family’s income is below
income guidelines for its size, and lists
the family’s size;
(B) The family is eligible for or, in the
absence of child care, potentially
eligible for public assistance;
(C) The child is a homeless child or
the child is in foster care;
(D) The family was determined to be
eligible under the criterion in paragraph
(c)(2) of this section; or,
(E) The family was determined to be
eligible under the criterion in paragraph
(d)(1) of this section.
(3) A program must keep eligibility
determination records for those
currently enrolled, as long as they are
enrolled, and, for one year after they
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
have either stopped receiving services;
or are no longer enrolled.
(l) Program policies and procedures
on violating eligibility determination
regulations. A program must establish
written policies and procedures that
describe all actions taken against staff
who intentionally violate federal and
program eligibility determination
regulations and who enroll pregnant
women and children that are not
eligible to receive Early Head Start or
Head Start services.
(m) Training on eligibility. (1) A
program must train all governing body,
policy council, management, and staff
who determine eligibility on applicable
federal regulations and program policies
and procedures. Training must, at a
minimum:
(i) Include methods on how to collect
complete and accurate eligibility
information from families and third
party sources;
(ii) Incorporate strategies for treating
families with dignity and respect and
for dealing with possible issues of
domestic violence, stigma, and privacy;
and,
(iii) Explain program policies and
procedures that describe actions taken
against staff, families, or participants
who attempt to provide or intentionally
provide false information.
(2) A program must train management
and staff members who make eligibility
determinations within 90 days of hiring
new staff.
(3) A program must train all governing
body and policy council members
within 180 days of the beginning of the
term of a new governing body or policy
council.
(4) A program must develop policies
on how often training will be provided
after the initial training.
§ 1302.13
Recruitment of children.
In order to reach those most in need
of services, a program must develop and
implement a recruitment process
designed to actively inform all families
with eligible children within the
recruitment area of the availability of
program services, and encourage and
assist them in applying for admission to
the program. A program must include
specific efforts to actively locate and
recruit children with disabilities and
other vulnerable children, including
homeless children and children in foster
care.
§ 1302.14
Selection process.
(a) Selection criteria. (1) A program
must annually establish selection
criteria that weigh the prioritization of
selection of participants, based on
community needs identified in the
PO 00000
Frm 00124
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
community needs assessment as
described in § 1302.11(b), and including
family income, whether the child is
homeless, whether the child is in foster
care, the child’s age, whether the child
is eligible for special education and
related services, or early intervention
services, as appropriate, as determined
under the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA) (20 U.S.C. 1400 et
seq.) and, other relevant family or child
risk factors.
(2) If a program serves migrant or
seasonal families, it must select
participants according to criteria in
paragraph (a)(1) of this section, and give
priority to children whose families can
demonstrate they have relocated
frequently within the past two-years to
pursue agricultural work.
(3) If a program operates in a service
area where Head Start eligible children
can enroll in high-quality publicly
funded pre-kindergarten for a full
school day, the program must prioritize
younger children as part of the selection
criteria in paragraph (a)(1) of this
section. If this priority would disrupt
partnerships with local education
agencies, then it is not required. An
American Indian and Alaska Native or
Migrant or Seasonal Head Start program
must consider whether such
prioritization is appropriate in their
community.
(4) A program must not deny
enrollment based on a disability or
chronic health condition or its severity.
(b) Children eligible for services under
IDEA. (1) A program must ensure at
least 10 percent of its total funded
enrollment is filled by children eligible
for services under IDEA, unless the
responsible HHS official grants a
waiver.
(2) If the requirement in paragraph
(b)(1) of this section has been met,
children eligible for services under
IDEA should be prioritized for the
available slots in accordance with the
program’s selection criteria described in
paragraph (a) of this section.
(c) Waiting lists. A program must
develop at the beginning of each
enrollment year and maintain during
the year a waiting list that ranks
children according to the program’s
selection criteria.
§ 1302.15
Enrollment.
(a) Funded enrollment. A program
must maintain its funded enrollment
level and fill any vacancy as soon as
possible. A program must fill any
vacancy within 30 days.
(b) Continuity of enrollment. (1) A
program must make efforts to maintain
enrollment of eligible children for the
following year.
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
(2) Under exceptional circumstances,
a program may maintain a child’s
enrollment in Head Start for a third
year, provided that family income is
verified again. A program may maintain
a child’s enrollment in Early Head Start
as described in § 1302.12(j)(2).
(3) If a program serves homeless
children or children in foster care, it
must make efforts to maintain the
child’s enrollment regardless of whether
the family or child moves to a different
service area, or transition the child to a
program in a different service area, as
required in § 1302.72(a), according to
the family’s needs.
(c) Reserved slots. If a program
determines from the community
assessment there are families
experiencing homelessness in the area,
or children in foster care that could
benefit from services, the program may
reserve one or more enrollment slots for
pregnant women and children
experiencing homelessness and children
in foster care, when a vacancy occurs.
No more than three percent of a
program’s funded enrollment slots may
be reserved. If the reserved enrollment
slot is not filled within 30 days, the
enrollment slot becomes vacant and
then must be filled in accordance with
paragraph (a) of this section.
(d) Other enrollment. Children from
diverse economic backgrounds who are
funded with other sources, including
private pay, are not considered part of
a program’s eligible funded enrollment.
(e) State immunization enrollment
requirements. A program must comply
with state immunization enrollment and
attendance requirements, with the
exception of homeless children as
described in § 1302.16(c)(1).
(f) Voluntary parent participation.
Parent participation in any program
activity is voluntary, including consent
for data sharing, and is not required as
a condition of the child’s enrollment.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
§ 1302.16
Attendance.
(a) Promoting regular attendance. A
program must track attendance for each
child.
(1) A program must implement a
process to ensure children are safe when
they do not arrive at school. If a child
is unexpectedly absent and a parent has
not contacted the program within one
hour of program start time, the program
must attempt to contact the parent to
ensure the child’s well-being.
(2) A program must implement
strategies to promote attendance. At a
minimum, a program must:
(i) Provide information about the
benefits of regular attendance;
(ii) Support families to promote the
child’s regular attendance;
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
(iii) Conduct a home visit or make
other direct contact with a child’s
parents if a child has multiple
unexplained absences (such as two
consecutive unexplained absences);
and,
(iv) Within the first 60 days of
program operation, and on an ongoing
basis thereafter, use individual child
attendance data to identify children
with patterns of absence that put them
at risk of missing ten percent of program
days per year and develop appropriate
strategies to improve individual
attendance among identified children,
such as direct contact with parents or
intensive case management, as
necessary.
(3) If a child ceases to attend, the
program must make appropriate efforts
to reengage the family to resume
attendance, including as described in
paragraph (a)(2) of this section. If the
child’s attendance does not resume,
then the program must consider that slot
vacant. This action is not considered
expulsion as described in § 1302.17.
(b) Managing systematic program
attendance issues. If a program’s
monthly average daily attendance rate
falls below 85 percent, the program
must analyze the causes of absenteeism
to identify any systematic issues that
contribute to the program’s absentee
rate. The program must use this data to
make necessary changes in a timely
manner as part of ongoing oversight and
correction as described in § 1302.102(b)
and inform its continuous improvement
efforts as described in § 1302.102(c).
(c) Supporting attendance of homeless
children. (1) If a program determines a
child is eligible under
§ 1302.12(c)(1)(iii), it must allow the
child to attend for up to 90 days or as
long as allowed under state licensing
requirements, without immunization
and other records, to give the family
reasonable time to present these
documents. A program must work with
families to get children immunized as
soon as possible in order to comply with
state licensing requirements.
(2) If a child experiencing
homelessness is unable to attend classes
regularly because the family does not
have transportation to and from the
program facility, the program must
utilize community resources, where
possible, to provide transportation for
the child.
§ 1302.17
Suspension and expulsion.
(a) Limitations on suspension. (1) A
program must prohibit or severely limit
the use of suspension due to a child’s
behavior. Such suspensions may only be
temporary in nature.
PO 00000
Frm 00125
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61417
(2) A temporary suspension must be
used only as a last resort in
extraordinary circumstances where
there is a serious safety threat that
cannot be reduced or eliminated by the
provision of reasonable modifications.
(3) Before a program determines
whether a temporary suspension is
necessary, a program must engage with
a mental health consultant, collaborate
with the parents, and utilize appropriate
community resources—such as behavior
coaches, psychologists, other
appropriate specialists, or other
resources—as needed, to determine no
other reasonable option is appropriate.
(4) If a temporary suspension is
deemed necessary, a program must help
the child return to full participation in
all program activities as quickly as
possible while ensuring child safety by:
(i) Continuing to engage with the
parents and a mental health consultant,
and continuing to utilize appropriate
community resources;
(ii) Developing a written plan to
document the action and supports
needed;
(iii) Providing services that include
home visits; and,
(iv) Determining whether a referral to
a local agency responsible for
implementing IDEA is appropriate.
(b) Prohibition on expulsion. (1) A
program cannot expel or unenroll a
child from Head Start because of a
child’s behavior.
(2) When a child exhibits persistent
and serious challenging behaviors, a
program must explore all possible steps
and document all steps taken to address
such problems, and facilitate the child’s
safe participation in the program. Such
steps must include, at a minimum,
engaging a mental health consultant,
considering the appropriateness of
providing appropriate services and
supports under section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act to ensure that the
child who satisfies the definition of
disability in 29 U.S.C. 705(9)(b) of the
Rehabilitation Act is not excluded from
the program on the basis of disability,
and consulting with the parents and the
child’s teacher, and:
(i) If the child has an individualized
family service plan (IFSP) or
individualized education program (IEP),
the program must consult with the
agency responsible for the IFSP or IEP
to ensure the child receives the needed
support services; or,
(ii) If the child does not have an IFSP
or IEP, the program must collaborate,
with parental consent, with the local
agency responsible for implementing
IDEA to determine the child’s eligibility
for services.
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
61418
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
(3) If, after a program has explored all
possible steps and documented all steps
taken as described in paragraph (b)(2) of
this section, a program, in consultation
with the parents, the child’s teacher, the
agency responsible for implementing
IDEA (if applicable), and the mental
health consultant, determines that the
child’s continued enrollment presents a
continued serious safety threat to the
child or other enrolled children and
determines the program is not the most
appropriate placement for the child, the
program must work with such entities to
directly facilitate the transition of the
child to a more appropriate placement.
§ 1302.18
Fees.
(a) Policy on fees. A program must not
charge eligible families a fee to
participate in Head Start, including
special events such as field trips, and
cannot in any way condition an eligible
child’s enrollment or participation in
the program upon the payment of a fee.
(b) Allowable fees. (1) A program must
only accept a fee from families of
enrolled children for services that are in
addition to services funded by Head
Start, such as child care before or after
funded Head Start hours. A program
may not condition a Head Start child’s
enrollment on the ability to pay a fee for
additional hours.
(2) In order to support programs
serving children from diverse economic
backgrounds or using multiple funding
sources, a program may charge fees to
private pay families and other non-Head
Start enrolled families to the extent
allowed by any other applicable federal,
state or local funding sources.
Subpart B—Program Structure
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
§ 1302.20
Determining program structure.
(a) Choose a program option. (1) A
program must choose to operate one or
more of the following program options:
Center-based, home-based, family child
care, or an approved locally-designed
variation as described in § 1302.24. The
program option(s) chosen must meet the
needs of children and families based on
the community assessment described in
§ 1302.11(b). A Head Start program
serving preschool-aged children may
not provide only the option described in
§ 1302.22(a) and (c)(2).
(2) To choose a program option and
develop a program calendar, a program
must consider in conjunction with the
annual review of the community
assessment described in § 1302.11(b)(2),
whether it would better meet child and
family needs through conversion of
existing slots to full school day or full
working day slots, extending the
program year, conversion of existing
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
Head Start slots to Early Head Start slots
as described in paragraph (c) of this
section, and ways to promote continuity
of care and services. A program must
work to identify alternate sources to
support full working day services. If no
additional funding is available, program
resources may be used.
(b) Comprehensive services. All
program options must deliver the full
range of services, as described in
subparts C, D, E, F, and G of this part,
except that §§ 1302.30 through 1302.32
and § 1302.34 do not apply to homebased options.
(c) Conversion. (1) Consistent with
section 645(a)(5) of the Head Start Act,
grantees may request to convert Head
Start slots to Early Head Start slots
through the re-funding application
process or as a separate grant
amendment.
(2) Any grantee proposing a
conversion of Head Start services to
Early Head Start services must obtain
policy council and governing body
approval and submit the request to their
regional office.
(3) With the exception of American
Indian and Alaska Native grantees as
described in paragraph (c)(4) of this
section, the request to the regional office
must include:
(i) A grant application budget and a
budget narrative that clearly identifies
the funding amount for the Head Start
and Early Head Start programs before
and after the proposed conversion;
(ii) The results of the community
assessment demonstrating how the
proposed use of funds would best meet
the needs of the community, including
a description of how the needs of
eligible Head Start children will be met
in the community when the conversion
takes places;
(iii) A revised program schedule that
describes the program option(s) and the
number of funded enrollment slots for
Head Start and Early Head Start
programs before and after the proposed
conversion;
(iv) A description of how the needs of
pregnant women, infants, and toddlers
will be addressed;
(v) A discussion of the agency’s
capacity to carry out an effective Early
Head Start program in accordance with
the requirements of section 645A(b) of
the Head Start Act and all applicable
regulations;
(vi) Assurances that the agency will
participate in training and technical
assistance activities required of all Early
Head Start grantees;
(vii) A discussion of the qualifications
and competencies of the child
development staff proposed for the
Early Head Start program, as well as a
PO 00000
Frm 00126
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
description of the facilities and program
infrastructure that will be used to
support the new or expanded Early
Head Start program;
(viii) A discussion of any one-time
funding necessary to implement the
proposed conversion and how the
agency intends to secure such funding;
and,
(ix) The proposed timetable for
implementing this conversion,
including updating school readiness
goals as described in subpart J of this
part.
(4) Consistent with section 645(d)(3)
of the Act, any American Indian and
Alaska Native grantee that operates both
an Early Head Start program and a Head
Start program may reallocate funds
between the programs at its discretion
and at any time during the grant period
involved, in order to address
fluctuations in client populations. An
American Indian and Alaska Native
program that exercises this discretion
must notify the regional office.
(d) Source of funding. A program may
consider hours of service that meet the
Head Start Program Performance
Standards, regardless of the source of
funding, as hours of planned class
operations for the purposes of meeting
the Head Start and Early Head Start
service duration requirements in this
subpart.
§ 1302.21
Center-based option.
(a) Setting. The center-based option
delivers the full range of services,
consistent with § 1302.20(b). Education
and child development services are
delivered primarily in classroom
settings.
(b) Ratios and group size. (1) Staffchild ratios and group size maximums
must be determined by the age of the
majority of children and the needs of
children present. A program must
determine the age of the majority of
children in a class at the start of the year
and may adjust this determination
during the program year, if necessary.
Where state or local licensing
requirements are more stringent than
the teacher-child ratios and group size
specifications in this section, a program
must meet the stricter requirements. A
program must maintain appropriate
ratios during all hours of program
operation, except:
(i) For brief absences of a teaching
staff member for no more than five
minutes; and,
(ii) During nap time, one teaching
staff member may be replaced by one
staff member or trained volunteer who
does not meet the teaching
qualifications required for the age.
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
(2) An Early Head Start or Migrant or
Seasonal Head Start class that serves
children under 36 months old must
have two teachers with no more than
eight children, or three teachers with no
more than nine children. Each teacher
must be assigned consistent, primary
responsibility for no more than four
children to promote continuity of care
for individual children. A program must
minimize teacher changes throughout a
child’s enrollment, whenever possible,
and consider mixed age group classes to
support continuity of care.
(3) A class that serves a majority of
children who are three years old must
have no more than 17 children with a
teacher and teaching assistant or two
teachers. A double session class that
serves a majority of children who are
three years old must have no more than
61419
15 children with a teacher and teaching
assistant or two teachers.
(4) A class that serves a majority of
children who are four and five years old
must have no more than 20 children
with a teacher and a teaching assistant
or two teachers. A double session class
that serves a majority of children who
are four and five years old must have no
more than 17 children with a teacher
and a teaching assistant or two teachers.
TABLE TO § 1302.21(b)—CENTER-BASED GROUP SIZE
4 and 5 year olds ........................
3 year olds ...................................
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Under 3 years old ........................
No
No
No
No
No
more
more
more
more
more
than
than
than
than
than
(c) Service duration—(1) Early Head
Start. (i) By August 1, 2018, a program
must provide 1,380 annual hours of
planned class operations for all enrolled
children.
(ii) A program that is designed to meet
the needs of young parents enrolled in
school settings may meet the service
duration requirements in paragraph
(c)(1)(i) of this section if it operates a
center-based program schedule during
the school year aligned with its local
education agency requirements and
provides regular home-based services
during the summer break.
(2) Head Start. (i) Until a program is
operating all of its Head Start centerbased funded enrollment at the standard
described in paragraph (c)(2)(iv) or (v) of
this section, a program must provide, at
a minimum, at least 160 days per year
of planned class operations if it operates
for five days per week, or at least 128
days per year if it operates four days per
week. Classes must operate for a
minimum of 3.5 hours per day.
(ii) Until a program is operating all of
its Head Start center-based funded
enrollment at the standard described in
paragraph (c)(2)(iv) or (v) of this section,
if a program operates a double session
variation, it must provide classes for
four days per week for a minimum of
128 days per year and 3.5 hours per day.
Each double session class staff member
must be provided adequate break time
during the course of the day. In
addition, teachers, aides, and volunteers
must have appropriate time to prepare
for each session together, to set up the
classroom environment, and to give
individual attention to children entering
and leaving the center.
(iii) By August 1, 2019, a program
must provide 1,020 annual hours of
planned class operations over the course
of at least eight months per year for at
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
20 children enrolled in any class.
17 children enrolled in any double session class.
17 children enrolled in any class.
15 children enrolled in any double session class.
8 or 9 children enrolled in any class, depending on the number of teachers.
least 50 percent of its Head Start centerbased funded enrollment.
(iv) By August 1, 2021, a program
must provide 1,020 annual hours of
planned class operations over the course
of at least eight months per year for all
of its Head Start center-based funded
enrollment.
(v) A Head Start program providing
fewer than 1,020 annual hours of
planned class operations or fewer than
eight months of service is considered to
meet the requirements described in
paragraphs (c)(2)(iii) and (iv) of this
section if its program schedule aligns
with the annual hours required by its
local education agency for grade one
and such alignment is necessary to
support partnerships for service
delivery.
(3) Secretarial determination. (i) On
or before February 1, 2018, the Secretary
may lower the required percentage
described in paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of this
section, based on an assessment of the
availability of sufficient funding to
mitigate a substantial reduction in
funded enrollment; and,
(ii) On or before February 1, 2020, the
Secretary may lower the required
percentage described in paragraph
(c)(2)(iv) of this section, based on an
assessment of the availability of
sufficient funding to mitigate a
substantial reduction in funded
enrollment.
(4) Extension. If an extension is
necessary to ensure children enrolled in
the program on November 7, 2016 are
not displaced from the Early Head Start
or Head Start program, a program may
request a one-year extension from the
responsible HHS official of the
requirements outlined in paragraphs
(c)(1) and (c)(2)(iii) of this section.
(5) Exemption for Migrant or Seasonal
Head Start programs. A Migrant or
Seasonal program is not subject to the
PO 00000
Frm 00127
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
requirements described in
§ 1302.21(c)(1) or (2), but must make
every effort to provide as many days and
hours of service as possible to each
child and family.
(6) Calendar planning. A program
must:
(i) Plan its year using a reasonable
estimate of the number of days during
a year that classes may be closed due to
problems such as inclement weather;
and,
(ii) Make every effort to schedule
makeup days using existing resources if
hours of planned class operations fall
below the number required per year.
(d) Licensing and square footage
requirements. (1) The facilities used by
a program must meet state, tribal, or
local licensing requirements, even if
exempted by the licensing entity. When
state, tribal, or local requirements vary
from Head Start requirements, the most
stringent provision takes precedence.
(2) A center-based program must have
at least 35 square feet of usable indoor
space per child available for the care
and use of children (exclusive of
bathrooms, halls, kitchen, staff rooms,
and storage places) and at least 75
square feet of usable outdoor play space
per child.
(3) A program that operates two or
more groups within an area must ensure
clearly defined, safe divisions to
separate groups. A program must ensure
such spaces are learning environments
that facilitate the implementation of the
requirements in subpart C of this part.
The divisions must limit noise transfer
from one group to another to prevent
disruption of an effective learning
environment.
§ 1302.22
Home-based option.
(a) Setting. The home-based option
delivers the full range of services,
consistent with § 1302.20(b), through
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
61420
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
visits with the child’s parents, primarily
in the child’s home and through group
socialization opportunities in a Head
Start classroom, community facility,
home, or on field trips. For Early Head
Start programs, the home-based option
may be used to deliver services to some
or all of a program’s enrolled children.
For Head Start programs, the homebased option may only be used to
deliver services to a portion of a
program’s enrolled children.
(b) Caseload. A program that
implements a home-based option must
maintain an average caseload of 10 to 12
families per home visitor with a
maximum of 12 families for any
individual home visitor.
(c) Service duration—(1) Early Head
Start. By August 1, 2017, an Early Head
Start home-based program must:
(i) Provide one home visit per week
per family that lasts at least an hour and
a half and provide a minimum of 46
visits per year; and,
(ii) Provide, at a minimum, 22 group
socialization activities distributed over
the course of the program year.
(2) Head Start. A Head Start homebased program must:
(i) Provide one home visit per week
per family that lasts at least an hour and
a half and provide a minimum of 32
visits per year; and,
(ii) Provide, at a minimum, 16 group
socialization activities distributed over
the course of the program year.
(3) Meeting minimum requirements. A
program that implements a home-based
option must:
(i) Make up planned home visits or
scheduled group socialization activities
that were canceled by the program, and
to the extent possible attempt to make
up planned home visits canceled by the
family, when this is necessary to meet
the minimums described in paragraphs
(c)(1) and (2) of this section; and,
(ii) Not replace home visits or
scheduled group socialization activities
for medical or social service
appointments for the purposes of
meeting the minimum requirements
described in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of
this section.
(d) Safety requirements. The areas for
learning, playing, sleeping, toileting,
preparing food, and eating in facilities
used for group socializations in the
home-based option must meet the safety
standards described in § 1302.47(1)(ii)
through (viii).
§ 1302.23
Family child care option.
(a) Setting. The family child care
program option delivers the full range of
services, consistent with § 1302.20(b).
Education and child development
services are primarily delivered by a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
family child care provider in their home
or other family-like setting. A program
may choose to offer the family child
care option if:
(1) The program has a legally binding
agreement with one or more family
child care provider(s) that clearly
defines the roles, rights, and
responsibilities of each party, or the
program is the employer of the family
child care provider, and ensures
children and families enrolled in this
option receive the full range of services
described in subparts C, D, E, F, and G
of this part; and,
(2) The program ensures family child
care homes are available that can
accommodate children and families
with disabilities.
(b) Ratios and group size. (1) A
program that operates the family child
care option where Head Start children
are enrolled must ensure group size
does not exceed the limits specified in
this section. If the family child care
provider’s own children under the age
of six are present, they must be included
in the group size.
(2) When there is one family child
care provider, the maximum group size
is six children and no more than two of
the six may be under 24 months of age.
When there is a provider and an
assistant, the maximum group size is
twelve children with no more than four
of the twelve children under 24 months
of age.
(3) One family child care provider
may care for up to four children younger
than 36 months of age with a maximum
group size of four children, and no more
than two of the four children may be
under 18 months of age.
(4) A program must maintain
appropriate ratios during all hours of
program operation. A program must
ensure providers have systems to ensure
the safety of any child not within view
for any period. A program must make
substitute staff and assistant providers
available with the necessary training
and experience to ensure quality
services to children are not interrupted.
(c) Service duration. Whether family
child care option services are provided
directly or via contractual arrangement,
a program must ensure family child care
providers operate sufficient hours to
meet the child care needs of families
and not less than 1,380 hours per year.
(d) Licensing requirements. A family
child-care provider must be licensed by
the state, tribal, or local entity to
provide services in their home or
family-like setting. When state, tribal, or
local requirements vary from Head Start
requirements, the most stringent
provision applies.
PO 00000
Frm 00128
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
(e) Child development specialist. A
program that offers the family child care
option must provide a child
development specialist to support
family child care providers and ensure
the provision of quality services at each
family child care home. Child
development specialists must:
(1) Conduct regular visits to each
home, some of which are unannounced,
not less than once every two weeks;
(2) Periodically verify compliance
with either contract requirements or
agency policy;
(3) Facilitate ongoing communication
between program staff, family child care
providers, and enrolled families; and,
(4) Provide recommendations for
technical assistance and support the
family child care provider in developing
relationships with other child care
professionals.
§ 1302.24 Locally-designed program
option variations.
(a) Waiver option. Programs may
request to operate a locally-designed
program option, including a
combination of program options, to
better meet the unique needs of their
communities or to demonstrate or test
alternative approaches for providing
program services. In order to operate a
locally-designed program option,
programs must seek a waiver as
described in this section and must
deliver the full range of services,
consistent with § 1302.20(b), and
demonstrate how any change to their
program design is consistent with
achieving program goals in subpart J of
this part.
(b) Request for approval. A program’s
request to operate a locally-designed
variation may be approved by the
responsible HHS official through the
end of a program’s current grant or, if
the request is submitted through a grant
application for an upcoming project
period, for the project period of the new
award. Such approval may be revoked
based on progress toward program goals
as described in § 1302.102 and
monitoring as described in § 1304.2.
(c) Waiver requirements. (1) The
responsible HHS official may waive one
or more of the requirements contained
in § 1302.21(b), (c)(1)(i), and (c)(2)(iii)
and (iv); § 1302.22(a) through (c); and
§ 1302.23(b) and (c), but may not waive
ratios or group size for children under
24 months. Center-based locallydesigned options must meet the
minimums described in section
640(k)(1) of the Act for center-based
programs.
(2) If the responsible HHS official
determines a waiver of group size for
center-based services would better meet
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
the needs of children and families in a
community, the group size may not
exceed the limits below:
(i) A group that serves children 24 to
36 months of age must have no more
than ten children; and,
(ii) A group that serves predominantly
three-year-old children must have no
more than twenty children; and,
(iii) A group that serves
predominantly four-year-old children
must have no more than twenty-four
children.
(3) If the responsible HHS official
approves a waiver to allow a program to
operate below the minimums described
in § 1302.21(c)(2)(iii) or (iv), a program
must meet the requirements described
in § 1302.21(c)(2)(i), or in the case of a
double session variation, a program
must meet the requirements described
in § 1302.21(c)(2)(ii).
(4) In order to receive a waiver under
this section, a program must provide
supporting evidence that demonstrates
the locally-designed variation
effectively supports appropriate
development and progress in children’s
early learning outcomes.
(5) In order to receive a waiver of
service duration, a program must meet
the requirement in paragraph (c)(4) of
this section, provide supporting
evidence that it better meets the needs
of parents than the applicable service
duration minimums described in
§ 1302.21(c)(1) and (c)(2)(iii) and (iv),
§ 1302.22(c), or § 1302.23(c), and assess
the effectiveness of the variation in
supporting appropriate development
and progress in children’s early learning
outcomes.
(d) Transition from previously
approved program options. If, before
November 7, 2016, a program was
approved to operate a program option
that is no longer allowable under
§§ 1302.21 through 1302.23, a program
may continue to operate that model
until July 31, 2018.
Subpart C—Education and Child
Development Program Services
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
§ 1302.30
Purpose.
All programs must provide highquality early education and child
development services, including for
children with disabilities, that promote
children’s cognitive, social, and
emotional growth for later success in
school. A center-based or family child
care program must embed responsive
and effective teacher-child interactions.
A home-based program must promote
secure parent-child relationships and
help parents provide high-quality early
learning experiences. All programs must
implement a research-based curriculum,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:07 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
and screening and assessment
procedures that support
individualization and growth in the
areas of development described in the
Head Start Early Learning Outcomes
Framework: Ages Birth to Five and
support family engagement in children’s
learning and development. A program
must deliver developmentally,
culturally, and linguistically
appropriate learning experiences in
language, literacy, mathematics, social
and emotional functioning, approaches
to learning, science, physical skills, and
creative arts. To deliver such highquality early education and child
development services, a center-based or
family child care program must
implement, at a minimum, the elements
contained in §§ 1302.31 through
1302.34, and a home-based program
must implement, at a minimum, the
elements in §§ 1302.33 and 1302.35.
§ 1302.31 Teaching and the learning
environment.
(a) Teaching and the learning
environment. A center-based and family
child care program must ensure teachers
and other relevant staff provide
responsive care, effective teaching, and
an organized learning environment that
promotes healthy development and
children’s skill growth aligned with the
Head Start Early Learning Outcomes
Framework: Ages Birth to Five,
including for children with disabilities.
A program must also support
implementation of such environment
with integration of regular and ongoing
supervision and a system of
individualized and ongoing professional
development, as appropriate. This
includes, at a minimum, the practices
described in paragraphs (b) through (e)
of this section.
(b) Effective teaching practices. (1)
Teaching practices must:
(i) Emphasize nurturing and
responsive practices, interactions, and
environments that foster trust and
emotional security; are communication
and language rich; promote critical
thinking and problem-solving; social,
emotional, behavioral, and language
development; provide supportive
feedback for learning; motivate
continued effort; and support all
children’s engagement in learning
experiences and activities;
(ii) Focus on promoting growth in the
developmental progressions described
in the Head Start Early Learning
Outcomes Framework: Ages Birth to
Five by aligning with and using the
Framework and the curricula as
described in § 1302.32 to direct
planning of organized activities,
schedules, lesson plans, and the
PO 00000
Frm 00129
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61421
implementation of high-quality early
learning experiences that are responsive
to and build upon each child’s
individual pattern of development and
learning;
(iii) Integrate child assessment data in
individual and group planning; and,
(iv) Include developmentally
appropriate learning experiences in
language, literacy, social and emotional
development, math, science, social
studies, creative arts, and physical
development that are focused toward
achieving progress outlined in the Head
Start Early Learning Outcomes
Framework: Ages Birth to Five.
(2) For dual language learners, a
program must recognize bilingualism
and biliteracy as strengths and
implement research-based teaching
practices that support their
development. These practices must:
(i) For an infant or toddler dual
language learner, include teaching
practices that focus on the development
of the home language, when there is a
teacher with appropriate language
competency, and experiences that
expose the child to English;
(ii) For a preschool age dual language
learner, include teaching practices that
focus on both English language
acquisition and the continued
development of the home language; or,
(iii) If staff do not speak the home
language of all children in the learning
environment, include steps to support
the development of the home language
for dual language learners such as
having culturally and linguistically
appropriate materials available and
other evidence-based strategies.
Programs must work to identify
volunteers who speak children’s home
language/s who could be trained to
work in the classroom to support
children’s continued development of
the home language.
(c) Learning environment. A program
must ensure teachers implement wellorganized learning environments with
developmentally appropriate schedules,
lesson plans, and indoor and outdoor
learning experiences that provide
adequate opportunities for choice, play,
exploration, and experimentation
among a variety of learning, sensory,
and motor experiences and:
(1) For infants and toddlers, promote
relational learning and include
individualized and small group
activities that integrate appropriate
daily routines into a flexible schedule of
learning experiences; and,
(2) For preschool age children,
include teacher-directed and childinitiated activities, active and quiet
learning activities, and opportunities for
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
61422
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
individual, small group, and large group
learning activities.
(d) Materials and space for learning.
To support implementation of the
curriculum and the requirements
described in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and
(e) of this section a program must
provide age-appropriate equipment,
materials, supplies and physical space
for indoor and outdoor learning
environments, including functional
space. The equipment, materials and
supplies must include any necessary
accommodations and the space must be
accessible to children with disabilities.
Programs must change materials
intentionally and periodically to
support children’s interests,
development, and learning.
(e) Promoting learning through
approaches to rest, meals, routines, and
physical activity. (1) A program must
implement an intentional, age
appropriate approach to accommodate
children’s need to nap or rest, and that,
for preschool age children in a program
that operates for 6 hours or longer per
day provides a regular time every day at
which preschool age children are
encouraged but not forced to rest or nap.
A program must provide alternative
quiet learning activities for children
who do not need or want to rest or nap.
(2) A program must implement snack
and meal times in ways that support
development and learning. For bottlefed infants, this approach must include
holding infants during feeding to
support socialization. Snack and meal
times must be structured and used as
learning opportunities that support
teaching staff-child interactions and
foster communication and conversations
that contribute to a child’s learning,
development, and socialization.
Programs are encouraged to meet this
requirement with family style meals
when developmentally appropriate. A
program must also provide sufficient
time for children to eat, not use food as
reward or punishment, and not force
children to finish their food.
(3) A program must approach
routines, such as hand washing and
diapering, and transitions between
activities, as opportunities for
strengthening development, learning,
and skill growth.
(4) A program must recognize
physical activity as important to
learning and integrate intentional
movement and physical activity into
curricular activities and daily routines
in ways that support health and
learning. A program must not use
physical activity as reward or
punishment.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
§ 1302.32
Curricula.
(a) Curricula. (1) Center-based and
family child care programs must
implement developmentally appropriate
research-based early childhood
curricula, including additional
curricular enhancements, as appropriate
that:
(i) Are based on scientifically valid
research and have standardized training
procedures and curriculum materials to
support implementation;
(ii) Are aligned with the Head Start
Early Learning Outcomes Framework:
Ages Birth to Five and, as appropriate,
state early learning and development
standards; and are sufficiently contentrich to promote measurable progress
toward development and learning
outlined in the Framework; and,
(iii) Have an organized developmental
scope and sequence that include plans
and materials for learning experiences
based on developmental progressions
and how children learn.
(2) A program must support staff to
effectively implement curricula and at a
minimum monitor curriculum
implementation and fidelity, and
provide support, feedback, and
supervision for continuous
improvement of its implementation
through the system of training and
professional development.
(b) Adaptation. A program that
chooses to make significant adaptations
to a curriculum or a curriculum
enhancement described in paragraph
(a)(1) of this section to better meet the
needs of one or more specific
populations must use an external early
childhood education curriculum or
content area expert to develop such
significant adaptations. A program must
assess whether the adaptation
adequately facilitates progress toward
meeting school readiness goals,
consistent with the process described in
§ 1302.102(b) and (c). Programs are
encouraged to partner with outside
evaluators in assessing such
adaptations.
§ 1302.33 Child screenings and
assessments.
(a) Screening. (1) In collaboration
with each child’s parent and with
parental consent, a program must
complete or obtain a current
developmental screening to identify
concerns regarding a child’s
developmental, behavioral, motor,
language, social, cognitive, and
emotional skills within 45 calendar days
of when the child first attends the
program or, for the home-based program
option, receives a home visit. A program
that operates for 90 days or less must
complete or obtain a current
PO 00000
Frm 00130
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
developmental screening within 30
calendar days of when the child first
attends the program.
(2) A program must use one or more
research-based developmental
standardized screening tools to
complete the screening. A program must
use as part of the screening additional
information from family members,
teachers, and relevant staff familiar with
the child’s typical behavior.
(3) If warranted through screening and
additional relevant information and
with direct guidance from a mental
health or child development
professional a program must, with the
parent’s consent, promptly and
appropriately address any needs
identified through:
(i) Referral to the local agency
responsible for implementing IDEA for
a formal evaluation to assess the child’s
eligibility for services under IDEA as
soon as possible, and not to exceed
timelines required under IDEA; and,
(ii) Partnership with the child’s
parents and the relevant local agency to
support families through the formal
evaluation process.
(4) If a child is determined to be
eligible for services under IDEA, the
program must partner with parents and
the local agency responsible for
implementing IDEA, as appropriate, and
deliver the services in subpart F of this
part.
(5) If, after the formal evaluation
described in paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this
section, the local agency responsible for
implementing IDEA determines the
child is not eligible for early
intervention or special education and
related services under IDEA, the
program must:
(i) Seek guidance from a mental
health or child development
professional to determine if the formal
evaluation shows the child has a
significant delay in one or more areas of
development that is likely to interfere
with the child’s development and
school readiness; and,
(ii) If the child has a significant delay,
partner with parents to help the family
access services and supports to help
address the child’s identified needs.
(A) Such additional services and
supports may be available through a
child’s health insurance or it may be
appropriate for the program to provide
needed services and supports under
section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act if
the child satisfies the definition of
disability in 29 U.S.C. 705(9)(b) of the
Rehabilitation Act, to ensure that the
child who satisfies the definition of
disability in 29 U.S.C. 705(9)(b) of the
Rehabilitation Act is not excluded from
the program on the basis of disability.
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
(B) A program may use program funds
for such services and supports when no
other sources of funding are available.
(b) Assessment for individualization.
(1) A program must conduct
standardized and structured
assessments, which may be observationbased or direct, for each child that
provide ongoing information to evaluate
the child’s developmental level and
progress in outcomes aligned to the
goals described in the Head Start Early
Learning Child Outcomes Framework:
Ages Birth to Five. Such assessments
must result in usable information for
teachers, home visitors, and parents and
be conducted with sufficient frequency
to allow for individualization within the
program year.
(2) A program must regularly use
information from paragraph (b)(1) of this
section along with informal teacher
observations and additional information
from family and staff, as relevant, to
determine a child’s strengths and needs,
inform and adjust strategies to better
support individualized learning and
improve teaching practices in centerbased and family child care settings,
and improve home visit strategies in
home-based models.
(3) If warranted from the information
gathered from paragraphs (b)(1) and (2)
of this section and with direct guidance
from a mental health or child
development professional and a parent’s
consent, a program must refer the child
to the local agency responsible for
implementing IDEA for a formal
evaluation to assess a child’s eligibility
for services under IDEA.
(c) Characteristics of screenings and
assessments. (1) Screenings and
assessments must be valid and reliable
for the population and purpose for
which they will be used, including by
being conducted by qualified and
trained personnel, and being age,
developmentally, culturally and
linguistically appropriate, and
appropriate for children with
disabilities, as needed.
(2) If a program serves a child who
speaks a language other than English, a
program must use qualified bilingual
staff, contractor, or consultant to:
(i) Assess language skills in English
and in the child’s home language, to
assess both the child’s progress in the
home language and in English language
acquisition;
(ii) Conduct screenings and
assessments for domains other than
language skills in the language or
languages that best capture the child’s
development and skills in the specific
domain; and,
(iii) Ensure those conducting the
screening or assessment know and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
understand the child’s language and
culture and have sufficient skill level in
the child’s home language to accurately
administer the screening or assessment
and to record and understand the
child’s responses, interactions, and
communications.
(3) If a program serves a child who
speaks a language other than English
and qualified bilingual staff, contractors,
or consultants are not able to conduct
screenings and assessments, a program
must use an interpreter in conjunction
with a qualified staff person to conduct
screenings and assessments as described
in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (iii) of
this section.
(4) If a program serves a child who
speaks a language other than English
and can demonstrate that there is not a
qualified bilingual staff person or
interpreter, then screenings and
assessments may be conducted in
English. In such a case, a program must
also gather and use other information,
including structured observations over
time and information gathered in a
child’s home language from the family,
for use in evaluating the child’s
development and progress.
(d) Prohibitions on use of screening
and assessment data. The use of
screening and assessment items and
data on any screening or assessment
authorized under this subchapter by any
agent of the federal government is
prohibited for the purposes of ranking,
comparing, or otherwise evaluating
individual children for purposes other
than research, training, or technical
assistance, and is prohibited for the
purposes of providing rewards or
sanctions for individual children or
staff. A program must not use screening
or assessments to exclude children from
enrollment or participation.
§ 1302.34 Parent and family engagement in
education and child development services.
(a) Purpose. Center-based and family
child care programs must structure
education and child development
services to recognize parents’ roles as
children’s lifelong educators, and to
encourage parents to engage in their
child’s education.
(b) Engaging parents and family
members. A program must offer
opportunities for parents and family
members to be involved in the
program’s education services and
implement policies to ensure:
(1) The program’s settings are open to
parents during all program hours;
(2) Teachers regularly communicate
with parents to ensure they are wellinformed about their child’s routines,
activities, and behavior;
PO 00000
Frm 00131
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61423
(3) Teachers hold parent conferences,
as needed, but no less than two times
per program year, to enhance the
knowledge and understanding of both
staff and parents of the child’s
education and developmental progress
and activities in the program;
(4) Parents have the opportunity to
learn about and to provide feedback on
selected curricula and instructional
materials used in the program;
(5) Parents and family members have
opportunities to volunteer in the class
and during group activities;
(6) Teachers inform parents, about the
purposes of and the results from
screenings and assessments and discuss
their child’s progress;
(7) Teachers, except those described
in paragraph (b)(8) of this section,
conduct at least two home visits per
program year for each family, including
one before the program year begins, if
feasible, to engage the parents in the
child’s learning and development,
except that such visits may take place at
a program site or another safe location
that affords privacy at the parent’s
request, or if a visit to the home presents
significant safety hazards for staff; and,
(8) Teachers that serve migrant or
seasonal families make every effort to
conduct home visits to engage the
family in the child’s learning and
development.
§ 1302.35 Education in home-based
programs.
(a) Purpose. A home-based program
must provide home visits and group
socialization activities that promote
secure parent-child relationships and
help parents provide high-quality early
learning experiences in language,
literacy, mathematics, social and
emotional functioning, approaches to
learning, science, physical skills, and
creative arts. A program must
implement a research-based curriculum
that delivers developmentally,
linguistically, and culturally
appropriate home visits and group
socialization activities that support
children’s cognitive, social, and
emotional growth for later success in
school.
(b) Home-based program design. A
home-based program must ensure all
home visits are:
(1) Planned jointly by the home
visitor and parents, and reflect the
critical role of parents in the early
learning and development of their
children, including that the home
visitor is able to effectively
communicate with the parent, directly
or through an interpreter;
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
61424
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
(2) Planned using information from
ongoing assessments that individualize
learning experiences;
(3) Scheduled with sufficient time to
serve all enrolled children in the home
and conducted with parents and are not
conducted when only babysitters or
other temporary caregivers are present;
(4) Scheduled with sufficient time
and appropriate staff to ensure effective
delivery of services described in
subparts D, E, F, and G of this part
through home visiting, to the extent
possible.
(c) Home visit experiences. A program
that operates the home-based option
must ensure all home visits focus on
promoting high-quality early learning
experiences in the home and growth
towards the goals described in the Head
Start Early Learning Outcomes
Framework: Ages Birth to Five and must
use such goals and the curriculum to
plan home visit activities that
implement:
(1) Age and developmentally
appropriate, structured child-focused
learning experiences;
(2) Strategies and activities that
promote parents’ ability to support the
child’s cognitive, social, emotional,
language, literacy, and physical
development;
(3) Strategies and activities that
promote the home as a learning
environment that is safe, nurturing,
responsive, and language- and
communication- rich;
(4) Research-based strategies and
activities for children who are dual
language learners that recognize
bilingualism and biliteracy as strengths,
and:
(i) For infants and toddlers, focus on
the development of the home language,
while providing experiences that expose
both parents and children to English;
and,
(ii) For preschoolers, focus on both
English language acquisition and the
continued development of the home
language; and,
(5) Follow-up with the families to
discuss learning experiences provided
in the home between each visit, address
concerns, and inform strategies to
promote progress toward school
readiness goals.
(d) Home-based curriculum. A
program that operates the home-based
option must:
(1) Ensure home-visiting and group
socializations implement a
developmentally appropriate researchbased early childhood home-based
curriculum that:
(i) Promotes the parent’s role as the
child’s teacher through experiences
focused on the parent-child relationship
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
and, as appropriate, the family’s
traditions, culture, values, and beliefs;
(ii) Aligns with the Head Start Early
Learning Outcomes Framework: Ages
Birth to Five and, as appropriate, state
early learning standards, and, is
sufficiently content-rich within the
Framework to promote measurable
progress toward goals outlined in the
Framework; and,
(iii) Has an organized developmental
scope and sequence that includes plans
and materials for learning experiences
based on developmental progressions
and how children learn.
(2) Support staff in the effective
implementation of the curriculum and
at a minimum monitor curriculum
implementation and fidelity, and
provide support, feedback, and
supervision for continuous
improvement of its implementation
through the system of training and
professional development.
(3) If a program chooses to make
significant adaptations to a curriculum
or curriculum enhancement to better
meet the needs of one or more specific
populations, a program must:
(i) Partner with early childhood
education curriculum or content
experts; and,
(ii) Assess whether the adaptation
adequately facilitates progress toward
meeting school readiness goals
consistent with the process described in
§ 1302.102(b) and (c).
(4) Provide parents with an
opportunity to review selected curricula
and instructional materials used in the
program.
(e) Group socialization. (1) A program
that operates the home-based option
must ensure group socializations are
planned jointly with families,
conducted with both child and parent
participation, occur in a classroom,
community facility, home or field trip
setting, as appropriate.
(2) Group socializations must be
structured to:
(i) Provide age appropriate activities
for participating children that are
intentionally aligned to school readiness
goals, the Head Start Early Learning
Outcomes Framework: Ages Birth to
Five and the home-based curriculum;
and,
(ii) Encourage parents to share
experiences related to their children’s
development with other parents in order
to strengthen parent-child relationships
and to help promote parents
understanding of child development;
(3) For parents with preschoolers,
group socializations also must provide
opportunities for parents to participate
in activities that support parenting skill
development or family partnership goals
PO 00000
Frm 00132
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
identified in § 1302.52(c), as appropriate
and must emphasize peer group
interactions designed to promote
children’s social, emotional and
language development, and progress
towards school readiness goals, while
encouraging parents to observe and
actively participate in activities, as
appropriate.
(f) Screening and assessments. A
program that operates the home-based
option must implement provisions in
§ 1302.33 and inform parents about the
purposes of and the results from
screenings and assessments and discuss
their child’s progress.
§ 1302.36 Tribal language preservation
and revitalization.
A program that serves American
Indian and Alaska Native children may
integrate efforts to preserve, revitalize,
restore, or maintain the tribal language
for these children into program services.
Such language preservation and
revitalization efforts may include full
immersion in the tribal language for the
majority of the hours of planned class
operations. If children’s home language
is English, exposure to English as
described in § 1302.31(b)(2)(i) and (ii) is
not required.
Subpart D—Health Program Services
§ 1302.40
Purpose.
(a) A program must provide highquality health, oral health, mental
health, and nutrition services that are
developmentally, culturally, and
linguistically appropriate and that will
support each child’s growth and school
readiness.
(b) A program must establish and
maintain a Health Services Advisory
Committee that includes Head Start
parents, professionals, and other
volunteers from the community.
§ 1302.41 Collaboration and
communication with parents.
(a) For all activities described in this
part, programs must collaborate with
parents as partners in the health and
well-being of their children in a
linguistically and culturally appropriate
manner and communicate with parents
about their child’s health needs and
development concerns in a timely and
effective manner.
(b) At a minimum, a program must:
(1) Obtain advance authorization from
the parent or other person with legal
authority for all health and
developmental procedures administered
through the program or by contract or
agreement, and, maintain written
documentation if they refuse to give
authorization for health services; and,
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
(2) Share with parents the policies for
health emergencies that require rapid
response on the part of staff or
immediate medical attention.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
§ 1302.42
Child health status and care.
(a) Source of health care. (1) A
program, within 30 calendar days after
the child first attends the program or,
for the home-based program option,
receives a home visit, must consult with
parents to determine whether each child
has ongoing sources of continuous,
accessible health care—provided by a
health care professional that maintains
the child’s ongoing health record and is
not primarily a source of emergency or
urgent care—and health insurance
coverage.
(2) If the child does not have such a
source of ongoing care and health
insurance coverage or access to care
through the Indian Health Service, the
program must assist families in
accessing a source of care and health
insurance that will meet these criteria,
as quickly as possible.
(b) Ensuring up-to-date child health
status. (1) Within 90 calendar days after
the child first attends the program or,
for the home-based program option,
receives a home visit, with the
exceptions noted in paragraph (b)(3) of
this section, a program must:
(i) Obtain determinations from health
care and oral health care professionals
as to whether or not the child is up-todate on a schedule of age appropriate
preventive and primary medical and
oral health care, based on: The wellchild visits and dental periodicity
schedules as prescribed by the Early and
Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and
Treatment (EPSDT) program of the
Medicaid agency of the state in which
they operate, immunization
recommendations issued by the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention, and
any additional recommendations from
the local Health Services Advisory
Committee that are based on prevalent
community health problems;
(ii) Assist parents with making
arrangements to bring the child up-todate as quickly as possible; and, if
necessary, directly facilitate provision of
health services to bring the child up-todate with parent consent as described in
§ 1302.41(b)(1).
(2) Within 45 calendar days after the
child first attends the program or, for
the home-based program option,
receives a home visit, a program must
either obtain or perform evidence-based
vision and hearing screenings.
(3) If a program operates for 90 days
or less, it has 30 days from the date the
child first attends the program to satisfy
paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
(4) A program must identify each
child’s nutritional health needs, taking
into account available health
information, including the child’s
health records, and family and staff
concerns, including special dietary
requirements, food allergies, and
community nutrition issues as
identified through the community
assessment or by the Health Services
Advisory Committee.
(c) Ongoing care. (1) A program must
help parents continue to follow
recommended schedules of well-child
and oral health care.
(2) A program must implement
periodic observations or other
appropriate strategies for program staff
and parents to identify any new or
recurring developmental, medical, oral,
or mental health concerns.
(3) A program must facilitate and
monitor necessary oral health
preventive care, treatment and followup, including topical fluoride
treatments. In communities where there
is a lack of adequate fluoride available
through the water supply and for every
child with moderate to severe tooth
decay, a program must also facilitate
fluoride supplements, and other
necessary preventive measures, and
further oral health treatment as
recommended by the oral health
professional.
(d) Extended follow-up care. (1) A
program must facilitate further
diagnostic testing, evaluation, treatment,
and follow-up plan, as appropriate, by
a licensed or certified professional for
each child with a health problem or
developmental delay, such as elevated
lead levels or abnormal hearing or
vision results that may affect child’s
development, learning, or behavior.
(2) A program must develop a system
to track referrals and services provided
and monitor the implementation of a
follow-up plan to meet any treatment
needs associated with a health, oral
health, social and emotional, or
developmental problem.
(3) A program must assist parents, as
needed, in obtaining any prescribed
medications, aids or equipment for
medical and oral health conditions.
(e) Use of funds. (1) A program must
use program funds for the provision of
diapers and formula for enrolled
children during the program day.
(2) A program may use program funds
for professional medical and oral health
services when no other source of
funding is available. When program
funds are used for such services, grantee
and delegate agencies must have written
documentation of their efforts to access
other available sources of funding.
PO 00000
Frm 00133
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
§ 1302.43
61425
Oral health practices.
A program must promote effective
oral health hygiene by ensuring all
children with teeth are assisted by
appropriate staff, or volunteers, if
available, in brushing their teeth with
toothpaste containing fluoride once
daily.
§ 1302.44
Child nutrition.
(a) Nutrition service requirements. (1)
A program must design and implement
nutrition services that are culturally and
developmentally appropriate, meet the
nutritional needs of and accommodate
the feeding requirements of each child,
including children with special dietary
needs and children with disabilities.
Family style meals are encouraged as
described in § 1302.31(e)(2).
(2) Specifically, a program must:
(i) Ensure each child in a program that
operates for fewer than six hours per
day receives meals and snacks that
provide one third to one half of the
child’s daily nutritional needs;
(ii) Ensure each child in a program
that operates for six hours or more per
day receives meals and snacks that
provide one half to two thirds of the
child’s daily nutritional needs,
depending upon the length of the
program day;
(iii) Serve three- to five-year-olds
meals and snacks that conform to USDA
requirements in 7 CFR parts 210, 220,
and 226, and are high in nutrients and
low in fat, sugar, and salt;
(iv) Feed infants and toddlers
according to their individual
developmental readiness and feeding
skills as recommended in USDA
requirements outlined in 7 CFR parts
210, 220, and 226, and ensure infants
and young toddlers are fed on demand
to the extent possible;
(v) Ensure bottle-fed infants are never
laid down to sleep with a bottle;
(vi) Serve all children in morning
center-based settings who have not
received breakfast upon arrival at the
program a nourishing breakfast;
(vii) Provide appropriate healthy
snacks and meals to each child during
group socialization activities in the
home-based option;
(viii) Promote breastfeeding,
including providing facilities to
properly store and handle breast milk
and make accommodations, as
necessary, for mothers who wish to
breastfeed during program hours, and if
necessary, provide referrals to lactation
consultants or counselors; and,
(ix) Make safe drinking water
available to children during the program
day.
(b) Payment sources. A program must
use funds from USDA Food, Nutrition,
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
61426
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
and Consumer Services child nutrition
programs as the primary source of
payment for meal services. Early Head
Start and Head Start funds may be used
to cover those allowable costs not
covered by the USDA.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
§ 1302.45 Child mental health and social
and emotional well-being.
(a) Wellness promotion. To support a
program-wide culture that promotes
children’s mental health, social and
emotional well-being, and overall
health, a program must:
(1) Provide supports for effective
classroom management and positive
learning environments; supportive
teacher practices; and, strategies for
supporting children with challenging
behaviors and other social, emotional,
and mental health concerns;
(2) Secure mental health consultation
services on a schedule of sufficient and
consistent frequency to ensure a mental
health consultant is available to partner
with staff and families in a timely and
effective manner;
(3) Obtain parental consent for mental
health consultation services at
enrollment; and,
(4) Build community partnerships to
facilitate access to additional mental
health resources and services, as
needed.
(b) Mental health consultants. A
program must ensure mental health
consultants assist:
(1) The program to implement
strategies to identify and support
children with mental health and social
and emotional concerns;
(2) Teachers, including family child
care providers, to improve classroom
management and teacher practices
through strategies that include using
classroom observations and
consultations to address teacher and
individual child needs and creating
physical and cultural environments that
promote positive mental health and
social and emotional functioning;
(3) Other staff, including home
visitors, to meet children’s mental
health and social and emotional needs
through strategies that include
observation and consultation;
(4) Staff to address prevalent child
mental health concerns, including
internalizing problems such as
appearing withdrawn and externalizing
problems such as challenging behaviors;
and,
(5) In helping both parents and staff
to understand mental health and access
mental health interventions, if needed.
(6) In the implementation of the
policies to limit suspension and
prohibit expulsion as described in
§ 1302.17.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
§ 1302.46 Family support services for
health, nutrition, and mental health.
(a) Parent collaboration. Programs
must collaborate with parents to
promote children’s health and wellbeing by providing medical, oral,
nutrition and mental health education
support services that are understandable
to individuals, including individuals
with low health literacy.
(b) Opportunities. (1) Such
collaboration must include
opportunities for parents to:
(i) Learn about preventive medical
and oral health care, emergency first
aid, environmental hazards, and health
and safety practices for the home
including health and developmental
consequences of tobacco products use
and exposure to lead, and safe sleep;
(ii) Discuss their child’s nutritional
status with staff, including the
importance of physical activity, healthy
eating, and the negative health
consequences of sugar-sweetened
beverages, and how to select and
prepare nutritious foods that meet the
family’s nutrition and food budget
needs;
(iii) Learn about healthy pregnancy
and postpartum care, as appropriate,
including breastfeeding support and
treatment options for parental mental
health or substance abuse problems,
including perinatal depression;
(iv) Discuss with staff and identify
issues related to child mental health and
social and emotional well-being,
including observations and any
concerns about their child’s mental
health, typical and atypical behavior
and development, and how to
appropriately respond to their child and
promote their child’s social and
emotional development; and,
(v) Learn about appropriate vehicle
and pedestrian safety for keeping
children safe.
(2) A program must provide ongoing
support to assist parents’ navigation
through health systems to meet the
general health and specifically
identified needs of their children and
must assist parents:
(i) In understanding how to access
health insurance for themselves and
their families, including information
about private and public health
insurance and designated enrollment
periods;
(ii) In understanding the results of
diagnostic and treatment procedures as
well as plans for ongoing care; and,
(iii) In familiarizing their children
with services they will receive while
enrolled in the program and to enroll
and participate in a system of ongoing
family health care.
PO 00000
Frm 00134
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
§ 1302.47
Safety practices.
(a) A program must establish, train
staff on, implement, and enforce a
system of health and safety practices
that ensure children are kept safe at all
times. A program should consult Caring
for our Children Basics, available at
https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/
files/ecd/caring_for_our_children_
basics.pdf, for additional information to
develop and implement adequate safety
policies and practices described in this
part.
(b) A program must develop and
implement a system of management,
including ongoing training, oversight,
correction and continuous improvement
in accordance with § 1302.102, that
includes policies and practices to
ensure all facilities, equipment and
materials, background checks, safety
training, safety and hygiene practices
and administrative safety procedures are
adequate to ensure child safety. This
system must ensure:
(1) Facilities. All facilities where
children are served, including areas for
learning, playing, sleeping, toileting,
and eating are, at a minimum:
(i) Meet licensing requirements in
accordance with §§ 1302.21(d)(1) and
1302.23(d);
(ii) Clean and free from pests;
(iii) Free from pollutants, hazards and
toxins that are accessible to children
and could endanger children’s safety;
(iv) Designed to prevent child injury
and free from hazards, including
choking, strangulation, electrical, and
drowning hazards, hazards posed by
appliances and all other safety hazards;
(v) Well lit, including emergency
lighting;
(vi) Equipped with safety supplies
that are readily accessible to staff,
including, at a minimum, fullyequipped and up-to-date first aid kits
and appropriate fire safety supplies;
(vii) Free from firearms or other
weapons that are accessible to children;
(viii) Designed to separate toileting
and diapering areas from areas for
preparing food, cooking, eating, or
children’s activities; and,
(ix) Kept safe through an ongoing
system of preventative maintenance.
(2) Equipment and materials. Indoor
and outdoor play equipment, cribs, cots,
feeding chairs, strollers, and other
equipment used in the care of enrolled
children, and as applicable, other
equipment and materials meet standards
set by the Consumer Product Safety
Commission (CPSC) or the American
Society for Testing and Materials,
International (ASTM). All equipment
and materials must at a minimum:
(i) Be clean and safe for children’s use
and are appropriately disinfected;
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
(ii) Be accessible only to children for
whom they are age appropriate;
(iii) Be designed to ensure appropriate
supervision of children at all times;
(iv) Allow for the separation of infants
and toddlers from preschoolers during
play in center-based programs; and,
(v) Be kept safe through an ongoing
system of preventative maintenance.
(3) Background checks. All staff have
complete background checks in
accordance with § 1302.90(b).
(4) Safety training—(i) Staff with
regular child contact. All staff with
regular child contact have initial
orientation training within three months
of hire and ongoing training in all state,
local, tribal, federal and programdeveloped health, safety and child care
requirements to ensure the safety of
children in their care; including, at a
minimum, and as appropriate based on
staff roles and ages of children they
work with, training in:
(A) The prevention and control of
infectious diseases;
(B) Prevention of sudden infant death
syndrome and use of safe sleeping
practices;
(C) Administration of medication,
consistent with standards for parental
consent;
(D) Prevention and response to
emergencies due to food and allergic
reactions;
(E) Building and physical premises
safety, including identification of and
protection from hazards, bodies of
water, and vehicular traffic;
(F) Prevention of shaken baby
syndrome, abusive head trauma, and
child maltreatment;
(G) Emergency preparedness and
response planning for emergencies;
(H) Handling and storage of hazardous
materials and the appropriate disposal
of biocontaminants;
(I) Appropriate precautions in
transporting children, if applicable;
(J) First aid and cardiopulmonary
resuscitation; and,
(K) Recognition and reporting of child
abuse and neglect, in accordance with
the requirement at paragraph (b)(5) of
this section.
(ii) Staff without regular child contact.
All staff with no regular responsibility
for or contact with children have initial
orientation training within three months
of hire; ongoing training in all state,
local, tribal, federal and programdeveloped health and safety
requirements applicable to their work;
and training in the program’s emergency
and disaster preparedness procedures.
(5) Safety practices. All staff and
consultants follow appropriate practices
to keep children safe during all
activities, including, at a minimum:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
(i) Reporting of suspected or known
child abuse and neglect, including that
staff comply with applicable federal,
state, local, and tribal laws;
(ii) Safe sleep practices, including
ensuring that all sleeping arrangements
for children under 18 months of age use
firm mattresses or cots, as appropriate,
and for children under 12 months, soft
bedding materials or toys must not be
used;
(iii) Appropriate indoor and outdoor
supervision of children at all times;
(iv) Only releasing children to an
authorized adult, and;
(v) All standards of conduct described
in § 1302.90(c).
(6) Hygiene practices. All staff
systematically and routinely implement
hygiene practices that at a minimum
ensure:
(i) Appropriate toileting, hand
washing, and diapering procedures are
followed;
(ii) Safe food preparation; and,
(iii) Exposure to blood and body
fluids are handled consistent with
standards of the Occupational Safety
Health Administration.
(7) Administrative safety procedures.
Programs establish, follow, and practice,
as appropriate, procedures for, at a
minimum:
(i) Emergencies;
(ii) Fire prevention and response;
(iii) Protection from contagious
disease, including appropriate inclusion
and exclusion policies for when a child
is ill, and from an infectious disease
outbreak, including appropriate
notifications of any reportable illness;
(iv) The handling, storage,
administration, and record of
administration of medication;
(v) Maintaining procedures and
systems to ensure children are only
released to an authorized adult; and,
(vi) Child specific health care needs
and food allergies that include
accessible plans of action for
emergencies. For food allergies, a
program must also post individual child
food allergies prominently where staff
can view wherever food is served.
(8) Disaster preparedness plan. The
program has all-hazards emergency
management/disaster preparedness and
response plans for more and less likely
events including natural and manmade
disasters and emergencies, and violence
in or near programs.
(c) A program must report any safety
incidents in accordance with
§ 1302.102(d)(1)(ii).
PO 00000
Frm 00135
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61427
Subpart E—Family and Community
Engagement Program Services
§ 1302.50
Family engagement.
(a) Purpose. A program must integrate
parent and family engagement strategies
into all systems and program services to
support family well-being and promote
children’s learning and development.
Programs are encouraged to develop
innovative two-generation approaches
that address prevalent needs of families
across their program that may leverage
community partnerships or other
funding sources.
(b) Family engagement approach. A
program must:
(1) Recognize parents as their
children’s primary teachers and
nurturers and implement intentional
strategies to engage parents in their
children’s learning and development
and support parent-child relationships,
including specific strategies for father
engagement;
(2) Develop relationships with parents
and structure services to encourage trust
and respectful, ongoing two-way
communication between staff and
parents to create welcoming program
environments that incorporate the
unique cultural, ethnic, and linguistic
backgrounds of families in the program
and community;
(3) Collaborate with families in a
family partnership process that
identifies needs, interests, strengths,
goals, and services and resources that
support family well-being, including
family safety, health, and economic
stability;
(4) Provide parents with opportunities
to participate in the program as
employees or volunteers;
(5) Conduct family engagement
services in the family’s preferred
language, or through an interpreter, to
the extent possible, and ensure families
have the opportunity to share personal
information in an environment in which
they feel safe; and,
(6) Implement procedures for
teachers, home visitors, and family
support staff to share information with
each other, as appropriate and
consistent with the requirements in part
1303, subpart C, of this chapter; FERPA;
or IDEA, to ensure coordinated family
engagement strategies with children and
families in the classroom, home, and
community.
§ 1302.51 Parent activities to promote
child learning and development.
(a) A program must promote shared
responsibility with parents for
children’s early learning and
development, and implement family
engagement strategies that are designed
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
61428
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
to foster parental confidence and skills
in promoting children’s learning and
development. These strategies must
include:
(1) Offering activities that support
parent-child relationships and child
development including language, dual
language, literacy, and bi-literacy
development as appropriate;
(2) Providing parents with
information about the importance of
their child’s regular attendance, and
partner with them, as necessary, to
promote consistent attendance; and,
(3) For dual language learners,
information and resources for parents
about the benefits of bilingualism and
biliteracy.
(b) A program must, at a minimum,
offer opportunities for parents to
participate in a research-based parenting
curriculum that builds on parents’
knowledge and offers parents the
opportunity to practice parenting skills
to promote children’s learning and
development. A program that chooses to
make significant adaptations to the
parenting curriculum to better meet the
needs of one or more specific
populations must work with an expert
or experts to develop such adaptations.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
§ 1302.52
Family partnership services.
(a) Family partnership process. A
program must implement a family
partnership process that includes a
family partnership agreement and the
activities described in this section to
support family well-being, including
family safety, health, and economic
stability, to support child learning and
development, to provide, if applicable,
services and supports for children with
disabilities, and to foster parental
confidence and skills that promote the
early learning and development of their
children. The process must be initiated
as early in the program year as possible
and continue for as long as the family
participates in the program, based on
parent interest and need.
(b) Identification of family strengths
and needs. A program must implement
intake and family assessment
procedures to identify family strengths
and needs related to the family
engagement outcomes as described in
the Head Start Parent Family and
Community Engagement Framework,
including family well-being, parentchild relationships, families as lifelong
educators, families as learners, family
engagement in transitions, family
connections to peers and the local
community, and families as advocates
and leaders.
(c) Individualized family partnership
services. A program must offer
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
individualized family partnership
services that:
(1) Collaborate with families to
identify interests, needs, and aspirations
related to the family engagement
outcomes described in paragraph (b) of
this section;
(2) Help families achieve identified
individualized family engagement
outcomes;
(3) Establish and implement a family
partnership agreement process that is
jointly developed and shared with
parents in which staff and families
review individual progress, revise goals,
evaluate and track whether identified
needs and goals are met, and adjust
strategies on an ongoing basis, as
necessary, and;
(4) Assign staff and resources based
on the urgency and intensity of
identified family needs and goals.
(d) Existing plans and community
resources. In implementing this section,
a program must take into consideration
any existing plans for the family made
with other community agencies and
availability of other community
resources to address family needs,
strengths, and goals, in order to avoid
duplication of effort.
§ 1302.53 Community partnerships and
coordination with other early childhood and
education programs.
(a) Community partnerships. (1) A
program must establish ongoing
collaborative relationships and
partnerships with community
organizations such as establishing joint
agreements, procedures, or contracts
and arranging for onsite delivery of
services as appropriate, to facilitate
access to community services that are
responsive to children’s and families’
needs and family partnership goals, and
community needs and resources, as
determined by the community
assessment.
(2) A program must establish
necessary collaborative relationships
and partnerships, with community
organizations that may include:
(i) Health care providers, including
child and adult mental health
professionals, Medicaid managed care
networks, dentists, other health
professionals, nutritional service
providers, providers of prenatal and
postnatal support, and substance abuse
treatment providers;
(ii) Individuals and agencies that
provide services to children with
disabilities and their families,
elementary schools, state preschool
providers, and providers of child care
services;
(iii) Family preservation and support
services and child protective services
PO 00000
Frm 00136
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
and any other agency to which child
abuse must be reported under state or
tribal law;
(iv) Educational and cultural
institutions, such as libraries and
museums, for both children and
families;
(v) Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families, nutrition assistance agencies,
workforce development and training
programs, adult or family literacy, adult
education, and post-secondary
education institutions, and agencies or
financial institutions that provide assetbuilding education, products and
services to enhance family financial
stability and savings;
(vi) Housing assistance agencies and
providers of support for children and
families experiencing homelessness,
including the local educational agency
liaison designated under section
722(g)(1)(J)(ii) of the McKinney-Vento
Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C.
11431 et seq.);
(vii) Domestic violence prevention
and support providers; and,
(viii) Other organizations or
businesses that may provide support
and resources to families.
(b) Coordination with other programs
and systems. A program must take an
active role in promoting coordinated
systems of comprehensive early
childhood services to low-income
children and families in their
community through communication,
cooperation, and the sharing of
information among agencies and their
community partners, while protecting
the privacy of child records in
accordance with subpart C of part 1303
of this chapter and applicable federal,
state, local, and tribal laws.
(1) Memorandum of understanding.
To support coordination between Head
Start and publicly funded preschool
programs, a program must enter into a
memorandum of understanding with the
appropriate local entity responsible for
managing publicly funded preschool
programs in the service area of the
program, as described in section
642(e)(5) of the Act.
(2) Quality Rating and Improvement
Systems. A program, with the exception
of American Indian and Alaska Native
programs, must participate in its state or
local Quality Rating and Improvement
System (QRIS) if:
(i) Its state or local QRIS accepts Head
Start monitoring data to document
quality indicators included in the state’s
tiered system;
(ii) Participation would not impact a
program’s ability to comply with the
Head Start Program Performance
Standards; and,
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
(iii) The program has not provided the
Office of Head Start with a compelling
reason not to comply with this
requirement.
(3) Data systems. A program, with the
exception of American Indian and
Alaska Native programs unless they
would like to and to the extent
practicable, should integrate and share
relevant data with state education data
systems, to the extent practicable, if the
program can receive similar support and
benefits as other participating early
childhood programs.
(4) American Indian and Alaska
Native programs. An American Indian
and Alaska Native program should
determine whether or not it will
participate in the systems described in
paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) of this section.
Subpart F—Additional Services for
Children With Disabilities
§ 1302.60 Full participation in program
services and activities.
A program must ensure enrolled
children with disabilities, including but
not limited to those who are eligible for
services under IDEA, and their families
receive all applicable program services
delivered in the least restrictive possible
environment and that they fully
participate in all program activities.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
§ 1302.61
Additional services for children.
(a) Additional services for children
with disabilities. Programs must ensure
the individualized needs of children
with disabilities, including but not
limited to those eligible for services
under IDEA, are being met and all
children have access to and can fully
participate in the full range of activities
and services. Programs must provide
any necessary modifications to the
environment, multiple and varied
formats for instruction, and
individualized accommodations and
supports as necessary to support the full
participation of children with
disabilities. Programs must ensure all
individuals with disabilities are
protected from discrimination under
and provided with all services and
program modifications required by
section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (29
U.S.C. 794), the Americans with
Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. 12101 et
seq.), and their implementing
regulations.
(b) Services during IDEA eligibility
determination. While the local agency
responsible for implementing IDEA
determines a child’s eligibility, a
program must provide individualized
services and supports, to the maximum
extent possible, to meet the child’s
needs. Such additional supports may be
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
available through a child’s health
insurance or it may be appropriate or
required to provide the needed services
and supports under section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act if the child satisfies
the definition of disability in section
705(9)(b) of the Rehabilitation Act.
When such supports are not available
through alternate means, pending the
evaluation results and eligibility
determination, a program must
individualize program services based on
available information such as parent
input and child observation and
assessment data and may use program
funds for these purposes.
(c) Additional services for children
with an IFSP or IEP. To ensure the
individual needs of children eligible for
services under IDEA are met, a program
must:
(1) Work closely with the local agency
responsible for implementing IDEA, the
family, and other service partners, as
appropriate, to ensure:
(i) Services for a child with
disabilities will be planned and
delivered as required by their IFSP or
IEP, as appropriate;
(ii) Children are working towards the
goals in their IFSP or IEP;
(iii) Elements of the IFSP or IEP that
the program cannot implement are
implemented by other appropriate
agencies, related service providers and
specialists;
(iv) IFSPs and IEPs are being reviewed
and revised, as required by IDEA; and,
(v) Services are provided in a child’s
regular Early Head Start or Head Start
classroom or family child care home to
the greatest extent possible.
(2) Plan and implement the transition
services described in subpart G of this
part, including at a minimum:
(i) For children with an IFSP who are
transitioning out of Early Head Start,
collaborate with the parents, and the
local agency responsible for
implementing IDEA, to ensure
appropriate steps are undertaken in a
timely and appropriate manner to
determine the child’s eligibility for
services under Part B of IDEA; and,
(ii) For children with an IEP who are
transitioning out of Head Start to
kindergarten, collaborate with the
parents, and the local agency
responsible for implementing IDEA, to
ensure steps are undertaken in a timely
and appropriate manner to support the
child and family as they transition to a
new setting.
§ 1302.62
Additional services for parents.
(a) Parents of all children with
disabilities. (1) A program must
collaborate with parents of children
with disabilities, including but not
PO 00000
Frm 00137
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61429
limited to children eligible for services
under IDEA, to ensure the needs of their
children are being met, including
support to help parents become
advocates for services that meet their
children’s needs and information and
skills to help parents understand their
child’s disability and how to best
support the child’s development;
(2) A program must assist parents to
access services and resources for their
family, including securing adaptive
equipment and devices and supports
available through a child’s health
insurance or other entities, creating
linkages to family support programs,
and helping parents establish eligibility
for additional support programs, as
needed and practicable.
(b) Parents of children eligible for
services under IDEA. For parents of
children eligible for services under
IDEA, a program must also help parents:
(1) Understand the referral,
evaluation, and service timelines
required under IDEA;
(2) Actively participate in the
eligibility process and IFSP or IEP
development process with the local
agency responsible for implementing
IDEA, including by informing parents of
their right to invite the program to
participate in all meetings;
(3) Understand the purposes and
results of evaluations and services
provided under an IFSP or IEP; and,
(4) Ensure their children’s needs are
accurately identified in, and addressed
through, the IFSP or IEP.
§ 1302.63 Coordination and collaboration
with the local agency responsible for
implementing IDEA.
(a) A program must coordinate with
the local agency responsible for
implementing IDEA to identify children
enrolled or who intend to enroll in a
program that may be eligible for services
under IDEA, including through the
process described in § 1302.33(a)(3) and
through participation in the local
agency Child Find efforts.
(b) A program must work to develop
interagency agreements with the local
agency responsible for implementing
IDEA to improve service delivery to
children eligible for services under
IDEA, including the referral and
evaluation process, service
coordination, promotion of service
provision in the least restrictive
appropriate community-based setting
and reduction in dual enrollment which
causes reduced time in a less restrictive
setting, and transition services as
children move from services provided
under Part C of IDEA to services
provided under Part B of IDEA and from
preschool to kindergarten.
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
61430
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
(c) A program must participate in the
development of the IFSP or IEP if
requested by the child’s parents, and the
implementation of the IFSP or IEP. At
a minimum, the program must offer:
(1) To provide relevant information
from its screenings, assessments, and
observations to the team developing a
child’s IFSP or IEP; and,
(2) To participate in meetings with the
local agency responsible for
implementing IDEA to develop or
review an IEP or IFSP for a child being
considered for Head Start enrollment, a
currently enrolled child, or a child
transitioning from a program.
(d) A program must retain a copy of
the IEP or IFSP for any child enrolled
in Head Start for the time the child is
in the program, consistent with the
IDEA requirements in 34 CFR parts 300
and 303.
Subpart G—Transition Services
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
§ 1302.70
Start.
Transitions from Early Head
(a) Implementing transition strategies
and practices. An Early Head Start
program must implement strategies and
practices to support successful
transitions for children and their
families transitioning out of Early Head
Start.
(b) Timing for transitions. To ensure
the most appropriate placement and
service following participation in Early
Head Start, such programs must, at least
six months prior to each child’s third
birthday, implement transition planning
for each child and family that:
(1) Takes into account the child’s
developmental level and health and
disability status, progress made by the
child and family while in Early Head
Start, current and changing family
circumstances and, the availability of
Head Start, other public prekindergarten, and other early education
and child development services in the
community that will meet the needs of
the child and family; and,
(2) Transitions the child into Head
Start or another program as soon as
possible after the child’s third birthday
but permits the child to remain in Early
Head Start for a limited number of
additional months following the child’s
third birthday if necessary for an
appropriate transition.
(c) Family collaborations. A program
must collaborate with parents of Early
Head Start children to implement
strategies and activities that support
successful transitions from Early Head
Start and, at a minimum, provide
information about the child’s progress
during the program year and provide
strategies for parents to continue their
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
involvement in and advocacy for the
education and development of their
child.
(d) Early Head Start and Head Start
collaboration. Early Head Start and
Head Start programs must work together
to maximize enrollment transitions from
Early Head Start to Head Start,
consistent with the eligibility provisions
in subpart A, and promote successful
transitions through collaboration and
communication.
(e) Transition services for children
with an IFSP. A program must provide
additional transition services for
children with an IFSP, at a minimum,
as described in subpart F of this part.
§ 1302.71 Transitions from Head Start to
kindergarten.
(a) Implementing transition strategies
and practices. A program that serves
children who will enter kindergarten in
the following year must implement
transition strategies to support a
successful transition to kindergarten.
(b) Family collaborations for
transitions. (1) A program must
collaborate with parents of enrolled
children to implement strategies and
activities that will help parents advocate
for and promote successful transitions
to kindergarten for their children,
including their continued involvement
in the education and development of
their child.
(2) At a minimum, such strategies and
activities must:
(i) Help parents understand their
child’s progress during Head Start;
(ii) Help parents understand practices
they use to effectively provide academic
and social support for their children
during their transition to kindergarten
and foster their continued involvement
in the education of their child;
(iii) Prepare parents to exercise their
rights and responsibilities concerning
the education of their children in the
elementary school setting, including
services and supports available to
children with disabilities and various
options for their child to participate in
language instruction educational
programs; and,
(iv) Assist parents in the ongoing
communication with teachers and other
school personnel so that parents can
participate in decisions related to their
children’s education.
(c) Community collaborations for
transitions. (1) A program must
collaborate with local education
agencies to support family engagement
under section 642(b)(13) of the Act and
state departments of education, as
appropriate, and kindergarten teachers
to implement strategies and activities
that promote successful transitions to
PO 00000
Frm 00138
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
kindergarten for children, their families,
and the elementary school.
(2) At a minimum, such strategies and
activities must include:
(i) Coordination with schools or other
appropriate agencies to ensure
children’s relevant records are
transferred to the school or next
placement in which a child will enroll,
consistent with privacy requirements in
subpart C of part 1303 of this chapter;
(ii) Communication between
appropriate staff and their counterparts
in the schools to facilitate continuity of
learning and development, consistent
with privacy requirements in subpart C
of part 1303 of this chapter; and,
(iii) Participation, as possible, for joint
training and professional development
activities for Head Start and
kindergarten teachers and staff.
(3) A program that does not operate
during the summer must collaborate
with school districts to determine the
availability of summer school
programming for children who will be
entering kindergarten and work with
parents and school districts to enroll
children in such programs, as
appropriate.
(d) Learning environment activities. A
program must implement strategies and
activities in the learning environment
that promote successful transitions to
kindergarten for enrolled children, and
at a minimum, include approaches that
familiarize children with the transition
to kindergarten and foster confidence
about such transition.
(e) Transition services for children
with an IEP. A program must provide
additional transition services for
children with an IEP, at a minimum, as
described in subpart F of this part.
§ 1302.72
Transitions between programs.
(a) For families and children who
move out of the community in which
they are currently served, including
homeless families and foster children, a
program must undertake efforts to
support effective transitions to other
Early Head Start or Head Start programs.
If Early Head Start or Head Start is not
available, the program should assist the
family to identify another early
childhood program that meets their
needs.
(b) A program that serves children
whose families have decided to
transition them to other early education
programs, including public prekindergarten, in the year prior to
kindergarten entry must undertake
strategies and activities described in
§ 1302.71(b) and (c)(1) and (2), as
practicable and appropriate.
(c) A migrant or seasonal Head Start
program must undertake efforts to
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
support effective transitions to other
migrant or seasonal Head Start or, if
appropriate, Early Head Start or Head
Start programs for families and children
moving out of the community in which
they are currently served.
Subpart H—Services to Enrolled
Pregnant Women
§ 1302.80
Enrolled pregnant women.
(a) Within 30 days of enrollment, a
program must determine whether each
enrolled pregnant woman has an
ongoing source of continuous,
accessible health care—provided by a
health care professional that maintains
her ongoing health record and is not
primarily a source of emergency or
urgent care—and, as appropriate, health
insurance coverage.
(b) If an enrolled pregnant woman
does not have a source of ongoing care
as described in paragraph (a) of this
section and, as appropriate, health
insurance coverage, a program must, as
quickly as possible, facilitate her access
to such a source of care that will meet
her needs.
(c) A program must facilitate the
ability of all enrolled pregnant women
to access comprehensive services
through referrals that, at a minimum,
include nutritional counseling, food
assistance, oral health care, mental
health services, substance abuse
prevention and treatment, and
emergency shelter or transitional
housing in cases of domestic violence.
(d) A program must provide a
newborn visit with each mother and
baby to offer support and identify family
needs. A program must schedule the
newborn visit within two weeks after
the infant’s birth.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
§ 1302.81 Prenatal and postpartum
information, education, and services.
(a) A program must provide enrolled
pregnant women, fathers, and partners
or other relevant family members the
prenatal and postpartum information,
education and services that address, as
appropriate, fetal development, the
importance of nutrition, the risks of
alcohol, drugs, and smoking, labor and
delivery, postpartum recovery, parental
depression, infant care and safe sleep
practices, and the benefits of
breastfeeding.
(b) A program must also address
needs for appropriate supports for
emotional well-being, nurturing and
responsive caregiving, and father
engagement during pregnancy and early
childhood.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
§ 1302.82 Family partnership services for
enrolled pregnant women.
(a) A program must engage enrolled
pregnant women and other relevant
family members, such as fathers, in the
family partnership services as described
in § 1302.52 and include a specific focus
on factors that influence prenatal and
postpartum maternal and infant health.
(b) A program must engage enrolled
pregnant women and other relevant
family members, such as fathers, in
discussions about program options, plan
for the infant’s transition to program
enrollment, and support the family
during the transition process, where
appropriate.
Subpart I—Human Resources
Management
§ 1302.90
Personnel policies.
(a) Establishing personnel policies
and procedures. A program must
establish written personnel policies and
procedures that are approved by the
governing body and policy council or
policy committee and that are available
to all staff.
(b) Background checks and selection
procedures. (1) Before a person is hired,
directly or through contract, including
transportation staff and contractors, a
program must conduct an interview,
verify references, conduct a sex offender
registry check and obtain one of the
following:
(i) State or tribal criminal history
records, including fingerprint checks;
or,
(ii) Federal Bureau of Investigation
criminal history records, including
fingerprint checks.
(2) A program has 90 days after an
employee is hired to complete the
background check process by obtaining:
(i) Whichever check listed in
paragraph (b)(1) of this section was not
obtained prior to the date of hire; and,
(ii) Child abuse and neglect state
registry check, if available.
(3) A program must review the
information found in each employment
application and complete background
check to assess the relevancy of any
issue uncovered by the complete
background check including any arrest,
pending criminal charge, or conviction
and must use Child Care and
Development Fund (CCDF)
disqualification factors described in 42
U.S.C. 9858f(c)(1)(D) and 42 U.S.C.
9858f(h)(1) or tribal disqualifications
factors to determine whether the
prospective employee can be hired or
the current employee must be
terminated.
(4) A program must ensure a newly
hired employee, consultant, or
PO 00000
Frm 00139
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61431
contractor does not have unsupervised
access to children until the complete
background check process described in
paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this
section is complete.
(5) A program must conduct the
complete background check for each
employee, consultant, or contractor at
least once every five years which must
include each of the four checks listed in
paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section,
and review and make employment
decisions based on the information as
described in paragraph (b)(3) of this
section, unless the program can
demonstrate to the responsible HHS
official that it has a more stringent
system in place that will ensure child
safety.
(6) A program must consider current
and former program parents for
employment vacancies for which such
parents apply and are qualified.
(c) Standards of conduct. (1) A
program must ensure all staff,
consultants, contractors, and volunteers
abide by the program’s standards of
conduct that:
(i) Ensure staff, consultants,
contractors, and volunteers implement
positive strategies to support children’s
well-being and prevent and address
challenging behavior;
(ii) Ensure staff, consultants,
contractors, and volunteers do not
maltreat or endanger the health or safety
of children, including, at a minimum,
that staff must not:
(A) Use corporal punishment;
(B) Use isolation to discipline a child;
(C) Bind or tie a child to restrict
movement or tape a child’s mouth;
(D) Use or withhold food as a
punishment or reward;
(E) Use toilet learning/training
methods that punish, demean, or
humiliate a child;
(F) Use any form of emotional abuse,
including public or private humiliation,
rejecting, terrorizing, extended ignoring,
or corrupting a child;
(G) Physically abuse a child;
(H) Use any form of verbal abuse,
including profane, sarcastic language,
threats, or derogatory remarks about the
child or child’s family; or,
(I) Use physical activity or outdoor
time as a punishment or reward;
(iii) Ensure staff, consultants,
contractors, and volunteers respect and
promote the unique identity of each
child and family and do not stereotype
on any basis, including gender, race,
ethnicity, culture, religion, disability,
sexual orientation, or family
composition;
(iv) Require staff, consultants,
contractors, and volunteers to comply
with program confidentiality policies
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
61432
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
concerning personally identifiable
information about children, families,
and other staff members in accordance
with subpart C of part 1303 of this
chapter and applicable federal, state,
local, and tribal laws; and,
(v) Ensure no child is left alone or
unsupervised by staff, consultants,
contractors, or volunteers while under
their care.
(2) Personnel policies and procedures
must include appropriate penalties for
staff, consultants, and volunteers who
violate the standards of conduct.
(d) Communication with dual
language learners and their families. (1)
A program must ensure staff and
program consultants or contractors are
familiar with the ethnic backgrounds
and heritages of families in the program
and are able to serve and effectively
communicate, either directly or through
interpretation and translation, with
children who are dual language learners
and to the extent feasible, with families
with limited English proficiency.
(2) If a majority of children in a class
or home-based program speak the same
language, at least one class staff member
or home visitor must speak such
language.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
§ 1302.91 Staff qualifications and
competency requirements.
(a) Purpose. A program must ensure
all staff, consultants, and contractors
engaged in the delivery of program
services have sufficient knowledge,
training and experience, and
competencies to fulfill the roles and
responsibilities of their positions and to
ensure high-quality service delivery in
accordance with the program
performance standards. A program must
provide ongoing training and
professional development to support
staff in fulfilling their roles and
responsibilities.
(b) Early Head Start or Head Start
director. A program must ensure an
Early Head Start or Head Start director
hired after November 7, 2016, has, at a
minimum, a baccalaureate degree and
experience in supervision of staff, fiscal
management, and administration.
(c) Fiscal officer. A program must
assess staffing needs in consideration of
the fiscal complexity of the organization
and applicable financial management
requirements and secure the regularly
scheduled or ongoing services of a fiscal
officer with sufficient education and
experience to meet their needs. A
program must ensure a fiscal officer
hired after November 7, 2016, is a
certified public accountant or has, at a
minimum, a baccalaureate degree in
accounting, business, fiscal
management, or a related field.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
(d) Child and family services
management staff qualification
requirements—(1) Family, health, and
disabilities management. A program
must ensure staff responsible for
management and oversight of family
services, health services, and services to
children with disabilities hired after
November 7, 2016, have, at a minimum,
a baccalaureate degree, preferably
related to one or more of the disciplines
they oversee.
(2) Education management. As
prescribed in section 648A(a)(2)(B)(i) of
the Act, a program must ensure staff and
consultants that serve as education
managers or coordinators, including
those that serve as curriculum
specialists, have a baccalaureate or
advanced degree in early childhood
education or a baccalaureate or
advanced degree and equivalent
coursework in early childhood
education with early education teaching
experience.
(e) Child and family services staff—(1)
Early Head Start center-based teacher
qualification requirements. As
prescribed in section 645A(h) of the Act,
a program must ensure center-based
teachers that provide direct services to
infants and toddlers in Early Head Start
centers have a minimum of a Child
Development Associate (CDA)
credential or comparable credential, and
have been trained or have equivalent
coursework in early childhood
development with a focus on infant and
toddler development.
(2) Head Start center-based teacher
qualification requirements. (i) The
Secretary must ensure no less than fifty
percent of all Head Start teachers,
nationwide, have a baccalaureate degree
in child development, early childhood
education, or equivalent coursework.
(ii) As prescribed in section
648A(a)(3)(B) of the Act, a program must
ensure all center-based teachers have at
least an associate’s or bachelor’s degree
in child development or early childhood
education, equivalent coursework, or
otherwise meet the requirements of
section 648A(a)(3)(B) of the Act.
(3) Head Start assistant teacher
qualification requirements. As
prescribed in section 648A(a)(2)(B)(ii) of
the Act, a program must ensure Head
Start assistant teachers, at a minimum,
have a CDA credential or a stateawarded certificate that meets or
exceeds the requirements for a CDA
credential, are enrolled in a program
that will lead to an associate or
baccalaureate degree or, are enrolled in
a CDA credential program to be
completed within two years of the time
of hire.
PO 00000
Frm 00140
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
(4) Family child care provider
qualification requirements. (i) A
program must ensure family child care
providers have previous early child care
experience and, at a minimum, are
enrolled in a Family Child Care CDA
program or state equivalent, or an
associate’s or baccalaureate degree
program in child development or early
childhood education prior to beginning
service provision, and for the credential
acquire it within eighteen months of
beginning to provide services.
(ii) By August 1, 2018, a child
development specialist, as required for
family child care in § 1302.23(e), must
have, at a minimum, a baccalaureate
degree in child development, early
childhood education, or a related field.
(5) Center-based teachers, assistant
teachers, and family child care provider
competencies. A program must ensure
center-based teachers, assistant teachers,
and family child care providers
demonstrate competency to provide
effective and nurturing teacher-child
interactions, plan and implement
learning experiences that ensure
effective curriculum implementation
and use of assessment and promote
children’s progress across the standards
described in the Head Start Early
Learning Outcomes Framework: Ages
Birth to Five and applicable state early
learning and development standards,
including for children with disabilities
and dual language learners, as
appropriate.
(6) Home visitors. A program must
ensure home visitors providing homebased education services:
(i) Have a minimum of a home-based
CDA credential or comparable
credential, or equivalent coursework as
part of an associate’s or bachelor’s
degree; and,
(ii) Demonstrate competency to plan
and implement home-based learning
experiences that ensure effective
implementation of the home visiting
curriculum and promote children’s
progress across the standards described
in the Head Start Early Learning
Outcomes Framework: Ages Birth to
Five, including for children with
disabilities and dual language learners,
as appropriate, and to build respectful,
culturally responsive, and trusting
relationships with families.
(7) Family services staff qualification
requirements. A program must ensure
staff who work directly with families on
the family partnership process hired
after November 7, 2016, have within
eighteen months of hire, at a minimum,
a credential or certification in social
work, human services, family services,
counseling or a related field.
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
(8) Health professional qualification
requirements. (i) A program must ensure
health procedures are performed only
by a licensed or certified health
professional.
(ii) A program must ensure all mental
health consultants are licensed or
certified mental health professionals. A
program must use mental health
consultants with knowledge of and
experience in serving young children
and their families, if available in the
community.
(iii) A program must use staff or
consultants to support nutrition services
who are registered dieticians or
nutritionists with appropriate
qualifications.
(f) Coaches. A program must ensure
coaches providing the services
described in § 1302.92(c) have a
minimum of a baccalaureate degree in
early childhood education or a related
field.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
§ 1302.92 Training and professional
development.
(a) A program must provide to all new
staff, consultants, and volunteers an
orientation that focuses on, at a
minimum, the goals and underlying
philosophy of the program and on the
ways they are implemented.
(b) A program must establish and
implement a systematic approach to
staff training and professional
development designed to assist staff in
acquiring or increasing the knowledge
and skills needed to provide highquality, comprehensive services within
the scope of their job responsibilities,
and attached to academic credit as
appropriate. At a minimum, the system
must include:
(1) Staff completing a minimum of 15
clock hours of professional development
per year. For teaching staff, such
professional development must meet the
requirements described in section
648A(a)(5) of the Act.
(2) Training on methods to handle
suspected or known child abuse and
neglect cases, that comply with
applicable federal, state, local, and tribal
laws;
(3) Training for child and family
services staff on best practices for
implementing family engagement
strategies in a systemic way, as
described throughout this part;
(4) Training for child and family
services staff, including staff that work
on family services, health, and
disabilities, that builds their knowledge,
experience, and competencies to
improve child and family outcomes;
and,
(5) Research-based approaches to
professional development for education
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
staff, that are focused on effective
curricula implementation, knowledge of
the content in Head Start Early Learning
Outcomes Framework: Ages Birth to
Five, partnering with families,
supporting children with disabilities
and their families, providing effective
and nurturing adult-child interactions,
supporting dual language learners as
appropriate, addressing challenging
behaviors, preparing children and
families for transitions (as described in
subpart G of this part), and use of data
to individualize learning experiences to
improve outcomes for all children.
(c) A program must implement a
research-based, coordinated coaching
strategy for education staff that:
(1) Assesses all education staff to
identify strengths, areas of needed
support, and which staff would benefit
most from intensive coaching;
(2) At a minimum, provides
opportunities for intensive coaching to
those education staff identified through
the process in paragraph (c)(1) of this
section, including opportunities to be
observed and receive feedback and
modeling of effective teacher practices
directly related to program performance
goals;
(3) At a minimum, provides
opportunities for education staff not
identified for intensive coaching
through the process in paragraph (c)(1)
of this section to receive other forms of
research-based professional
development aligned with program
performance goals;
(4) Ensures intensive coaching
opportunities for the staff identified
through the process in paragraph (c)(1)
of this section that:
(i) Align with the program’s school
readiness goals, curricula, and other
approaches to professional
development;
(ii) Utilize a coach with adequate
training and experience in adult
learning and in using assessment data to
drive coaching strategies aligned with
program performance goals;
(iii) Provide ongoing communication
between the coach, program director,
education director, and any other
relevant staff; and,
(iv) Include clearly articulated goals
informed by the program’s goals, as
described in § 1302.102, and a process
for achieving those goals; and,
(5) Establishes policies that ensure
assessment results are not used to solely
determine punitive actions for staff
identified as needing support, without
providing time and resources for staff to
improve.
(d) If a program needs to develop or
significantly adapt their approach to
research-based professional
PO 00000
Frm 00141
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61433
development to better meet the training
needs of education staff, such that it
does not include the requirements in
paragraph (c) of this section, the
program must partner with external
early childhood education professional
development experts. A program must
assess whether the adaptation
adequately supports staff professional
development, consistent with the
process laid out in subpart J of this part.
§ 1302.93
Staff health and wellness.
(a) A program must ensure each staff
member has an initial health
examination and a periodic reexamination as recommended by their
health care provider in accordance with
state, tribal, or local requirements, that
include screeners or tests for
communicable diseases, as appropriate.
The program must ensure staff do not,
because of communicable diseases, pose
a significant risk to the health or safety
of others in the program that cannot be
eliminated or reduced by reasonable
accommodation, in accordance with the
Americans with Disabilities Act and
section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.
(b) A program must make mental
health and wellness information
available to staff regarding health issues
that may affect their job performance,
and must provide regularly scheduled
opportunities to learn about mental
health, wellness, and health education.
§ 1302.94
Volunteers.
(a) A program must ensure regular
volunteers have been screened for
appropriate communicable diseases in
accordance with state, tribal or local
laws. In the absence of state, tribal or
local law, the Health Services Advisory
Committee must be consulted regarding
the need for such screenings.
(b) A program must ensure children
are never left alone with volunteers.
Subpart J—Program Management and
Quality Improvement
§ 1302.100
Purpose.
A program must provide management
and a process of ongoing monitoring
and continuous improvement for
achieving program goals that ensures
child safety and the delivery of
effective, high-quality program services.
§ 1302.101
Management system.
(a) Implementation. A program must
implement a management system that:
(1) Ensures a program, fiscal, and
human resource management structure
that provides effective management and
oversight of all program areas and
fiduciary responsibilities to enable
delivery of high-quality services in all of
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
61434
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
the program services described in
subparts C, D, E, F, G, and H of this part;
(2) Provides regular and ongoing
supervision to support individual staff
professional development and
continuous program quality
improvement;
(3) Ensures budget and staffing
patterns that promote continuity of care
for all children enrolled, allow
sufficient time for staff to participate in
appropriate training and professional
development, and allow for provision of
the full range of services described in
subparts C, D, E, F, G, and H of this part;
and,
(4) Maintains an automated
accounting and record keeping system
adequate for effective oversight.
(b) Coordinated approaches. At the
beginning of each program year, and on
an ongoing basis throughout the year, a
program must design and implement
program-wide coordinated approaches
that ensure:
(1) The training and professional
development system, as described in
§ 1302.92, effectively supports the
delivery and continuous improvement
of high-quality services;
(2) The full and effective participation
of children who are dual language
learners and their families, by:
(i) Utilizing information from the
program’s community assessment about
the languages spoken throughout the
program service area to anticipate child
and family needs;
(ii) Identifying community resources
and establishing ongoing collaborative
relationships and partnerships with
community organizations consistent
with the requirements in § 1302.53(a);
and,
(iii) Systematically and
comprehensively addressing child and
family needs by facilitating meaningful
access to program services, including, at
a minimum, curriculum, instruction,
staffing, supervision, and family
partnerships with bilingual staff, oral
language assistance and interpretation,
or translation of essential program
materials, as appropriate.
(3) The full and effective participation
of all children with disabilities,
including but not limited to children
eligible for services under IDEA, by
providing services with appropriate
facilities, program materials,
curriculum, instruction, staffing,
supervision, and partnerships, at a
minimum, consistent with section 504
of the Rehabilitation Act and the
Americans with Disabilities Act; and,
(4) The management of program data
to effectively support the availability,
usability, integrity, and security of data.
A program must establish procedures on
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
data management, and have them
approved by the governing body and
policy council, in areas such as quality
of data and effective use and sharing of
data, while protecting the privacy of
child records in accordance with
subpart C of part 1303 of this chapter
and applicable federal, state, local, and
tribal laws.
§ 1302.102
Achieving program goals.
(a) Establishing program goals. A
program, in collaboration with the
governing body and policy council,
must establish goals and measurable
objectives that include:
(1) Strategic long-term goals for
ensuring programs are and remain
responsive to community needs as
identified in their community
assessment as described in subpart A of
this part;
(2) Goals for the provision of
educational, health, nutritional, and
family and community engagement
program services as described in the
program performance standards to
further promote the school readiness of
enrolled children;
(3) School readiness goals that are
aligned with the Head Start Early
Learning Outcomes Framework: Ages
Birth to Five, state and tribal early
learning standards, as appropriate, and
requirements and expectations of
schools Head Start children will attend,
per the requirements of subpart B of part
1304 of this part; and,
(4) Effective health and safety
practices to ensure children are safe at
all times, per the requirements in
§§ 1302.47, 1302.90(b) and (c),
1302.92(c)(1), and 1302.94 and part
1303, subpart F, of this chapter.
(b) Monitoring program
performance—(1) Ongoing compliance
oversight and correction. In order to
ensure effective ongoing oversight and
correction, a program must establish
and implement a system of ongoing
oversight that ensures effective
implementation of the program
performance standards, including
ensuring child safety, and other
applicable federal regulations as
described in this part, and must:
(i) Collect and use data to inform this
process;
(ii) Correct quality and compliance
issues immediately, or as quickly as
possible;
(iii) Work with the governing body
and the policy council to address issues
during the ongoing oversight and
correction process and during federal
oversight; and,
(iv) Implement procedures that
prevent recurrence of previous quality
and compliance issues, including
PO 00000
Frm 00142
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
previously identified deficiencies, safety
incidents, and audit findings.
(2) Ongoing assessment of program
goals. A program must effectively
oversee progress towards program goals
on an ongoing basis and annually must:
(i) Conduct a self-assessment that uses
program data including aggregated child
assessment data, and professional
development and parent and family
engagement data as appropriate, to
evaluate the program’s progress towards
meeting goals established under
paragraph (a) of this section, compliance
with program performance standards
throughout the program year, and the
effectiveness of the professional
development and family engagement
systems in promoting school readiness;
(ii) Communicate and collaborate
with the governing body and policy
council, program staff, and parents of
enrolled children when conducting the
annual self-assessment; and,
(iii) Submit findings of the selfassessment, including information listed
in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section to
the responsible HHS official.
(c) Using data for continuous
improvement. (1) A program must
implement a process for using data to
identify program strengths and needs,
develop and implement plans that
address program needs, and continually
evaluate compliance with program
performance standards and progress
towards achieving program goals
described in paragraph (a) of this
section.
(2) This process must:
(i) Ensure data is aggregated, analyzed
and compared in such a way to assist
agencies in identifying risks and
informing strategies for continuous
improvement in all program service
areas;
(ii) Ensure child-level assessment data
is aggregated and analyzed at least three
times a year, including for sub-groups,
such as dual language learners and
children with disabilities, as
appropriate, except in programs
operating fewer than 90 days, and used
with other program data described in
paragraph (c)(2)(iv) of this section to
direct continuous improvement related
to curriculum choice and
implementation, teaching practices,
professional development, program
design and other program decisions,
including changing or targeting scope of
services; and,
(iii) For programs operating fewer
than 90 days, ensures child assessment
data is aggregated and analyzed at least
twice during the program operating
period, including for subgroups, such as
dual language learners and children
with disabilities, as appropriate, and
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
used with other program data described
in paragraph (c)(2)(iv) of this section to
direct continuous improvement related
to curriculum choice and
implementation, teaching practices,
professional development, program
design and other program decisions,
including changing or targeting scope of
services;
(iv) Use information from ongoing
monitoring and the annual selfassessment, and program data on
teaching practice, staffing and
professional development, child-level
assessments, family needs assessments,
and comprehensive services, to identify
program needs, and develop and
implement plans for program
improvement; and,
(v) Use program improvement plans
as needed to either strengthen or adjust
content and strategies for professional
development, change program scope
and services, refine school readiness
and other program goals, and adapt
strategies to better address the needs of
sub-groups.
(d) Reporting. (1) A program must
submit:
(i) Status reports, determined by
ongoing oversight data, to the governing
body and policy council, at least semiannually;
(ii) Reports, as appropriate, to the
responsible HHS official immediately or
as soon as practicable, related to any
significant incidents affecting the health
and safety of program participants,
circumstances affecting the financial
viability of the program, breaches of
personally identifiable information, or
program involvement in legal
proceedings, any matter for which
notification or a report to state, tribal, or
local authorities is required by
applicable law, including at a
minimum:
(A) Any reports regarding agency staff
or volunteer compliance with federal,
state, tribal, or local laws addressing
child abuse and neglect or laws
governing sex offenders;
(B) Incidents that require classrooms
or centers to be closed for any reason;
(C) Legal proceedings by any party
that are directly related to program
operations; and,
(D) All conditions required to be
reported under § 1304.12, including
disqualification from the Child and
Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) and
license revocation.
(2) Annually, a program must publish
and disseminate a report that complies
with section 644(a)(2) of the Act and
includes a summary of a program’s most
recent community assessment, as
described in § 1302.11(b), consistent
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
with privacy protections in subpart C of
part 1303 of this chapter.
(3) If a program has had a deficiency
identified, it must submit, to the
responsible HHS official, a quality
improvement plan as required in section
641A(e)(2) of the Act.
§ 1302.103 Implementation of program
performance standards.
(a) A current program as of November
7, 2016, must implement a programwide approach for the effective and
timely implementation of the changes to
the program performance standards,
including the purchase of materials and
allocation of staff time, as appropriate.
(b) A program’s approach to
implement the changes included in
parts 1301 through 1304 of this chapter
must ensure adequate preparation for
effective and timely service delivery to
children and their families including, at
a minimum, review of community
assessment data to determine the most
appropriate strategy for implementing
required program changes, including
assessing any changes in the number of
children who can be served, as
necessary, the purchase of and training
on any curriculum, assessment, or other
materials, as needed, assessment of
program-wide professional development
needs, assessment of staffing patterns,
the development of coordinated
approaches described in § 1302.101(b),
and the development of appropriate
protections for data sharing; and
children enrolled in the program on
November 7, 2016 are not displaced
during a program year and that children
leaving Early Head Start or Head Start
at the end of the program year following
November 7, 2016 as a result of any slot
reductions received services described
in §§ 1302.70 and 1302.72 to facilitate
successful transitions to other programs.
PART 1303—FINANCIAL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS
Sec.
1303.1
Overview.
Subpart A—Financial Requirements
1303.2 Purpose.
1303.3 Other requirements.
1303.4 Federal financial assistance, nonfederal match, and waiver requirements.
1303.5 Limitations on development and
administrative costs.
Subpart B—Administrative Requirements
1303.10 Purpose.
1303.11 Limitations and prohibitions.
1303.12 Insurance and bonding.
Subpart C—Protections for the Privacy of
Child Records
1303.20 Establishing procedures.
1303.21 Program procedures—applicable
confidentiality provisions.
PO 00000
Frm 00143
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61435
1303.22 Disclosures with, and without,
parental consent.
1303.23 Parental rights.
1303.24 Maintaining records.
Subpart D—Delegation of Program
Operations
1303.30 Grantee responsibility and
accountability.
1303.31 Determining and establishing
delegate agencies.
1303.32 Evaluations and corrective actions
for delegate agencies.
1303.33 Termination of delegate agencies.
Subpart E—Facilities
1303.40 Purpose.
1303.41 Approval of previously purchased
facilities.
1303.42 Eligibility to purchase, construct,
and renovate facilities.
1303.43 Use of grant funds to pay fees.
1303.44 Applications to purchase,
construct, and renovate facilities.
1304.45 Cost-comparison to purchase,
construct, and renovate facilities.
1303.46 Recording and posting notices of
federal interest.
1303.47 Contents of notices of federal
interest.
1303.48 Grantee limitations on federal
interest.
1303.49 Protection of federal interest in
mortgage agreements.
1303.50 Third party leases and occupancy
arrangements.
1303.51 Subordination of the federal
interest.
1303.52 Insurance, bonding, and
maintenance.
1303.53 Copies of documents.
1303.54 Record retention.
1303.55 Procurement procedures.
1303.56 Inspection of work.
Subpart F—Transportation
1303.70 Purpose.
1303.71 Vehicles.
1303.72 Vehicle operation.
1303.73 Trip routing.
1303.74 Safety procedures.
1303.75 Children with disabilities.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9801 et seq.
§ 1303.1
Overview.
Section 641A of the Act requires that
the Secretary modify as necessary
program performance standards
including administrative and financial
management standards (section
641A(a)(1)(C)). This part specifies the
financial and administrative
requirements of agencies. Subpart A of
this part outlines the financial
requirements consistent with sections
640(b) and 644(b) and (c) of the Act.
Subpart B of this part specifies the
administrative requirements consistent
with sections 644(a)(1), 644(e), 653, 654,
655, 656, and 657A of the Act. Subpart
C of this part implements the statutory
provision at section 641A(b)(4) of the
Act that directs the Secretary to ensure
the confidentiality of any personally
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
61436
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
identifiable data, information, and
records collected or maintained.
Subpart D of this part prescribes
regulations for the operation of delegate
agencies consistent with Section
641(A)(d). Subpart E of this part
implements the statutory requirements
in Section 644(c), (f) and (g) related to
facilities. Subpart F prescribes
regulations on transportation consistent
with section 640(i) of the Act.
Subpart A—Financial Requirements
§ 1303.2
Purpose.
This subpart establishes regulations
applicable to program administration
Cite
45
45
45
45
45
CFR
CFR
CFR
CFR
CFR
part
part
part
part
part
16
30
46
75
80
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
Other requirements.
The following chart includes HHS
regulations that apply to all grants made
under the Act:
Department grant appeals process.
HHS Standards and Procedures for Claims collection.
Protection of human subjects.
Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards.
Nondiscrimination under programs receiving federal assistance through the Department of Health and Human Services—Effectuation of title VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Practice and procedure for hearings under part 80.
Nondiscrimination on the basis of handicap in federally assisted programs.
Equal treatment for faith based organizations.
FFATA Sub-award and executive compensation.
CCR/DUNS requirement.
§ 1303.4 Federal financial assistance, nonfederal match, and waiver requirements.
In accordance with section 640(b) of
the Act, federal financial assistance to a
grantee will not exceed 80 percent of the
approved total program costs. A grantee
must contribute 20 percent as nonfederal match each budget period. The
responsible HHS official may approve a
waiver of all or a portion of the nonfederal match requirement on the basis
of the grantee’s written application
submitted for the budget period and any
supporting evidence the responsible
HHS official requires. In deciding
whether to grant a waiver, the
responsible HHS official will consider
the circumstances specified at section
640(b) of the Act and whether the
grantee has made a reasonable effort to
comply with the non-federal match
requirement.
§ 1303.5 Limitations on development and
administrative costs.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
§ 1303.3
Title
45 CFR part 81 .........
45 CFR part 84 .........
45 CFR part 87 .........
2 CFR part 170 .........
2 CFR 25.110 ............
(a) Limitations. (1) Costs to develop
and administer a program cannot be
excessive or exceed 15 percent of the
total approved program costs. Allowable
costs to develop and administer a Head
Start program cannot exceed 15 percent
of the total approved program costs,
which includes both federal costs and
non-federal match, unless the
responsible HHS official grants a waiver
under paragraph (b) of this section that
approves a higher percentage in order to
carry out the purposes of the Act.
(2) To assess total program costs and
determine whether a grantee meets this
requirement, the grantee must:
(i) Determine the costs to develop and
administer its program, including the
local costs of necessary resources;
VerDate Sep<11>2014
and grants management for all grants
under the Act.
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
(ii) Categorize total costs as
development and administrative or
program costs;
(iii) Identify and allocate the portion
of dual benefits costs that are for
development and administration;
(iv) Identify and allocate the portion
of indirect costs that are for
development and administration versus
program costs; and,
(v) Delineate all development and
administrative costs in the grant
application and calculate the percentage
of total approved costs allocated to
development and administration.
(b) Waivers. (1) The responsible HHS
official may grant a waiver for each
budget period if a delay or disruption to
program services is caused by
circumstances beyond the agency’s
control, or if an agency is unable to
administer the program within the 15
percent limitation and if the agency can
demonstrate efforts to reduce its
development and administrative costs.
(2) If at any time within the grant
funding cycle, a grantee estimates
development and administration costs
will exceed 15 percent of total approved
costs, it must submit a waiver request to
the responsible HHS official that
explains why costs exceed the limit,
that indicates the time period the waiver
will cover, and that describes what the
grantee will do to reduce its
development and administrative costs to
comply with the 15 percent limit after
the waiver period.
Subpart B—Administrative
Requirements
§ 1303.10
Purpose.
Frm 00144
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
§ 1303.11
Limitations and prohibitions.
An agency must adhere to sections
644(e), 644(g)(3), 653, 654, 655, 656, and
657A of the Act. These sections pertain
to union organizing, the Davis-Bacon
Act, limitations on compensation,
nondiscrimination, unlawful activities,
political activities, and obtaining
parental consent.
§ 1303.12
Insurance and bonding.
An agency must have an ongoing
process to identify risks and have costeffective insurance for those identified
risks; a grantee must require the same
for its delegates. The agency must
specifically consider the risk of
accidental injury to children while
participating in the program. The
grantee must submit proof of
appropriate coverage in its initial
application for funding. The process of
identifying risks must also consider the
risk of losses resulting from fraudulent
acts by individuals authorized to
disburse Head Start funds. Consistent
with 45 CFR part 75, if the agency lacks
sufficient coverage to protect the federal
government’s interest, the agency must
maintain adequate fidelity bond
coverage.
Subpart C—Protections for the Privacy
of Child Records
A grantee must observe standards of
organization, management, and
administration that will ensure, so far as
PO 00000
reasonably possible, that all program
activities are conducted in a manner
consistent with the purposes of the Act
and the objective of providing assistance
effectively, efficiently, and free of any
taint of partisan political bias or
personal or family favoritism.
§ 1303.20
Establishing procedures.
A program must establish procedures
to protect the confidentiality of any
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
personally identifiable information (PII)
in child records.
§ 1303.21 Program procedures—
applicable confidentiality provisions.
(a) If a program is an educational
agency or institution that receives funds
under a program administered by the
Department of Education and therefore
is subject to the confidentiality
provisions under the Family
Educational Rights and Privacy Act
(FERPA), then it must comply with
those confidentiality provisions of
FERPA instead of the provisions in this
subpart.
(b) If a program serves a child who is
referred to, or found eligible for services
under, IDEA, then a program must
comply with the applicable
confidentiality provisions in Part B or
Part C of IDEA to protect the PII in
records of those children, and, therefore,
the provisions in this subpart do not
apply to those children.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
§ 1303.22 Disclosures with, and without,
parental consent.
(a) Disclosure with parental consent.
(1) Subject to the exceptions in
paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section,
the procedures to protect PII must
require the program to obtain a parent’s
written consent before the program may
disclose such PII from child records.
(2) The procedures to protect PII must
require the program to ensure the
parent’s written consent specifies what
child records may be disclosed, explains
why the records will be disclosed, and
identifies the party or class of parties to
whom the records may be disclosed.
The written consent must be signed and
dated.
(3) ‘‘Signed and dated written
consent’’ under this part may include a
record and signature in electronic form
that:
(i) Identifies and authenticates a
particular person as the source of the
electronic consent; and,
(ii) Indicates such person’s approval
of the information.
(4) The program must explain to the
parent that the granting of consent is
voluntary on the part of the parent and
may be revoked at any time. If a parent
revokes consent, that revocation is not
retroactive and therefore it does not
apply to an action that occurred before
the consent was revoked.
(b) Disclosure without parental
consent but with parental notice and
opportunity to refuse. The procedures to
protect PII must allow the program to
disclose such PII from child records
without parental consent if the program
notifies the parent about the disclosure,
provides the parent, upon the parent’s
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
request, a copy of the PII from child
records to be disclosed in advance, and
gives the parent an opportunity to
challenge and refuse disclosure of the
information in the records, before the
program forwards the records to officials
at a program, school, or school district
in which the child seeks or intends to
enroll or where the child is already
enrolled so long as the disclosure is
related to the child’s enrollment or
transfer.
(c) Disclosure without parental
consent. The procedures to protect PII
must allow the program to disclose such
PII from child records without parental
consent to:
(1) Officials within the program or
acting for the program, such as
contractors and subrecipients, if the
official provides services for which the
program would otherwise use
employees, the program determines it is
necessary for Head Start services, and
the program maintains oversight with
respect to the use, further disclosure,
and maintenance of child records, such
as through a written agreement;
(2) Officials within the program,
acting for the program, or from a federal
or state entity, in connection with an
audit or evaluation of education or child
development programs, or for
enforcement of or compliance with
federal legal requirements of the
program; provided the program
maintains oversight with respect to the
use, further disclosure, and
maintenance of child records, such as
through a written agreement, including
the destruction of the PII when no
longer needed for the purpose of the
disclosure, except when the disclosure
is specifically authorized by federal law
or by the responsible HHS official;
(3) Officials within the program,
acting for the program, or from a federal
or state entity, to conduct a study to
improve child and family outcomes,
including improving the quality of
programs, for, or on behalf of, the
program, provided the program
maintains oversight with respect to the
use, further disclosure, and
maintenance of child records, such as
through a written agreement, including
the destruction of the PII when no
longer needed for the purpose of the
disclosure;
(4) Appropriate parties in order to
address a disaster, health or safety
emergency during the period of the
emergency, or a serious health and
safety risk such as a serious food allergy,
if the program determines that
disclosing the PII from child records is
necessary to protect the health or safety
of children or other persons;
PO 00000
Frm 00145
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61437
(5) Comply with a judicial order or
lawfully issued subpoena, provided the
program makes a reasonable effort to
notify the parent about all such
subpoenas and court orders in advance
of the compliance therewith, unless:
(i) A court has ordered that neither
the subpoena, its contents, nor the
information provided in response be
disclosed;
(ii) The disclosure is in compliance
with an ex parte court order obtained by
the United States Attorney General (or
designee not lower than an Assistant
Attorney General) concerning
investigations or prosecutions of an
offense listed in 18 U.S.C. 2332b(g)(5)(B)
or an act of domestic or international
terrorism as defined in 18 U.S.C. 2331.
(iii) A parent is a party to a court
proceeding directly involving child
abuse and neglect (as defined in section
3 of the Child Abuse Prevention and
Treatment Act (42 U.S.C. 5101)) or
dependency matters, and the order is
issued in the context of that proceeding,
additional notice to the parent by the
program is not required; or,
(iv) A program initiates legal action
against a parent or a parent initiates
legal action against a program, then a
program may disclose to the court, also
without a court order or subpoena, the
child records relevant for the program to
act as plaintiff or defendant.
(6) The Secretary of Agriculture or an
authorized representative from the Food
and Nutrition Service to conduct
program monitoring, evaluations, and
performance measurements for the
Child and Adult Care Food Program
under the Richard B. Russell National
School Lunch Act or the Child Nutrition
Act of 1966, if the results will be
reported in an aggregate form that does
not identify any individual: Provided,
that any data collected must be
protected in a manner that will not
permit the personal identification of
students and their parents by other than
the authorized representatives of the
Secretary of Agriculture and any PII
must be destroyed when the data are no
longer needed for program monitoring,
evaluations, and performance
measurements;
(7) A caseworker or other
representative from a state, local, or
tribal child welfare agency, who has the
right to access a case plan for a child
who is in foster care placement, when
such agency is legally responsible for
the child’s care and protection, under
state or tribal law, if the agency agrees
in writing to protect PII, to use
information from the child’s case plan
for specific purposes intended of
addressing the child’s needs, and to
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
61438
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
destroy information that is no longer
needed for those purposes; and,
(8) Appropriate parties in order to
address suspected or known child
maltreatment and is consistent with
applicable federal, state, local, and tribal
laws on reporting child abuse and
neglect.
(d) Written agreements. When a
program establishes a written agreement
with a third party, the procedures to
protect such PII must require the
program to annually review and, if
necessary, update the agreement. If the
third party violates the agreement, then
the program may:
(1) Provide the third party an
opportunity to self-correct; or,
(2) Prohibit the third party from
access to records for a set period of time
as established by the programs
governing body and policy council.
(e) Annual notice. The procedures to
protect PII must require the program to
annually notify parents of their rights in
writing described in this subpart and
applicable definitions in part 1305 of
this chapter, and include in that notice
a description of the types of PII that may
be disclosed, to whom the PII may be
disclosed, and what may constitute a
necessary reason for the disclosure
without parental consent as described in
paragraph (c) of this section.
(f) Limit on disclosing PII. A program
must only disclose the information that
is deemed necessary for the purpose of
the disclosure.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
§ 1303.23
Parental rights.
(a) Inspect record. (1) A parent has the
right to inspect child records.
(2) If the parent requests to inspect
child records, the program must make
the child records available within a
reasonable time, but no more than 45
days after receipt of request.
(3) If a program maintains child
records that contain information on
more than one child, the program must
ensure the parent only inspects
information that pertains to the parent’s
child.
(4) The program shall not destroy a
child record with an outstanding
request to inspect and review the record
under this section.
(b) Amend record. (1) A parent has the
right to ask the program to amend
information in the child record that the
parent believes is inaccurate,
misleading, or violates the child’s
privacy.
(2) The program must consider the
parent’s request and, if the request is
denied, render a written decision to the
parent within a reasonable time that
informs the parent of the right to a
hearing.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
(c) Hearing. (1) If the parent requests
a hearing to challenge information in
the child record, the program must
schedule a hearing within a reasonable
time, notify the parent, in advance,
about the hearing, and ensure the
person who conducts the hearing does
not have a direct interest in its outcome.
(2) The program must ensure the
hearing affords the parent a full and fair
opportunity to present evidence
relevant to the issues.
(3) If the program determines from
evidence presented at the hearing that
the information in the child records is
inaccurate, misleading, or violates the
child’s privacy, the program must either
amend or remove the information and
notify the parent in writing.
(4) If the program determines from
evidence presented at the hearing that
information in the child records is
accurate, does not mislead, or otherwise
does not violate the child’s privacy, the
program must inform the parent of the
right to place a statement in the child
records that either comments on the
contested information or that states why
the parent disagrees with the program’s
decision, or both.
(d) Right to copy of record. The
program must provide a parent, free of
charge, an initial copy of child records
disclosed to third parties with parental
consent and, upon parent request, an
initial copy of child records disclosed to
third parties, unless the disclosure was
for a court that ordered neither the
subpoena, its contents, nor the
information furnished in response be
disclosed.
(e) Right to inspect written
agreements. A parent has the right to
review any written agreements with
third parties.
§ 1303.24
Maintaining records.
(a) A program must maintain child
records in a manner that ensures only
parents, and officials within the
program or acting on behalf of the
program have access, and such records
must be destroyed within a reasonable
timeframe after such records are no
longer needed or required to be
maintained.
(b) A program must maintain, with
the child records, for as long as the
records are maintained, information on
all individuals, agencies, or
organizations to whom a disclosure of
PII from the child records was made
(except for program officials and
parents) and why the disclosure was
made. If a program uses a web-based
data system to maintain child records,
the program must ensure such child
records are adequately protected and
PO 00000
Frm 00146
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
maintained according to current
industry security standards.
(c) If a parent places a statement in
the child record, the program must
maintain the statement with the
contested part of the child record for as
long as the program maintains the
record and, disclose the statement
whenever it discloses the portion of the
child record to which the statement
relates.
Subpart D—Delegation of Program
Operations
§ 1303.30 Grantee responsibility and
accountability.
A grantee is accountable for the
services its delegate agencies provide.
The grantee supports, oversees and
ensures delegate agencies provide highquality services to children and families
and meet all applicable Head Start
requirements. The grantee can only
terminate a delegate agency if the
grantee shows cause why termination is
necessary and provides a process for
delegate agencies to appeal termination
decisions. The grantee retains legal
responsibility and authority and bears
financial accountability for the program
when services are provided by delegate
agencies.
§ 1303.31 Determining and establishing
delegate agencies.
(a) If a grantee enters into an
agreement with another entity to serve
children, the grantee must determine
whether the agreement meets the
definition of ‘‘delegate agency’’ in
section 637(3) of the Act.
(b) A grantee must not award a
delegate agency federal financial
assistance unless there is a written
agreement and the responsible HHS
official approves the agreement before
the grantee delegates program
operations.
§ 1303.32 Evaluations and corrective
actions for delegate agencies.
A grantee must evaluate and ensure
corrective action for delegate agencies
according to section 641A(d) of the Act.
§ 1303.33 Termination of delegate
agencies.
(a) If a grantee shows cause why
termination is appropriate or
demonstrates cost effectiveness, the
grantee may terminate a delegate
agency’s contract.
(b) The grantee’s decision to terminate
must not be arbitrary or capricious.
(c) The grantee must establish a
process for defunding a delegate agency,
including an appeal of a defunding
decision and must ensure the process is
fair and timely.
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
(d) The grantee must notify the
responsible HHS official about the
appeal and its decision.
Subpart E—Facilities
§ 1303.40
Purpose.
This subpart prescribes what a grantee
must establish to show it is eligible to
purchase, construct and renovate
facilities as outlined in section 644(c),
(f) and (g) of the Act. It explains how a
grantee may apply for funds, details
what measures a grantee must take to
protect federal interest in facilities
purchased, constructed or renovated
with grant funds, and concludes with
other administrative provisions. This
subpart applies to major renovations. It
only applies to minor renovations and
repairs, when they are included with a
purchase application and are part of
purchase costs.
§ 1303.41 Approval of previously
purchased facilities.
If a grantee purchased a facility after
December 31, 1986, and seeks to use
grant funds to continue to pay purchase
costs for the facility or to refinance
current indebtedness and use grant
funds to service the resulting debt, the
grantee may apply for funds to meet
those costs. The grantee must submit an
application that conforms to
requirements in this part and in the Act
to the responsible HHS official. If the
responsible HHS official approves the
grantee’s application, Head Start funds
may be used to pay ongoing purchase
costs, which include principal and
interest on approved loans.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
§ 1303.42 Eligibility to purchase,
construct, and renovate facilities.
(a) Preliminary eligibility. (1) Before a
grantee can apply for funds to purchase,
construct, or renovate a facility under
§ 1303.44, it must establish that:
(i) The facility will be available to
Indian tribes, or rural or other lowincome communities;
(ii) The proposed purchase,
construction or major renovation is
within the grantee’s designated service
area; and,
(iii) The proposed purchase,
construction or major renovation is
necessary because the lack of suitable
facilities in the grantee’s service area
will inhibit the operation of the
program.
(2) If a program applies to construct
a facility, that the construction of such
facility is more cost-effective than the
purchase of available facilities or
renovation.
(b) Proving a lack of suitable facilities.
To satisfy paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of this
section, the grantee must have a written
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
statement from an independent real
estate professional familiar with the
commercial real estate market in the
grantee’s service area, that includes
factors considered and supports how the
real estate professional determined there
are no other suitable facilities in the
area.
§ 1303.43
Use of grant funds to pay fees.
A grantee may submit a written
request to the responsible HHS official
for reasonable fees and costs necessary
to determine preliminary eligibility
under § 1303.42 before it submits an
application under § 1303.44. If the
responsible HHS official approves the
grantee’s application, the grantee may
use federal funds to pay fees and costs.
§ 1303.44 Applications to purchase,
construct, and renovate facilities.
(a) Application requirements. If a
grantee is preliminarily eligible under
§ 1303.42 to apply for funds to
purchase, construct, or renovate a
facility, it must submit to the
responsible HHS official:
(1) A statement that explains the
anticipated effect the proposed
purchase, construction or renovation
has had or will have on program
enrollment, activities and services, and
how it determined what the anticipated
effect would be;
(2) A deed or other document
showing legal ownership of the real
property where facilities activity is
proposed, legal description of the
facility site, and an explanation why the
location is appropriate for the grantee’s
service area;
(3) Plans and specifications for the
facility, including square footage,
structure type, the number of rooms the
facility will have or has, how the rooms
will be used, where the structure will be
positioned or located on the building
site, and whether there is space
available for outdoor play and for
parking;
(4) Certification by a licensed
engineer or architect that the facility is,
or will be upon completion, structurally
sound and safe for use as a Head Start
facility and that the facility complies, or
will comply upon completion, with
local building codes, applicable child
care licensing requirements, the
accessibility requirements of the
Americans with Disabilities Act, section
504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973,
the Flood Disaster Protection Act of
1973, and the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966;
(5) A description of proposed
renovations or repairs to make the
facility suitable for program activities,
and plans and specification that
PO 00000
Frm 00147
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61439
describe the facility after renovation or
repair;
(6) A proposed schedule that details
when the grantee will acquire, renovate,
repair and occupy the facility;
(7) An estimate by a licensed
independent certified appraiser of the
facility’s fair market value after
proposed purchase and associated
repairs and renovations construction, or
major renovation is completed is
required for all facilities activities
except for major renovations to leased
property;
(8) The cost comparison described in
§ 1303.45;
(9) A statement that shows what share
of the purchase, construction, or major
renovation will be paid with grant funds
and what the grantee proposes to
contribute as a nonfederal match to the
purchase, construction or major
renovation;
(10) A statement from a lender, if a
grantee applies to use Head Start funds
to continue purchase on a facility or
refinance existing debt on a facility that
indicates the lender is willing to comply
with § 1303.49;
(11) The terms of any proposed or
existing loan(s) related to purchase,
construction or major renovation of the
facility, including copies of any funding
commitment letters, mortgages,
promissory notes, potential security
agreements to be entered into,
information on all other sources of
funding, construction or major
renovation, and any restrictions or
conditions imposed by other funding
sources;
(12) A Phase I environmental site
assessment that describes the
environmental condition of the
proposed facility site and any structures
on the site;
(13) A description of the efforts by the
grantee to coordinate or collaborate with
other providers in the community to
seek assistance, including financial
assistance, prior to the use of funds
under this section; and,
(14) Any additional information the
responsible HHS official may require.
(b) Additional requirements for leased
properties. (1) If a grantee applies to
renovate leased property, it must submit
to the responsible HHS official
information described in paragraph (a)
of this section, a copy of the existing or
proposed lease agreement, and the
landlord or lessor’s consent.
(2) If a grantee applies to purchase a
modular unit it intends to site on leased
property or on other property the
grantee does not own, the grantee must
submit to the responsible HHS official
information described in paragraph (a)
of this section and a copy of the
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
61440
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
proposed lease or other occupancy
agreement that will allow the grantee
access to the modular unit for at least 15
years.
(c) Non-federal match. Any nonfederal match associated with facilities
activities becomes part of the federal
share of the facility.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
§ 1303.45 Cost-comparison to purchase,
construct, and renovate facilities.
(a) Cost comparison. (1) If a grantee
proposes to purchase, construct, or
renovate a facility, it must submit a
detailed cost estimate of the proposed
activity, compare the costs associated
with the proposed activity to other
available alternatives in the service area,
and provide any additional information
the responsible HHS official requests.
The grantee must demonstrate that the
proposed activity will result in savings
when compared to the costs that would
be incurred to acquire the use of an
alternative facility to carry out program.
(2) In addition to requirements in
paragraph (a)(1) of this section, the
grantee must:
(i) Identify who owns the property;
(ii) List all costs related to the
purchase, construction, or renovation;
(iii) Identify costs over the structure’s
useful life, which is at least 20 years for
a facility that the grantee purchased or
constructed and at least 15 years for a
modular unit the grantee renovated, and
deferred costs, including mortgage
balloon payments, as costs with
associated due dates; and,
(iv) Demonstrate how the proposed
purchase, construction, or major
renovation is consistent with program
management and fiscal goals,
community needs, enrollment and
program options and how the proposed
facility will support the grantee as it
provides quality services to children
and families.
(b) Continue purchase or refinance.
To use funds to continue purchase on a
facility or to refinance an existing
indebtedness, the grantee must compare
the costs of continued purchase against
the cost of purchasing a comparable
facility in the service area over the
remaining years of the facility’s useful
life. The grantee must demonstrate that
the proposed activity will result in
savings when compared to the cost that
would be incurred to acquire the use of
an alternative facility to carry out the
program.
(c) Multi-purpose use. If the grantee
intends to use a facility to operate a
Head Start program and for another
purpose, it must disclose what
percentage of the facility will be used
for non-Head Start activities, along with
costs associated with those activities, in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
accordance with applicable cost
principles.
§ 1303.46 Recording and posting notices
of federal interest.
(a) Survival of federal interest. A
grantee that receives funds under this
subpart must file notices of federal
interest as set forth in paragraph (b) of
this section. Federal interest cannot be
defeated by a grantee’s failure to file a
notice of federal interest.
(b) Recording notices of federal
interest. (1) If a grantee uses federal
funds to purchase real property or a
facility, excluding modular units,
appurtenant to real property, it must
record a notice of federal interest in the
official real property records for the
jurisdiction where the facility is or will
be located. The grantee must file the
notice of federal interest as soon as it
uses Head Start funds to either fully or
partially purchase a facility or real
property where a facility will be
constructed or as soon as it receives
permission from the responsible HHS
official to use Head Start funds to
continue purchase on a facility.
(2) If a grantee uses federal funds in
whole or in part to construct a facility,
it must record the notice of federal
interest in the official real property
records for the jurisdiction in which the
facility is located as soon as it receives
the notice of award to construct the
facility.
(3) If a grantee uses federal funds to
renovate a facility that it, or a third
party owns, the grantee must record the
notice of federal interest in the official
real property records for the jurisdiction
in which the facility is located as soon
as it receives the notice of award to
renovate the facility.
(4) If a grantee uses federal funds in
whole or in part to purchase a modular
unit or to renovate a modular unit, the
grantee must post the notice of federal
interest, in clearly visible locations, on
the exterior of the modular unit and
inside the modular unit.
§ 1303.47
interest.
Contents of notices of federal
(a) Facility and real property a grantee
owns. A notice of federal interest for a
facility, other than a modular unit, and
real property the grantee owns or will
own, must include:
(1) The grantee’s correct legal name
and current mailing address;
(2) A legal description of the real
property;
(3) Grant award number, amount and
date of initial facilities funding award or
initial use of base grant funds for
ongoing purchase or mortgage
payments;
PO 00000
Frm 00148
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
(4) A statement that the notice of
federal interest includes funds awarded
in grant award(s) and any Head Start
funds subsequently used to purchase,
construct or to make major renovations
to the real property;
(5) A statement that the facility and
real property will only be used for
purposes consistent with the Act and
applicable Head Start regulations;
(6) A statement that the facility and
real property will not be mortgaged or
used as collateral, sold or otherwise
transferred to another party, without the
responsible HHS official’s written
permission;
(7) A statement that the federal
interest cannot be subordinated,
diminished, nullified or released
through encumbrance of the property,
transfer of the property to another party
or any other action the grantee takes
without the responsible HHS official’s
written permission;
(8) A statement that confirms that the
agency’s governing body received a
copy of the notice of federal interest
prior to filing and the date the governing
body was provided with a copy; and,
(9) The name, title, and signature of
the person who drafted the notice.
(b) Facility leased by a grantee. (1) A
notice of federal interest for a leased
facility, excluding a modular unit, on
land the grantee does not own, must be
recorded in the official real property
records for the jurisdiction where the
facility is located and must include:
(i) The grantee’s correct legal name
and current mailing address;
(ii) A legal description of affected real
property;
(iii) The grant award number, amount
and date of initial funding award or
initial use of base grant funds for major
renovation;
(iv) Acknowledgement that the notice
of federal interest includes any Head
Start funds subsequently used to make
major renovations on the affected real
property;
(v) A statement the facility and real
property will only be used for purposes
consistent with the Act and applicable
Head Start regulations; and,
(vi) A lease or occupancy agreement
that includes the required information
from paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (v) of
this section may be recorded in the
official real property records for the
jurisdiction where the facility is located
to serve as a notice of federal interest.
(2) If a grantee cannot file the lease or
occupancy agreement described in
paragraph (b)(1)(vi) of this section in the
official real property records for the
jurisdiction where the facility is located,
it may file an abstract. The abstract must
include the names and addresses of
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
parties to the lease or occupancy
agreement, terms of the lease or
occupancy agreement, and information
described in paragraphs (a)(1) through
(9) of this section.
(c) Modular units. A notice of federal
interest on a modular unit the grantee
purchased or renovated must be visible
and clearly posted on the exterior of the
modular and inside the modular and
must include:
(1) The grantee’s correct legal name
and current mailing address;
(2) The grant award number, amount
and date of initial funding award or
initial use of base grant funds to
purchase or renovate;
(3) A statement that the notice of
federal interest includes any Head Start
funds subsequently used for major
renovations to the modular unit;
(4) A statement that the facility and
real property will only be used for
purposes consistent with the Act and
applicable Head Start regulations;
(5) A statement that the modular unit
will not be mortgaged or used as
collateral, sold or otherwise transferred
to another party, without the
responsible HHS official’s written
permission;
(6) A statement that the federal
interest cannot be subordinated,
diminished, nullified or released
through encumbrance of the property,
transfer to another party, or any other
action the grantee takes without the
responsible HHS official’s written
permission;
(7) A statement that the modular unit
cannot be moved to another location
without the responsible HHS official’s
written permission;
(8) A statement that confirms that the
agency’s governing body has received a
copy of the filed notice of federal
interest and the date the governing body
was provided with a copy; and,
(9) The name, title, and signature of
the person who completed the notice for
the grantee agency.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
§ 1303.48
interest.
Grantee limitations on federal
(a) A grantee cannot mortgage, use as
collateral for a credit line or for other
loan obligations, or, sell or transfer to
another party, a facility, real property,
or a modular unit it has purchased,
constructed or renovated with Head
Start funds, without the responsible
HHS official’s written permission.
(b) A grantee must have the
responsible HHS official’s written
permission before it can use real
property, a facility, or a modular unit
subject to federal interest for a purpose
other than that for which the grantee’s
application was approved.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
§ 1303.49 Protection of federal interest in
mortgage agreements.
(a) Any mortgage agreement or other
security instrument that is secured by
real property or a modular unit
constructed or purchased in whole or in
part with federal funds or subject to
renovation with federal funds must:
(1) Specify that the responsible HHS
official can intervene in case the grantee
defaults on, terminates or withdraws
from the agreement;
(2) Designate the responsible HHS
official to receive a copy of any notice
of default given to the grantee under the
terms of the agreement and include the
regional grants management officer’s
current address;
(3) Include a clause that requires any
action to foreclose the mortgage
agreement or security agreement be
suspended for 60 days after the
responsible HHS official receives the
default notice to allow the responsible
HHS official reasonable time to respond;
(4) Include a clause that preserves the
notice of federal interest and the
grantee’s obligation for its federal share
if the responsible HHS official fails to
respond to any notice of default
provided under this section;
(5) Include a statement that requires
the responsible HHS official to be paid
the federal interest before foreclosure
proceeds are paid to the lender, unless
the official’s rights under the notice of
federal interest have been subordinated
by a written agreement in conformance
with § 1303.51;
(6) Include a clause that gives the
responsible HHS official the right to
cure any default under the agreement
within the designated period to cure the
default; and,
(7) Include a clause that gives the
responsible HHS official the right to
assign or transfer the agreement to
another interim or permanent grantee.
(b) A grantee must immediately notify
the responsible HHS official of any
default under an agreement described in
paragraph (a) of this section.
§ 1303.50 Third party leases and
occupancy arrangements.
(a) After November 7, 2016, if a
grantee receives federal funds to
purchase, construct or renovate a
facility on real property the grantee does
not own or to purchase or renovate a
modular unit on real property the
grantee does not own, the grantee must
have a lease or other occupancy
agreement of at least 30 years for
purchase or construction of a facility
and at least 15 years for a major
renovation or placement of a modular
unit.
PO 00000
Frm 00149
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61441
(b) The lease or occupancy agreement
must:
(1) Provide for the grantee’s right of
continued use and occupancy of the
leased or occupied premises during the
entire term of the lease;
(2) Designate the regional grants
management officer to receive a copy of
any notice of default given to the
grantee under the terms of the
agreement and include the regional
grants management officer’s current
address;
(3) Specify that the responsible HHS
official has the right to cure any default
under the lease or occupancy agreement
within the designated period to cure
default; and,
(4) Specify that the responsible HHS
official has the right to transfer the lease
to another interim or replacement
grantee.
§ 1303.51
interest.
Subordination of the federal
Only the responsible HHS official can
subordinate federal interest to the rights
of a lender or other third party.
Subordination agreements must be in
writing and the mortgage agreement or
security agreement for which
subordination is requested must comply
with § 1303.49. When the amount of
federal funds already contributed to the
facility exceeds the amount to be
provided by the lender seeking
subordination, the federal interest may
only be subordinated if the grantee can
show that funding is not available
without subordination of the federal
interest.
§ 1303.52 Insurance, bonding, and
maintenance.
(a) Purpose. If a grantee uses federal
funds to purchase or continue purchase
on a facility, excluding modular units,
the grantee must obtain a title insurance
policy for the purchase price that names
the responsible HHS official as an
additional loss payee.
(b) Insurance coverage. (1) If a grantee
uses federal funds to purchase or
continue purchase on a facility or
modular unit the grantee must maintain
physical damage or destruction
insurance at the full replacement value
of the facility, for as long as the grantee
owns or occupies the facility.
(2) If a facility is located in an area the
National Flood Insurance Program
defines as high risk, the grantee must
maintain flood insurance for as long as
the grantee owns or occupies the
facility.
(3) A grantee must submit to the
responsible HHS official, within 10 days
after coverage begins, proof of insurance
coverage required under paragraphs (a)
and (b) of this section.
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
61442
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
(c) Maintenance. A grantee must keep
all facilities purchased or constructed in
whole or in part with Head Start funds
in good repair in accordance with all
applicable federal, state, and local laws,
rules and regulations, including Head
Start requirements, zoning
requirements, building codes, health
and safety regulations and child care
licensing standards.
§ 1303.53
Copies of documents.
A grantee must submit to the
responsible HHS official, within 10 days
after filing or execution, copies of deeds,
leases, loan instruments, mortgage
agreements, notices of federal interest,
and other legal documents related to the
use of Head Start funds for purchase,
construction, major renovation, or the
discharge of any debt secured by the
facility.
§ 1303.54
Record retention.
A grantee must retain records
pertinent to the lease, purchase,
construction or renovation of a facility
funded in whole or in part with Head
Start funds, for as long as the grantee
owns or occupies the facility, plus three
years.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
§ 1303.55
Procurement procedures.
(a) A grantee must comply with all
grants management regulations,
including specific regulations
applicable to transactions in excess of
the current simplified acquisition
threshold, cost principles, and its own
procurement procedures, and must
provide, to the maximum extent
practical, open and full competition.
(b) A grantee must obtain the
responsible HHS official’s written
approval before it uses Head Start funds,
in whole or in part, to contract
construction or renovation services. The
grantee must ensure these contracts are
paid on a lump sum fixed-price basis.
(c) A grantee must obtain prior
written approval from the responsible
HHS official for contract modifications
that would change the scope or
objective of a project or would
materially alter the costs, by increasing
the amount of grant funds needed to
complete the project.
(d) A grantee must ensure all
construction and renovation contracts
paid, in whole or in part with Head
Start funds contain a clause that gives
the responsible HHS official or his or
her designee access to the facility, at all
reasonable times, during construction
and inspection.
§ 1303.56
Inspection of work.
The grantee must submit to the
responsible HHS official a final facility
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
inspection report by a licensed engineer
or architect within 30 calendar days
after the project is completed. The
inspection report must certify that the
facility complies with local building
codes, applicable child care licensing
requirements, is structurally sound and
safe for use as a Head Start facility,
complies with the access requirements
of the Americans with Disabilities Act,
section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act,
and the Flood Disaster Protection Act of
1973, and complies with National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966.
Subpart F—Transportation
§ 1303.70
Purpose.
(a) Applicability. This rule applies to
all agencies, including those that
provide transportation services, with the
exceptions and exclusions provided in
this section, regardless of whether such
transportation is provided directly on
agency owned or leased vehicles or
through arrangement with a private or
public transportation provider.
(b) Providing transportation services.
(1) If a program does not provide
transportation services, either for all or
a portion of the children, it must
provide reasonable assistance, such as
information about public transit
availability, to the families of such
children to arrange transportation to and
from its activities, and provide
information about these transportation
options in recruitment announcements.
(2) A program that provides
transportation services must make
reasonable efforts to coordinate
transportation resources with other
human services agencies in its
community in order to control costs and
to improve the quality and the
availability of transportation services.
(3) A program that provides
transportation services must ensure all
accidents involving vehicles that
transport children are reported in
accordance with applicable state
requirements.
(c) Waiver. (1) A program that
provides transportation services must
comply with all provisions in this
subpart. A Head Start program may
request to waive a specific requirement
in this part, in writing, to the
responsible HHS official, as part of an
agency’s annual application for
financial assistance or amendment and
must submit any required
documentation the responsible HHS
official deems necessary to support the
waiver. The responsible HHS official is
not authorized to waive any
requirements with regard to children
enrolled in an Early Head Start program.
A program may request a waiver when:
PO 00000
Frm 00150
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
(i) Adherence to a requirement in this
part would create a safety hazard in the
circumstances faced by the agency; and,
(ii) For preschool children,
compliance with requirements related to
child restraint systems at §§ 1303.71(d)
and 1303.72(a)(1) or bus monitors at
§ 1303.72(a)(4) will result in a
significant disruption to the program
and the agency demonstrates that
waiving such requirements is in the best
interest of the children involved.
(2) The responsible HHS official is not
authorized to waive any requirements of
the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards (FMVSS) made applicable to
any class of vehicle under 49 CFR part
571.
§ 1303.71
Vehicles.
(a) Required use of schools buses or
allowable alternative vehicles. A
program, with the exception of
transportation services to children
served under a home-based option, must
ensure all vehicles used or purchased
with grant funds to provide
transportation services to enrolled
children are school buses or allowable
alternate vehicles that are equipped for
use of height- and weight-appropriate
child restraint systems, and that have
reverse beepers.
(b) Emergency equipment. A program
must ensure each vehicle used in
providing such services is equipped
with an emergency communication
system clearly labeled and appropriate
emergency safety equipment, including
a seat belt cutter, charged fire
extinguisher, and first aid kit.
(c) Auxiliary seating. A program must
ensure any auxiliary seating, such as
temporary or folding jump seats, used in
vehicles of any type providing such
services are built into the vehicle by the
manufacturer as part of its standard
design, are maintained in proper
working order, and are inspected as part
of the annual inspection required under
paragraph (e)(2)(i) of this section.
(d) Child restraint systems. A program
must ensure each vehicle used to
transport children receiving such
services is equipped for use of age-,
height- and weight-appropriate child
safety restraint systems as defined in
part 1305 of this chapter.
(e) Vehicle maintenance. (1) A
program must ensure vehicles used to
provide such services are in safe
operating condition at all times.
(2) The program must:
(i) At a minimum, conduct an annual
thorough safety inspection of each
vehicle through an inspection program
licensed or operated by the state;
(ii) Carry out systematic preventive
maintenance on vehicles; and,
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
(iii) Ensure each driver implements
daily pre-trip vehicle inspections.
(f) New vehicle inspection. A program
must ensure bid announcements for
school buses and allowable alternate
vehicles to transport children in its
program include correct specifications
and a clear statement of the vehicle’s
intended use. The program must ensure
vehicles are examined at delivery to
ensure they are equipped in accordance
with the bid specifications and that the
manufacturer’s certification of
compliance with the applicable FMVSS
is included with the vehicle.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
§ 1303.72
Vehicle operation.
(a) Safety. A program must ensure:
(1) Each child is seated in a child
restraint system appropriate to the
child’s age, height, and weight;
(2) Baggage and other items
transported in the passenger
compartment are properly stored and
secured, and the aisles remain clear and
the doors and emergency exits remain
unobstructed at all times;
(3) Up-to-date child rosters and lists
of the adults each child is authorized to
be released to, including alternates in
case of emergency, are maintained and
no child is left behind, either at the
classroom or on the vehicle at the end
of the route; and,
(4) With the exception of
transportation services to children
served under a home-based option,
there is at least one bus monitor on
board at all times, with additional bus
monitors provided as necessary.
(b) Driver qualifications. A program,
with the exception of transportation
services to children served under a
home-based option, must ensure
drivers, at a minimum:
(1) In states where such licenses are
granted, have a valid Commercial
Driver’s License (CDL) for vehicles in
the same class as the vehicle the driver
will operating; and,
(2) Meet any physical, mental, and
other requirements as necessary to
perform job-related functions with any
necessary reasonable accommodations.
(c) Driver application review. In
addition to the applicant review process
prescribed § 1302.90(b) of this chapter,
a program, with the exception of
transportation services to children
served under a home-based option, must
ensure the applicant review process for
drivers includes, at minimum:
(1) Disclosure by the applicant of all
moving traffic violations, regardless of
penalty;
(2) A check of the applicant’s driving
record through the appropriate state
agency, including a check of the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
applicant’s record through the National
Driver Register, if available;
(3) A check that drivers qualify under
the applicable driver training
requirements in the state or tribal
jurisdiction; and,
(4) After a conditional employment
offer to the applicant and before the
applicant begins work as a driver, a
medical examination, performed by a
licensed doctor of medicine or
osteopathy, establishing that the
individual possesses the physical ability
to perform any job-related functions
with any necessary accommodations.
(d) Driver training. (1) A program
must ensure any person employed as a
driver receives training prior to
transporting any enrolled child and
receives refresher training each year.
(2) Training must include:
(i) Classroom instruction and behindthe-wheel instruction sufficient to
enable the driver to operate the vehicle
in a safe and efficient manner, to safely
run a fixed route, to administer basic
first aid in case of injury, and to handle
emergency situations, including vehicle
evacuation, operate any special
equipment, such as wheelchair lifts,
assistance devices or special occupant
restraints, conduct routine maintenance
and safety checks of the vehicle, and
maintain accurate records as necessary;
and,
(ii) Instruction on the topics listed in
§ 1303.75 related to transportation
services for children with disabilities.
(3) A program must ensure the annual
evaluation of each driver of a vehicle
used to provide such services includes
an on-board observation of road
performance.
(e) Bus monitor training. A program
must train each bus monitor before the
monitor begins work, on child boarding
and exiting procedures, how to use
child restraint systems, completing any
required paperwork, how to respond to
emergencies and emergency evacuation
procedures, how to use special
equipment, child pick-up and release
procedures, how to conduct and preand post-trip vehicle checks. Bus
monitors are also subject to staff safety
training requirements in § 1302.47(b)(4)
of this chapter including Cardio
Pulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) and first
aid.
61443
available or any alternative shorter route
is either unsafe or impractical;
(2) Vehicles are not loaded beyond
maximum passenger capacity at any
time;
(3) Drivers do not back up or make Uturns, except when necessary for safety
reasons or because of physical barriers;
(4) Stops are located to minimize
traffic disruptions and to afford the
driver a good field of view in front of
and behind the vehicle;
(5) When possible, stops are located to
eliminate the need for children to cross
the street or highway to board or leave
the vehicle;
(6) Either a bus monitor or another
adult escorts children across the street
to board or leave the vehicle if curbside
pick-up or drop off is impossible; and,
(7) Drivers use alternate routes in the
case of hazardous conditions that could
affect the safety of the children who are
being transported, such as ice or water
build up, natural gas line breaks, or
emergency road closing.
§ 1303.74
Safety procedures.
(a) A program must ensure children
who receive transportation services are
taught safe riding practices, safety
procedures for boarding and leaving the
vehicle and for crossing the street to and
from the vehicle at stops, recognition of
the danger zones around the vehicle,
and emergency evacuation procedures,
including participating in an emergency
evacuation drill conducted on the
vehicle the child will be riding.
(b) A program that provides
transportation services must ensure at
least two bus evacuation drills in
addition to the one required under
paragraph (a) of this section are
conducted during the program year.
§ 1303.75
Children with disabilities.
(a) A program must ensure there are
school buses or allowable alternate
vehicles adapted or designed for
transportation of children with
disabilities available as necessary to
transport such children enrolled in the
program. This requirement does not
apply to the transportation of children
receiving home-based services unless
school buses or allowable alternate
vehicles are used to transport the other
children served under the home-based
option by the grantee. Whenever
possible, children with disabilities must
§ 1303.73 Trip routing.
be transported in the same vehicles used
(a) A program must consider safety of to transport other children enrolled in
the children it transports when it plans
the Head Start or Early Head Start
fixed routes.
program.
(b) A program must also ensure:
(b) A program must ensure special
(1) The time a child is in transit to and transportation requirements in a child’s
IEP or IFSP are followed, including
from the program must not exceed one
special pick-up and drop-off
hour unless there is no shorter route
PO 00000
Frm 00151
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
61444
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
requirements, seating requirements,
equipment needs, any assistance that
may be required, and any necessary
training for bus drivers and monitors.
PART 1304—FEDERAL
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES
Subpart A—Monitoring, Suspension,
Termination, Denial of Refunding,
Reduction in Funding, and Their Appeals
Sec.
1304.1 Purpose.
1304.2 Monitoring.
1304.3 Suspension with notice.
1304.4 Emergency suspension without
advance notice.
1304.5 Termination and denial of
refunding.
1304.6 Appeal for prospective delegate
agencies.
1304.7 Legal fees.
Subpart B—Designation Renewal
1304.10 Purpose and scope.
1304.11 Basis for determining whether a
Head Start agency will be subject to an
open competition.
1304.12 Grantee reporting requirements
concerning certain conditions.
1304.13 Requirements to be considered for
designation for a five-year period when
the existing grantee in a community is
not determined to be delivering a highquality and comprehensive Head Start
program and is not automatically
renewed.
1304.14 Tribal government consultation
under the Designation Renewal System
for when an Indian Head Start grant is
being considered for competition.
1304.15 Designation request, review and
notification process.
1304.16 Use of CLASS: Pre-K instrument in
the Designation Renewal System.
Subpart C—Selection of Grantees Through
Competition
1304.20 Selection among applicants.
Subpart D—Replacement of American
Indian and Alaska Native Grantees
1304.30 Procedure for identification of
alternative agency.
1304.31 Requirements of alternative agency.
1304.32 Alternative agency—prohibition.
Subpart E—Head Start Fellows Program
1304.40 Purpose.
1304.41 Fellows Program.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9801 et seq.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Subpart A—Monitoring, Suspension,
Termination, Denial of Refunding,
Reduction in Funding, and Their
Appeals
§ 1304.1
Purpose.
(a) Section 641A(c) of the Act requires
the Secretary to monitor whether a
grantee meets program governance,
program operations, and financial and
administrative standards described in
this regulation and to identify areas for
improvements and areas of strength as
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
part of the grantee’s ongoing selfassessment process. This subpart
focuses on the monitoring process. It
discusses areas of noncompliance,
deficiencies, and corrective action
through quality improvement plans.
(b) Section 646(a) of the Act requires
the Secretary to prescribe procedures for
notice and appeal for certain adverse
actions. This subpart establishes rules
and procedures to suspend financial
assistance to a grantee, deny a grantee’s
application for refunding, terminate, or
reduce a grantee’s assistance under the
Act when the grantee improperly uses
federal funds or fails to comply with
applicable laws, regulations, policies,
instructions, assurances, terms and
conditions or, if the grantee loses its
legal status or financial viability. This
subpart does not apply to reductions to
a grantee’s financial assistance based on
chronic under-enrollment procedures at
section 641A(h) of the Act or to matters
described in subpart B. This subpart
does not apply to any administrative
action based upon any violation, or
alleged violation, of title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964. Except as otherwise
provided for in this subpart, the appeals
and processes in this subpart will be
governed by the Departmental Appeals
Board regulations at 45 CFR part 16.
§ 1304.2
Monitoring.
(a) Areas of noncompliance. If a
responsible HHS official determines
through monitoring, pursuant to section
641(A)(c)(1) and (2) of the Act, that a
grantee fails to comply with any of the
standards described in parts 1301, 1302,
and 1303 of this chapter, the official
will notify the grantee promptly in
writing, identify the area of
noncompliance, and specify when the
grantee must correct the area of
noncompliance.
(b) Deficiencies. If the Secretary
determines that a grantee meets one of
the criteria for a deficiency, as defined
in section 637(2)(C) of the Act, the
Secretary shall inform the grantee of the
deficiency. The grantee must correct the
deficiency pursuant to section
641A(e)(1)(B) of the Act, as the
responsible HHS official determines.
(c) Quality improvement plans. If the
responsible HHS official does not
require the grantee to correct a
deficiency immediately as prescribed
under section 641A(e)(1)(B)(i) of the
Act, the grantee must submit to the
official, for approval, a quality
improvement plan that adheres to
section 641A(e)(2)(A) of the Act.
§ 1304.3
Suspension with notice.
(a) Grounds to suspend financial
assistance with notice. If a grantee
PO 00000
Frm 00152
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
breaches or threatens to breach any
requirement stated in §§ 1304.3 through
1304.5, the responsible HHS official
may suspend the grantee’s financial
assistance, in whole or in part, after it
has given the grantee notice and an
opportunity to show cause why
assistance should not be suspended.
(b) Notice requirements. (1) The
responsible HHS official must notify the
grantee in writing that ACF intends to
suspend financial assistance, in whole
or in part. The notice must:
(i) Specify grounds for the
suspension;
(ii) Include the date suspension will
become effective;
(iii) Inform the grantee that it has the
opportunity to submit to the responsible
HHS official, at least seven days before
suspension becomes effective, any
written material it would like the
official to consider, and to inform the
grantee that it may request, in writing,
no later than seven days after the
suspension notice was mailed, to have
an informal meeting with the
responsible HHS official;
(iv) Invite the grantee to voluntarily
correct the deficiency; and,
(v) Include a copy of this subpart.
(2) The responsible HHS official must
promptly transmit the suspension notice
to the grantee. The notice becomes
effective when the grantee receives the
notice, when the grantee refuses
delivery, or when the suspension notice
is returned to sender unclaimed.
(3) The responsible HHS official must
send a copy of the suspension notice to
any delegate agency whose actions or
whose failures to act substantially
caused or contributed to the proposed
suspension. The responsible HHS
official will inform the delegate agency
that it is entitled to submit written
material to oppose the suspension and
to participate in the informal meeting, if
one is held. In addition, the responsible
HHS official may give notice to the
grantee’s other delegate agencies.
(4) After the grantee receives the
suspension notice, it has three days to
send a copy of the notice to delegate
agencies that would be financially
affected by a suspension.
(c) Opportunity to show cause. The
grantee may submit to the responsible
HHS official any written material to
show why financial assistance should
not be suspended. The grantee may also
request, in writing, to have an informal
meeting with the responsible HHS
official. If the grantee requests an
informal meeting, the responsible HHS
official must schedule the meeting
within seven days after the grantee
receives the suspension notice.
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
(d) Extensions. If the responsible HHS
official extends the time or the date by
which a grantee has to make requests or
to submit material, it must notify the
grantee in writing.
(e) Decision. (1) The responsible HHS
official will consider any written
material presented before or during the
informal meeting, as well as any proof
the grantee has adequately corrected
what led to suspension, and will render
a decision within five days after the
informal meeting. If no informal
meeting is held, the responsible HHS
official will render a decision within
five days after it receives written
material from all concerned parties.
(2) If the responsible HHS official
finds the grantee failed to show cause
why ACF should not suspend financial
assistance, the official may suspend
financial assistance, in whole or in part,
and under terms and conditions as he or
she deems appropriate.
(3) A suspension must not exceed 30
days, unless the conditions under
section 646(a)(5)(B) are applicable or the
grantee requests the suspension
continue for an additional period of
time and the responsible HHS official
agrees.
(4) The responsible HHS official may
appoint an agency to serve as an interim
grantee to operate the program until the
grantee’s suspension is lifted, or as
otherwise provided under section
646(a)(5)(B) of the Act.
(f) Obligations incurred during
suspension. New obligations the grantee
incurs while under suspension are not
allowed unless the responsible HHS
official expressly authorizes them in the
suspension notice or in an amendment
to the suspension notice. Necessary and
otherwise allowable costs which the
grantee could not reasonably avoid
during the suspension period will be
allowed if they result from obligations
the grantee properly incurred before
suspension and not in anticipation of
suspension or termination. The
responsible HHS official may allow
third-party in-kind contributions
applicable to the suspension period to
satisfy cost sharing or matching
requirements.
(g) Modify or rescind suspension. The
responsible HHS official may modify or
rescind suspension at any time, if the
grantee can satisfactorily show that it
has adequately corrected what led to
suspension and that it will not repeat
such actions or inactions. Nothing in
this section precludes the HHS official
from imposing suspension again for
additional 30 day periods if the cause of
the suspension has not been corrected.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
§ 1304.4 Emergency suspension without
advance notice.
(a) Grounds to suspend financial
assistance without advance notice. The
responsible HHS official may suspend
financial assistance, in whole or in part,
without prior notice and an opportunity
to show cause if there is an emergency
situation, such as a serious risk for
substantial injury to property or loss of
project funds, a federal, state, or local
criminal statute violation, or harm to
staff or participants’ health and safety.
(b) Emergency suspension notification
requirements. (1) The emergency
suspension notification must:
(i) Specify the grounds for the
suspension;
(ii) Include terms and conditions of
any full or partial suspension;
(iii) Inform that grantee it cannot
make or incur any new expenditures or
obligations under suspended portion of
the program; and,
(iv) Advise that within five days after
the emergency suspension becomes
effective, the grantee may request, in
writing, an informal meeting with the
responsible HHS official to show why
the basis for the suspension was not
valid and should be rescinded and that
the grantee has corrected any
deficiencies.
(2) The responsible HHS official must
promptly transmit the emergency
suspension notification to the grantee
that shows the date of receipt. The
emergency suspension becomes
effective upon delivery of the
notification or upon the date the grantee
refuses delivery, or upon return of the
notification unclaimed.
(3) Within two workdays after the
grantee receives the emergency
suspension notification, the grantee
must send a copy of the notice to
delegate agencies affected by the
suspension.
(4) The responsible HHS official must
inform affected delegate agencies that
they have the right to participate in the
informal meeting.
(c) Opportunity to show cause. If the
grantee requests an informal meeting,
the responsible HHS official must
schedule a meeting within five
workdays after it receives the grantee’s
request. The suspension will continue
until the grantee has been afforded such
opportunity and until the responsible
HHS official renders a decision.
Notwithstanding provisions in this
section, the responsible HHS official
may proceed to deny refunding or to
initiate termination proceedings at any
time even though the grantee’s financial
assistance has been suspended in whole
or in part.
PO 00000
Frm 00153
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61445
(d) Decision. (1) The responsible HHS
official will consider any written
material presented before or during the
informal meeting, as well as any proof
the grantee has adequately corrected
what led to suspension, and render a
decision within five work days after the
informal meeting.
(2) If the responsible HHS official
finds the grantee failed to show cause
why suspension should be rescinded,
the responsible HHS official may
continue the suspension, in whole or in
part, and under the terms and
conditions specified in the emergency
suspension notification.
(3) A suspension must not exceed 30
days, unless the conditions under
section 646(a)(5)(B) are applicable or the
grantee requests the suspension to
continue for an additional period of
time and the responsible HHS official
agrees.
(4) The responsible HHS official may
appoint an agency to serve as an interim
grantee to operate the program until
either the grantee’s emergency
suspension is lifted or a new grantee is
selected.
(e) Obligations incurred during
suspension. Any new obligations the
grantee incurs during the suspension
period will not be allowed unless the
responsible HHS official expressly
authorizes them in the suspension
notice or in an amendment to the
suspension notice. Necessary and
otherwise allowable costs which the
grantee could not reasonably avoid
during the suspension period will be
allowed if those costs result from
obligations properly incurred before
suspension and not in anticipation of
suspension, denial of refunding or
termination. The responsible HHS
official may allow third-party in-kind
contributions applicable to the
suspension period to satisfy cost sharing
or matching requirements.
(f) Modify or rescind suspension. The
responsible HHS official may modify or
rescind suspension at any time, if the
grantee can satisfactorily show that is
has adequately corrected what led to the
suspension and that it will not repeat
such actions or inactions. Nothing in
this section precludes the HHS official
from imposing suspension again for
additional 30 day periods if the cause of
the suspension has not been corrected.
§ 1304.5 Termination and denial of
refunding.
(a) Grounds to terminate financial
assistance or deny a grantee’s
application for refunding. (1) A
responsible HHS official may terminate
financial assistance in whole or in part
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
61446
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
to a grantee or deny a grantee’s
application for refunding.
(2) The responsible HHS official may
terminate financial assistance in whole
or in part, or deny refunding to a grantee
for any one or for all of the following
reasons:
(i) The grantee is no longer financially
viable;
(ii) The grantee has lost the requisite
legal status or permits;
(iii) The grantee has failed to timely
correct one or more deficiencies as
defined in the Act;
(iv) The grantee has failed to comply
with eligibility requirements;
(v) The grantee has failed to comply
with the Head Start grants
administration or fiscal requirements set
forth in 45 CFR part 1303;
(vi) The grantee has failed to comply
with requirements in the Act;
(vii) The grantee is debarred from
receiving federal grants or contracts; or
(viii) The grantee has failed to abide
by any other terms and conditions of its
award of financial assistance, or any
other applicable laws, regulations, or
other applicable federal or state
requirements or policies.
(b) Notice requirements. (1) The
responsible HHS official will notify the
grantee and such notice will:
(i) Include the legal basis for
termination or adverse action as
described in paragraph (a) of this
section;
(ii) Include factual findings on which
the action is based or reference specific
findings in another document that form
the basis for termination or denial of
refunding;
(iii) Cite to any statutory provisions,
regulations, or policy issuances on
which ACF relies for its determination;
(iv) Inform the grantee that it may
appeal the denial or termination within
30 days to the Departmental Appeals
Board, that the appeal will be governed
by 45 CFR part 16, except as otherwise
provided in the Head Start appeals
regulations, that a copy of the appeal
must sent to the responsible HHS
official, and that it has the right to
request and receive a hearing, as
mandated under section 646 of the Act;
(v) Inform the grantee that only its
board of directors, or an official acting
on the board’s behalf can appeal the
decision;
(vi) Name the delegate agency, if the
actions of that delegate are the basis, in
whole or in part, for the proposed
action; and,
(vii) Inform the grantee that the
appeal must meet requirements in
paragraph (c) of this section; and, that
if the responsible HHS official fails to
meet requirements in this paragraph, the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
pending action may be dismissed
without prejudice or remanded to
reissue it with corrections.
(2) The responsible HHS official must
provide the grantee as much notice as
possible, but must notify the grantee no
later than 30 days after ACF receives the
annual application for refunding, that it
has the opportunity for a full and fair
hearing on whether refunding should be
denied.
(c) Grantee’s appeal. (1) The grantee
must adhere to procedures and
requirements for appeals in 45 CFR part
16, file the appeal with the
Departmental Appeals Board, and serve
a copy of the appeal on the responsible
HHS official who issued the termination
or denial of refunding notice. The
grantees must also serve a copy of its
appeal on any affected delegate.
(2) Unless funding has been
suspended, funding will continue while
a grantee appeals a termination
decision, unless the responsible HHS
official renders an adverse decision, or
unless the current budget period is
expired. If the responsible HHS official
has not rendered a decision by the end
of the current budget period, the official
will award the grantee interim funding
until a decision is made or the project
period ends.
(d) Funding during suspension. If a
grantee’s funding is suspended, the
grantee will not receive funding during
the termination proceedings, or at any
other time, unless the action is
rescinded or the grantee’s appeal is
successful.
(e) Interim and replacement grantees.
The responsible HHS official may
appoint an interim or replacement
grantee as soon as a termination action
is affirmed by the Departmental Appeals
Board.
(f) Opportunity to show cause. (1) If
the Departmental Appeals Board sets a
hearing for a proposed termination or
denial of refunding action, the grantee
has five workdays to send a copy of the
notice it receives from the Departmental
Appeals Board, to all delegate agencies
that would be financially affected by
termination and to each delegate agency
identified in the notice.
(2) The grantee must send to the
Departmental Appeals Board and to the
responsible HHS official a list of the
delegate agencies it notified and the
dates when it notified them.
(3) If the responsible HHS official
initiated proceedings because of a
delegate agency’s activities, the official
must inform the delegate agency that it
may participate in the hearing. If the
delegate agency chooses to participate
in the hearing, it must notify the
responsible HHS official in writing
PO 00000
Frm 00154
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
within 30 days of the grantee’s appeal.
If any other delegate agency, person,
agency or organization wishes to
participate in the hearing, it may request
permission to do so from the
Departmental Appeals Board.
(4) If the grantee fails to appear at the
hearing, without good cause, the grantee
will be deemed to have waived its right
to a hearing and consented to have the
Departmental Appeals Board make a
decision based on the parties’ written
information and argument.
(5) A grantee may waive the hearing
and submit written information and
argument for the record, within a
reasonable period of time to be fixed by
the Departmental Appeals Board.
(6) The responsible HHS official may
attempt, either personally or through a
representative, to resolve the issues in
dispute by informal means prior to the
hearing.
(g) Decision. The Departmental
Appeals Board’s decision and any
measure the responsible HHS official
takes after the decision is fully binding
upon the grantee and its delegate
agencies, whether or not they actually
participated in the hearing.
§ 1304.6 Appeal for prospective delegate
agencies.
(a) Appeal. If a grantee denies, or fails
to act on, a prospective delegate
agency’s funding application, the
prospective delegate may appeal the
grantee’s decision or inaction.
(b) Process for prospective delegates.
To appeal, a prospective delegate must:
(1) Submits the appeal, including a
copy of the funding application, to the
responsible HHS official within 30 days
after it receives the grantee’s decision;
or within 30 days after the grantee has
had 120 days to review but has not
notified the applicant of a decision; and,
(2) Provide the grantee with a copy of
the appeal at the same time the appeal
is filed with the responsible HHS
official.
(c) Process for grantees. When an
appeal is filed with the responsible HHS
official, the grantee must respond to the
appeal and submit a copy of its response
to the responsible HHS official and to
the prospective delegate agency within
30 work days.
(d) Decision. (1) The responsible HHS
official will sustain the grantee’s
decision, if the official determines the
grantee did not act arbitrarily,
capriciously, or otherwise contrary to
law, regulation, or other applicable
requirements.
(2) The responsible HHS official will
render a written decision to each party
within a reasonable timeframe. The
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
official’s decision is final and not
subject to further appeal.
(3) If the responsible HHS official
finds the grantee did act arbitrarily,
capriciously, or otherwise contrary to
law, regulation, or other applicable
requirements, the grantee will be
directed to reevaluate their applications.
§ 1304.7
Legal fees.
(a) An agency is not authorized to
charge to its grant legal fees or other
costs incurred to appeal terminations,
reductions of funding, or denials of
applications of refunding decisions.
(b) If a program prevails in a
termination, reduction, or denial of
refunding decision, the responsible HHS
official may reimburse the agency for
reasonable and customary legal fees,
incurred during the appeal, if:
(1) The Departmental Appeals Board
overturns the responsible HHS official’s
decision;
(2) The agency can prove it incurred
fees during the appeal; and,
(3) The agency can prove the fees
incurred are reasonable and customary.
Subpart B—Designation Renewal
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
§ 1304.10
Purpose and scope.
The purpose of this subpart is to set
forth policies and procedures for the
designation renewal of Head Start and
Early Head Start programs. It is
intended that these programs be
administered effectively and
responsibly; that applicants to
administer programs receive fair and
equitable consideration; and that the
legal rights of current Head Start and
Early Head Start grantees be fully
protected. The Designation Renewal
System is established in this part to
determine whether Head Start and Early
Head Start agencies deliver high-quality
services to meet the educational, health,
nutritional, and social needs of the
children and families they serve; meet
the program and financial requirements
and standards described in section
641A(a)(1) of the Head Start Act; and
qualify to be designated for funding for
five years without competing for such
funding as required under section 641(c)
of the Head Start Act with respect to
Head Start agencies and pursuant to
section 645A(b)(12) and (d) with respect
to Early Head Start agencies. A
competition to select a new Head Start
or Early Head Start agency to replace a
Head Start or Early Head Start agency
that has been terminated voluntarily or
involuntarily is not part of the
Designation Renewal System
established in this Part, and is subject
instead to the requirements of § 1304.20.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
§ 1304.11 Basis for determining whether a
Head Start agency will be subject to an
open competition.
A Head Start or Early Head Start
agency shall be required to compete for
its next five years of funding whenever
the responsible HHS official determines
that one or more of the following seven
conditions existed during the relevant
time period covered by the responsible
HHS official’s review under § 1304.15:
(a) An agency has been determined by
the responsible HHS official to have one
or more deficiencies on a single review
conducted under section 641A(c)(1)(A),
(C), or (D) of the Act in the relevant time
period covered by the responsible HHS
official’s review under § 1304.15.
(b) An agency has been determined by
the responsible HHS official based on a
review conducted under section
641A(c)(1)(A), (C), or (D) of the Act
during the relevant time period covered
by the responsible HHS official’s review
under § 1304.15 not to have:
(1) After December 9, 2011,
established program goals for improving
the school readiness of children
participating in its program in
accordance with the requirements of
section 641A(g)(2) of the Act and
demonstrated that such goals:
(i) Appropriately reflect the ages of
children, birth to five, participating in
the program;
(ii) Align with the Birth to Five Head
Start Child Outcomes Framework, state
early learning guidelines, and the
requirements and expectations of the
schools, to the extent that they apply to
the ages of children, birth to five,
participating in the program and at a
minimum address the domains of
language and literacy development,
cognition and general knowledge,
approaches toward learning, physical
well-being and motor development, and
social and emotional development;
(iii) Were established in consultation
with the parents of children
participating in the program.
(2) After December 9, 2011, taken
steps to achieve the school readiness
goals described under paragraph (b)(1)
of this section demonstrated by:
(i) Aggregating and analyzing
aggregate child-level assessment data at
least three times per year (except for
programs operating less than 90 days,
which will be required to do so at least
twice within their operating program
period) and using that data in
combination with other program data to
determine grantees’ progress toward
meeting its goals, to inform parents and
the community of results, and to direct
continuous improvement related to
curriculum, instruction, professional
PO 00000
Frm 00155
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61447
development, program design and other
program decisions; and,
(ii) Analyzing individual ongoing,
child-level assessment data for all
children birth to age five participating
in the program and using that data in
combination with input from parents
and families to determine each child’s
status and progress with regard to, at a
minimum, language and literacy
development, cognition and general
knowledge, approaches toward learning,
physical well-being and motor
development, and social and emotional
development and to individualize the
experiences, instructional strategies,
and services to best support each child.
(c) An agency has been determined
during the relevant time period covered
by the responsible HHS official’s review
under § 1304.15:
(1) After December 9, 2011, to have an
average score across all classrooms
observed below the following minimum
thresholds on any of the three CLASS:
Pre-K domains from the most recent
CLASS: Pre-K observation:
(i) For the Emotional Support domain
the minimum threshold is 4;
(ii) For the Classroom Organization
domain, the minimum threshold is 3;
(iii) For the Instructional Support
domain, the minimum threshold is 2;
(2) After December 9, 2011, to have an
average score across all classrooms
observed that is in the lowest 10 percent
on any of the three CLASS: Pre-K
domains from the most recent CLASS:
Pre-K observation among those
currently being reviewed unless the
average score across all classrooms
observed for that CLASS: Pre-K domain
is equal to or above the standard of
excellence that demonstrates that the
classroom interactions are above an
exceptional level of quality. For all three
domains, the ‘‘standard of excellence’’ is
a 6.
(d) An agency has had a revocation of
its license to operate a Head Start or
Early Head Start center or program by a
state or local licensing agency during
the relevant time period covered by the
responsible HHS official’s review under
§ 1304.15, and the revocation has not
been overturned or withdrawn before a
competition for funding for the next
five-year period is announced. A
pending challenge to the license
revocation or restoration of the license
after correction of the violation shall not
affect application of this requirement
after the competition for funding for the
next five-year period has been
announced.
(e) An agency has been suspended
from the Head Start or Early Head Start
program by ACF during the relevant
time period covered by the responsible
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
61448
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
HHS official’s review under § 1304.16
and the suspension has not been
overturned or withdrawn. If there is a
pending appeal and the agency did not
have an opportunity to show cause as to
why the suspension should not have
been imposed or why the suspension
should have been lifted if it had already
been imposed under this part, the
agency will not be required to compete
based on this condition. If an agency has
received an opportunity to show cause,
the condition will be implemented
regardless of appeal status.
(f) An agency has been debarred from
receiving federal or state funds from any
federal or state department or agency or
has been disqualified from the Child
and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP)
any time during the relevant time period
covered by the responsible HHS
official’s review under § 1304.15 but has
not yet been terminated or denied
refunding by ACF. (A debarred agency
will only be eligible to compete for
Head Start funding if it receives a
waiver described in 2 CFR 180.135.)
(g) An agency has been determined
within the twelve months preceding the
responsible HHS official’s review under
§ 1304.15 to be at risk of failing to
continue functioning as a going concern.
The final determination is made by the
responsible HHS official based on a
review of the findings and opinions of
an audit conducted in accordance with
section 647 of the Act; an audit, review
or investigation by a state agency; a
review by the National External Audit
Review (NEAR) Center; or an audit,
investigation or inspection by the
Department of Health and Human
Services Office of Inspector General.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
§ 1304.12 Grantee reporting requirements
concerning certain conditions.
(a) Head Start agencies must report in
writing to the responsible HHS official
within 30 working days of December 9,
2011, if the agency has had a revocation
of a license to operate a center by a state
of local licensing entity during the
period between June 12, 2009, and
December 9, 2011.
(b) Head Start agencies must report in
writing to the responsible HHS official
within 10 working days of occurrence
any of the following events following
December 9, 2011:
(1) The agency has had a revocation
of a license to operate a center by a state
or local licensing entity.
(2) The agency has filed for
bankruptcy or agreed to a reorganization
plan as part of a bankruptcy settlement.
(3) The agency has been debarred
from receiving federal or state funds
from any federal or state department or
agency or has been disqualified from the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
Child and Adult Care Food Program
(CACFP).
(4) The agency has received an audit,
audit review, investigation or inspection
report from the agency’s auditor, a state
agency, or the cognizant federal audit
agency containing a determination that
the agency is at risk for ceasing to be a
going concern.
§ 1304.13 Requirements to be considered
for designation for a five-year period when
the existing grantee in a community is not
determined to be delivering a high-quality
and comprehensive Head Start program
and is not automatically renewed.
In order to compete for the
opportunity to be awarded a five-year
grant, an agency must submit an
application to the responsible HHS
official that demonstrates that it is the
most qualified entity to deliver a highquality and comprehensive Head Start
or Early Head Start program. The
application must address the criteria for
selection listed at section 641(d)(2) of
the Act for Head Start. Any agency that
has had its Head Start or Early Head
Start grant terminated for cause in the
preceding five years is excluded from
competing in such competition for the
next five years. A Head Start or Early
Head Start agency that has had a denial
of refunding, as defined in 45 CFR part
1305, in the preceding five years is also
excluded from competing.
§ 1304.14 Tribal government consultation
under the Designation Renewal System for
when an Indian Head Start grant is being
considered for competition.
(a) In the case of an Indian Head Start
or Early Head Start agency determined
not to be delivering a high-quality and
comprehensive Head Start or Early Head
Start program, the responsible HHS
official will engage in government-togovernment consultation with the
appropriate tribal government or
governments for the purpose of
establishing a plan to improve the
quality of the Head Start program or
Early Head Start program operated by
the Indian Head Start or Indian Early
Head Start agency.
(1) The plan will be established and
implemented within six months after
the responsible HHS official’s
determination.
(2) Not more than six months after the
implementation of that plan, the
responsible HHS official will reevaluate
the performance of the Indian Head
Start or Early Head Start agency.
(3) If the Indian Head Start or Early
Head Start agency is still not delivering
a high-quality and comprehensive Head
Start or Early Head Start program, the
responsible HHS official will conduct
an open competition to select a grantee
PO 00000
Frm 00156
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
to provide services for the community
currently being served by the Indian
Head Start or Early Head Start agency.
(b) A non-Indian Head Start or Early
Head Start agency will not be eligible to
receive a grant to carry out an Indian
Head Start program, unless there is no
Indian Head Start or Early Head Start
agency available for designation to carry
out an Indian Head Start or Indian Early
Head Start program.
(c) A non-Indian Head Start or Early
Head Start agency may receive a grant
to carry out an Indian Head Start
program only until such time as an
Indian Head Start or Indian Early Head
Start agency in such community
becomes available and is designated
pursuant to this part.
§ 1304.15 Designation request, review and
notification process.
(a) Grantees must apply to be
considered for Designation Renewal.
(1) For the transition period, each
Head Start or Early Head Start agency
wishing to be considered to have their
designation as a Head Start or Early
Head Start agency renewed for a five
year period without competition shall
request that status from ACF within six
months of December 9, 2011.
(2) After the transition period, each
Head Start or Early Head Start agency
wishing to be considered to have their
designation as a Head Start or Early
Head Start agency renewed for another
five year period without competition
shall request that status from ACF at
least 12 months before the end of their
five year grant period or by such time
as required by the Secretary.
(b) ACF will review the relevant data
to determine if one or more of the
conditions under § 1304.11 were met by
the Head Start and Early Head Start
agency’s program:
(1) During the first year of the
transition period, ACF shall review the
data on each Head Start and Early Head
Start agency to determine if any of the
conditions under § 1304.11(a) or (d)
through (g) were met by the agency’s
program since June 12, 2009.
(2) During the remainder of the
transition period, ACF shall review the
data on each Head Start and Early Head
Start agency still under grants with
indefinite project periods and for whom
ACF has relevant data on all of the
conditions in § 1304.11(a) through (g) to
determine if any of the conditions under
§ 1304.11(a) or (d) through (g) were met
by the agency’s program since June 12,
2009, or if the conditions under
§ 1304.11(b) or (c) existed in the
agency’s program since December 9,
2011.
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
(3) Following the transition period,
ACF shall review the data on each Head
Start and Early Head Start agency in the
fourth year of the grant to determine if
any of the conditions under § 1304.11
existed in the agency’s program during
the period of that grant.
(c) ACF will give notice to grantees on
Designation Renewal System status,
except as provided in § 1304.14:
(1) During the first year of the
transition period, ACF shall give written
notice to all grantees meeting any of the
conditions under § 1304.11(a) or (d)
through (g) since June 12, 2009, by
certified mail return receipt requested or
other system that establishes the date of
receipt of the notice by the addressee,
stating that the Head Start or Early Head
Start agency will be required to compete
for funding for an additional five-year
period, identifying the conditions ACF
found, and summarizing the basis for
the finding. All grantees that do not
meet any of the conditions under
§ 1304.11(a) or (d) through (g) will
remain under indefinite project periods
until the time period described under
paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
(2) During the remainder of the
transition period, ACF shall give written
notice to all grantees still under grants
with indefinite project periods and on
the conditions in § 1304.11(a) through
(g) by certified mail return receipt
requested or other system that
establishes the date of receipt of the
notice by the addressee stating either:
(i) The Head Start or Early Head Start
agency will be required to compete for
funding for an additional five-year
period because ACF finds that one or
more conditions under § 1304.11(a)
through (g) has been met during the
relevant time period described in
paragraph (b) of this section, identifying
the conditions ACF found, and
summarizing the basis for the finding; or
(ii) That such agency has been
determined on a preliminary basis to be
eligible for renewed funding for five
years without competition because ACF
finds that none of the conditions under
§ 1304.11 have been met during the
relevant time period described in
paragraph (b) of this section. If prior to
the award of that grant, ACF determines
that the grantee has met one of the
conditions under § 1304.11 during the
relevant time period described in
paragraph (b) of this section, this
determination will change and the
grantee will receive notice under
paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section that it
will be required to compete for funding
for an additional five-year period.
(3) Following the transition period,
ACF shall give written notice to all
grantees at least 12 months before the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
expiration date of a Head Start or Early
Head Start agency’s then current grant
by certified mail return receipt
requested or other system that
establishes the date of receipt of the
notice by the addressee, stating:
(i) The Head Start or Early Head Start
agency will be required to compete for
funding for an additional five-year
period because ACF finds that one or
more conditions under § 1304.11 were
met by the agency’s program during the
relevant time period described in
paragraph (b) of this section, identifying
the conditions ACF found, and
summarizing the basis for the finding;
or,
(ii) That such agency has been
determined on a preliminary basis to be
eligible for renewed funding for five
years without competition because ACF
finds that none of the conditions under
§ 1304.11 have been met during the
relevant time period described in
paragraph (b) of this section. If prior to
the award of that grant, ACF determines
that the grantee has met one of the
conditions under § 1304.11 during the
relevant time period described in
paragraph (b) of this section, this
determination will change and the
grantee will receive notice under
paragraph (c)(3)(i) of this section that it
will be required to compete for funding
for an additional five-year period.
§ 1304.16 Use of CLASS: Pre-K instrument
in the Designation Renewal System.
Except when all children are served
in a single classroom, ACF will conduct
observations of multiple classes
operated by the grantee based on a
random sample of all classes and rate
the conduct of the classes observed
using the CLASS: Pre-K instrument.
When the grantee serves children in its
program in a single class, that class will
be observed and rated using the CLASS:
Pre-K instrument. The domain scores for
that class will be the domain scores for
the grantee for that observation. After
the observations are completed, ACF
will report to the grantee the scores of
the classes observed during the CLASS:
Pre-K observations in each of the
domains covered by the CLASS: Pre-K
instrument. ACF will average CLASS:
Pre-K instrument scores in each domain
for the classes operated by the agency
that ACF observed to determine the
agency’s score in each domain.
Subpart C—Selection of Grantees
Through Competition
§ 1304.20
Selection among applicants.
(a) In selecting an agency to be
designated to provide Head Start, Early
Head Start, Migrant or Seasonal Head
PO 00000
Frm 00157
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61449
Start or tribal Head Start or Early Head
Start services, the responsible HHS
official will consider the applicable
criteria at Section 641(d) of the Head
Start Act and any other criteria outlined
in the funding opportunity
announcement.
(b) In competitions to replace or
potentially replace a grantee the
responsible HHS official will also
consider the extent to which the
applicant supports continuity for
participating children, the community
and the continued employment of
effective, well qualified personnel.
(c) In competitions to replace or
potentially replace a current grantee, the
responsible HHS official will give
priority to applicants that have
demonstrated capacity in providing
effective, comprehensive, and wellcoordinated early childhood education
and development services and programs
to children and their families.
Subpart D—Replacement of American
Indian and Alaska Native Grantees
§1304.30 Procedure for indentification of
alternative agency.
(a) An Indian tribe whose Head Start
grant has been terminated, relinquished,
designated for competition or which has
been denied refunding as a Head Start
agency, may identify an alternate agency
and request the responsible HHS official
to designate such agency as an
alternative agency to provide Head Start
services to the tribe if:
(1) The tribe was the only agency that
was receiving federal financial
assistance to provide Head Start services
to members of the tribe; and,
(2) The tribe would be otherwise
precluded from providing such services
to its members because of the
termination or denial of refunding.
(b)(1) The responsible HHS official,
when notifying a tribal grantee of the
intent to terminate financial assistance
or deny its application for refunding, or
its designation for competition must
notify the grantee that it may identify an
agency and request that the agency serve
as the alternative agency in the event
that the grant is terminated or refunding
denied, or the grant is not renewed
without competition.
(2) The tribe must identify the
alternate agency to the responsible HHS
official in writing.
(3) The responsible HHS official will
notify the tribe, in writing, whether the
alternative agency proposed by the tribe
is found to be eligible for Head Start
funding and capable of operating a Head
Start program. If the alternative agency
identified by the tribe is not an eligible
agency capable of operating a Head Start
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
61450
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
program, the tribe will have 15 days
from the date of the sending of the
notification to that effect from the
responsible HHS official to identify
another agency and request that the
agency be designated. The responsible
HHS official will notify the tribe in
writing whether the second proposed
alternate agency is found to be an
eligible agency capable of operating the
Head Start program.
(4) If the tribe does not identify an
eligible, suitable alternative agency, a
grantee will be designated under these
regulations.
(c) If the tribe appeals a termination
of financial assistance or a denial of
refunding, it will, consistent with the
terms of § 1304.5, continue to be funded
pending resolution of the appeal.
However, the responsible HHS official
and the grantee will proceed with the
steps outlined in this regulation during
the appeal process.
(d) If the tribe does not identify an
agency and request that the agency be
appointed as the alternative agency, the
responsible HHS official will seek a
permanent replacement grantee under
these regulations.
§ 1304.31
agency.
Requirements of alternative
The agency identified by the Indian
tribe must establish that it meets all
requirements established by the Head
Start Act and these requirements for
designation as a Head Start grantee and
that it is capable of conducting a Head
Start program. The responsible HHS
official, in deciding whether to
designate the proposed agency, will
analyze the capacity and experience of
the agency according to the criteria
found in section 641(d) of the Head
Start Act and § 1304.20.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
§ 1304.32
Alternative agency—prohibition.
(a) No agency will be designated as
the alternative agency pursuant to this
subpart if the agency includes an
employee who:
(1) Served on the administrative or
program staff of the Indian tribal grantee
described under section 646(e)(1)(A) of
the Act; and
(2) Was responsible for a deficiency
that:
(i) Relates to the performance
standards or financial management
standards described in section
641A(a)(1) of the Act; and,
(ii) Was the basis for the termination
of assistance under section 646(e)(1)(A)
of the Act or denial of refunding
described in § 1304.4.
(b) The responsible HHS official shall
determine whether an employee was
responsible for a deficiency within the
meaning and context of this section.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
Subpart E—Head Start Fellows
Program
§ 1304.40
Purpose.
As provided in section 648A(d) of the
Act, the Head Start Fellows Program is
designed to enhance the ability of Head
Start Fellows to make significant
contributions to Head Start and to other
child development and family services
programs.
§ 1304.41
Fellows Program.
(a) Selection. An applicant must be
working on the date of application in a
local Head Start program or otherwise
working in the field of child
development and family services. The
qualifications of the applicants for Head
Start Fellowship positions will be
competitively reviewed.
(b) Placement. Head Start Fellows
may be placed in the Head Start
national and regional offices; local Head
Start agencies and programs;
institutions of higher education; public
or private entities and organizations
concerned with services to children and
families; and other appropriate settings.
(c) Restrictions. A Head Start Fellow
who is not an employee of a local Head
Start agency or program may only be
placed in the national or regional offices
within the Department of Health and
Human Services that administer Head
Start or local Head Start agencies. Head
Start Fellows shall not be placed in any
agency whose primary purpose, or one
of whose major purposes is to influence
federal, state or local legislation.
(d) Duration. Head Start Fellowships
will be for terms of one year, and may
be renewed for a term of one additional
year.
(e) Status. For the purposes of
compensation for injuries under chapter
81 of title 5, United States Code, Head
Start Fellows shall be considered to be
employees, or otherwise in the service
or employment, of the federal
government. Head Start Fellows
assigned to the national or regional
offices within the Department of Health
and Human Services shall be considered
employees in the Executive Branch of
the federal government for the purposes
of chapter 11 of title 18, United States
Code, and for the purposes of any
administrative standards of conduct
applicable to the employees of the
agency to which they are assigned.
PART 1305—DEFINITIONS
Sec.
1305.1
1305.2
Purpose.
Terms.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9801 et seq.
PO 00000
Frm 00158
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
§ 1305.1
Purpose.
The purpose of this part is to define
terms for the purposes of this
subchapter.
§ 1305.2
Terms.
For the purposes of this subchapter,
the following definitions apply:
ACF means the Administration for
Children and Families in the Department of
Health and Human Services.
Act means the Head Start Act, Sec. 635 et
seq., Public Law 97–35, 95 Stat. 499–511
(codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. Section
9801, et seq.).
Agency means the body that receives the
Head Start grant.
Aggregate child-level assessment data
means the data collected by an agency on the
status and progress of the children it serves
that have been combined to provide
summary information about groups of
children enrolled in specific classes, centers,
home-based or other options, groups or
settings, or other groups of children such as
dual language learners, or to provide
summary information by specific domains of
development.
Allowable alternate vehicle means a
vehicle designed for carrying eleven or more
people, including the driver, that meets all
the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
applicable to school buses, except 49 CFR
571.108 and 571.131.
Budget period means the interval of time,
into which a multi-year period of assistance
(project period) is divided for budgetary and
funding purposes.
Case plan is defined as presented in 42
U.S.C. 675(1) which, in summary, is a written
document that must include a number of
specified items including, but is not limited
to, a plan for safe and proper care of the child
in foster care placement, health records, and
a plan for ensuring the educational stability
of the child in foster care.
Child-level assessment data means the data
collected by an agency on an individual child
from one or more valid and reliable
assessments of a child’s status and progress,
including but not limited to direct
assessment, structured observations,
checklists, staff or parent report measures,
and portfolio records or work samples.
Child records means records that:
(1) Are directly related to the child;
(2) Are maintained by the program, or by
a party acting for the program; and
(3) Include information recorded in any
way, such as print, electronic, or digital
means, including media, video, image, or
audio format.
Child restraint system means any device
designed to restrain, seat, or position
children that meets the current requirements
of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No.
213, Child Restraint Systems, 49 CFR
571.213, for children in the weight category
established under the regulation, or any
device designed to restrain, seat, or position
children, other than a Type I seat belt as
defined at 49 CFR 571.209, for children not
in the weight category currently established
by 49 CFR 571.213.
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Child with a disability is defined in the
same manner as presented in the Head Start
Act, 42 U.S.C. 9801.
CLASS: Pre-K means The Classroom
Assessment Scoring System (CLASS). The
CLASS is an observational instrument that
assesses classroom quality in preschool
through third grade classrooms. This tool
meets the requirements described in
641(c)(1)(D) and 641A(c)(2)(F) of the Head
Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9836(c)(1)(D) and
9836a(c)(2)(F)). The CLASS assesses three
domains of classroom experience: Emotional
Support, Classroom Organization, and
Instructional Support.
(1) Emotional Support measures children’s
social and emotional functioning in the
classroom, and includes four dimensions:
Positive Climate, Negative Climate, Teacher
Sensitivity and Regard for Student
Perspectives. Positive Climate addresses the
emotional connection, respect, and
enjoyment demonstrated between teachers
and children and among children. Negative
Climate addresses the level of expressed
negativity such as anger, hostility, or
aggression exhibited by teachers and/or
children in the classroom. Teacher
Sensitivity addresses teachers’ awareness of
and responsivity to children’s academic and
emotional concerns. Regard for Student
Perspectives addresses the degree to which
teachers’ interactions with children and
classroom activities place an emphasis on
children’s interests, motivations, and points
of view.
(2) Classroom Organization measures a
broad array of classroom processes related to
the organization and management of
children’s behavior, time, and attention in
the classroom. It includes three dimensions:
Behavior Management, Productivity, and
Instructional Learning Formats. Behavior
Management addresses how effectively
teachers monitor, prevent, and redirect
behavior. Productivity addresses how well
the classroom runs with respect to routines
and the degree to which teachers organize
activities and directions so that maximum
time can be spent on learning activities.
Instructional Learning Formats addresses
how teachers facilitate activities and provide
interesting materials so that children are
engaged and learning opportunities are
maximized.
(3) Instructional Support measures the
ways in which teachers implement
curriculum to effectively support cognitive
and language development. It includes three
dimensions: Concept Development, Quality
of Feedback, and Language Modeling.
Concept Development addresses how
teachers use instructional discussions and
activities to promote children’s higher order
thinking skills in contrast to a focus on rote
instruction. Quality of Feedback addresses
how teachers extend children’s learning
through their responses to children’s ideas,
comments, and work. Language Modeling
addresses the extent to which teachers
facilitate and encourage children’s language.
(4) Assessments with the CLASS involve
observation-based measurement of each
dimension on a seven point scale. A score
ranging from 1 (minimally characteristic) to
7 (highly characteristic) is given for each
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
dimension and represents the extent to
which that dimension is characteristic of that
classroom. Relevant dimension scores are
used to calculate each domain score.
Commercial Driver’s License (CDL) means
a license issued by a state or other
jurisdiction, in accordance with the
standards contained in 49 CFR part 383, to
an individual which authorizes the
individual to operate a class of commercial
motor vehicles.
Construction means new buildings, and
excludes renovations, alterations, additions,
or work of any kind to existing buildings.
Continuity of care means Head Start or
Early Head Start services provided to
children in a manner that promotes primary
caregiving and minimizes the number of
transitions in teachers and teacher assistants
that children experience over the course of
the day, week, program year, and to the
extent possible, during the course of their
participation from birth to age three in Early
Head Start and in Head Start.
Deficiency is defined in the same manner
as presented in the Head Start Act, 42 U.S.C.
9801.
Delegate agency is defined in the same
manner as presented in the Head Start Act,
42 U.S.C. 9801.
Development and administrative costs
mean costs incurred in accordance with an
approved Head Start budget which do not
directly relate to the provision of program
component services, including services to
children with disabilities, as set forth and
described in the Head Start program
performance standards (45 CFR part 1304).
Disclosure means to permit access to or the
release, transfer, or other communication of
PII contained in child records by any means,
including oral, written, or electronic means,
to any party except the party identified as the
party that provided or created the record.
Double session variation means a centerbased option that employs a single teacher to
work with one group of children in the
morning and a different group of children in
the afternoon.
Dual benefit costs mean costs incurred in
accordance with an approved Head Start
budget which directly relate to both
development and administrative functions
and to the program component services,
including services to children with
disabilities, as set forth and described in the
Head Start program performance standards
(45 CFR part 1304).
Dual language learner means a child who
is acquiring two or more languages at the
same time, or a child who is learning a
second language while continuing to develop
their first language. The term ‘‘dual language
learner’’ may encompass or overlap
substantially with other terms frequently
used, such as bilingual, English language
learner (ELL), Limited English Proficient
(LEP), English learner, and children who
speak a Language Other Than English
(LOTE).
Early Head Start agency means a public or
private non-profit or for-profit entity
designated by ACF to operate an Early Head
Start program to serve pregnant women and
children from birth to age three, pursuant to
Section 645A(e) of the Head Start Act.
PO 00000
Frm 00159
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
61451
Enrolled (or any variation of) means a child
has been accepted and attended at least one
class for center-based or family child care
option or at least one home visit for the
home-based option.
Enrollment year means the period of time,
not to exceed twelve months, during which
a Head Start program provides center or
home-based services to a group of children
and their families.
Facility means a structure, such as a
building or modular unit, appropriate for use
in carrying out a Head Start program and
used primarily to provide Head Start
services, including services to children and
their families, or for administrative purposes
or other activities necessary to carry out a
Head Start program.
Family means all persons living in the
same household who are supported by the
child’s parent(s)’ or guardian(s)’ income; and
are related to the child’s parent(s) or
guardian(s) by blood, marriage, or adoption;
or are the child’s authorized caregiver or
legally responsible party.
Federal interest is a property right which
secures the right of the federal awarding
agency to recover the current fair market
value of its percentage of participation in the
cost of the facility in the event the facility is
no longer used for Head Start purposes by the
grantee or upon the disposition of the
property. When a grantee uses Head Start
funds to purchase, construct or renovate a
facility, or make mortgage payments, it
creates a federal interest. The federal interest
includes any portion of the cost of purchase,
construction, or renovation contributed by or
for the entity, or a related donor organization,
to satisfy a matching requirement.
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
(FMVSS) means the National Highway and
Traffic Safety Administration’s standards for
motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment
(49 CFR part 571) established under section
30111 of Title 49, United States Code.
Financial viability means that an
organization is able to meet its financial
obligations, balance funding and expenses
and maintain sufficient funding to achieve
organizational goals and objectives.
Fixed route means the established routes to
be traveled on a regular basis by vehicles that
transport children to and from Head Start or
Early Head Start program activities, and
which include specifically designated stops
where children board or exit the vehicle.
Foster care means 24-hour substitute care
for children placed away from their parents
or guardians and for whom the state agency
has placement and care responsibility. This
includes, but is not limited to, placements in
foster family homes, foster homes of
relatives, group homes, emergency shelters,
residential facilities, child-care institutions,
and pre-adoptive homes. A child is in foster
care in accordance with this definition
regardless of whether the foster care facility
is licensed and payments are made by the
state or local agency for the care of the child,
whether adoption subsidy payments are
being made prior to the finalization of an
adoption, or whether there is federal
matching of any payments that are made.
Full-working-day means not less than 10
hours of Head Start or Early Head Start
services per day.
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
61452
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Funded enrollment means the number of
participants which the Head Start grantee is
to serve, as indicated on the grant award.
Going concern means an organization that
operates without the threat of liquidation for
the foreseeable future, a period of at least 12
months.
Grantee means the local public or private
non-profit agency or for-profit agency which
has been designated as a Head Start agency
under 42 U.S.C. 9836 and which has been
granted financial assistance by the
responsible HHS official to operate a Head
Start program.
Head Start agency means a local public or
private non-profit or for-profit entity
designated by ACF to operate a Head Start
program to serve children age three to
compulsory school age, pursuant to section
641(b) and (d) of the Head Start Act.
Head Start Early Learning Outcomes
Framework: Ages Birth to Five means the
Head Start Early Learning Outcomes
Framework: Ages Birth to Five, which
describes the skills, behaviors, and
knowledge that programs must foster in all
children. It includes five central domains:
Approaches to Learning; Social and
Emotional Development; Language and
Literacy; Cognition; and Perceptual, Motor,
and Physical Development. These central
domains are broken into five domains for
infants and toddlers and seven domains for
preschoolers. Infant and Toddler domains are
Approaches to Learning; Social and
Emotional Development; Language and
Communication; Cognition; and Perceptual,
Motor, and Physical Development. Preschool
domains are Approaches to Learning; Social
and Emotional Development; Language and
Communication; Literacy; Mathematics
Development; Scientific Reasoning; and
Perceptual, Motor, and Physical
Development. Domains are divided into subdomains with goals that describe broad skills,
behaviors, and concepts that are important
for school success. Developmental
progressions describe the skills, behaviors
and concepts that children may demonstrate
as they progress. As described in the Head
Start Act, the Framework is central to
program operations that promote high-quality
early learning environments (42 U.S.C.
9832(21)(G)(iv)(II)(aa), 42 U.S.C. 9835(o), 42
U.S.C. 9836(d)(2)(C), 42 U.S.C.
9836a(g)(2)(A), 42 U.S.C. 9837(f)(3)(E), 42
U.S.C. 9837a(a)(3), 42 U.S.C. 9837a(a)(14), 42
U.S.C. 9837b(a)(2)(B)(iii), 42 U.S.C.
9837b(a)(4)(A)(i), and 42 U.S.C.
9837b(a)(4)(B)(iii)).
Homeless children means the same as
homeless children and youths in Section
725(2) of the McKinney-Vento Homeless
Assistance Act at 42 U.S.C. 11434a(2).
Home visitor means the staff member in the
home-based program option assigned to work
with parents to provide comprehensive
services to children and their families
through home visits and group socialization
activities.
Hours of planned class operations means
hours when children are scheduled to attend.
Professional development, training,
orientation, teacher planning, data analysis,
parent-teacher conferences, home visits,
classroom sanitation, and transportation do
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
not count toward the hours of planned class
operations.
Income means gross cash income and
includes earned income, military income
(including pay and allowances, except those
described in Section 645(a)(3)(B) of the Act),
veteran’s benefits, Social Security benefits,
unemployment compensation, and public
assistance benefits. Additional examples of
gross cash income are listed in the definition
of ‘‘income’’ which appears in U.S. Bureau of
the Census, Current Population Reports,
Series P–60–185 (available at https://
www2.census.gov/prod2/popscan/p60185.pdf).
Indian Head Start agency means a program
operated by an Indian tribe (as defined by the
Act) or designated by an Indian tribe to
operate on its behalf.
Indian tribe is defined in the same manner
as presented in the Head Start Act, 42 U.S.C.
9801.
Individualized Education Program is
defined in the same manner as presented in
the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.).
Individualized Family Service Plan is
defined in the same manner as presented in
the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.).
Legal status means the existence of an
applicant or grantee as a public agency or
organization under the law of the state in
which it is located, or existence as a private
nonprofit or for-profit agency or organization
as a legal entity recognized under the law of
the state in which it is located. Existence as
a private non-profit agency or organization
may be established under applicable state or
federal law.
Local agency responsible for implementing
IDEA means the early intervention service
provider under Part C of IDEA and the local
educational agency under Part B of IDEA.
Major renovation means any individual or
collection renovation that has a cost equal to
or exceeding $250,000. It excludes minor
renovations and repairs except when they are
included in a purchase application.
Migrant family means, for purposes of
Head Start eligibility, a family with children
under the age of compulsory school
attendance who changed their residence by
moving from one geographic location to
another, either intrastate or interstate, within
the preceding two years for the purpose of
engaging in agricultural work and whose
family income comes primarily from this
activity.
Migrant or Seasonal Head Start Program
means:
(1) With respect to services for migrant
farm workers, a Head Start program that
serves families who are engaged in
agricultural labor and who have changed
their residence from one geographic location
to another in the preceding 2-year period;
and,
(2) With respect to services for seasonal
farmworkers, a Head Start program that
serves families who are engaged primarily in
seasonal agricultural labor and who have not
changed their residence to another
geographic location in the preceding 2-year
period.
PO 00000
Frm 00160
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Minor renovation means improvements to
facilities, which do not meet the definition of
major renovation.
Modular unit means a portable
prefabricated structure made at another
location and moved to a site for use by a
Head Start grantee to carry out a Head Start
program, regardless of the manner or extent
to which the modular unit is attached to
underlying real property.
National Driver Register means the
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration’s automated system for
assisting state driver license officials in
obtaining information regarding the driving
records of individuals who have been denied
licenses for cause; had their licenses denied
for cause, had their licenses canceled,
revoked, or suspended for cause, or have
been convicted of certain serious driving
offenses.
Parent means a Head Start child’s mother
or father, other family member who is a
primary caregiver, foster parent or authorized
caregiver, guardian or the person with whom
the child has been placed for purposes of
adoption pending a final adoption decree.
Participant means a pregnant woman or
child who is enrolled in and receives services
from a Head Start, an Early Head Start, a
Migrant or Seasonal Head Start, or an
American Indian and Alaska Native Head
Start program.
Personally identifiable information (PII)
means any information that could identify a
specific individual, including but not limited
to a child’s name, name of a child’s family
member, street address of the child, social
security number, or other information that is
linked or linkable to the child.
Program means a Head Start, Early Head
Start, migrant, seasonal, or tribal program,
funded under the Act and carried out by an
agency, or delegate agency, to provide
ongoing comprehensive child development
services.
Program costs mean costs incurred in
accordance with an approved Head Start
budget which directly relate to the provision
of program component services, including
services to children with disabilities, as set
forth and described in the Head Start
Program Performance Standards (45 CFR part
1304).
Purchase means to buy an existing facility,
including outright purchase, down payment
or through payments made in satisfaction of
a mortgage or other loan agreement, whether
principal, interest or an allocated portion
principal and/or interest. The use of grant
funds to make a payment under a capital
lease agreement, as defined in the cost
principles, is a purchase subject to these
provisions. Purchase also refers to an
approved use of Head Start funds to continue
paying the cost of purchasing facilities or
refinance an existing loan or mortgage
beginning in 1987.
Real property means land, including land
improvements, buildings, structures and all
appurtenances thereto, excluding movable
machinery and equipment.
Recruitment area means that geographic
locality within which a Head Start program
seeks to enroll Head Start children and
families. The recruitment area can be the
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2
same as the service area or it can be a smaller
area or areas within the service area.
Relevant time period means:
(1) The 12 months preceding the month in
which the application is submitted; or
(2) During the calendar year preceding the
calendar year in which the application is
submitted, whichever more accurately
reflects the needs of the family at the time
of application.
Repair means maintenance that is
necessary to keep a Head Start facility in
working condition. Repairs do not add
significant value to the property or extend its
useful life.
Responsible HHS official means the official
of the Department of Health and Human
Services who has authority to make grants
under the Act.
School readiness goals mean the
expectations of children’s status and progress
across domains of language and literacy
development, cognition and general
knowledge, approaches to learning, physical
well-being and motor development, and
social and emotional development that will
improve their readiness for kindergarten.
School bus means a motor vehicle
designed for carrying 11 or more persons
(including the driver) and which complies
with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards applicable to school buses.
Service area means the geographic area
identified in an approved grant application
within which a grantee may provide Head
Start services.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:46 Sep 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
Staff means paid adults who have
responsibilities related to children and their
families who are enrolled in programs.
State is defined in the same manner as
presented in the Head Start Act, 42 U.S.C.
9801.
Termination of a grant or delegate agency
agreement means permanent withdrawal of
the grantee’s or delegate agency’s authority to
obligate previously awarded grant funds
before that authority would otherwise expire.
It also means the voluntary relinquishment of
that authority by the grantee or delegate
agency. Termination does not include:
(1) Withdrawal of funds awarded on the
basis of the grantee’s or delegate agency’s
underestimate of the unobligated balance in
a prior period;
(2) Refusal by the funding agency to extend
a grant or award additional funds (such as
refusal to make a competing or noncompeting
continuation renewal, extension or
supplemental award);
(3) Withdrawal of the unobligated balance
as of the expiration of a grant; and
(4) Annulment, i.e., voiding of a grant upon
determination that the award was obtained
fraudulently or was otherwise illegal or
invalid from its inception.
Total approved costs mean the sum of all
costs of the Head Start program approved for
a given budget period by the Administration
for Children and Families, as indicated on
the Financial Assistance Award. Total
approved costs consist of the federal share
plus any approved non-federal match,
PO 00000
Frm 00161
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
61453
including non-federal match above the
statutory minimum.
Transition period means the three-year
time period after December 9, 2011, on the
Designation Renewal System during which
ACF will convert all of the current
continuous Head Start and Early Head Start
grants into five-year grants after reviewing
each grantee to determine if it meets any of
the conditions under § 1304.12 of this
chapter that require recompetition or if the
grantee will receive its first five-year grant
non-competitively.
Transportation services means the planned
transporting of children to and from sites
where an agency provides services funded
under the Head Start Act. Transportation
services can involve the pick-up and
discharge of children at regularly scheduled
times and pre-arranged sites, including trips
between children’s homes and program
settings. The term includes services provided
directly by the Head Start and Early Head
Start grantee or delegate agency and services
which such agencies arrange to be provided
by another organization or an individual.
Incidental trips, such as transporting a sick
child home before the end of the day, or such
as might be required to transport small
groups of children to and from necessary
services, are not included under the term.
Verify or any variance of the word means
to check or determine the correctness or truth
by investigation or by reference.
[FR Doc. 2016–19748 Filed 9–1–16; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4184–01–P
E:\FR\FM\06SER2.SGM
06SER2
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 172 (Tuesday, September 6, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 61293-61453]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-19748]
[[Page 61293]]
Vol. 81
Tuesday,
No. 172
September 6, 2016
Part II
Department of Health and Human Services
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Administration for Children and Families
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
45 CFR Chapter XIII
Head Start Performance Standards; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 81 , No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2016 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 61294]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Administration for Children and Families
45 CFR Chapter XIII
RIN 0970-AC63
Head Start Performance Standards
AGENCY: Office of Head Start (OHS), Administration for Children and
Families (ACF), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule modernizes the Head Start Program Performance
Standards, last revised in 1998. In the Improving Head Start for School
Readiness Act of 2007, Congress instructed the Office of Head Start to
update its performance standards and to ensure any such revisions to
the standards do not eliminate or reduce quality, scope, or types of
health, educational, parental involvement, nutritional, social, or
other services programs provide. This rule responds to public comment,
incorporates extensive findings from research and from consultation
with experts, reflects best practices, lessons from program input and
innovation, integrates recommendations from the Secretary's Advisory
Committee Final Report on Head Start Research and Evaluation, and
reflects the Obama Administration's deep commitment to improve the
school readiness of young children. These performance standards will
improve program quality, reduce burden on programs, and improve
regulatory clarity and transparency. They provide a clear road map for
current and prospective grantees to support high-quality Head Start
services and to strengthen the outcomes of the children and families
Head Start serves.
DATES: Effective Date: Provisions of this final rule become effective
November 7, 2016.
Compliance Date(s): To allow programs reasonable time to implement
certain performance standards, we phase in compliance dates over
several years after this final rule becomes effective. In the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below, we provide a table, Table 1:
Compliance Table, which lists dates by which programs must implement
specific standards.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Colleen Rathgeb, Division Director of
Early Childhood Policy and Budget, Office of Early Childhood
Development, at OHS_Final_Rule@acf.hhs.gov or (202) 401-1195 (not a
toll free call). Deaf and hearing impaired individuals may call the
Federal Dual Party Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 7
p.m. Eastern Time.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
II. Tables
Table 1: Compliance Table
Table 2: Redesignation Table
III. Background
a. Statutory Authority
b. Purpose of This Rule
c. Rulemaking and Comment Processes
d. Overview of Major Changes From the NPRM
IV. Discussion of General Comments on the Final Rule
V. Discussion of Section by Section Comments on the Final Rule
a. Program Governance
b. Program Operations
1. Subpart A Eligibility, Recruitment, Selection, Enrollment and
Attendance
2. Subpart B Program Structure
3. Subpart C Education and Child Development Program Services
4. Subpart D Health Program Services
5. Subpart E Family and Community Engagement Program Services
6. Subpart F Additional Services for Children With Disabilities
7. Subpart G Transition Services
8. Subpart H Services to Enrolled Pregnant Women
9. Subpart I Human Resources Management
10. Subpart J Program Management and Quality Improvement
c. Financial and Administrative Requirements
1. Subpart A Financial Requirements
2. Subpart B Administrative Requirements
3. Subpart C Protections for the Privacy of Child Records
4. Subpart D Delegation of Program Operations
5. Subpart E Facilities
6. Subpart F Transportation
d. Federal Administrative Procedures
1. Subpart A Monitoring, Suspension, Termination, Denial of
Refunding, Reduction in Funding and Their Appeals
2. Subpart B Designation Renewal
3. Subpart C Selection of Grantees Through Competition
4. Subpart D Replacement of American Indian and Alaska Native
Grantee
5. Subpart E Head Start Fellows Program
e. Definitions
VIII. Regulatory Process Matters
a. Regulatory Flexibility Act
b. Regulatory Planning and Review Executive Order 12866
1. Need for Regulatory Action: Increasing the Benefits to
Society of Head Start
2. Cost and Savings Analysis
i. Structural Program Option Provisions
ii. Educator Quality Provisions
iii. Curriculum and Assessment Provisions
iv. Administrative/Managerial Provisions
3. Benefit Analysis
4. Accounting Statement
5. Distributional Effects
6. Regulatory Alternatives
c. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
d. Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 1999
e. Federalism Assessment Executive Order 13132
f. Congressional Review
g. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
Tribal Consultation Statement
I. Executive Summary
Head Start currently provides comprehensive early learning services
to more than 1 million children from birth to age five each year
through more than 60,000 classes, home visitors, and family child care
partners nationwide.\1\ Since its inception in 1965, Head Start has
been a leader in helping children from low-income families enter
kindergarten more prepared to succeed in school and in life. Head Start
is a central part of this Administration's effort to ensure all
children have access to high-quality early learning opportunities and
to eliminate the education achievement gap. This regulation is intended
to improve the quality of Head Start services so that programs have a
stronger impact on children's learning and development. It also is
necessary to streamline and reorganize the regulatory structure to
improve regulatory clarity and transparency so that existing grantees
can more easily run a high-quality Head Start program and so that Head
Start's operational requirements will be more transparent and seem less
onerous to prospective grantees. In addition, this regulation is
necessary to reduce the burden on local programs that can interfere
with high-quality service delivery. We believe these regulatory changes
will help ensure every child and family in Head Start receives high-
quality services that will lead to greater success in school and in
life.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration
for Children and Families (2015). Office of Head Start Program
Information Report, 2014-2015. Washington, DC: Author.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2007, Congress mandated the Secretary to revise the program
performance standards and update and raise the education standards.\2\
Congress also prohibited elimination of, or any reduction in, the
quality, scope, or types of services in the revisions.\3\ Thus, these
regulatory revisions are additionally intended to meet the statutory
requirements Congress put forth in the bipartisan reauthorization of
Head Start in 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See https://www.congress.gov/congressional-report/110th-congress/house-report/439/1 and 42 U.S.C. 9836A(a)(1)(B).
\3\ 42 U.S.C. 9836A(a)(2)(C)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 61295]]
The Head Start Program Performance Standards are the foundation on
which programs design and deliver comprehensive, high-quality
individualized services to support the school readiness of children
from low-income families. The first set of Head Start Program
Performance Standards was published in the 1970s. Since then, they have
been revised following subsequent Congressional reauthorizations and
were last revised in 1998. The program performance standards set forth
the requirements local grantees must meet to support the cognitive,
social, emotional, and healthy development of children from birth to
age five. They encompass requirements to provide education, health,
mental health, nutrition, and family and community engagement services,
as well as rules for local program governance and aspects of federal
administration of the program.
This final rule builds upon extensive consultation with
researchers, practitioners, recommendations from the Secretary's
Advisory Committee Final Report on Head Start Research and
Evaluation,\4\ and other experts, public comment, as well as internal
analysis of program data and years of program input. In addition,
program monitoring has also provided invaluable experience regarding
the strengths and weaknesses of the previous program performance
standards. Moreover, research and practice in the field of early
childhood education has expanded exponentially in the 15 years since
the program performance standards governing service delivery were last
revised, providing a multitude of new insights on how to support
improved child outcomes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Advisory Committee on Head Start Research and Evaluation:
Final Report. (2012). Washington, DC: Office of Head Start,
Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services. See https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/eval_final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Secretary's Advisory Committee, which consisted of expert
researchers and practitioners chartered to provide ``recommendations
for improving Head Start program effectiveness'' concluded early
education programs, including Head Start, are capable of reducing the
achievement gap, but that Head Start is not reaching its potential.\5\
As part of their work, the Committee provided recommendations for
interpreting the results of both the Head Start Impact Study (HSIS),\6\
a randomized control trial study of children in Head Start in 2002 and
2003 through third grade, and the Early Head Start Research and
Evaluation Project (EHSREP),\7\ which was initiated in 1996 and
followed children who were eligible to participate in Early Head Start.
The Committee concluded that these findings should be interpreted in
the context of the larger body of research that demonstrates Head Start
and Early Head Start ``are improving family well-being and improving
school readiness of children at or below the poverty line in the U.S.
today.'' \8\ The Committee agreed the initial impact both Head Start
and Early Head Start have demonstrated ``are in line with the magnitude
of findings from other scaled-up programs for infants and toddlers . .
. and center-based programs for preschoolers . . .'' but also
acknowledged ``larger impacts may be possible, e.g., by increasing
dosage in [Early Head Start] and Head Start or improving instructional
factors in Head Start.''\9\ The Committee also addressed the finding
that these impacts do not seem to persist into elementary school,
stating the larger body of research on Head Start provides ``evidence
of long-term positive outcomes for those who participated in Head Start
in terms of high school completion, avoidance of problem behaviors,
avoidance of entry into the criminal justice system, too-early family
formation, avoidance of special education, and workforce attachment.''
Overall, the report determined a key factor for Head Start to realize
its potential is ``making quality and other improvements and optimizing
dosage within Head Start [and Early Head Start].'' The final rule aims
to capitalize on the advancements in research, available data, program
input, public comment, and these recommendations in order to accomplish
the critical goal of helping Head Start reach its full potential so
more children reach kindergarten ready to succeed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Ibid, (p.1).
\6\ Puma, M., Bell, S., Cook, R., Heid, C., Broene, P., Jenkins,
F., & Downer, J. (2012). Third grade follow-up to the Head Start
impact study final report. U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation.
\7\ Cohen, R.C., Vogel, C.A., Xue, Y., Moiduddin, E.M., Carlson,
B.L., Twin Peaks Partners, L.L.C., & Kisker, E.E. (2010). Early Head
Start Children in Grade 5: Long-Term Follow-Up of the Early Head
Start Research and Evaluation Project Study Sample. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for
Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation,
(6933).
\8\ Advisory Committee on Head Start Research and Evaluation:
Final Report. (2012). Washington, DC: Office of Head Start,
Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services. See https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/eval_final.pdf.
\9\ Ibid. (p. 30).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This final rule reorganizes previous program performance standards
to make it easier for grantees to implement them and for the public to
understand the broad range of Head Start program services. Our previous
program performance standards consisted of 1,400 provisions organized
in 11 different sections that were amended in a partial or topical
fashion over the past 40 years. This approach resulted in a somewhat
opaque set of requirements that were unnecessarily challenging to
interpret and overburdened grantees with process-laden rules.
This rule has four distinct sections: (1) Program Governance, which
outlines the requirements imposed by the Head Start Act (the ``Act'')
on Governing Bodies and Policy Councils to ensure well-governed Head
Start programs; (2) Program Operations, which outlines all of the
operational requirements for serving children and families, from the
universe of eligible children and the services they must be provided in
education, health, and family and community engagement, to the way
programs must use data to improve the services they provide; (3)
Financial and Administrative Requirements, which lays out the federal
requirements Head Start programs must adhere to because of overarching
federal requirements or specific provisions imposed in the Act; and (4)
Federal Administrative Procedures, which governs the procedures the
responsible HHS official takes to determine the results of competition
for all grantees, any actions against a grantee, whether a grantee
needs to compete for renewed funding, and other transparency-related
procedures required in the Act.
We also reorganized specific sections and streamlined provisions to
make Head Start requirements easier to understand for all interested
parties--grantees, potential grantees, other early education programs,
and members of the general public. We reorganized subparts and their
sections to eliminate redundancy, and we grouped together related
requirements. Additionally, we systematically addressed the fact that
many of our most critical provisions were buried in subparts that made
them difficult to find and interpret, and did not reflect their
centrality to the provision of high-quality services. For example, we
created new subparts or sections to highlight and expand, where
necessary, upon these important requirements.
We also streamlined requirements and minimized administrative
burden on local programs. In total, we significantly reduced the number
of regulatory requirements without compromising quality. We give
programs greater flexibility to determine how best to
[[Page 61296]]
achieve their goals and administer a high-quality Head Start program
without reducing expectations for children and families. We anticipate
these changes will help move Head Start away from a compliance-oriented
culture to an outcomes-focused one. Furthermore, we believe this
approach will support better collaboration with other programs and
funding streams. We recognize that grantees deliver services through a
variety of modalities including child care and state pre-kindergarten
programs. Additionally, we removed other overly prescriptive
requirements related to governing bodies, appeals, and audits.
We include several provisions to support local flexibility to meet
community needs and to promote innovation and research. We give Head
Start programs additional flexibility in the structural requirements of
program models, such as group size and ratios. Further, we permit local
variations for effective and innovative curriculum and professional
development models, giving flexibility from some of these requirements
if the Head Start program works with research experts and evaluates the
effectiveness of their model. We also support local innovation through
a process to waive individual eligibility verification requirements,
which will allow better coordination with local early education
programs without reducing quality. Collectively, these changes will
allow for the development of innovative program models, alleviate
paperwork burdens, and support mixed income settings.
We believe the benefits of these changes will be significant for
the children and families Head Start serves. Strengthening Head Start
standards will improve child outcomes and promote greater success in
school as well as produce higher returns on taxpayer investment.
Reorganizing, streamlining, and reducing the requirements in the
regulation will make Head Start less burdensome for existing grantees
and more approachable for potential grantees, which may result in more
organizations competing for Head Start grants. These changes are
central to the Administration's belief that every child deserves an
opportunity to succeed.
II. Tables
[[Page 61297]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR06SE16.001
[[Page 61298]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR06SE16.002
[[Page 61299]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR06SE16.003
[[Page 61300]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR06SE16.004
[[Page 61301]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR06SE16.005
[[Page 61302]]
Table 2--Redesignation Table
This final rule reorganizes and redesignates the Head Start Program
Performance Standards under subchapter B at 45 CFR chapter XIII. We
believe our efforts provide current and prospective grantees an
organized road map on how to provide high-quality Head Start services.
To help the public readily locate sections and provisions from the
previous performance standards that are reorganized and redesignated,
we included redesignation and distribution tables in the NPRM. The
redesignation table listed the previous section and identified the
section we proposed would replace it. The distribution table in the
NPRM listed previous provisions and showed whether we removed, revised,
or redesignated them. We believe the public may continue to find the
redesignation table useful here, so we included an updated version of
it below.
Table 2--Redesignation Table
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous section New section
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1301.1............................ 1303.2
1301.20........................... 1305
1301.10........................... 1303.3
1301.11........................... 1303.12
1301.20........................... 1303.4
1301.21........................... 1303.4
1301.30........................... 1303.10
1301.31........................... 1302.90, 1302.102
1301.32........................... 1303.5
1301.33........................... 1303.31
1301.34........................... 1304.5, 1304.7
1302.1............................ 1304.1
1302.2............................ 1305
1302.5............................ 1304.2, 1304.3, 1304.4
1302.10........................... 1304.20
1302.11........................... 1304.20
1302.30........................... 1304.30
1302.31........................... 1304.31
1302.32........................... 1304.32
1303.1............................ 1304.1, 1303.30
1303.2............................ 1305
1303.10........................... 1304.1
1303.11........................... 1304.3
1303.12........................... 1304.4
1303.14........................... 1304.5
1303.21........................... 1304.6
1303.22........................... 1304.6
1304.1............................ 1302.1
1304.3............................ 1305
1304.20........................... 1302.42, 1302.33, 1302.41, 1302.61,
1302.46, 1302.63
1304.21........................... 1302.30, 1302.31, 1302, 1302.35,
1302.60, 1302.90, 1302.34, 1302.33,
1302.46, 1302.21
1304.22........................... 1302.47, 1302.92, 1302.15, 1302.90,
1302.41, 1302.42, 1302.46
1304.23........................... 1302.42, 1302.44, 1302.31, ,
1302.90, , 1302.46
1304.24........................... 1302.46, 1302.45
1304.40........................... 1302.50, 1302.52, 1302.80, 1302.18,
1302.34, 1302.51, 1302.30, 1302.18,
1302.81, 1302.46, 1302.52, 1302.70,
1302.71, 1302.72, 1302.22, 1302.82
1304.41........................... 1302.53, 1302.63, 1302.70, 1302.71
1304.50........................... 1301.1, 1301.3 1302.102, , 1301.4
1304.51........................... 1302.101, 1302.90, 1303.23,
1302.102, 1301.3, 1303.32
1304.52........................... 1302.101, 1302.91, 1302.90, 1302.91,
1302.21, 1303.3, 1302.93, 1302.94,
1302.92, 1301.5
1304.53........................... 1302.31, 1302.21, 1302.47, 1302.22,
1302.23
1304.60........................... 1302.102, 1304.2
1305.1............................ 1302.10
1305.2............................ 1305
1305.3............................ 1302.11, 1302.102, 1302.20
1305.4............................ 1302.12
1305.5............................ 1302.13, 1302.14,
1305.6............................ 1302.14
1305.7............................ 1302.12, 1302.15, 1302.70
1305.8............................ 1302.16
1305.9............................ 1302.18
1305.10........................... 1304.4
1306.3............................ 1305
1306.20........................... 1302.101, 1302.21, 1302.90, 1302.23,
1302.20
1306.21........................... 1302.91
1306.23........................... 1302.92
1306.30........................... 1302.20, 1302.21, 1302.22, 1302.23
1306.31........................... 1302.20
1306.32........................... 1302.21, 1302.24, 1302.17, 1302.102,
1302.34, 1302.18
1306.33........................... 1302.22, 1302.101 , 1302.91,
1302.35, 1302.44, 1302.23, 1302.31,
1301.4, 1302.47, 1302.45, 1302.24
1307.1............................ 1304.10
[[Page 61303]]
1307.2............................ 1305
1307.3............................ 1304.11
1307.4............................ 1304.12
1307.5............................ 1304.13
1307.6............................ 1304.14
1307.7............................ 1304.15
1307.8............................ 1304.16
1308.1............................ 1302.60
1308.3............................ 1305
1308.4............................ 1302.101, 1302.61, 1302.63, 1303.75
1308.5............................ 1302.12, 1302.13
1308.6............................ 1302.33, 1302.42, 1302.34, 1302.33
1308.18........................... 1302.47
1308.21........................... 1302.61, 1302.62, 1302.34
1309.1............................ 1303.40
1309.2............................ 1303.41
1309.3............................ 1305
1309.4............................ 1303.42, 1303.44, 1303.45, 1303.48,
1303.50
1309.21........................... 1305, 1303.51, 1303.48, 1303.50,
1303.46, 1303.47, 1303.48, 1303.55,
1303.3
1309.22........................... 1303.49, 1303.51
1309.31........................... 1303.44, 1303.47
1309.33........................... 1303.56
1309.40........................... 1303.53
1309.41........................... 1303.54
1309.43........................... 1303.43
1309.52........................... 1303.55
1309.53........................... 1303.56
1310.2............................ 1303.70
1310.3............................ 1305
1310.10........................... 1303.70, 1303.71, 1303.72
1310.14........................... 1303.71
1310.15........................... 1303.72
1310.16........................... 1303.72
1310.17........................... 1303.72
1310.20........................... 1303.73
1310.21........................... 1303.74
1310.22........................... 1303.75
1310.23........................... 1303.70
------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Background
a. Statutory Authority
This final rule is published under the authority granted to the
Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services under sections
640, 641A, 642, 644, 645, 645A, 646, 648A, and 649 of the Head Start
Act, Public Law 97-35, 95 Stat. 499 (42 U.S.C. 9835, 9836a, 9837, 9839,
9840, 9840a, 9841, 9843a, and 9844), as amended by the Improving Head
Start for School Readiness Act of 2007, Public Law 110-134, 121 Stat.
1363. In these sections, the Secretary is required to establish
performance standards for Head Start and Early Head Start programs, as
well as federal administrative procedures. Specifically, the Act
requires the Secretary to ``. . . modify, as necessary, program
performance standards by regulation applicable to Head Start agencies
and programs. . .'' and explicitly directs a number of modifications,
including ``scientifically based and developmentally appropriate
education performance standards related to school readiness that are
based on the Head Start Child Outcomes Framework'' and to ``consult
with experts in the fields of child development, early childhood
education, child health care, family services . . ., administration,
and financial management, and with persons with experience in the
operation of Head Start programs.'' \10\ Not only did the Act mandate
such significant revisions, there was also bipartisan and bicameral
agreement in Congress that its central purpose was to update and raise
the education standards and practices in Head Start
programs.11 12 As such, these program performance standards
substantially build upon and improve the standards related to the
education of children in Head Start programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See section 42 U.S.C. 9836A (a)(1) and (2).
\11\ See https://beta.congress.gov/crec/2007/11/14/CREC-2007-11-14-pt1-PgH13876-4.pdf.
\12\ See https://beta.congress.gov/crec/2007/11/14/CREC-2007-11-14-pt1-PgS14375-2.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Purpose of This Rule
This rule meets the statutory requirements Congress put forth in
its 2007 bipartisan reauthorization of Head Start and addresses
Congress's mandate that called for the Secretary to review and revise
the Head Start Program Performance Standards.\13\ Program performance
standards are the foundation upon which Head Start programs design and
deliver comprehensive, high-quality individualized services to support
the school readiness of children from low-income families. They set
forth requirements local grantees must meet to support the cognitive,
social, emotional, and healthy development of children from birth to
age five. They encompass requirements to provide education, health,
mental health, nutrition, and family and community engagement services,
as well as rules for local program governance and aspects of federal
administration of the program.
[[Page 61304]]
Program performance standards in this final rule build upon field
knowledge and experience to codify best practices and ensure Head Start
programs deliver high-quality services to the children and families
they serve.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See https://beta.congress.gov/crec/2007/11/14/CREC-2007-11-14-pt1-PgS14375-2.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This final rule strengthens program standards so that all children
and families receive high-quality services that will have a stronger
impact on child development and outcomes and family well-being. The
program performance standards set higher standards for curriculum,
staff development, and program duration, all based on research and
effective practice, while maintaining Head Start's core values of
family engagement, parent leadership, and providing important
comprehensive services to our nation's neediest children. At the same
time, the final rule makes program requirements easier for current and
future program leaders to understand and reduces administrative burden
so that Head Start directors can focus on delivering high-quality early
learning programs that help put children onto a path of success.
c. Rulemaking and Comment Processes
We sought extensive input to develop this final rule. We began the
rulemaking process with consultations, listening sessions, and focus
groups with Head Start staff, parents, and program administrators,
along with child development and subject matter experts, early
childhood education program leaders, and representatives from Indian
tribes, migrant and seasonal communities, and other constituent groups.
We heard from tribal leaders at our annual tribal consultations. We
studied the final report of the Secretary's Advisory Committee on Head
Start Research. We consulted with national organizations and agencies
with particular expertise and longstanding interests in early childhood
education. In addition, we analyzed the types of technical assistance
requested by and provided to Head Start agencies and programs. We
reviewed findings from monitoring reports and gathered information from
programs and families about the circumstances of populations Head Start
serves. We considered advances in research-based practices with respect
to early childhood education and development, and the projected needs
of expanding Head Start services. We also drew upon the expertise of
federal agencies and staff responsible for related programs in order to
obtain relevant data and advice on how to promote quality across all
Head Start settings and program options. We reviewed the studies on
developmental outcomes and assessments for young children and on the
workforce by the National Academy of Sciences.14 15 We also
reviewed the standards and performance criteria established by state
Quality Rating and Improvement Systems, national organizations, and
policy experts in early childhood development, health, safety, maternal
health, and related fields.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ National Academy of Sciences (October, 2008) Early
Childhood Assessment: Who, What, How. Washington, DC.
\15\ National Academy of Sciences (April, 2015) Transforming the
Workforce for Children Birth through Age 8: A Unifying Foundation.
Washington, DC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on June 19,
2015 to solicit comments from the public. We extended the notice of
proposed rulemaking comment period 30 days past our original deadline
to September 17, 2015, to allow for more feedback from parents,
grantees, and the Head Start community in general. We received,
analyzed, and considered approximately 1,000 public comments to develop
this final rule. Commenters included Head Start parents, staff, and
management; national, regional, and state Head Start associations;
researchers; early childhood, health, and parent organizations; policy
think tanks; philanthropic foundations; Members of Congress; and other
interested parties.
d. Overview of Major Changes From the NPRM
The public comments addressed a wide range of issues. We made many
changes to the program performance standards in response to those
comments, which range from minor to significant. The most significant
changes fall under several categories: Service duration, the central
and critical role of parents in Head Start, staff qualifications to
support high-quality, comprehensive service delivery, and health
promotion.
First, we made changes to this final rule in response to the many
public comments we received on the proposal to increase the duration of
services children receive in Head Start. The changes to the service
duration requirements in the final rule reflect concerns about local
flexibility and access to Head Start for low-income children and their
families. Instead of requiring all Head Start center-based programs to
operate for at least 6 hours per day and 180 days per year as proposed
in the NPRM, we changed the requirement to a minimum of 1,020 annual
hours of planned class operations, which grantees will phase in for all
of their center-based slots over five years. Similarly for Early Head
Start, we changed the requirement in the NPRM for center-based programs
to operate at least 6 hours per day and 230 days per year to 1,380
annual hours in this rule, and allow two years for programs to plan and
implement this increase in service duration. These requirements balance
the importance of increasing service duration with allowing greater
local flexibility and more time for communities to adapt and potential
funding to be secured.
Research supports the importance of longer preschool duration in
achieving meaningful child outcomes and preparing children for success
in school.\16\ \17\ \18\ \19\ \20\ \21\ \22\ \23\ Shorter preschool
programs may not have as much time to adequately support strong early
learning outcomes for children and provide necessary comprehensive
services.\24\ \25\ \26\ In addition, the long
[[Page 61305]]
summer break in most Head Start programs likely results in summer
learning loss that undermines gains children make during the program
year.\27\ \28\ \29\ Furthermore, part-day programs can undermine
parents' job search, job training, and employment opportunities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Robin, K.B., Frede, E.C., Barnett, W.S. (2006.) NIEER
Working Paper--Is More Better? The Effects of Full-Day vs Half-Day
Preschool on Early School Achievement. NIEER.
\17\ Votruba-Drzal, E., Li-Grining, C.P., & Maldonado-Carreno,
C. (2008). A developmental perspective on full- versus part-day
kindergarten and children's academic trajectories through fifth
grade. Child Development, 79, 957-978.
\18\ Lee, V.E., Burkam, D.T., Ready, D.D., Honigman, J., &
Meisels, S.J. (2006). Full-day vs. half-day kindergarten: In which
program do children learn more? American Journal of Education, 112,
163-208.
\19\ Li, W. (2012). Effects of Head Start hours on children's
cognitive, pre-academic, and behavioral outcomes: An instrumental
variable analysis. Presented at Fall 2012 Conference of the
Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management.
\20\ Heckman, J.J., Moon, S.H., Pinto, R., Savelyev, P.A., &
Yavitz, A. (2010). The rate of return to the HighScope Perry
Preschool Program. Journal of Public Economics, 94, 114-128.
\21\ Walters, C.R. (2015). Inputs in the Production of Early
Childhood Human Capital: Evidence from Head Start, American Economic
Journal: Applied Economics, 7(4), 76-102.
\22\ Wasik, B. & Snell, E. (2015). Synthesis of Preschool
Dosage: Unpacking How Quantity, Quality and Content Impacts Child
Outcomes. Temple University, Philadelphia, PA.
\23\ Yoshikawa, H., Weiland, C., Brooks-Gunn, J., Burchinal,
M.R., Espinosa, L.M., Gormley, W.T., Ludwig, J., Magnuson, K.A.,
Phillips, D., & Zaslow, M.J. (2013). Investing in Our Future: The
Evidence Base on Preschool Education. Policy Brief. Foundation for
Child Development.
\24\ DeCicca, P. (2007). Does full-day kindergarten matter?
Evidence from the first two years of schooling. Economics of
Education Review, 26(1), 67-82.; Cryan, J.R., Sheehan, R., Wiechel,
J., & Bandy-Hedden, I. G. (1992). Success outcomes of full-day
kindergarten: More positive behavior and increased achievement in
the years after. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 7(2), 187-203.
\25\ Lee, V.E., Burkam, D.T., Ready, D.D., Honigman, J., &
Meisels, S.J. (2006). Full-Day versus Half-Day Kindergarten: In
Which Program Do Children Learn More? American Journal of Education,
112(2), 163-208.
\26\ Walston, J.T., and West, J. (2004). Full-day and Half-day
Kindergarten in the United States: Findings from the Early Childhood
Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 1998-99 (NCES 2004-078).
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
\27\ Allington, R.L. & McGill-Franzen, A. (2003). The Impact of
Summer Setback on the Reading Achievement Gap. The Phi Delta Kappan,
85(1), 68-75.; Fairchild, R. & Noam, G. (Eds.) (2007). Summertime:
Confronting Risks, Exploring Solutions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/
Wiley.
\28\ Downey, D.B., von Hippel, P.T. & Broh, B.A. (2004). Are
Schools the Great Equalizer? Cognitive Inequality During the Summer
Months and the School Year. American Sociological Review, 69(5),
613-635.
\29\ Benson, J., & Borman, G.D. (2010). Family, Neighborhood,
and School Settings Across Seasons: When Do Socioeconomic Context
and Racial Composition Matter for the Reading Achievement Growth of
Young Children? Teacher's College Record, 112(5), 1338-1390.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the NPRM, we proposed to increase the positive impact of Head
Start programs serving three- to five-year-olds by increasing the
minimum hours and days of operation and to codify long-standing
interpretation of continuous services for programs that serve infants
and toddlers, in concert with increasing standards for educational
quality. Specifically, the NPRM proposed to require programs to serve
three- to five-year-olds for at least 6 hours per day and 180 days per
year and to require programs to serve infants and toddlers for a
minimum of 6 hours per day and 230 days per year. Our proposal was
consistent with research demonstrating the necessity of adequate
instructional time to improve child outcomes and aligned with
recommendations from the Secretary's Advisory Committee.\30\ \31\ \32\
\33\ \34\ \35\ However, though the research is clear that longer
duration matters, there is no clarity on an exact threshold or
combination of hours and days needed to achieve positive child
outcomes. Therefore, in response to a significant number of public
comments on the NPRM, including comments from the national, state, and
regional Head Start associations, the final rule defines full school
day and full school year services as 1,020 annual hours for Head Start
programs and defines continuous services as 1,380 annual hours for
Early Head Start programs, instead of setting a minimum number of hours
per day and days per year for each program. These adjusted requirements
will give programs more flexibility to design their program schedules
to better meet children and community needs as well as align with local
school district calendars, where appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Advisory Committee on Head Start Research and Evaluation:
Final Report. (2012). Washington, DC: Office of Head Start,
Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services.
\31\ Curenton, S.M., Justice, L.M., Zucker, T.A., & McGinty,
A.S. (2014). Language and literacy curriculum and instruction.
Chapter 15 in in Handbook of Response to Intervention in Early
Childhood, Buysee, V., & Peisner-Feinberg, E. (Eds.). Baltimore:
Paul H. Brookes Publishing.
\32\ Ginsburg, H.P., Ertle, B., & Presser, A.L. (2014). Math
curriculum and instruction for young children. Chapter 16 in
Handbook of Response to Intervention in Early Childhood, Buysee, V.,
& Peisner-Feinberg, E. (Eds.). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes
Publishing.
\33\ Justice, L.M., Mcginty, A., Cabell, S.Q., Kilday, C.R.,
Knighton, K., & Huffman, G. (2010). Language and literacy curriculum
supplement for preschoolers who are academically at risk: A
feasibility study. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in
Schools, 41, 161-178.
\34\ Ginsburg, H.P., Ertle, B., & Presser, A.L. (2014). Math
curriculum and instruction for young children. Chapter 16 in
Handbook of Response to Intervention in Early Childhood, Buysee, V.,
& Peisner-Feinberg, E. (Eds.). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes
Publishing.
\35\ Clements, D.H., & Sarama, J., (2008). Experimental
evaluation of the effects of a research-based preschool mathematics
curriculum. American Educational Research Journal, 45(2), 443-494.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To further address the comments about service duration and ensure a
smooth transition for children and families, the final rule also
includes a staggered approach to increasing service duration for Head
Start preschoolers over the next five years. This gradual transition
will allow programs more time to plan and implement changes while also
increasing families' access to full school day Head Start services and
ensuring more children receive the high-quality early learning services
to help them arrive at kindergarten ready to succeed. The final rule
also gives the Secretary the authority to reduce the proportion of each
grantee's center-based slots required to operate for a full school day
and full school year if the Secretary determines that such a reduction
is needed to avert a substantial reduction in slots. We believe the
requirements in the final rule strike an appropriate balance between
setting the policy research demonstrates will best support positive
outcomes for children and families, while minimizing reduction in the
number of children and families Head Start can serve.
Second, we received comments that expressed concern that the
proposed changes to family engagement services and governance would
result in a reduction in emphasis on family engagement processes,
parent leadership, and parent influence on program policy. This was not
our intent. The intent of the NPRM was for the family engagement
standards to incorporate the changes made to governance in the 2007
reauthorization and align with the groundbreaking work Head Start has
led through the development of the Parent, Family, and Community
Engagement Framework. Family engagement has always been at the
foundation of Head Start, and as such, the final rule retains many of
the proposed improvements to family services that integrate research-
based practices and provide greater local flexibility to help programs
better meet family needs. However, given the perception that the
changes would limit the role of parents and families in Head Start, the
final rule includes several changes to more effectively reflect and
maintain the important role of Head Start parents in leading Head Start
programs, as well as the importance of family engagement to the growth
and success of Head Start children. Specifically, we restore a
requirement for parent committees, maintain and strengthen family
partnership services (including goal setting), and strengthen the
requirements for impasse procedures to make it clear that the policy
council plays a leadership role in the administration of programs,
rather than functioning in an advisory capacity. It is our expectation
that the revisions to the final rule will ensure all grantees,
programs, and parents understand the foundational role parents of Head
Start children play in shaping the program at the local and national
level.
Third, this final rule includes several changes in response to
comments that suggested Head Start should use the revision of the
program performance standards to set a higher bar for the delivery of
quality comprehensive services. Specifically, this final rule includes
a greater emphasis on staff qualifications and competencies for health,
disabilities, and family services managers, as well as staff who work
directly with children and families in the family partnership process.
The qualification requirements represent minimum credentials we believe
are critical to ensuring high-quality services. However, because we
also recognize the important role of experience and community
connections for such staff, these requirements are only for newly hired
staff and, in some cases, give programs the flexibility to support
staff in obtaining the credentials within 18 months of hire.
In response to public comments that the NPRM was not strong enough
in addressing some serious public health issues, this final rule
includes changes
[[Page 61306]]
that place a greater emphasis on certain health concerns, including
childhood obesity prevention, health and developmental consequences of
tobacco products and exposure to lead and support for mental health and
social and emotional well-being. Given the prevalence of childhood
obesity across the nation, especially among low-income children, we
maintained important health and nutrition requirements and made
specific changes to ensure Head Start actively engage in its prevention
in the classroom and through the family partnership process. Given the
serious health and developmental consequences of children's exposure to
tobacco products, including second and third hand smoke, and to lead,
we have explicitly required that programs offer parents opportunities
to learn about these health risks and safety practices they can employ
in their homes. We significantly strengthened the breadth and clarity
on the requirements for programs to use mental health consultants to
ensure Head Start programs are supporting children's mental health and
social and emotional well-being. The final rule includes new provisions
in the requirements for health, education, and family engagement
services that elevate the role of Head Start programs in addressing
these public health problems.
Additionally, through ongoing tribal consultations and the public
comment process, we received important feedback from the American
Indian and Alaska Native community. We made a number of changes
specifically related to American Indian and Alaska Native programs
based on these public comments and the unique and important sovereign
relations with tribal governments. We added a new provision that for
the first time makes it explicit that programs serving American Indian
and Alaska Native children may integrate efforts to preserve,
revitalize, restore, or maintain tribal language into their education
services. We also clarified that, due to tribal sovereignty, American
Indian and Alaska Native programs only need to consider whether or not
they will participate in early childhood systems and activities in the
state in which they operate.
In addition to these changes, the final rule maintains numerous
changes proposed in the NPRM to strengthen program performance
standards so all children and families receive high-quality services
that will improve child outcomes and family well-being. We maintained
and made important changes to strengthen service delivery. For example,
we updated the prioritization criteria for selection and recruitment;
made improvements to promote attendance; prohibited expulsion for
challenging behaviors; strengthened services for children who are dual
language learners (DLLs); and ensured critical supports for children
experiencing homelessness or in foster care. Throughout the final rule
we have made changes in response to public comments to make language
clearer or more focused on outcomes rather than processes.
IV. Discussion of General Comments on the Final Rule
We received approximately 1,000 public comments on the NPRM with
many commenters supporting our overall approach to revising the Head
Start Program Performance Standards. Commenters appreciated our
reorganization and streamlining, and agreed this made the standards
more transparent and easier to understand. Commenters generally
supported our approach to systems-based standards that are more focused
on outcomes and less prescriptive and process-laden. They did note that
how OHS monitored these standards would affect their implementation and
impact. Commenters also appreciated our research-based approach. They
noted our education and child development standards focused on the
elements most important for supporting strong child outcomes.
Commenters supported standards in the NPRM to improve services to
children who are DLLs and their families. Commenters also supported our
emphasis on reducing barriers and improving services to children
experiencing homelessness and children in foster care. Overall,
commenters agreed our proposal would improve program quality, clarify
expectations, and reduce burden on programs.
We received a range of comments on our proposal to increase the
minimum service duration for Head Start and Early Head Start programs.
Some commenters supported the proposal to increase duration, citing the
research base and its importance to achieving strong child outcomes.
Many commenters stated that without sufficient funds, this would lead
to a reduction in the number of children and families Head Start served
and this would be an unacceptable outcome. Other commenters raised
concern or opposition for a variety of other reasons. We discuss and
respond to these concerns in detail our discussion of part 1302,
subpart B.
Many commenters were concerned that the NPRM overall reflected a
reduced commitment to the role of parents in Head Start. They also
pointed to specific proposals in different subparts and sections, which
they stated contributed to a diminished role for parents. It was not
our intent to diminish the role of parents in the Head Start program,
and we have revised provisions in the final rule to ensure our intent
for parent engagement is appropriately conveyed. We believe parent
engagement is foundational to Head Start and essential to achieving
Head Start's mission to help children succeed in school and beyond. We
address specific comments on parent involvement and engagement and our
responses in the discussions of the relevant sections.
Many commenters believed there were excessive references to the
Act. They asked that the final regulation translate the references to
the Act with specific language or brief excerpts from the Act. We
maintained the same approach as we proposed in the NPRM to reference
the provisions in the Act so that the regulation will not become
obsolete if the provisions in the Act change. However, we intend to
issue a training and technical assistance document that integrates
language from the Act into the same document as the program performance
standards to address commenters' interest in having a single document.
We also received other general comments or comments not tied to a
specific section or provision of the rule. For example, some commenters
offered general support for the Head Start program and noted it was
important for Head Start to continue. One commenter thought we should
have included examples of excellent Head Start programs. Commenters
stated their overall opposition to the Head Start program or the NPRM
as a whole, and others did not want Head Start program to continue to
receive funding. Commenters stated that services for DLLs were
emphasized too heavily in the regulation or that the standards for DLLs
were too prescriptive. We believe DLLs are an appropriate priority in
the regulation because the provisions reflect requirements in the Act
and because it is important programs effectively serve DLLs because
they are a rapidly growing part of both Head Start and the broader
United States population. Commenters also offered specific suggestions
on ways to clarify, enhance, or add language relevant to serving
culturally and linguistically diverse children and families, including
children who are DLLs throughout the NPRM. We incorporated some of the
suggestions into the final rule but felt some were
[[Page 61307]]
already adequately covered while others were not feasible to include in
regulation. We discuss these comments as appropriate in the relevant
sections of the preamble.
Commenters also pointed out technical problems, such as incorrect
cross references, typographical errors, or small inconsistencies in
related provisions. We corrected these errors and made other needed
technical changes, including edits to ensure descriptive titles
throughout the final rule. Commenters also requested that we update
existing data collections to account for changes in the program
performance standards. As we make changes to the Head Start Program
Information Report (PIR) and other data collections we sponsor, we will
consider the final rule, but this is not a regulatory issue.
V. Discussion of Section by Section Comments on the Final Rule
We received many comments about changes we proposed to specific
sections in the regulation. Below, we identify each section, summarize
the comments, and respond to them accordingly.
Program Governance; Part 1301
This part describes program governance requirements for Head Start
agencies. Program governance in Head Start refers to the formal
structure in place ``for the oversight of quality services for Head
Start children and families and for making decisions related to program
design and implementation'' as outlined in section 642(c) of the Act.
The Act requires this structure include a governing body and a policy
council, or a policy committee at the delegate level. These groups have
a critical role in oversight, design and implementation of Head Start
and Early Head Start programs. The governing body is the entity legally
and fiscally responsible for the program. The policy council is
responsible for the direction of the program and must be made up
primarily of parents of currently enrolled children. Parent involvement
in program governance reflects the fundamental belief, present since
the inception of Project Head Start in 1965, that parents must be
involved in decision-making about the nature and operation of the
program for Head Start to be successful in bringing about substantial
change.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ See Federal Register, 40 FR 27562, June 30, 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We revised previous program governance requirements primarily to
conform to the Act. We received many comments on part 1301. Below we
discuss these comments and our rationale for any changes to the
regulatory text in this subpart.
General Comments
Comment: Many commenters offered reactions to part 1301. Commenters
expressed general support for the requirements, indicating they reflect
the statutory requirements, improve transparency, maintain the
important role of parents, and increase local flexibility.
Other commenters stated this part was unnecessarily complicated for
parents, policy council members, and staff to follow as presented in
the NPRM. Many commenters suggested all governance requirements be
clearly stated in the rule rather than referenced with statutory
citation in order to improve clarity and reduce burden for programs,
parents, and others.
Response: As noted previously, we maintained the approach to cross
reference to the Act so that the regulations will not become obsolete
if the provisions in the Act change. However, we plan to issue a
training and technical assistance document that incorporates the
language from the Act with the regulatory language.
Comment: Some commenters suggested we failed to address the role of
shared governance in the Head Start program, and that we relied too
heavily on the Act, which is vague and ambiguous, and leaves grantees
wondering about the proper balance between the role and responsibility
of the governing body and the policy council. These commenters ask that
we include more specificity about shared governance in the final rule.
Response: We continue to believe the best approach is to align the
governance requirements in the rule with the language and requirements
specified in the Act. The statutory language has directed the
governance of Head Start programs since it was passed in 2007 and there
have not been any significant problems with this approach.
Comment: Commenters asked that we include ``Tribal Council''
wherever the phrase ``governing body'' occurs.
Response: We do not believe this is necessary, since the tribal
council is acting as the governing body.
Section 1301.1 Purpose
This section reiterates the requirement in section 642(c) of the
Act regarding the structure and purpose of program governance. The
structure as outlined in the Act includes a governing body, a policy
council, and, for a delegate agency, a policy committee. We restored
the requirement from the previous performance standards that programs
also have parent committees as part of the governance structure, and we
discuss this requirement in more detail in Sec. 1301.4. This section
emphasizes that the governing body has legal and fiscal responsibility
to administer and oversee the program, and the policy council is
responsible for the direction of the program including program design
and operations and long- and short-term planning goals and objectives.
Comment: Commenters recommended that we revise the language in this
section to state clearly that each agency must establish a policy
council.
Response: We proposed in the NPRM to use the term ``policy group''
to encompass the policy council and the policy committee more
concisely. We defined ``policy group'' to mean ``the policy council and
policy committee at the delegate level.'' After further consideration
and in response to comments, we reverted to using ``policy council and
policy committee at the delegate level.'' It is lengthier but clearer.
Instead of introducing a new term, we are remaining consistent with the
Act.
Comment: Some commenters raised concerns with the policy council
being responsible for the direction of the Head Start program.
Commenters stated it was unclear how the policy council could be
effective in that role. Others said both the governing body and the
policy council should be responsible for the direction of the program
or that this responsibility should rest solely with the governing body.
Response: We maintained the language proposed in the NPRM because
it is the statutory requirement in the Act that the policy council is
responsible for the direction of the Head Start and Early Head Start
programs.
Section 1301.2 Governing Body
In the NPRM, this section described training requirements; however,
we moved training requirements to Sec. 1301.5 and this section now
pertains to the governing body.
This section includes requirements for the composition of the
governing body and its duties and responsibilities. It aligns with the
Act's detailed requirements for the composition and responsibilities of
the governing body. This section requires governing body members use
ongoing monitoring results, data from school readiness goals, the
information specified in section 642(d)(2) of the Act, and the
information in Sec. 1302.102 to conduct their responsibilities.
Paragraph (c)
[[Page 61308]]
permits a governing body, at its own discretion, to establish advisory
committees to oversee key responsibilities related to program
governance, consistent with section 642(c)(1)(E)(iv)(XI) of the Act.
Below we address comments and requests for clarification.
Comment: We received some comments on the governing body's duties
and responsibilities that addressed the duties and responsibilities of
both the governing body and the policy council together. Some
commenters requested we provide a clear illustration of the
responsibilities and powers of the governing body and policy council by
including a chart or diagram. Commenters also provided specific
suggestions for revisions, such as: Add language from the previous
performance standards on the duties and responsibilities of the
governing body and policy council; remove language specific to ongoing
monitoring and school readiness goals, as this is addressed in another
section; and require that program goals inform the governing body and
policy council.
Response: We did not include a diagram or chart in this rule
because we believe the governance provisions in the rule and in the Act
are clear. In response to comments, we added to paragraph (b)(2) a
cross-reference to the requirement in Sec. 1302.102 related to
establishing and achieving program goals. By adding this cross
reference, we are requiring governing bodies to use this information to
conduct their responsibilities.
Comment: Some commenters offered support and raised concerns about
the governing body's duties and responsibilities as laid out in
paragraph (b). Some commenters supported the requirement that the
governing body use ongoing monitoring results and school readiness
goals to conducts it responsibilities, in addition to what is required
in section 642(d)(2) of the Act. Some commenters suggested we enhance
or clarify language about when programs needed to report to the
responsible HHS official. Commenters also requested clarification about
the governing body's responsibility to establish, adopt, and update
Standards of Conduct, including reporting any violations to the
regional office and about self-reporting requirements for immediate
deficiencies.
Response: The Act specifies that the governing body is responsible
for establishing, adopting, and periodically updating written standards
of conduct, so we believe this is addressed because we incorporated
this requirement from the Act. We revised Sec. 1302.90(a) to clarify
the role of the governing body in standards of conduct, which we had
inadvertently left out of that standard. We did not revise the
requirement about self-reporting because it is addressed in Sec.
1302.102.
Comment: Many commenters stated the proposed rule was unclear about
conflicts of interest. Commenters requested clarification about this
provision and recommended adding language that mirrors the IRS Form
1023 Instructions, Appendix A, Sample Conflicts of Interest Policy.
Response: We did not make changes to this language. There is
guidance in the nonprofit community about the various ways to structure
and apply a conflict of interest policy. If an agency wants to adopt
the IRS rules, that would be one option, but it might not be the right
option for all programs. Additionally, the governing body is required
to develop a written conflict of interest policy, which can provide
greater clarity than the overarching federal requirements.
Comment: We received comments on advisory committees described in
paragraph (c). Some commenters requested additional clarification,
including who the advisory board is and what groups should be included
and whether the governing body may establish more than one advisory
committee. Others commenters suggested revisions to the advisory
committee's role advisory committee with respect to the governing body.
For example, commenters stated that all areas of program governance,
especially supervision of program management, should be left in the
hands of the Board of Directors or the established governing body. Some
commenters noted that advisory committees should not make decisions
about program governance because that is not advisory in nature. Other
commenters made specific suggestions for the language related to
advisory committees, such as eliminating the composition requirements,
eliminating the requirement that advisory committees be established in
writing, and differentiating between advisory committees that act as
sub-boards versus other advisory committees.
Response: To improve clarity, we revised and streamlined paragraph
(c). We clarified that governing bodies may establish one or more
advisory committees. We removed some of the more prescriptive
requirements, such as written procedures or composition requirements,
and explicitly required that when the advisory committee is overseeing
key responsibilities related to program governance, it is the
responsibility of the governing body to establish the structure,
communication and oversight in a way that assures the governing body
retains its legal and fiscal responsibility for the Head Start agency.
This allows the governing body flexibility to structure their advisory
committee but requires that they retain legal and fiscal responsibility
for the Head Start agency. We also require the governing body to notify
the responsible HHS official of its intent to establish such an
advisory committee.
Section 1301.3 Policy Council and Policy Committee
In this section, we retain a number of requirements from the
previous program standards and included requirements to conform to the
Act. In paragraph (a), we retain the requirement for agencies to
establish and maintain a policy council at the agency level and a
policy committee at the delegate level, consistent with section
642(c)(2) and (3) of the Act. Paragraph (b) outlines the composition of
policy councils, and policy committees at the delegate level,
consistent with the Act. Paragraph (c) outlines the duties and
responsibilities for the policy council and the policy committee to
conform to the Act and is largely unchanged from the NPRM. Paragraph
(d) addresses the term of service for policy council and policy
committee members.
Comment: Commenters recommended we include all of the statutory
language from section 642(c)(2)(A) of the Act in this section, rather
than summarizing that the policy council has responsibility for the
direction of the program. Another recommended the policy committee at
the delegate level be renamed to ``Policy Action Committee'' to
eliminate programs from using ``PC'' for both policy council and policy
committee.
Response: We did not revise the concise reference to the policy
council having responsibility for the direction of the program,
although the Act's more expansive language is still part of the
requirement. We maintain the terminology as it exists in the Act and
did not rename ``policy committee'' at the delegate level.
Comment: Commenters supported the standard in paragraph (b) to
require proportional representation on the policy council by program
option but also recommended revisions and asked for additional
clarification. For example, commenters requested clarification on what
proportional representation means and how to implement it within
different program types.
Other commenters expressed support for the requirement that the
majority of
[[Page 61309]]
policy council members be parents but requested that language be added
to the rule, rather than just citing the Act. Others requested
clarification on how appropriate composition will be maintained and
consistent with the Act when parents drop out.
Response: We revised paragraph (b) to clarify that parents of
children currently enrolled in ``each'' program option must be
proportionately represented on the policy council or the policy
committee. We believe programs should have the flexibility to specify
in their policies and procedures how the composition requirements will
be maintained when parents drop out and did not make revisions to
address this.
Comment: Commenters expressed disagreement with language in the
preamble to the NPRM stating, ``We propose to remove current Sec.
1304.50(b)(6) which excludes staff from serving on policy councils or
policy committees with some exceptions. . .''. Commenters expressed
confusion and stated this language has been interpreted to mean staff
would be allowed to participate as a policy council or policy committee
member. Though one commenter expressed support for allowing staff to
serve on the policy council because they have field experience and
skills to make informed decision, the commenters generally stated it is
a conflict of interest and could inhibit parent driven decision-making.
Response: In the NPRM, we proposed to remove Sec. 1304.50(b)(6),
which excludes staff from serving on policy councils or policy
committees with some exceptions, because it is superseded by the Act.
In other words, the conflict of interest language in the Act, as well
as the Act's clarity on who can serve on the policy council, means we
no longer need the prohibition on staff serving on policy council or
policy committee. However, commenters noted the exception related to
substitute teachers is helpful and clarifying for programs. Therefore,
we added the majority of the language on this topic from the previous
performance standards back into paragraph (b)(2) to ensure clarity.
Comment: Commenters stated the Act gives the policy council
responsibilities outside its scope of authority, and that the final
rule should be modified to include language from the previous
regulation related to duties and responsibilities. Commenters
recommended we instead should focus the responsibilities of the policy
council on program issues.
Response: In the final rule, we maintained the alignment with the
Act with respect to the duties and responsibilities of the policy
council. We did not add the requested language from the previous
regulation because it has been superseded by the Act.
Comment: Some commenters requested that we clarify in the final
rule the role of the policy council in hiring and terminating staff.
Response: We did not include a specific provision on the role of
policy council in hiring and terminating program staff because we rely
on the language in section 642(c)(2)(D)(vi) of the Act.
Comment: Many commenters supported allowing programs to establish
in their bylaws five one-year terms for policy council members as
opposed to three. Commenters said the change would support continuity,
increase understanding of the complexities of the Head Start program
and regulation, and promote investment in the policy council.
Some commenters opposed the option of extending policy council
terms from three one-year terms to five. They stated that five years is
too long, that parents may not have children in the program for five
years, and that a shorter term would allow for more new members.
Response: We did not revise this provision. This rule provides
programs the discretion to establish in their bylaws the number of one-
year terms of policy council members up to five one-year terms.
Programs have the discretion of setting a lower limit.
Comment: We received comments about the term ``reasonable
expenses'' in paragraph (e). Commenters recommended we add a definition
of ``reasonable expenses,'' allow that all participants on the policy
council/committee be reimbursed for ``reasonable expenses,'' and allow
agencies to develop their own policies and procedures to determine
eligibility based on the need of their communities.
Response: We did not clarify the definition of ``reasonable'' but
allow programs to make a determination. We clarified that eligibility
for the reimbursement is only for low-income members.
Section 1301.4 Parent Committees
Comment: We received many comments about our proposal to remove the
requirement for the parent committee. Some commenters supported the
proposal to remove the parent committee requirement. They emphasized
that there are more meaningful and inclusive ways to engage parents
that could allow for individual program flexibility and innovation.
These commenters suggested that the focus should instead be on
providing opportunities for parents to learn about their children and
engage them in teaching and learning and on family engagement outcomes.
Some commenters supported the removal of the parent committee
requirement with reservations, but were concerned about the challenges
it would pose for electing policy council representatives, about the
loss of the benefits to parents previously derived from participation
in parent committees, and about the perceived erosion of a core
philosophy of Head Start. Others asked that the revised requirement
ensure a structure for representing parent views and offering parents
other opportunities for engagement.
Many commenters opposed the removal of parent committees.
Commenters urged that we reinstate the parent committee requirement as
it existed in the previous standards. These commenters stressed that
parents are foundational to Head Start and that parent committees are a
long-standing cornerstone of the program. They stated removing the
requirement for parent committees would weaken Head Start parent
engagement and diminish parents' role. Commenters noted that parent
committees stimulate parent participation in the program, help parents
develop leadership, advocacy and other useful skills, and are critical
to developing membership for policy council. Commenters disagreed with
our statement in the NPRM that parent committees do not work in all
models, such as Early Head Start--Child Care Partnership (EHS-CCP)
grantees, and suggested we help these grantees learn how to incorporate
this valuable experience for parents in order to infuse a higher level
of quality into child care settings. Commenters were also concerned
that the removal of parent committee would result in the loss of in-
kind contributions from parent involvement.
Some commenters opposed the removal of the parent committee
requirement and asked that we make modifications or recommended
alternative language in the final rule if the parent committee
requirement is removed. These commenters stated similar concerns to
those who requested that we reinstate the requirement, but made
suggestions for the final rule, such as to allow individual programs to
determine the design and structure of parent committees, or to support
flexibility in local design of parent committees and proposals for
alternate mechanisms to engage families. Some of these commenters
believed that parent committees are not for all parents. These
[[Page 61310]]
commenters asked that programs be required to have a process in place
that ensures all parents of enrolled children have local site
opportunities to actively share their ideas, that parents understand
the process for elections or nominations to serve on the policy
council, and that a communication system exist to share information
between parents attending local sites and the policy council and
governing body.
Response: We restored a requirement for a parent committee in this
part and in a new Sec. 1301.4. We also note that a parent committee is
part of the formal governance structure in Sec. 1301.1. This section
clearly outlines the requirements for a program in establishing a
parent committee and the minimum requirements for parent committees,
which are consistent with all of the substantive requirements from the
previous performance standards. We maintain the requirement that a
program must establish a parent committee comprised exclusively of
parents of currently enrolled children as early in the program year as
possible and that the parent committee must be at the center level for
center-based programs and at the local program level for other program
options. In addition, in response to comments, we require programs to
ensure parents of currently enrolled children understand the process
for elections to policy council or policy committee or other leadership
roles. Also as suggested by commenters, we allow programs flexibility
within the structure of parent committees to determine the best methods
and strategies to engage families that are most effective in their
communities as long as the parent committee carries out specific
minimum responsibilities. It requires that parent committees (1) advise
staff in developing and implementing local program policies,
activities, and services to ensure they meet the needs of children and
families, and (2) participate in the recruitment and screening of Early
Head Start and Head Start employees, both of which are retained from
the previous performance standards. In response to comments we have
added a requirement that the parent committee have a process for
communication with the policy council and policy committee at the
delegate level.
Section 1301.5 Training
This section describes the training requirements for the governing
body, advisory committee members, and the policy council. It reflects
section 642(d)(3) of the Act that requires governing body and policy
council members to have appropriate training and technical assistance
to ensure they understand the information they received and can oversee
and participate in the agency's programs effectively. We moved this
section from Sec. 1301.2 in the NPRM to this placement in the final
rule to improve overall clarity of part 1301. We discuss comments and
our responses below.
Comment: We received comments that requested clarification or
suggested ways to improve clarity. We also received comments that
expressed opposition for the requirement. For example, commenters
requested clarification on what is considered ``appropriate'' training
and what is included in training. One commenter requested clarification
on the inclusion of advisory committee members in the training.
Commenters recommended we move this section out of Sec. 1301.2, and
others recommended we improve clarity by cross-referencing training
requirements in another section. Some commenters opposed our
requirement that governing bodies be trained on the standards because
they thought it was unrealistic to expect Boards to have knowledge of
all the operating standards and it detracted from getting input from
governing bodies on program outcomes.
Response: We retained this requirement because it is required by
the Act and because we believe governing bodies cannot effectively
fulfill their program management responsibilities unless they have an
understanding of the broader program requirements. Since governing
bodies can choose to establish advisory committees, we included
advisory committee members, who may be different individuals than
governing body members, in this requirement.
To improve clarity, we moved these standards from Sec. 1301.2 to
this section so that it follows sections with the requirements for all
components of an agency's formal governance structure. We revised the
section to include a cross reference to training requirements in Sec.
1302.12.
Section 1301.6 Impasse Procedures
This section on impasse procedures was found in Sec. 1301.5 in the
NPRM and is now Sec. 1301.6 in the final rule. It describes procedural
requirements for resolving disputes between an agency's governing body
and policy council. We received many comments on our proposed impasse
procedures. Many commenters believed our proposed impasse procedures
weakened the role of parents in the Head Start program. They stated
that we relegated the policy council, the majority of which is
comprised of parents, to an advisory role by allowing the governing
body the final decision when an impasse remained unresolved. In
response to comments, we revised the impasse procedures. A discussion
of the comments and our response is below.
Comment: Many commenters opposed our proposal for the dispute
resolution and impasse procedures. Commenters stated our impasse
procedure proposal contributed to a broader weakening of the role of
parents in Head Start because it tilted the power balance toward the
governing body and away from the policy council. They also stated that
the standards conflicted with other program performance standards in
this section and requirements in the Act. For example, they stated the
proposal conflicted with the requirement for ``meaningful consultation
and collaboration about decisions of the governing body and policy
council.'' Commenters stated that conflicts often result from issues
related to the direction of the program, which is the responsibility of
the policy council. These commenters suggested that the proposed
requirements amount to capitulation to the will of the governing body
and are not actually impasse procedures, in contradiction with the
Act's requirement. Others commenters noted further contradiction given
the standards would require the governing body and policy council to
work together yet exclude the policy council and allow the governing
body to make the final decision. Some commenters stated that they
embrace shared governance and provided examples of how the voice of
parents has been critical to their decision-making during, for example,
sequestration or previous impasses. Commenters made recommendations,
such as adding formal mediation, strengthening the language related to
``meaningful consultation and collaboration about decisions of the
governing body and the policy council,'' referring to the impasse
procedures as a consensus-building process, and establishing an
independent arbitrator or third party to resolve disputes between the
governing body and policy council.
We also received comments supporting the impasse procedures
proposed in the NPRM. Some of these commenters stated that it is
appropriate for the governing body, since they bear legal and fiscal
responsibility, to make the ultimate decisions on issues related to the
Head Start program after taking into consideration the recommendations
of the policy council and policy committee, if applicable. Further,
commenters asked for additional
[[Page 61311]]
clarification about our proposed requirements, including the timeline
for resolution.
Response: For clarity, we included the statutory language that
requires ``meaningful consultation and collaboration about decisions of
the governing body and policy council,'' and we maintained requirements
from the previous performance standards about these bodies jointly
establishing written procedures for resolving internal disputes. We
revised the requirements in this section to clarify the role of policy
councils in the governance of Head Start programs, including processes
to resolve conflicts with the governing body in a timely manner, and we
included more specificity about what impasse procedures must include in
order to better articulate the balanced process. In paragraph (b), we
included a new standard that requires that in the event the decision-
making process does not result in a resolution of the impasse, the
governing body and policy council must select a mutually agreeable
third party mediator and participate in a formal process that leads to
a resolution. In paragraph (c), we require the governing body and
policy council to select a mutually agreeable arbitrator, whose
decision will be final, if no resolution resulted from mediation. Due
to tribal sovereignty, we excluded American Indian and Alaska Native
programs from the requirement in paragraph (c) to use an arbitrator.
Program Operations; Part 1302
Overview
In Sec. 1302.1, we made a technical change to remove paragraph (a)
because the content of this paragraph was already included in the
statutory authority for this rule and for this part and is therefore
unnecessary to repeat here. Therefore what was paragraph (b) in the
NPRM is an undesignated paragraph in the final rule.
Eligibility, Recruitment. Selection, Enrollment and Attendance; Subpart
A
In this subpart, we combined all previous requirements related to
child and family eligibility, and program requirements for the
recruitment, selection, and enrollment of eligible families. We updated
these standards to reflect new priorities in the Act, including a
stronger focus on children experiencing homelessness and children in
foster care. We added new standards to reflect the importance of
attendance for achieving strong child outcomes. Further, we included
new standards to clarify requirements for children with persistent and
disruptive behavioral issues as well as new standards to support
programs serving children from diverse economic backgrounds, when
appropriate. Commenters supported our reorganization of these
requirements and our emphasis on special populations. Commenters were
particularly appreciative of the standards throughout the section that
were designed to reduce barriers to the participation of children
experiencing homelessness. We made technical changes for improved
clarity. We discuss additional comments and our responses below.
General Comments
Comment: Commenters recommended adding language that specifically
encouraged the recruitment and enrollment of children who are
culturally and linguistically diverse, and/or prioritizing
linguistically diverse children for enrollment.
Response: We do not think it is necessary to explicitly encourage
recruitment or prioritization of culturally and linguistically diverse
children. Twenty-nine percent of Head Start children come from homes
where a language other than English is the primary language.\37\
Additionally, as described in Sec. 1302.11(b)(1)(i), the community
assessment requires programs to examine the eligible population in
their service area, including race, ethnicity, and languages spoken. A
program must then use this information when it establishes selection
criteria and prioritization of participants, as described in Sec.
1302.14(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Administration for Children and Families (2015). Office of Head
Start Program Information Report, 2014-2015. Washington, DC: Author.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 1302.10 Purpose
This section provides a general overview of the content in this
subpart. We received no comments directly for this section but made
changes to be consistent with revisions in Sec. 1302.11.
Section 1302.11 Determining Community Strengths, Needs, and Resources
This section includes the requirements for how programs define a
service area for their grant application and the requirements for a
community assessment. We streamlined the standards to improve clarity
and reduce bureaucracy. In addition, we eliminated a prohibition on
overlapping service areas, added new data as required by the Act for
consideration in the community assessment to ensure community needs are
met, and aligned the community assessment to a program's five-year
grant cycle. We also required that programs consider whether they could
serve children from diverse economic backgrounds in addition to the
program's eligible funded enrollment in order to support mixed-income
service delivery, which research suggests benefits children's early
learning.38 39 Below, we summarize and respond to the
comments we received.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ Mashburn, A.J., Justice, L., M., Downer, J.T., & Pianta,
R.C. (2009). Peer effects on children's language achievement during
pre-kindergarten. Child Development, 80(3), 686-702.
\39\ Henry, G.T., & Rickman, D.K., (2007). Do peers influence
children's skill development in preschool? Economics of Education
Review, 26(1), 100-112.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: Many commenters opposed or expressed concern about our
proposal to eliminate the prohibition on overlapping service areas. For
example, commenters stated that overlapping service areas will be
confusing and will cause conflict because of competition between
grantees. Many commenters suggested we include a process for mediation
when there are disputes. Commenters supported our decision to remove
the prohibition on overlapping service areas.
Response: We believe removing the prohibition on overlapping
service areas gives greater flexibility to local programs in a manner
that will benefit the children and families they serve. Grantees may
request additional guidance through the system of training and
technical assistance. Therefore, we did not reinstate the prohibition
on overlapping service areas in this rule.
Comment: We received a few different recommendations for additional
criteria for defining service area. For example, many commenters
recommended we include parents' job locations as part of the service
area.
Response: While the service area is based on children's residence,
this rule, as well as the previous regulation, is silent on whether a
program can enroll a child that lives outside of the service area if
their parents work in that area. We believe programs already have the
flexibility to determine whether a child should be enrolled at a
program closer to a parent's workplace and will clarify any existing
sub-regulatory guidance to reflect this flexibility. We made no changes
to this provision.
Comment: We received suggestions for paragraph (b)(1) to more
explicitly address the purpose and the goal of the community needs
assessment, to add additional or change criteria to the data (either on
the five-year cycle or annually), and to provide more guidance on how
programs should
[[Page 61312]]
obtain data for the community needs assessment.
Response: We made changes to the section title and clarified that
the community assessment should be strengths-based. We think these
changes, together with using the full name of the community
assessment--``community wide strategic planning and needs
assessment''--better reflect the purpose of the assessment. We revised
paragraph (b)(1) to clarify that this list is not exhaustive, and
reorganized the list to make it more logically flow. We also revised
paragraph (b)(1)(ii) to also include prevalent social or economic
factors that impact their well-being. We did not believe additional
data requirements were necessary because programs already have the
flexibility to include other relevant data in their community
assessments. We clarified in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) that homelessness
data should be obtained in collaboration with McKinney-Vento liaisons
to the extent possible, but it is important that all programs consider
the prevalence of homelessness in their community, however possible.
The U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness has identified data gaps
in tribal communities on young children experiencing homelessness, so
we recognize tribal programs may need to utilize alternative methods to
ensure they fully consider the prevalence of homelessness in their
communities.
Comment: We received comments about our proposal in paragraph
(b)(1) to change the community assessment from a three-year to a five-
year timeline that would align with a program's five-year grant cycle.
Some commenters supported this change because it removed unnecessary
burden on programs. Commenters expressed concern that communities
change rapidly and that five years is not frequent enough to review
community needs.
Response: We think we strike the right balance between ensuring
programs regularly assess and work to meet their community needs
through an annual re-evaluation of particular criteria described in
paragraph (b)(2) and Sec. 1302.20(a)(2) and reduction of undue burden
through alignment of the community assessment to the five-year grant
cycle. We made no revisions to this timeline.
Comment: Many commenters recommended we change the requirement in
paragraph (b)(2) that programs must annually review and update the
community assessment to reflect any significant changes to the
availability of publicly-funded full-day pre-kindergarten. These
commenters expressed concern that public pre-kindergarten programs may
not meet the needs of at-risk families because they do not offer a full
spectrum of comprehensive services. Commenters offered specific
suggestions for other community demographics to be considered in the
annual review.
Response: Since the requirement to conduct community assessments
was changed from every three years to every five years, this provision
was intended to ensure programs annually capture what may be quickly
changing demographic and policy landscape characteristics in their
community. Emergence or expansion of publicly funded pre-kindergarten
may offer new opportunities for partnerships and collaborations or it
may offer new opportunities to extend the hours children receive
services. We retained the standard that programs review and update the
annual assessment to reflect any increase in the availability of
publicly-funded pre-kindergarten including but not limited to ``full-
day'' programs. In addition, we clarify that this review and update
should take into account whether the pre-kindergarten available meets
the needs of the population of the grantee serves. We revised paragraph
(b)(2) to also include significant shifts in community resources,
because community demographics was too narrow.
Comment: We received some comments in support of our proposed
standard in paragraph (b)(3) for programs to consider whether
characteristics of the community allow them to operate classes with
children from diverse economic backgrounds. These commenters noted
research demonstrates participation in mixed-income classes is
beneficial to children from low-income families and stated the standard
would support a broader notion of innovative funding models. We also
received many comments requesting additional guidance to ensure this
standard did not result in fewer services for income eligible children.
Response: The intent of this requirement is for Head Start programs
to consider whether it is feasible to implement a mixed-income delivery
model. Research finds such models to be beneficial to the educational
outcomes of children from low-income families.40 41 However,
we revised this paragraph to clarify programs must not enroll children
from diverse economic backgrounds if it would result in them serving
less than their eligible funded enrollment. In addition, to both
support consideration of innovative funding models and clarify our
intent that children funded through other sources must not receive
services instead of children eligible for Head Start, we revised
paragraph (b)(3), and Sec. Sec. 1302.15(d) and 1302.18(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ Mashburn, A.J., Justice, L.M., Downer, J.T., & Pianta, R.C.
(2009). Peer effects on children's language achievement during
pre[hyphen]kindergarten. Child Development, 80(3), 686-702.
\41\ Henry, G.T., & Rickman, D.K. (2007). Do peers influence
children's skill development in preschool? Economics of Education
Review, 26(1), 100-112.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 1302.12 Determining, Verifying, and Documenting Eligibility
This section includes the process for programs to determine,
verify, and document child and family eligibility for Head Start
programs. We reorganized these requirements to clarify and better
reflect best practices in the field. We also made technical and
structural changes to standards that caused confusion in the field
after publication in February 2015 of the final rule on eligibility, to
eliminate duplication, and to update terms such as replacing ``land-
base'' with ``service area.''
Comment: Commenters suggested changes to paragraph (a), which
provides an overview of the process to determine, verify, and document
eligibility. Suggestions included a recommendation to delineate more
specific conditions under which alternative methods for eligibility
determination would be approved and when in-person interviews would
always be required.
Response: We made one revision to paragraph (a). We noted that
telephone interviews could be permitted when it was more convenient for
the family and eliminated the need to document the reason. Otherwise we
made no revisions as we think paragraph (a)(3) is broad enough to
provide flexibility and encourage innovation at the local level.
Comment: Many commenters expressed concern about the age provisions
in paragraph (b). For example, some supported children transitioning to
Head Start as soon as they turn three years old, whereas others
suggested children stay in Early Head Start until the next program
year. Others suggested that transitions should be based on
developmental needs rather than birthdays. Many commenters were
concerned about how the standards in this paragraph and paragraph (j)
interacted with the allocation of funds for Early Head Start-Child Care
Partnerships (EHS-CC Partnerships). Specifically, commenters were
concerned that EHS-CC Partnerships
[[Page 61313]]
can serve children up to 48 months of age for family child care, and
paragraph (b)(1) states a ``child must be an infant or a toddler
younger than three years old.''
Response: The ages children are eligible for Early Head Start are
defined by the Act and not subject to regulatory change. The rule sets
forth reasonable flexibility for transitioning children to Head Start
or other early learning programs when they turn three years of age.
Additional standards for this transition are in subpart G. Thus, we
made no changes to provisions in this section regarding children
turning three years of age. Further, the EHS-CC Partnerships
appropriation explicitly allowed serving children up to 48 months old
for family child care, which supersedes regulatory language.
Comment: Commenters noted Head Start eligibility in paragraph (b)
should not be tied to compulsory school attendance because in some
states that would mean Head Start would have to serve children up to
age six or seven.
Response: It is clear from program data that standard practice is
that Head Start programs serve children until they are eligible for
kindergarten. However, the Act explicitly references eligibility up to
compulsory school age. In addition, we think the final rule allows
flexibility in the very rare circumstances it is needed. We made no
revisions to these provisions.
Comment: We received many comments on eligibility requirements in
paragraphs (c), (d), (e), (f), and (g). For example, commenters
recommended changes for income eligibility, continuous eligibility
between Early Head Start and Head Start programs, new groups for
categorical eligibility, and flexibility to reallocate funds at program
discretion between Early Head Start and Head Start programs. Commenters
also recommended changes in paragraph (j) of this section to address
continuous eligibility. Commenters recommended we change prioritization
requirements. Commenters also requested additional clarification for
some of the proposed criteria, including on the definition of public
assistance and absence of child care.
Response: Most suggestions for amendments to eligibility would
require legislative action by Congress and cannot be changed through
regulation. For other suggestions, we want to allow local programs the
flexibility in their selection process to determine which children and
families are most in need. Therefore, we made no revisions to income
eligibility, groups for categorical eligibility, or prioritization
requirements. We made technical changes in this section to clarify that
categorical eligibility is not a separate term used for eligibility. In
addition, we made changes in paragraph (c)(1)(ii) to clarify that
families are eligible if the child is receiving a Temporary Assistance
for Needy Families (TANF) child-only payment. Finally we made technical
changes in paragraph (d)(1) to correct the wording that implied
individuals were ineligible at 100-130% of poverty. Programs may
request additional guidance through the system of training and
technical assistance.
Comment: Commenters recommended modifying standards to allow
programs to participate in a community wide and/or statewide
recruitment and intake processes.
Response: Programs already have the flexibility to participate in
such systems and are expected to collaborate with community partners to
ensure they are serving the children most in need. No revisions were
made regarding this issue.
Comment: We received some comments about verification standards for
public assistance described in paragraph (i). Some commenters supported
the standards, noting they would ensure uniform practices across
programs. Others opposed them or expressed concerns, with some stating
they would be costly, and would delay enrollment. Commenters requested
additional clarification for standards in this paragraph, including
what was meant by ``all'' tax forms.
Response: We agree that the verification standards for public
assistance will ensure uniform practices across programs and believe
this is important to program integrity even if it may cause some
delays, so we have not changed this language. We added language to the
standard in paragraph (i)(1)(i) to include proof of income from
individuals who are self-employed. This is meant to clarify that income
sources from informal work, such as day laborers, should be included
for income eligibility. Additionally we removed ``all'' before tax
forms. We realize that programs want to be conscientious about proper
eligibility verification so we will continue to provide guidance and
support about the implementation of these standards as requested.
Comment: As noted previously, some commenters submitted suggestions
about eligibility duration standards in paragraph (j). Some commenters
recommended changes that would facilitate eligibility from Early Head
Start to Head Start. Commenters noted that the standard in paragraph
(j)(4) can complicate a program's enrollment of over-income slots if an
eligible family becomes more self-sufficient during their time in Head
Start.
Response: The Act sets forth the requirements for the re-
determination of eligibility for Head Start after Early Head Start so
we do not have authority to change these standards. We believe programs
have enough flexibility in their prioritization criteria in paragraph
(j)(4), so we did not make changes.
Comment: Commenters requested clarification of the standards in
paragraph (m) about eligibility training. For example, commenters were
confused by outdated language in paragraph (m)(3).
Response: To improve clarity of this paragraph, technical changes
were made to eliminate language in paragraph (m)(3), which was
unnecessary and confusing because it noted an outdated timeline tied to
the final eligibility rule published in February 2015.
Section 1302.13 Recruitment of Children
This section maintained and streamlined standards from the previous
rule about the goal of recruitment efforts and some specific efforts a
program must make.
Comment: We received some comments on this section, including
requests for clarification and recommendations for additional emphasis
on recruitment of certain populations.
Response: Programs are required to serve children with disabilities
as at least 10 percent of their funded enrollment. Therefore, requiring
active recruitment for this specific population is appropriate. We
added that programs should also actively recruit other vulnerable
populations, including homeless children and children in foster care,
and provided programs with the flexibility to define these populations
based on their community assessment.
Section 1302.14 Selection Process
This section describes the selection process and specific criteria
programs must use to weigh the selection of eligible children. It
includes a new requirement for programs to prioritize serving younger
children if they operate in a service area with high-quality publicly
funded pre-kindergarten. This section also included standards to
conform with provisions from the Act that require at least 10 percent
of a program's total enrollment to be children eligible for services
under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
Commenters appreciated the emphasis on a priority for children
experiencing homelessness and children
[[Page 61314]]
in foster care. We address these and other suggestions below.
Comment: For a number of reasons, many commenters opposed the
standard in paragraph (a)(3) that would require programs to prioritize
serving younger children if publicly-funded pre-kindergarten is
available for a full school day. For example, commenters were concerned
this requirement would limit families with 4-year-olds from receiving
the full range of comprehensive services and supports offered by Head
Start. They were also concerned it would interfere with or even unravel
partnerships with publicly-funded pre-kindergarten programs. Some
commenters stated this provision interfered with tribal sovereignty.
Some commenters supported greater priority for younger children and
some recommended we include additional standards to further this goal.
Commenters also recommended that American Indian and Alaska Native
programs be exempt from this requirement.
Response: We have maintained this requirement because we believe
programs should be serving more 3-year-olds and infants and toddlers in
areas where there is high-quality, accessible pre-kindergarten for 4-
year-olds. We revised this standard to reflect that the high-quality
publicly funded pre-kindergarten must be accessible for the requirement
to apply and clarified that this priority is part of the selection
criteria programs establish as described in paragraph (a)(1). This, for
example, would give programs flexibility to weigh other criteria that
would not disrupt programs serving siblings or a child with a
disability if it was determined this was the best placement. We also
clarified that this prioritization would not be required if it
interfered with partnerships with local educational agencies. Finally,
we revised this requirement to clarify that American Indian and Alaska
Native and Migrant and Seasonal Head Start programs must only consider
this prioritization.
Comment: We received some comments about the requirement in
paragraph (b) for 10 percent of a program's funded enrollment to be
composed of children eligible for services under IDEA. Some commenters
supported this standard. Some commenters stated it was a difficult
standard to meet in rural communities, and others recommended it be
calculated across a grantee's Early Head Start and Head Start
enrollment. Some commenters requested additional clarification, and
some commenters requested we add specific criteria for the waiver for
this standard and requested children with disabilities be given the
first priority on any waiting list until the 10 percent requirement is
met.
Response: This standard is required by the Act. Therefore, we
cannot revise its calculation. We slightly revised the language in
paragraph (b)(1) to better clarify the 10 percent is calculated from a
program's total funded enrollment. Our current waiver process evaluates
whether programs are making reasonable efforts to comply with the 10
percent requirement. Nationally, more than 12 percent of Head Start
enrollment is comprised of children with disabilities, so we do not
believe a change is necessary.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Administration for Children and Families (2015). Office of Head
Start Program Information Report, 2014-2015. Washington, DC: Author.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: Some commenters recommended changes to waiting list
requirements in paragraph (c). Some recommended less focus on a
waitlist and some recommended more focus and specificity.
Response: We believe the standard in paragraph (c) is appropriate
to ensure any openings during the program year get filled promptly. We
made no revisions.
Section 1302.15 Enrollment
This section reorganized and revised previous standards about
enrollment. It includes requirements about how quickly programs must
fill vacancies and efforts they must undertake to maintain enrollment
of eligible children for subsequent years. It includes standards to
reduce barriers to enroll children experiencing homelessness. This
section includes new standards about reserving slots for pregnant
women, children experiencing homelessness, and children in foster care.
This section also includes a new standard to allow the enrollment of
children who are funded through non-Head Start sources, including
private pay. Further, this section includes a standard that clarified
current policy that required programs to follow their state
immunization enrollment and attendance requirements. We moved the
standard from Sec. 1302.17(c) in the NPRM to paragraph (f) to improve
clarity. We received many comments on this section, which we discuss
below.
Comment: We received comments opposed to our proposal in paragraph
(a) that programs must fill any vacancy within 30 days because the
previous performance standards did not require programs to fill a
vacancy within 60 days of the end of the program year. Commenters
expressed a variety of reasons for their opposition, such as difficulty
meeting all of the comprehensive service requirements in the allotted
time period.
Response: We retained this provision with minor technical changes
because we believe the provision of comprehensive services is
beneficial to children--even during a period of 60 days or less. In
addition, in some programs, 60 days represents one-quarter of the
program year and allowing such a long period of vacancy represents lost
opportunity and wasted funds. Furthermore, enrollment within the last
60 days of the program year will facilitate service delivery for the
following program year.
Comment: We received comments that the standard proposed on
eligibility duration that appeared in paragraph (b)(2) of the NPRM was
redundant and unnecessary because of standards in Sec. 1302.12(j)(2)
and (3).
Response: We agree and have struck the provision that was paragraph
(b)(2) in the NPRM.
Comment: We received many comments recommending changes to the
standard in paragraph (b)(2) (formerly paragraph (b)(3) of the NPRM)
that allows a program to maintain a child's enrollment for a third year
under exceptional circumstances as long as family income is re-
verified. For example, some commenters recommended we strike this
provision because it was inconsistent with Sec. 1302.12(b)(2) and the
Act. Other commenters requested we define ``exceptional circumstances''
for better clarity. Many commenters recommended the standard be
clarified to apply specifically to Head Start and include services for
five-year-olds in states where compulsory education does not begin
until age six.
Response: This standard is not new and we do not believe it has
caused significant confusion in the past. However, we made revisions to
clarify this requirement is specific to Head Start. Programs may
request additional guidance, if needed.
Comment: Some commenters recommended we revise paragraph (b) to
establish continuous eligibility for children from the time they enroll
in Early Head Start until they enter kindergarten.
Response: As previously noted, eligibility is set by statute. Such
a change is outside the scope of this rule.
Comment: We received many comments that supported the provision in
paragraph (b)(3) (formerly paragraph (b)(4) in the NPRM) that programs
maintain enrollment for children who
[[Page 61315]]
are homeless or in foster care. Some commenters expressed concern about
the proposed standard. Commenters supporting the provision noted its
importance to support stability and continuity for children
experiencing homelessness and children in foster care. Some commenters
stated the standard should be made stronger. Some commenters were
concerned about the provision and recommended it be struck because
maintaining enrollment would be too costly.
Response: We retained this provision with no revisions. Programs
may request technical assistance to support their efforts to maintain
enrollment for these children.
Comment: We received comments that supported the provision in
paragraph (c) to require a program to use their community assessment to
determine if there are families experiencing homelessness or children
in foster care in the area who could benefit from services and allowing
programs flexibility to reserve up to three percent of slots for
special populations. Commenters noted its importance in Head Start
serving vulnerable children. Others supported the standard but
recommended we expand it in a variety of ways. Others recommended
changes, such as making the slot reservation a requirement instead of
an allowance, adding additional subgroups for whom slots could be
reserved, or allowing up to six percent of slots be reserved. Some
commenters requested additional guidance on implementation.
Response: We believe we have achieved an appropriate balance
between reserving slots for particularly vulnerable children while
maintaining availability for other eligible children who need Head
Start services. Reserved enrollment slots will not be counted as under-
enrollment. Programs may request additional guidance on implementation
as necessary. We made no revisions to this standard.
Comment: Some commenters expressed concern about the flexibility to
reserve slots for the specified populations and concerns about the
timeline allowed for such reservation, as described in paragraph (c).
Some commenters were concerned the slots would remain unused throughout
the year and some were concerned that it was unrealistic to fill the
slots within 30 days. Others were concerned that the record keeping
would be too burdensome.
Response: The rule is clear that if the reserved enrollment slot is
not filled within 30 days, the slot becomes vacant and then must be
filled within an additional 30 days. We believe we have achieved an
appropriate balance between reserving slots for particularly vulnerable
children for an appropriate length of time while maintaining
availability for other eligible children. We believe this provision
will foster enrollment of particularly vulnerable children and do not
agree that it is too burdensome. We note that programs are allowed but
not required to reserve such slots.
Comment: We received comments in support of and opposed to the
standard proposed in paragraph (d) for programs to consider the
feasibility to enroll children from diverse economic backgrounds who
would be funded from other sources. Commenters were concerned this
standard could lead to serving fewer Head Start eligible children.
Other commenters requested clarifications.
Response: As noted previously, we revised a related standard in
Sec. 1302.11(b)(3) to better clarify that programs must consider the
feasibility of operating mixed-income programs but that they must not
enroll children from diverse economic backgrounds if it would result in
a program serving less than their eligible funded enrollment. We
believe this additional clarification addresses commenters' concerns
that the proposed standard would mean fewer eligible Head Start
children would be served. To further clarify our intent, we revised the
standard in paragraph (d) to reduce redundancy and make it clear that
children from diverse economic backgrounds who are funded with other
sources are not considered part of a program's eligible funded
enrollment. We think Sec. 1302.11, which addressed how a program
should consider their community assessment, is the more appropriate
placement for consideration of the feasibility of mixed-income groups.
Section 1302.16 Attendance
This section included provisions to support attendance. Research
finds that attendance is essential for children to benefit from program
experiences that promote success in preschool and
beyond.43 44 45 Therefore, in addition to provisions from
the Act to address systemic issues of a program's low monthly average
daily attendance, we included new proposals to emphasize the importance
of regular attendance for each child. Commenters generally supported
the new emphasis and some commenters noted it would help programs
identify family needs. However, many commenters opposed or expressed
concern about the specific proposals and offered alternative
suggestions. We discuss these comments below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ Ehrlich, S.B., Gwynne, J.A., Pareja, A.S., & Allensworth,
E.M. (2013). Preschool Attendance in Chicago Public Schools.
Research Summary. University of Chicago Consortium on Chicago School
Research.
\44\ Community Action Project Tulsa County. (2012). Attendance
Works Peer Learning Network Webinar.
\45\ Connolly, F., & Olson, L.S. (2012). Early Elementary
Performance and Attendance in Baltimore City Schools' Pre-
Kindergarten and Kindergarten. Baltimore Education Research
Consortium.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: We received many comments about the requirement in
paragraph (a)(1) that programs contact parents if a child is
unexpectedly absent and the parent has not contacted the program within
one hour. Many commenters opposed the requirement, and stated it was
too prescriptive and cumbersome. Some commenters also found the
provision unclear and objected to the one-hour timeline. Some
commenters supported the one-hour timeline because it promoted child
safety and reduced the risk of a child being left in a car or on a bus.
Response: We believe it is critically important that programs
contact parents in a very timely manner to ensure children's well-
being. We revised the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) to be
more systems-focused and have clarified that the program must ``attempt
to'' contact the parent because it may not always be possible to reach
the parent. However, we believe it is important for programs to ensure
children's well-being by contacting parents when children are
unexpectedly absent and parents have not contacted the program within
one hour of program start time, so we have maintained this requirement.
Comment: We received many comments on the provision in paragraph
(a)(2) about steps a program must take to improve attendance for
children who have four or more consecutive unexcused absences or are
frequently absent. Some commenters were generally supportive of this
provision. Many commenters expressed concerns that the requirements
were too prescriptive or too costly for programs. Some commenters were
concerned that since low attendance was often linked to family crises,
home visits would pose significant challenges. Many commenters stated
the emphasis on attendance should be more systems-focused. Commenters
recommended alternative language. Some commenters requested additional
guidance for implementation.
Response: We believe regular and consistent attendance is essential
for
[[Page 61316]]
programs to support children's early learning. We also think that
inconsistent attendance often indicates a program needs to make more
efforts to engage with and support families. We think it is very
important for programs to realize the importance of regular attendance
and work with families when appropriate to foster regular attendance.
Therefore, we retained a strong focus on supporting attendance in the
final rule. To further strengthen this requirement and clarify when
frequent absences must be addressed, we revised paragraph (a)(2)(iii)
to reflect that programs must conduct a home visit or other direct
contact with parents if children experience multiple unexplained
absences, such as two or more consecutive unexplained absences.
Unexplained absences would not include days a child is sick if the
parent let the program know that the child was out because of an
illness. We also added paragraph (a)(2)(iv) to require programs to use
individual child attendance data to identify children with patterns of
absence that put them at risk of missing ten percent of program days
per year and develop appropriate strategies to improve individual
attendance among identified children, such as direct contact with
parents or intensive case management as necessary. Programs may request
technical assistance to address the causes of absenteeism.
Comment: Some commenters stated the requirement about program-wide
attendance in paragraph (b) should be triggered at a lower percentage
for infants and toddlers.
Response: We believe the 85 percent threshold is appropriate for
Early Head Start and Head Start programs and has been the long-standing
threshold in the previous Head Start regulation. We retained this
provision as proposed.
Comment: We received many comments about the provision in paragraph
(c)(1), which provides flexibility to support the attendance of
children experiencing homelessness. Many commenters were concerned
about the reference to birth certificates in our proposal for fear it
implied programs can require birth certificates for enrollment. Many
commenters supported the flexibility but were concerned about how to
satisfy federal and state requirements when they are in conflict. Some
commenters were concerned this standard would pose a public health
concern.
Response: Birth certificates are not required for enrollment. We
have revised paragraph (c) to eliminate confusion. Additionally, in
order to address the conflict between the program performance standards
and state licensing requirements and any public health concerns, we
have clarified that programs must defer to state licensing
requirements. However, since it is important that children without
proper immunizations get up to date and attend Head Start as soon as
possible, we also strengthened the standard to require programs to work
with families to get children immunized as soon as possible.
Comment: Some commenters stated the provision in paragraph (c)(2)
about providing transportation for children experiencing homelessness
where possible was too stringent. Some commenters stated it was not
strong enough and recommended requirements that mirror those in the
McKinney-Vento Act. Some commenters requested additional clarification
about using program funds if community resources are unavailable.
Response: A program may use program funds to provide transportation
to all children in the program or to a subset, such as homeless
children. However, approximately 40 percent of programs provide
transportation services. We believe the requirement for programs to use
community resources if available to transport homeless children while
allowing but not requiring the use of program funds to do so is the
appropriate approach, and have not changed this provision.
Section 1302.17 Suspension and Expulsion
This section outlines the program performance standards pertaining
to the suspension and expulsion of Head Start children. These standards
codify long-standing practice to prohibit expulsion of Head Start
children. However, given recent research that indicates suspensions and
expulsions occur at high rates in preschool
settings,46 47 48 we explicitly require all programs to
prohibit expulsion and limit suspension in Head Start and Early Head
Start settings and further require programs to take steps, based on
best practices, to support the social, emotional and other development
of children who demonstrate serious behavioral issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ Gilliam, W.S. (2005). Prekindergarteners left behind:
Expulsion rates in state prekindergarten systems. New York, NY:
Foundation for Child Development.
\47\ Gilliam, W.S., & Shahar, G. (2006). Preschool and child
care expulsion and suspension: Rates and predictors in one state.
Infants & Young Children, 19, 228-245.
\48\ Lamont, J.H., Devore, C.D., Allison, M., Ancona, R.,
Barnett, S.E., Gunther, R., & Young, T. (2013). Out-of-school
suspension and expulsion. Pediatrics, 131(3), e1000-e1007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In general, many commenters were supportive of the standards
described in this section. However, some commenters expressed concern
about the implementation of these standards if, for example, parents
refuse mental health consultation, programs lack specialized staff, and
alternative placements for children are not available. Below, we
summarize and respond to these and other comments on this section.
Comment: Commenters recommended we define ``suspension'' and
``expulsion.''
Response: We did not add definitions for these terms. We note that
other Federal laws contain requirements and safeguards when children
with disabilities are suspended or expelled. IDEA's discipline
procedures apply to children with disabilities as defined in section
602(3) of IDEA in Head Start Programs. See IDEA section 615(k), 20
U.S.C. 1415(k) and 34 CFR 300.530 through 300.536.
There are other safeguards for children who are not served under
IDEA but who are protected under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
of 1973 (Section 504), 29 U.S.C. 794, and Title II of the Americans
with Disabilities Act (Title II), 42 U.S.C. 12131 et seq., because they
satisfy the definition of disability in those Acts. Those statutes,
IDEA, Section 504, and Title II also do not contain definitions for the
terms ``suspension'' or ``expulsion.'' We expect programs to consider
their ordinary and customary meanings. However, we think this section
makes clear our expectations about supporting children instead of
suspending and expelling them.
Comment: Some commenters suggested we revise the suspension
requirements in paragraph (a) to provide more support for children who
may be temporarily suspended for challenging behavior. Others
recommended we completely prohibit suspension instead of requiring
programs to severely limit the use of suspension. Some commenters
suggested we require programs document the support services provided to
each child during a temporary suspension and upon their return.
Commenters also recommended we require programs to conduct home visits
during any temporary suspension. Other commenters requested we require
specific interventions, such as early childhood mental health
consultation before a temporary suspension is permitted.
Response: We agree that instances where temporary suspensions are
appropriate should be considered extremely rare. Young children with
[[Page 61317]]
challenging behaviors should be supported and not excluded. Therefore,
the provision in paragraph (a)(1) requires the program to prohibit or
severely limit the use of suspension. We agree that our requirements
for limitation on suspension did not appropriately focus enough on
preventive and support services. We revised paragraphs (a)(3) and (4)
to ensure appropriate support services in the extremely rare
circumstances where programs consider suspension for the safety of
children or staff. We revised paragraph (a)(3) to require programs to
engage with mental health consultants and parents before a program
decides on a temporary suspension. In addition, we revised paragraph
(a)(4) to engage with a mental health consultant and parents and
provide supportive services such as home visits, and written plans of
action, to support a child during a temporary suspension to facilitate
their full participation in all program activities.
Comment: Many commenters generally supported our requirements,
described in paragraph (b), to prohibit expulsion. Many commenters
appreciated our focus on positive interventions instead of punishment,
indicated that they already prohibit expulsion in their programs, or
wanted clarification that expulsion would not be permitted under any
circumstances. Some commenters suggested that Head Start programs do
not suspend or expel children often enough to warrant federal
requirements, and questioned why such requirements were necessary.
Some commenters were concerned about an outright prohibition on
expulsion in paragraph (b). Commenters were worried it limited their
options and raised concerns about how to effectively and safely
implement this in their programs. Commenters raised a number of
different issues, including parents refusing mental health consultation
or disagreeing that their child needs additional services; danger to
other children and staff; liabilities to programs; programs not having
the specialized staff or access to appropriate services; and potential
conflicts with state licensing. Some commenters suggested that
expulsion should be allowed as a last resort for programs, that in some
instances the threat of expulsion prevents parents from being
disruptive to programs, and suggested that keeping children in the
program may not be in their best interest. Finally, some commenters
requested additional guidance on how to effectively and appropriately
implement these requirements, some expressing concern about losing
funding if programs are ``forced'' to suspend a child.
Commenters also offered recommendations they felt made the
requirement stronger, including requiring programs to provide staff
with access to in-service training to prevent child suspension and
expulsion, implementing specific strategies to address challenging
behaviors such as trauma assessments, and providing extra funding to
hire additional trained staff. Some commenters suggested we add a
requirement for parents to consent to mental health consultation to
address their concern.
Response: We do not think young children should be expelled from
Head Start because of their behavior. Though we do not believe it to be
a widespread problem in Head Start, recent research finds that
preschool children are being expelled at alarming rates nationwide.\49\
Stark racial and gender disparities exist in these practices. Young
boys of color are suspended and expelled at much higher rates than
other children in early learning programs and African American girls
are suspended at much higher rates than other girls.\50\ Suspension and
expulsion in the preschool early years is related to less educational
achievement later and negative long-term outcomes.51 52 For
these reasons, HHS has recommended this problem receive immediate
attention from the early childhood and education fields.\53\ It is Head
Start's mission to provide high-quality early education to vulnerable
children and therefore, it is especially critical that Head Start
ensure children with challenging behaviors are supported, rather than
expelled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ Gilliam, W.S., & Shahar, G. (2006) Preschool and Child Care
Expulsion and Suspension: Rates and Predictors in One State. Infants
and Young Children, 19(3), 228-245.
\50\ U.S. Department of Education, Civil Rights Data Collection
(2016). Retrieved from: https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/2013-14-first-look.pdf,
\51\ Lamont, J.H., Devore, C.D., Allison, M., Ancona, R.,
Barnett, S.E., Gunther, R., & Young, T. (2013). Out-of-school
suspension and expulsion. Pediatrics, 131(3), e1000-e1007.
\52\ American Psychological Association, Zero Tolerance Task
Force Report (2008). An evidentiary review and recommendations.
\53\ https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/ecd/expulsion_suspension_final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We understand commenters' concerns but believe we struck the
appropriate balance. Children and staff will be best supported by our
firm stance against expulsion; our requirements for best practice for
prevention and intervention for children's mental health and social and
emotional well-being in Sec. 1302.45; requirements in paragraph (a)(2)
that permit a program to temporarily suspend a child if there is a
serious safety threat that cannot be addressed through the provision of
reasonable modifications; and our requirements in paragraph (b)(2) for
supportive best practices when a child exhibits persistent and serious
challenging behaviors. As a last resort, as described in paragraph
(b)(3), a program may transition a child directly to a more appropriate
placement if it has explored and documented all possible steps and
collaborated with all parties involved in the child's care. Programs
should provide children with the accommodations they need based on
screenings and evaluations while they are awaiting a more appropriate
placement.
We believe it is critical to support parents from the time their
children enroll in Head Start and to partner with them to address
challenging behaviors. We understand that some parents may be reluctant
to engage in mental health consultations. Programs must work to support
a program-wide culture that promotes child mental health and social and
emotional well-being as described in Sec. 1302.45 and as part of that
process, take steps to normalize the mental health consultation
process. We revised Sec. 1302.45(a)(3) to require programs obtain
parental consent for mental health consultation services when they
enroll children in the program. This should facilitate mental health
consultation and help remove stigma around behavioral supports.
Finally, we agree it is important for programs to have the tools
necessary to address behavioral problems in children without the use of
suspension and expulsion. Programs are required under Sec.
1302.92(c)(4) to implement a system of professional development that
supports teachers' ability to address challenging behaviors. Finally,
Head Start has a long-standing history of preventing suspension and
expulsion practices, and as such, programs should be able to budget
accordingly.
Comment: Some commenters suggested revisions to the requirements in
paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) that detailed specific steps programs must
take to support a child when they exhibit persistent and serious
challenging behaviors. For example, commenters stated it was
unrealistic to require programs consult with a child's physician since
programs cannot compel physicians to participate in a consultation
process. Some commenters also stated the phrase ``exhaustive steps''
was too subjective and requested clarification.
Response: We agree and made revisions accordingly. We revised both
paragraphs to require consultation with a child's teacher instead of
their
[[Page 61318]]
physician, and revised paragraph (b)(2) to include consideration of the
appropriateness of providing needed services and supports under Section
504 of the Rehabilitation Act. We also revised both paragraphs to
replace ``exhaustive steps'' with ``explore all possible steps and
document all steps taken.'' We think this reflects best practice,
clarifies our intent, and gives programs appropriate flexibility to
implement best practices that are most appropriate for a particular
child.
Comment: Many commenters stated we needed to revise our expulsion
requirements to allow programs to transfer children with behavioral
problems to the home-based option. Some commenters stated a classroom
setting was not developmentally appropriate for some children.
Response: We believe programs must make significant efforts to
support the full integration of all children into every program option.
Effective implementation of the requirements to support children's
mental health and social and emotional well-being, described in Sec.
1302.45 will support positive learning environments, integrate
preventive efforts to address problem behaviors, and engage mental
health consultants to support families and staff when challenging
behaviors arise. These types of comprehensive services are foundational
to Head Start. If a child exhibits problem behaviors in the classroom,
the child may be eligible for appropriate special education and related
services, to be included in an Individualized Education Program (IEP)
developed in accordance with section 614(d) of the IDEA or an
Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP) developed in accordance with
section 635 of the IDEA, or it may be appropriate to provide the child
needed supports under Section 504 if the child satisfies the definition
of disability in section 705(9)(b) of the Rehabilitation Act. We think
moving a child to a home-based option without first exploring all the
possible steps described in paragraph (b)(2) is a form of expulsion. If
a child is exhibiting persistent and serious challenging behaviors in
the classroom setting, programs must implement the process described in
paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) to facilitate the child's safe participation
in the program. Only as a last resort, and after exploring all possible
steps and documenting all steps taken, programs may determine if a
child needs an alternate placement such as on-going participation in a
home-based program model.
Comment: Some commenters recommended we explicitly prohibit
suspension or expulsion of children for poor attendance or because they
are picked up late from the program.
Response: We agree children should not be suspended or expelled for
poor attendance or parental tardiness. In Sec. 1302.16(a)(1) and (2),
we already describe steps programs must take if a child is unexpectedly
absent, has multiple consecutive unexpected absences, or is frequently
absent.
Comment: Many commenters stated our requirement in paragraph (c)
that states parent participation is voluntary and not required as a
condition of a child's enrollment was too vague.
Response: This requirement was also in the previous Head Start
Program Performance Standards. We moved this provision to Sec.
1302.15(f) to improve clarity.
Section 1302.18 Fees
This section describes our policy on fees. We maintain the
overarching policy that programs are prohibited from charging parents
of eligible children a fee for their child's participation in a Head
Start program. We made revisions to improve clarity.
Comment: Some commenters requested clarification of the requirement
in paragraph (b)(1). For example, some commenters requested clarity on
how long the program day could be, and how long the additional funded
hours could be. Additionally, some commenters expressed concern about
whether they would be able to assess fees for the pre-k funded portion
of the day.
Response: Hours per day, and thereby additional funded hours,
depend on the length of the day the program is operating Head Start.
Programs may assess fees only for additional hours beyond the Head
Start day. The ability to assess fees for hours beyond the Head Start
day is subject to state and local requirements. We revised this
provision to improve clarity.
Comment: Commenters requested clarity about the impact that
paragraph (b)(2) would have on cost allocation. Specifically, some
commenters expressed concern that programs should not be able to
``double dip'' in funding, stating that we would need to ensure
additional funds go to additional services. Other commenters asked
whether collected fees would supplant current funding. Some commenters
requested clarity about whether private pay children would be
considered Head Start children or would be counted as part of
enrollment.
Response: All grantees receiving Head Start funds are required to
comply with the provisions of 45 CFR part 75, Uniform Administrative
Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements. Part 75 includes
regulations requiring that all costs be allocated among multiple
funding sources in accordance with relative benefits received. These
regulations assure that programs cannot ``double dip'' or charge the
same expense to more than one funding source. Head Start is designed to
increase the number of low-income children receiving high-quality,
comprehensive early education services that help facilitate healthy
development, including physical and social and emotional development,
and prepare them for school success. To meet this goal, it is critical
that Head Start funds do not supplant existing services. Existing laws
and regulations addressing cost allocation and non-supplantation are
not re-stated in the proposed regulation. However, to improve clarity,
we revised paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) to better articulate when fees may
be charged to enrolled and non-enrolled families.
Comment: Some commenters supported the standard in paragraph (b)(2)
to encourage mixed income settings and the ability of Head Start
programs to charge a fee to private pay or otherwise funded children.
Other commenters expressed concern about these provisions or explicitly
opposed the requirement in paragraph (b)(2) that allowed programs to
charge fees to children who are not Head Start eligible to encourage
mixed-income settings. For example, some commenters were concerned this
would put Head Start in competition with other private pay providers in
the community or were concerned about unintended consequences for
eligible children in terms of access.
Response: Research on peer influences suggests that low-income
children achieve better learning outcomes in mixed-income
settings.54 55 We do not believe that allowing Head Start
programs to operate mixed-income classes will have a negative impact on
other private pay providers in a community. This requirement does not
allow programs to serve fewer eligible children than their Head Start
funded enrollment. However, to further clarify our intent mixed-income
settings must in no way displace Head Start eligible children, we
revised Sec. Sec. 1302.11(b)(3),
[[Page 61319]]
1302.15(d), and paragraph (b)(2) in this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ Mashburn, A.J., Justice, L.M., Downer, J.T., & Pianta, R.C.
(2009). Peer effects on children's language achievement during
pre[hyphen]kindergarten. Child Development, 80(3), 686-702.
\55\ Henry, G.T., & Rickman, D.K. (2007). Do peers influence
children's skill development in preschool? Economics of Education
Review, 26(1), 100-112.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: Some commenters asked for clarification or suggested
revisions for additional specificity in paragraph (b)(2). For example,
commenters requested clarity about the definition of ``diverse economic
backgrounds'' and whether over-income tuition could be applied to non-
federal match requirements. Some commenters asked for clarity about
whether paragraph (b)(2) allows programs to charge fees to Head Start
eligible children during the non-Head Start portion of the day.
Additionally, commenters requested clarity about whether Head Start
children can be expelled if their parents do not pay the fees for non-
Head Start hours. Some commenters suggested that expulsion should be
possible, because otherwise it would be impossible to hold parents
accountable for paying fees. Other commenters suggested that we ensure
Head Start children cannot be turned away if the portion of day funded
by child subsidies requires fee and the parents cannot pay.
Response: We believe that it is important for programs to have
local flexibility to define what economic diversity means in their own
communities so did not include a definition. Any non-federal match must
support services to Head Start eligible children during the Head Start
day. Programs can charge fees to Head Start eligible children during
the non-Head Start portion of the day. However, programs cannot
predicate a child's participation in the Head Start portion of the day
on enrollment in the non-Head Start portion of the day or payment of
any fees.
Comment: Some commenters requested clarification about the proposed
regulations covering fees for services under Part C of IDEA in
paragraph (b)(3). Commenters noted the provision referenced Part B of
IDEA, not Part C.
Response: We agree with commenters that the reference to IDEA in
paragraph (b)(3) was incorrect and unnecessary. We removed this
requirement.
Comment: Commenters noted that both standard fees and ``de facto
fees'' should be prohibited, including requiring parents to provide
diapers, formula, or food and asked whether fees for special events
like field trips were included.
Response: We have codified the requirement to provide diapers and
formula in Head Start programs in Sec. 1302.42(e)(1) of the standards
and clarified here that fees are not allowed for activities, such as
field trips, that are part of the Head Start day.
Program Structure; Subpart B
In this subpart, we combined all previous performance standards
related to program options into one coherent section and indicated
different requirements for Head Start and Early Head Start when
necessary. We set standards for how programs should choose a program
option; defined the requirements for ratios, group size, and service
duration for each of the program options; and outlined the waiver
requirements to operate locally designed program options. The majority
of the comments submitted on the NPRM provided input on this subpart.
In particular, most commenters raised concerns with the proposal to
increase the service duration for Head Start children to a full school
day and full school year. We discuss the comments and our rationale for
any changes other than technical changes to the regulatory text below.
Section 1302.20 Determining Program Structure
This section describes how programs must select a program option
and develop a program calendar. The provisions in this section also
require that all program options provide comprehensive services,
outline the process for conversion of Head Start slots to Early Head
Start slots, allow American Indian and Alaska Native programs to
reallocate funding, and clarify what are considered Head Start and
Early Head Start hours of service.
Comment: Commenters expressed some concerns about the proposed
provision in paragraph (a)(1) that programs annually consider whether
local needs would be better met through conversion of existing part-day
to full-day slots or full-day to full working day slots. Some stated
that annual consideration was too often and too burdensome and
suggested less frequent alternatives. In addition, the proposals in
paragraphs (a)(2) and (3) created some confusion. Some commenters
opposed the provision that programs consider conversion to a full year
program and others found the language unclear in regards to whether
this conversion was mandatory and whether full year meant calendar or
academic year. Commenters requested clarification on the proposal in
paragraph (a)(3) that requires programs to try to identify alternate
funding sources before using program resources to cover extended hours
because they found the term ``extended hours'' confusing and were
unsure how meeting this requirement would be evaluated.
Response: We revised paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) and struck paragraph
(a)(3) from the NPRM to improve clarity of what is required of
programs. The requirement for programs to annually consider whether
they should convert to a full year program was not meant to require
actual conversion but rather for programs to annually consider whether
such a conversion would better meet the needs of their community.
Paragraph (a)(2) now makes clear that consideration of conversion and
ways to promote continuity of care should take place as part of the
annual review of the community assessment described in Sec.
1302.11(b)(2). In addition, we replaced the term ``extended hours'' in
what was paragraph (a)(3) in the NPRM with ``full working day
services'' for improved clarity in paragraph (a)(2) in the final rule.
We believe annual reconsideration of whether a program's model is
meeting local needs is appropriate.
Comment: We received comments on provisions in paragraphs (a)(1)
and (3) of the NPRM regarding conversion to Early Head Start. Some
commenters strongly supported these provisions. Some stated that annual
consideration was too often and too burdensome and suggested less
frequent alternatives. Some commenters requested that additional
clarification be added to the regulation, such as noting that
conversion was allowable for grantees who did not currently operate
Early Head Start and that regional offices should approve or deny
conversion requests within a stated timeline. Other commenters
suggested the standards should explicitly allow a reduction in funded
enrollment for programs that choose to convert Head Start slots to
Early Head Start slots.
Response: No changes were made to the provisions regarding
conversion of slots to Early Head Start, which we believe are
appropriately addressed in paragraph (c), with the exception of a
technical correction that the policy council would also need to approve
the request and a clarification that programs should update their
school readiness goals to reflect the ages of children they serve.
There are no statutory or regulatory prohibitions to prevent grantees
that do not currently operate Early Head Start from converting slots.
We agree that a reduction in funded enrollment is a likely outcome of
conversion because of the higher relative costs of serving infants and
toddlers, but this does not need to be included in the regulation. We
understand there is concern about the time required to process
conversion requests but note that the process follows the clear
requirements set forth
[[Page 61320]]
in statute and further clarified in this rule.
Comment: Some commenters asked for clarification about whether a
blended or braided funding model would be allowed to achieve the full
school day requirement. Some sought additional clarification about
which Head Start standards would need to be met during hours of
operation not funded by Head Start. Some commenters also sought
additional clarification about which hours must meet Head Start
standards and noted that they would not be able to meet Head Start
standards for before and after care. Similarly, commenters asked for
clarification about whether the ratio and group size requirements only
referred to program hours funded by Early Head Start or Head Start.
Response: The NPRM intended to convey that hours of service that
meet Head Start standards would be counted toward calculation of Head
Start service duration, regardless of whether those hours were funded
by federal Head Start funding or another source. We understand the need
for innovative funding models to leverage funds to more efficiently
meet the needs of children and families. To eliminate confusion about
whether these funding models are an allowable approach to meet the
service duration minimum requirements, we added paragraph (d) to
clearly state that programs may consider hours of service that meet the
Head Start Program Performance Standards, regardless of the source of
funding, as hours of planned class operations. We encourage programs to
continue to seek innovative ways to fund their program models while
meeting high-quality standards throughout the day. However, we
acknowledge that ratio requirements, as well as all Head Start program
performance standards, apply only during the hours of planned class
operations for Head Start and Early Head Start.
Section 1302.21 Center-Based Option
This section defines the setting for the center-based program
option and sets requirements for ratios, group size, service duration,
calendar planning, licensing, and square footage. Most comments
addressed the service duration proposal for Head Start center-based
programs.
Comment: The NPRM proposed to increase the minimum hours and days
of program operation for Head Start preschoolers in the center-based
option. The majority of comments addressed this proposal. The NPRM also
proposed making the double session model only available as a locally
designed program option, instead of as a standard program model. Some
commenters supported the proposed increase in the hours per day and
days per year, regardless of available funding. Some specifically
supported the move to full school day (minimum of 6 hours per day) or
full school year (minimum of 180 days per year), and still others
supported both provisions as the standard option for Head Start.
Reasons for their support included: Significant increases in school
readiness; the strong research base; alignment with state pre-K and K-
12 systems; increases in the employment rates of low-income parents;
child needs for more time to reach learning goals; doubling the amount
of time Head Start children would be exposed to high-quality
instruction and services; and better meeting parent needs. Others
recommended we re-calculate the cost per child needed for each grantee
to move to the proposed standard dosage for center-based services.
Some commenters supported the proposal to increase program duration
for Head Start preschoolers, but only if funding is available to
support the changes. These commenters noted the research base and
potential improvement for children's outcomes, but stated that they
would not support the policy without adequate funding because it would
deprive many children of early learning opportunities due to a decrease
in available Head Start slots. Some commenters generally agreed we
should increase program duration for Head Start preschoolers, but they
also raised concerns. We discuss those concerns in more detail below.
Some commenters suggested alternative minimums to the 180 days per
year and 6 hours per day proposed in the NPRM. Some suggested that the
requirements for the length of day and year be shorter than those
proposed in the NPRM, but longer than previous standards. Commenters
suggested taking an annual hours approach to program duration, such as
1,020 or 1,080 hours per year for Head Start preschoolers, to allow
programs greater flexibility to design what works best for their
community. Other commenters suggested requiring a specific percent of
slots for each grantee, such as 50 or 75 percent, meet an increased
duration requirement and allowing the remaining slots to be more
flexible. Other commenters suggested that the minimum duration
requirements should vary based on child age. Some suggested that the
increase in duration should be encouraged, or optional, but not
required. Some commenters asked if programs currently operating at a
lower dosage would be ``grandfathered in'' and allowed to continue
operating under the old program performance standards. Others suggested
that the required hours per day should be less than what would trigger
a nap requirement under local licensing rules. Some commenters
recommended allowing programs to offer a ``menu'' of varied program
models based on community assessments with an ability to shift slots
between models over the course of the grant to meet changing needs.
Some other commenters suggested that the increased duration
requirements for Head Start (180 days) should align with the
requirements for Early Head Start (230 days). Some commenters asked why
duration requirements are not higher than those proposed in the NPRM,
given the research on summer learning loss and evidence that children
benefit from longer duration, and the need for a longer day to
accommodate working families.
Many commenters raised concerns about the impact of these changes
on partnerships and collaborations with public schools. Commenters
proposed alternative minimums or suggested that programs be allowed to
align their calendar with the local school district or state
requirements for K-12, to facilitate partnerships with schools. Some
noted that their school district or state tracks time in hours per year
and suggested that this same flexibility be applied to Head Start.
Commenters also raised concerns about the challenges of operating
longer than their local schools. Specific concerns included disruptions
to transportation, facility space, and food service; the ways service
days are calculated; and union agreements. Some commenters stated that
double sessions are sometimes the best option when working with school
districts due to space limitations and transportation. Others stated
that attendance is low when Head Start is in session but the school
district is not.
The majority of commenters either opposed or expressed significant
concerns with the provisions to increase the program day and year for
Head Start preschoolers, with many citing multiple reasons for their
concerns or opposition. Some of these commenters were generally against
the proposal to increase program duration, without going into specific
reasons for their opposition. Many commenters were concerned or opposed
due to the loss of Head Start slots that would occur without
appropriate funding. In this context, some were specifically concerned
with the elimination of double sessions and only being able to serve
half the number of children in their community. Some commenters
[[Page 61321]]
agreed that children would benefit from the increased exposure to Head
Start, but they felt that this benefit was not worth other children and
families no longer receiving Head Start services. Some suggested that
the reduction in the number of slots could cause additional instability
in already fragile communities and that there are no other high-quality
early childhood education options available in some communities. Some
commenters suggested delaying implementation of the new requirements
until sufficient funding is in place to prevent enrollment reduction.
Others expressed that any additional money should be used to increase
access to Head Start, as opposed to program duration.
Some commenters stated that the increased duration was not
developmentally appropriate for preschoolers. Some noted that
transportation in rural areas would make the day even longer for
children. Some suggested that a 6-hour day may not be appropriate for
certain groups of children, such as 3-year-olds, children with
challenging behaviors or special needs, or DLLs. Some commenters
asserted that a longer year is not appropriate for preschoolers. Others
specifically stated that moving to a program that operates five days
per week (as opposed to 4 days) is not appropriate for children this
age.
Many commenters expressed concern or opposition to the proposed
operation minimums for preschoolers because they would limit the
ability of programs to address the unique needs of the local
communities and families they serve and/or because the proposed
requirements do not take into account parental choice or preferences.
Commenters stated the proposed requirements would prevent creative and
innovative program designs that would be more responsive to community
needs. Some commenters said that it does not support the cultural
values of all families, such as American Indian and Alaska Native or
immigrant families.
Some commenters opposed or expressed concerns about the proposed
increase in service duration for Head Start because of the logistical
challenges programs would face, including significant disruptions to
community collaborations. Some commenters stated that collaborations
they use for transportation would be severely disrupted. Others noted
they would lose access to facilities because their community
partnership would not be able to provide full-day space. Many of these
commenters raised concerns about the lack of adequate or reasonably
priced facilities in their area. Some commenters were concerned with
the challenges they would face finding enough high-quality teachers for
new classes. Some commenters raised concerns about negative impacts on
partnerships with child care providers and family eligibility for child
care subsidies to provide families with care for a full working day.
Some commenters noted that children who currently receive full day
services through the combination of a half-day of Head Start and half-
day of state pre-k could be negatively impacted by the duration
proposal.
Some commenters opposed or expressed concerns about the proposed
increase in duration for Head Start preschoolers because of the
potential impact on teachers and other staff. Some commenters were
concerned about the loss of staff jobs that would result without
adequate funding to support the increased duration, noting this would
have a negative impact on the economy and local community. Commenters
were concerned about how the move to a longer school day or longer
school year would increase the burden on teachers and reduce time for
other necessary activities, which would undermine program quality. Some
suggested that this would increase teacher stress, burnout, and
turnover. These issues were of particular concern to some programs that
believed they would have to move from a 4-day per week to a 5-day per
week schedule. Commenters were also concerned that the proposed model
would make it more difficult to recruit and retain highly qualified
staff. Commenters noted the need to pay teachers more in order to
offset the workload associated with the increased program duration.
Some commenters were concerned about the loss of staff jobs that would
result without adequate funding to support the increased duration and
stated this would have a negative impact on the economy and local
community.
Some commenters stated that the research cited in the NPRM was not
adequate or appropriate to justify the longer day and/or year for Head
Start preschoolers. Some commenters stated that longer duration is not
necessarily an indicator of higher program quality. Some commenters
stated that moving to full school day services would not increase
instructional time because of time that would need to be devoted to
naps, meals, and transitions. Some commenters expressed concern with
increasing duration for Head Start preschoolers because their state or
municipality still has part-day, part-week, or optional kindergarten,
or part-day state-funded preschool. Some commenters expressed concern
about state licensing laws that would become applicable with a longer
program day. Some commenters raised concerns about the impact on their
non-federal share match if they served fewer families.
Response: We made significant changes in paragraph (c) to the
requirements for service duration for preschoolers in Head Start
center-based settings. We believe, and research indicates, that strong
child outcomes are best fostered through high-quality early education
programs that provide at least a full school day and full school year
of services and that children are best served if Head Start programs
continue to move toward this goal. We do not agree that the increased
service duration is developmentally inappropriate for preschoolers,
including three-year-olds, or that the research we cited is inadequate
to justify these proposals. While the research does not identify a
specific threshold, there is ample research that points to increased
duration in achieving positive child outcomes.\56\ \57\ \58\ \59\ \60\
\61\ \62\ \63\ \64\ \65\ \66\
[[Page 61322]]
Many Head Start programs, as well as State funded preschool programs
already operate for a full school day and a full school year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ Lee, V.E., Burkam, D.T., Ready, D.D., Honigman, J., &
Meisels, S.J. (2006). Full-Day versus Half-Day Kindergarten: In
Which Program Do Children Learn More? American Journal of Education,
112(2), 163-208.
\57\ Walston, J.T., and West, J. (2004). Full-day and Half-day
Kindergarten in the United States: Findings from the Early Childhood
Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 1998-99 (NCES 2004-078).
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
\58\ Sloan McCombs, J. et al., (2011). Making Summer Count. How
Summer Programs Can Boost Children's Learning. Santa Monica, Calif.:
RAND Corporation.
\59\ Downey, D.B., von Hippel, P.T. & Broh, B.A. (2004). Are
Schools the Great Equalizer? Cognitive Inequality During the Summer
Months and the School Year. American Sociological Review, 69(5),
613-635.
\60\ Ehrlich, S.B., Gwynne, J.A., Sorice, E. (2014). Preschool
Attendance in Chicago Public Schools: Relationships with Learning
Outcomes and Reasons for Absences. University of Chicago Consortium
on Chicago School Research. Research Report.
\61\ Peisner-Feinberg, E.S., Schaaf, J.M., LaForett, D.R.,
Hildebrandt, L.M., & Sideris, J. (2014). Effects of Georgia's Pre-K
Program on children's school readiness skills: Findings from the
2012-2013 evaluation study. Chapel Hill: The University of North
Carolina, FPG Child Development Institute.
\62\ Barnett, W.S., Jung, K., Youn, M.J., and Frede, E.C.
(2013). Abbott Preschool Program Longitudinal Effects Study: Fifth
Grade Follow-Up. National Institute for Early Education Research
Rutgers--The State University of New Jersey.
\63\ Gormley, G.T., Gayer, T., Phillips, D., & Dawson, B.
(2005). The effects of universal pre-k on cognitive development.
Developmental Psychology, 4(6), 872-884.
\64\ Weiland, C., & Yoshikawa, H. (2013). Impacts of a
prekindergarten program on children's mathematics, language,
literacy, executive function, and emotional skills. Child
Development, 84, 2112-2130.
\65\ Walters, C.R. (2015). Inputs in the Production of Early
Childhood Human Capital: Evidence from Head Start, American Economic
Journal: Applied Economics, 7(4), 76-102.
\66\ Yoshikawa, H., Weiland, C., Brooks-Gunn, J., Burchinal,
M.R., Espinosa, L.M., Gormley, W.T., Ludwig, J., Magnuson, K.A.,
Phillips, D., & Zaslow, M.J. (2013). Investing in Our Future: The
Evidence Base on Preschool Education. Policy Brief. Foundation for
Child Development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, we agree with commenters about the negative effects of
implementing this model in such a way that could lead to significant
reductions in the number of children and families served by Head Start
programs, and recognize the need to allow programs and communities
sufficient time to thoughtfully plan and adjust their operations.
Therefore, we made significant changes to the service duration minimums
in subpart B for Head Start preschoolers in center-based settings that
we believe strike the right balance of giving more children access to a
program with full school day and full school year services, while
allowing greater local flexibility and more time for communities to
adapt and potential funding to be appropriated.
Revisions in paragraph (c)(2) specify a timeline, process, and
requirements for programs to phase in full school day and full school
year services for all preschool children served in center-based
settings. In this rule, we require that each program offer full school
day and full school year services, defined as 1,020 annual hours, for
at least 50 percent of its Head Start center-based funded enrollment by
August 1, 2019, and for all of its Head Start center-based funded
enrollment by August 1, 2021. Exceptions to these requirements may be
granted through a simplified waiver process, described in Sec. 1302.24
and discussed in further detail in that section below. Paragraph
(c)(2)(i) specifies that until the new requirement in paragraph
(c)(2)(iv) or (v) is effective, programs that operate five days per
week must provide at least 160 days per year of planned class
operations for a minimum of 3.5 hours per day and programs that operate
4 days per week must provide at least 128 days per year of planned
class operations for a minimum of 3.5 hours per day. In paragraph
(c)(2)(ii) double session variations are in effect permitted until July
31, 2021, which gives grantees operating double session slots ample
time to plan for full implementation of the new duration standards.
Until this time, double session programs must operate for the same
minimums described above. These service duration minimums in paragraphs
(c)(2)(i) and (ii) are consistent with the previous program performance
standards.
Paragraphs (c)(2)(iii) and (iv) set forth an incremental timeline
and process for grantees to shift their programs to provide at least a
full school day and a full school year of services to all preschoolers
in center-based settings. We made this service duration requirement
less burdensome by changing the requirement to a total of 1,020 hours
annually, as opposed to a minimum number of days per year and hours per
day as proposed in the NPRM. This annual hours approach will allow more
local flexibility and is consistent with how the majority of states set
minimum requirements for how local education agencies set their
calendars. In Head Start, it will provide programs greater flexibility
to design schedules that meet the unique needs of their communities
while maintaining high standards for the amount of instructional time
children receive. As stated in paragraph (c)(2)(iii), each grantee will
have until August 1, 2019 to provide at least 1,020 annual hours of
planned class operations over the course of a minimum of 8 months to at
least 50 percent of its Head Start center-based funded enrollment. As
noted later, ``hours of planned class operations'' is defined in part
1305 to clarify that only the hours when children are scheduled to
attend count towards the 1,020 annual hours requirement. Paragraph
(c)(2)(iv) states that by August 1, 2021 programs must provide at least
1,020 annual hours of planned class operations over the course of at
least 8 months for all of their Head Start center-based funded
enrollment.
Programs may design a variety of different schedules within the
minimum requirements that meet the specific needs of their families,
communities, and staff. For example, programs may choose to operate for
four or five days a week for either an 8-month program year or year-
round, depending on the length of the day they select, as long as they
meet the 1,020 annual hour minimum. This flexibility will allow
programs to address many of the concerns that were raised in the
comments, such as alignment of the summer break with the local
education agency's calendar, the availability of facilities, the
continuation of partnerships, and state licensing requirements. We
clarify in Sec. 1302.20(d) that all hours of service that meet the
program performance standards may be considered Head Start hours
regardless of their source of funding.
We believe the flexibility of the annual hours requirement will
also allow programs to design schedules to minimize additional staff
burden that would exacerbate challenges with attracting and retaining
qualified staff. There are a variety of successful Head Start models
across the country where programs currently provide full school day and
full school year services. To address anticipated challenges, programs
may choose to develop budgets that increase staff salaries to reflect
the additional workload and to design innovative schedules that build
adequate time for teacher planning and other activities into each week.
Although some commenters were concerned that instructional time
would not increase under increased duration minimums due to time
required for naps, meals, and transitions, we believe having the chance
to nap during the Head Start day can be very beneficial to consolidate
learning and improve overall health.67 68 69 If a program
feels their children would be best served by a day without a nap at
Head Start, we designed a flexible enough requirement for programs to
design a schedule that would not necessitate a nap under state
licensing requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ Bates, J. E., Viken, R. J., Alexander, D. B., Beyers, J., &
Stockton, L. (2002). Sleep and adjustment in preschool children:
Sleep diary reports by mothers relate to behavior reports by
teachers. Child Development, 73(1), 62-75.
\68\ Lam, J. C., Mahone, E. M., Mason, T. B., & Scharf, S. M.
(2011). The effects of napping on cognitive function in
preschoolers. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics,
32(2), 90.
\69\ Kurdziel, L., Duclos, K., & Spencer, R. M. (2013). Sleep
spindles in midday naps enhance learning in preschool children.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(43), 17267-
17272.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some commenters believed parents do not want or need Head Start
services for a longer program day and year. If parents in a particular
community truly do not want full school day or full school year
services and a program can demonstrate its model effectively supports
child learning, then the program can apply for a waiver in accordance
with the requirements described in Sec. 1302.24.
Paragraph (c)(3) provides the Secretary the discretion to lower the
required percentage of funded enrollment slots for which grantees must
offer 1,020 annual hours of planned class operations to the percentage
the Secretary estimates available appropriations can support. This
provision will allow the Secretary the flexibility to balance the
important policy goal of providing all preschoolers with a full school
day and a full school year of services in Head Start with the
[[Page 61323]]
disruption and potential slot loss such a policy might create in the
absence of sufficient funding.
In response to concerns about service duration requirements
disrupting partnerships with local education agencies, and to reduce
burden on programs that would need to seek waivers in these types of
situations, paragraph (c)(2)(v) clarifies that a program providing
fewer than 1,020 annual hours of planned class operations or fewer than
8 months of service will be considered to meet the service duration
requirements if their program schedule aligns with the annual hours
provided by their local education agency's requirements for first grade
and such alignment is necessary to support partnerships for service
delivery.
Additionally, commenters were concerned about the availability of
adequate facilities to serve children for a full school day and a full
school year. Congress appropriated $294 million in fiscal year (FY)
2016 for grantees to increase service duration. Our cost estimates
included in the Regulatory Impact Analysis are for annual operating
costs, and we anticipate that a portion of the first annual awards will
be available for the purchase or renovation of facilities before
programs begin serving children at the higher duration. We also
encourage programs to consider partnerships with school districts and
child care centers to use existing facilities, which have proven to be
successful models for many current Head Start and Early Head Start-
Child Care Partnership grantees.
Comment: In addition to proposing to increase service duration for
preschoolers, the NPRM proposed to codify long-standing interpretation
for Early Head Start in the Act, which describes it as a ``continuous''
program. We have long interpreted this to mean a minimum of a full
school day and full-year of services for infants and toddlers, and
defined this in the NPRM as a minimum of 230 days of service per year
for a minimum of 6 hours per day. Some commenters wrote in support of
the proposal. Others expressed concerns or opposed the proposal for
multiple reasons, including concern about a long day for infants,
parents would not want services for this long, and program quality
would decrease because teachers would have less preparation and
professional development time. Some commenters suggested slightly lower
minimums, using annual hours or weeks instead of number of days, and/or
recommended changing the requirement to allow time for activities like
professional development, parent-teacher conferences, and holidays.
Response: We believe it is important to retain the continuous
service model for Early Head Start that has existed since the program's
inception. However, to provide greater local flexibility and alignment
with the policy decision made for Head Start preschoolers, we changed
the NPRM requirement from a minimum number of hours per day and days
per year to a total number of annual hours of planned class operations.
This requirement of 1,380 annual hours can be found in paragraph (c)(1)
and must be met by August 1, 2018. Based on our latest data,\70\
approximately three-quarters of children attending Early Head Start
center-based programs already receive services for 1,380 hours. In
paragraph (c)(1)(ii), we also consider Early Head Start center-based
programs that are designed to meet the needs of young parents enrolled
in public school settings to meet the annual hours requirement if their
program schedule aligns with the schedule of their local education
agency (LEA), and they provide regular home-based services over the
summer break. This specifically supports the innovative models local
programs develop to support teen parents and their children.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ Submitted by grantees through the FY 2015 Grant Application
Budget Instrument.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: Commenters requested clarification on the definition of
days (or hours) of planned class operation and whether it would include
activities such as professional development, transportation time, and
other types of activities or emergencies. Some commenters recommended
that the required duration be inclusive of these types of activities.
Some commenters were also confused about the definition of ``full
year'' services, interpreting the requirement as a full calendar year
without a summer break. Others were unclear about whether programs
would still be allowed to operate 4 days per week under the increased
minimums.
Response: As noted above, we added a definition to part 1305 for
``hours of planned class operations'' to clarify that these are hours
when children are scheduled to attend and to specify what activities
are and are not included in this calculation. Activities such as
professional development, teacher planning, parent-teacher conferences,
classroom sanitation, and transportation do not count toward the hours
of planned class operations. Programs can choose to structure their
calendar year to include a summer, holiday, and other breaks to be
responsive to their community's cultural traditions and family needs
while still meeting the minimum service duration requirements described
in paragraph (c). Similarly, programs can choose to operate 4 days per
week as long as they meet the service duration minimums. We made
additional minor changes to the calendar planning provisions in
paragraph (c)(5) to further simplify and clarify the process.
Comment: Commenters wrote in response to the proposed teacher:child
ratios and group size for the center-based option described in this
section. Some commended the proposal for maintaining strong ratios and
group size because it demonstrated commitment to quality and allowed
individualization and good classroom management. Others expressed
concern that the ratios were too high for all ages and should be
lowered. Others recommended greater flexibility. Some commenters
requested more flexibility to set ratios for infants that would still
meet high standards but align with their state licensing requirements.
Some commenters asked for clarification or flexibility on ratios during
naptime and other program hours. For example, some were specifically
concerned about or seeking flexibility to allow ratios to be met by
persons other than teachers. Some commenters were confused about
whether class size and group size had the same meaning. We received
comments both in support of and against our proposal for how programs
should determine the age of the majority of children in a class to set
ratios and group size.
Response: We believe this provision allows for the right balance of
flexibility while also recognizing the importance of continuity of
care. However, in paragraph (b)(2), we added new regulatory language to
allow a group size of nine without needing a waiver for infant and
toddler classes when the teacher to child ratio is 1:3 or lower. In
paragraph (b)(1)(i), we clarify that brief absences of a teaching staff
member that cause the group to be out of ratio for less than five
minutes are acceptable. In paragraph (b)(1)(ii), we clarify that during
naptime, one teaching staff member may be replaced by an adult who does
not meet the teaching qualifications required. Thus, while the adult to
child ratio requirement remains unchanged during naptime, additional
flexibility is granted in how a program must meet that ratio. We
believe this provides reasonable flexibility while maintaining high
standards. Teachers that are present or staff that are substituted
during nap times must have completed the safety training required
[[Page 61324]]
for their role as staff in Sec. 1302.47(b)(4)(i), including safe sleep
practices. Ratios and group size requirements for double sessions are
also now included in paragraph (b), as double sessions are now
permitted as a standard option until the year 2021, and after but only
as a locally designed option. These requirements are consistent with
the previous regulation for double sessions. We did not make any
changes to the provision in paragraph (b)(1) regarding determination of
the primary age of the class. Throughout subpart B, we substituted the
word ``group'' or ``class'' for ``classroom'' and replaced ``class
size'' with the more commonly used ``group size'' to eliminate
confusion. Because of this change, and to make clear that the
importance of the learning environment as described in Sec. 1302.31
applies to all groups regardless of the characteristics of the physical
space, we have added a new paragraph (d)(3) to clarify appropriate ways
to make divisions among groups when they are not in physically separate
classrooms.
Comment: Commenters also wrote about our proposal in paragraph
(b)(2) to support continuity of care through consideration of mixed age
groups for children under 36 months of age. Some found the mixed age
groups concept to suggest developmentally inappropriate practice.
Others wrote in support of continuity of care practices because of the
benefits to children and their parents. Some offered slight changes to
the regulatory language and others recommended we provide guidance on
implementation of best practices for continuity of care.
Response: We recognize there was some confusion about what mixed
age groups might mean in practice. However, we believe best practices
for continuity of care will be best delivered through technical
assistance and guidance and not through the regulatory process. The
provisions in this section facilitate but do not require continuity of
care practices.
Comment: Commenters wrote in regard to the center-based licensing
and square footage requirements in paragraph (d). Some commenters
expressed concern about licensing requirements in relation to schools,
seeking greater clarification and noting that some states do not
require public schools to be licensed. Commenters also requested
clarity on whether programs have to meet licensing standards, or be
licensed. Some comments supported and some opposed the center-based
square footage requirements, while some stated they were too strict,
others suggested they were not strong enough, and others commended the
proposal to exclude square footage requirements from the waiver.
Response: We modified the provision in paragraph (d) to make it
clear that programs must meet local or state licensing requirements
regardless of whether the licensing entity requires that they be
licensed. However, we are not requiring that all center-based programs
actually be licensed because some states or local jurisdictions may not
be able to license entities, such as schools, that are not required to
be licensed by state or local law. We believe this provision ensures
quality and child safety while allowing for the appropriate amount of
local flexibility and variance in types of grantees. As proposed in the
NPRM, licensing and square footage requirements will not be eligible
for waivers.
Section 1302.22 Home-Based Option
This section defines the setting for the home-based program option
for Head Start and Early Head Start and sets requirements for home
visitor caseload, service duration, and licensing. We received many
comments about our proposal to limit home-based models as a standard
option to Early Head Start only. We discuss these and other comments
below.
Comment: Some commenters were in favor of removing home-based as a
standard option for preschoolers. Commenters stated that home-based
models do not meet the educational needs of preschool-age children.
Commenters also expressed that, given the significant federal
investment in home visiting through the Maternal, Infant, and Early
Childhood Home Visiting (MIECHV) program, limited available Head Start
funding should be targeted towards providing access to center-based
programs rather than home-based programs for preschool-age children.
Alternatively, many commenters opposed the removal of the home-
based option as a standard option for Head Start preschoolers, citing a
number of different reasons. Commenters stated that home-based was the
most appropriate delivery model in particular communities, such as
rural areas, communities where home schooling is prevalent, and areas
with large immigrant or non-English speaking populations. Some
commenters suggested that the home-based option is a more appropriate
setting for young children, children with severe special needs,
disabilities, health problems, or behavior issues, and parents who
request home-based to meet children's individual needs. Some commenters
stated that center-based programs may not be what parents want for
their child. Further, these commenters suggested that many parents are
not familiar with resources in the community, do not speak English, or
have other barriers that prevent them from taking their children to
center-based care. Some commenters cited research or included data
demonstrating that home visiting improves outcomes for preschool
children.
Response: We agree that a home-based preschool option for Head
Start may be appropriate for certain communities, which is why we
proposed programs could apply to operate the model through the waiver
process. However, to reduce burden on grantees, we reinstated home-
based as a standard option for preschoolers in paragraph (c)(2) of this
section. Though research indicates that high quality, full-day and
full-year center-based settings produce strong outcomes for
preschoolers, we recognize that there may be a small number of
situations where the home-based model best meets the needs of the child
and family. For example, as commenters suggested, in communities with a
high home schooling rate, parents would likely prefer home-based
services. We do not believe, however, that this model should be used as
a means of excluding children from center-based settings. We also do
not believe this model should be the only one available to preschoolers
and therefore require that it may not be the only option available for
Head Start unless the program seeks and receives a locally designed
option within the parameters established in Sec. 1302.24. We believe
the greater clarity in the community needs provisions in subpart A and
the system of program management and quality improvement in subpart J
will help programs ensure that the program options they offer truly
meet the early learning needs of children and the local needs of the
community. Clear minimum requirements for the number of home visits and
group socializations for preschoolers in the home-based option have
been added in paragraph (c)(2), along with expectations for meeting
those minimums in paragraph (c)(3) and for maximum caseloads per home
visitor in paragraph (b). These requirements are consistent with the
previous standards.
Comment: Commenters also addressed the proposal to increase the
service duration for the Early Head Start home-based model to 46 home
visits and 22 group socializations per year. Some supported the
proposal to increase the number of home visits or
[[Page 61325]]
suggested a higher number. Other commenters expressed concerns about or
opposition to the proposed minimums. Some cited the need for home
visitors to have time for paperwork, professional development, and
other duties. Some noted difficulty getting families to complete 46
home visits and described family cancellation of scheduled home visits
as a key inhibitor. Some of these commenters requested flexibility to
allow for visits cancelled by the family. Further, some commenters
suggested that the group socialization minimum was too high. Others
suggested that 22 was an acceptable minimum number of socializations
but requested flexibility for the number of socializations per month.
Some commenters objected to the language that programs not replace home
visits with medical or social services visits with the home visitor.
Response: Early Head Start was established by Congress as a
continuous program. As with the Early Head Start center-based model,
the NPRM proposal codified long-standing interpretation of a
``continuous program'' for Early Head Start in the home-based model by
requiring 46 home visits per year. We retained this requirement in
paragraph (c)(1)(i). We believe this level of service delivery is
central to a successful home-based model and therefore no changes are
being made to allow home visits or group socializations to be replaced
by medical or social service appointments for the purposes of meeting
service duration minimums. However, this does not limit the flexibility
of programs to use scheduled home visit time to identify needs and
schedule necessary medical or social service appointments. Home
visitors should have the flexibility to determine how to best meet
their families' immediate needs and still reach the minimum visits
focused on child development and education. However, we believe greater
flexibility for meeting the number of group socializations is
appropriate and changed the requirement in paragraph (c)(1)(ii) to
clarify that the number of required group socializations are for each
family, not each child. In addition, instead of prescribing two group
socializations per month, the standards require the group
socializations to be distributed over the course of the program year.
Although we expect programs to space group socializations relatively
evenly throughout the year, we believe this change will maintain high-
quality while allowing local flexibility to address shifting and
unexpected needs and schedules of the families programs serve. To
address the confusion about requirements to make up cancelled visits,
paragraph (c)(3) clarifies that a program must make up planned home
visits or scheduled group socializations if canceled by the program in
order to meet minimum service duration requirements, and that they
should attempt to make up planned home visits when cancelled by the
family.
Comment: Many commenters questioned the need to require licensing
for group socialization sites. Commenters believed this requirement
would put an unreasonable burden on programs by limiting the locations
for socializations. Many also stated that group socialization sites
should only need to be licensed if they occur in Head Start facilities.
Further, some commenters wanted clarification on the conflict between
paragraph (a) and (d), noting that community facilities (including
libraries and churches), homes, and field trip locations likely would
not be licensed.
Response: The language to require licensing for group socialization
sites existed in the previous regulation, but we agree this is
potentially confusing, unnecessarily limiting, and that not all group
socialization sites need to be licensed. However, we do believe it is
important that all sites are safe for children and their families.
Therefore, to clarify our intent, we removed the proposed licensing
requirement for group socialization sites and replaced it with a
requirement in paragraph (d) that the areas for learning, playing,
sleeping, toileting, preparing food, and eating in facilities used for
group socializations meet relevant safety standards.
Comment: Some commenters wrote in reference to the proposal in
paragraph (b) that ``programs must maintain appropriate ratios during
all hours of program operation'' and noted this language was
unnecessary for the home-based option.
Response: We agree that including ratio requirements for the home-
based option was an error and removed that requirement.
Section 1302.23 Family Child Care Option
This section defines the family child care setting and the
relationship between the program and the family child care provider,
and sets requirements for ratios, group size, service duration,
licensing, and the involvement of a child development specialist.
Within this section, commenters asked for clarity regarding the
relationship with the family child care providers and the program or
the requirements for ratios and group size.
Comment: As described in the preamble for Sec. 1302.21, we
received many comments on the service duration requirements for center-
based and family child care programs, some in favor and some opposed.
The comments typically addressed the service duration proposal
generally without explicitly referring to the family child care option.
Response: Because the previous program performance standards
required that family child care programs operate for hours that meet
the needs of families, nearly all family child care providers already
meet the increased duration requirements of 1,020 annual hours for Head
Start and 1,380 annual hours for Early Head Start. In fact, most family
child care programs provide many more hours than these minimums to meet
family needs. Therefore, we removed the service duration requirements
in Sec. 1302.23(c) proposed in the NPRM, and instead require that
family child care programs must operate for sufficient hours to meet
the child care needs of families and cannot operate for less than 1,380
hours per year in paragraph (c).
Comment: Some commenters had concerns or questions about
requirements specifically related to programs that operate in a family
child care setting. Some commenters supported the family child care
employment requirements in paragraph (a)(1) because it is important to
ensure transparency and a successful partnership. Some commenters
suggested the need for greater clarity regarding the ability for
programs to either employ or contract with family child care providers.
Others opposed the requirement that the program be the employer of the
family child care provider, stating that it was overly restrictive and
could hinder innovative employment strategies. Some sought additional
guidance and other commenters were unclear about, opposed to, or had
concerns about the proposed ``legally binding agreement'' between the
program and family child care providers, and recommended we define this
phrase.
Some commenters requested general clarity on the family child care
option section, including requirements for ratios and group sizes, as
well as expectations for identifying alternate sources of funding for
extended hours and expectations under paragraph (a)(2) regarding
accessibility and the definition of ``as appropriate.'' A commenter
recommended that grantees be required to annually share a list of their
family child care contracts with the State Collaboration Office for
better collaboration with the subsidy program.
[[Page 61326]]
Response: We adjusted the language in paragraph (a)(1) to clarify
that a program must either have a legally binding agreement with family
child care providers or be the employer of the provider(s). We also
considered terminology that could be used in place of ``legally binding
agreement,'' such as ``legally enforceable agreement or contract,'' but
determined that the original phrase accurately represents the necessary
legal relationship and is inclusive of contracts. We also adjusted the
language in paragraph (a)(2) to clarify that programs using the family
child care option need to be able to accommodate children and families
with disabilities. Additionally, we revised paragraph (b) to improve
clarity of the ratio and group size requirements for the family child
care option. We will not require grantees to share a list of family
child care contracts with the State Collaboration Office as we do not
believe that this is necessary for successful collaboration with
subsidy programs.
Comment: Some commenters asked for clarification about the standard
in paragraph (b)(4) that requires family child care programs to
maintain appropriate ratios during all hours of operation.
Response: In paragraph (b)(4), we restored standards from the
previous rule to clarify how family child care programs maintain
appropriate ratios. Specifically, we revised paragraph (b)(4) to
require programs to make substitute staff and assistant providers
available and required a family child care program to ensure providers
have systems to ensure the safety of any child not within view for any
period.
Section 1302.24 Locally-Designed Program Option Variations
This section describes the requirements for programs to request a
waiver to operate a locally designed program option. The comments we
received on this section mainly addressed the timeline and process for
approval of waivers.
Comment: Commenters expressed a range of opinions on the proposed
locally-designed option waiver process. Some commenters were in favor
of requiring a waiver based on evidence of community needs and child
progress, and noted these requirements would promote accountability,
objectivity, and continuous improvement for grantees in evaluating
their program design, but still allow for innovation. Others were
concerned about the process being burdensome and time-consuming and
recommended alternative periods and processes for approval. Commenters
were concerned that the criteria that would be used to approve or deny
waivers for locally-designed program options would be inconsistent or
unfair and requested clarification about what evidence of outcomes
would be sufficient to justify approval of a waiver. Commenters
expressed concern about waivers being approved in a timely manner.
Commenters also recommended changes to limit the use of waivers.
Some commenters recommended locally-designed options should be standard
program options and should not require a waiver. Others recommended
retaining all program options from the previous regulation as standard
options instead of requiring a waiver, or other structures such as
having a number of standard duration options that would include part-
day/part-year services.
Some commenters expressed support for requiring approval for a
locally-designed option every two years, particularly for programs that
would seek to waive the requirements for increased service duration,
but others opposed this requirement because it would be too burdensome
for programs and suggested longer approval periods. Many of these
commenters recommended a five-year period of approval that would align
with the community assessment and the five-year grant cycle and would
strike a better balance between accountability and burden. Some
commenters recommended that programs be allowed to shift their program
options annually or within their five-year grant if local needs warrant
a change without requiring a new waiver.
Response: We made a number of changes to the locally-designed
program option waiver described in this section. As described in
paragraph (b), we have changed the period of approval for locally
designed option waivers to the full project period of the grant to
align with the new five-year grant cycles. In addition, due to other
changes made in subpart B, we believe many fewer programs will seek
waivers, which will improve the timeliness of the process to review and
make determinations. In order to ensure programs thoughtfully determine
the appropriate program design that supports their long-term goals, we
revised paragraph (a) to link the waiver request to achieving program
goals in subpart J.
We revised paragraph (c) to clarify exactly which requirements may
be waived. Paragraph (c) more clearly states that the responsible HHS
official may waive one or more of the requirements contained in Sec.
1302.21(b), (c)(1)(i), (c)(2)(iii), and (c)(2)(iv); Sec. 1302.22(b)
and (c); and Sec. 1302.23(b) and (c). These requirements include
ratios and group size in center-based settings for children 24 months
and older, Early Head Start service duration, Head Start service
duration requirements for the percentage of each grantee's slots
operating at 1,020 hours, caseload and service duration requirements
for the home-based option, and ratios, group size, and service duration
for the family child care option. However, if a waiver of group size
for children over 24 months is permitted, paragraph (c)(2) specifies
upper limits that are allowable under a waiver, which are included to
ensure program quality and child safety. Additionally, paragraph (c)(1)
clarifies that waivers are not allowable for ratios or group size for
children under 24 months, which is discussed in more detail below.
Provisions in the NPRM specific to double session requirements under a
locally-designed option were struck because double sessions have been
retained as a standard option until August 2021. We added additional
language in paragraph (c)(3) to clarify the minimum center-based
service duration requirements Head Start programs must meet when
seeking a waiver from the 1,020 annual hours provisions in Sec.
1302.21(c)(2)(iii) and (iv).
We revised paragraph (c)(4) and added paragraph (c)(5) to clarify
what programs must demonstrate in order to receive a waiver.
Specifically, in paragraph (c)(4) we require programs seeking any
waiver under this section to provide evidence that their locally-
designed variation effectively supports appropriate development and
progress in children's early learning outcomes. In addition, in
paragraph (c)(5), we require programs seeking waivers of service
duration to also provide supporting evidence that their variation
better meets the needs of parents than the options described in
Sec. Sec. 1302.21 through 1302.23 and to evaluate the effectiveness of
the variation in supporting appropriate development and progress in
children's early learning outcomes. We believe local flexibility is
important but that tax dollars should be spent on program models that
are effective in helping close the achievement gap.
Comment: Commenters stated American Indian and Alaska Native
programs should not be required to apply for locally-designed option
waivers for some of the provisions in subpart B, and specifically
requested a tribal exemption from some of the
[[Page 61327]]
requirements, including extending the length of the day and length of
the year.
Response: We provided greater flexibility in subpart B for programs
to design their program schedules in a way that best meets their
community needs, including the ability to determine the length of
summer breaks and the length of the day, while still ensuring American
Indian and Alaska Native children reap the full benefits of greater
exposure to high-quality early learning. We think this will allow most
programs to accommodate important cultural practices and subsistence
activities. However, when this additional flexibility is not adequate
to meet community needs, we believe it is appropriate that tribal
programs, like all programs, would be able to apply for a locally-
designed option.
Comment: Some commenters addressed the standard in paragraph (c)(1)
to allow programs to seek waivers from ratio requirements for classes
serving children who are at least two years old. Some opposed the
proposal to allow programs to apply for a waiver for teacher:child
ratios for two-year-olds because such waivers would decrease program
quality and lessen children's individualized care. Others supported
this waiver because it would allow programs the flexibility to better
address extreme unmet need in their communities. Some commenters
recommended that we set upper limits for ratios approved by waivers so
that flexibility could be sought without compromising quality.
Response: We agree with the need for clear limits to group size and
teacher:child ratios in locally-designed options so that high-quality
is maintained. Therefore, waiver requirements are clarified in
paragraph (c)(2)(i) to specify that even with a waiver, a class serving
children 24 to 36 months of age may have no more than ten children.
Furthermore, in paragraph (c)(2)(ii), we clarify even with a waiver, a
class that serves predominantly three-year-old children must have no
more than twenty children and in paragraph (c)(2)(iii), a class that
serves predominantly four-year-old children must have no more than
twenty-four children. As proposed in the NPRM, ratios and group size
may not be waived for children younger than 24 months of age.
Comment: Some commenters opposed the proposal to remove the
combination option as a standard option. Some commenters felt
combination options met their community and parent needs better than
the proposed center-based or family child care options, which were the
only program options for preschoolers included in the NPRM. Some stated
they were against the removal of the combination option because it is
an essential part of their service delivery for rural, isolated
communities with no other services and not enough children for a
center-based program.
Response: We acknowledge there may be some instances in which a
combination option can effectively serve a community but think these
services are best achieved through the locally-designed option
variation described in this section. This locally designed waiver
process will ensure these more unique program models are specifically
designed to respond to community needs while effectively meeting
children's developmental and learning needs and that tax dollars are
being effectively spent. As noted below, in changing the waiver
approval process from two years to five years, we believe we struck the
appropriate balance between accountability and flexibility.
Effective Dates of Subpart B Program Structure Provisions
In the NPRM, we specifically requested comment on the effective
dates of the service duration requirements throughout subpart B. We
received many comments on what the effective dates should be and
discuss those comments and our responses below. The effective date of
this rule and dates for specific requirements that will go into
effective after the remainder of the regulation are included in the
compliance table in the Dates section.
Comment: Commenters raised concerns with the timeline for phasing
in the increased service duration requirements. Many of these
commenters stated that one year after the rule is final is too fast for
careful planning and implementation. Some commenters suggested that
grantees be allowed to phase the requirements in as part of their five-
year grant cycle, to allow for thoughtful planning among many
stakeholders, time to consider funding options, and time to find
adequate facilities and qualified teachers. Some commenters suggested
that the effective date of the duration provisions should be tied to
Congressional appropriation of funds.
Response: We acknowledge the importance of giving grantees
sufficient time for thoughtful planning, consideration of community
needs, and management of logistics when increasing the duration of
their center-based services. Accordingly, we adjusted the effective
dates of the increased service duration provisions to better facilitate
thoughtful implementation. However, we are also mindful of moving
forward to ensure more children receive the higher levels of service
duration that we think are important to achieve strong child outcomes.
The requirements for Early Head Start center-based and home-based
service duration in Sec. Sec. 1302.21(c)(1) and 1302.22(c)(1) are
effective August 1, 2018 and August 1, 2017, respectively. The majority
of Early Head Start programs already operate in accordance with the
service duration requirements we establish in this final rule.
Therefore, only a small share of Early Head Start programs must
increase their service duration to meet the new requirements.
Additionally, funding in FY 2016 is available to support all Early Head
Start center-based programs that need to increase their service
duration and there should be time and resources for them to meet these
minimums by 2018.
The requirement for 50 percent of each grantee's Head Start center-
based slots to operate for a full school day and full school year in
Sec. 1302.21(c)(2)(iii) is effective on August 1, 2019, which is
approximately three years following the publication of this final rule.
This interim requirement will mean many more families will have access
to the educational services for a full school day and full school year
within three years. This requirement will increase from 50 percent to
100 percent effective August 1, 2021, as described in Sec.
1302.21(c)(2)(iv). This effective date is approximately five years
following the publication of this final rule. The gradual phase-in
allows ample time for grantees to plan implementation and align changes
with their five-year grant cycle if they choose. The service duration
provisions for the Head Start home-based option described in Sec.
1302.22(c)(2), which are unchanged from the previous performance
standards, do not require a delayed phase-in.
We also revised the service duration requirement for the family
child care option described in Sec. 1302.23(c) to reflect language
from previous standards to state that programs must meet the child care
needs of families. Although the provision is not explicit that family
child care programs must operate for a minimum of 1,380 annual hours,
most family child care programs provide many more hours than this to
meet family needs and therefore this provision does not require a
delayed phase-in.
We clarify in Sec. 1302.24(d) that programs currently approved to
operate program models that do not meet the requirements described in
subpart B of
[[Page 61328]]
this rule, such as combination options, may continue to operate in
their existing approved program option until July 31, 2018. However,
programs must have either an approved waiver to operate a locally
designed program option that meets the requirements in Sec. 1302.24 or
adopt one or more of the standard program options described in
Sec. Sec. 1302.21 through 1302.23 no later than August 1, 2018.
While we believe the respective August 1, 2018 and August 1, 2019
effective dates of the center-based service duration provisions
described in Sec. Sec. 1302.21(c)(1) and (c)(2)(iii) should give the
vast majority of programs enough time to make changes to their service
delivery, there may be unforeseen circumstances that arise which may
necessitate additional time to complete the transition without
disrupting services to children. Therefore, under Sec. 1302.21(c)(4),
programs may request a one-year extension of the increased service
duration requirements for center-based Head Start and Early Head Start
described in Sec. 1302.21(c)(1) and (c)(2)(iii) if necessary to
prevent displacement of children enrolled in the program at the time
this rule becomes effective.
Education and Child Development Program Services; Subpart C
In this subpart, we combined all previous program standards related
to education and child development services. We significantly updated
and restructured these requirements to reflect the Act, current
research, and best practices in teaching and learning, to strengthen
curriculum requirements, and to integrate the Head Start Early Learning
Outcomes Framework: Ages Birth to Five. We also corrected an imbalance
between Early Head Start and Head Start education standards with a
unifying birth to five approach.
We received comments on all sections of this subpart. Overall,
commenters were supportive and positive about the provisions in subpart
C. Commenters noted the subpart provided a much clearer picture of what
high-quality early education looks like, reflected research on how
children learn, and appreciated our strong focus on practices that
promote intentional and effective teaching. Commenters also expressed
their support for our focus on intentional teaching practices but
recognizing and requiring play and exploration as important to
developing school readiness. Commenters supported the curriculum
requirements, including the integration of professional development
into curriculum implementation. They also agreed with our provisions to
use assessments to individualize services. Commenters supported the
integration of the Head Start Early Learning Outcomes Framework: Ages
Birth to Five through subpart C and appreciated our birth to five
approach.
We made some changes in response to public comments that further
strengthen this subpart. For example, we modified some language and
structure to ensure the subpart consistently and appropriately
addressed children from birth to age five. In addition, we made changes
to further strengthen and clarify effective services for DLLs. There
were some recommendations we thought were too prescriptive, did not
reflect best practice or research, were outside the scope of this
regulation, sought guidance more appropriate for technical assistance,
or were not consistent with current research-based practices.
Therefore, we did not make changes based on these comments. We address
additional comments below.
General Comments
Comment: Some commenters recommended adding language throughout
this subpart to recognize family child care providers separately from
teachers.
Response: While we recognize the unique role of family child care
providers, we believe that it is important that family child care
providers be recognized as the teachers of the children they serve, and
therefore use the term teachers in Sec. Sec. 1302.30 through 1302.34
to be inclusive of family child care providers.
Comment: Some commenters expressed concern there were instances
throughout this subpart that did not use language appropriate for
infants and toddlers.
Response: This subpart addresses Head Start children of all ages.
We only included separate standards when developmental differences made
it appropriate to do so. We made revisions throughout the subpart,
including for example, requirements for responsive care, a broader
reference to children's learning experiences as well as activities, and
changes discussed in detail below above developmental scope and
sequence in curricula. These changes ensure all sections are
appropriate for children from birth to age 5.
Comment: Some commenters suggested we specifically include the
principles of universal design (UD) and universal design for learning
(UDL) in requirements for curriculum objectives, learning materials and
spaces, teaching practices, and assessments.
Response: Though we did not revise the regulation to specifically
reference UDL, many of its principles are long standing Head Start and
Early Head Start requirements that are expanded and enhanced in this
final rule. We also did not incorporate the suggestion to require that
programs adhere to UD. We agree that UD principles are beneficial for
all users of a facility but think we can effectively promote the
principles of UD through technical assistance provided for renovation
and construction projects.
Comment: Some commenters suggested that we needed to address
teacher compensation in order for this subpart to be effectively
implemented.
Response: We agree that teacher compensation is vitally important
to attracting and retaining effective teachers. However, addressing
compensation is outside the scope of this regulation because teacher
compensation is determined by Congressional appropriations and local
decisions.
Comment: Some commenters stated that the regulation failed to
recognize that supporting the home language of DLLs is important in and
of itself, separate from the goal of supporting English acquisition.
Response: We believe there is clear language in Sec. 1302.31(b)(2)
that emphasizes the importance of supporting the home language of DLLs,
separate from the goal of English acquisition. The Act requires that
Head Start programs support the acquisition of English for children who
are DLLs.
Section 1302.30 Purpose
This section provides an overarching statement of the general
purpose and goals for education services in center-based, family child
care, and home-based settings for Early Head Start and Head Start
programs. We received some suggestions for this section.
Comment: Some commenters recommended the section include a
statement that the goal of Head Start is to close the achievement gap.
Response: The purpose of Head Start is stated in the Act and is the
foundation for this section, so we made no changes.
Section 1302.31 Teaching and the Learning Environment.
This section includes the key research-based elements of teaching
practices and the learning environment and is central to preparing
children to succeed in school. It provides programs with the elements
for delivering a more intentional and focused education and
[[Page 61329]]
learning experience that will better promote skill growth and stronger
child outcomes without micromanaging local decision-making and creating
undue burden.
Commenters were very supportive and expressed that the section
appropriately reflected best practice and effectively elevated the
research-based teaching practices that support children's learning and
development.71 72 73 74 75 Commenters supported the
alignment with the Framework as well as the explicit recognition of
nurturing and responsive interactions as components of effective
teaching practices. Commenters noted the benefits of integrating each
child's assessment information into teaching practices and supported
the focus on development of skills children need to enter kindergarten
ready to succeed. Commenters also appreciated the inclusion of play and
exploration as key aspects of effective education programming. Others
praised our approach to include meals and daily routines in the
education section because it denoted their importance as opportunities
for learning experiences and activities. We made some changes in
response to comments, including minor structural changes to clarify our
intent. Additional comments are addressed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2001). Early teacher-child
relationships and the trajectory of children's school outcomes
through eighth grade. Child Development, 72(2), 625-638.
\72\ Burchinal, M., Howes, C., Pianta, R., Bryant, D., Early,
D., Clifford, R., & Barbarin, O. (2008). Predicting child outcomes
at the end of kindergarten from the quality of pre-kindergarten
teacher-child interactions and instruction. Applied Development
Science, 12(3), 140-153.
\73\ National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
(NICHD) Early Child Care Research Network. (2000). Characteristics
and quality of child care for toddlers and preschoolers. Applied
Developmental Science, 4(3), 116-135.
\74\ Rowe, M. L. (2008). Child-directed speech: relation to
socioeconomic status, knowledge of child development and child
vocabulary skill. Journal of Child Language, 35(1), 185.
\75\ Zimmerman, F. J., Gilkerson, J., Richards, J. A.,
Christakis, D. A., Xu, D., Gray, S., & Yapanel, U. (2009). Teaching
by listening: the importance of adult-child conversations to
language development. Pediatrics, 124(1), 342-349.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: Some commenters thought this section should include
additional integration of professional development.
Response: We agree that integration of professional development to
support effective teaching practices is a key component of a high-
quality early education program. Therefore, we specifically addressed
this in paragraph (a) to ensure the system of individualized and
ongoing professional development supports teachers and in curriculum
requirements in Sec. 1302.32. While professional development revisions
to this section were limited to those changes, we also increased the
standards for the quality of professional development in subpart I.
Comment: Some commenters suggested that paragraph (b)(2) include a
focus on ``biliteracy'' in addition to bilingualism. Commenters noted
that the term biliteracy expands on the goals of bilingualism to
include a focus on reading, and eventually writing, in the home
language.
Response: We agree with this suggestion and we incorporated
``biliteracy'' into paragraph (b)(2) as well as in the home-based
option in Sec. 1302.35(c)(4).
Comment: Commenters asked for clarification and raised concerns
about paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (ii) related to finding bilingual staff
or interpreters to work with DLLs, such as lack of bilingual staff with
appropriate credentials, especially in rural areas; lack of
interpreters due to the rarity of some languages; and a high diversity
of languages in the same class. Some commenters suggested this may be
particularly challenging with refugee populations.
Response: Based on the best research available, we believe it is
critically important to support the development of both English and the
home language for children who are DLLs.76 77 78 79 80
Additionally, we believe that all teachers, including those who only
speak English, can support the development of DLLs. However, we also
understand that in certain instances, such as when there are multiple
non-English languages in the same class, it may be difficult to have
program staff or interpreters present that speak all languages. In
these instances, we encourage programs to collaborate with outside
entities to ensure the presence of multiple languages in the class.
Further we require programs to work to identify e volunteers who can be
trained to work in the classroom that can provide high-quality input in
children's home language(s). We added new language to the final rule
under paragraph (b)(2)(iii) to reflect these realities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ Bialystok, E. (2001). Bilingualism in development:
Language, Literacy, & Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
\77\ Genesee, F., Paradis, J., & Crago, M.B. (2004). Dual
language development and disorders: A handbook on bilingualism and
second language learning. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
\78\ Castro, D. C. & Espinosa, L. M. (2014). Developmental
characteristics of young dual language learners: Implications of
policy and practice in infant and toddler care. Zero To Three,
January, 2014.
\79\ Espinosa, L. (2010). Getting it right for young children
from diverse backgrounds: Applying research to improve practice.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
\80\ McCAbe, A., Tamis-LeMOnda, C.S., Bornstein, M.H., Cates,
C.B., Golinkoff, R., et al. (2013). Multilingual children: Beyond
Myths and towards Best Practices. Society for Research in Child
Development: Social Policy Report, 27 (4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: Some commenters recommended we add more specificity to
paragraphs (b) and (c), including on the structure of the day, the data
teachers use to plan, and the types of learning experiences provided.
Response: We believe it is important to include the key elements of
the teaching and learning environment so programs clearly understand
the components they need to implement to have high-quality education
programming. However, flexibility is also needed to allow for
innovation, individualization for a class or a child, and effective
implementation. Therefore, we did not incorporate the suggested
revision.
Comment: Some commenters noted the term ``classroom'' in paragraph
(c) was not inclusive of family child care terminology.
Response: We agree and revised paragraph (c) to reference
``learning environments'' instead of ``classrooms.''
Comment: Some commenters opposed or expressed concern about the
proposal in paragraph (e)(1) to require an age appropriate approach
that accommodates children's need to nap or rest. Some were concerned
about logistical challenges such as cost, staffing, and space. Some
commenters supported the proposal to promote learning through
approaches to rest, noting that adequate rest is closely tied to
learning and health.
Response: We made no changes to the requirements to have an
intentional and age appropriate approach to children's need to nap or
rest except to clarify for programs serving preschoolers, it applied
for programs operating 6 or more hours per day. Though maximizing
learning time is important, research shows a clear link between
adequate sleep and learning.81 82 83 We believe this
provision will support children's health and increase the
[[Page 61330]]
learning children can gain from other portions of the day. Moreover,
most states already require center-based programs to provide naps if
they operate for fewer hours than the 6-hour threshold. Therefore, many
programs are already subject to a more stringent requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ Bates, J. E., Viken, R. J., Alexander, D. B., Beyers, J., &
Stockton, L. (2002). Sleep and adjustment in preschool children:
Sleep diary reports by mothers relate to behavior reports by
teachers. Child Development, 73(1), 62-75.
\82\ Lam, J. C., Mahone, E. M., Mason, T. B., & Scharf, S. M.
(2011). The effects of napping on cognitive function in
preschoolers. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics,
32(2), 90.
\83\ Kurdziel, L., Duclos, K., & Spencer, R. M. (2013). Sleep
spindles in midday naps enhance learning in preschool children.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(43), 17267-
17272.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: Some commenters opposed the proposal in paragraph (e)(2)
that replaced the requirement for family style meals with an approach
that was less prescriptive but retained most of the key characteristics
of family style meals and ensured mealtimes were considered part of the
learning day. Some commenters felt strongly that family style meals
were integral to Head Start's culture. Commenters also raised concerns
about eliminating an important research-based requirement because
family style meals are important to teach lifelong healthy food habits
and they support socialization and conversation during mealtime. Some
commenters seemed concerned that family style meals would be prohibited
under our proposal or that the proposal conflicted with requirements in
the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP).
Some commenters wrote in support of our proposal to replace the
family style meal requirement with a less prescriptive proposal that
focused on meals as a time for learning, socialization, and
conversation. Some commenters stated that our proposal allowed for
better collaboration with community partners like schools, while still
retaining important parts of family style meals. Others agreed it would
support intentional teacher practices, focus on conversations,
learning, and socialization, and eliminate overly prescriptive
requirements.
Many commenters recommended we change the provision to explicitly
encourage family style meals. Some of these commenters noted that the
proposal included many central characteristics of family style meals
and appreciated our focus on mealtime as a learning activity. They also
noted they understood the benefits of our approach since it made it
easier to partner with other programs because some of the specifics of
family style meals were logistically challenging for some partnerships.
However, these commenters strongly recommended we add language to
encourage use of family style meal so it would be consistent with CACFP
and because the benefits were important.
Response: We believe it is essential that programs structure and
implement meals and snacks in ways that support development and
learning. Family style meal service is one effective method of
accomplishing this goal. Therefore, we revised the provision in
paragraph (e)(2) to make clear that programs are encouraged but not
required to meet the requirement to support development and learning
during meals times through the use family style meals when children are
old enough for this to be developmentally appropriate practice. This is
consistent with CACFP, which encourages but does not require family
style meals. However, we also believe it is appropriate to not be
overly prescriptive, to support partnerships, and to allow flexibility
in how a program promotes learning during meals.
Comment: Some commenters expressed support for our retention of
requirements in paragraph (e)(2) that children be given sufficient time
to eat, should not be forced to finish their food, and that food should
not be used as a reward or punishment. Some commenters wrote that we
should add requirements around food activities, including retaining a
requirement from the previous program standards about participating in
food activities.
Response: We agree that participating in food activities can be
part of good practice but think this is overly prescriptive and did not
make these suggested changes.
Comment: Some commenters recommended we add requirements for
physical activity, including parameters about how much time children
should be physically active. They suggested requirements based on the
National Health and Safety Performance Standards: Guidelines for Out-
of-Home Childcare, including that we require at least 60 minutes of
moderate to vigorous physical activity for children in Early Head Start
and at least 90 minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity for
children in Head Start.
Response: We agree that physical activity is important for young
children. Not only is it important for children's health, but movement
and physical activity are important to children's learning and
development.84 85 86 Developmentally appropriate practice is
clear that young children need to move and be physically active. For
example, the Office of Head Start's initiative I Am Moving I Am
Learning has been well-received by programs and helped institute
healthy practices. However, we do not believe we should dictate to
local programs the amount of time children should engage in such
activities. To ensure that programs recognize the role of physical
activity in children's learning and health, we added a new provision in
paragraph (e)(4) that reads: ``A program must recognize physical
activity as important to learning and integrate intentional movement
and physical activity into curricular activities and daily routines in
ways that support health and learning. A program must not use physical
activity as a reward or punishment.'' We believe this provision will
allow local programs to implement policies appropriate to their program
design and the needs of their children.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\84\ Becker, D. R., McClelland, M. M., Loprinzi, P., & Trost, S.
G. (2014). Physical activity, self-regulation, and early academic
achievement in preschool children. Early Education & Development,
25(1), 56-70.
\85\ Timmons, B. W., LeBlanc, A. G., Carson, V., Connor Gorber,
S., Dillman, C., Janssen, I., . . . & Tremblay, M. S. (2012).
Systematic review of physical activity and health in the early years
(aged 0-4 years). Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism,
37(4), 773-792.
\86\ Hodges, E. A., Smith, C., Tidwell, S., & Berry, D. (2013).
Promoting physical activity in preschoolers to prevent obesity: a
review of the literature. Journal of Pediatric Nursing, 28(1), 3-19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: Some commenters recommended we include new requirements
with specific limitations on screen time.
Response: We agree that children should have limited exposure to
screen time and believe that if programs are implementing the standards
in this section for nurturing, responsive, rich learning environments
and experiences that effectively support strong child outcomes, screen
time will, by necessity, not be available or will be appropriately
limited to interactive educational activities that evidence shows
support learning. However, as even the meaning of screen time is
currently evolving and the research on technology use and children's
learning is an emerging field, we chose not to add any specific
requirements.
Section 1302.32 Curricula
This section includes requirements for the curriculum or curricula
programs use. It reflects new requirements from the Act, the current
role and use of curricula in the early education field, and a deeper
understanding of the curriculum qualities associated with improved
child outcomes. This applies to center-based and family child care
programs. Curriculum requirements for home-based programs are found in
Sec. 1302.35. Some commenters were supportive of the curriculum
provisions. We also received comments with concerns and suggestions
that we discuss below.
Comment: Commenters were generally supportive of our curriculum
provisions. They stated the section included important changes that
would
[[Page 61331]]
raise the quality of curriculum and its implementation. Commenters
noted the importance of the requirements for content rich curricula,
and the benefits of requiring a clear scope and sequence and
integration of professional development and support for teachers. They
also supported the focus on implementation fidelity and the qualities
of an effective curriculum, including alignment with early learning
standards.
Response: We believe it is essential that programs intentionally
review the curriculum or curricula they are using to ensure it meets
each criterion in the final rule and appropriately supports children's
development and learning. In some instances, we believe it will be
necessary for programs to use curricula enhancements to ensure their
programming is sufficiently content rich and to achieve strong child
outcomes. We expect programs to be thorough in reviewing their
curriculum and the professional development system that supports
teachers' implementation of curriculum. For this reason, as proposed in
the NPRM, programs have approximately one year after publication of
this rule to implement this standard.
Comment: Some commenters recommended we include a list of
acceptable curricula to ensure programs use effective ones and to help
guide state pre-kindergarten curriculum choices.
Response: Development of curricula that can effectively impact
child outcomes is a growing field. Programs should not just accept the
publisher's word that their curriculum meets Head Start standards, but
should continuously evaluate its effectiveness as part of the program
management approach. We did not include a specific list of acceptable
curriculum so programs have the flexibility to implement appropriate
curricula for the children they enroll, supplement curricula as needed,
and make changes as the field advances.
Comment: Some commenters expressed concerns about the provision in
paragraph (a)(1)(iii) that requires curriculum to include an
``organized developmental scope and sequence.'' Others supported this
standard. Some commenters were concerned that ``scope and sequence''
would not be interpreted in a developmentally appropriate manner.
Others were concerned its interpretation was not clear for infants and
toddlers.
Response: We revised paragraph (a)(1)(iii) to clarify our meaning
of developmental scope and sequence. This standard now reads: ``has an
organized developmental scope and sequence that includes plans and
materials for learning experiences based on developmental progressions
and how children learn.'' We made similar changes to the comparable
provision for curricula in home-based programs in Sec. 1302.35 for the
same reasons. As part of this revision, we moved our requirement that
curricula be sufficiently content-rich to promote measurable progress
to paragraph (a)(1)(ii). This reorganization was for clarity; we did
not change the substance.
Comment: Some commenters were concerned the curriculum requirements
were not developmentally appropriate. Some were confused about
narrative in the NPRM's preamble that noted that research finds that
strong child outcomes for children are supported by activities that
intentionally engage children in activities like math or language for
15 to 20 minutes multiple times each week.
Response: We are clear in paragraph (a)(1) that programs must
implement developmentally appropriate curricula and we do not believe
any of the criteria required in paragraph (a)(1) are developmentally
inappropriate. Therefore, we do not need to revise this section to
address this concern. Neither the proposed rule nor the final rule
included any requirements about the specific amount of time teachers
should spend on any particular activity. Content-rich curriculum, in
which children intentionally engage in a math activity (for example),
does not require children sit still or be passive recipients of rote
instruction. For example, if implemented correctly, content-rich
learning activities are interesting, appropriate, and engaging for
children. Developmentally appropriate practice and effective
intentional teaching with young children does not mean rote
instruction, sitting still for lengthy periods while adults talk at
them, or ``drill and kill.'' Such teaching practices would not meet the
requirements in this subpart.
Comment: Commenters supported the provisions in what were
paragraphs (a)(2) and (3) that addressed professional development
support for curriculum implementation and fidelity of implementation.
Some commenters offered suggestions for further clarifying and
strengthening the goals of these provisions.
Response: We retained the two key concepts of the provisions in
paragraph (a)(2)--professional development--and paragraph (a)(3)--
curriculum fidelity, but integrated and streamlined them into paragraph
(a)(2) to improve clarity and implementation. Our revisions place more
focus on staff support and are less compliance oriented. In paragraph
(a)(2), we more clearly articulate the important requirement of
supporting all teachers with support, feedback, and supervision in
order to continuously improve curriculum implementation. In addition,
whereas in the proposed rule, curriculum fidelity kits were likely the
main way programs would comply with paragraph (a)(3), we revised
paragraph (a)(2) to focus on the requirement not the method. We made
similar changes to the comparable provisions for home-based programs in
Sec. 1302.35 for the same reasons.
Comment: Many commenters expressed concern or sought clarity on the
provisions in paragraph (b) that proposed requirements for when
programs sought to make significant adaptations to curriculum. Many
commenters requested greater flexibility in curriculum requirements in
paragraphs (a) and (b) so programs who serve culturally diverse
communities for whom curricula have not been designed or validated.
Some commenters were not clear how much adaptation would necessitate
partnerships with researchers. Others thought the provision was too
burdensome and unnecessary. Some supported the requirement and
suggested we make it more stringent.
Response: We agree our proposal in paragraph (b) lacked sufficient
clarity and flexibility. We revised paragraph (b) to require that
programs that need to make significant adaptations to a curriculum or
curriculum enhancement, must partner with early childhood education
curriculum or content experts. For example, programs would not need to
seek external expertise if they are adding a research-based curriculum
supplement to an underlying curriculum in order to make it sufficiently
content rich. Programs would also not need to seek external expertise
if they were supplementing the curriculum's set of picture books if
they were replacing them with books that reflect the diversity of
culture and languages spoken in the classroom. However, a program
seeking to significantly adapt a curriculum by translating major
portions of it to respond to the needs of children learning more than
one language would need to seek external review by a curriculum expert
to ensure such translation maintained the scientifically valid
characteristics of the underlying curriculum. This will ensure programs
implement high-quality curricula that meet the requirements in
paragraph (a). We eliminated the proposed
[[Page 61332]]
requirement for a research evaluation of the adaptation to improve
flexibility, but still encourage programs to partner with outside
evaluators. To ensure accountability, paragraph (b) requires programs
to assess whether the adaptation adequately facilitates progress toward
meeting school readiness goals as part of the program management
process described in subpart J. We believe this provision provides
better clarity and strikes the right balance between flexibility and
maintaining high standards for curriculum quality. We made similar
changes to the comparable provision for home-based programs in Sec.
1302.35 for the same reasons. We note that paragraph (a)(1) allows
curricular enhancements and does not require the partnerships described
in paragraph (b). Likewise, small changes to curricula to make them
more culturally appropriate for the children being served do not
require the partnerships described in paragraph (b). While not
required, we encourage programs to work with a researcher or evaluator
to examine their adaptations, if possible. We retain the requirement
from the NPRM that programs must report curricula variations to the
responsible HHS official.
Section 1302.33 Child Screenings and Assessments
This section applies screening and assessment requirements to all
program options and includes significant revisions to the previous
program performance standards in order to integrate advances from
research, reflect best practice, and implement provisions from the Act.
It includes requirements for the appropriate use of developmental
screening and ongoing child assessment that are integral to high-
quality programs.
Commenters supported many of the changes in this section, including
the clear process for referral for formal evaluation and the updates to
individualize services for children. We made changes to strengthen and
clarify the provisions in this section.
Comment: Some commenters noted the importance of maintaining the
45-day requirement for developmental screenings in paragraph (a)(1),
but some commenters stated the timeline for screening was too short and
some stated it was too long. Some commenters noted we dropped the
timeline from the previous regulation for developmental screenings in
Migrant and Seasonal Head Start programs, and many commenters noted we
inadvertently dropped the requirement to programs to obtain screenings
instead of only explicitly completing them.
Response: The final rule retains the 45-day timeline for
developmental screening. We believe it is both reasonable and important
to complete screenings quickly so that individualized needs can be
promptly identified. We restored the 30-calendar day timeline for
Migrant and Seasonal Head Start programs to paragraph (a)(1), which is
consistent with the previous regulation and was inadvertently dropped
from the proposed rule. In addition, in paragraph (a)(1), we clarified
that a program can meet the development screening requirement either by
completing it themselves or obtaining the results from another source,
and that the screening must be current.
Comment: Some commenters noted that what was paragraph (a)(2) in
the NPRM for programs to adhere to a prompt timeline for referrals that
they cannot control.
Response: We made revisions in paragraph (a)(3) to address these
concerns. We believe it is important for programs to refer children to
the local agency responsible for determining IDEA eligibility for a
formal evaluation as soon as possible, and not to exceed timelines
required under IDEA, but understand programs cannot control how quickly
the IDEA agency completes the formal evaluation.
Comment: We received comments both in support and opposition of the
proposal in what was paragraph (a)(3) in the NPRM to waive the 45-day
developmental screening requirement for children with a current
individualized family service plan (IFSP) or IEP. Some commenters
supported the proposal and noted it was good to eliminate redundant and
unnecessary screening. Some commenters opposed the provision and stated
that relying only on an IFSP or IEP would lead programs to miss
important information about the children they serve.
Response: We revised the final rule to remove the provision to
waive the 45-day screening for children with a current IFSP or IEP. We
note that developmental screenings are not overly time consuming, are
not a burden for children, and agree that there is the potential for
developmental issues to be missed if a program only relies on an IFSP
or IEP. We believe that screenings can also serve as an important
mechanism to build teacher-family partnerships, celebrate children's
developmental milestones, and provide valuable information to both
teachers and families on supporting children's holistic development,
across settings.
Comment: Some commenters supported our proposal in paragraph (a)(5)
for programs to help parents access services and support if their child
has a significant delay in one or more areas of development that were
likely to interfere with the child's development and school success.
Some commenters suggested this was an important provision because it
would ensure a specific at-risk population was better served. Some
commenters supported the provision but stated that it was too vague and
that further information or definitions were needed to clarify what we
meant by ``significant delay'' and ``supports and services.'' Some
commenters also recommended referencing Section 504 and the Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements or clarity about these
services being provided in the natural environment. Some commenters who
supported the provision stated that these children should be counted in
the program's calculation for meeting the requirement that 10 percent
of children in Head Start be eligible for services under IDEA.
Many commenters were opposed to our proposal in paragraph (a)(5).
They acknowledged it would be an important service but opposed it
because of associated costs. Other commenters opposed the provision for
reasons that included: They did not think programs had the expertise to
make the decision or provide the services; they believed it was
inappropriate if other specialists already deemed special education
services unnecessary; or they were concerned it would undermine their
partnerships with local educational agencies. Some commenters felt it
was unnecessary because programs already individualize services. Some
commenters agreed it could be helpful to children but that it should be
a recommendation not a requirement. Other commenters who opposed the
requirement requested that if we implemented the provision, the
children should count toward the program's 10 percent disability
enrollment requirement.
Response: We believe that when a formal assessment finds a child
has a significant delay, it is important that the program work with
parents to address the identified needs, even if the child is not found
eligible for early intervention or special education and related
services under IDEA. Therefore, the final rule retains the policy in
paragraph (a)(5) but makes changes to the provision to better clarify
what is and is not expected of the program. We clarified that programs
are
[[Page 61333]]
required to partner with parents to determine if needed supports and
services are available through a child's health insurance and/or
whether it is appropriate to provide supports for the child pursuant to
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act if the child satisfies the
definition of disability in section 705(9)(b) of the Rehabilitation
Act.
A program may use Head Start funds for such services and supports
when other funding is not available but the program is not required to
do so. Family service, health, or other appropriate staff, together
with the parents, must try to identify resources that can help provide
the child with the services and supports they need. We think this
clarifies what we mean by ``supports and services'' and did not define
the term. We also note that the provision explicitly requires this
determination be made with guidance from a mental health or child
development professional to ensure staff with appropriate expertise
guide the determination of the child's needs. We did not define
``significant delay'' so the mental health consultant and local experts
can have appropriate flexibility.
Comment: Many commenters wrote in support of the general approach
to child assessment in paragraph (b), including its research base and
its clarity on using and integrating assessment information into
individualization and teaching practices. However, many commenters
expressed concern about the term ``standardized and structured
assessment'' in paragraph (b)(1) and sought greater clarity on its
meaning.
Response: We added language to paragraph (b)(1) to clarify that the
standardized and structured assessments may be ``observation-based or
direct.''
Comment: Some commenters recommended we add requirements about the
frequency of assessments or made other suggestions for paragraph (b),
such as how the data are reported.
Response: We did not revise paragraph (b) to include requirements
about the frequency of assessments because we believe those
determinations are best made at the local level. However, we made small
changes in paragraph (b)(2) to further strengthen how programs use
assessments. Specifically, paragraph (b)(2) was revised to require
program ``regularly'' use assessment and other information to support
individualized learning and that such assessment data be used to
``inform'' strategies for individualization.
Comment: Some commenters were unclear about the need to assess DLLs
in multiple languages if they are proficient in English, as proposed in
paragraph (c)(2). Some recommended that DLLs only be assessed in their
non-English language if they struggle with English. Some commenters
stated that assessment in both languages should not be required for
program participation and asked whether programs will seek parental
input or consent for screenings and assessments in both languages.
Response: Assessing the language development of a DLL child in both
English and his/her home language provides a more complete picture of
the child's language development, including potential strengths or
concerns, even if the child is proficient in English. Additionally, as
stated in Sec. 1302.34(b)(6), program staff must inform parents and
family members about the purposes and results of screenings and
assessments and discuss children's progress.
Comment: Commenters were concerned with the feasibility of
assessing DLLs in their home language as proposed in paragraph (c)(2).
Commenters raised concerns such as: lack of valid, reliable assessments
in less common languages; feasibility of having interpreters for all
languages; and burden on staff to assess children in both languages.
Some commenters requested clarification, such as if it is acceptable
for an English-speaking staff person to use a Spanish interpreter to
conduct assessments with DLLs and, for assessments conducted in both
languages, if teachers should record the higher of the two scores.
Response: We strongly believe that programs should assess DLLs in
their home language with valid, reliable assessments, when feasible.
While Spanish is the home language of most DLLs in Head Start, we
recognize that there are over 140 other languages spoken by Head Start
children and that valid, reliable assessments are not available in
every language spoken by children in Head Start. We revised paragraph
(c)(2)(ii) and added new language at paragraph (c)(2)(iii) in the final
rule to reflect this reality including mechanisms that support accurate
and appropriate assessment processes. We also revised paragraph (c)(3)
to acknowledge when interpreters may be necessary to work in
conjunction with qualified staff that do not speak the language.
Finally in paragraph (c)(4) we clarified that only in instances where
an interpreter and qualified staff are not available can screenings and
assessments be done in English, but it is particularly important that
programs gather and use other information and structured observations
over time about the child development, including information from the
family about home language use. Assessments with DLLs should be
conducted with the same frequency as that for all children--as noted in
paragraph (b)(1), assessments must be conducted with sufficient
frequency to allow for individualization within the program year.
Comment: Some commenters were concerned that requirements for
serving DLLs might not support parental choice, including the
requirement in paragraph (b)(2) to assess children in both languages,
and the focus on exposure to English for infants and toddlers in Sec.
1302.31(b)(2)(i).
Response: We believe assessing children's language skills in both
English and their home language is necessary to accurately capture DLL
children's language development. Additionally, the Act requires Head
Start programs support the acquisition of English for DLL children.
Sec. 1302.34 Parent and Family Engagement in Education and Child
Development Services
This section includes provisions to ensure that center-based and
family child care programs structure their education services to
recognize parents' important roles in their child's education. It
primarily reflects the previous requirements replaced by the final rule
but reorganizes them for better clarity and implementation.
Many commenters expressed an over-arching concern that the proposed
rule diminished the role of the parents, though commenters generally
supported this section and noted it retained the important philosophy
that parents are children's first and most important teachers. Some
commenters also recommended changes, some of which we felt were too
prescriptive or unnecessary to support best practice. Other comments
are discussed below.
Comment: Some commenters recommended changes to further clarify the
important role of parents and suggested greater alignment with the
Parent Family and Community Engagement Framework.
Response: We revised this section to clarify and strengthen the
standards. For example, the section heading has been changed from
``Parent involvement'' to ``Parent and family engagement in education
and child development services'' to better reflect the intent of this
section and align the work programs have done with the Parent, Family,
and Community Engagement Framework. In addition, changes were made in
paragraph (a) to better reflect parents' central role in children's
education. We added a new provision in
[[Page 61334]]
paragraph (b)(2) to strengthen the engagement between teaching staff
and parent. In addition, we made changes in paragraphs (b)(4), (6), and
(7) to better distinguish which engagement activities are appropriate
for parents as opposed to families.
Comment: Some commenters stated that we required too many home
visits, and others suggested we require more home visits. Some
commenters opposed the requirement in paragraph (b)(7) for teachers to
complete a home visit before the start of the program year, if
possible, while others supported it.
Response: In response to comments seeking some clarification, we
made a few small structural changes to the provision that is now found
in paragraph (b)(7) to clarify the home visit requirement. However, we
did not revise the number of required teacher home visits. Further, we
note that paragraph (b)(7) states that one visit should take place
before the program year begins ``if feasible.'' We believe that home
visits before the start of the program year reflects best practice but
that sufficient flexibility is provided when it truly is not feasible.
As before, teachers can do more than two home visits if they feel that
is appropriate.
Comment: Some commenters recommended combining the provisions in
this section with those in Sec. 1302.51.
Response: We agree that both this section and Sec. 1302.51 address
activities to engage parents and families in their children's learning.
However, we did not combine the sections because this section
specifically addresses services and philosophies related to children's
educational services and Sec. 1302.51 includes parent services and are
better organized in the parent engagement subpart.
Section 1302.35 Education in Home-Based Programs
This section includes the requirements for education services in
home-based programs. It codifies and builds upon the guidance and
technical assistance we provided to home-based programs for many years.
We discuss comments and changes we made to the proposed rule below.
Comment: Some commenters supported the use of research or
evidenced-based home visiting curriculum, the use of promising
practices, and recommended we specify particular home visiting programs
or curricula or asked for clarifications about the requirement.
Response: We believe the use of a research-based home visiting
curriculum is critical to ensuring home-based services improve child
and family outcomes. We did not revise the section to require a
particular curriculum for serving children in the home-based program
because we believe programs should have local flexibility to select a
curriculum that best meets the needs of the children and families they
serve. We clarified the language around adaptations of curricula in the
same way as in Sec. 1302.32 for center-based and family child care
programs.
Comment: Some commenters suggested we include language that clearly
states home visits are to help parents understand their child's
development and to support responsive interactions between parent and
child. Some commenters further requested clarification about how the
Head Start Early Learning Outcomes Framework: Ages Birth to Five
applies to home-based because it does not include family goals.
Response: We agree that home visits must reflect the critical role
of helping parents support the early learning and development of their
children. Therefore, we revised paragraph (b)(1) to clarify that home
visitors must be able to effectively communicate with parents directly
or through an interpreter. In addition, we reordered the home-based
education section to put the parent and the home-based experiences in
paragraph (c) prior to the discussion of curriculum now found in
paragraph (d), to emphasize the central role of parents in successful
home-based services. We believe this addresses the comments and that
further revision is not necessary. Further, the Head Start Early
Learning Outcomes Framework: Ages Birth to Five describes what children
ages birth to five should know and do. We have the same expectations
for all children enrolled in any Head Start option.
Comment: Many commenters suggested that we require components of
the Parent, Family, and Community Engagement Framework (PFCEF) to be
included in the home visit experiences in what was paragraph (d) and is
now paragraph (c).
Response: Programs are required to use the PFCEF as part of their
family engagement services, which are already required in paragraph
(b)(4). Therefore, we did not make this revision.
Section 1302.36 Tribal Language Preservation and Revitalization
This section provides support for programs serving American Indian
and Alaska Native children that wish to or are already engaging in
tribal language revitalization efforts. We added this as a new section
based on reviewer comments about our inconsistent inclusion and meaning
of the phrase ``Native language'' in the proposed standards in the
NPRM.
Comment: Some commenters expressed concern about the inconsistency
of the inclusion of ``Native language'' for American Indian and Alaska
Native children and requested clarity on the intent of these provisions
in Sec. Sec. 1302.31 and 1302.35.
Response: We revised the language in Sec. Sec. 1302.31 and 1302.35
to clarify the intent of these provisions with respect to American
Indian and Alaska Native children. Additionally, we added this new
section to clarify that programs serving American Indian and Alaska
Native children may choose to engage in efforts to preserve,
revitalize, restore, or maintain the tribal language(s) for these
children.
Health Program Services; Subpart D
In this subpart, we updated program performance standards related
to health, nutrition, mental health, and safety. We retained the core
health services from the previous program performance standards,
including screening, ongoing care and follow-up care both because the
Act clearly links health, mental health, and nutritional services as
important supports to foster children's school readiness and because
research demonstrates a strong link between child health, school
readiness, and long-term outcomes.87 88 89 We further
strengthened the requirements with an emphasis on oral health and
parent education in health issues. We also updated the mental health
requirements to reflect best practice, to ensure programs use mental
health services to improve classroom management, and to support staff
in effectively addressing challenging behaviors. We also streamlined
program performance standards to make it easier for programs to find
what they need and to implement what we require. We received many
comments on this subpart. Commenters generally supported our
reorganization and streamlined requirements. Some noted their support
for our continued emphasis on health services as central to Head Start.
Many commenters offered recommendations for additional changes. In
response to comments, we
[[Page 61335]]
made technical changes, clarified requirements, and further
strengthened health, nutrition, and mental health services. We also
improved family support services and strengthened and clarified safety
practices. We discuss comments and our responses below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\87\ Currie, J.M. (2005). Health disparities and gaps in school
readiness. The Future of Children, 15(1), 117-138.
\88\ Janus, M., & Duku, E. (2007). The school entry gap:
Socioeconomic, family, and health factors associated with children's
school readiness to learn. Early Education and Development, 18(3),
375-403.
\89\ Bruner, C. (2009). Connecting child health and school
readiness. (Issue Brief No. 9). Denver, CO: The Colorado Trust.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Comments
Comment: Some commenters were concerned we diminished the
importance of health services in Head Start.
Response: We do not believe we diminished the importance of health
services in Head Start. The rule is clear that programs are required to
promote the health and well-being of all children in Head Start. We
believe this is central to Head Start's mission of helping children
succeed in school and in life. The rule clearly articulates the many
health services programs must provide and allows programs better
flexibility to focus on improved delivery of health and well-being
services instead of process-laden requirements.
Comment: Some commenters recommended we replace the word ``dental''
with ``oral'' throughout the rule to reflect current scientific and
clinical terminology.
Response: We agree ``oral'' is a more appropriate description than
``dental.'' Therefore, we replaced the word ``dental'' with ``oral''
throughout the regulation.
Section 1302.40 Purpose
In this section, we outline the overall goal of this subpart, which
is to ensure programs provide high-quality health, mental health, and
nutrition services that support each child's growth and school
readiness. To improve clarity, we moved the requirement for programs to
establish and maintain a Health Services Advisory Committee from
subpart E to this section.
Comment: Some commenters suggested we include oral health in the
list of health services included under this section. Other commenters
recommended we include the word ``culturally'' in the description of
appropriate services.
Response: We agree oral health is an important element of overall
health and might not automatically be recognized as included under
health. So, we added ``oral health'' to the list of health services. We
also agree health practices need to be culturally appropriate and
revised paragraph (a) to improve clarity about service delivery.
Section 1302.41 Collaboration and Communication With Parents
This section requires programs collaborate and communicate with
parents about their children's health in a linguistically and
culturally appropriate manner and communicate with them about health
needs and concerns in a timely manner. It also includes program
requirements for advance authorization from parents and for sharing
policies for health emergencies. We received some comments on this
section.
Comment: We received some comments requesting clarification on
communication and collaboration with parents. For example, commenters
noted that an example offered in the NPRM preamble did not appear in
the regulation text. Other commenters asked which ``health emergency
policies'' referenced in paragraph (b)(2) programs must share with
parents.
Response: The preamble in the NPRM provided explanation and
rationale for the proposed requirements. We offered examples as
guidance to make the rule more accessible to readers. We did not revise
the requirement about sharing policies for health emergencies because
we think it is appropriately described. Most programs share their
health emergency policies with parents through a parent handbook or
other vehicle.
Section 1302.42 Child Health Status and Care
This section includes requirements for programs to determine
children's source of care, to support parents in ensuring children are
up-to-date for preventive and primary medical and oral health care, and
to support parents to ensure children receive ongoing necessary care.
It also requires programs to determine if children have health
insurance and supports families in accessing health insurance if they
do not. It also includes requirements for extended follow-up care where
appropriate and clarifies use of program funds for medical and oral
health services. Commenters generally supported this section but also
requested clarification and offered additional suggestions. We address
these comments below.
Comment: We received many comments about the timelines in
paragraphs (a) and (b) that describe requirements for determining
whether a child has an ongoing source of health care and insurance
coverage, to assist families in accessing care and health coverage, and
to determine if children are up-to-date on preventive and primary
medical and oral health care. Some commenters stated that the 30-day
and 90-day timelines in paragraphs (a) and (b) were too long and would
result in delayed services. Some commenters stated the 30-day timeline
in paragraph (a)(1) was too short. Many commenters requested additional
clarification on the timelines. For example, many commenters requested
more specificity about what we meant by ``as quickly as possible'' in
paragraph (a)(2). Some commenters suggested we clarify the definition
for ``program entry'' to distinguish it from ``enrollment.'' They
stated that the perceived distinction between the two terms could
result in unintended consequences, such as programs delaying child
enrollment because they cannot obtain required health information
before children actually attend the program.
Response: We retained the 30-day and 90-day timelines from the
previous standards, which we believe are appropriate to ensure
children's needs are addressed in a timely manner and have not
presented problems for most programs to meet. However, to improve
clarity about when the timelines begin, we replaced the phrase, ``from
the child's enrollment'' with ``after the child first attends the
program or, for the home-based program option, receives a home visit''
in paragraphs (a)(1), (b)(1), (b)(2) and (b)(3) to clarify when
requirements must be met.
Comment: Some commenters recommended we revise paragraph (a)(2) to
recognize the unique role that Indian Health Services plays for many
children enrolled in tribal Head Start programs.
Response: We acknowledge the role Indian Health Services plays for
children enrolled in American Indian Alaska Native Head Start programs.
However, we did not think it was necessary to provide additional
clarity in paragraph (a)(2). Paragraph (a) clearly does not exclude any
source of continuous and accessible health care.
Comment: Some commenters recommended changes or requested more
clarity to the requirements in paragraph (b)(1)(i) to determine if
children are up-to-date on preventive and primary care. For example,
some commenters requested we specifically include oral health care
services. Some commenters suggested we waive the Early and Periodic
Screening, Diagnostic and Treatment (EPSDT) requirement for blood lead
testing because of concerns that local doctors refuse to do blood lead
tests for children who are at low risk based on a lead risk assessment.
Others suggested we allow programs to substitute a lead risk
[[Page 61336]]
assessment in lieu of blood lead testing. Some commenters requested
more clarity about the meaning of ``health care professional'' as it
relates to oral health. Others requested more clarity about the
qualifications of health care professionals.
Response: We revised paragraph (b)(1)(i) to improve clarity. We
amended this paragraph to include ``dental periodicity schedule'' to
clarify programs must determine whether the child is up-to-date on both
medical health and oral health care. We agree that our use of the term
``health care professional'' to apply to both health and oral health
was confusing. So, we amended this provision to include ``oral health
care professional'' as well as ``health care professional.'' We did not
specify qualifications for health care professionals, because state
requirements vary. We expect programs to ensure that health and oral
health professionals are qualified in their respective areas per state
requirements. We did not make revisions to the requirements related to
EPSDT because we do not have the authority to promulgate a regulation
that contradicts how states implement EPSDT, especially in light of the
potential serious health consequences of elevated lead levels.
Comment: Some commenters stated that paragraphs (b)(1)(ii) and
(iii) suggested parents were not capable of or bore no responsibility
to get their children up to date on immunizations. They believed the
requirement would force programs to undermine the role of parents when
they provide this service.
Response: It was not our intent to undermine the role of parents in
getting children up-to-date with preventive and primary medical and
oral health care. We consolidated what were paragraphs (b)(1)(ii) and
(iii) in the NPRM into paragraph (b)(1)(ii) and revised the language to
more clearly articulate our intent. We expect programs to help parents,
as necessary, in their efforts to ensure their children are up-to-date
with preventive and primary care. For those children who are not up to
date, paragraph (b)(1)(ii) requires that programs must assist parents
to make arrangements to bring their children up to date and to directly
facilitate health services only with parental consent.
Comment: Some commenters were concerned that paragraph (b)(2)
required programs to conduct all hearing and vision screenings, rather
than accept screening results from another source. In addition,
commenters suggested that children should be screened for ``mental and
physical trauma,'' as well as hearing and vision.
Response: We revised paragraph (b)(2) to clarify that programs must
either conduct or obtain hearing and vision screenings. We did not make
revisions to specifically include screening for mental and physical
trauma. Local programs may, with parent consent, implement such
screening as indicated, particularly if they serve populations with
known or likely exposure to trauma.
Comment: Some commenters suggested revisions to paragraph (b)(4)
that requires a program to identify children's nutritional health needs
and describes specific information they must take into account. For
example, some commenters opposed requirements to collect so much
specific health information because it was an unhelpful ``paper chase''
and unnecessarily burdensome since health care providers already
collect this data and provide follow up as necessary. Some commenters
opposed our requirements that programs collect hematocrit or hemoglobin
for each child. Some commenters suggested we require programs to
collect additional information about children's health status, such as
sweetened beverage consumption, physical activity, screen time levels,
and consumption of healthy foods such as whole grains, fruits, and
vegetables. Some commenters asked for clarification about what follow-
up was necessary based on the health information. Some commenters
objected to the requirement accounting for all children's body max
index (BMI) when BMI is not generally used for children under age two.
Other commenters expressed concern about whether Head Start staff are
qualified to interpret BMI and suggested programs with concerns about
children's weight, BMI, or growth refer families to their physicians
for further assessment. Commenters requested clarification, including a
timeline to identify nutrition needs.
Response: We believe it is appropriate to require programs collect
some information about each child's nutritional health status to help
meet the individual needs of children. However, we revised paragraph
(b)(4) so that rather than requiring programs to collect and track data
on all children, many of whom would fall within typical or acceptable
ranges, we require programs to identify each child's nutritional health
needs, taking into account available health information, including the
child's health records, and family and staff concerns. In addition, in
paragraph (c), we required programs to work with parents to ensure
children obtain necessary referral, follow up appointments, and
treatments. Programs may collect height and weight data directly as a
means to more regularly track growth and as part of the required
periodic observations or use other appropriate strategies for new or
recurring concerns. We also revised paragraph (d) to include examples
of how programs would use health information that may affect children's
development, learning, or behavior.
Comment: Commenters suggested we revise paragraph (c)(3) to state
topical fluoride or varnish can be used for all children, not just for
those that live in areas where the water is not fluoridated.
Response: We revised paragraph (c)(3) to clarify programs must
provide oral health preventive care for all children including, access
to topical fluoride treatments and, as indicated, fluoride supplements.
Comment: Some commenters requested we require programs to provide
diapers and formula for infants and toddlers during the portion of the
day they attend the program.
Response: In paragraph (e)(1), we codified a long-standing
expectation that programs must provide formula and diapers as needed by
children during the time they attend the program.
Section 1302.43 Oral Health Practices
In this section, we require programs to promote effective oral
health hygiene with daily tooth brushing. Research demonstrates a link
between oral health, dental pain, and children's attendance in
preschool programs, as well as their ability to effectively engage in
class activities.90 91 92 93 We discuss the comments we
received on this section below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\90\ Abanto, J., Carvalho, T. S., Mendes, F. M., Wanderley, M.
T., B[ouml]necker, M. and Raggio, D. P. (2011), Impact of oral
diseases and disorders on oral health-related quality of life of
preschool children. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology, 39,
105-114. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0528.2010.00580.x.
\91\ U.S. General Accounting Office. (2000). Oral Health: Dental
Disease Is a Chronic Problem Among Low Income and Vulnerable
Populations. Washington, DC: General Accounting Office.
\92\ Schechter N. 2000. The impact of acute and chronic dental
pain on child development. Journal of the Southeastern Society of
Pediatric Dentistry 6(2), 16.
\93\ Altarum Institute. 2007. Issue Brief: Oral Health Is
Critical to the School Readiness of Children in Washington, DC.
Washington, DC: Altarum Institute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: Commenters offered a number of suggestions for this
section. Some recommended we change the title of this section to
``Tooth brushing and other evidence or best practice based preventive
oral health practices.'' Some commenters recommended we include greater
specificity. For example, some recommended we include requirements for
cleaning infant gums, to use
[[Page 61337]]
toothpaste that contains fluoride, to implement tooth brushing as soon
as a child's first tooth emerges, or to ensure children brush their
teeth two times per day, for two minutes each time.
Response: We revised the title of this section from ``Tooth
brushing'' to ``Oral health practices'' to better reflect the
connection between tooth brushing and oral health status. We also
revised this section to require that all children with teeth, not just
those age one or older, have their teeth brushed at least once per day
with toothpaste that contains fluoride. We did not make further
revisions to this section because we did not think further specificity
was appropriate or supported by strong evidence.
Section 1302.44 Child Nutrition
This section details program performance standards for Head Start
programs to meet each child's nutritional requirements and feeding
needs. This section includes nutrition service requirements, including
how much food should be offered and requirements for supporting
breastfeeding. It also includes requirements about use of funds.
Nutrition is one of the founding principles of Head Start programs.
Good nutrition supports children's ability to grow, develop, and
achieve and maintain a healthy weight. Commenters suggested revisions
and sought clarification. Based on comments we received, we made some
changes to improve clarity and further strengthen requirements. We
address comments below.
Comment: Some commenters recommended we specify in paragraph (a)(1)
that nutrition services must be culturally and developmentally
appropriate to ensure they respond to the needs of enrolled children.
Response: We agree and made this revision.
Comment: Some commenters recommended we add additional requirements
to paragraph (a)(2). For example, some commenters suggested we require
programs to make drinking water available to children. They stated that
if children were able to satisfy thirst with water, they may be less
likely to consume large amounts of sugar sweetened beverages. Other
comments suggested we require programs to serve a varied diet with an
emphasis on fruits, vegetables, and whole grains rather than meet a
proportion of children's daily nutritional needs.
Response: We revised this section to add a new requirement at
paragraph (a)(2)(ix) to require programs make safe drinking water
available to children during the program day. We did not make revisions
to emphasize fruits, vegetables, and whole grains because we think the
requirement that programs meet the nutritional needs of children and
adhere with CACFP requirements on meal patterns is sufficiently
prescriptive.
Comment: We received some comments about how our requirements in
this section interact with CACFP requirements. For example, some
commenters requested we remove the requirement in paragraph (a)(2)(iii)
about food being high in nutrients and low in fat, sugar, and salt
because it is redundant with CACFP. Some other commenters expressed
concern or sought clarification about or exemption from CACFP
requirements because of burden and cost.
Response: We did not revise paragraph (a)(2)(iii) because we
believe it is necessary to emphasize the importance of healthy food
that is high in nutrients and low in salt, fat and sugar over and above
CACFP requirements regarding the nutrition content of food. We did not
revise paragraph (a)(1)(iv) because we think it is sufficiently clear.
In addition, we note that we require programs to use reimbursement from
CACFP, unless, as might occur in a home-based option, CACFP is not
available. In that case, programs may use Head Start or Early Head
Start funds for allowable food costs as we state in paragraph (b). We
have no authority to change CACFP requirements and made no revisions.
Comment: Commenters suggested we retain the provision from the
previous program performance standards that required programs to
involve parents and appropriate community agencies in planning,
implementing, and evaluating the program's nutrition services.
Response: We did not retain the previous standard that programs
engage parents and the community in nutrition services. While we think
this can be a valuable method to ensure cultural appropriateness and
respond to local nutrition related issues, we recognize it may be
difficult for some programs to regularly do this. We encourage programs
to maintain this practice as much as they can, but we want to provide
local flexibility to identify the approach.
Comment: Some commenters indicated that the word ``appropriate'' in
paragraph (a)(2)(vii) that modifies snacks could vary widely in
interpretation and suggested we replace ``appropriate'' with
``healthy.''
Response: We agree this requirement is clearer if we indicate
snacks and meals should be ``healthy'' and revised the paragraph
accordingly.
Comment: We received comments about our requirement to promote
breastfeeding in paragraph (a)(2)(viii). Commenters were generally
supportive of our focus on breastfeeding. Some commenters recommended
we require programs to train staff on how to properly handle and store
breast milk. Other commenters recommended we require programs to either
ensure staff complete lactation counselor training or provide referrals
to lactation counselors or consultants. Others asked us to clarify
whether programs must have breastfeeding rooms in each center.
Response: We did not think it was necessary to add a requirement
for programs to train staff on how to properly handle and store breast
milk because we think that is unnecessarily prescriptive in detailing
how a program must meet the requirement that they properly store and
handle breast milk. Many programs will find state licensing already
requires this. We also did not require programs to ensure staff
complete lactation counselor training. However, we amended paragraph
(a)(2)(viii) to require programs provide referrals to lactation
consultants or counselors if necessary. Finally, neither the NPRM nor
the final rule required programs to have separate rooms for
breastfeeding in each center. Programs may meet the requirement in
Sec. 1302.44(a)(2)(viii) to promote breastfeeding with a designated
private area with a comfortable chair, an outlet for a pump, and access
to a sink for hand washing to accommodate the needs of mothers who
breastfeed or pump milk.
Section 1302.45 Child Mental Health and Social and Emotional Well-Being
This section includes the requirements for services programs must
provide related to child mental health and the support of children's
social and emotional well-being. Early childhood mental health and
healthy social and emotional well-being has been clearly linked to
children's school readiness outcomes. Research estimates between 9
percent and 14 percent of young children experience mental health or
social and emotional issues that negatively impact their
development.\94\ The standards described in this section support
programs in creating a culture that promotes positive mental health and
social and emotional well-being,
[[Page 61338]]
including supporting positive staff-child interactions and parental
knowledge of mental health. Research also demonstrates that the use of
mental health consultation services has distinct benefits, including
improved child behavior, staff job satisfaction, and overall
effectiveness of early childhood programs.95 96 97
Therefore, this section also includes specific requirements for what
mental health consultants must do to assist programs, staff, and
parents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\94\ Brauner, C. B., & Stephen, B. C. (2006). Estimating the
prevalence of early childhood serious emotional/behavioral disorder.
Public Health Reports, 121, 303-310.
\95\ Gilliam, W.S., & Golan, S. (2006). Preschool and child care
expulsion and suspension: Rates and predictors in one state. Infants
and Young Children, 19(3), 228-245.
\96\ Perry, D. F., Dunne, M. C., McFadden, L., & Campbell, D.
(2008). Reducing the risk for preschool expulsion: Mental health
consultation for young children with challenging behaviors. Journal
of Child and Family Studies, 17(1), 44-54.
\97\ Brennan, E. M., Bradley, J. R., Allen, M. D., & Perry, D.
F. (2008). The evidence base for mental health consultation in early
childhood settings: Research synthesis addressing staff and program
outcomes. Early Education and Development, 19(6), 982-1022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In general, commenters supported strengthening mental health
consultation in Head Start, but suggested ways to improve the standards
to ensure a clear understanding of the importance of mental health, the
qualifications of a mental health consultant, and the role that the
mental health consultant plays in improving programs' ability to
address mental health problems, including challenging behaviors. We
address these and other comments below and describe changes we made to
this section to ensure that programs have the tools to successfully
promote the mental health and social and emotional well-being of all
children.
Comment: Commenters suggested we refer to social-emotional well-
being rather than ``child mental health'' to reduce the prejudice and
discrimination around mental health services and improve parent and
staff understanding of what mental health means for children.
Response: We agree and revised the title of this section as well as
the requirements throughout to more accurately mirror how the field of
early childhood discusses children's mental health and behavior by more
broadly defining child mental health and social and emotional well-
being.
Comment: Commenters requested clarification about who can serve as
mental health consultants and the role of mental health consultants in
the program. For example, commenters asked about the necessary
qualifications of mental health consultants and the amount of time
mental health consultants must spend in the program. Commenters also
noted a shortage of mental health consultants who are licensed,
particularly in rural and tribal areas, and suggested sharing best
practice information about effective mental health consultation in such
programs. Some commenters misinterpreted this section to remove
requirements for programs to use mental health consultants and were in
favor of only utilizing mental health consultants on an as-needed
basis. Other commenters suggested that additional funds would be needed
to implement these standards.
Response: We agree that it is important for programs to understand
the importance of mental health and the role of mental health
consultants in promoting the well-being of Head Start children. We
revised this section to include that programs must ensure mental health
consultants assist the program, staff and parents and clarified how
programs must support a culture of promoting children's mental health
and social and emotional well-being. We clarified the qualifications of
mental health consultants in Sec. 1302.91(e)(8)(ii). We understand
that access to mental health consultants, particularly those with
knowledge and experience serving young children, may not be available
in all communities, and that there may be a particular struggle in
tribal and rural areas, but we believe access to mental health
consultants in all programs is critically important. In order to
acknowledge this difficulty, we only require knowledge and experience
working with young children if consultants with this knowledge and
experience are available in the community.
To address the level of utilization of mental health consultants,
we revised paragraph (a)(2) to reinstate the requirement from the
previous regulation that a program must ``secure mental health
consultation services on a schedule of sufficient and consistent
frequency.'' We also clarified that programs must ensure that mental
health consultants are available to partner with staff and families in
a timely and effective manner. Additionally, to improve clarity, we
added a new paragraph (b)(6) to reference the use of mental health
consultants as required in Sec. 1302.17. While we understand the
concerns some commenters describe related to cost, Head Start has a
long-standing history of using mental health consultants who are
certified and licensed and we expect programs to meet these
requirements within their existing budgets and may use a variety of
strategies, including the use of technology, when capacity is an issue.
Comment: Some commenters recommended that the standards be revised
to require parental consent for consultation.
Response: To help normalize the mental health consultation process
and reduce prejudice and discrimination around use of mental health
consultants, we revised paragraph (a)(3) to require programs to obtain
parental consent for mental health consultation services when they
enroll children in the program.
Comment: Commenters suggested we add specific strategies for
addressing mental health issues and challenging behaviors, including
home visits, Applied Behavior Analysis, and trauma-informed care. Some
commenters suggested we require programs track and evaluate mental and
behavioral health practices in programs.
Response: While we agree that these strategies can be effective in
supporting children with behavioral and mental health problems, we
think it is important to give programs flexibility to address
individual child needs in the most appropriate way. Therefore, we do
not prescribe specific practices or strategies, but have revised
paragraph (b)(1) to reflect the concept in paragraph (a) that programs
must implement strategies to identify and support children with mental
health and social and emotional concerns and their families.
Comment: Some commenters recommended the inclusion of mental health
services within the context of home visiting or family child care
options so that these services will be more effectively integrated
throughout various program settings.
Response: We agree that mental health consultants should support
staff in all Head Start program models and revised paragraphs (b)(2)
and (3) to clarify our intent.
Comment: Commenters further suggested that internalizing or
withdrawn behaviors should be explicitly referenced throughout the
requirements to broaden the focus of child mental health beyond
behaviors that can disrupt classes. Commenters also noted these
problems need to be both identified as well as supported.
Response: We also added paragraph (b)(4) to explicitly include both
internalizing and externalizing problems as issues for mental health
consultants to assist staff to address.
Comment: Commenters stated that this section does not reflect the
important role of parents and parental mental health.
[[Page 61339]]
Response: We agree that parents are critical to the promotion of
child mental health and did not intend for the requirements to exclude
them. We have added paragraph (b)(5) to explicitly include parents.
Section 1302.46 Family Support Services for Health, Nutrition, and
Mental Health
This section includes the requirements that address health
education and support services that programs must deliver to families.
It consolidated requirements from the previous rule to improve clarity
and transparency. This section highlights the critical importance of
parental health literacy, which has been linked to the health and long-
term outcomes of young children.98 99 Commenters supported
this section and our reorganization. Commenters also offered
suggestions to expand, reduce, and reorganize the requirements. We
discuss comments and our responses below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\98\ Herman, A., & Jackson, P. (2011). Empowering low-income
parents with skills to reduce excess pediatric emergency room and
clinic visits through a tailored low literacy training intervention.
Journal of Health Communications, 15(8), 895-910.
\99\ Dewalt, D.A., & Hink, A., (2009). Health Literacy and Child
Health Outcomes: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Pediatrics,
124(3), 265-274.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: We received some comments with broad suggestions for this
section. For example, commenters suggested we include a specific
emphasis on father involvement. Commenters expressed concerns that
staff do not have time to comply with the section's requirements and
that the requirements are too broad. Others recommended we move this
section to follow Sec. 1302.41.
Response: We did not make revisions to address these comments. This
section addresses parents, which is defined to encompass mothers and
fathers. Strategies to promote father engagement are included in
subpart E. In addition, we believe these requirements are critical to
supporting child and family outcomes and are an essential part of Head
Start's comprehensive two-generation approach. Finally, we think the
organization of subpart D clearly conveys requirements and did not
revise the order of the sections.
Comment: Some commenters suggested revisions to increase the
emphasis on health literacy and parent collaboration.
Response: We made slight revisions to paragraph (a), which we
believe appropriately emphasizes parent collaboration, including for
individuals with low health literacy.
Comment: Some commenters recommended we expand services in
paragraphs (b)(1) related to nutrition, breastfeeding, tobacco, lead
exposure, safe sleep and mental health. Some expressed concern that the
requirements did not appropriately reflect the important role of
parents and parental mental health and suggested revisions. They also
recommended we revise our terminology about mental health to more
clearly indicate the breadth of issues that should be addressed.
Response: We agree and revised these three paragraphs to better
clarify the topics on which programs must offer to collaborate with
parents to include health and developmental consequences of tobacco and
lead exposure, safe sleep, healthy eating and the negative health
consequences of sugar-sweetened beverages; breastfeeding support and
treatment options for parental mental health or substance abuse
problems; and more broadly defined child mental health and social and
emotional well-being.
Comment: Some commenters recommended we include requirements to
specifically assist children and families accessing health insurance
for which they are eligible.
Response: We agree that programs play an important role in
assisting families who need health insurance. We revised paragraph
(b)(2)(i) to specify that programs provide information about public and
private health insurance and designated enrollment periods.
Section 1302.47 Safety Practices
This section includes the requirements for strong safety practices
and procedures that will ensure the health and safety of all children.
Basic health and safety practices are essential to ensure high-quality
care. In some instances, we moved away from prescribing extensive
detail when it is unnecessary to maintain a high standard of safety.
Instead, we allow programs flexibility to adjust their policies and
procedures according to the most up to date information about how to
keep children safe. To ensure programs are equipped with adequate
instruction on how to keep children safe at all times, we encourage
programs to consult a new ACF resource called Caring for Our Children
Basics (Basics).\100\ The section includes health and safety
requirements for facilities, equipment, materials, background checks,
safety training, safety practices, administrative safety procedures,
and disaster preparedness plans. These recommendations were informed by
research and best practice. We received many comments on this section
including suggestions to expand, reduce, and clarify requirements. We
address the comments we received on this section below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\100\ https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/hslc/tta-system/health/docs/caring-for-our-children-basics.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: Many commenters appreciated our focus on health and safety
systems instead of extensive checklists and recommended monitoring
protocols reflect this approach.
Response: We agree that the systems approach reflected in this rule
is preferable to a checklist approach and have made a number of small
changes to further support the systems approach, including in
paragraphs (b)(1)(ix) and (b)(2)(v) adding that programs must keep
facilities and materials safe through an ongoing system of preventive
maintenance. This systems approach will also be reflected in monitoring
in the future.
Comment: Some commenters recommended we rely on state licensing for
health and safety standards and not include different health and safety
standards.
Response: Many states have stringent health and safety regulations,
but some do not. In addition, not all Head Start programs are state
licensed. Therefore, we retained this section in the final rule;
however, we have made some language changes to align the health and
safety training for staff to the health and safety requirements in the
CCDBG Act. This will relieve the burden of different or conflicting
licensing standards.
Comment: Some commenters addressed our provision in paragraph (a)
that programs should consult Caring for our Children Basics for
additional information to develop and implement adequate safety
policies and practices detailed further in the subpart. Some commenters
appreciated the flexibility we afforded programs under this section
though noted that reduced specificity may compel programs to consult
other authorities. Some commenters supported our inclusion of Caring
for Our Children Basics and some suggested we require the specifics
recommendations from Basics and include them in the regulation. Some
commenters objected to the requirement and offered alternatives. For
example, some commenters recommended we require programs to either
``follow'' Basics or ``consult'' Basics so our intent is clearer. Some
commenters stated the requirements in Basics were unnecessarily high
and costly. Other commenters requested additional clarification or
expressed concern about what would happen if there were
[[Page 61340]]
inconsistencies between Basics and state or local standards. Some
seemed confused about the difference between Caring for Our Children
and Caring for Our Children Basics or pointed out differences between
the two documents. Some commenters were concerned about potential
inconsistencies if Basics is updated more frequently than Head Start
Program Performance Standards. Some commenters were concerned we would
find programs to be out of compliance if they failed to meet all the
recommendations included under Basics.
Response: We believe our reference to Basics will help clarify
minimum health and safety expectations across early childhood settings.
Many programs already exceed what Caring for Our Children Basics
recommends as best practice. Other programs may need guidance in
establishing their policies, procedures and systems and Basics will be
a useful resource guide for these programs. Furthermore, Basics
represents a uniform set of health and safety standards and provides
specific guidance to assist programs in achieving the standards
identified in this regulation. We believe Basics will be an important
resource for programs and useful tool for achieving consistency across
programs. Therefore, we retained our requirement in paragraph (a) that
encourages programs to consult Basics in developing their safety
standards and training.
Comment: We received comments requesting clarification on the
introductory text in paragraph (b) and paragraph (b)(1). For example, a
commenter suggested we delete ``at a minimum'' in the introductory text
in paragraph (b) to improve clarity. In addition, some commenters
suggested we require family child care providers store guns and
ammunition so children cannot readily access them. They also
recommended we require programs to train staff on safe gun and
ammunition storage procedures. Other commenters noted we omitted food
preparation from paragraph (b)(1)(viii). Others suggested we require
smoke-free environments and promote smoke-free environments for
children to families and other caregivers.
Response: We agree the placement of ``at a minimum'' in the
introductory text in paragraph (b) was confusing and moved it to
paragraphs (b)(1), (2), (4), (5), (6), and (7) to improve clarity. We
did not include revisions on gun safety because we think the
requirement in paragraph (b)(1)(vii) that states facilities must be
free from guns or firearms that are accessible to children is
sufficient. Local programs may elect to provide training on storage
safety but we did not require it. We revised paragraph (b)(1)(viii) to
clarify that facilities have separate toileting and diapering areas
from areas for food preparation. This reflects an important basic
requirement from the previous program standards. We agree smoke-free
environments are important. We did not make revisions to address this
comment because paragraph (b)(1) already requires facilities be free
from pollutants and we prohibit smoking in all Head Start facilities
under the terms of grant awards.
Comment: We received comments about our requirement in paragraph
(b)(2) that all equipment and materials meet standards set by the
Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and the American Society for
Testing and Materials, International (ASTM). Some commenters agreed
with this requirement. Commenters were concerned about the complexity
and cost of meeting CPSC and ASTM standards. Some commenters suggested
we reference the full names of the CPSC and the ASTM to improve
clarity.
Response: We agree with commenters that it may be difficult for
programs to identify all equipment and materials that are covered by
the CPSC and the ASTM. Our understanding is that most equipment and
material used in early childhood programs is labeled as compliant with
applicable standards. In order to reduce potential burden for programs,
we struck what was paragraph (b)(2)(iii) and revised paragraph (b)(2)
to specify that indoor and outdoor play equipment, feeding chairs,
strollers, and cribs must meet the applicable ASTM or CPSC standards
and other materials and equipment used in the care of enrolled children
must also meet those standards as applicable. We also included the full
names of these entities for better clarity.
Comment: Some commenters recommended we include more specificity in
paragraph (b)(2)(i). Specifically, they suggested we include specific
language from Caring for Our Children about ensuring all indoor and
outdoor equipment and materials and play spaces are clean and safe and
appropriately disinfected.
Response: We did not revise paragraph (b)(2)(i) to make it more
specific. We expect programs to determine what they must do to provide
safe and healthy environments and encourage them to consult Caring for
Our Children Basics or other similar resources for additional guidance.
Comment: We received comments on paragraph (b)(4) that address
safety training. Commenters requested more clarification, such as what
topics programs must include in the initial training and how often they
must offer this training. They also asked us to clarify what positions
are included under ``all staff.'' Other comments offered
recommendations for additional specificity to the required staff
training topics. For example, some commenters recommended additional
specificity about safe sleep practices, and some commenters suggest we
add cold weather safety.
Response: We agree that we were not clear enough about which staff
needed safety training and whether it was necessary for all staff to be
trained on all required topics. Therefore, we revised paragraph (b)(4)
to clarify what safety training was required for staff with regular
child contact in paragraph (b)(4)(i) and what safety training was
necessary for staff without regular child contact in a new requirement
at paragraph (b)(4)(ii). We have also clarified that the areas of
training provided should be appropriate based on staff roles and ages
of children they work with. Further, we did not specify in paragraph
(b)(4) of this section what topics programs must include in the initial
training and how often must they offer this training. We expect
programs to design training curricula and determine how often this
training must be provided in order to ensure staff are properly trained
to keep children safe. We did not make revisions to address other
requests for more specificity because we did not think we did not
believe that level of prescription was necessary to ensure child
safety.
Comment: Commenters recommended we replace ``spills of bodily
fluids,'' with ``exposure to blood and body fluids'' in hygiene
practices.
Response: We revised this requirement accordingly, now found at
paragraph (b)(6)(iii).
Comment: We received many comments about safety requirements for
addressing child food allergies, which we addressed primarily in what
was paragraph (b)(8)(vi) in the NPRM and is paragraph (b)(7)(vi) in the
final rule. Many commenters were concerned the requirement created
privacy concerns and offered alternative suggestions. Some commenters
were concerned standards were not strong enough and parents might
decline to enroll their child. Specific recommendations included:
Implementation of a system to share allergy information with relevant
staff; to have a training system to ensure staff are prepared to manage
allergy related emergencies; posting a list under a sign indicating
that there is confidential information; and making
[[Page 61341]]
sure all staff are aware of all allergies and using scan cards that
include allergy information.
Response: A program's most critical responsibility is to keep
children safe. We did not make changes to the food allergy requirements
in paragraph (b)(7)(vi). We require programs to implement
administrative safety procedures, including posting child allergy
information prominently where staff can view where food is served. We
do not believe this requirement creates privacy concerns. We believe
that with the very young children that Head Start serves, the threat
posed by any staff or volunteer who is serving food not knowing about a
child's allergy is a far greater threat than others knowing about a
child's food allergy. We have also made this clear in subpart C of part
1303 on Protections for the Privacy of Child Records.
Comment: We received comments about the requirement in paragraph
(c) that programs must report any safety incidents in accordance with
Sec. 1302.102(d)(1)(ii). For example, commenters requested
clarification about the timeline or suggested the reporting requirement
was unnecessary. We received many comments about Sec.
1302.102(d)(1)(ii) to which this requirement in paragraph (c) is
aligned.
Response: We revised Sec. 1302.102(d)(1)(ii) to reflect the many
comments we received on that requirement. We discuss those comments and
our revision in subpart J. We think those revisions provide sufficient
clarity for this provision.
Family and Community Engagement Program Services; Subpart E
This subpart includes program requirements for family and community
engagement services. It requires programs integrate family engagement
into all systems and program services. It also includes the strategies
and approaches programs must use for family engagement and strengthens
the requirements for offering parent activities that promote child
learning and development. Further, it details the family partnership
process, including identification of family strengths and needs and
individualized family partnership services. Finally, it details program
requirements for community partnerships and coordination with other
programs and systems. This subpart retains many provisions from the
previous program standards but consolidates, clarifies, and reorganizes
them and strengthens them with a greater focus on family services
outcomes instead of processes and a requirement to offer research-based
parenting curriculum.
We received many comments on this subpart. Some commenters
supported the improved flexibility, attention to children's learning,
and integration of family engagement. However, many commenters were
concerned this subpart contributed to an overarching theme of a
weakened role for parents. We believe parents are foundational to Head
Start's success and that Head Start's two-generation approach is
integral to its impact on the children and families it serves. It was
not our intent to diminish the role of parents in the NPRM. The NPRM
built on the groundbreaking work of the Parent, Family and Community
Engagement Framework (PFCEF) to focus on system-wide parent, family,
and community supports that would create a roadmap for progress in
achieving the types of outcomes that lead to positive and enduring
change for children and families. However, it was clear from public
comments that we needed to revise provisions to ensure the integral
role of parents in Head Start is appropriately reflected in the final
rule. We discuss public comments as well as our responses and revisions
below.
General Comments
Comment: Many commenters expressed concern that family partnership
services were too focused on child development and learning and
recommended we revise them to focus more broadly on strategies to
enhance families' social and economic well-being and leadership skills.
In addition to recommending revisions to separate parent and family
services from child learning and development, some commenters offered
specific suggestions, such as identification of economic well-being as
part of family well-being and pilot programs to support two-generation
practices.
Response: Section 636 of the Head Start Act specifies the purpose
of Head Start is to improve the school readiness of children and
provide services to families that support children's cognitive, social,
and emotional development and school readiness. Research shows that
family social and economic well-being greatly impacts children's
development and school readiness,101 102 103 104 105 which
is why two-generation approaches like Head Start are so important. We
revised Sec. 1302.50(a) to further clarify the purpose of parent and
family engagement as supporting children's learning and development. We
made substantial revisions in Sec. Sec. 1302.50 and 1302.52 to clarify
that family partnership services should include the depth and breadth
appropriate to support families. We also revised Sec. Sec.
1302.50(b)(3) and 1302.52(a) to clarify that family well-being includes
family safety, health, and economic stability. Thus, we believe the
final rule appropriately reflects the statutory requirement that family
engagement services be provided to improve children's learning and
development and the importance of strong family partnership services in
support of that purpose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\101\ Kingston, S., Huang, K. Y., Calzada, E.,
Dawson[hyphen]McClure, S., & Brotman, L. (2013). Parent involvement
in education as a moderator of family and neighborhood socioeconomic
context on school readiness among young children. Journal of
Community Psychology, 41(3), 265-276.
\102\ Soltis, K., Davidson, T.M., Moreland, A., Felton, J., &
Dumas, J.E. (2015). Associations among parental stress, child
competence, and school-readiness: Findings from the PACE study.
Journal of child and family studies, 24(3), 649-657.
\103\ Fantuzzo, J., McWayne, C., Perry, M. A., & Childs, S.
(2004). Multiple dimensions of family involvement and their
relations to behavioral and learning competencies for urban, low-
income children. School Psychology Review, 33(4), 467-480.
\104\ McWayne, C., Fantuzzo, J., Cohen, H. L., & Sekino, Y.
(2004). A multivariate examination of parent involvement and the
social and academic competencies of urban kindergarten children.
Psychology in the Schools, 41(3), 363-377.
\105\ Barnard, W. M. (2004). Parent involvement in elementary
school and educational attainment. Children and Youth Services
Review, 26, 39-62.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: Many commenters broadly recommended revisions to emphasize
the key role of parents in all areas of program operations.
Response: We agree that parents should be engaged in all aspects of
program operations. Effective, comprehensive family engagement depends
upon strategies that support family well-being and family engagement
being embedded throughout systems and services. We believe the rule
accomplishes this integration and note that collaboration with parents
and families and parent and family engagement and services are
integrated into all program services. In addition to the extensive
parent and family services required in this subpart and in Program
Governance, parent and family engagement services are integrated
throughout program operations. For example, we integrate these services
in the education subpart (e.g., Sec. 1302.34), the health services
subpart (e.g., Sec. Sec. 1302.41 and 1302.46), the disabilities
subpart (e.g., Sec. 1302.62), the transitions subpart (Sec. Sec.
1302.70(c) and 1302.71(b)), personnel policies (e.g., Sec. Sec.
1302.90(a) and 1302.92(c)(3)), and program management (subpart J).
However, we did make some revisions to address this
[[Page 61342]]
concern. As previously noted, we reinstated parent committees as part
of the governing structure in part 1301. Also as previously noted, we
revised the family engagement section title in the Education and Child
Development subpart to reflect the broader nature of parent and family
engagement. In addition, to reflect that family and community program
services in this subpart are not limited to partnership services, we
revised the subpart title to read ``Family and Community Engagement
Program Services.'' We also revised Sec. 1302.50(b)(1) to recognize
parents as children's primary ``teachers and nurturers'' to more
specifically define the parent's role.
Comment: Many commenters recommend we reorganize part 1302 to place
subpart E--Family and Community Engagement Program Services--before
subpart C--Education and Child Development Services. They stated this
would help convey the centrality of parent engagement to Head Start.
Response: We agree that parent engagement is foundational to Head
Start. We think this is appropriately reflected in this subpart as well
as in parent-related provisions integrated into every other subpart in
part 1302--Program Operations. Therefore, we do not think reorganizing
the subparts is necessary to reflect parents' essential roles in the
lives of their children and as partners in the Head Start program. We
did not reorder any subparts in part 1302.
Comment: Some commenters recommended we do more to integrate the
Parent, Family, and Community Engagement Framework (PFCEF) into the
rule. For example, some commenters recommended we include the PFCEF
title and outcomes definitions into the rule. Others recommended we add
more specificity related to the PFCEF and/or stronger requirements to
track and measure progress in the outcomes included in the PFCEF.
Response: We agree programs have made important progress in service
delivery through integration of the PFCEF in their systems and
services. Therefore, this subpart included many of those key strategies
and approaches, including a strong focus on family engagement outcomes.
In response to comments, we revised the final rule to provide clearer
identification of PFCEF outcomes in Sec. 1302.52(b), alignment of the
individualized family partnership services to the PFCEF outcomes in
Sec. 1302.52(c)(1), and stronger requirements for tracking outcomes in
Sec. 1302.52(c)(3).
Section 1302.50 Family Engagement
This section included the fundamental requirements that apply
broadly to all parent and family engagement activities as well as
general parent and family program practices. It requires programs to
integrate family engagement strategies into all systems and program
services and details fundamental requirements for approaches to family
engagement. To address overarching concerns about conveying the
centrality of family engagement and the important role of parents, we
made some structural and other revisions to requirements in this
section. In addition to some of the revisions to paragraph (a) that we
previously noted, we made revisions such as changing the section title
from ``In general'' to ``Family engagement'' and deleting the reference
to community partnerships to clearly differentiate requirements in the
sections related to family engagement in Sec. Sec. 1302.50, 1302.51,
and 1302.52 from the requirements for community engagement in Sec.
1302.53. We also added the title ``Family engagement approach'' to
paragraph (b) and changed the structure for the lead-in to paragraph
(b) so that its requirements for family engagement are clearly
delineated. We discuss comments and our responses below.
Comment: Some commenters suggested revising the requirement in what
was paragraph (b)(2) in the NPRM and has been moved to paragraph (b)(6)
in the final rule to ensure information is provided in a family's
preferred language to ensure that they access and participate in
services. Another commenter recommended we explicitly require materials
be accessible to families who are ``low literacy'' or not proficient in
English.
Response: Though we agree it is important that programs make
information and services available in the languages spoken by enrolled
families, we also understand that programs may have a dozen or more
languages represented among their enrollment at any one time and that
some languages may be spoken by only a few members of a community. We
believe that our requirement in what is now paragraph (b)(6) is
appropriately specific. We also have confidence that programs will
consider the needs of the families they enroll, including literacy, in
their interactions with families.
Comment: Some commenters supported the father engagement
requirement in what was paragraph (b)(3) in the NPRM. Other commenters
stated that father engagement should not be mandated. Some offered
additional suggestions, such as adding the term ``male'' to father
engagement to include the men who participate in raising children who
are not their biological fathers and explicitly adding services for
lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) parents.
Response: The definitions of ``family'' and ``parent'' under part
1305 allow for many variations of people who may have the role of
parents or guardians or as authorized caregivers. We have retained a
focus on ``father engagement,'' which is in paragraph (b)(1) in the
final rule, because research demonstrates that child outcomes improve
when fathers are positively involved. This does not preclude the
engagement of other males who may have significant roles in children's
lives so we do not think we need a broader requirement. While the
regulation requires that programs implement strategies to engage
fathers in their children's learning and development, this is not the
same as mandating father engagement for every father. In fact, the
requirement in Sec. 1302.15(f) explicitly states that parent
participation is not required. Because of the inclusive definitions we
provide for ``parent'' and ``family,'' we did not amend the section to
specifically list LGBT parents.
Comment: Some commenters recommended replacing the phrase
``responsive to and reflect'' with ``incorporates'' in paragraph
(b)(2).
Response: We agree and made this revision.
Comment: Commenters believed the provisions in this section
weakened family services, and requested changes to ensure that Head
Start's two-generation approach to addressing family needs is not
diminished. Some of these commenters requested that Head Start programs
be allowed to utilize innovative two-generation approaches to deliver
services to families of enrolled children.
Response: As stated previously, it was not the intent of the NPRM
to diminish or weaken the critical role that Head Start programs play
in supporting families of enrolled children. In addition, Head Start
programs have always been allowed to utilize two-generation approaches
to deliver services to families of enrolled children, and many already
do. However, we added a provision in paragraph (b)(4) to clarify that
programs should implement innovative strategies to address prevalent
needs of families across the program. This provision further
acknowledges that in order to implement such strategies effectively,
programs may need to leverage
[[Page 61343]]
community partnerships or other funding sources.
Section 1302.51 Parent Activities To Promote Child Learning and
Development
This section includes requirements for activities programs must
provide to parents to assist them in promoting child development and
learning. It included a new requirement that programs offer the
opportunity for parents to participate in research-based parenting
curriculum. We revised this section to include the requirement for
working with parents to support regular child attendance from Sec.
1302.50(b)(1) in the NPRM. We believe it is more appropriately placed
in this section. We also addressed the concern that we did not
adequately reflect the important role of parents in children's learning
with revisions in the introductory text in paragraph (a) and paragraph
(a)(1).
Comment: As previously noted, some commenters recommended we
combine the requirements of this section with the requirements of Sec.
1302.34. Others recommended a reorganization to amplify the importance
of supporting children's learning as a purpose for family engagement.
Response: We did not make this revision. We believe Sec. 1302.34
appropriately integrates parent and family engagement into center-based
and family child care education services that are focused on the child.
The activities in this section are parent-focused. We think this
organization better conveys the importance of integrated family
engagement services throughout program operations and reflects which
staff will primarily engage in the service delivery.
Comment: Some commenters suggested adding language to the
regulation on informing parents about the importance of bilingualism.
Response: We agree that programs should provide parents with
information about brain development, including bilingualism. We added
paragraph (a)(3) to reflect this suggestion.
Comment: Some commenters supported the requirement in paragraph (b)
for a research-based parenting curriculum, noting it would raise
program quality. Some requested further clarification, such as a list
of acceptable curricula or whether adaptations could be made to the
curricula. Others recommended we add more strengths-based language to
the requirement. Some commenters opposed this requirement for reasons
such as cost and concern appropriate research-based curricula were
unavailable or suggested participation be optional because it would be
burdensome to working parents.
Response: We think this requirement will improve the quality of
service delivery. We do not think further clarification is necessary,
but agree that the requirement should be strengths-based and revised
paragraph (b) to reflect that characteristic. We also clarified that
significant adaptations could be made to better meet the needs of the
populations served, but that in such cases programs must work with an
expert to develop these adaptations. Technical assistance is available
on available research-based parenting curricula through the Early
Childhood Learning and Knowledge Center. We note that parent
participation is never required as criteria for a child's enrollment in
Head Start.
Section 1302.52 Family Partnership Services
This section details the family engagement service requirements
programs must provide to identify family needs and goals and provide
services and supports to help meet family needs and achieve their
goals. It requires a family partnership services approach that is
initiated as early as possible, shaped by parent interest and need,
focused on outcomes instead of process, and effectively targeted
program and staff resources based on need to ensure appropriate levels
of service intensity. We designed this section to align with the
Parent, Family, and Community Engagement Framework that has helped
programs develop an ongoing process of individualized services based on
family strengths and needs instead of the development of a single
written plan. Many commenters strongly opposed our elimination of a
specific family partnership plan. Though we intended to strengthen
family engagement services with requirements that detail an ongoing
outcomes-focused process, commenters believed this section diminished
family engagement services and contributed to an overall weaker role
for parents in Head Start. We address these and other comments below.
Comment: Many commenters strongly suggested we restore the written
family partnership agreement. Commenters articulated concern that
removal of the requirement for a written agreement weakened family
services in Head Start. Other commenters thought that eliminating the
requirement for a written agreement meant we eliminated the family goal
setting process. Though some commenters agreed that the paper document
can become more of a paperwork process than the means to supporting
families in identifying and achieving goals, they still felt that the
written agreement is an important step in formalizing the process. Some
commenters expressed support for the increased local flexibility
afforded by not requiring a written agreement.
Response: We intended for this subpart and this section
specifically to streamline requirements, place an emphasis on outcomes
over process, and allow more local flexibility to implement effective
processes and strategies for meeting family service outcomes. We did
not intend for this section to diminish the program's two-generation
approach or the strength and breadth of family services.
We made revisions to this subpart and section to clarify our intent
for the family partnership services, including that it must include a
family partnership agreement. We added this provision in Sec.
1302.50(b)(3). We also added Sec. 1302.50(b)(5) in the final rule to
require a program's family engagement approach to include partnership
with families to identify needs, interests, strengths, goals, services
and resources that support parents. As previously noted, we revised
paragraph (a) in this section to clarify that family well-being
includes family safety, health, and economic stability. Also as
previously noted, we revised paragraph (b) to strengthen alignment
between intake and family assessment procedures and identification of
family strengths and needs to the outcomes of the Parent, Family, and
Community, Engagement Framework. These changes help clarify that the
rule does not narrow the breadth or depth of family services that are
ultimately aimed at promoting the school readiness of children.
Finally, we made significant revisions to paragraph (c) to detail
the full process of family partnership services. In paragraph (c)(1),
we require programs to offer individualized services that identify
family interests, needs, and aspirations related to the family
engagement outcomes in the PFCEF. In paragraph (c)(2), we require
programs to help families achieve their identified outcomes. In
paragraph (c)(3), we require programs to establish and implement a
family partnership agreement process, including a family partnership
agreement, to review family progress, revise goals, evaluate and track
whether identified needs and goals are met, and adjust strategies on an
ongoing basis. In paragraph (c)(4), we provide programs with
flexibility to target resources to ensure appropriate levels of service
intensity.
[[Page 61344]]
We believe the revisions to this section and to Sec. 1302.50
strengthen program quality through a focus on outcomes instead of
process, dispel concerns about the rule diminishing family partnership
services, and will ensure programs implement strong and effective
family partnership services that strengthen families and improve child
outcomes.
Comment: Some commenters suggested we clarify whether parent goals
should focus on the parent or the parent's goals for the child. Others
recommended that we be more explicit about data and performance
indicators related to family services and well-being.
Response: We believe this subpart provides appropriate flexibility
for parents to identify their needs, goals, and aspirations so we did
not include additional specificity about the types of goals parents
set. We revised this section to reframe a requirement that was in
paragraph (c)(2) in the NPRM and paragraph (c)(3) in the final rule to
ensure programs review, evaluate, and track family needs and goals and
appropriate strategies on an ongoing basis.
Section 1302.53 Community Partnerships and Coordination With Other
Early Childhood and Education Programs
This section includes program requirements for community
partnerships. It largely maintains provisions from the previous
performance standards about ongoing collaborative relationships and
partnerships with community organizations. It requires programs take an
active role in promoting coordinated systems of comprehensive early
childhood services. It added a new requirement for a memorandum of
understanding with the appropriate local entity responsible for
managing publicly funded preschool programs to reflect requirements
from the Head Start Act. It also added new requirements for
coordination with state and local Quality Rating and Improvement
Systems and state data systems to ensure that we are maximizing access
to services, reducing duplication and fostering informed quality
improvement.
We reorganized and retitled this section to improve clarity. For
example, we reorganized Sec. Sec. 1302.50 and 1302.54 so community
partnership requirements were solely consolidated under Sec. 1302.53.
We reorganized this section to describe program requirements for
ongoing collaborative relationships and partnerships with community
organizations in paragraph (a). We moved what was paragraph (a) in the
NPRM to paragraph (b) in the final rule and restructured requirements
for memorandum of understanding, QRIS, and data systems to fall under
paragraph (b) to better articulate the linkages between these three
requirements and those in paragraph (b) that require programs take an
active role in promoting coordinated systems of comprehensive early
childhood services. We also revised and moved the requirement to
participate in statewide longitudinal data systems from subpart J to
this section.
We also moved the requirement about Health Services Advisory
Committees from paragraph (c) to Sec. 1302.40(b). In addition, we
renamed this entire section ``Community partnerships and coordination
with other programs and systems'' to more clearly identify its
applicability and purpose. We received many comments on this section.
We discuss them and our responses below.
Comment: We received many comments on the community partnership
requirements described in what is now paragraph (a) but was paragraph
(b) in the NPRM. Many commenters suggested we add new partners with
which programs should establish collaborative relationships and
partnerships, such as programs funded through the Runaway Homeless
Youth Act, financial partners, and school boards. Other commenters were
concerned we removed explicit mention of nutrition and housing
assistance agencies. Some commenters recommended we not add any
specific community partnerships and let programs decide based on
community data. Some commenters requested additional clarification,
such as for greater specificity for coordinating community plans or
whether we will allocate funds to comply with this section of the
regulation.
Response: We agree that there are a variety of potential partners
with the capacity to help meet the comprehensive needs of children and
families. However, rather than continue to add to the list of potential
specific partnerships, we believe programs will appropriately assess
their family and community needs and identify partnerships that will
support their service delivery. In addition, we note this section
promotes local flexibility in the development of community partnerships
and there is no requirement for a program to have community plan.
Programs may request additional assistance for guidance with the
development of community plans and partnerships. Finally, Congress
appropriates funds for the Head Start program. We do not have the
authority to provide additional funds.
Comment: We received many comments about our proposal, now found in
paragraph (b)(2), that stated programs should participate in their
state or local QRIS under certain conditions. Some commenters supported
this requirement for reasons including: it increases a program's
marketability; it improves information available to parents; it can
reduce inefficiencies and inequities by aligning Head Start programs
with other child care and state pre-kindergarten programs; it
encourages quality improvement; it could direct more families to Head
Start; and it makes progress toward common indicators of quality across
programs. Some commenters asked for clarification, such as how to
incentivize participation in QRIS. Other commenters suggested
revisions, such as moving it to another section or adding criteria for
specific subgroups such as DLLs.
Many commenters opposed this requirement and recommended its
removal. Commenters expressed a number of reasons including: QRIS is
not available in every state; it is duplicative of monitoring,
licensing, and NAEYC accreditation; it would be too costly and
burdensome; and research is mixed on its benefits to programs or
families.
Response: We believe it is important that Head Start programs
participate in state or local quality improvement efforts and that the
value of QRIS outweighs the challenges, including giving parents more
informed choices about the quality of programs. While it is true that
most local education agencies are exempt from licensing, Preschool
Development Grants require participation in QRIS. We believe this
signals recognition of the value of QRIS participation and that as
participation occurs across the spectrum of programs; it will continue
to strengthen both local programs and the QRIS itself. We also
recognize that there may be challenges that make it difficult for all
programs to participate in QRIS, including wait times, and a lack of
validated systems. However, we also understand that unqualified
mandated participation could lead to duplication in monitoring and
rating and that the conditions as we outlined them in the NPRM may have
been too stringent. Therefore, we modified this provision in the final
rule. Specifically we removed the qualifier that the tiers must be
validated and added a condition that the state must accept Head Start
monitoring data as evidence of meeting indicators in the
[[Page 61345]]
QRIS tiers and that participation must not impact a program's ability
to meet Head Start standards. We believe the final rule sets a strong
and reasonable way for Head Start programs to participate in these
important state systems without duplication and burden.
Comment: Some commenters opposed the requirement for tribal
programs specifically, stating that it was not appropriate in these
service areas.
Response: We agree that state and local QRIS systems are not
comparably structured to serve in tribal areas as they are in other
service areas. Therefore, we revised paragraph (b) to clarify that
tribal programs only need to consider whether participation in state or
local QRIS would benefit their programs and families.
Comment: Some commenters requested we combine the two standards on
Statewide Longitudinal Data System (SLDS): one in this section and
another in Sec. 1302.101 on partnering with the SLDS, and requested
clarification of the requirements.
Response: We agree with this comment and think that the two mostly
duplicative requirements may lead to confusion. Thus, we removed the
requirement from Sec. 1302.101 and combined it into Sec. 1302.53. In
the process, we dropped the terms ``early childhood data systems,''
``statewide data system,'' and ``Statewide Longitudinal Data System''
and replaced them with ``state education data systems'' to make it non-
program specific and less confusing.
Additional Services for Children With Disabilities; Subpart F
This subpart includes the standards for additional services for
children with disabilities and their families. These provisions align
with the Act and reflect requirements that children must be identified
and receive services as prescribed in IDEA, focus on effective service
delivery instead of outdated or unused documentation, and incorporate
best practices. In order to communicate its critical importance, we
also incorporated requirements for the full inclusion and participation
of children with disabilities in all program activities, including but
not limited to children eligible for services under IDEA. Commenters
generally supported our overall approach to serve children with
disabilities and their families. We discuss these and additional
comments below.
General Comments
Comment: Some commenters were concerned our elimination of what was
part 1308 in the prior rule meant we eliminated requirements for
services to children with disabilities.
Response: While there is no longer a part 1308, the final rule
preserves the critical role of Early Head Start and Head Start programs
in screening and referring children with suspected disabilities and as
a program where children with disabilities are prioritized for services
and fully integrated into every aspect of service delivery. We believe
the final rule builds upon Head Start's long-standing commitment to
serving children with disabilities and strengthens these services
through part 1302. The final rule reflects the appropriate role of
local agencies responsible for implementing IDEA, as required by IDEA,
for evaluation, eligibility for services, establishment of an IFSP or
IEP, and implementation of early intervention services or special
education and related services, as appropriate.
Comment: Some commenters suggested we include additional services
or specific approaches to service delivery in this subpart. For
example, some commenters suggested audiology services or Applied
Behavioral Analysis be added under this subpart.
Response: It is not our role to identify the specific type of
special education and related services used with children with
disabilities. We think audiology screening for all children is
essential and require it under subpart D, which addresses health
services. We did not make revisions.
Comment: Commenters suggested adding a requirement to ensure DLLs
struggling with English acquisition are not misidentified as having a
developmental delay or disability. Some commenters suggested that staff
should receive training to work with DLLs who also have disabilities.
Response: We believe these topics are more appropriate for
technical assistance or guidance.
Section 1302.60 Full Participation in Program Services and Activities
This section includes an outline of the requirements contained in
this subpart and an assurance that all children with disabilities,
including but not limited to those who are eligible for services under
IDEA, receive all applicable program services and are able to fully
participate in all program activities.
Comment: Many commenters recommended we revise this section to
include specific reference to inclusive program practices.
Response: We agree that it is essential to specify that services
should be provided in the least restrictive possible setting and made
revisions to reflect this clarification.
Section 1302.61 Additional Services for Children
This section describes the additional services programs must
provide to children with disabilities and children referred for but
awaiting the determination of IDEA eligibility by the local agency
responsible for implementing IDEA. It requires programs meet the
individualized needs of children with disabilities and provide any
necessary modifications and supports necessary to support the full
participation of children with disabilities. It includes a new
requirement for programs to provide individualized services and
supports to the maximum extent possible to children awaiting
determination of IDEA eligibility. Further, it includes additional
services for children with an IFSP or IEP. Commenters were generally
supportive of this section but raised some concerns and suggestions,
which we discuss below.
Comment: Some commenters offered unqualified support for this
section, but others expressed concerns about the proposal in paragraph
(b) to provide services and supports while children are awaiting
determination of IDEA eligibility. For example, concerns included
program staff may not have the expertise to know what services should
be provided, the cost of services. Some commenters stated the standard
was unnecessary because programs already individualize services for
children.
Response: There is sometimes a significant delay in local agencies
determining eligibility for IDEA and the development of an IFSP or IEP;
even though both IDEA Part C and Part B have timelines for conducting
evaluations, and for developing an IFSP or IEP once the eligibility
determination has been made. Therefore, we think it is important that
programs review all reasonable avenues for providing services that
maximally support a child's individual needs, including services and
supports for which the child may be eligible through insurance pending
an eligibility determination under IDEA and the development of an IFSP
or IEP. However, we made revisions to paragraph (b) to clarify our
expectations including that programs should work with parents to
determine if services and supports are available through a child's
health insurance and/or whether they should be provided pursuant to
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act if the child satisfies the
definition of disability in section
[[Page 61346]]
705(9)(b) of the Rehabilitation Act. When such supports are not
available through alternate means while the evaluation results are
pending, though staff are not required to provide early intervention
services or special education and related services, programs must
individualize program services based on available information such as
parent input and child observation, screening, and assessment data. We
also clarify in paragraph (b) that program funds may be used for this
purpose.
Comment: Some commenters stated they would like to be able to
include children who receive services while IDEA eligibility is
pending, as described in paragraph (b), in the calculation to meet the
requirement that ten percent of total enrollment are children with
disabilities.
Response: Though we understand that not all children with
disabilities are eligible for services under IDEA, the Act stipulates
that children must have an IFSP or IEP under IDEA to be counted as a
child with a disability. Therefore, we have no authority to change how
the ten percent requirement is calculated. We did not revise this
provision.
Comment: Some commenters suggested we require the local educational
agency to operate and coordinate with the Head Start program, similar
to how Head Start is required to form agreements with the local
educational agency.
Response: We appreciate that this would foster collaboration but we
have no authority over local educational agencies. Programs are
encouraged to develop ongoing working relationships with local agencies
responsible for implementing IDEA.
Comment: Some commenters offered suggestions to further strengthen
and clarify the standards for additional services for children with an
IFSP or IEP.
Response: In response to these comments, we revised paragraph
(c)(1)(iii) and added a new standard at paragraph (c)(1)(v). The
revision to paragraph (c)(1)(iii) clarifies that many elements of an
IFSP or IEP will be implemented by ``other appropriate agencies,
related service providers and specialists.'' Our addition at paragraph
(c)(1)(v) clarifies that most services can be effectively delivered
within the classroom setting. Providing services in the ``natural
environment'' reduces transitions, increases inclusion, and increases
the opportunity for gains to be generalized. We think it is an
important stipulation that programs should work with parents and
agencies responsible for implementing IDEA so that IFSPs and IEPs
specify that services be delivered within children's own classes or
family child care homes, if determined appropriate for the child.
Section 1302.62 Additional Services for Parents
This section described the additional services programs must
implement to support the parents of children with disabilities. These
standards reorganize, clarify, and build upon previous regulations.
Comment: A commenter recommended that programs be required to
provide information to their state parent and health assistance
centers. Another commenter recommended we clarify some of the
difference between Parts B and C of IDEA.
Response: Though we agree this can be useful information, it is not
universally applicable and can be effectively provided as guidance or
technical assistance so we did not make revisions. We believe our
definition of ``local agency responsible for implementing IDEA'' is
sufficiently clear and did not add further clarification.
Section 1302.63 Coordination and Collaboration With the Local Agency
Responsible for Implementing IDEA
This section describes program requirements to coordinate and
collaborate with the local agency (or agencies) responsible for
implementing IDEA. This section retains many provisions from the
previous regulation but streamlines and updates them to focus less on
planning and more on service delivery. We believe coordination and
collaboration with the local agencies responsible for implementing IDEA
reflect an essential partnership in meeting the needs of children with
disabilities in Head Start. Commenters generally supported this
section.
Comment: Commenters expressed concern that children with
disabilities sometimes are required to leave Early Head Start or Head
Start or be dually enrolled to receive special education and related
services at another site and offered recommendations to strengthen our
standards.
Response: We fully support the requirements of IDEA that services
must be provided in the least restrictive possible environment. We
revised paragraph (b) to address concerns about dually enrolled
children and the setting in which children receive services.
Transition Services; Subpart G
This subpart describes requirements for supporting transitions for
children and families as they move between programs and settings. This
subpart reorganizes and updates previous standards to reflect best
practice for better clarity and implementation. Commenters supported
many of the provisions in subpart G, such as the detailed requirements
for activities to support transitions into kindergarten or other early
childhood programs, the requirements for transitions of children with
IEPs or IFSPs, the language focused on supporting transitions for
children in migrant and seasonal Head Start programs, and the removal
of the requirement to have a staff-parent meeting at the end of the
year. We received other comments on this subpart and respond to them
below.
General Comments
Comment: Some commenters suggested that implementing the additional
supports for transitions between Early Head Start to Head Start and
from Head Start to kindergarten will impact programmatic procedures and
budgets, and that additional funding will be needed. Others were
concerned this subpart placed too much burden on the program from which
a child is exiting and suggested revisions.
Response: We believe the transition services in this subpart are
critical to support child development from birth to age five and
beyond. This rule supports the transition process and continuity of
services regardless of where families seek services, but we do not
believe they are substantially different than current practice.
However, we agree that programs cannot control the receiving school or
program, but our language supporting transitions and collaborating with
community partners is sufficiently flexible to allow for these
realities. Therefore, we did not revise the provisions.
Comment: Some commenters recommended that we include requirements
for programs to assess their transition practices to ensure they
effectively minimize the number of transitions and promote smooth
transitions for children and families.
Response: Although we encourage programs to assess all aspects of
their programming as part of the continuous quality improvement
process, we do not agree that requiring programs to specifically assess
their transitions practices is necessary.
Section 1302.70 Transitions From Early Head Start
This section describes what programs are required to do to support
successful transitions for children leaving Early Head Start. The
requirements in this
[[Page 61347]]
section also support parents' continued involvement in their child's
education.
Comment: Commenters expressed concern about the requirement in
paragraph (b)(2) on the timing of moving children from Early Head Start
to Head Start after their third birthday. Some commenters recommended
we allow a child who turns three after the kindergarten cut-off date to
remain enrolled in Early Head Start until the child transitions into
Head Start or to another program at the beginning of the next program
year. Also, some commenters recommended we clarify the phrase ``a
limited number of additional months'' in paragraph (b)(2) because this
timeframe is vague.
Response: The Act sets the age requirements for Early Head Start.
We encourage programs to use ongoing planning processes to make
informed choices based on individual needs and development for
appropriate enrollment options into Head Start, pre-kindergarten, or
other community based programs, to the extent available in their
communities. Additionally, we used the phrase ``a limited number of
additional months'' to provide programs with flexibility to determine
the appropriate number of months to extend a child's enrollment to
ensure a smooth transition. Children that turn three after the date of
eligibility for kindergarten can enroll in Head Start if there is a
space available during the program year. Therefore, we did not revise
the provision.
Comment: Some commenters supported the requirements in paragraph
(d) for Early Head Start and Head Start to work together to support
continuity of services from birth to five. Some commenters recommended
specific revisions, including adding a requirement to paragraph (d) for
programs to serve families with the highest demographic risk.
Response: Prioritization requirements are described in subpart A,
so we have not made changes to this section.
Section 1302.71 Transitions From Head Start to Kindergarten
In this section, we outline the services programs must implement to
support successful transitions from Head Start to kindergarten. We
received comments from the public and address them below.
Comment: One commenter suggested we change the phrase ``transition
to kindergarten'' to ``transition to school'' throughout this section
to better emphasize that broader transitions may occur between Head
Start and the public school system, such as state preschool.
Response: This section focused on supports for transitions to
kindergarten, while Sec. 1302.72 already addressed transitions to
other early childhood education programs.
Comment: One commenter expressed concern that the language in
paragraph (b)(2)(iii) on transition services to prepare parents to
exercise their rights and responsibilities including options for their
child to participate in language instruction educational programs, does
not reflect the intent of Section 1112 of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA), as referenced in the Act, and that programs
should tell parents about the range of educational options available to
DLLs when they enter elementary school. This commenter suggested that
we should not promote native language instruction over other options.
Additionally, other commenters requested clarification about whether
Head Start programs are required to judge the appropriateness of
different instructional approaches for DLLs in public schools.
Response: As described in section 642A of the Act, Head Start
programs are required to help parents of DLL children understand the
information provided to them under Section 1112 of ESEA. We believe
that paragraph (b)(2)(iii) is consistent with this requirement;
however, for clarity, we removed the explicit mention of ``native
language instruction.'' Further, Head Start programs are not expected
to judge the appropriateness of different instructional approaches for
DLLs; rather, programs should help make parents aware of different
options for language instruction programs in the elementary school
setting. We made appropriate edits to paragraph (b)(2)(iii) to clarify
this intent.
Comment: Some commenters stated that requirements in this section
were too challenging and burdensome. For example, some commenters
expressed concern that collaboration with school districts receiving
Head Start children is challenging and highlighted collaboration to
determine the availability of summer school programming for children
entering kindergarten as an example.
Response: We believe that supporting successful transitions of
children and families into school is critical for supporting child
development and continued parental involvement in children's education.
We do not agree that this section is too burdensome or challenging so
we did not make changes in response to these comments.
Comment: Some commenters suggested we include additional
requirements in this section to make transition services stronger. For
example, commenters recommended we expand transition services to
encompass after care in kindergarten and suggested we include more
requirements on community collaborations in this subpart.
Response: We think we focus on the key components of transition
services to support families when children transition to kindergarten.
As always, we encourage programs to identify the individual needs of
Head Start children and families and work to meet those needs.
Additionally, we believe that community collaborations are sufficiently
addressed in Sec. 1302.53(a), which requires programs take an active
role in promoting a coordinated system of comprehensive early childhood
services among community agencies and partners, so additional
requirements about community collaboration were unnecessary.
Comment: One commenter recommended we permit programs to continue
to provide comprehensive services to a subset of very at-risk families
after those children transition to elementary school.
Response: Head Start is not authorized or funded to serve children
and families after they leave Head Start.
Section 1302.72 Transitions Between Programs
In this section, we included three new provisions that will support
transitions for children and families who might not otherwise receive
such services.
Comment: Some commenters explicitly supported the provision for
programs to make significant efforts to support transitions for
children experiencing homelessness or in foster care when they move out
of the community. Because of their high mobility rate, one commenter
suggested that programs should anticipate transitions for these
children, and that the language in paragraph (a) should include support
for transitions to other early childhood programs, not just Head Start,
as well as connections to other types of community services that can
support these children.
Response: We agree with the suggestion to support transitions to
other early childhood programs if Early Head Start or Head Start
services are not available. We edited paragraph (a) to reflect this.
Comment: Some commenters expressed concerns about the requirement
in paragraph (b) to provide transition services to families who decide
to enroll their children in other high-quality early education programs
in the year prior to kindergarten.
[[Page 61348]]
Challenges described include difficulty identifying participation in
other programs by children who do not return to Head Start and lack of
mandates on other public programs. Commenters asked for clearer
definitions of the terms ``high quality'' and ``practical and
appropriate,'' as well as guidance on determining the quality of other
programs. One commenter stated that this transition strategy does not
promote the continuity of care emphasized in the NPRM.
Response: We agree the term ``high quality'' is vague and difficult
to determine during a transition process; therefore, we struck the term
from this provision. The intent of this provision is to support the
transition process, regardless of where families seek services. To
allow for program flexibility, we retained the phrase ``as practical
and appropriate.'' We will continue to provide guidance on these terms,
as requested by grantees.
Services to Enrolled Pregnant Women; Subpart H
This subpart describes services Early Head Start programs must
provide to pregnant women enrolled in their programs. Long standing
research clearly demonstrates the importance of prenatal care and the
effectiveness of prenatal interventions to facilitate healthy
pregnancies 106 107 108 109 110 and improve child outcomes
that affect later school readiness 111 112 113 114 115 among
at-risk women. While most of this subpart is structurally different
from Sec. 1304.40 in the previous rule, it expands upon services we
have always required to codify best practices and also highlights the
importance of prenatal health care and education. Commenters generally
supported this subpart. We discuss specific comments and our responses
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\106\ Olds, D.L., Henderson, Jr., C.R., Tatelbaum, R., &
Chamberlin, R. (1986) Improving the Delivery of Prenatal Care and
Outcomes of Pregnancy: A randomized Trial of Nurse Home Visitation.
Pediatrics, 77(1), 16-28.
\107\ Villar, J., Farnot, U., Barros, F., Victora, C., Langer,
A., & Belizan J.M. (1992) A Randomized Trial of Psychosocial Support
during High Risk Pregnancies, The New England Journal of Medicine,
327(18), 1266-1271.
\108\ Olds, D.L., & Kitzman, H. (1993). Review of Research on
Home Visiting for Pregnant Women and Parents of Young Children. The
Future of Children, 3(3), 53-92.
\109\ McLiaghlin, F.J., Altemeier, W.A., Christensen, M.J.,
Sherrod, K.B., Dietrich, M.S., & Stern, D.T. (1992). Randomized
Trial of Comprehensive Prenatal Care for Low-Income Women: Effect on
Infant Birth Weight. Pediatrics, 89(1), 128-132.
\110\ Alexander, G.R., & Korenbrot, C.C. (1995). The Role of
Prenatal Care in Preventing Low Birth Weight. The Future of
Children, 5(1), 103-120.
\111\ Larson, C. P. (1980). Efficacy of Prenatal and Postpartum
Home Visits on Child Health and Development. Pediatrics, 66(2), 191-
197.
\112\ Olds, D.L., Henderson, Jr., C.R., & Kitzman, H. (1994).
Does Prenatal and Infancy Nurse Home Visitation have Enduring
Effects on Qualities of Parental Caregiving and Child Health at 25
to 50 Months of Life? Pediatrics, 93(1), 89-98.
\113\ Olds, D.L., & Kitzman, H. (1990). Can Home Visitation
Improve the Health of Women and Children at Environmental Risk?
Pediatrics, 86(1), 108-116.
\114\ Hack, M. Klein, N.K., & Taylor, H.G. (1995). Long-term
Developmental Outcomes of Low Birth Weight Infants. The Future of
Children, 5(1), 176-196.
\115\ Reichman, N. E. (2005). Low birth weight and school
readiness. The Future of Children, 15(1), 91-116.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Comments
Comment: Commenters supported our overall approach that creates a
standalone subpart for services to pregnant women as well as individual
new requirements for services to pregnant women. Some commenters
opposed the additional requirements we proposed for pregnant women
while other commenters suggested programs would require additional
funds if they increased services to pregnant women.
Response: We understand the concerns some commenters described,
especially related to cost. However, pregnant women are enrolled in
Early Head Start programs, and therefore, funding is provided for these
services. This subpart primarily reflects current practice that was not
included in the regulation. We retained this section to codify
practices related to pregnant women.
Comment: Some commenters recommended programs carefully consider
when to enroll pregnant women so that their children will be able to
enroll in the Early Head Start program.
Response: While we agree with this comment, we do not think there
is a need for a program performance standard to require such
consideration.
Comment: Some commenters suggested that the entire subpart should
refer to expectant families rather than pregnant women, or requested
clarification about the scope of services required for a pregnant
mother of an enrolled child who is not herself enrolled in Early Head
Start.
Response: This subpart pertains only to enrolled pregnant women,
and we revised Sec. 1302.80(a) to further clarify this. While we made
it clear that relevant services should include the entire expectant
family, wherever possible, pregnant women are the family member who is
enrolled in Early Head Start. Further, Sec. 1302.46 describes services
for expectant families of enrolled children that may be relevant, but
programs must only provide opportunities to learn about healthy
pregnancy and post-partum care to expectant parents of enrolled
children who are not themselves enrolled. We did not make revisions
based on these comments.
Section 1302.80 Enrolled Pregnant Women
This section describes the services programs must provide to
enrolled pregnant women. It requires programs to assess whether or not
enrolled pregnant women have access to an ongoing source of health care
and health insurance, and if not, to facilitate their access to such
care and insurance. It also includes a requirement for a newborn visit.
We received comments on this section and discuss them below.
Comment: One commenter explicitly opposed the new requirement in
paragraph (b) to assist pregnant women in accessing health insurance.
Response: Ensuring pregnant women have health insurance is critical
to ensuring they receive adequate prenatal care.116 117 118
We did not revise the provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\116\ Marquis, M. & Long, S. (2002). The role of public
insurance and the public delivery system in improving birth outcomes
for low-income pregnant women. Medical Care (40), 1048-1059.
\117\ Howell, E. (2001). The Impact of the Medicaid expansions
for pregnant women: A synthesis of the evidence. Medical Care
Research Review,(58) 3-30.
\118\ Phillippi, J. C. (2009). Women's perceptions of access to
prenatal care in the United States: A literature review. Journal of
Midwifery & Women's Health, 54(3), 219-225.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: Some commenters requested clarity about what we meant by
``as quickly as possible'' in regard to the requirement in paragraph
(b) that programs support access to health care for pregnant women.
Commenters suggested 30 or 45 days.
Response: While we agree that 30 or 45 days are both reasonable
interpretations of ``as quickly as possible,'' in some cases this
requirement should be met more quickly, and in other cases challenges
may arise that prevent programs from providing these services within
those timeframes. Therefore, it is not appropriate to regulate a
precise time frame. We did not revise the provision.
Comment: Some commenters recommended we require programs to refer
families to emergency shelters or transitional housing in cases of
domestic violence or homelessness.
Response: Paragraph (c) already requires programs to refer families
to emergency shelters or transitional housing, as appropriate.
Comment: Many commenters suggested we revise what was Sec.
1302.82(b) to require programs to offer
[[Page 61349]]
but not necessarily provide a newborn home visit within two weeks
because families should have the right to refuse. Some commenters asked
that programs be allowed to consider cultural practices and length of
hospital stays or illness in requiring an initial home visit at two
weeks.
Response: The initial home visit is planned with the pregnant woman
and her family as part of prenatal services that a program provides and
the timing of the visit can reflect the beliefs and circumstances of
the family. We clarified this intent by revising what is now Sec.
1302.80(d) to require that programs must schedule a home visit within
two weeks.
Comment: Commenters requested clarification about the
qualifications for the ``health staff'' mentioned in what was Sec.
1302.82(b) who perform the two-week postpartum visit.
Response: We removed the reference to ``health staff'' in what is
now Sec. 1302.80(d) to clarify programs have flexibility to staff the
home visit in a manner that is appropriate for individual family needs.
We now call this visit a newborn visit.
Section 1302.81 Prenatal and Postpartum Information, Education, and
Services
This section strengthens program performance standards pertaining
to enrolled pregnant women by requiring programs to ensure all enrolled
pregnant women have opportunities to learn about various relevant
topics. It also makes clear that programs must address needs for
appropriate supports for emotional well-being, nurturing and responsive
caregiving, and father engagement during pregnancy and early childhood.
Comment: Some commenters suggested we revise paragraph (a) and the
title of this section to clarify the expectation for the level of
service delivery.
Response: For clarification, we have changed the title of this
section and the phrase in paragraph (a) to ``prenatal and postpartum
information, education, and services.''
Comment: Some commenters suggested that maternal and paternal
depression should be included in the list of prenatal and postpartum
services described in paragraph (a). Some commenters explicitly
suggested that expectant families be screened for both prenatal and
postnatal depression.
Response: We revised the language in paragraph (a) to include
parental depression.
Comment: Commenters recommended we require programs to use tools
and resources to assess risk factors and needs of expectant families.
Further, some commenters requested inclusion of explicit requirements
regarding the hours and days or number of home visits required for
pregnant women.
Response: We believe we struck the right balance in allowing
programs to determine the specific ways to achieve the outcomes and do
not think additional prescriptive federal requirements are necessary.
We did not make these changes.
Comment: Some commenters suggested additions to the required
educational services regarding oral health for both pregnant women and
newborns during the newborn home visit.
Response: We do not believe that discussing later oral health is an
appropriate focus of this newborn home visit. We did not revise the
provision.
Comment: Some commenters requested guidance about the availability
of prenatal educational materials. Other commenters suggested that we
issue guidance to make programs aware of the educational materials
available free of charge through the CACFP regarding nutrition,
physical activity, and breastfeeding.
Response: As commenters noted, there are materials available
through USDA, and other sources that could be used, free of charge to
provide prenatal educational services to pregnant women and their
families. We believe programs can easily access this information and do
not think changes are needed to the regulation.
Section 1302.82 Family Partnership Services for Enrolled Pregnant Women
This section describes requirements for programs to provide family
partnership services for enrolled pregnant women.
Comment: Some commenters wanted this section to include specific
language for including fathers and father engagement in family
partnership services for enrolled pregnant women.
Response: We agree that the language should more explicitly reflect
the role of fathers and revised paragraphs (a) and (b) accordingly.
Human Resources Management; Subpart I
In this subpart, we combined all previous performance standards
related to human resources management into one coherent section. This
subpart includes requirements for personnel policies, staff
qualifications, training and professional development, and staff health
and wellness and volunteers. We renamed the subpart Human Resources
Management to better encompass the requirements in this subpart. We
received many comments on this subpart. We summarize and respond to
these comments below.
Section 1302.90 Personnel Policies
This section requires programs to establish written personnel
policies and procedures, sets forth a background check process,
standards of conduct for staff, consultants, and volunteers, and
staffing requirements when programs serve DLLs. We received many
comments on our background check requirements. We discuss these and
other comments on this section below.
Comment: Commenters supported the general requirement in paragraph
(a) that programs develop written personnel policies and procedures.
Many commenters asked us to provide more clarity about the policy
council's role in hiring and firing staff. Some commenters asked us to
require programs to make policies and procedures available to all
staff. Some commenters asked us to prescribe exactly what program
policies and procedures must contain.
Response: We revised paragraph (a) to read, ``A program must
establish written personnel policies and procedures that are approved
by the governing body and policy council or policy committee and that
are available to all staff.'' We purposely devised this rule to be less
prescriptive to afford programs flexibility and autonomy so we did not
include additional specificity about personnel policies and procedures
other than what is required in paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) in this
section. We revised this paragraph to clarify that staff have access to
the personnel policies and procedures and to reflect the Act's
requirement that the governing body and policy council or policy
committee must review and approve the program's personnel policies and
procedures. We relied on the Act for the governance requirements on
hiring and firing so we did not make any changes.
Comment: Commenters generally supported our background check
requirements in paragraph (b), noting that they were in the best
interests of children and align with the Head Start Act and Child Care
Development Block Grant Act of 2014 (CCDBG). Commenters expressed some
concern with potential costs associated with the requirements. Some
commenters recommended additional alignment, such as with provisions
from Section 658(H) of CCDBG that require programs to complete the
background check process within 45 days. Some commenters asked us to
mirror exactly
[[Page 61350]]
what the Act states about background checks to minimize conflict. They
did not interpret the Act to require fingerprints with criminal history
records checks. Others requested additional amendments such as limits
to fees a program may charge to process criminal history checks,
mandates for confidentiality, an appeal process, and an exemption for
some employees. Some commenters recommended we rename paragraph (b) to
improve clarity.
Response: We believe our background check requirements align with
the Act and generally align with section 658(H) of CCDBG. However, we
did not change the timeframe we prescribed for programs to complete
background checks. We believe 90 days is appropriate, particularly
since the Act requires Head Start programs to complete one of the
checks before hire. We did not address background check fees in this
rule. We understand programs may bear costs associated with background
checks and we encourage programs to use the resources available to them
and consider ways to allocate funds differently to cover these costs.
We do not think it is the best interest of Head Start children to allow
exemptions from the background checks. In regard to concerns about
privacy, we expect programs will address confidentiality in their
written policies and procedures because paragraph (c)(1)(iv) requires
programs to ensure all staff, consultants, and volunteers comply with
confidentiality policies. We did not require programs to establish a
background checks appeal process. If either prospective or current
employees decide to challenge background check findings, we encourage
programs to direct them to the state, tribal, or federal agency that
conducted the check. We agree the title of paragraph (b) was not clear
enough and have renamed it ``Background checks and selection
procedures.''
Comment: Some commenters expressed concern about the legality of
asking prospective employees for their dates of birth. Other commenters
were concerned if we did not reference Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, programs could use background checks to discriminate in
hiring practices against protected individuals such as African
Americans and Hispanics.
Response: Dates of birth are probably the most important factor
needed to identify an individual and are necessary to conduct
background checks. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
does not prohibit an employer from asking for date of birth or age. In
fact, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
specifically ruled that an employer that asks for date of birth or age
does not automatically violate that act. As a best practice, the EEOC
urges employers to clearly disclose to applicants why they need birth
dates.\119\ Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII)
requires employers to screen individuals based on criminal history in a
manner that does not significantly disadvantage protected individuals,
such as Hispanics and African Americans. In Sec. 1303.3 we include
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act among the other federal laws Head
Start programs need to comply with.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\119\ See www.eeoc.gov/facts/age.html for more facts about age
discrimination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: Some commenters found our structure for paragraph (b) to
be confusing and asked us to clarify whether programs must complete the
background check before a person was hired or within 90 days.
Commenters offered suggestions, such as adding a provision that
required programs to hire individuals who otherwise cleared one of the
checks before they were hired or to limit their access to children
until all background checks are cleared.
Response: We agree that our structure for paragraph (b) made it
difficult to clearly understand what type of background check needed to
be conducted before or after an individual is hired. We did not change
the background check requirements but we revised paragraphs (b)(1) and
(2) to improve clarity. Paragraph (b)(1) now clearly requires programs
to obtain either state or tribal criminal history records with
fingerprint checks or federal criminal history records with
fingerprints before an individual is hired. Paragraph (b)(2)(i) now
clearly requires programs have 90 days after an individual is hired to
obtain whichever criminal history check listed in paragraph (b)(1) they
could not obtain before hire. It also states in paragraph (b)(2)(ii)
and (iii) that programs have 90 days after an employee is hired to
complete background checks with child abuse and neglect registries, if
available, and sex offender registries. To ensure child safety while
the all of the background checks are being completed, we added
paragraph (b)(3) to require programs ensure the new employee will not
have unsupervised access to children until their full background check
process is complete.
Comment: Some commenters were concerned we would find programs
either non-compliant or deficient if there were no child abuse and
neglect registries in their state. Some commenters suggested we should
specify whether programs must use state or national sex offender
registry and we should require programs to conduct searches on the
National Crime Information Center.
Response: We require programs to obtain checks from the national
sex offender registry and state child abuse and neglect and sex
offender registries, if available. We think the regulation is strong on
ensuring child safety and do not think it is necessary to require
programs to check the National Crime Information Center.
Comment: Some commenters recommended we require programs to conduct
background checks on volunteers, contractors, and family child care
providers.
Response: We agree contractor and family child care providers are
required to have background checks. To clarify our intent we added the
phrase ``directly or through contract'' to paragraph (b)(1) and clarify
that transportation staff and contractors are also subject to these
requirements, consistent with the policy proposed in the NPRM. We also
clarify that all staff, consultants, and contractors are subject to
this requirement. We do not require background checks for volunteers
because there is some evidence this stifles parent volunteering and
engagement, which is fundamental to Head Start's two-generation
approach. Additionally, as described in paragraph (c)(1)(v) and Sec.
1302.94(b), programs must ensure children are never left alone with
volunteers.
Comment: Many commenters were concerned about language in the
preamble about programs providing justification for hiring individuals
with arrests or convictions in relation to what was paragraph (b)(3) in
the NPRM and is now paragraph (b)(4). Commenters noted this caused
unnecessary bureaucracy and a few thought it contradicted the Act.
Response: Paragraph (b)(4) in this rule requires programs to review
each employment application to assess relevancy. It does not conflict
with the Act and does not require written justifications.
Comment: We received some comments about disqualification factors.
Some commenters suggested we revise what is now paragraph (b)(4) to
clarify that school-based grantees can use whichever state-imposed
disqualification factors apply to them. Some commenters suggested we
allow tribes to use tribal disqualification factors. Some commenters
asked us to list specific pre-employment or disqualification factors.
Response: We revised paragraph (b)(4), which was paragraph (b)(3)
in the
[[Page 61351]]
NPRM, to clarify programs must use ``applicable state or tribal Child
Care Development Fund (CCDF) disqualification factors in any employment
decisions.'' However, because pre-employment and disqualification
factors vary by state and tribe, we did not list those factors here.
Comment: Most commenters supported the requirement in what was
paragraph (b)(4) in the NPRM but is now paragraph (b)(5) to conduct
complete background checks every five years. They believed what we
proposed aligns with background checks across multiple early childhood
programs and with typical hiring practices. Some commenters opposed
this requirement because it would impose undue costs for programs. Many
commenters suggested exemptions for programs that have a more stringent
system in place. Some commenters offered other alternatives to the
five-year requirement, like use of consumer reporting agencies because
they are fast and more comprehensive, and background checks more
frequently than every five years.
Response: We agree that our five-year requirement that now appears
in paragraph (b)(5) in the NPRM aligns with other program requirements
and with typical hiring practices. We understand there may be costs
associated with background checks. However, we believe child safety is
paramount. Therefore, we expect programs to use resources available to
them and to allocate funds differently, if necessary, to cover these
costs. We revised paragraph (b)(5) to exempt a program from the five-
year requirement if the program can demonstrate it has a more stringent
system in place that will ensure child safety.
Comment: Some commenters asked us to clarify the requirement in
what was paragraph (b)(5) and is now paragraph (b)(6) about
consideration of current and former program parents for employment
vacancies. They requested we clarify that programs are not required to
consider otherwise qualified parents for positions if they do not
apply.
Response: We revised paragraph (b)(6) to clarify that parents
should be considered only for jobs for which they apply.
Comment: Some commenters asked us to define: ``background check,''
``before and individual is hired,'' ``clearance by registries,''
employment application,'' and the term ``hire'' as distinct from the
phrase ``an offer of employment.''
Response: We did not define these terms or phrases. Programs should
consider their ordinary and customary meanings.
Comment: Commenters generally supported the standards of conduct
described in paragraph (c). Some noted their support of the
requirements in what is now paragraph (c)(1)(ii) that prohibit staff
from using food or physical activity or outdoor time as a reward or
punishment. Some commenters requested we add more specificity to the
requirements in paragraph (c)(1)(ii). For example, some requested we
expressly ban physical, mechanical, and chemical restraint, as well as
seclusion. Some commenters stated that the terms ``isolation,''
``sarcastic,'' ``derogatory,'' and ``humiliation'' were subjective and
asked us to define them. Some commenters recommended we delete the list
of what staff must not do and include a standard by which staff should
aspire to conduct themselves instead.
Response: We do not think our standards of conduct in paragraph
(c)(1)(ii) require more specificity. We made small changes to this
paragraph to improve clarity that did not change meaning. For example,
the prohibition on public or private humiliation, that was found in
paragraph (c)(1)(ii)(I) in the NPRM, was moved to paragraph
(c)(1)(ii)(F). We agree it was appropriate to add a requirement to the
standards of conduct that expressed the positive and supportive
behavior all staff, consultants, and volunteers must exhibit. This
standard can be found at paragraph (c)(1)(i) and standards describing
prohibitions that were in paragraph (c)(1)(i) in the NPRM are now found
at paragraph (c)(1)(ii).
We did not define ``isolation,'' ``sarcastic,'' ``derogatory,'' and
``humiliation'' because we expect programs to consider these terms'
ordinary and customary meanings. Furthermore, we did not amend
paragraph (c) to use the terms physical, mechanical, and chemical
restraint or seclusion. We believe our standards of conduct clearly
convey prohibition on restraint. Furthermore, the requirement now found
in paragraph (c)(1)(ii)(B) that expressly prohibits isolation as a form
of discipline and the requirement in paragraph (c)(1)(v) that prohibits
staff from leaving children alone or unsupervised at any time more
clearly convey our prohibition on seclusion.
Comment: Some commenters suggested we reference staff, contractors,
and volunteers in paragraph (c)(1)(iii) so programs understand who must
adhere to standards of conduct.
Response: We agree that we must clarify standards of conduct
described in paragraph (c)(1) apply to staff, consultants, contractors,
and volunteers. We revised paragraph (c) accordingly.
Comment: Some commenters requested we reaffirm Head Start's policy
that does not exclude same sex couples and add ``sexual orientation''
to what is now paragraph (c)(1)(iii)
Response: We agree, and we revised paragraph (c)(1)(iii)
accordingly.
Comment: Commenters generally supported that personnel policies
include appropriate penalties for staff that violate standards of
conduct. Commenters asked us to clarify paragraph (c)(2), which
requires personnel policies and procedures to include appropriate
penalties for staff who violate the standards of conduct. Commenters
requested to know who determines appropriate penalties.
Response: We expect programs to designate staff that will determine
appropriate penalties. We think local programs are best suited to
determine who that staff should be so we did revise the provision. We
also clarified in paragraph (c)(2) that personnel policies and
procedures must include appropriate penalties for consultants and
volunteers, as well as staff, who violate the standards of conduct.
Comment: Some commenters raised concerns with the requirement in
paragraph (d)(1) about communication that is effective with DLLs and
their families. Some commenters were concerned about the rarity of
certain languages and corresponding lack of interpreters or qualified
teachers. Commenters pointed out that, in some instances, staff who
speak the second language are sometimes not proficient in English and
it is costly for programs to train them.
Response: The prior performance standards required that programs be
able to communicate effectively with families, either directly or
through an interpreter. This has been a long-standing requirement and
expectation in Head Start. If program staff, interpreters, or
translators do not speak all languages of the families in the program,
then other support services should be utilized, such as interpretation
services available via phone and other methods. We revised paragraph
(d)(1) to take into account those extremely limited circumstances where
interpretation services are not available by phone and other methods
and to clarify the requirement by including ``to the extent feasible.''
Comment: Some commenters raised concerns with the standard in
paragraph (d)(2) that requires programs to have at least one staff
member who speaks the home language of DLLs in classes where the
majority of children speak the same
[[Page 61352]]
non-English language. Commenters were concerned about the lack of
qualified bilingual staff, particularly for infant groups. Some
commenters asked whether a waiver will be available for this
requirement, and how to find interpreters.
Response: The prior performance standards required that at least
one staff member or home visitor speak the language of the majority of
children in the class or home-based program. This has been a long-
standing requirement and expectation in Head Start. When the majority
of children speak the same language, we believe it is imperative that
staff be able to provide the children with high-quality language
experiences. There is not a waiver available for this requirement.
Section 1302.91 Staff Qualification and Competency Requirements
This section includes requirements for staff qualifications and
competencies. We raised many staff qualifications over those in the
previous performance standards, as required by the Act. In response to
comments, we included some new staff qualification requirements for
child and family services management staff, family services staff, and
mental health consultants. We also restructured the section to improve
clarity. We discuss comments and our responses below.
Comment: Some commenters offered general comments that addressed
the entire section. Some requested guidance on how to measure
sufficient knowledge, training, and experience, as it relates to
requirements throughout this section. Other commenters suggested we
require all staff in all program options to have the knowledge and
ability to work with children with disabilities. Some commenters noted
the need to fund and implement strategies with higher education to
ensure degree and credential programs include appropriate coursework
content specific to the infant, toddler, and preschool workforce. Other
commenters suggested that the credential or degree requirements for
bilingual staff be more flexible, as it is very difficult to find
bilingual staff who are also qualified in early childhood education.
Further, some commenters recommended we require programs to review
state early childhood workforce requirements on a regular basis to
ensure that Head Start's requirements support and enhance state-based
career ladders.
Response: We revised paragraph (a) to integrate professional
development to support program service staff so they have the
knowledge, training, experience, and competencies to fulfill their
roles and responsibilities. We think programs should be continuously
supporting staff in fulfilling their roles and responsibilities. We
also revised paragraphs in this section to expand competencies for
teachers, assistant teachers, family child care providers, and home
visitors to include working with children with disabilities and DLLs to
support effective service delivery. While we recognize recruitment of
bilingual staff who are qualified in early childhood education may be
challenging, we believe children who are dual language learners need
highly-qualified teachers in order to achieve meaningful child
outcomes. Additionally, while we agree access to appropriate coursework
and financing is critical for a well-trained workforce, many of these
challenges are beyond the scope of this final rule.
Comment: Commenters generally supported our proposal, in paragraph
(i) of the NPRM and now found in paragraph (b), to require Early Head
Start and Head Start program directors hired after the effective date
of this final rule to have at least a baccalaureate degree. Some
commenters were concerned this requirement would make it too difficult
for programs to hire and retain directors. Some commenters suggested we
allow programs to implement an alternate approach, such as allowing
time for directors to acquire appropriate degrees or restricting the
requirement to new hires. Other commenters supported a stronger
requirement for directors and suggested we require directors to have a
master's degree. Some commenters suggested additional requirements
regarding experience or competencies.
Response: We retained our standard to require at least
baccalaureate degrees for program directors as proposed in the NPRM. We
revised the minimum background experience requirement to include
administration in addition to supervision of staff and fiscal
management. However, we retained local flexibility to define other
necessary experience and competencies including experience in early
childhood.
Comment: Some commenters supported our standard in what was
paragraph (h)(3) in the NPRM that allowed flexibility for programs to
establish qualifications for their fiscal officer based on an
assessment of their needs and secure regularly scheduled or ongoing
services of a fiscal officer. Other commenters suggested that fiscal
functions should be led by a qualified accounting professional with
expertise in understanding the operational risks, the potential for
misalignment of funding, and the financial reporting associated with
federal funding.
Response: We revised the standard for fiscal officer
qualifications, now found in paragraph (c), to clarify that programs
must consider the fiscal complexity of their organization to ensure
fiscal officers have sufficient knowledge and experience to fulfill
their role. We also require newly hired fiscal officers to be certified
public accountants or have a baccalaureate degree in a related field.
Comment: The NPRM did not specifically address qualifications for
staff who manage family services, health services, and disabilities
services other than to require in paragraph (a) that all staff and
consultants have sufficient knowledge, training, and experience to
fulfill their roles and responsibilities. The NPRM did not retain
language from the previous program performance standards about
disabilities and health managers because we thought it was vague and
not helpful for programs. Some commenters opposed our approach and
interpreted it to mean we were removing services area management.
Commenters suggested we require all supervisors have a baccalaureate
degree. Other commenters suggested we require all supervisory staff to
have knowledge of and training on reflective supervision. Further, some
commenters provided explicit suggestions for qualifications that the
health services manager should be required to have, such as a minimum
of an associate's or bachelor's degree in health, public health,
nursing, or a related field, or an early childhood education degree
with health-related certification or licensure. In addition, some
commenters suggested qualifications for disabilities managers,
including a bachelor's degree with a certification in early childhood
special education or related field. Finally, some of these commenters
also suggested adding competencies for disabilities managers, such as
experience working in an early childhood education setting.
Response: We did not intend for the NPRM to signal the removal of
service area management. Our goal in omitting references to service
area management was to increase local flexibility to better meet the
variety of needs in programs of differing size. However, we revised the
rule to require degree qualifications for newly hired family services,
health, and disabilities managers. Specifically, as stated in paragraph
(d)(1), staff responsible for the management and oversight of family
services, health services, and services to children with disabilities
hired after the effective date of this rule, must have at a minimum, a
baccalaureate degree, preferably
[[Page 61353]]
related to one or more of the disciplines they oversee. Programs should
not interpret this requirement to mean they must have different people
for disabilities management, family services management, and health
services management. Due to the varying sizes and complexities of
program structures, we think programs must have the flexibility to
decide on their own appropriate staffing patterns to meet these
oversight and management responsibilities.
Comment: In what was paragraph (e) in the NPRM, we proposed minimum
requirements for education coordinators, as required by the Act. Some
commenters recommended phasing in a requirement for education
coordinators to have a master's degree. Some commenters requested
additional flexibility in the requirement, such as allowing the degree
to be in elementary education or family studies or allowing relevant
coursework combined with a degree in an unrelated field. Additionally,
some respondents suggested that education coordinators should have
experience working explicitly with the age group of the classes they
oversee.
Response: We believe the requirement as written is sufficient to
ensure high-quality services and retained this requirement as proposed,
now found in paragraph (d)(2). We did not include additional
flexibility since minimum requirements for education coordinators are
set by the Act. We made small technical revisions.
Comment: We specifically solicited comments on the appropriate
qualifications for Early Head Start teachers, which was described in
paragraph (b)(1) and now is located at paragraph (e)(1). We received a
variety of different recommendations. For example, some commenters
suggested we retain requirements from the Act that Early Head Start
teachers have at least CDA. Some commenters suggested the CDA is
adequate only if staff work closely with a coach, and some commenters
recommended we require an associate's degree in early education. Others
recommended we require a baccalaureate, and some supported phasing in
baccalaureate requirements. Some commenters supported allowing one
teacher in an Early Head Start class to meet a higher qualification and
for the second teacher to have the current CDA qualification. Some
commenters requested clarification of the term ``equivalent course
work,'' and offered suggestions. Some commenters expressed concern that
increasing qualifications would impact programs' ability to hire
parents and other community members who accurately reflect and can
address the culturally and linguistically diverse needs and experiences
of children and families, particularly in programs serving rural,
migrant, and tribal populations.
Response: We maintained the staff qualification requirements for
Early Head Start as proposed. Lowering these requirements is beyond the
scope of this rule because they are set by the Act. We did not raise
the requirement to a baccalaureate degree, although we agree with
recommendations from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report
\120\ that a lead teacher in every class with a bachelor's degree and
demonstrated competencies is optimal. Grantees are encouraged to
implement effective career and professional development models and
might find it particularly effective to have at least one lead teacher
with higher credentials and another teacher who meets the minimum
qualifications. We do not define ``equivalent course work'' because
different colleges and universities describe majors and classes in a
variety of ways; programs must evaluate the content and relevancy of
the individual courses their teachers have taken.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\120\ Institute of Medicine (IOM) and National Research Council
(NRC). 2015. Transforming the workforce for children birth through
age 8: A unifying foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies
Press.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: We specifically solicited comments on the appropriate
qualifications for Head Start teachers. In general, commenters
supported requiring bachelor's degrees for all Head Start teachers.
Some commenters suggested that all staff working directly with children
and families should have a bachelor's degree. Other commenters
expressed concern about compliance with higher standards, given the
difficulties they already face in finding appropriately credentialed
staff. These commenters were especially concerned with adding new
credential requirements without designated funding to achieve the
higher standards. Some commenters requested we allow degrees to be in a
related field such as elementary education or family studies. Some
commenters suggested the teacher qualification requirements should
mirror language of other federal programs that supports alternative
pathways and demonstrated competencies in lieu of credentials. Others
recommended partnering with the Department of Education on an early
education TEACH campaign in order to recruit highly qualified teachers.
Other commenters suggested allowing programs to use proxy indicators of
competence such as years of experience, completed training, or CLASS
scores as a way to maintain employment of individuals who do not meet
degree requirements. Some commenters were concerned that the broad
language of ``equivalent coursework'' may create unnecessary confusion
in the field as to whether Teach for America candidates may be hired;
and suggested that clarifying language be included in the final rule.
Finally, commenters described challenges in recruiting and
retaining qualified staff members who speak the community's language
and understand its nuances. These commenters expressed concern that
increasing qualifications would impact programs' ability to hire
parents and other community members who accurately reflect and can
address the culturally and linguistically diverse needs and experiences
of children and families, particularly in programs serving rural,
migrant, and tribal populations.
Response: In paragraphs (e)(2) and (3), we maintained the staff
qualification requirements for Head Start teachers as proposed and as
required by the Act. Lowering these requirements is beyond the scope of
this rule because minimums are set by the Act. The Act also does not
grant us authority to allow exemptions or proxy indicators of currently
employed teachers who do not meet qualification requirements. As noted
earlier, we are in agreement with the NAS report that having teachers
with a baccalaureate degree in every class is optimal.\121\ We have
updated the statutory reference in paragraph (e)(2)(ii) to include all
of the alternative credentials, including Teach for America.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\121\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: We received some comments on our requirement in what is
now paragraph (e)(3) for qualifications for assistant teachers. Some
commenters requested clarification on whether or not assistant teachers
with a CDA credential must also be enrolled in a program leading to an
associate or baccalaureate degree, or if assistant teachers without a
CDA credential must be enrolled in either a degree program or CDA
credential program. Some commenters suggested we should encourage
assistant teachers to attain associate's degree as a career ladder
towards becoming a teacher. Other commenters expressed concern that two
years is not long enough for an assistant teacher to attain a
credential or degree. Some commenters expressed confusion about the
difference between teacher assistants and teacher aides.
[[Page 61354]]
Response: As required by the Act, the provision in paragraph (e)(3)
requires Head Start assistant teachers have at least a minimum of a CDA
credential or be enrolled in a CDA credential program to be completed
within two years of the time of hire. We revised this provision to
clarify that the minimum requirement also permits a state-awarded
certificate that meets or exceeds the requirements for a CDA
credential. While assistant teachers with a CDA credential or state-
awarded equivalent are not required to be enrolled in a program that
will lead to an associate or baccalaureate degree, assistant teachers
that are enrolled in a program that will lead to such a degree meet the
qualification requirements. We consider assistant teachers to be a
second educational staff person working within a preschool setting who
supports the teacher in implementing planned curricular activities with
the children. A teacher aide is a third person who may or may not
provide direct curriculum support.
Comment: We specifically solicited comments on the appropriate
qualifications family child care providers, which was addressed in
paragraph (g) in the NPRM and now is found in paragraph (e)(4)(i). Some
commenters objected to our proposal in what is now paragraph (e)(4)(i)
to shorten the timeline for family child care providers to attain
credentials from two years to eighteen months. Conversely, some
commenters suggested we require family child care providers meet the
same qualifications as center-based teachers.
Response: We retained the requirements for family child care
providers as proposed. We believe our requirement in paragraph
(e)(4)(i) appropriately balances the need to strengthen requirements
and acknowledge funding realities and the ability of higher education
to support degrees in early childhood. We did not substantively revise
the provision.
Comment: Some commenters suggested the requirement in what is now
paragraph (e)(4)(ii) that a child development specialist have at a
minimum, an associate degree in child development or early childhood
education is too low, given their responsibilities. Some commenters
requested we define ``child development specialist'' as it relates to
family child care.
Response: We agree the work that child development specialists do
with family child care providers to support high-quality service
delivery in family child care settings, as described in Sec.
1302.23(e) requires a higher level of expertise. Therefore we amended
what is now paragraph (e)(4)(ii) to more clearly link the duties of the
child development specialist as described in Sec. 1302.23(e) and
require child development specialists have a baccalaureate degree in
child development, early childhood education or a related field.
Comment: Some commenters supported our focus on both staff
qualifications and the staff competencies for teaching staff we
described in what were paragraphs (b)(2) and (c)(2) and are now found
in paragraph (e)(5). Some commenters suggested additional competencies
for teaching staff including understanding the birth to five
developmental continuum; partnering with and engaging parents in their
child's education; effective team teaching; culturally and
linguistically responsive practices; second language acquisition;
administering assessments; and the capacity and desire to expand
skills, knowledge and abilities.
Response: Programs have the flexibility to determine the
appropriate competencies to ensure high-quality staff and program
effectiveness within their own communities. However, we revised
paragraph (e)(5) to add use of assessment and promoting the progress of
children with disabilities and dual language learners.
Comment: Many commenters expressed concern with or opposed our
proposal to require home visitors have at least a CDA in what was
paragraph (f) in the NPRM. Concerns with our proposal included: it was
more important to focus on home visitor skills; home visitors are
already trained and certified in other home visiting curriculum and
that a CDA would be an inefficient use of funds; time should be
provided to allow home visitors to obtain a CDA; and our proposal would
disqualify home visitors with sociology, psychology, or other possibly
relevant degrees.
Some commenters supported our proposal for home visitors to have a
minimum of a CDA, although some of these commenters suggested their
support was conditional on additional funds to raise home visitor
salaries accordingly. Some commenters suggested additional flexibility
for staff to meet this requirement such as an alternative or equivalent
credential. Many commenters recommended we revise the standard to allow
the home visitor to have a CDA or equivalent coursework or be enrolled
in coursework to earn a CDA. Some commenters suggested that the minimum
requirement of a CDA was too low and recommended we require at least an
associate's degree in early childhood, child development or a related
field with equivalent coursework that could be attained within a
realistic timeframe. Some commenters suggested we set a national
percentage goal for home visitors with bachelor's degrees.
Response: We believe our minimum requirement of a CDA for home
visitors, now found in paragraph (e)(6)(i) is reasonable and in fact,
given the complex nature of their work, that it is preferable for such
staff to have an associate's or baccalaureate degree in a relevant
field. We revised this requirement to clarify the credentials necessary
for this position. In order to allow adequate time for staff to obtain
a CDA, we are delaying the requirement to comply with this provision
for two years. We also revised competency requirements in paragraph
(e)(6)(ii) to include supporting children with disabilities and DLLs,
and building respectful, culturally responsive, and trusting
relationships with families.
Comment: The NPRM required all staff, including family services,
health, and disabilities staff, to have sufficient knowledge, training,
and experience to fulfill their roles and responsibilities. It did not
retain vague language from the prior program performance standards
about family services, health, and disabilities staff. We specifically
requested comments on specific degree requirements for these staff. We
received comments in support and opposition of our approach. Some
commenters praised our removal of these provisions, and stated it would
increase local flexibility for programs to set their own qualifications
and better address their professional needs. Other commenters
disagreed, and instead suggested we at least restore the previous
requirements and suggested we include new degree competencies and
qualifications, such as a minimum of a baccalaureate. Some commenters
provided specific recommendations for strengthening qualifications for
family service workers, such as a requirement that they, at a minimum,
have an associate's degree in social work or a related field.
Response: We agree with the concerns commenters raised about child
and family services staff and made revisions accordingly. We added a
new requirement in paragraph (e)(7) to require newly hired staff who
work on family partnership services have at least a credential or
certification in social work, human services, family services,
counseling or a related field within eighteen months of hire. We
believe it is optimal for these staff to have an associate's or
baccalaureate degree in a
[[Page 61355]]
related field. We restored health professional qualification
requirements in paragraph (e)(8)(i), and we expanded requirements for
competencies to include assistant teachers and family child care
providers in paragraph (e)(5).
Comment: Some commenters offered suggestions for the requirement
for mental health consultants in what is now paragraph (e)(8)(ii). Some
requested clarification about what it meant to ``support'' mental
health services. Some commenters suggested mental health consultants be
licensed or certified, demonstrate specific competencies, or have a
degree in social work, professional counseling, or marriage and family
therapy. Other commenters opposed the requirement that a mental health
consultant be licensed or certified, citing inadequate funding.
Response: We think it is important that mental health consultants
are licensed or certified mental health professionals so they have the
training needed to provide the appropriate scope of services to young
children and families. To strengthen the standard, we revised what is
now paragraph (e)(8)(ii) to require that mental health consultants
have, to the extent possible, knowledge of and experience in serving
young children and their families. We also removed the language that
referenced staff who ``support'' mental health services to improve
clarity. We did not address other suggested requirements, because we
believe that local programs need flexibility to determine the best
approach to ensure mental health consultants are able to meet child and
family needs.
Comment: Some commenters requested clarification for our use of the
term ``nutritionist'' in what is now paragraph (e)(8)(iii). Commenters
were concerned it could be interpreted to include a person who lacks
formal education or training in the area of nutrition. Some commenters
suggested we require registered dieticians and licensed nutritionists
oversee all nutrition services.
Response: We believe the requirement that nutrition services be
provided by registered dieticians and nutritionists is sufficient to
ensure high-quality services.
Comment: Some commenters suggested we modify staff qualification
requirements for migrant and seasonal and American Indian and Alaskan
Native programs because these programs often find it difficult to hire
staff with either credentials or degrees. For example, some commenters
recommended we broaden the requirement for using child development
specialists with associate's degrees in family child care to apply to
migrant and seasonal programs because of challenges to find bilingual
qualified staff in rural communities. Commenters recommended we allow
migrant or seasonal Head Start programs to have lower staff
qualifications than other Head Start programs and help them obtain
degrees.
Response: Although we understand the challenges migrant and
seasonal and American Indian and Alaskan Native programs face, we
require these programs to hire qualified staff to work with children.
However, we encourage programs to implement individualized professional
development plans for all staff.
Comment: Some commenters suggested we add specific qualifications
for coaches, such as a minimum of a bachelor's degree in in early
childhood education or child development. Some commenters suggested we
require coaches to demonstrate specific areas of knowledge, skills, and
experience.
Response: We agree that in order for coaches to effectively support
education staff they should have a minimum of a baccalaureate degree in
early childhood education or a related field. Therefore, we have added
a requirement in paragraph (f).
Comment: Some commenters requested clarification about teachers and
providers working within community child care partnership sites need to
meet the staff qualification requirements. They stated that increased
requirements for Early Head Start programs could harm partnerships with
community child care programs.
Response: Teachers and family child care providers must meet staff
qualification requirements. Grantees funded with EHS-CC Partnership
funds are allowed 18 months following receipt of the award to help
staff attain the required credentials or degrees.
Section 1302.92 Training and Professional Development
In this section, we describe requirements for staff training and
professional development. We require a coordinated system of
professional development, including individualized coaching for all
educators, including family child care providers. Commenters generally
supported our integrated systems approach, and noted support for our
more individualized professional development. Others cited research in
support of our coaching requirements. We made revisions to strengthen
professional development and training for all staff and to improve
clarity of coaching requirements. We discuss these and other comments
below.
Comment: Some commenters opposed our decision to omit a previous
standard for staff performance appraisals because they stated these
appraisals are an important way to identify professional development
needs and to provide data to develop a training and technical
assistance plan.
Response: We do not believe we need specific requirements for the
process by which programs assess staff. Instead, we focused this
section on requiring programs to implement a system to ensure all staff
members receive the supportive training and development they need to
provide high-quality services. Programs that value staff performance
appraisals may continue to use this method as part of their system. We
did not revise this provision.
Comment: Some commenters expressed concerned about the burden of
``all day'' orientations for program consultants.
Response: Paragraph (a) requires programs to provide an orientation
to all new staff, consultants, and volunteers. We did not include any
reference to ``all day'' or any prescribed length of orientations. We
feel the intent of the provision is clear as written. Therefore, we did
not revise this provision.
Comment: Many commenters expressed concern about the requirement in
what was paragraph (b) about training and professional development
having academic credit, as appropriate. Commenters recommended we
revise the requirement to include continuing education units (CEUs).
Some commenters misunderstood the intent of the requirement, pointing
out that training on CPR, Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS), etc.
could not bear academic credit.
Response: Paragraph (b) requires programs establish and implement a
systematic approach to staff training and development. We did not
intend to require that all staff training within the required system
provide academic credit. Rather, academic credit should be sought, when
appropriate, for such training and staff development in order to
support staff progress toward degrees and other goals. We did not
revise this provision.
Comment: Some commenters requested clarification about whether
coaching hours would count toward the requirement for 15 clock hours of
professional development. Some commenters expressed concerns that
coaching hours will not be eligible for state registry professional
development trainings.
[[Page 61356]]
Response: We consider coaching hours applicable toward meeting the
15 clock hours of professional development per year, assuming the
coaching hours are designed to assist staff in increasing knowledge and
acquiring new skills to help them provide high-quality services within
the scope of their job responsibilities. Whether coaching hours are
eligible for state registries is beyond the purview of this rule.
Comment: Some commenters request that parent engagement strategies
be included in training and professional development.
Response: We revised what was paragraph (b)(2) and is now paragraph
(b)(3) to require training for all staff on best practices for family
engagement strategies. In addition, to appropriately address
professional development for child and family services staff who are
not education staff, we included a new requirement in paragraph (b)(4)
to require training for family services, health, and disabilities staff
to build on their knowledge, experience, and competencies to improve
child and family outcomes. We also amended paragraph (b)(5) to include
partnering with families as an area of the professional development for
education staff.
Comment: Some commenters suggested there were disparities in
training opportunities between lead teachers and teacher assistants.
Response: We believe it is important for the entire teaching team
to receive appropriate training and professional development.
Paragraphs (b)(5) and (c) require research-based approaches to
professional development for all education staff, which includes
assistant teachers.
Comment: Some commenters requested the training and professional
development system explicitly include additional subjects, such as
physical activity, outdoor play, positive behavior supports, and
children with disabilities.
Response: We revised what is now paragraph (b)(5) to include
partnership with families, supporting children with disabilities and
their families, and use of data to individualize learning experiences.
We did not include other revisions to broaden the focus of the
requirement. This paragraph appropriately emphasizes professional
development for education staff on the central aspects of effective
teaching. We think it is important this section focus on these key
skills for education staff. Programs can choose to provide professional
development on other topics if they determine it best meets the needs
of the children and families they serve.
Comment: Many commenters were concerned about our requirement in
what is now paragraph (b)(5) to require research-based approaches to
professional development for education staff. Commenters expressed a
variety of concerns, such as cost, and requested further clarification
about the term ``research-based approaches.'' Other commenters
supported our emphasis on research-based professional development and
noted this was important to improving Head Start quality.
Response: We believe effective professional development is central
to the delivery of high-quality education services that foster strong
child outcomes. We think the requirement in paragraph (b)(5) is
important to ensure program quality. There is existing guidance at at
the Early Childhood Learning and Knowledge Center (ECLKC) \122\ about
research-based approaches professional development and professional
development. We believe this a reasonable minimum threshold that will
ensure programs are able to demonstrate outcomes for teacher
development. Therefore, we did not revise this provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\122\ https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/hslc/tta-system/pd/pds/Mentoring/edudev_art_00050_081105.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: We received many comments on our proposal to require
coaching be a part of the research-based approaches to professional
development. Many commenters opposed it because of concerns such as
cost. Some commenters strongly supported it, and pointed to research
that demonstrated its importance in high-quality implementation and
strong child outcomes. Some commenters stated the requirement was too
prescriptive and placed too much burden on programs, especially rural
programs, and staff. Other commenters requested we include more
specificity and requirements for the proposed coaching systems, such as
additional qualifications or expanding the requirement beyond education
staff. Commenters also requested additional clarification, such as a
definition of ``intensive'' coaching or which staff members are covered
by the coaching requirement. Some commenters requested clarification
about whether coaching could include online, remote and video supported
coaching or if the requirement could be phased in, in order to build
the capacity of coaching over time.
Response: We revised the structure of the coaching requirements to
improve clarity. Coaching requirements are now found in paragraph (c)
instead of paragraphs (b)(4) and (5) in the NPRM. We restructured these
requirements to improve clarity, made revisions to the structure of
this section and specifically to paragraph (c) to clarify the coaching
requirements apply to education staff, and revised paragraph (c)(1) to
incorporate a strengths-based approach. In paragraph (c)(1), we require
programs to implement a research-based coordinated coaching strategy
that assesses all education staff to identify their strengths and areas
of needed support and to identify which staff would benefit most from
intensive coaching. In paragraph (c)(2), we require programs to provide
intensive coaching to, at a minimum the education staff identified as
most benefiting from intensive coaching. In paragraph (c)(3), we
require programs to provide other forms of research-based professional
development to education staff who do not receive intensive coaching.
In paragraphs (c)(4) and (5), we require specific elements of the
coaching system.
The intent of these requirements is to ensure all programs utilize
research-based coaching strategies, whether the strategies are employed
via online or video supported methods is up to the grantee to
determine. We acknowledge there are costs associated with implementing
coaching strategies, but think is important for high-quality service
delivery. We believe we appropriately balance local flexibility with
requirements to include basic features that research indicates will
support progress. The requirement allows programs flexibility to define
much of the structural and goal setting aspects of their coaching
strategy, including staffing patterns. Moreover, the effective date of
the coaching requirement is delayed for approximately one year after
this rule is published so programs have sufficient time for effective
implementation. Additionally, we revised what is now paragraph (d) to
add more flexibility to address concerns that the coaching provisions
were too prescriptive.
Comment: Commenters requested we include language in coordinated
coaching strategies in what is now paragraph (c) about a range of
embedded professional development approaches.
Response: Paragraph (c)(2) requires intensive coaching for a subset
of staff members. Paragraph (c)(3) requires programs provide other
forms of research-based professional development to education staff who
do not receive intensive coaching.
[[Page 61357]]
Section 1302.93 Staff Health and Wellness
This section includes requirements for staff health and wellness,
including staff health checks to ensure child safety and standards to
support staff wellness. We discuss comments and our responses below.
Comment: We received many comments on the standards in paragraph
(a) that address initial health examinations and periodic
reexaminations for staff members. Some commenters requested
clarification about the tuberculosis screening requirement in paragraph
(a) for the initial health examination, including why it is the only
mandatory screening. Other commenters recommended we revise paragraph
(a) to describe the purpose and aspects of the initial health exam and
others offered suggestions about the periodic re-examination. Some
commenters recommend we include a reference to the Health Services
Advisory Committee (HSAC) in this section. Many commenters stated that
paragraph (a) conflicted with state requirements and would therefore
make some collaborations difficult.
Response: We revised paragraph (a) to be consistent with state,
tribal, and local laws, which will support collaborations. We also
struck the specific requirement for screening for tuberculosis and
instead reference that health examinations include screenings or tests
for communicable diseases, as appropriate. This provides local
flexibility to respond to local health needs and meet applicable
requirements. We think it is too prescriptive to define how often a
health re-examination should occur and did not prescribe the required
timeframe. We also do not think it is necessary to prescribe
requirements related to occupational health exams. Programs may want to
use recommendations for doctors, jurisdiction, or the HSAC. We did
think it was necessary to reference the HSAC in this section.
Comment: Some commenters recommend the standard in paragraph (b)
should be strengthened to include activities beyond making mental
health and wellness information available. For example, commenters
suggested we broaden the focus of health and wellness or add a new
standard for a daily staff health check. Some commenters recommend we
note that an Employee Assistance Program could be used to implement
these standards. Some commenters noted staff compensation contributed
to stress and mental health problems and should be addressed.
Response: We agree we should strengthen paragraph (b), but that
most of the specific suggestions were too prescriptive. We also believe
it is important for programs to have flexibility to develop their own
approach to ensure staff wellness. We revised paragraph (b) to specify
that programs must provide regularly scheduled opportunities to learn
about health topics. Staff compensation is outside the purview of this
regulation. We agree that the Employee Assistance Program could be
helpful but do not think it is appropriate to prescribe that level of
specificity.
Section 1302.94 Volunteers
This section includes requirements related to the utilization of
volunteers. We address comments below.
Comment: Some commenters recommended that we provide a definition
for a regular volunteer and some commenters suggested we require
volunteers receive an orientation on program and class procedures.
Response: We revised the requirement in paragraph (a) about
screening for communicable diseases to be consistent with staff
requirements in Sec. 1302.93. What constitutes a regular volunteer can
vary by program so we did not define this term. Section 1302.92(a)
already requires volunteers to receive an orientation on the goals and
underlying philosophy of the program and on the ways they are
implemented. We think this is sufficient.
Program Management and Quality Improvement; Subpart J
This subpart establishes the roles and responsibilities for a
program's management system and sets requirements for a data-driven
management system for continuous improvement toward high-quality
service delivery. It also sets forth requirements for the
implementation of this rule. We received many comments on this subpart,
most of which address the timeline for implementation of the final
rule. Other commenters offered positive feedback on the management
requirements or requested technical changes for clarity. We discuss the
comments and our rationale for any changes to the regulatory text in
this section.
General Comments
Comment: Some commenters supported our requirement that programs
implement a coordinated approach to serving DLLs and offered further
suggestions to increase the focus on DLLs throughout program
management. Specifically, these commenters suggested requirements for
programs to identify DLLs as a focal point of the process of ongoing
monitoring and self-improvement for achieving program goals in Sec.
1302.100. Commenters also requested a revision to Sec. 1302.101(b)(2)
to indicate how their coordinated approach should be evaluated.
Finally, commenters suggested revising Sec. 1302.102 to require
programs set goals related to first and second language development for
DLLs.
Response: The requirements in this subpart apply to all children,
including special populations. This subpart also ensures the
intentional implementation of a coordinated management approach for the
full and effective participation of children who are DLLs and their
families. We do not believe it is necessary to further emphasize
particular populations within individual requirements throughout
program management.
Section 1302.100 Purpose
This section provides a general requirement for programs to
implement management systems and a process of ongoing monitoring and
continuous improvement for achieving program goals. Aside from the
overarching comment related to DLLs discussed above, we did not receive
comments on this section.
Section 1302.101 Management System
This section describes the implementation of a program's management
system by requiring regular and ongoing staff supervision to support
continuous program improvement. This section also outlines requirements
for programs to establish coordinated approaches to ensure professional
development, services for dual language learners, services for children
with disabilities, and data management. We received many comments on
this section, including suggestions for strengthening management system
requirements and requests for clarification.
Comment: We heard from commenters about the proposal to remove the
requirement to have written plans for management systems. Some
commenters opposed the removal of written plans, suggesting they are
critical to building effective management systems. Other commenters
praised the elimination of the written plans, noting that the removal
of this requirement would reduce unnecessary bureaucracy. Still other
commenters requested guidance or clarification regarding the removal of
this requirement.
[[Page 61358]]
Response: We agree programs may find written plans to be valuable.
We expect these programs will continue to use written planning to
coordinate their management systems and ensure that all staff are able
to fully implement them. However, the intention of removing written
plans as a requirement is, as some commenters noted, to shift the focus
from compliance with prescribed plans to monitory progress toward
goals. We did not restore this requirement.
Comment: Some commenters suggested that, for clarity, we eliminate
the phrase ``adequate record keeping'' in paragraph (a) and create a
new standard to address record keeping so that all of the requirements
in paragraph (a) were not explicitly linked to record keeping.
Response: We agree and untethered adequate record keeping from the
other provisions in paragraph (a) and instead added a new paragraph
(a)(4) to reflect this requirement.
Comment: Some commenters suggested revisions to the reference to
promoting continuity of care in paragraph (a)(3). Some commenters
thought it should be deleted because it is already covered by the full
range of services described in subparts C through H. Other commenters
suggested this requirement be linked directly to services for infants
and toddlers.
Response: We believe continuity of care is critically important,
and therefore we emphasize it in this section, despite its
representation throughout the broader set of standards. Further, while
we agree that continuity of care is of particular importance to infants
and toddlers, we believe it is also important for preschoolers.
Therefore, we did not revise this requirement.
Comment: Some commenters suggested we specifically include
reflective supervision, particularly for Early Head Start staff, as
part of the regular and ongoing supervision required in paragraph
(a)(2).
Response: We require programs to implement research-based
professional development in subpart I and regular and ongoing
supervision under this subpart. Reflective supervision could be a
component of both of these strategies. Therefore, Early Head Start
programs may use reflective supervision if it helps them to ensure
continuous quality improvement. However, we believe local flexibility
for individual programs to determine the best approach to ensuring
their management system provides regular and ongoing supervision, as
long as the approach is research-based and effectively supports
achieving program goals. Therefore, we did not revise this requirement.
Comment: Some commenters supported and others opposed the
requirement that programs integrate Head Start data with other early
childhood data systems and work with the state's K-12 Statewide
Longitudinal Data System (SLDS) to share relevant data. Most of these
commenters expressed concerns about the burden for programs to
participate in their state's SLDS and recommended that it should be
encouraged to the extent practical but not required. Commenters also
expressed concerns with the varied capacity of states to partner
effectively with Head Start providers to share, use, and interpret data
which leads to barriers for programs to participate such as poor data
infrastructure in the state's SLDS, statutory roadblocks, or lack of an
SLDS in the state. Commenters stated that programs should not be held
fully responsible with SLDS integration since it is beyond the
abilities of most individual Head Start programs. Commenters also
requested we advocate for the SLDS to send reports and information to
programs that participate with their SLDS. One commenter recommended
that tribes be explicitly exempt from any requirement to participate in
their state's SLDS.
Response: We revised and reorganized the standards previously
provided in Sec. 1302.101(b)(4)(iii) to Sec. 1302.53(b)(3). There, we
clarified that a program should participate in their state education
data system to the extent practicable and only if the program can
receive the same support and benefits as other participating early
childhood programs. Since state education data systems can vary greatly
from state to state and the practicality of a program to participate in
these systems can also vary, we provided programs flexibility as steps
are taken to share data with their state within their capacity and
existing supports provided. Regarding an exemption for tribes, we agree
and added that AIAN programs are exempt from any requirement to
participate in their state education data systems, unless an AIAN would
choose to participate in the statewide data system to the extent
practicable. Further, in paragraph (b)(4), we clarified that AIAN
programs can determine whether or not they will participate in such
data systems.
Comment: Commenters expressed concern with the requirement proposed
in Sec. 1302.101(b)(4) of the NPRM to align data collections and
definitions to the Common Education Data Standards (CEDS) due to the
burden on programs (e.g., time, additional staff, and expense), and
some commenters indicated that the responsibility to align with CEDS
should not be on any individual program. Some commenters stated that
the definitions in CEDS are not appropriate for all Head Start
programs. Some commenters requested guidance on how to fulfill this
requirement.
Response: We agree it is premature to promulgate standards
encouraging programs to engage with CEDS since the early childhood data
standards are not as far into development as the K-12 standards and
there is insufficient information on the benefits and utilization of
CEDS at the individual school level or early childhood setting.
Additionally, CEDS is meant to be voluntary. As a result, we removed
this standard.
Comment: Some commenters requested that programs be allowed to
disclose PII from child records to the SLDS administrator to facilitate
data sharing with the SLDS.
Response: According to Sec. 1303.22(c)(2), a program is allowed to
disclose PII from child records without parental consent to federal or
state officials, in connection with an audit or evaluation of education
or child development programs, as long as the program maintains
oversight of child records through a written agreement or other means.
Therefore, officials representing a state entity that manages a state
education data system, such as an SLDS, would fall under this
description and a program would be allowed to disclose the necessary
PII to such an official.
Comment: Some commenters opposed the requirement of a data
governance body or council described in paragraph (b)(4) and stated
that it is an excessive and costly requirement. Some commenters were in
favor of the requirement. Commenters also requested clarity on the
definition of this group, including its purpose, role, and function;
how it differs from other governing groups, specifically the board of
directors, policy council, and governing board; and whether it applies
to Early Head Start programs.
Response: We believe programs have established systems that focus
on the security of data, an important goal, but this has overshadowed
effective data sharing with other relevant entities. We shifted the
focus to encompass a balance between the security, availability,
usability, and integrity of data through these provisions. However,
commenters misinterpreted our intent, primarily due to the terminology
used. Therefore, we changed the term ``data governance'' to ``data
management'' in this paragraph and we removed the reference to a ``body
or council'' to focus less on the
[[Page 61359]]
process and more on the desired outcome of establishing procedures to
ensure data quality and effective data use and sharing, while
protecting the privacy of child records. For this same reason, we also
removed the requirement to consult with experts and advisors on early
childhood data systems in their state. Programs are still encouraged to
do this but including it as a standard distracts from the overall focus
on outcomes instead of process. To clarify that this requirement also
applies to Early Head Start, we changed ``Head Start data'' to
``data.''
Comment: A commenter requested we require programs to align their
data systems with one another.
Response: We disagree with this suggestion. Programs use multiple
data systems and not every data system used can or should be aligned.
For example, a data system used for salaries, wages, and fringe
benefits would not align with a data system for the administration of
children immunizations. Thus, requiring programs to align their data
systems is too broad of a requirement and could create more
complications than benefits.
Section 1302.102 Achieving Program Goals
This section describes the program goal setting process with
respect to quality improvement. It is reorganized from the previous
rule to better convey the importance of establishing goals for
effective health and safety practices, all elements of high-quality
service provision, and continuous quality improvement for all programs,
not just those with identified quality issues or deficiencies. It
includes requirements for each aspect of the cycle of continuous
quality improvement including planning; goal setting; and monitoring
short- and long-term progress towards achieving goals. This section
also describes reporting requirements as they relate to ongoing
monitoring and self-assessment. Commenters made a number of
recommendations for strengthening this section, and we made small
changes to the language for clarification throughout the section. We
discuss specific comments and responses below.
Comment: Some commenters recommended we require a system that sets
benchmarks for child and family outcomes, based on nationally normed
assessment measures, and outlines strategies for tracking progress in
order to support program improvement efforts, professional development,
and evaluation. These commenters suggest that such a system would
better ensure children enter school performing on par with their more
advantaged peers.
Response: We believe that it is important for programs to have
local flexibility to set their own goals and measure children and
families' progress towards those goals. We do not think it is
appropriate for us to set a single standard all programs must use to
assess the continuous improvement of their program.
Comment: Commenters requested we require programs to set goals for
the outcomes of educational and other services, rather than for the
provision of these services. Some commenters also suggested that
programs should be required to set goals for the recruitment,
retention, and development of qualified staff. Other commenters
suggested we reduce the types of program goals that are required. These
commenters stated that too many goals would prevent programs from being
able to focus and achieve desired outcomes.
Response: We believe we have achieved an appropriate balance for
the goal-setting requirements. We encourage programs to set additional
goals if it helps them effectively meet the needs of their community
and ensure continuous quality improvement. The intent of this
requirement is to set a minimum.
Comment: Many commenters requested programs be allowed to align
revisions to their goals, as described in paragraph (a), with their
five-year grant cycle.
Response: While we understand that programs may wish to revisit
their goals, especially their long-term strategic goals described in
paragraph (a)(1) with their five-year grant cycle, we feel continuous
quality improvement requires programs to thoughtfully re-evaluate their
goals on an ongoing basis. Additionally, the replacement of the Head
Start Child Development and Early Learning Framework for three to five-
year-olds with the Head Start Early Learning Outcomes Framework: Ages
Birth to Five should result in a re-evaluation of programs' school
readiness goals to ensure they are promoting the school readiness of
all children in all domains. We did not revise this provision.
Comment: Many commenters praised the clear link of the Head Start
Early Learning Outcomes Framework: Ages Birth to Five (HSELOF) to
school readiness goals in paragraph (a)(3). Other commenters requested
we allow programs to align with both HSELOF and their state early
learning standards. Further, some commenters expressed confusion about
the relationship between performance goals and school readiness goals.
Response: The requirement in paragraph (a)(3) is for all programs
to align with both HSELOF and their state early learning standards,
where state standards are applicable. We previously issued guidance
describing the relationship between school readiness goals and program
goals. This guidance clarifies that school readiness goals are a subset
of program goals. However, we agree that the terminology ``program
performance goals'' is confusing. Therefore, we revised the term
throughout subpart J to ``program goals.'' We also re-ordered the list
of goals that programs must establish in this section to reflect a
hierarchy of goals, starting with broad, strategic long-term goals.
Comment: Many commenters noted that the monitoring system will need
to be aligned with the outcomes-focused approach to continuous quality
improvement described in the section, and the requirements in paragraph
(b).
Response: The monitoring process will be revised to align with
these program performance standards.
Comment: Commenters offered suggestions for strengthening data use
for continuous quality improvement in paragraph (c). Some commenters
recommended we include requirements for best practices in using data to
improve instruction, including how often data must be reviewed and used
to inform services. Others suggested strengthening requirements for
continuous improvement by referencing feedback loops, which they
thought would allow programs to be proactive rather than reactive.
These commenters also suggested that programs should be required to
develop and implement policies and procedures that guide staff
collaboration on the review, interpretation, and use of data to advance
policy and practice improvements and professional learning goals.
Response: We do not agree that we should set such specific
requirements for the process by which individual programs ensure
continuous quality improvement. Rather, we focus on requiring programs
to implement a system to ensure continuous quality improvement but
leave the details of how each program will achieve this up to local
communities to determine.
Comment: Some commenters suggested we require additional areas of
data collection, aggregation and analysis to ensure continuous program
improvement in all areas of program services. Suggestions included
adding family engagement, home visits, group socializations, and staff
development. Some commenters suggested that the
[[Page 61360]]
requirement included too many areas for data collection, aggregation,
and analysis, stating that grantees need to be able to focus their
efforts on a limited set of specific goals for program improvement.
Response: We believe we have achieved an appropriate balance for
data requirements. Programs are encouraged to collect additional data,
as necessary, in order to inform their own goals and ensure continuous
quality improvement. The intent of this requirement is to set a minimum
for service areas grantees must collect data on.
Comment: Some commenters stated that it is inappropriate to
aggregate data for infants and toddlers, especially in small programs
with very few children in similar developmental age ranges, or that it
is inappropriate to directly assess infants and toddlers three times
per year.
Response: The requirement to aggregate and analyze child-level
assessment data three times per year in paragraph (c)(2)(ii) is not
new. Guidance already exists on the topic of assessment and data
aggregation for infants and toddlers and can be found at https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/hslc/tta-system/ehsnrc/school-readiness/SchoolReadiness.htm. This guidance clarifies that aggregation and
analysis of data is possible for infants and toddlers and does not have
to done by child age. Further, we revised paragraph (c)(2)(ii) to refer
programs to the definition of child-level assessment data in part 1305,
which includes observation-based as well as direct assessments. We
believe this change addresses concerns about frequent direct assessment
of infants and toddlers.
Comment: Some commenters noted that we should add an exception for
programs less than 90 days to the requirement to aggregate and analyze
data three times per year.
Response: We agree and revised paragraphs (c)(2)(ii) and (iii) and
a requirement in paragraph (c)(2)(iii) to clarify that programs
operating for fewer than 90 days only have to aggregate and analyze
their data twice per year.
Comment: Some commenters asked us to define ``lessons'' in
paragraph (c)(iv), formerly paragraph (c)(2)(iii) in the NPRM.
Response: We revised the requirement to read ``information,''
rather than ``lessons'' to clarify our intent.
Comment: Some commenters requested we provide justification for
requiring reports.
Response: The Secretary has broad statutory authority under section
641A(a)(1) of the Act to establish standards to ensure the health and
safety of children and appropriate program operation.
Comment: Many commenters suggested that the requirements in
paragraph (d)(1)(ii), formerly paragraph (d)(1)(iii) in the NPRM, were
too vague. Specifically, many commenters requested clarity about what
risks should be reported under paragraph (d)(1)(iii)(C) in the NPRM. As
proposed, commenters suggested the requirement would include everything
from chicken pox to a bite from a classmate to an outbreak of influenza
at a nearby nursing home. Commenters also requested clarity on which
reasons for program closure under paragraph (d)(1)(iii)(B) in the NPRM
need to be reported. For example, commenters asked whether programs
needed to report when they close due to inclement weather. Finally,
commenters stated the requirement in paragraph (d)(1)(iii)(D) in the
NPRM was too vague and requested clarity on what legal proceedings,
involving which related parties, would need to be reported.
Response: We agree with commenters that the proposed requirements
in paragraphs (d)(1)(ii) and (iii) in the NPRM were unclear and we made
revisions to clarify our intent. We revised and restructured these
standards into paragraph (d)(1)(ii) and struck paragraph (d)(1)(iii) to
clarify that programs must report significant incidents, rather than
``risks,'' related to health and safety or financial and administrative
circumstances, to the responsible HHS official. Therefore, inclement
weather closings, for example, would not apply to the requirement in
what is now paragraph (d)(1)(ii)(B) and risks such as a nearby outbreak
of influenza or minor incidents such as child biting a classmate are
clearly not included. Finally, we revised what is now (d)(1)(ii)(C) to
better clarify that we only require programs to report legal
proceedings that are directly related to program operations.
Comment: Some commenters noted that the community assessment is too
long to include in the annual self-assessment. These commenters
suggested amending the requirement to include only a synopsis or
summary of the most recent community assessment. Additionally, some
commenters suggested that inclusion of the community assessment in the
self-assessment should be aligned with each grantee's five-year grant
cycle, such that grantees would only be required to include it when
their grant cycle is being renewed.
Response: We revised paragraph (d)(2) to allow for a summary of the
most recent community assessment to be included in the annual self-
assessment. We also clarified that programs must be publish and
disseminate the report.
Section 1302.103 Implementation of Program Performance Standards
This section includes requirements to ensure programs implement the
program performance standards effectively and to provide flexibility to
programs in meeting the requirements of subpart B, if any currently
enrolled Head Start children could be displaced.
Comment: Many commenters requested consistent guidance,
communication, and training and technical assistance to grantees
related to the implementation of the final performance standards, and
explicitly the move to full day programs.
Response: The final rule includes a compliance table that outlines
that dates by which programs have to be in compliance with the new
standards. It shows that many of the provisions go into effect 60 days
after publication but that others, such as some of the provisions
related to curriculum, assessment, and coaching, do not require
compliance until August 2017 and that the requirement for a longer day
and year are further delayed. We think this staggered phase-in timeline
will give programs adequate time to implement these changes in a
thoughtful way with support from OHS and our training and technical
assistance system.
Financial and Administrative Requirements; Part 1303
This part lays out financial and administrative requirements for
agencies.
Section 1303.1 Overview
This part specifies the financial and administrative requirements
for programs consistent with various sections in the Act. Subpart A
outlines the financial requirements; subpart B focuses on
administrative requirements; subpart C implements statutory provisions
related to personally identifiable data, information, and records;
subpart D outlines the requirements for the operation of delegate
agencies; subpart E implements statutory provisions related to
facilities; and subpart F describes transportation requirements. We
received comments on each of these subparts. We summarize comments and
provide our response below.
Financial Requirements; Subpart A
This subpart reorganizes, revises, and streamlines the financial
requirements
[[Page 61361]]
in subparts A, B, C, and D of part 1301 in the previous performance
standards. This purpose of these changes is to organize the
requirements in a more logical order, conform to recent changes in
regulations that govern all federal grants, and reduce the
administrative burden on agencies.
Section 1303.2 Purpose
This section specifies that the purpose of this subpart is to
establish requirements for program administration and grants management
that apply to all grants under the Act. A summary of comments and our
responses is below.
Comment: Some commenters were pleased we removed the accounting
system certification we required in the previous performance standards
at Sec. 1303.11. They stated that it resulted in added cost for
programs with limited or no gain.
Response: We agree the certification was an unnecessary burden to
grantees and their financial professionals.
Comment: Some commenters suggested that we should not have removed
the annual audit requirement in Sec. 1301.12 of the previous
performance standards. Many commenters recommended we clarify that an
annual audit is still an allowable expense for programs of all sizes.
Response: The Office of Management and Budget establishes audit
requirements and specified their requirement related to all federally
required audits in the Uniform Guidance. Audits are a permissible
expense regardless of program size. No changes to this section are
necessary.
Section 1303.3 Other Requirements
This section displays in a chart an updated list of HHS regulations
that apply to all grants made under the Act. We received many comments
on this chart.
Comment: Commenters suggested we clarify what is required for
issuance of a Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Number System (DUNS)
number and annual or reoccurring reporting requirements.
Response: We did not make changes in response to this comment. We
believe that the cross-reference to 2 CFR 25.10 CCR (Central Contractor
Registration)/DUNS provides grantees with sufficient DUNS information
to support initial and ongoing compliance and reporting requirements.
Section 1303.4 Federal Financial Assistance, Non-federal Match, and
Waiver Requirements
This section consolidates into one section the financial
assistance, non-federal match, and waiver requirements that were in
Sec. Sec. 1301.20 and 1301.21 of the previous performance standards.
We did not receive comments on this section but made two technical
changes to the regulatory text in the final rule. First, we used the
term ``non-federal match'' throughout, instead of ``non-federal share
match'' or ``non-federal share matching'' to be consistent and to more
closely align with the Uniform Guidance. Second, we modified the
language to state that a waiver of all or a portion of non-federal
match could be approved ``for'' the budget period instead of ``during''
the budget period. Since waivers after the close of the budget period
are possible, we wanted to ensure the language reflects that allowable
activity.
Section 1303.5 Limitations on Development and Administrative Costs
This section affirms the requirement in section 644(b) of the Act
that agencies not exceed the 15 percent cap on development and
administration. It also implements the requirement in section 644(b) of
the Act that the Secretary establish criteria for determining the costs
of developing and administering a program and the total costs of such a
program. In contrast to Sec. 1301.32(b) through (f) of the previous
performance standards, this section represents a simplified and
streamlined approach that requires grantees to categorize, identify,
and allocate costs in order to determine whether they meet the 15
percent administrative cap. This section also specifies the
requirements related to waivers of the cap on development and
administration.
We received comments on this section and made one technical change
to the regulatory text in the final rule. We removed the language
requiring that a waiver not exceed 12 months to provide for the
possibility of longer budget periods like those used for the Early Head
Start-Child Care partnerships.
Comment: Some commenters believed it would be helpful if we train
grantees on how to appropriately identify development and
administrative costs. Other commenters suggested we increase the limit
on administrative and development costs we proposed in paragraph (a)(1)
of this section.
Response: We did not increase the limit on administrative and
development costs specified in paragraph (a)(1) because it is
established in the Act. Training is available on how to identify
administrative and development costs.
Administrative Requirements; Subpart B
This subpart outlines the requirements for agency conduct, the
limitations and prohibitions to which agencies must adhere, and the
requirements for insurance and bonding.
Section 1303.10 Purpose
This section specifies that grantees must observe standards of
organization, management, and administration and conduct activities in
a manner consistent with the Act. We received comments related to these
general requirements.
Comment: Some commenters supported the requirement that grantees
observe stated standards of organization, management and administration
but urged us to include a new standard that requires employers to pay
living wages, or provide compensation levels at parity with elementary
school teaching staff or the average compensation level for comparable
work in the area.
Response: We did not change this requirement. We continue to
require grantees to establish wages that are comparable to those paid
in their community based on the wage comparability provision in the
Act.
Comment: Some commenters expressed concern that we eliminated
previous language that required each agency to provide reasonable
access to information and records.
Response: We believe the issue of access to information and records
is already adequately addressed by other applicable federal and state
law and a Head Start specific provision is not necessary.
Comment: Some commenters asked that we consider equipment to be any
item with a value of $25,000 or more.
Response: The fiscal regulations at 45 CFR part 75 govern the
definition of equipment and we cannot adopt contrary requirements in
these regulations.
Comment: Some commenters requested we allow agencies with Head
Start and Early Head Start awards to prepare a single budget.
Response: Head Start and Early Head Start awards use separate
Central Accounting Numbers (CANs) and fiscal regulations require
separate accounting for those funds.
Section 1303.11 Limitations and Prohibitions
This section consolidates into one place the sections in the Act
that place
[[Page 61362]]
limitations or prohibitions on agencies. These sections pertain to
union organizing, the Davis Bacon Act, limitations on compensation,
nondiscrimination, unlawful activities, political activities and
obtaining parental consent. We received comments on this section.
Comment: Some commenters recommended removal of the requirement
that programs comply with the Davis-Bacon Act or requested that we
limit the application of the Davis-Bacon Act to new major projects
only.
Response: The Act requires compliance with the Davis-Bacon Act,
including the definition of covered projects. We cannot eliminate this
requirement through the regulatory process.
Comment: Some commenters suggested that Head Start program
employees should not be allowed to engage in union organizing.
Response: Section 644(e) of the Act states that Head Start funds
may not be used to assist, promote, or deter union organizing. We
retained this prohibition in this section by referencing the Act.
Section 1303.12 Insurance and Bonding
This section requires that grantees maintain a documented process
to identify risks and provide proof of appropriate coverage in their
grant application. Our approach to require grantees to assess their own
risks and determine appropriate cost-effective coverage is a less
prescriptive approach that section Sec. 1301.11 of the previous
performance standards. We received comments on this section.
Comment: Some commenters said removing specific requirements for
insurance provides too much leeway, creates risk of liability and that
appropriate coverage should be defined, with a minimum threshold or
reference to state child care licensing requirements and suggested we
remove the requirement that the process of identifying risks consider
the risk of losses resulting from fraudulent acts by individuals
authorized to disburse Head Start funds.
Response: We did not change this requirement in response to
comments. We believe that implementation of an intentional risk
assessment process is an important aspect of grantee fiscal viability
and may dictate varying amounts of insurance coverage depending on the
grantee's unique circumstances. We believe assurance that Head Start
funds are not lost to fraudulent acts is an important part of
identifying risks.
Protections for the Privacy of Child Records; Subpart C
This subpart outlines the requirements for programs to ensure the
protection of child records, including requirements for parental
consent and instances where disclosure of children's personally
identifiable information (PII) without parental consent is allowable.
We added standards that ensure the protection of the confidentiality of
PII contained in child records. These standards align with the
policies, protections, and rights found in the Family Educational
Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), as appropriate for Head Start and Early
Head Start programs. We received comments on all sections of this
subpart. Overall, commenters were supportive and positive about these
standards, especially the alignment to FERPA and the emphasis placed on
parent rights in respect to their child's record.
Section 1303.20 Establishing Procedures
This section outlines required procedures that support the sections
that follow on confidentiality of PII in child records. We respond to
the comments we received below.
Comment: Commenters requested clarification on whether programs are
required to have procedures for parents to inspect a child's record or
challenge the sharing of the child's PII, and suggested we reference
this subpart in subpart D Health Program Services to ensure programs
consider the privacy of child records in health program services.
Response: According to Sec. 1303.20, a program must establish
procedures to protect the confidentiality of any PII in child records.
As part of these procedures, programs must ensure parents have the
right to inspect, ask to amend, and obtain copies of their child's
records, request hearings, and inspect written agreements. This subpart
is not specified in subpart D since the protections of the privacy of
child records should be considered throughout the entire final rule. We
also added breaches of PII to the issues that programs must report in
Sec. 1302.102(d)(1)(ii).
Comment: Commenters requested federal support and training
opportunities on this subpart to ensure proper implementation,
especially for programs without a deep understanding of privacy rules
and while programs link data to their state and federal data systems.
Some commenters recommended we require capacity building for data
privacy as part of staff training.
Response: We are committed to providing support for programs to
understand, build capacity, and comply with the new privacy
regulations. Programs must ensure staff, consultants, and volunteers
comply with program confidentiality policies in accordance with Sec.
1302.90(c)(1)(iv).
Section 1303.21 Program Procedures--Applicable Confidentiality
Provisions
In this section, we describe in paragraph (a) that when FERPA's
confidentiality requirements apply (i.e., for educational agencies and
institutions that maintain education records), the confidentiality
requirements in this subpart do not apply because those educational
agencies and institutions must comply with FERPA. Similarly, we
describe in paragraph (b) that the Head Start confidentiality
requirements in this subpart also do not apply when IDEA's
confidentiality provisions apply (i.e. a program collects, uses, or
maintains early intervention records of infants and toddlers with
disabilities referred to or eligible under Part C of the IDEA or
education records of children with disabilities referred to or eligible
under Part B of the IDEA). Therefore, the Head Start confidentiality
requirements in this subpart do not apply to the records of those
children covered by IDEA or programs covered by FERPA. Commenters
raised specific concerns and requested clarity, and our responses are
discussed below.
Comment: Commenters requested we provide guidance and clarity on
how other privacy laws apply including state laws and the Children's
Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA).
Response: A program must comply with other applicable federal,
state, or local privacy laws such as COPPA, which applies to all
programs, the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) which applies
to programs in the E-Rate program, and the Protection of Pupil Rights
Amendment (PPRA), which applies to programs administered by the U.S.
Department of Education (ED) receiving federal funds.
Comment: Some commenters expressed concern that it will be
burdensome and confusing for some programs to comply with FERPA and
this subpart, and that we make this subpart consistent with FERPA or
provide guidance on how to comply with both.
Response: We agree that we are not duplicating under Head Start the
confidentiality protections that already apply under FERPA and IDEA.
The provisions we are promulgating are very
[[Page 61363]]
similar to FERPA. However, we want to reiterate that when programs
comply with FERPA or IDEA for the records of those children and
programs covered under FERPA and/or IDEA, then this subpart does not
apply. Thus, we are eliminating any perceived burden and duplication.
We changed and restructured the language in this section to implement
these provisions.
Section 1303.22 Disclosures With, and Without, Parental Consent
In this section, we describe provisions programs must follow to
protect the privacy of child records and to share data. Most commenters
in this section made recommendations or requested clarifications
related to specific needs of Head Start programs, which are discussed
below.
Comment: Commenters recommended several changes to this section to
reflect FERPA, such as: Add an exception to parental consent for
disclosing PII classified as ``directory information''; include the
entire criteria in FERPA on a written agreement; remove the term
``disaster'' from Sec. 1303.22(c)(4); add other FERPA requirements on
the disclosure of PII without parental consent for a lawfully issued
subpoena or judicial order; require the class of recipients be
specified within the consent form; and permit disclosure without
parental consent to a school the child intends to enroll or is already
enrolled.
Response: We intended to align this section with FERPA while
meeting the needs of Head Start and Early Head Start programs, and
therefore a direct replication of FERPA would not be appropriate. In
regards to directory information, we believe that a list of names,
addresses, photographs, and other information that may fall under
directory information can be harmful if disclosed without parental
consent for the vulnerable population we serve, and therefore no change
was made. In regards to the written agreement, our intent is for the
program to determine the reasonable method to maintain control
appropriate for the disclosure including a written agreement, direct
supervision, and/or other methods. We updated Sec. 1303.22(c)(1)
through (3) to focus on our intent which provides programs flexibility
without being overly prescriptive. In regards to ``disaster,'' the term
refers to an emergency such as a natural or manmade disaster. We agreed
with the recommendations to include the class of recipients in the
consent form and to permit disclosure in compliance with a subpoena
without consent, similar to what FERPA permits, and these changes have
been made. Lastly, the disclosure without parental consent related to a
child's enrollment or transfer is already addressed in Sec.
1303.22(b), and parental consent is not required.
Comment: Commenters recommended we add clarify, replace, or define
terms in this section including, ``dependency matters'' as this could
refer to any case involving a dependent child and an adult caregiver,
``case plan,'' and ``foster care.'' Commenters expressed concern that
these terms could differ from state to state.
Response: We disagree on defining dependency matters. However, it
is not our intent that any case involving a dependent child and an
adult caregiver inherently involves dependency matters, so we clarified
that the court proceedings must directly involve dependency matters.
Foster care is defined in part 1305. The definition for ``case plan''
was added to part 1305.
Comment: Commenters expressed concern that posting child allergy
information prominently as described in Sec. 1302.47(b)(7)(vi)
violates the privacy of children.
Response: We believe it is critical that food allergies are
prominently displayed in areas wherever food is served to mitigate a
serious health and safety risk for infants, toddlers, and preschool
aged children. We also believe programs should be able to address other
serious health and safety risks without parental consent to disclose
PII. As a result, we added a ``serious health and safety risk such as a
serious food allergy'' to Sec. 1303.22(c)(4) of this section.
Comment: Some commenters recommended that violators of the privacy
rule be given the opportunity to self-correct before any sanctions are
applied.
Response: Any violations of the privacy rule will be handled
through existing monitoring and Head Start enforcement mechanisms.
Comment: Commenters requested an exception to release PII without
consent in the case of reporting child abuse or neglect if they are
required to do so by law.
Response: States receiving funds under the Child Abuse Prevention
and Treatment Act (CAPTA) from HHS are required to enact laws mandating
the reporting of known and suspected instances of child abuse and
neglect. States must also ensure that the disclosure is made only to
persons or entities determined by the State to have a need for the
information. To ensure this section of the regulation does not conflict
with federal, state, local, or tribal laws that require reporting of
child abuse or neglect, we added Sec. 1303.22(c)(8) which allows the
disclosure of PII without parental consent to an appropriate party to
address suspected or known child maltreatment to comply with applicable
federal, state, local, or tribal laws on reporting child abuse and
neglect. We do not specify the persons who may access the records and
under what circumstances since these vary by state.
Comment: Commenters expressed concern that a program would apply
the five-year rule that used to appear in Sec. 1303.22(d)
automatically after a single violation of a written agreement which
could lead to conflicts with state and local mandatory reporting
requirements; that barring third parties from accessing child records
for any violation of the written agreement is too broad; and the annual
review of the written agreement seems arbitrary.
Response: We agree with the concerns on the five-year rule, and we
modified the provision to allow a program greater flexibility in
handling third party violations. A program must review the written
agreement annually, but only update it if necessary.
Comment: Commenters expressed concern that programs will not be
allowed to share data with partners critical to Head Start programs
such as community partners, health partners, contractors, consultants,
subrecipients, and volunteers. Commenters requested that we clarify
data sharing with community partners; the term ``educational
interest''; and the term ``official.''
Response: A program may disclose PII from a child record without
consent to a partner if the partner meets one of the conditions in
Sec. 1303.22(c). A partner will most likely qualify as an ``official
acting for the program'' if they are directly or indirectly providing
program services for which the agency would otherwise use an employee.
If a community partner does not qualify under any condition in Sec.
1303.22(c), we recommend programs build written consent into the
enrollment process for these partners. We removed ``educational
interests'' and replaced it with plain language for clarity. We added
language to Sec. 1303.22(c)(1) through (3) to clarify the term
official.
Section 1303.23 Parental Rights
In this section, we focus on parents' rights. We recognize that
parents should be at the forefront when it comes to the collection,
use, and sharing of the PII in respect to their child's record. Most
commenters in this section supported the rights provided to parents.
Other commenters raised concerns, which are discussed below.
[[Page 61364]]
Comment: Some commenters requested we provide an additional
requirement for programs to annually inform the parent on what data are
being collected, how and why the data are used, and how the data are
being safeguarded.
Response: The parental consent form coupled with the annual notice
already provides this information to the parent. We believe that
requiring details on each data element collected, how each is used and
for what exact purpose, and the specific security measures taken to
protect the data would be excessive and burdensome.
Comment: Commenters both agreed and disagreed with informing
parents of their rights annually due to the conflicting perceived level
of effort required by the program. Another commenter noted a
conflicting requirement that allowed a parent the right to obtain a
copy of the child record even when court ordered the contents related
to disclosure not be disclosed or when it involves a child abuse or
neglect case.
Response: We believe that it is important that the program annually
notify parents of their rights. However, this notification does not
necessarily need to be individualized for every parent. For instance,
the program could include a standard handout as part of the material
the parent will already receive during the program year. This
flexibility reduces burden on programs. In regards to the conflicting
information, we added language in Sec. 1303.23(d) to ensure the
parents' right to a copy of a record does not conflict with a court
order.
Comment: Some commenters expressed concern with programs making
decisions on how to effectively share data and what specific data to
share.
Response: We agree that it can be challenging for programs to make
decisions about how to share data and what data to share. Programs may
request guidance through the training and technical assistance system.
Additionally, we did not intend for programs to share all PII during a
disclosure, therefore we added Sec. 1303.22(f) to limit the program to
only disclose the PII that is necessary for the purpose of the
disclosure.
Section 1303.24 Maintaining Records
In this section, we describe recordkeeping requirements related to
the protection of child privacy. Programs must maintain, with each
child's record, a list of all individuals, agencies, or organizations
that obtained access to PII from child records. The list must indicate
the expressed interests that each person, agency, or organization had
to obtain this information. Recordkeeping of disclosures to program
officials or parents are not required since it would be too burdensome
for programs. Programs must ensure that only parents, officials, and
appropriate staff have access to records. We received some comments on
this section, discussed below.
Comment: Some commenters requested we provide the amount of time a
child record must be maintained and how IDEA relates to record
maintenance.
Response: Depending on the type of data involved and the context in
which the data are being used, there may be requirements for
destruction of data with which programs must comply. We do not address
information about other applicable program requirements, including
those that may apply under IDEA, as that is beyond the scope of this
regulation, but note that programs may be subject to record retention
requirements for children they are serving based on applicable Federal
and State statutes of limitations. However, when no other requirement
exists, a program must destroy child records within a reasonable
timeframe after the child has been served--this was added to Sec.
1303.24(a). We also added a restriction to data destruction in Sec.
1303.23(a)(4) to protect the parental right to inspect a record.
Comment: Some commenters pointed out an inconsistency between the
NPRM preamble and proposed regulatory text. Specifically, for Sec.
1303.24(b), the NPRM preamble required a program maintain information
of all requested access to PII from child records, but the proposed
regulation stated that information on these parties is only maintained
when a disclosure of PII is actually made. The commenters preferred the
proposed regulatory text.
Response: We agree that programs must only maintain this
information when a disclosure is actually made. It is not necessary to
maintain records on each request for PII from child records if the
program does not make a disclosure of PII in response to the request.
Delegation of Program Operations; Subpart D
This subpart consolidates previous performance standards on
delegation of program operations into one section and revises
requirements to conform with the Act. Section 641A(d) of the Act
requires agencies to establish procedures that relate to its delegate
agencies and that provide further specifics related to evaluation,
corrective actions, and terminations. We discuss and analyze the
comments on this section below.
Section 1303.30 Grantee Responsibility and Accountability
In this section, we clarify that a grantee is accountable for its
delegate agencies. That means the grantee retains legal authority and
financial accountability for the program when services are provided by
delegate agencies. Consequently, the grantee must support and oversee
delegate agencies and ensure they provide high-quality services to
children and families and meet all applicable regulations. We also
clarify a grantee may not terminate a delegate agency without showing
cause and must establish a process for delegate agencies to appeal
adverse decisions. We discuss the few comments we received on this
section below.
Comment: One commenter stated the phrase ``bears financial
accountability'' in the fourth sentence in this paragraph, implied the
grantee was responsible for any financial debt a delegate incurred. The
commenter recommended we clarify the grantee bears responsibility for
those allowable transactions it authorizes that are directly related to
the Head Start program provided by delegate agencies.
Response: When the phrase ``bears financial accountability'' is
taken in context of the entire section, it implies the grantee is
responsible for the use of Head Start funds by the delegate. Therefore,
we did not make any changes to this section.
Comment: One commenter asked us to allow programs to terminate
delegate agencies ``at will'' with provisions that cause the least
amount of undue stress and harm as possible to children and families
served.
Response: We did not allow grantees to terminate delegate agencies
``at will.'' Grantees can only terminate delegate agencies, if the
grantee shows cause why termination is necessary and the grantee's
decision to terminate cannot be arbitrary or capricious.
Section 1303.31 Determining and Establishing Delegate Agencies
Under this section in the NPRM, we proposed to require an agency
that enters into an agreement with another entity to serve children to
determine if the agreement meets the definition of ``delegate agency''
in section 637(3) of the Act. We proposed this performance standard to
clarify that if an entity meets the definition of delegate in the Act,
it
[[Page 61365]]
is a delegate, regardless of what a grantee calls the entity to which
it has delegated all or part of the responsibility for operating the
program.
Comment: The NPRM proposed a requirement for HHS to approve the
delegate agency before the grantee may delegate program operations. One
commenter suggested that a delegate agreement be considered as approved
if HHS had not approved or denied it 60 days before the program year
starts.
Response: We believe HHS approval of delegates is important. We did
not change the requirement.
Comment: One commenter asked whether or not programs could
grandfather in existing delegate relationships or must they still have
written agreements.
Response: All grantee/delegate relationships must have written
agreements approved by the responsible HHS official. This is not a new
provision.
Comment: Some commenters asked us to differentiate between
``delegate agency'' and ``contractors.'' Another commenter asked if
partners and family child care homes were considered delegates and if
so does the grantee provide appeal procedures of the agreement is
terminated. If family child care homes are considered delegates, the
commenter recommended for us to add the following language to paragraph
(a) to clarify that a grantee, partner, or family child care home can
mutually agree to decline a delegate/grantee relationship: ``. . .
unless the grantee and the entity negotiate to form a contractual
rather than a delegate relationship.'' This will provide flexibility to
the entity regarding the requirement to form a policy committee or
other delegate responsibility.
Response: A ``delegate agency'' is a public, private nonprofit
(including a community based organization, as defined in section 9101
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801),
or for profit organization or agency to which a grantee has delegated
all or part of the responsibility of the grantee for operating a Head
Start program. Generally, a ``contractor'' either performs work or
provides goods at a certain price or within a certain time.
We did not make any changes to paragraph (a) in this section.
Family child care providers do not meet our definition for ``delegate
agency'' because they do not meet the first part of that definition.
They are our partners under the Early Head Start Child Care Partnership
(EHS-CCP). Under EHS-CCP, new or existing Early Head Start grantees
partner with regulated center-based or family child care providers who
agree to meet Head Start program performance standards.
Section 1303.32 Evaluations and Corrective Actions for Delegate
Agencies
This section includes requirements from section 641A(d) of the Act
with respect to the evaluation of delegate agencies and corrective
actions in the event of a deficiency.
Comment: Some commenters asked us to include the actual language of
section 641A(d) of the Act rather than cite to it and to clarify that
the Act's requirement for each Head Start agency to establish
procedures to evaluate and defund delegate agencies and for delegate
agencies to appeal defunding decisions may be satisfied with provisions
on those topics in its delegate agency agreement(s).
Response: We refer to the Act when possible to streamline and to
make the regulation read better. We did not make any changes to this
section.
Section 1303.33 Termination of Delegate Agencies
In this section, we clarify that a grantee cannot terminate a
delegate agency without showing cause and the grantee's decision to
terminate cannot be arbitrary or capricious. To align with section
641A(d)(1)(C) of the Act, we require grantees to establish procedures
to defund a delegate agency. We also require grantees to establish
procedures that are fair and timely for a delegate agency to appeal a
defunding decision.
Furthermore, we removed the appeal procedures for delegate agencies
that were under part 1303 subpart C in the previous rule. The reason
being, grantees are accountable for the services their delegate
agencies provide to children and families. We believe they must have
the necessary tools at their disposal to remove delegate agencies. We
believe the previous system inappropriately tied the hands of grantees
and had become overly burdensome.
We address the comments we received on this section below.
Comment: Some commenters supported our proposal to eliminate
complex delegate agency appeals procedures. They believed this provided
helpful flexibility to Head Start agencies that, for reasons of cost or
inadequate delegate agency performance, may find it necessary to
terminate a delegate agency relationship.
Response: We agree that grantees are ultimately accountable for
their delegates. Consequently, grantees must be able to remove
delegates when necessary, without having to go through an overly
burdensome process. Furthermore, we believe grantees are in the best
position to provide appeal processes for delegate agencies. We have not
changed this provision.
Facilities; Subpart E
This subpart implements the statutory requirements related to
facilities in section 644(c), (f), and (g) of the Act. It clarifies and
reorganizes requirements for grantees when they apply to use Head Start
funds to purchase, construct or make major renovations to facilities.
This subpart logically organizes all relevant information and
requirements for protecting the federal interest under a broad variety
of circumstances. It also removes requirements that are not Head Start-
specific but rather are overarching requirements for managing federal
grants and aligns all remaining provisions with the Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements
for Federal Awards. We address comments we received on each section
within this subpart below.
Section 1303.40 Purpose
This section clarifies that the whole of subpart E applies to major
renovations. It explains these provisions apply only to minor
renovations and repairs when they are included in a purchase and are
part of the purchase costs. We address the one comment we received on
this section below.
Comment: One commenter noted that it may be necessary to us to
clarify that information contained in a Program Instruction and its
application be made clear in this section.
Response: We integrated the information from Program Instructions
into this section and into our definition for ``purchase'' in part
1305. We did not make any changes here.
Section 1303.41 Approval of Previously Purchased Facilities
Our previous regulation did not address refinancing. But as
interest rates have fallen, grantees have asked us for permission to
apply for more advantageous loan terms. In this section, we allow
grantees that have purchased facilities beginning in 1987 and that
continue to pay purchase costs or seek to refinance indebtedness to
apply for funds to meet costs associated with refinancing. We also
revised the language to clarify that a purchase includes both principal
and interest payments on approved loans in accordance with section
644(g)(2) of the Act. We received comments on this section and address
them below.
[[Page 61366]]
Comment: One commenter asked why we included ``1987'' in this
section.
Response: The ``1987'' date is consistent with the Act. The date
notes it is allowable to use funds to purchase or continue the purchase
of facilities after December 31, 1986. We revised the language to more
closely mirror the Act.
Comment: One commenter asked us to remove language that requires
grantees to obtain HHS permission to refinance an existing mortgage.
Response: We did not remove language that requires grantees to get
HHS permission to refinance an existing mortgage. Refinancing of
existing indebtedness may result in cross-collateral or cross-default
provisions that put facilities subject to a federal interest at risk of
foreclosure for debt not associated with the Head Start program.
Section 1303.42 Eligibility To Purchase, Construct, and Renovate
Facilities
This section prescribes what grantees must show to be eligible to
construct or renovate a facility. It also clarifies grantees that apply
for funds to purchase, construct or renovate a facility must establish
that the facility will be available to Indian tribes, rural, or other
low-income communities. We received multiple comments on this section.
We address those comments below.
Comment: Commenters suggested we clarify in paragraph (a) how a
grantee can establish that preliminary eligibility requirements are
satisfied.
Response: We did not revise language in this section to prescribe
how a grantee can establish preliminary eligibility to purchase,
construct, or renovate a facility. We believe that a grantee may
demonstrate preliminary eligibility in a variety of ways and that a
prescriptive process might create compliance challenges for some
grantees.
Comment: Some commenters felt we created an unnecessary cost burden
because we require a certified appraiser to address availability of
suitable facilities in paragraph (b) of this section. These commenters
believed a real estate professional's opinion was sufficient.
Response: We agree availability of suitable facilities can be
adequately established, at lower cost, by an independent real estate
professional familiar with the local commercial real property market.
Therefore, we revised paragraph (b) to clarify a real estate
professional's opinion is sufficient.
Section 1303.43 Use of Grant Funds To Pay Fees
This section clarifies the type and extent of pre-project costs,
such as project feasibility studies and professional fees, we may
approve before a grantee applies for funding to purchase, construct,
and renovate facilities.
Comment: One commenter asked us to revise this section to allow
grantees to use funds from their then-current Head Start grant for
facilities projects or apply for and receive funds under the noted
section.
Response: We did not revise this section to allow grantees to use
existing grant funds for fees and costs associated with a facilities
project. We believe that can be addressed through existing facilities
regulations at 45 CFR part 75.
Section 1303.44 Applications To Purchase, Construct, and Renovate
Facilities
This section focuses on the process grantees must use to apply for
funds to purchase, construct, and renovate facilities. We address
comments we received on this section below.
Comment: One commenter queried whether the facilities application
process is applicable to all uses of funds for facilities activities or
only when additional funds are requested. Another suggested we should
add a performance standard that requires the responsible HHS official
to promptly review and make final decisions regarding completed
applications under this subpart.
Response: General language in Sec. 1303.40 refers to facilities
purchased, constructed or renovated with grant funds and applies to all
defined activities regardless of how funding is awarded. Therefore, we
did not make changes here.
We also did not require the responsible HHS official to promptly
review and make final decisions. The primary reason being facilities
applications require substantial information and some applications are
incomplete when submitted. The length of time the responsible HHS
official may need to help a grantee submit a complete application and
determine availability of funding varies.
Comment: One commenter noted in paragraph (a)(2) of this section a
deed or proof of legal ownership should not be the sole requirement for
renovations on leased facilities. Grantees should be able to present a
proposed lease agreement.
Response: We currently require grantees to submit a proposed lease
in paragraph (b)(1) in this section currently requires submission of a
proposed lease agreement and landlord consent. A slight amendment was
made to remove the requirement that the submitted copy by an
``official'' copy since leases are not subject to official
certification.
Comment: One commenter contended value appraisals for major
renovations to leased properties were an unnecessary expense. The
commenter also suggested we should allow grantees to submit bids and/or
procurement documents in lieu of appraisals.
Response: Since a grantee does not obtain title to leased property
subject to major renovations, we agree that an appraisal is not needed
in that limited circumstance. We revised paragraph (a)(7) accordingly.
However, we did not revise paragraph (a)(7) to allow grantees to submit
bids and/or procurement documents in lieu of appraisals. We believe a
licensed appraisal to establish value ensures consistency and accuracy.
Comment: One commenter suggested we should eliminate the required
Phase I environmental assessment of proposed facilities sites in
paragraph (a)(12) because remediation would increase project costs and
prove to be an impediment to facilities projects on leased property.
Another commenter suggested we should not require environmental
assessments for major renovations.
Response: We did not remove this performance standard. We rely on
environmental assessments to ensure we only fund those activities that
result in safe and healthy care environments for children, families and
staff whether the facility is owned or leased.
Comment: One commenter asked us to reduce the lease term
requirement for modular units on property not owned by the grantee from
15 years to 10 years.
Response: Modular units often represent a substantial expenditure.
We believe that a lease term of 15 years will assure grantees have a
location for the modular unit for a period of occupancy long enough to
use the full value of the federal investment in the modular unit.
Section 1303.45 Cost Comparison To Purchase, Construct, and Renovate
Facilities
We require grantees to compare costs to renovate, to lease an
existing facility, or to construct a new facility to determine which
activity would be most cost effective to meet program needs. Grantees
must be able to demonstrate that they have compared costs and weighed
options so we know our investment in a particular facility activity is
cost-effective and service-relevant. This section allows grantees
greater flexibility to describe projects
[[Page 61367]]
and to compare costs to other alternatives within their service areas.
We address the one comment we received on this section below.
Comment: One commenter asked us to revise the last sentence in
paragraph (a)(1) in this section so that it refers to a ``comparable
alternative facility.''
Response: We did not revise paragraph (a)(1). We believe the term
``alternative,'' allows for the possibility of a non-comparable
facility, such as one that might be made usable through major
renovations.
Section 1303.46 Recording and Posting Notices of Federal Interest
This section focuses on federal interest and clarifies when
grantees must file notices of federal interest and what the notices
must contain. We address comments we received on this section below.
Comment: Some commenters contended grantees would not be able to
file federal interest notices until the purchase, construction, or
major renovation was either complete or at least when these activities
have begun or when a grantee obtains ownership or begins occupancy.
Response: To protect federal interest in acquired facilities or in
facilities undergoing major renovations with federal funds, we believe
the notice of federal interest must be filed as early as possible to
avoid the superior placement of liens for materials and services that
would compromise priority of the federal interest. Therefore, we did
not revise paragraphs (b)(1)-(3).
Comment: Some commenters felt the performance standard in paragraph
(b)(4) that requires grantees to post the notice of federal interest on
the exterior and the interior of modular units, could be cost
prohibitive.
Response: We did not revise paragraph (b)(4). Posting the notice of
federal interest on the exterior of the property informs all third
parties that there is federal interest in the property. The exterior
notice of federal interest for a modular unit can be as simple as a
single-page laminated weatherproof copy of the interior notice firmly
attached to the exterior of the modular unit, which would involve
minimal cost.
Comment: Commenters liked our streamlined definition for ``major
renovations,'' but asked us to either define or clarify what we mean by
``federal interest.''
Response: We agree our former definition for ``major renovations''
was difficult for grantees to apply.
We did not change our definition for ``federal interest,'' because
we believe it fully advises grantees of when a federal interest is
created and how property that is being used to meet non-federal match
is treated. We believe what we mean by ``federal interest'' is more
detailed and complete in this final rule.
Section 1303.47 Contents of Notices of Federal Interest
This section comprehensively explains what notices of federal
interest must contain when a grantee owns a facility, when a grantee
leases a facility, and when a grantee occupies a modular unit. We
received some comments on this section, which we address below.
Comment: One commenter asked us to strike the term ``or minor''
from paragraph (a)(4).
Response: We revised paragraph (a)(4) to remove the phrase ``or
minor'' because minor renovations or repairs are not subject to this
subpart unless they are part of a purchase.
Comment: One commenter recommended we remove the performance
standard in paragraph (a)(8) that requires the governing body to
formally approve the notice of federal interest because it was
unnecessarily prescriptive.
Response: We believe as the entity fiscally and legally responsible
for the grantee, the governing body should be made aware of any notices
of federal interest the grantee files. However, given the governing
body must approve all facilities applications, we agree they do not
also need to approve the notice of federal interest. We revised
paragraph (a)(8) accordingly.
Comment: Commenters asked us to clarify whether a recorded lease
could serve as a notice of federal interest. Other commenters noted the
reference in paragraph (b)(1)(vi) of this section to notices of federal
interest on leased property should have referred to Sec. 1303.50(b)(1)
through (4). Another commenter stated landlords may be unwilling to
lease to Head Start grantees if a notice of federal interest for major
renovations to leased property is required.
Response: We revised paragraph (b)(1)(vi), so it is clear a
recorded lease that includes requisite provisions can serve as a notice
of federal interest for leased property subject to major renovations.
We also revised paragraph (b)(1)(vi) so that it references paragraph
(b)(1)(i) through (v).
Finally, we did not revise this performance standard to accommodate
situations where landlords may be unwilling to lease to Head Start
grantees if a notice of federal interest for major renovations to
leased property is required. We believe requiring recognition of the
federal interest resulting from major renovations in lease agreements
filed in the public record protects the ongoing use of improved
properties for Head Start purposes during the useful life of the
improvements financed with Head Start funds.
Comment: Commenters asked us to clarify what the word ``proof'' in
paragraph (c)(3) meant.
Response: We replaced the word ``proof'' with the phrase ``[A]
statement that.''
Section 1303.49 Protection of Federal Interest in Mortgage Agreements
Funding for facilities often includes both federal funds and
mortgage proceeds. As funding for facilities has become more complex,
it is common to find federal funds and mortgages on the same property.
In order to protect federal interest, we require grantees to ensure
that any mortgage agreements they have include specific provisions that
would mitigate our risk of loss and ensure the property remains for
Head Start purposes.
This section prescribes what mortgage agreements must contain. We
address comments we received on this section below.
Comment: Commenter indicated the term ``a real property . . .
agreement'' made paragraph (b) in the section unclear. The commenter
asked us to reference any default under ``an agreement described in
Sec. 1303.49(a) instead.
Response: We revised paragraph (b) accordingly.
Section 1303.50 Third Party Leases and Occupancy Arrangements
Grantees may use federal funds to renovate leased property, often
at substantial cost. This section requires grantees to have leases in
place for 30 years for construction of a facility and at least 15 years
for a renovation or placement of a modular unit to protect federal
interests in these unusual cases where the government is putting major
costs into facilities on land that they do not own. We address comments
we received on this section below.
Comment: Some commenters asked us to not apply paragraph (a) in
this section to existing leases that did not meet term requirements.
Other commenters suggested there should be a flexible approach to
lease term lengths that depended on the cost of the facilities project,
individual circumstances of the grantee, community and nature of the
facilities project or, that we adopt a fixed period of 10 years. Some
commenters also
[[Page 61368]]
noted that five-year grant cycles did not align with 15 or 30 year
leases.
Response: We revised paragraph (a) to clarify that its terms did
not apply to existing leases prior to the effective date of the
regulations. We did not take a flexible approach to lease term lengths.
Given that facilities activities involve substantial Head Start funds
and are intended to be available for Head Start use as needed during
the useful life of the facility, we made lease term lengths consistent.
We also set term lengths to ensure grantees are subject to comparable
lease term length requirements, regardless of location. Finally, we
believe long term occupancy agreements for the full useful life of
major renovations and purchases are needed to protect the Head Start
funds used for major renovations and purchase of facilities located on
leased property.
It is understood that migrant and seasonal Head Start programs may
not utilize leased premises for entire program years. However, given
the high dollar cost of major renovations and purchase of facilities,
we believe that long term occupancy agreements, even if for limited
portions of the program year, are needed. If a facility is no longer
needed for program purposes, grantees can request disposition of the
leasehold interest in the property.
Section 1303.51 Subordination of the Federal Interest
This section emphasizes that only the responsible HHS official can
subordinate federal interest to a lender or other third party. Grantees
cannot subordinate federal interest on their own. The HHS official must
agree to subordination in writing. In addition to a written agreement,
the mortgage agreement or security agreement for which subordination is
requested must comply with Sec. 1303.49, and the amount of federal
funds already contributed to the facility must not exceed the amount
provided by the lender seeking subordination. We address comments we
received on this section below.
Comment: Commenters indicated that limiting subordination of the
federal interest to circumstances where the amount requested exceeds
the amount of federal funding in the property would result in reluctant
lenders.
Response: We revised this performance standard to integrate the
possibility of subordination to a lesser debt if certain conditions are
met.
Section 1303.52 Insurance, Bonding, and Maintenance
Our experience has demonstrated that grantees have not maintained
sufficient insurance for replacement of facilities that are
substantially damaged or destroyed, particularly through floods and
other natural disasters. After Hurricane Sandy, we realized we had to
be more vigilant to protect grantees against loss.
In this section, we require grantees to obtain flood insurance if
their facilities are located in areas the National Flood Insurance
Program defines as high risk. We also clarify for grantees that
physical damage or destruction insurance must cover full replacement
value.
We address comments we received on this section below.
Comment: One commenter noted that the cost of flood insurance
should be included in the Cost and Savings Analysis so as not to create
an unfunded mandate upon the grantee.
Response: We did not make any changes here because flood insurance
is an allowable cost to the Head Start award and can be included in the
grantee's application for funding.
Comment: One commenter asked us to revise paragraph (b)(3) to read,
``A grantee must submit to the responsible HHS official, within 10 days
after coverage begins, copies of applicable certificates of
insurance.''
Response: We revised paragraph (b)(3) to clarify what insurance
coverage must be proven but leaves it to the grantee to choose what
documents to present to prove coverage.
Section 1303.53 Copies of Documents
This section adds notices of federal interest to the list of
required documents grantees must provide to the responsible HHS
official. It also requires grantees to give copies of notices of
federal interest to the responsible HHS official after they have filed
the notices in their jurisdiction's property records. This is
particularly important because notices of federal interest do not fully
protect the federal share until the notices are filed in the
appropriate property records. We address comments we received on this
section below.
Comment: One commenter was concerned that if we include leases in
this section, we might create a situation wherein large numbers of
leases would have to be reviewed annually.
Response: We do not require grantees to submit documents listed in
this section annually. Furthermore, these documents are only necessary
when related to purchase, construction or major renovation, so we
believe the volume of submissions will be manageable. We revised this
section to clarify these documents must be submitted when Head Start
funds are used for the noted facilities activities.
Section 1303.54 Record Retention
This section clarifies what documents grantees must retain as
records. This section does not change the basic retention period, which
is aligned with general requirements in the Uniform Administrative
Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal
Awards. We did not receive any comments on this section.
Section 1303.55 Procurement Procedures
This section summarizes general procurement procedures as context
for grantees. We did not receive any comments on this section.
Section 1303.56 Inspection of Work
This section aligns the elements of the final inspection report
with those required in the engineer or architect's certification that
accompanies the initial facilities project application. We address
comments we received on this section below.
Comment: One commenter recommended that we do not require project
architects to certify compliance with regulations beyond his control
such as licensing and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.
Response: We did not make any changes here. We believe the project
architect is a qualified professional familiar with the project, who
can express an opinion as to whether a facility subject to purchase,
construction or major renovation with Head Start funds meets all
applicable federal, state, and local requirements.
Transportation; Subpart F
This subpart describes the requirements for programs related to
transportation services. We received comments on this subpart. Some
commenters supported the requirements in this section and stated that
without transportation provided by the program, many high need families
would be unable to access the program as they do not have private
vehicles or access to public transportation. Other commenters expressed
concerns or asked for clarifications. These comments are discussed in
further detail below along with our responses.
General Comments
Comment: Some commenters asked about the applicability of the
regulation including for field trips or transporting children and
parents to medical appointments. Some commenters expressed concern
about the cost of transportation services or specific elements, such as
requiring bus monitors. One commenter asked about
[[Page 61369]]
the relative cost, quality, and compliance of contractual versus
directly provided transportation.
Response: Incidental transportation as described under the
definition of ``transportation services'' in part 1305 is exempt from
the requirements of this subpart. This includes taking a sick child
home or taking a child and parent on a medical visit. Field trips are
not incidental transportation and therefore are subject to the
requirements of this subpart. Additionally, we recognize that providing
transportation is expensive, but that many high need children would not
be able to participate in Head Start without transportation services.
No program is required to transport all or any children, but if high
need families require transportation services to access the program,
such services should be part of the program design. Programs should
also regularly assess the cost and quality of their transportation
service and make informed decisions about the safest and most cost
efficient options. We did not make any changes to the regulation in
response to these comments.
Section 1303.70 Purpose
This section describes transportation services and waiver options
for programs. We received some comments on this section, which are
discussed below.
Comment: Some commenters objected to the requirement in paragraph
(b) that programs not offering transportation services make reasonable
efforts to assist families who might otherwise have difficulty ensuring
their child's participation. Some commenters indicated this provision
could be especially difficult in rural areas and should therefore be
removed. Some commenters requested more clarity about what constitutes
``reasonable assistance.''
Response: This provision is intended to ensure that programs that
do not provide transportation ensure that lack of such service does not
pose a barrier to participation in the program for the highest need
children and families. Many rural Head Start programs, for example,
provide transportation because not doing so would greatly limit the
number of the highest need children who could participate. We expect
that when a program has determined transportation is not a needed
service, there are available alternatives. Therefore we retained this
requirement, but added an example of reasonable assistance to paragraph
(b).
Comment: One commenter suggested that programs must ensure
compliance with the requirements of this subpart when obtaining Head
Start transportation services by coordinating with another human
service agency.
Response: We agree with this comment but do not think it requires a
revision to the regulation. As defined in part 1305, Head Start
transportation services include ``the planned transporting of children
to and from sites where an agency provides services funded under the
Head Start Act.'' Therefore services provided through a coordinating
agency would have to meet the requirements of this subpart. Each
program is responsible for ensuring that the transportation services it
provides, whether directly, through a coordinated effort with an LEA or
community partner, or through a contractual arrangement, meet these
requirements.
Comment: Some commenters asked for additional information about the
circumstances under which a waiver can be issued and how decisions
regarding waiver approval are made.
Response: Per the regulation, we will only consider waivers in
circumstances where adherence to this subpart would create a safety
hazard or, for preschool children, a major program disruption in
relation to the requirements for child restraint systems or bus
monitors, such that a waiver is in the best interest of enrolled
children. We did not make any changes to these provisions. Typically,
programs receiving transportation services through a partnership with a
local education agency are the only ones approved for waivers. Programs
can find information about applying for a transportation waiver through
the Head Start Enterprise System (HSES) or by contacting their program
official.
Section 1303.71 Vehicles
This section describes the requirements for vehicles used to
transport children. We received some comments on this section, which
are discussed below.
Comment: One commenter requested additional information about
allowable alternate vehicles.
Response: The definition of ``allowable alternate vehicle'' is
provided in part 1305 and refers to a vehicle designed for carrying
eleven or more people, including the driver, that meets all the Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standards applicable to school buses, except 49
CFR 571.108 and 571.131. It is a vehicle that may not look like a
traditional school bus, but has the required safety features such as
compartmentalized seating, rollover protection, joint impact strength,
and fuel system integrity. We did not make any changes to this
provision.
Comment: One commenter objected to the removal of the former
requirement that safety equipment be strategically placed and marked.
Response: While we expect each program to store such equipment
where it is safe from children but accessible in an emergency, we agree
that such equipment should be clearly labeled. We amended paragraph (b)
to specify this.
Section 1303.72 Vehicle Operation
This section describes safety requirements during vehicle
operation, driver qualification and application review requirements,
and requirements for driver and bus monitor training. We received some
comments on this section, discussed below.
Comment: One commenter suggested that we allow reasonable
accommodation related to the requirements of the commercial driver's
license (CDL) and that drivers should follow applicable Department of
Transportation (DOT) regulations, including for drug and alcohol
testing.
Response: In addition to possessing an appropriate CDL, drivers
providing Head Start transportation services must meet applicable DOT,
tribal, state, and local requirements for their jurisdiction. There are
requirements for drug and alcohol testing associated with a CDL.
Therefore, we did not make any revisions to this provision.
Comment: Some commenters expressed concern that the requirement to
review a driver candidate's record through the National Driver Register
could delay the hiring of needed drivers.
Response: While we understand the concerns about the expediency of
various background checks, we believe it is very important to use
available sources that may provide information about the safety record
of driver candidates. Therefore, we retained this requirement to check
the National Driver Register where available.
Comment: One commenter expressed concern that standards articulated
the requirement for child safety restraint systems, but did not
actually require that children be seated while using them.
Response: We agree that safety restraint systems only afford
protection if they are properly used. We amended Sec. 1303.72(a)(1) to
specify that each child should be seated in a child restraint system
appropriate to the child's age, height and weight.
Comment: Some commenters referred to the requirement in paragraph
(d) that drivers receive training in first aid. One suggested that
Cardio Pulmonary
[[Page 61370]]
Resuscitation (CPR) also be required. Another suggested it is not
necessary to require first aid training for drivers.
Response: We agree that drivers should have both first aid and CPR
training. This is required in Sec. 1302.47, and is therefore deleted
from the list of training requirements in this section.
Section 1303.73 Trip Routing
This section establishes requirements for the safe and efficient
planning of transportation routes.
Comment: Some commenters had concerns about the length of bus
routes, including that some bus routes exceed an hour due to the
geography of the service area and that complying with the trip routing
safety requirements results in longer trips.
Response: Programs must keep trips under one hour, to the extent
possible. We recognize that in some areas, such as rural areas, routes
may be longer than an hour. We encourage programs to train bus monitors
to provide meaningful interactions, discussion, songs, etc. with
children during the time on the bus. We also understand that such
things as requiring no U turns and curbside pick-up and drop off may
extend routes. However, as the majority of school bus related child
fatalities occur before boarding or after exiting the bus, we believe
these safety provisions are necessary. We did not make any changes to
these provisions.
Section 1303.74 Safety Procedures
This section describes the safety procedures programs must adhere
to as part of transportation. We did not receive any comments on this
section and therefore did not make any changes to these provisions.
Section 1303.75 Children With Disabilities
This section describes requirements for transporting children with
disabilities. Below we discuss the comments we received on this section
and our corresponding responses.
Comment: Some commenters supported the provision in paragraph (a)
of this section that children with disabilities must be transported in
the same vehicles used to transport other children whenever possible.
Other commenters raised questions or concerns including a request to
retain a previous provision to ensure special transportation
requirements in a child's IEP or IFSP are followed, and a question
about whether a program must ensure that drivers from other agencies
are trained.
Response: In paragraph (b), we retained the provision that ensures
special transportation requirements in a child's IEP or IFSP are
followed; this provision was also retained in the NPRM. All Head Start
transportation services, including those for children with
disabilities, must meet the requirements of this regulation, whether
they are provided directly, contractually, or through agreement with a
local educational agency or other partner.
Federal Administrative Procedures; Part 1304
Monitoring, Suspension, Termination, Denial of Refunding, Reduction in
Funding, and Their Appeals; Subpart A
This subpart focuses on monitoring, areas of noncompliance,
deficiencies, and quality improvement plans. It outlines what happens
when a grantee is suspended, when a grantee is terminated, when a
grantee's financial assistance or application for refunding is denied,
and when a grantee's assistance is reduced. It also clarifies the
appeals process for certain adverse actions. We analyze the comments
received on this subpart below.
Section 1304.1 Purpose
This section lays out the Secretary's authority to monitor whether
grantees meet program performance standards and to prescribe notice and
appeal procedures. We did not receive any comments on this section.
Section 1304.2 Monitoring
This section clarifies our authority to monitor grantees to ensure
they comply with the Act, all program performance standards, and other
federal regulations. We also clarify for programs that a deficiency can
develop from an uncorrected area of noncompliance and from monitoring
findings that show either a grantee's systemic or substantial material
failure to comply with standards. We received comments from the public
on this section and we discuss those comments below.
Comment: Some commenters urged us to take the lead to streamline
Early Head Start, Head Start, and Child Care and Development Fund
monitoring requirements and practices so that programs can focus more
on performance and outcomes and less on monitoring compliance with
detailed regulation. These commenters suggest for ACF to work more
collaboratively with other federal partners to coordinate approaches to
monitoring, and evaluating and supporting continuous quality
improvement of early learning programs and their impacts. One commenter
urged us to take the lead to build better integration between Early/
Head Start data and state/local data systems.
Response: We will continue to work to better align Early Head
Start, Head Start, and Child Care and Development Fund monitoring
requirements and practices where possible. We will also continue to
work with other federal partners to coordinate approaches to
monitoring. We will continue to work with partners to facilitate better
integration between Early/Head Start data and state/local data systems.
Comment: Some commenters asked us to define ``immediate
deficiencies,'' to prescribe how these deficiencies can be resolved,
set time frames to correct areas of noncompliance and deficiencies,
and, establish a deficiency review board that is independent of the
regional office.
Response: We defer to the Act's definition for ``deficiency,'' at
section 637. Deficiencies are not determined at the regional level,
though they were many years ago. Now, the Director of the Office of
Head Start determines all deficiencies independently.
Comment: One commenter asked us to consider whether CLASS scores
that fall below national norms, should be a non-compliance issue rather
than a deficiency. The commenter believes data, including CLASS
results, should be used as flashlight to illuminate paths to
professional development and the central tenet of Head Start,
continuous improvement.
Response: We did not propose any changes to the designation renewal
system at former part 1307 in the NPRM. As we did not invite comments
on the designation renewal system in the NPRM, we cannot respond to
this comment here.
Section 1304.3 Suspension With Notice
This section includes the program performance standards for
suspensions with notice. Although we retained, without change, most
performance standards in this section, we proposed a few changes in the
NPRM. We received comments on what we proposed in the NPRM and we
address them below.
Comment: Some commenters complained paragraph (g) in this section
gives the HHS official unilateral authority to impose additional
suspensions indefinitely without having to verify in writing that
deficiencies still exist. They argue that this practice conflicts with
section 646(a)(5)(A) of the Act which requires the Secretary to
prescribe procedures to assure that the Secretary may suspend financial
assistance, ``for not more than 30 days . . .'' To comply with the Act,
they
[[Page 61371]]
asked us to remove the sentence: ``Nothing in this section precludes
the HHS official from imposing suspension again for an additional 30
days if the cause of the suspension has been corrected.''
Response: Paragraph (g) in this section does not violate section
646(a)(5)(A) of the Act. If a grantee has not satisfactorily corrected
what led to the suspension in 30 days, HHS has the ability to impose
another suspension for 30 days.
Section 1304.4 Emergency Suspension Without Advance Notice
In this section, we discuss the circumstances that warrant
emergency suspension without notice. We proposed a few small changes in
the NPRM, specifically we added the term ``emergency situation'' to the
reasons we can suspend without notice, to be more closely aligned with
the Act. And we proposed to no longer allow grantees to use
contributions during the suspended period to count toward in-kind
match. We received comments on this section and discuss those comments
below.
Comment: Some commenters believed paragraph (b) was worded
awkwardly. To make the paragraph read better, the commenter asked us to
make the following changes: Delete the phrase ``by any means'' in
paragraph (b)(2); reword paragraph (b)(3); and clarify what the
``informal meeting'' is in paragraph (b)(4). The commenter also pointed
out something was missing in paragraph (c).
Response: We revised the language in paragraphs (b)(1)(iv), (b)(2)
and (3), and (c) for clarification.
Comment: Some commenters noted if we allow the responsible HHS
official to impose additional 30 days suspensions, then in effect we
have terminated the program. If a Head Start program loses funding for
60, 90, or more days, the program is likely to be so financially
handicapped that the result could be the same as a termination of
funding.
Response: We disagree that suspension is tantamount to termination.
We only use suspension when such measure is allowed under the Act and
usually in extraordinary circumstances. From 2013 to 2015, we issued 5
summary suspensions. Of the 5 summary suspensions, 4 resulted in
termination.
Comment: Some commenters recommended we describe how programs
should appeal findings to the HHS official.
Response: We did not prescribe how programs should appeal findings
to the HHS official. There is no formal process for how programs must
appeal findings to the HHS official. However, regardless of how
evidence is presented to the HHS official, we will consider it.
Section 1304.5 Termination and Denial of Refunding
In this section describe the circumstances under which HHS can
terminate, and, deny refunding or reduce funding. We also discuss
appeal procedures for terminations and denials of refunding. We address
the one comment we received on this section below.
Comment: Some commenters asked us to define ``financial viability''
again because our proposed definition was too broad and too subjective.
A commenter proposed the following definition: ``Financial viability
means that an organization is able to meet its financial obligations as
they become due.''
Response: We did not revise our definition for ``financial
viability.'' However, we will clarify here what we mean by the phrase
``balance funding and expenses.'' The phrase ``balance funding and
expenses'' refers to the status of a grantee's funds and obligations by
the end of the funding period. We understand throughout a funding
period, funding and expenses will not always remain balanced. However,
they should balance by the end of the funding period.
Section 1304.6 Appeal for Prospective Delegate Agencies
Section 646(a)(1) of the Act requires appeal procedures for certain
conflicts between delegates and grantees. The Act requires a timely and
expeditious appeal to the Secretary for an entity who wants to serve as
a delegate and whose application has been rejected or not acted upon.
The previous regulation included an additional step that allowed
prospective delegate agencies to appeal application decisions to the
grantee first. This extra step added nothing to the application appeal
process beyond extending it. Therefore, in the NPRM, we proposed to
eliminate this extra step. We also proposed to eliminate the
reconsideration process. We address the one comment we received on this
section below.
Comment: According to one commenter, because we eliminated the
appeal between prospective delegate agencies and grantees and require
only the appeal to ACF, there may be occasions where a grantee wishes
to reconsider its decision about a prospective delegate agency.
Response: Granted, there may be occasions where a grantee wishes to
reconsider its decision about a delegate agency. We did not prohibit a
grantee that chooses to reconsider its decision about a prospective
delegate agency, but we did not require the grantee to do so either.
Section 1304.7 Legal Fees
This section focuses on grantees' right to attorneys and attorney
fees. In the NPRM, we proposed to revise this section to align with
section 646(a)(4)(C) of the Act, which requires the Secretary to
prescribe procedures that prohibit a Head Start agency from using
program grant funds to pay attorney fees and costs incurred during an
appeal. This section also addresses when an agency may apply for
reimbursement of fees and the procedures for doing so.
Comment: Some commenters asked us to clarify whether delegate
agencies can seek reimbursement for legal fees.
Response: No. Delegate agencies cannot seek reimbursement for legal
fees. The Act only speaks to the reimbursement of legal fees for the
grantee appealing an HHS decision.
Designation Renewal; Subpart B
We did not make changes to the content of this subpart and
therefore did not invite comments in the NPRM. We made technical
changes to reorder what was part 1307, where this subpart was located
in the previous rule, in a logical order for this rule. Although we did
not invite comments, some commenters raised concerns about the
Designation Renewal System and offered suggestions for alternate
approaches. As prescribed by the Administrative Procedures Act, because
we did not give notice of any potential changes we cannot make any
changes in the final rule.
Selection of Grantees Through Competition; Subpart C
Section 641(d)(2) of the Act outlines the specific criteria the
Secretary must use to select grantees and allow consideration of
``other factors'' and we refer to this citation in our regulatory text.
This subpart revises previous program performance standards to reflect
a more transparent and streamlined process for Head Start grant
competitions and outline the other factors that are considered. We
received comments on this section and discuss them below.
Comment: Commenters were concerned about removing the previous
criteria for grantee selection regarding opportunities for employment
and for the direct participation of parents in planning, conducting,
and administering the program.
Response: In the Act, Congress included an extensive list of
criteria that
[[Page 61372]]
must be considered when selecting from among qualified applicants. This
list includes family and community involvement, and thus by referencing
section 641(d)(2) of the Act, these important concepts are covered by
this section of the regulation. This list includes the important
participation of families and communities.
Replacement of American Indian and Alaska Native Grantees; Subpart D
This subpart outlines the requirements for replacing American
Indian and Alaska Native Head Start programs. We did not receive any
comments on this section and did not make any changes.
Head Start Fellows Program, Subpart E
This subpart outlines the requirements for administration of the
Head Start Fellows Program. We did not receive any comments on this
section and did not make any changes.
Definitions; Part 1305
In this part, we include definitions from all sections of the
previous rule for ease of grantee and prospective grantee understanding
and transparency. In the previous rule, definitions were attached to
each section. We consolidated definitions that were repeated in
multiple sections in the previous rule. In addition, we removed many
definitions that were either not meaningful or did not add to the
widely understood meaning. We also removed definitions when it was
clearer to incorporate their meaning into the provisions themselves or
when the terms were not included in the final rule. We restored
definitions from the previous rule that were not included in the NPRM
when we used these terms in the final rule. We added some new
definitions to this part in order to support other revisions throughout
the rule or to provide technical clarity including their statutory
basis in the Act, and reference the definitions in other relevant
pieces of legislation where appropriate. Finally, we made a technical
change to add a section on the purpose of this part, and renamed and
redesignated the proposed section Sec. 1305.1 to Sec. 1305.2 in this
final rule.
We received many comments on this part. Many commenters requested
that we add additional definitions. Others asked that additional
details be included in previous or proposed definitions. Others pointed
out inconsistencies between definitions and asked for clarification.
Finally, commenters asked that definitions from the Act and other
statutes be spelled out in the rule. We discuss and respond to each of
these categories of comments below.
Comment: Many commenters requested a definition for ``planned
operation.''
Response: In light of the changes to the service duration
requirements for center-based programs in Sec. 1302.21(c) that remove
the term ``planned operation,'' we have deleted the definitions for
``hours of operation'' because they are no longer necessary. We added a
definition for ``hours of planned class operations.''
Comment: Many commenters requested definitions that were not in the
previous rule or the NPRM including: authorized caregiver, directory
information, entry, high-quality pre-K, noncompliance, inclusion, LEA,
frequently absent, unexcused absence, material, standardized and
structured assessments, seclusion/restraint, and research-based.
Response: We did not include definitions for directory information,
entry and seclusion/restraint because they are not used in the
performance standards and so need no definition. We did not define
frequently absent or unexcused absence to allow programs reasonable
flexibility to define those terms to best meet the needs of the
families they serve. We did not define authorized caregiver, LEA,
noncompliance, material or inclusion because we are using their widely
understood meaning. We did not define high-quality pre-K but changed
the language in Sec. 1302.14(a)(3) to include that pre-kindergarten
must be comprehensive and available for a full school day. Similarly we
did not define standardized and structured assessments but added in
Sec. 1302.33(b)(1) that they may observation-based or direct. We did
not include a definition for deficiency because if it defined by the
Act and we rely entirely on that statutory definition.
Comment: Many commenters asked that definitions from statutes,
including the Head Start Act, IDEA, and McKinney-Vento, be restated as
definitions in this rule.
Response: We did not define terms when we are relying on the
definition from other statues.
Comment: Many commenters requested clarification of definitions
that were in the previous rule or the NPRM, such as enrolled, family,
and federal interest.
Response: We have modified the definition of enrolled to clarify
that a child is not considered enrolled until they attend the program
for center-based and family child care or received a home visit for
home-based. We do not believe the definitions of family or federal
interest needed changes.
Comment: Commenters pointed out that the definition of Migrant or
Seasonal Head Start Program did not limit agricultural work to ``the
production and harvesting of tree and field crops,'' while the
definition of migrant family did limit it in this way.
Response: We removed this phrase to make the definitions
consistent.
Comment: Some commenters suggested adding language to the
regulation stating that DLLs should be defined and identified in a
consistent manner. Some also suggested including a definition for DLLs
in the regulation.
Response: We do not agree that we should require programs to
identify DLLs in a consistent manner in regulation, as this would
unnecessarily limit program flexibility to develop their own processes
for identifying DLLs. However, we do agree that it is important to
incorporate a definition for ``dual language learner'' into regulation.
We added a definition to part 1305 that is consistent with definitions
used by experts in the field. This definition is inclusive of children
who have a home language other than English, as well children who have
home languages of both English and another non-English language.
VI. Regulatory Process Matters
a. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),\123\ as amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, requires federal agencies
to determine, to the extent feasible, a rule's economic impact on small
entities, explore regulatory options for reducing any significant
economic impact on a substantial number of such entities, and explain
their regulatory approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\123\ 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This final rule will not result in a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities. It is intended to ensure
accountability for federal funds consistent with the purposes of the
Improving Head Start for School Readiness Act of 2007 \124\ and is not
duplicative of other requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\124\ 42 U.S.C. 9801
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Regulatory Planning and Review Executive Order 12866
Executive Order 12866 requires federal agencies to submit
significant regulatory actions to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review. The Order defines ``significant regulatory actions,''
generally, as any
[[Page 61373]]
regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may (1) have
an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely
affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy,
productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or
safety, or state, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2)
create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action
taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary
impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the
rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal
or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's
priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive Order.\125\
This final rule is different from many rules in the federal government
in that it will not require Head Start programs to spend more or less
money on Head Start services, rather it will require programs to spend
the money they are awarded in different ways. Nonetheless, given that
the cost of the rule exceeds $100 million and that, if fully
implemented, the costs will either be borne by the federal government
in the form of additional appropriations for Head Start or by Head
Start programs in the form of loss of slots for eligible children and
teacher employment, we have determined this rule represents a
significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866.
Given both the directives of the Order and the importance of
understanding the costs savings, and benefits associated with these
requirements both with and without additional appropriations, we
describe the costs, savings, and benefits associated with this final
rule as well as available regulatory alternatives below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\125\ Executive Order 12866 section 3(f)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Need for Regulatory Action
The purpose of Head Start, as prescribed by the Act, is to
``promote the school readiness of low-income children by enhancing
their cognitive, social, and emotional development.'' \126\ This
mission is based upon decades of scientific research that documents the
strong and lasting impact of children's experiences in their first five
years of life on brain development, learning, and health,\127,128,129\
and the significant economic impact of such benefits on children
individually and on society as a whole. A wealth of research suggests
that participation in early learning programs can help support optimal
child development during these crucial first five years, particularly
for children from low-income families, with benefits for society
lasting well into adulthood.130 131 132 133 However,
provision of consistently high-quality early learning experiences is
central to reaping these benefits from early learning programs,
including Head Start programs. The congressionally mandated, randomized
control trial study of Head Start's impact did not show lasting effects
on the outcomes measured beyond the end of the Head Start program years
for all children. Specifically, while the Impact Study found effects at
the end of participation in Head Start, by third grade the control and
treatment groups showed no significant differences.\134\ However,
recent reanalysis of data from the Head Start Impact Study suggests
that those programs that were full-day had a more positive impact on
children's cognitive outcomes.\135\ In order for Head Start to achieve
its mission to be an effective tool in supporting children's success in
kindergarten and beyond, all programs must be high quality. Decades of
best practices, the latest research in early education, expert advice,
the Secretary's Advisory Committee's recommendations, and Congressional
mandates from the Act, all demonstrate that more can be done to ensure
all Head Start programs provide consistently high-quality early
learning experiences that prepare children for kindergarten and have
long-term effects on their academic success. These findings all
culminate in the need for policy changes. Additionally, we streamlined
requirements and minimized administrative burden on local programs
anticipate these changes will help move Head Start away from a
compliance-oriented culture to an outcomes-focused one. Furthermore, we
believe this approach will support better collaboration with other
programs and funding streams. We believe the final rule, which
incorporates these needed changes, will empower all programs to achieve
this goal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\126\ 42 U.S.C. 9831
\127\ National Scientific Council on the Developing Child
(2007). The Timing and Quality of Early Experiences Combine to Shape
Brain Architecture: Working Paper No. 5. Cambridge, MA: Author.
\128\ Anda R.F., Felitti V.J., Bremner J.D., Walker J.D.,
Whitfield C., Perry, B.D., Dube, S.R., & Giles, W.H. (2006). The
enduring effects of abuse and related adverse experiences in
childhood. A convergence of evidence from neurobiology and
epidemiology. European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical
Neuroscience, 256(3), 174-186.
\129\ National Scientific Council on the Developing Child
(2010). Early Experiences Can Alter Gene Expression and Affect Long-
Term Development: Working Paper No. 10. Cambridge, MA: Author.
\130\ Heckman, J.J., Moon, S.H., Pinto, R., Savalyev, P.A. &
Yavitz, A. (2010). The Rate of Return to the High/Scope Perry
Preschool Program. Journal of Public Economics, 94(1-2), 114-128.
\131\ The Council of Economic Advisers. (December, 2014). The
Economics of Early Childhood Investments. Washington, DC: Authors.
\132\ Reynolds, A.J., Temple, J.A., Robertson, D.L., Mann, E.A.
(2002). Age 21 Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Title I Chicago Child-
Parent Centers. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(4),
267-303.
\133\ Yoshikawa, H., Weiland, C., Brooks-Gunn, J., Burchinal,
M., . . .Zaslow, M. (2013). Investing in our future: The evidence
base on preschool education. Foundation for Child Development.
\134\ Puma, M., Bell, S., Cook, R., Heid, C., Broene, P.,
Jenkins, F., & Downer, J. (2012). Third grade follow-up to the Head
Start impact study final report. US Department of Health and Human
Services Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation.
\135\ Walters, C. (2014). Inputs in the production of early
childhood human capital: Evidence from Head Start. American Economic
Journal: Applied Economics, 7(4), 76-102.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Cost and Savings Analysis
In this section, we first summarize and respond to comments we
received on the Regulatory Impact Analysis in the NPRM. Then, we
describe the data sources and general methodology used to calculate
costs and savings throughout this analysis. We also summarize the total
estimated costs and cost savings associated with this rule, split into
four categories: costs and cost savings borne by Head Start, costs and
cost savings borne by other parties, opportunity costs, and transfer
costs. Finally, we itemize the cost and cost savings estimates
associated with individual provisions and describe the assumptions,
methodology, and data used to calculate each estimate.
Comment and Response
Comment: Many commenters noted that new requirements would impose
additional costs. Some of the costs that commenters highlighted were
already accounted for in the Regulatory Impact Analyses of the NPRM
including costs associated with increased duration, background checks,
curriculum requirements, mentor coaching, additional staff
qualifications, the waiver application process, providing annual notice
to parents of release of personally identifiable information, and costs
to implement the changes to the Head Start Program Performance
Standards (HSPPS). Other commenters explicitly suggested that the
Regulatory Impact Analysis underestimated the costs associated with the
provisions it addressed, such as the cost of additional facilities or
other start-up including cots for naptime, in the estimate for
increasing Head Start center-based duration. Some of these commenters
did not provide evidence or a rationale to support these claims. Other
commenters suggested costs in their community would be higher for a
variety of reasons.
[[Page 61374]]
Response: We estimate the costs associated with increasing
duration, additional background checks, new curriculum requirements,
coaching, additional staff qualifications, the waiver application
process, providing annual notice to parents of release of personally
identifiable information, and many other new requirements in the HSPPS
in this Regulatory Impact Analysis. We acknowledge there are additional
costs associated with facilities and other start-up activities for
increasing duration Given the period of ramp-up that most programs will
need to implement the duration requirements with additional funding, we
anticipate that a portion of any first 12-month operational award will
be available for the purchase or renovation of facilities and other
start-up activities before programs begin serving children at the
higher duration. Nonetheless, we have included an estimate of start-up
costs and assumed that these one-time costs will be borne the year
prior to the effective dates for duration requirements to reflect the
additional costs that would be incurred if these requirements were
implemented without adequate funding. In addition, we have adjusted
estimates throughout this analysis to reflect revisions to requirements
in response to public comments, for example, the final rule requires
1,020 annual hours rather than prescribing 6 hours per day and 180 days
per year for Head Start center-based programs, and the final rule
reinstates the requirement for parent committees. While we understand
that costs of specific provisions will vary across communities, we use
the best available data to estimate the cost for all Head Start
programs, on average.
Comment: Some commenters expressed concerns related to costs that
the NPRM would have imposed or they perceived the NPRM to impose. These
costs include the cost of group socialization sites needing to be
licensed, costs in rural areas if the home-based option for preschool
was removed as a standard option, reduced benefits from the elimination
of family partnership agreements, transportation for child health
services, partnering with universities to adapt curricula, decreased
in-kind matches in volunteer hours and engagement due to reduced
enrollment, loss of transportation when partnering with an LEA because
of full day requirements, and services to children with significant
delays who do not yet have IEPs or IFSPs.
Response: Throughout the preamble of the final rule, we address
comments suggesting concerns related to requirements that would have
imposed unnecessary or unaccounted for costs. We revised the final rule
to provide greater flexibility or prevent unintended consequences that
would have resulted in additional costs for many of the concerns
commenters noted. For example, the final rule requires 1,020 annual
hours rather than prescribing 6 hours per day and 180 days per year for
Head Start center-based programs. The final rule also allows programs
to align their schedules with their local education agency to maintain
or facilitate partnerships. These changes address concerns about costs
that would arise from disrupted partnerships with local education
agencies and costs associated with extending the year in cases where
1,020 annual hours are already being provided through a slightly
shorter year.
Comment: Some commenters expressed concerns about costs that are
implicitly required in current regulation but more explicitly required
in the revision of the HSPPS including tracking and analyzing data for
continuous quality improvement, providing mental health consultation
services, and appropriate training for staff or volunteers involved in
the transportation of children.
Response: Although we recognize there are costs associated with
these services, the purpose of the Regulatory Impact Analysis is to
estimate the costs associated with new requirements. Tracking and
analyzing data for continuous quality improvement, providing mental
health consultation services, and appropriate training for staff or
volunteers are requirements that existed in the previous performance
standards so those costs have not been quantified here. However, in the
Benefits Analysis section, we have noted that the clarity the final
rule provides should lead to improved compliance with these and other
requirements which should be associated with improved child safety and
stronger child and family outcomes.
Comment: Some commenters suggested that the Regulatory Impact
Analysis should incorporate costs associated with prioritizing three
year olds for enrollment in Head Start. These commenters highlighted
the lower group size and ratio requirements for three-year-olds as an
indication of greater cost.
Response: We would consider prioritizing three-year olds and
thereby serving fewer children in Head Start a conversion that would
not change the grantee's overall budget and would not be supported by
additional funds. Therefore we have not accounted for any monetary
costs associated with this provision here. While we recognize that this
would lead to a reduction in slots, it would actually be an increase in
the number of children served by early childhood programs overall,
because the prioritization is only required if there are programs in
the community serving four-year olds. Further, we lack data to support
a reasonable assumption about how often and at what point in the future
other programs in Head Start communities would be available to serve
four-year-olds. Therefore, we have not quantified these costs to
programs or any transfer of benefits here.
Comment: Many commenters suggested specific costs associated with
new requirements in the NPRM that are being maintained in the final
rule and that were not addressed in the original Regulatory Impact
Analysis, including use of a parenting curriculum, attempting to
contact parents if they have not notified the program that their
children will be absent, participation in state Quality Improvement
Rating Systems, and participation in state longitudinal data systems.
Response: We have estimated costs associated with these
requirements in the Regulatory Impact Analysis below.
Comment: Many commenters expressed the desire for the Head Start
Performance Standards to require and account for increased teacher
compensation.
Response: We agree that teacher compensation is vitally important
to attracting and retaining effective teachers. However, addressing
compensation is outside the scope of this regulation because teacher
compensation is determined by congressional appropriations and local
decisions. Nonetheless, our cost estimates for increasing duration
assume costs will be driven in large part by additional pay for
teacher's time, such that programs that must increase their duration as
a result of this rule could increase teacher pay in a commensurate
fashion if sufficient funds are available.
Comment: Some commenters suggested the Regulatory Impact Analysis
should include mention of the benefits associated with longer duration
allowing parents to work.
Response: We agree and have revised the discussion of potential
benefits to include the benefits associated with allowing more Head
Start parents to work.
Comment: Some commenters suggested revisions to our cost estimates
for specific provisions. Commenters suggested we revise the assumption
that there would be no additional administrative costs associated with
transforming double session programs
[[Page 61375]]
into single session, full school day and full school year programs.
Commenters also suggested that the regulatory impact analysis should
build in cost of living increases overtime to reflect the true cost of
the rule.
Response: We have revised our estimates in response to these
comments. With regard to administrative costs we no longer assume a
reduction in the cost estimate for increasing duration based on lower
administrative costs. In addition, while the Regulatory Impact Analysis
reports costs in real dollars, we have added a table in the section on
the implications of Congressional and Secretarial action that reflects
the costs of the rule, adjusted for cost of living increases over time,
to ensure the full cost and the potential slot loss associated with
those costs are clearly articulated.
Data Sources and Methodology
The majority of the estimates in this regulatory impact analysis
utilize two Office of Head Start internal datasets: The Grant
Application and Budget Instrument (GABI) and the Program Information
Report (PIR). Whenever possible, in this regulatory impact analysis,
estimates are based upon these datasets. When a data point is necessary
to estimate the cost of any provision that cannot be drawn from the
GABI or PIR, other data sources are utilized. These data sources are
described or cited in the narrative of the relevant cost estimates.
The Head Start GABI is a uniform OMB approved application and
budget instrument to standardize the format for the collection of
program-specific data grantees provide with a continuation grant
application. Head Start grantees provide a range of data on their
proposed budgets including non-federal share, any other sources of
funding, program options, and program schedules.
The PIR is a survey of all grantees that provides comprehensive
data on Head Start, Early Head Start and Migrant Head Start programs
nationwide. Data collection for the PIR is automated to improve
efficiency in the collection and analysis of data. Head Start achieves
a 100 percent response rate annually from approximately 2,600
respondents.
These datasets have some limitations. For example, depending on
where programs are in the application process or if they are submitting
competitive applications, rather than continuation applications, the
GABI data can be incomplete. We addressed this limitation in two ways.
For grantees that had not submitted GABI data in FY 2015 due to DRS
transitions or other factors, we used their FY 2014 GABI data. In
addition, to account for missing data, we determined which specific
grantees did not have program schedules in the 2015 GABI data, and then
determined the funded enrollment associated with those specific
grantees using data from the Head Start Enterprise System. Through this
analysis, we learned that 11 percent of Head Start funded enrollment
slots and 13 percent of Early Head Start enrollment slots are missing
from the 2015 GABI data. Therefore, throughout this analysis, we
increase estimates using GABI data by 11 percent for Head Start and 13
percent for Early Head Start. Further, the PIR data is self-reported
data that has not been independently verified.
The methodology we use to estimate costs and cost savings
associated with individual provisions varies throughout this analysis.
We have included a description of each methodology in the Itemized
Costs and Cost Savings section of this analysis. As appropriate,
estimates associated with new salaries have been doubled to account for
fringe benefits and overhead. Estimates associated with duration
requirements that increase the hours and days staff must work and
increases to salaries based on higher credentials are inflated by one-
third to include costs associated with an increase in fringe benefits
but exclude any additional overhead costs.
Finally, in general, we have rounded total cost estimates but have
not rounded itemized cost estimates for transparency of the estimation
process. These unrounded itemized cost estimates should not be
interpreted as overly precise, but instead represent our best
estimation given limitations.
Summary of Costs and Cost Savings
Throughout this analysis, we identify and itemize the costs and
cost savings to society associated with the changes from the previous
regulation in three categories: costs borne by Head Start, costs borne
by other parties, and opportunity costs. We describe the calculation of
each of these costs in the appropriate sections throughout this
analysis. The table below summarizes all of the itemized costs for
every year over a ten year window. The final year (year ten) represents
our best estimation of costs in year ten and ongoing costs thereafter.
We analyze the costs of the regulation two ways in the table and
throughout this analysis--we estimate the costs of the regulation
without consideration of the substantial resources provided in FY 2016
to increase duration in Head Start and we estimate the costs net of
these resources which have already been provided and are now part of
the budget baseline for the Head Start program, assuming this funding
increase is maintained across the ten year window. In year 10, the
total cost to Head Start after accounting for the funding Congress has
already provided to expand duration total $1,003,152,645; without the
$294 million in funding provided in FY 2016 and now part of the budget
baseline, the total cost would be $1,297,152,645. In year ten and
ongoing, costs borne by other parties total $46,464,140, and
opportunity costs total $4,202,017. Therefore, we estimate the net cost
to society of the final rule, if fully implemented, to be
$1,053,818,802 in year ten and ongoing, when the funding Congress has
already provided is taken into account.
Without additional appropriations in future years or action by the
Secretary as described in Sec. 1302.21(c)(3) to lower the requirements
described in paragraphs Sec. 1302.21(c)(2)(iii) and (iv) of the final
rule, Head Start programs would need to absorb any additional costs
within their current budgets. We discuss the implications of
Congressional and Secretarial actions, as well as potential slot and
teacher job loss, in more detail in the Benefits Analysis section
below.
Summary Table of All Costs Borne by Head Start Years 1-5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 1 2016- Year 2 2017- Year 3 2018- Year 4 2019- Year 5 2020-
2017 * 2018 * 2019 * 2020 * 2021 *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increased Head Start Center-Based (CB) Program Duration, ................ ................ ................ $508,440,805 $508,440,805
Excluding Duration Funding Appropriated in FY 2016...........
FY 2016 Funding Appropriated to Expand Head Start CB Duration. ................ ................ ................ (263,121,940) (263,121,940)
Net Cost of Head Start CB Duration Increase................... ................ ................ ................ 245,318,865 245,318,865
[[Page 61376]]
Increased EHS CB Duration, Excluding Duration Funding ................ ................ $30,878,060 30,878,060 30,878,060
Appropriated in FY 2016......................................
FY 2016 Funding Appropriated to Expand EHS CB Duration........ ................ ................ (30,878,060) (30,878,060) (30,878,060)
Net Cost of EHS CB Duration Increase.......................... ................ ................ 0 0 0
Start-up Costs for Duration Increase for CB Programs.......... ................ $6,175,612 101,688,161 ................ 124,109,936
Increased EHS Home-Based (HB) Duration........................ ................ 8,188,508 8,188,508 8,188,508 8,188,508
Waiver for Two-Year-Old Ratios................................ $(24,541,262) (24,541,262) (24,541,262) (24,541,262) (24,541,262)
Waiver Applications........................................... 42,751 54,137 60,153 80,899 80,899
Home Visit for Frequently Absent Children..................... 927,603 834,842 742,082 649,322 556,562
Parent Contact--Unexpectedly Absent Children.................. 3,540,199 3,540,199 3,540,199 3,540,199 3,540,199
Associate's Degree for Head Start (HS) Teachers............... 10,472,585 10,472,585 10,472,585 10,472,585 10,472,585
Home-visiting CDA for Home Visitors........................... ................ ................ 5,112,499 5,112,499 5,112,499
Credential for New Family Service Workers..................... 549,046 549,046 549,046 549,046 549,046
Bachelor's Degree for New Management Staff.................... 2,182,809 3,977,108 5,515,809 6,798,912 7,826,417
Mentor Coaching............................................... ................ 141,978,651 141,978,651 141,978,651 141,978,651
Improving Curriculum.......................................... ................ 4,390,220 4,390,220 4,390,220 4,390,220
Monitoring Fidelity of Curriculum Implementation.............. ................ 33,983 33,983 33,983 33,983
Assessments for Dual Language Learners........................ ................ 6,082,338 6,082,338 6,082,338 6,082,338
Removal of Head Start-specific IEPs........................... (41,180,576) (41,180,576) (41,180,576) (41,180,576) (41,180,576)
Parenting Curriculum.......................................... 4,055,157 4,055,157 4,055,157 4,055,157 4,055,157
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)............................. 61,506 ................ ................ ................ ................
Criminal Background Checks.................................... ................ 4,117,348 4,117,348 4,117,348 4,117,348
Mediation and Arbitration..................................... 333,000 333,000 333,000 333,000 333,000
Removal of Annual Audits...................................... (306,000) (306,000) (306,000) (306,000) (306,000)
Delegate Appeals.............................................. (833,638) (833,638) (833,638) (833,638) (833,638)
Clarification of Facilities Application Process............... (4,350,000) (4,350,000) (4,350,000) (4,350,000) (4,350,000)
Community Assessment.......................................... (1,152,558) (1,152,558) (1,152,558) (1,152,558) (1,152,558)
Managerial Planning........................................... (2,298,905) (2,298,905) (2,298,905) (2,298,905) (2,298,905)
Data Management............................................... ................ 6,643,811 6,643,811 6,643,811 6,643,811
Participation in QRIS......................................... ................ 1,695,928 1,695,928 1,695,928 1,695,928
Participation in State longitudinal data systems.............. ................ 824,593 824,593 824,593 824,593
Implementation Planning....................................... 3,474,474 3,474,474 ................ ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Excluding Duration Funding Appropriated in FY 2016. (46,320,371) 134,637,446 264,118,036 672,906,362 797,951,042
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Including Duration Funding Appropriated in FY 2016. n/a n/a n/a 378,906,362 503,951,042
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Year ranges refer Head Start program years, which for these estimates, begin on August 1st of each year and end on or before July 31st.
Summary Table of All Costs Years 6-10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 6 2021- Year 7 2022- Year 8 2023- Year 9 2024- Year 10 2025-
2022 * 2023 * 2024 * 2025 * 2026 *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increased Head Start CB Program Duration, Excluding Duration $1,128,990,485 $1,128,990,485 $1,128,990,485 $1,128,990,485 $1,128,990,485
Funding Appropriated in FY 2016..............................
FY 2016 Funding Appropriated to Expand Head Start CB Duration. (263,121,940) (263,121,940) (263,121,940) (263,121,940) (263,121,940)
Net Cost of Head Start CB Duration Increase................... 865,868,545 865,868,545 865,868,545 865,868,545 865,868,545
Increased EHS CB Program Duration, Excluding Duration Funding 30,878,060 30,878,060 30,878,060 30,878,060 30,878,060
Appropriated in FY 2016......................................
FY 2016 Funding Appropriated to Expand EHS CB Duration........ (30,878,060) (30,878,060) (30,878,060) (30,878,060) (30,878,060)
Net Cost of EHS CB Duration Increase.......................... 0 0 0 0 0
Increased EHS HB Duration..................................... 8,188,508 8,188,508 8,188,508 8,188,508 8,188,508
Waiver for Two-Year-Old Ratios................................ (24,541,262) (24,541,262) (24,541,262) (24,541,262) (24,541,262)
Waiver Applications........................................... 104,650 20,930 20,930 20,930 20,930
Home Visit for Frequently Absent Children..................... 463,801 463,801 463,801 463,801 463,801
Parent Contact--Unexpectedly Absent Children.................. 3,540,199 3,540,199 3,540,199 3,540,199 3,540,199
Associate's Degree for HS Teachers............................ 10,472,585 10,472,585 10,472,585 10,472,585 10,472,585
[[Page 61377]]
Home-visiting CDA for Home Visitors........................... 5,112,499 5,112,499 5,112,499 5,112,499 5,112,499
Credential for New Family Service Workers..................... 549,046 549,046 549,046 549,046 549,046
Bachelor's Degree for New Management Staff.................... 8,726,123 9,370,230 10,014,338 10,525,534 10,908,931
Mentor Coaching............................................... 141,978,651 141,978,651 141,978,651 141,978,651 141,978,651
Improving Curriculum.......................................... 4,390,220 4,390,220 4,390,220 4,390,220 4,390,220
Monitoring Fidelity of Curriculum Implementation.............. 33,983 33,983 33,983 33,983 33,983
Assessments for Dual Language Learners........................ 6,082,338 6,082,338 6,082,338 6,082,338 6,082,338
Removal of Head Start-specific IEPs........................... (41,180,576) (41,180,576) (41,180,576) (41,180,576) (41,180,576)
Parenting Curriculum.......................................... 4,055,157 4,055,157 4,055,157 4,055,157 4,055,157
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)............................. ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
Criminal Background Checks.................................... 4,117,348 4,117,348 4,117,348 4,117,348 4,117,348
Mediation and Arbitration..................................... 333,000 333,000 333,000 333,000 333,000
Removal of Annual Audits...................................... (306,000) (306,000) (306,000) (306,000) (306,000)
Delegate Appeals.............................................. (833,638) (833,638) (833,638) (833,638) (833,638)
Clarification of Facilities Application Process............... (4,350,000) (4,350,000) (4,350,000) (4,350,000) (4,350,000)
Community Assessment.......................................... (1,152,558) (1,152,558) (1,152,558) (1,152,558) (1,152,558)
Managerial Planning........................................... (2,298,905) (2,298,905) (2,298,905) (2,298,905) (2,298,905)
Data Management............................................... 6,643,811 6,643,811 6,643,811 6,643,811 6,643,811
Participation in QRIS......................................... 1,695,928 2,024,583 2,024,583 2,024,583 2,352,595
Participation in State longitudinal data systems.............. 824,593 965,550 965,550 965,550 1,106,507
Implementation Planning....................................... ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Excluding Duration Funding Appropriated in FY 2016. 1,294,396,889 1,295,285,932 1,296,895,589 1,297,406,786 1,297,152,645
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Including Duration Funding Appropriated in FY 2016. 1,000,396,889 1,001,285,932 1,002,895,589 1,003,406,786 1,003,152,645
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Year ranges refer Head Start program years, which for these estimates, begin on August 1st of each year and end on or before July 31st.
Summary Table of All Costs Borne by Other Parties and Opportunity Costs Years 1-5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 1 2016- Year 2 2017- Year 3 2018- Year 4 2019- Year 5 2020-
2017 * 2018 * 2019 * 2020 * 2021 *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs Borne by Other Parties
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Managerial Planning........................................... $(1,043,016) $(1,043,016) $(1,043,016) $(1,043,016) $(1,043,016)
Data Management............................................... ................ 741,978 741,978 741,978 741,978
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)............................. 28,679 ................ ................ ................ ................
Community Assessment.......................................... (352,028) (352,028) (352,028) (352,028) (352,028)
Improving Curriculum.......................................... ................ 140,396 140,396 140,396 140,396
Implementation Planning....................................... 1,624,843 1,624,843 ................ ................ ................
Waiver Application............................................ 14,023 17,758 19,731 26,537 26,537
Bachelor's Degree for New Management Staff.................... 1,036,673 1,888,833 2,619,603 3,228,982 3,716,971
Participation in QRIS......................................... ................ 888,598 888,598 888,598 888,598
Participation in State longitudinal data systems.............. ................ 399,268 399,268 399,268 399,268
Removal of Head Start-specific IEPs........................... 41,180,576 41,180,576 41,180,576 41,180,576 41,180,576
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................. 42,489,751 44,745,228 43,853,127 44,469,312 44,957,301
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opportunity Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Home Visit for Frequently Absent Children..................... 455,721 410,149 364,577 319,005 273,433
Criminal Background Checks.................................... ................ 838,985 838,985 838,985 838,985
Data Management............................................... ................ 2,393,194 2,393,194 2,393,194 2,393,194
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................. 455,721 4,384,306 4,338,734 4,293,161 4,247,589
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Year ranges refer Head Start program years, which for these estimates, begin on August 1st of each year and end on or before July 31st.
Summary Table of All Costs Borne by Other Parties and Opportunity Costs Years 6-10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 6 2021- Year 7 2022- Year 8 2023- Year 9 2024- Year 10 2025-
2022 * 2023 * 2024 * 2025 * 2026 *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs Borne by Other Parties
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Managerial Planning........................................... $(1,043,016) $(1,043,016) $(1,043,016) $(1,043,016) $(1,043,016)
[[Page 61378]]
Data Management............................................... ................ 741,978 741,978 741,978 741,978
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)............................. ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
Community Assessment.......................................... (352,028) (352,028) (352,028) (352,028) (352,028)
Improving Curriculum.......................................... 140,396 140,396 140,396 140,396 140,396
Implementation Planning....................................... ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
Waiver Application............................................ 34,327 6,865 6,865 6,865 6,865
Bachelor's Degree for New Management Staff.................... 4,144,265 4,450,168 4,756,072 4,998,852 5,180,938
Participation in QRIS......................................... 888,598 1,119,660 1,119,660 1,119,660 1,350,409
Participation in State longitudinal data systems.............. 399,268 469,767 469,767 469,767 540,267
Removal of Head Start-specific IEPs........................... 41,180,576 41,180,576 41,180,576 41,180,576 41,180,576
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................. 45,392,386 45,972,388 46,278,292 46,521,072 46,464,140
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opportunity Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Home Visit for Frequently Absent Children..................... 227,861 227,861 227,861 227,861 227,861
Criminal Background Checks.................................... 838,985 838,985 838,985 838,985 838,985
Data Management............................................... 2,393,194 2,393,194 2,393,194 2,393,194 2,393,194
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................. 4,207,017 4,202,017 4,202,017 4,202,017 4,202,017
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Year ranges refer Head Start program years, which for these estimates, begin on August 1st of each year and end on or before July 31st.
Summary Table of Net Cost to Society Years 1-10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 1 2016- Year 2 2017- Year 3 2018- Year 4 2019- Year 5 2020-
2017 * 2018 * 2019 * 2020 * 2021 *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Cost to Society, Excluding Duration Funding Appropriated $(3,374,899) $183,367,712 $311,910,629 $721,269,567 $846,756,665
Beginning in FY 2016.........................................
Net Cost to Society, Including Duration Funding Appropriated n/a n/a n/a 427,269,567 552,756,665
Beginning in FY 2016.........................................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10
2021-2022 * 2022-2023 * 2023-2024 * 2024-2025 * 2025-2026 *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Cost to Society, Excluding Duration Funding Appropriated $1,343,592,024 $1,344,990,571 $1,346,906,131 $1,347,660,108 $1,347,818,802
Beginning in FY 2016.........................................
Net Cost to Society, Including Duration Funding Appropriated 1,049,592,024 1,050,990,571 1,052,906,131 1,053,660,108 1,053,818,802
Beginning in FY 2016.........................................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Year ranges refer Head Start program years, which for these estimates, begin on August 1st of each year and end on or before July 31st.
Itemized Costs and Cost Savings
In the following sections, we itemize each of the regulatory
changes for which we expect there to be associated costs or cost
savings in the areas of structural program option provisions, staff
quality provisions, curriculum and assessment provisions, and
administrative/managerial provisions.
Structural Program Option Provisions
This final rule includes several provisions that increase the
duration of the Head Start experience for children. It also includes
provisions intended to improve child attendance. We analyzed costs
associated with the following specific requirements: minimum of 1,020
hours of planned class operations for all Head Start center-based
programs in Sec. 1302.21(c)(2)(iii)-(iv) minimum of 1,380 hours for
all Early Head Start center-based programs in Sec. 1302.21(c)(1)(i)-
(ii); minimum of 46 home visits and 22 group socializations for all
Early Head Start home-based programs in Sec. 1302.22(c)(1)(i) and
(ii); and additional home visits for chronically absent children, as
appropriate, and contacting parents when children are unexpectedly
absent in Sec. 1302.16. In all cases, costs are estimated based on
data about whether programs are currently meeting these new minimum
requirements.
Increased Head Start Center-Based Program Duration
This final rule increases the minimum annual hours that Head Start
programs must provide to 1,020 annual hours. The requirements in Sec.
1302.21(c)(2)(iii) and (iv) phase in the minimum annual hour
requirement for Head Start such that each grantee must operate 50
percent of its Head Start center-based slots at the 1,020 annual hour
minimum by August 1, 2019 and 100 percent of its Head Start center-
based slots at this minimum by August 1, 2021. Further, to minimize the
potential for slot loss as described above the requirements in Sec.
1302.21(c)(3) give the Secretary the authority to reduce these
percentages if adequate funding is not available to support the policy.
These changes will increase the amount of exposure to Head Start
experiences, which research suggests will, in turn, result in larger
impacts on school readiness and long-term outcomes.136 137
Research suggests that previous Head Start minimums are
[[Page 61379]]
inadequate to achieve strong child outcomes and effectively promote
school readiness. Specifically, research on full school day programs,
instructional time, summer learning loss and attendance demonstrates
the importance of extending the minimum hours of early learning in Head
Start.138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153
Research finds that pre-kindergarten programs that focus on
intentional teaching and both small group and one-to-one interactions
have larger impacts on child outcomes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\136\ Weiland, C., & Yoshikawa, H. (2013). Impacts of a
prekindergarten program on children's mathematics, language,
literacy, executive function, and emotional skills. Child
Development, 84, 2112-2130.
\137\ Barnett, W.S., Jung, K., Youn, M.J., and Frede, E.C.
(2013). Abbott Preschool Program Longitudinal Effects Study: Fifth
Grade Follow-Up. National Institute for Early Education Research
Rutgers--The State University of New Jersey.
\138\ Logan, J.A.R., Piasta, S.B., Justice, L.M.,
Schatschneider, C., & Petrill, S. (2011). Children's Attendance
Rates and Quality of Teacher-Child Interactions in At-Risk Preschool
Classrooms: Contribution to Children's Expressive Language Growth.
Child & Youth Forum 40(6), 457-477.
\139\ Hubbs-Tait, L., McDonald Culp, A., Huey E., Culp, R.,
Starost, H., & Hare, C. (2002). Relation of Head Start attendance to
children's cognitive and social outcomes: moderation by family risk.
Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 17, 539-558.
\140\ Lamdin, D.J. (1996). Evidence of student attendance as an
independent variable in education production functions. Journal of
Educational Research, 89(3), 155-162.
\142\ Wong, V. C., Cook, T. D., Barnett, W. S., & Jung, K.
(2008). An effectiveness-based evaluation of five state
prekindergarten programs. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management,
27, 122-154.
\143\ Camilli, G., Vargas, S., Ryan, S., & Barnett, W. S.
(2010). Meta-analysis of the effects of early education
interventions on cognitive and social development. The Teachers
College Record, 112, 579-620.
\144\ Yoshikawa, H., Weiland, C., Brooks-Gunn, J., Burchinal,
M., . . .Zaslow, M. (2013). Investing in our future: The evidence
base on preschool education. Foundation for Child Development. New
York, NY.
\145\ Barnett, W. S., & Hustedt, J. T. (2005). Head Start's
lasting benefits. Infants & Young Children, 18(1), 16-24.
\146\ Schweinhart, L. J., Montie, J., Xiang, Z., Barnett, W. S.,
Belfield, C. R., & Nores, M. (2005). Lifetime effects: The HighScope
Perry Preschool study through age 40. Ypsilanti, MI: HighScope
Press.
\147\ Aikens, N., Kopack Klein, A., Tarullo, L., & West, J.
(2013). Getting Ready for Kindergarten: Children's Progress During
Head Start. FACES 2009 Report. OPRE Report 2013-21a. Washington, DC:
Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for
Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
\148\ The Council of Economic Advisers. (December, 2014). The
Economics of Early Childhood Investments. Washington, DC: Authors.
\149\ Peisner-Feinberg, E. S., Schaaf, J. M., LaForett, D. R.,
Hildebrandt, L.M., & Sideris, J. (2014). Effects of Georgia's Pre-K
Program on children's school readiness skills: Findings from the
2012-2013 evaluation study. Chapel Hill: The University of North
Carolina, FPG Child Development Institute.
\150\ Weiland, C., & Yoshikawa, H. (2013). Impacts of a
prekindergarten program on children's mathematics, language,
literacy, executive function, and emotional skills. Child
Development, 84, 2112-2130.
\151\ Gormley, W., Gayer, T., Phillips, D.A., & Dawson, B.
(2005). The effects of universal Pre-K on cognitive development.
Developmental Psychology, 41, 872-884.
Campbell, F. A., Ramey, C. T., Pungello, E., Sparling, J., &
Miller-Johnson, S. (2002). Early childhood education: Young adult
outcomes from the Abecedarian project. Applied Developmental
Science, 6, 42-57.
\152\ Schweinhart, L. J., Montie, J., Xiang, Z., Barnett, W. S.,
Belfield, C. R., & Nores, M. (2005). Lifetime effects: The HighScope
Perry Preschool study through age 40. Ypsilanti, MI: HighScope
Press.
\153\ Ehrlich, S.B., Gwynne, J.A. ....Sorice, E. (2014).
Preschool Attendance in Chicago Public Schools: Relationships with
Learning Outcomes and Reasons for Absences. University of Chicago
Consortium on Chicago School Research. Reynolds, A.J. (2000).
Success in early intervention: The Chicago Child-Parent Centers.
Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
50 Percent Estimate for the Extension of Head Start Center-Based
Program Duration
Starting in year four following publication of this rule (program
year 2019-2020), programs are required to serve 50 percent of their
children in Head Start center-based classrooms for at least 1,020 hours
per year. In this section, we estimate costs associated with the
additional service provided by these programs. Note that Migrant and
Seasonal Head Start programs are excluded from these requirements. We
first estimate the marginal cost per child for the Head Start services
that exist today, updated to account for teacher salary increases
associated with the final rule. These salary increases are discussed
later in this analysis. To estimate this cost, we first calculate the
Head Start cost per child under the final rule by adding total Head
Start grant expenditures in FY 2015 ($6,354,595,188) to teacher salary
increases associated with requirements in the final rule in Sec.
1302.91(e) ($7,874,124), and divide this sum by FY 2015 Head Start
funded enrollment (791,886). This results in a cost per child of
$8,035, which is an increase of ten dollars per child from the FY 2015
actual annual Head Start cost per child of $8,025.
We estimate costs for Head Start center-based double session and
non-double session programs separately. We assume grantees will move
double session and non-double sessions, and three-year-old and four-
and five-year-old slots, to 1,020 annual hours proportionately.
Given that double session programs include a morning and afternoon
session with the same teacher, we estimate that for every two children
in these programs, the marginal cost of providing additional service in
line with the rule's requirements will be equivalent to providing Head
Start services to an additional child, resulting in a cost of $8,035.
Therefore, we estimate for Head Start double session center-based
programs, 31,197 new slots would need to be created and we estimate the
cost to move these slots to 1,020 hours to be $250,664,993. However,
this cost excludes the impact of the funding already provided by
Congress in FY 2016 to expand duration. As discussed below, some of
these costs will be covered by that funding.
We take a different approach to estimate costs for non-double
session programs. We calculate the number of Head Start center-based
non-double session slots that operate for fewer than 1,020 annual hours
and would need to be increased in order for each grantee to meet the 50
percent requirement (121,116, after inflating values for missing GABI
data). Based on GABI data, the average number of hours that a non-
double session slot would need to add in order to reach the 1,020 hours
annually is 290.354 hours. We assume that programs would choose to
increase their service duration to the 1,020 annual hour requirement in
a variety of ways, some by adding hours to each day of service and some
by adding additional service days. Based on the service duration
patterns of programs that currently provide 1,020 or more annual hours
of service, we assume 30 percent of programs would decide to add only
hours to each day of service already provided, and therefore their
costs would be driven entirely by teaching salaries. We assume 70
percent of programs would choose to increase the number of days they
operate per year to meet the 1,020 annual hour requirement.
We next estimate the marginal cost per hour per child for Head
Start non-double session, center-based slots. This is done using the
sum of the average teacher ($18.70) and average assistant teacher
($11.99) hourly wages from the PIR to calculate the cost per classroom
per hour for teaching staff on average ($30.69). Then, we increased
this cost per classroom per hour for teaching staff by 0.124 percent to
account for the marginal increase in teacher salaries associated with
all teaching staff meeting the minimum education requirements described
later in this analysis ($7,874,124). This increase was calculated by
finding the marginal increase in the cost per child after accounting
for these salary increases ($8,035) from the FY 2015 actual cost per
child for Head Start ($8,025). The new cost per classroom per hour for
teaching staff is $30.73, on average. Then, we inflated this cost per
classroom per hour by one-third to account for fringe benefits, which
is $40.87 (we assumed no additional costs for overhead). We then assume
that children will be served in classroom
[[Page 61380]]
settings with the maximum allowable group size. To calculate the
marginal cost per hour, we divide the hourly wage by the maximum group
size for three-year olds (17) and four- and five-year-olds (20) to get
an average marginal cost per hour per child for three-year olds ($2.40)
and four- and five-year olds ($2.04).
We then use FY 2015 PIR data to calculate the percentage of three-
year-olds (42 percent) and four- and five-year-olds (58 percent) served
by Head Start center-based programs. To calculate the cost of
increasing the proportion of slots at 1,020 hours to 50 percent in each
grantee by adding only hours to the day, we take 30 percent of the
share of three-year-olds (42 percent) and four- and five-year-olds (58
percent) enrolled in these programs respectively to find the number of
three-year-old slots (15,179) and four- and five-year-old slots
(21,156) that would need additional hours to meet the requirement. We
then calculate the average number of annual hours that non-double
session Head Start center-based slots not currently meeting 1,020
annual hours would need to add to reach 1,020 hours, which is 290.354
hours. Finally, we multiply the estimated number of three-year-old
slots (15,179) and four- and five-year-old slots (21,156) by their
respective average marginal cost per hour per child ($2.40 and $2.04)
and by the average number of hours these slots would need to increase
to reach 1,020 annual hours (290.354) to get a total estimated cost for
this 30 percent of non-double session slots of $23,108,599. However,
this cost excludes the impact of the funding already provided by
Congress in FY 2016 to expand duration. As discussed below, some of
these costs will be covered by that funding.
As discussed above, we anticipate a different marginal cost per
hour per child for the 70 percent of Head Start non-double session
slots we assume will meet the 1,020 annual hours by adding days,
because it would be necessary to extend all of the relevant child and
family services for a longer program year in addition to the cost per
classroom for teaching staff. In order to estimate these costs, we
divide the average annual Head Start cost per child inflated for
teacher salary increases as called for in Sec. 1302.91(e) ($8,035) by
the average number of hours per year provided across all Head Start
center-based slots (956.49 hours) to get an average cost per hour of
$8.40 to extend days. Then, to account for fringe benefits, we inflated
80% of this cost per hour by one-third (we assume no additional costs
for overhead) because most programs spend approximately 80% of their
budget on personnel. This results in an average cost per hour of $10.62
to extend days. We then multiplied the average number of hours these
slots would need to increase to reach 1,020 annual hours (290.354) by
the marginal cost per hour per child ($10.62), and by the number of
slots that we estimated would meet 1,020 annual hours by adding days
(84,781) to get an estimated cost of $261,427,256. Finally, we estimate
the total cost for all Head Start non-double session center-based slots
to meet the 50 percent requirement, using these two approaches, is
$284,535,855. However, this cost excludes the impact of the funding
already provided by Congress in FY 2016 to expand duration. As
discussed below, some of these costs will be covered by that funding.
In sum, the total cost for Head Start double session and non-double
session center-based slots to meet the 50 percent requirement is
$535,200,848 before accounting for the $294 million in funding Congress
has provided in FY 2016 to expand duration. However, because we assume
that 5 percent of all programs currently not meeting the 1,020 for 50
percent of their slots will receive a waiver to continue operating at
their current level of annual hours, we reduce this estimate by 5
percent for a total cost borne by Head Start of $508,440,805 before
accounting for the $294 million in funding Congress has provided in FY
2016 to expand duration. These costs will be realized in years four and
five, if the rule is fully implemented. As noted, Congress appropriated
$294 million in FY 2016 to increase the duration of Early Head Start
and Head Start programs. Thus, a substantial share of the $508 million
in costs will be absorbed by this funding, assuming this funding
increase is maintained across the ten year window.
50% Extension of Head Start Center-Based Duration: Costs Borne by Head Start
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New slots Cost per child
Total DS slots needed (less admin) Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Double Session (DS)............................. 62,393 31,197 $8,035 $250,664,993
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average cost
Slots per child per Hours needed Cost
hour
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-double session adding hours (30%) 3 year 15,179 $2.40 290.354 $10,577,515
olds...........................................
Non-double session adding hours (30%) 4 year 21,156 2.04 290.354 12,531,084
olds...........................................
---------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................... .............. .............. .............. 23,108,599
Non-double session adding days (70%)............ 84,781 10.62 290.354 261,427,256
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Excluding Duration Funding Appropriated Beginning in FY 2016......................... 535,200,848
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Less 5% Waiver, Excluding Duration Funding Appropriated Beginning in FY 2016................ 508,440,805
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Including Duration Funding Appropriated Beginning in FY 2016......................... 245,318,865
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
100 Percent Estimate for the Extension of Head Start Center-Based
Program Duration
Starting in year six following publication of the final rule
(program year 2021-2022), most programs are required to serve children
for at least 1,020 hours. In order to estimate the cost associated with
this requirement for each grantee to operate all of their Head Start
center-based slots for 1,020 annual hours, we used the same approach
described above for the 50 percent requirement. The only difference in
the estimate is that we used GABI data to calculate the number of slots
for which each grantee would need to increase duration in order to
operate all of its
[[Page 61381]]
center-based Head Start slots for 1,020 annual hours. As above, we
estimate the cost of increasing double session and non-double session
slots to 1,020 annual hours separately. Therefore, as described above,
we estimate for Head Start double session center-based programs, 72,727
new slots would need to be created. As a result, starting in year six
following publication of the final rule, we estimate costs of
$584,363,052 associated with providing additional service to these
children in line with the requirements of the final rule. However, this
cost excludes the impact of the funding already provided by Congress in
FY 2016 to expand duration. As discussed below, some of these costs
will be covered by that funding.
For Head Start non-double session center-based programs, we
estimate 36,355 slots would meet the 100 percent requirement by
increasing only hours per day. We estimate the share of three-year-old
slots is 35,746, and the share of four- and five-year-old slots is
49,821. Therefore, we estimate the cost of meeting the 100 percent
requirement for these programs to be $54,419,668. For Head Start non-
double session center-based programs, we estimate 199,656 slots would
meet the 100 percent requirement by adding days. Therefore, we estimate
the cost of meeting the 100 percent requirement for these programs to
be $615,651,152. Finally, we estimate the total cost for all Head Start
non-double session center-based slots to meet the 100 percent
requirement, using these two approaches, is $670,070,820. However, this
cost excludes the impact of the funding already provided by Congress in
FY 2016 to expand duration. As discussed below, some of these costs
will be covered by that funding.
In sum, the estimated total cost for Head Start double session and
non-double session center-based slots to meet the 1,020 requirement is
$1,254,433,872 before accounting for the $294 million in funding
Congress has provided in FY 2016 to expand duration. This represents an
additional $719,233,024 over the 50 percent requirement. However,
because we assume that 10 percent of all programs not currently meeting
the 1,020 annual hours minimum will receive a waiver to continue
operating at their current level of annual hours, we reduce this
estimate by 10 percent for a total cost borne by Head Start of
$1,128,990,485 before accounting for the $294 million in funding
Congress has provided in FY 2016 to expand duration. This represents an
additional $620,549,679 over the 50 percent requirement. These costs
will be realized in year six and annually thereafter, if the rule is
fully implemented. As noted, Congress appropriated $294 million in FY
2016 to increase the duration of Early Head Start and Head Start
programs. Thus, a substantial share of the $1,128,990,485 in costs will
be absorbed by this funding, assuming this funding increase is
maintained across the ten year window.
100% Extension of Head Start Center-Based Duration: Costs Borne by Head Start
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New slots
Total DS slots needed Cost per child Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Double Session (DS)............................. 145,454 72,727 $8,035 $584,363,052
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average cost
per child per
Slots hour (less Hours needed Cost
admin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-double session adding hours (30%) 3 year 35,746 $2.40 290.354 24,909,586
olds...........................................
Non-double session adding hours (30%) 4 year 49,821 2.04 290.354 29,510,082
olds...........................................
---------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................... .............. .............. .............. 54,419,668
Non-double session adding days (70%)............ 199,656 10.62 290.354 615,651,152
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Excluding Duration Funding Appropriated Beginning in FY 2016......... .............. 1,254,433,872
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Less 10% Waiver, Excluding Duration Funding Appropriated Beginning in FY .............. 1,128,990,485
2016.......................................................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Including Duration Funding Appropriated Beginning in FY 2016......... .............. 865,868,545
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extension of Early Head Start Center-Based Program Duration
Similar to the approach to estimating the cost of increasing
duration for Head Start, to estimate the costs associated with the
requirement that Early Head Start center-based programs provide a
minimum of 1,380 annual hours for all slots, we used GABI and PIR data.
We excluded all programs not required to meet the 1,380 minimum.
Therefore, we calculated the cost using data from Early Head Start
center-based programs including American Indian and Alaska Native
programs but excluded all other program options and Migrant and
Seasonal Head Start. We calculated estimates for Early Head Start
center-based double session and non-double session programs separately.
Double session programs include a morning and afternoon session with
the same teacher, therefore, we used the entire FY 2015 Early Head
Start cost per child for center-based services from the GABI ($13,041).
Next, we divided the current Early Head Start funded enrollment in
double session programs (324, which is inflated for missing GABI data)
by 2 to get a total estimated number of new Early Head Start slots that
would need to be created to eliminate double sessions (162). We then
multiplied the resulting number of slots by the average marginal cost
per child. From these calculations, we estimate the cost of extending
duration for all Early Head Start center-based double session slots to
be $2,112,642. However, this cost excludes the impact of the funding
already provided by Congress in FY 2016 to expand duration of Early
Head Start programs. As discussed below, all of these costs will be
covered by that funding.
For non-double session programs, we calculated the proportion of
Early Head Start center-based non-double session slots that operate
fewer than 1,380 annual hours (14,270, which is inflated for missing
GABI data). First, we divided the average annual Early Head Start cost
per child by the average number of hours per year provided
[[Page 61382]]
across all Early Head Start non-double session center-based slots
(1,627.61 hours) to get an average cost per hour of $8.01. Then, to
account for fringe, we inflated 80% of this cost per hour by one-third
(we assume no additional costs for overhead) because most programs
spend approximately 80% of their budget on personnel. This results in
an average cost per hour of $10.12.
Further, we assumed all Early Head Start programs would choose to
increase the number of days they operate per year to meet the 1,380
annual hour requirement because most Early Head Start programs already
operate for a full day. In order to estimate the costs associated with
meeting the requirement for these programs, we assumed they would need
the full average cost per child per hour, inflated for fringe. Then we
multiplied the adjusted cost per child per hour ($10.12) by the average
number of hours programs not currently meeting the 1,380 minimum would
need to add (210.443 hours) by the number of slots (14,270) that we
estimated would need to move to meet 1,380 annual hours to get an
estimated cost of $30,390,579. However, this cost excludes the impact
of the funding already provided by Congress in FY 2016 to expand
duration. As discussed below, all of these costs will be covered by
that funding.
In sum, the total cost for Early Head Start double session and non-
double session center-based slots to meet the 1,380 requirement is
$32,503,221 before accounting for the $294 million in funding Congress
has provided in FY 2016 to expand duration. However, because we assume
that 5 percent of all programs currently not meeting the 1,380 will
receive a waiver to continue operating at their current level of annual
hours, we reduce this estimate by 5 percent for a total cost borne by
Head Start of $30,878,060 before accounting for the $294 million in
funding Congress has provided in FY 2016 to expand duration. These
costs will be realized in year three and annually thereafter. As noted,
Congress appropriated $294 million in FY 2016 to increase the duration
of Early Head Start and Head Start programs. Thus, the entirety of the
$30,878,060 costs will be absorbed by this funding.
Extension of Early Head Start Center-Based Duration: Costs Borne by Head Start
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New slots Cost per child
Total DS slots needed (less admin) Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Double Session (DS)............................. 324 162 $13,041 $2,112,642
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average cost
per child per
Slots hour (less Hours needed Cost
admin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-double session.............................. 14,270 $10.12 210.443 $30,390,579
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total, excluding FY 2016 duration funding................................................... 32,503,221
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Less 5% Waiver, excluding FY 2016 duration funding.......................................... 30,878,060
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, including FY 2016 duration funding................................................... 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Start-up Costs for Extension of Center-based Programs
In addition to the cost of extending center-based programs
estimated for Head Start and Early Head Start above, there are
additional costs associated with facilities and other start-up
activities for increasing duration. If there is adequate funding to
support these requirements, there will be a period of ramp-up that most
programs will need to implement the duration requirements, therefore we
anticipate that a portion of any first 12-month operational award will
be available for the purchase or renovation of facilities and other
start-up activities before programs begin serving children at the
higher duration. These costs would be subsumed in the grant awards to
cover the costs estimated above. However, if the requirements are
implemented in the absence of adequate additional funding, these start-
up costs would represent additional costs that should be estimated
here.
In order to estimate the amount of start-up costs, we rely on
historical information from prior expansions in which approximately one
quarter to one third of the total operating budget is needed for start-
up activities. However, since non-double session slots will require
significantly fewer start-up activities at a significantly lower cost,
we assume that, on average, start-up activities will reflect twenty
percent of the estimated cost to extend slots to meet the duration
requirements. Therefore, we estimate the cost of start-up activities
for meeting the Early Head Start requirement to be $6,175,612, the cost
of start-up activities for meeting the 50 percent requirement in Head
Start to be $101,668,161, the additional cost of start-up activities
for meeting the 100 percent requirement in Head Start to be
$124,109,936. Finally, we assume start-up costs will be incurred the
year prior to the effective date for each duration requirement. We
estimate start-up costs for all requirements will total $231,973,709.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost of
requirement Start-up costs Year *
(Incremental) (20%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EHS Requirement........................ $30,878,060 $6,175,612 Year 2 (2017-2018)
50% HS Requirement..................... 508,440,805 101,668,161 Year 3 (2018-2019)
100% HS Requirement.................... 620,549,679 124,109,936 Year 5 (2020-2021)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 61383]]
Total.............................. .............. 231,973,709
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Year ranges refer Head Start program years, which for these estimates, begin on August 1st of each year and
end on or before July 31st.
Extension of Early Head Start Home-Based Program Duration
The final rule requires that Early Head Start home-based programs
operate for a minimum of 46 weeks per year in Sec. 1302.22(c)(1). In
order to estimate the cost of this provision, we assumed the entire FY
2015 Early Head Start cost per child for home-based services from the
GABI ($9,782). We then calculated the cost per week by dividing the
cost per child by the average number of weeks all Early Head Start
home-based programs operate (46.28), which we estimate is $211.37. We
then multiplied the cost per child per week by the number of weeks
programs not providing 46 weeks would need to add to meet the
requirement (2.78) to calculate the cost per slot to meet the
requirement ($587.60). Finally, we multiplied this cost by the funded
enrollment of programs currently not meeting the requirement (15,484).
We estimate the total cost of this provision to be $9,098,342. However,
we also assume that 10 percent of these programs will receive a waiver
to continue providing their current level of service; therefore, we
estimate the total cost borne by Head Start of this provision to be
$8,188,508. These costs will be realized in year two and annually
thereafter.
Extension of Early Head Start Home-Based Duration: Costs Borne by Head Start
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funded
Cost of enrollment not Cost reduced by
meeting 46 meeting Total cost 10% waiver
weeks per slot requirement
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
46 weeks for EHS home-based................. $587.60 15,484 $9,098,342 $8,188,508
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Head Start Home-Based Standard Option
We received comments expressing concern about our proposal in the
NPRM to remove home-based services as a standard program option for
Head Start. These comments are described in detail in the comment and
response portion of this rule. In response to these comments, we have
retained home-based services as a standard option for preschoolers in
the final rule and no longer estimate costs associated with the removal
of the home-based option for Head Start.
Waiver Authority for Ratios in Early Head Start Two-year-old Groups
This rule allows, for the first time, programs to request a waiver
of ratios for groups with two-year-old children. We believe that
programs in states that allow higher ratios for two-year-olds groups or
mixed age groups may request waivers to allow them to serve more
children and support continuity as children approach pre-school. We
anticipate awarding waivers to programs who propose to serve two-year-
old children at a ratio of 1:5 rather than 1:4, provided they have
sufficient space to meet square footage requirements and can
demonstrate it meets the needs of the community, the learning needs of
children, and can ensure the change in ratio poses no health and safety
risk. We estimate the savings associated with receipt of this waiver
here.
First, we estimated the savings associated with all two-year old
groups operating with a 1:5 ratio. We used the total number of two-
year-olds currently being served (61,752 from PIR data) to find the
number of teachers that would no longer be needed by dividing the
number of two-year-olds by the current ratio of 1:4 (which yields
15,438 teachers); and then by the 1:5 ratio that would now be allowed
(which yields 12,350 teachers); and taking the difference (3,088). We
then multiply this number of teachers that would no longer be needed
(3,088) by the average Early Head Start teacher salary of $26,491,
doubled to account for fringe and overhead ($52,982) to get a total
potential savings of $163,608,416. However, while we assume that 20
percent of programs will apply to waive the ratio requirements for two-
year olds given our experience with the Early Head Start--Child Care
Partnership grantees, we assume that only approximately 15 percent of
programs currently serving two-year-olds have adequate space to
accommodate the larger group size associated with a 1:5 ratio. As such,
we estimate only 15 percent of programs will receive the waiver.
Therefore, we estimate that the actual total savings for this provision
would be $24,541,262. These costs will be realized in year one and
annually thereafter. While we recognize it is possible that programs
will opt to purchase, lease, or renovate new space to become eligible
for this waiver, we believe the costs of such purchase, lease, or
renovation would offset the savings estimated here and we lack data to
support a reasonable assumption about the proportion of programs who
would do so, therefore we have not estimated these costs and cost
savings here.
[[Page 61384]]
Waiver for Two-Year-Old Ratio: Cost Savings Borne by Head Start
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salary
Current number New number of Number of Average EHS inflated for
Total number of 2 year olds of teachers teachers (1:5) teachers no teacher salary fringe and Total savings
(1:4) longer needed overhead
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
61,752.................................................. 15,438 12,350 3,088 $26,491 $52,982 $163,608,416
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total (Reduced by 85% for programs without adequate space).......................................................................... 24,541,262
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Waiver Application Process for Locally-Designed Program Options
As discussed above, this rule includes a provision in Sec. 1302.24
that would require any program wishing to operate a locally-designed
program option to submit a waiver application explaining why the local
design better meets community needs. As discussed in further detail in
the discussion of the rule for Sec. 1302.24, this waiver option will
strengthen program accountability while maintaining local flexibility.
The rule also includes a provision, as described above, to allow
programs to request a waiver of teacher to child ratios for groups
serving two-year-old children. The application process itself has a
cost to grantees which is the focus of this cost estimate.
In order to estimate the cost associated with preparing and
submitting waiver applications as allowed in other sections, we used
GABI data to determine the total number of grantees that do not meet
the new service duration minimums. Among the 1,412 Head Start grantees
(which is 1,271 inflated by 11% for missing GABI data), 966 (which is
870 inflated by 11 percent for missing GABI data) do not meet the
requirement to provide 1,020 annual hours to 50 percent of slots and
1,036 (which is 933 inflated by 11 percent for missing GABI data) do
not meet the requirement to provide 1,020 annual hours to 100 percent
of slots. Among all Early Head Start grantees, 822 programs provide
center-based or family childcare services (which is 727 inflated by 13
percent for missing GABI data) and 739 programs provide home-based
services (which is 656 inflated by 13 percent for missing GABI data),
275 (which is 243 inflated by 13 percent for missing GABI data) do not
meet the 1,380 hours for center-based and family child care programs,
and 263 (which is inflated by 13 percent for missing GABI data) do not
meet the minimums for home-based programs. Finally, PIR data indicates
there are 995 all Early Head Start and Migrant or Seasonal Head Start
programs that currently serve two-year-olds.
We anticipate more waiver requests will be submitted than will be
granted and estimate that half of the waiver requests received will be
approved, which is reflected in the above calculations on increasing
program duration and group ratios. Given the flexibility built into the
duration requirements in the final rule, we assume that only 10 percent
of Head Start grantees not meeting the 50 percent requirement will
apply for a waiver (97), 20 percent of Head Start not meeting the 100
percent requirement will apply for a waiver (207), 10 percent of Early
Head Start center-based grantees not meeting the new minimums will
apply for a waiver (28), and 20 percent of Early Head Start home-based
grantees not meeting the new minimums will apply for a waiver (53).
Finally, we assume that 20 percent of programs serving two-year-olds
will apply for a waiver (199), even though only 15 percent of programs
will receive it. Based on these assumptions we expect a total of 199
waiver applications in year one, 252 waiver applications in year 2, 280
waiver applications in year three, 377 waiver applications in years
four and five, and 487 waiver applications in year 6. Finally, we
assume upon full implementation of the rule, programs would choose to
reapply once every five years, resulting in an estimated 97 waiver
applications annually in year 7 and ongoing.
In order to calculate the costs associated with these applications,
we assume that each waiver application will require 8 hours of a
program director's time at $35.36 per hour. Therefore, we calculate the
cost associated with the applications by multiplying the number of
applications by 8 hours of a center director's hourly wage ($285.30).
Using this method, we calculate the total cost associated with these
waiver provisions for each year in the table below. Then we applied the
proportion of Head Start center director's salary paid for with Head
Start funds (75.3 percent) to the cost by year to find the costs borne
by Head Start and the costs borne by other parties in the table below.
Waiver Applications: Total Cost to Society
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
programs Hours Cost per hour Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
50% HS Center-based duration.................... 97 8 $35.36 $27,551
100% HS Center-based duration................... 207 8 35.36 59,093
EHS Center-based duration....................... 28 8 35.36 7,988
EHS Home-based duration......................... 53 8 35.36 15,121
Two-year-old ratio.............................. 199 8 35.36 56,775
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The table below describes the cost to society disaggregated by
costs borne by Head Start and costs borne by other parties for years
three through ten. We assumed that programs would only apply for
waivers once the compliance date of the provision they are requesting a
waiver for has passed. Therefore, we assumed that the cost of applying
for a waiver from the 50 percent Head Start center-based duration
requirement would be borne in years three through five; the cost of
applying for a waiver from the 100 percent Head Start center-based
duration requirement would be borne in year 6; the cost of applying for
a waiver from the Early Head Start center-based would be borne
beginning in year 3; the cost of applying for a waiver from the Early
Head Start home-based duration requirement would be
[[Page 61385]]
borne beginning in year 2; and the cost of applying for a waiver from
the Early Head Start ratio requirement would be borne beginning in year
1. Finally, we assume upon full implementation of the rule, programs
would choose to reapply once every five years, resulting in the costs
for years seven through ten.
Waiver Applications: Costs Borne by Head Start and by Other Parties
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Years 7-10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost to Society.............................................. $56,775 $71,896 $79,884 $107,435 $107,435 $138,977 $27,795
Cost to Head Start (75.3%)................................... 42,751 54,137 60,153 80,899 80,899 104,650 20,930
Cost borne by other parties.................................. 14,023 17,758 19,731 26,537 26,537 34,327 6,865
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Home Visits for Frequently Absent Children
The rule includes a new provision in Sec. 1302.16 that requires
programs to provide additional services to families of children who are
frequently absent (for non-illness or IFSP/IEP related reasons), which
may include a home visit. This requirement will improve consistent
attendance, which is important because research demonstrates that
attendance is predictive of school success. For example, one study
conducted in the Chicago Public Schools shows that preschool attendance
is important for several reasons: (1) It sets up patterns for long-term
school attendance; (2) children who regularly attend preschool perform
better on kindergarten entry assessments tests; and 3) regular
attendance enhances social-emotional development.\154\ Another study in
Tulsa found that preschoolers who attended regularly showed more growth
in literacy skills than their peers who were frequently absent.\155\ In
Baltimore, researchers found that 25 percent of children who were
chronically absent in pre-kindergarten and kindergarten were retained
in later grades, compared to nine percent of their peers who regularly
attended in these early years.\156\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\154\ Allensworth, E.M., Ehrlich, S.B., Gwynne, J.A., & Pareja,
A.S. (2013). Preschool Attendance in Chicago Public Schools:
Relationships with Learning Outcomes and Reasons for Absences.
\155\ Community Action Project Tulsa County. (2012). Attendance
Works Peer Learning Network Webinar.
\156\ Connolly, F., & Olson, L.S. (2012). Early Elementary
Performance and Attendance in Baltimore City Schools' Pre-
Kindergarten and Kindergarten. Baltimore Education Research
Consortium.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We considered both monetary costs as well as opportunity costs in
estimating the total cost of this new provision in Sec. 1302.16. In
order to estimate the associated monetary costs, we used data from the
Family and Child Experience Survey (FACES) and babyFACES, which are
federally funded nationally representative surveys of Head Start and
Early Head Start programs, respectively. These studies provided
estimates of the proportion of children in both Head Start and Early
Head Start who are absent for more than 20 days in a given school year.
For Head Start, FACES data suggests 5.6 percent of children are absent
for more than 20 days. We used this proportion as a proxy for the
proportion of children who are frequently absent, and would trigger the
requirement in the rule for an additional home visit. For Early Head
Start, we assumed approximately half of this proportion would be
children for whom absences were explained, given the frequency of
illness among very young children and thus would not trigger this
requirement. Therefore, we used half (17 percent) of the proportion
from babyFACES data (34 percent) as a proxy for children in Early Head
Start who are chronically absent and would thus trigger additional
services, which could include an extra home visit. Then, we estimated
the number of extra home visits this requirement will trigger by
multiplying cumulative enrollment for center-based programs in Head
Start and Early Head Start, respectively, by these proxy proportions.
We estimated the monetary cost of this provision by multiplying the
number of extra home visits by the average wage of a teacher and an
assistant teacher for two hours, because we expect some home visits
will be conducted by teachers or home visitors and others may be
conducted by the family service worker (usually paid on par with
assistant teachers). Finally, we assumed that only half of families
would receive an additional home visit rather than other direct contact
as allowed under the requirement. Using this method, we estimate the
total monetary cost of this requirement to be $927,603 starting in year
one. However, we also expect the activities that programs engage in to
address frequent and chronic absenteeism, including home visits, will
reduce the number of children who are frequently and chronically absent
over time. Therefore, we have estimated a 10% reduction in the number
of frequently and chronically absent children every year for the first
five years this policy is in place. This results in a cost of $834,842
in year two, $742,082 in year three $649,322 in year four, $556,562 in
year five and $463,801 in year six and on an ongoing basis thereafter.
To calculate the opportunity cost, we use foregone wages as an
estimate for the value of parents' time spent meeting this requirement
of one additional home visit. This represents the value of their time
when they participate in an additional home visit rather than working.
However, we acknowledge this is likely an overestimate of opportunity
cost, given the potential for opportunity cost savings associated with
parents' time if their children resume regular program attendance. We
used the number from our estimate of children experiencing chronic
absenteeism (62,858) and assumed one parent per child. Because Head
Start families are primarily families from low-income backgrounds, we
used the federal minimum wage and assumed two hours of time for each
parent to meet this additional requirement for half of parents of
chronically absent children (because parents of the other half of these
children would receive other direct contact), which would result in a
monetized opportunity cost of $455,721. These opportunity costs will be
realized in year one. However, as discussed above, we expect these
activities will reduce the number of parents of frequently and
chronically absent children over time. Therefore, we estimate an
opportunity cost of $410,149 in year two, $364,577 in year three
$319,005 in year four, $273,433 in year five and $227,861 in year six
and on an ongoing basis thereafter.
[[Page 61386]]
Home Visits for Frequently Absent Children: Costs Borne by Head Start
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated Estimated
National Estimated cost of all cost of
Program type survey FE number of Avg. wage/ potential additional
proxy % additional 2 hours additional HVs
HVs HVs provided
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HS................................ 5.6 874,604 48,978 $30.70 $1,503,625 $751,812
EHS............................... 17 81,649 13,880 25.33 351,580 175,790
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total......................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 927,603
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 1 2016/ Year 2 2017/ Year 3 2018/ Year 4 2019/ Year 5 2020/ Year 6 2021/
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduction Over Time............... $927,603 $934,842 $742,082 $649,322 $556,562 $463,801
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Home Visits for Frequently Absent Children: Opportunity Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated cost Estimated cost
Total number of parents Hourly wage Number of for all for parents
forgone hours parents receiving HV
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
62,858.......................................... $7.25 2 $911,441 $455,721
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................... .............. .............. .............. 455,721
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 1 2016/ Year 2 2017/ Year 3 2018/ Year 4 2019/ Year 5 2020/ Year 6 2021/
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduction Over Time..................................... $455,721 $410,149 $364,577 $319,005 $273,433 $227,861
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parent Contact for Unexpectedly Absent Children
The rule includes a new provision in Sec. 1302.16 that requires
programs to attempt to contact parents if they have not notified the
program that their children will be absent. This requirement will
ensure child safety and facilitate more consistent attendance for all
children. The NPRM included a similar requirement, though the
requirement in the final rule has been revised in response to comments.
However, the Regulatory Impact Analysis in the NPRM did not account for
costs associated with this requirement. In response to comments, we
estimated the costs associated with contacting parents when they have
not notified the program that their children will be absent in this
section. In order to estimate the cost of this requirement, we assumed
that 10 percent of children would be absent on any given day, which is
91,216 children when applied to the funded enrollment number for Head
Start and Early Head Start programs. Then we found the proportion of
Head Start children who would be absent each day (83.8% or 76,439), and
the proportion of Early Head Start children who would be absent each
day (16.2% or 14,777). We further assumed one-quarter of these
children, 19,110 in Head Start and 3,694 in Early Head Start, would be
unexpectedly absent or that their parent would not contact the program
within an hour to report the absence that day. To estimate the cost of
making phone calls, we assume 5 minutes of administrative staff or
family service worker time per phone call resulting in 1,592 hours of
staff time per day across all Head Start programs and 308 hours of
staff time per day across all Early Head Start programs. As a proxy for
the hourly wage of this staff person, we averaged the hourly wage of
Head Start and Early Head Start assistant teachers ($11.72). Then we
estimate the cost associated with this provision per day to be this
hourly wage multiplied by the number of hours of staff time, which is
$18,650 for Head Start programs and $3,608 for Early Head Start
programs. Finally, in order to estimate the cost of this provision
annually, we multiplied the cost per day by the average number of days
currently provided by Head Start (146.8) for a cost of $2,737,861 per
year in Head Start, and by the average number of days currently
provided by Early Head Start (222.364) for a cost of $802,338 per year
in Early Head Start. Finally, we summed these costs for a total cost
per year across all programs of $3,540,199.
Parent Contact for Unexpectedly Absent Children
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Number of unexpectedly Hours of staff
absent absent time (5 mins Cost per day Cost per year
children children per call)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Head Start...................... 76,439 19,110 1,592 $18,650 $2,737,861
Early Head Start................ 14,777 3,694 308 3,608 802,338
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................... .............. .............. .............. .............. 3,540,199
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 61387]]
Staff Quality Provisions
This rule also includes several provisions to improve the quality
of staff in Head Start and Early Head Start programs. Specifically, we
analyzed costs associated with the following requirements: Minimum of
associate's degree for all Head Start teachers in Sec.
1302.91(e)(2)(ii); minimum of CDA or equivalent credential for all home
visitors in Sec. 1302.91(e)(6)(i); credentials for newly hired family
services workers in Sec. 1302.91(e)(7); credentials for newly hired
management staff in Sec. 1302.91(d)(1)(i); and mentor coaching in
Sec. 1302.92(d).
Associate's Degree (AA) for Head Start Teachers
The Act detailed new degree requirements for all Head Start
teachers. Specifically, 648A(a)(3)(B) of the Act codified a minimum
requirement that all Head Start teachers have at least an associate's
degree. While progress towards meeting this requirement has been
substantial, according to PIR data, a small percentage of Head Start
teachers in 2015 (4.2%) did not have such a degree. In this rule, we
added this requirement into the staff qualifications section of the
performance standards in Sec. 1302.91(e)(2)(ii). Given that some
teachers do not have the minimum degree, we estimated the cost
associated with this requirement by finding the respective differences
in average salaries for teachers with no credential and teachers with a
Child Development Associate (CDA), compared to teachers with
associate's degrees. We then multiplied the number of teachers who
currently have no credential or the number of teachers who currently
have only a CDA by the additional salary for each group. Finally, we
increased the estimated salary for these teachers by one-third to
account for fringe benefits (we assumed no additional overhead costs).
Using this method, we estimate the total cost for Head Start programs
to meet this requirement to be $10,472,585. These costs will be
realized in year one and annually thereafter.
Associate's Degree for Head Start Teachers: Costs Borne by Head Start
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salary
differential Cost of
Current credential (between Inflated for Number of additional
current and fringe teachers salary after
AA) obtaining AA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CDA............................................. $4,535 $6,032 1,314 $7,925,457
None............................................ 3,426 4,557 559 2,547,128
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................... .............. .............. .............. 10,472,585
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Home-Visiting Child Development Associate for Home Visitors
In this rule, we also propose to require that all home visitors
have, at a minimum, a home-based CDA credential or equivalent in Sec.
1302.91(e)(6)(i). This change will ensure that all home visitors are
equipped with the critical content knowledge offered through a home-
based CDA that will support their competency to implement a research-
based curriculum and ensure children served in this model receive high-
quality learning experiences. Because our current PIR data does not
differentiate between credential types for home visitor salaries, we
used a proxy of the differential percentage of salary for teachers with
associate's degrees compared to teachers with CDAs. We then applied
this differential percentage to the average home visitor's salary to
estimate the increase in salary for home visitors who would obtain a
CDA which is $6,029 when inflated by one-third to account for fringe
benefits (we assumed no additional overhead costs). Finally, we
multiplied this additional salary by the number of home visitors who
currently have no credential. This approach gives us an estimate of the
total cost of requiring higher credentials for home visitors. Using
this method, we estimate the total cost of meeting this new requirement
to be $5,112,499.
Home-Visiting CDA: Costs Borne by Head Start
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proportion of Cost of
salary Number of HVs w/ additional
Current credential differential Avg. HV salary Additional Salary inflated o any salary for
(Teachers: CDA salary for fringe credential credentialed
to AA) HVs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
None.............................................. 14.91% $30,397 $4,533 $6,029 848 $5,112,499
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Credential for New Family Service Workers
The final rule includes a requirement in Sec. 1302.91(e)(7) for
new family services staff who work directly with families on the family
partnership process to earn a credential in family services within 18
months of hire. In order to calculate the cost associated with this
requirement, we found the number of family services staff who currently
do not have a credential or higher qualification (6,196) and assumed
that approximately half of all family service workers work directly
with families on the family partnership process for an estimate of
3,098 staff members whose replacement would need to earn a credential
if the current worker left their job. We then calculated an estimate of
new staff who would need to earn a credential by applying the average
turnover rate of 17 percent for teachers and home visitors as a proxy
(because we do not have data on turnover of family services staff) for
an annual estimate of 542 staff turning over. Then we assumed the
average cost for each staff person to get the necessary credential
within 18 months would be
[[Page 61388]]
$1,013, based on an average of costs for common family development
credentials. Therefore, we estimate the cost of this provision at
$549,046 annually. Given the difficulty, programs may face in the
future finding staff that already have this credential, we have assumed
this cost will be an ongoing annual cost. Therefore, these costs will
be realized in year one and annually thereafter.
Credential for New Family Service Workers: Costs Borne by Head Start
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proportion of
staff working Total staff
Number of family service workers w/o credential directly on Estimated affected Cost of Total estimated
family turnover rate annually credential cost
partnerships
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6,196.............................................................. 3,098 17% 542 $1,013 $549,046
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bachelor's Degree for New Management Staff
In response to comments described in the preamble of this rule, the
final rule includes a requirement in Sec. 1302.91(d)(1) that newly
hired staff who oversee health, disabilities, and family support
services must have a bachelor's degree (BA). If a grantee assigns a
separate area manager for each of these three service areas, it would
result in three additional managers being required to hold a BA or
higher. However, it is currently common practice for programs to assign
the duties associated with the oversight of two service areas to a
single manager. We assume that half of programs assign oversight of
disabilities services to their Education Coordinator (who is already
required to have a BA), which would lead to two managers (one for
health and one for family support services) needing to possess BAs, and
that half of programs would assign oversight of disabilities and family
services or health to a single manager. Therefore, we estimate that two
managers at each program will need to possess BAs to meet this
requirement.
We then estimated the number of supervisors or management staff
affected by the requirement who do not currently have a BA. We used
data from the PIR on the education level of family services supervisors
because we do not collect data on the educational attainment of other
service area managers. Data indicate that 1,255 family services
supervisors do not have a B.A. or higher. This estimate was then
doubled based on the calculations and assumptions above for an estimate
of 2,510 supervisory staff who do not currently have a B.A. or higher.
Because we do not have turnover information on management staff, we
then applied the average turnover rate for teachers and home visitors
(17 percent) as a proxy, to the number of service managers without a
B.A., in order to estimate the total number of managers without a BA
that would turn-over each year (accounting for those who acquired a BA
in prior years, through year ten).
Then, in order to determine the anticipated salary increase for
managers with a B.A,, we averaged the current salaries for family
services, health, and disabilities managers from the PIR ($44,583) and
found the difference between this salary and the average salary of
education coordinators ($50,252) who are currently required to have a
B.A. to estimate the average increase in salary for new managers with a
B.A. ($5,669). We then inflated this additional salary by one-third to
account for fringe benefits (we assumed no additional overhead) which
is $7,540. We then applied this difference to the number of staff
affected annually. Further, we applied the average proportion of
management staff salaries' borne by Head Start (67.8%) to find the cost
borne by Head Start and the cost borne by other parties in years one
through ten.
Bachelor's Degree for New Management Staff: Costs Borne by Head Start and by Other Parties
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family service supervisors without BA or Inflated for other Estimated annual Estimated increase
higher service areas (2) turnover rate in salary
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,255......................................... 2,510 17% $7,540
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost to society Costs borne by HS Costs borne by other
parties
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 1........................................ $3,219,482 $2,182,809 $1,036,673
Year 2........................................ 5,865,941 3,977,108 1,888,833
Year 3........................................ 8,135,412 5,515,809 2,619,603
Year 4........................................ 10,027,894 6,798,912 3,228,982
Year 5........................................ 11,543,388 7,826,417 3,716,971
Year 6........................................ 12,870,387 8,726,123 4,144,265
Year 7........................................ 13,820,398 9,370,230 4,450,168
Year 8........................................ 14,770,409 10,014,338 4,756,072
Year 9........................................ 15,524,386 10,525,534 4,998,852
Year 10....................................... 16,089,869 10,908,931 5,180,938
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mentor Coaching
In this rule, we require programs to have a system of professional
development in place that includes an intensive coaching strategy for
teachers. As described in further detail in the discussion of the rule
for Sec. 1302.92(d), this change will ensure teaching staff receive
effective professional development, based on a growing body of research
demonstrating the effectiveness of intensive professional development
for improving teacher practices in early care and education
[[Page 61389]]
settings 157 158 159 and research demonstrating that such
strategies support improved teacher practice in the classroom and an
increase in classroom quality.160 161 This provision also
gives programs some flexibility to identify the education staff that
would benefit most from this form of intensive professional development
and direct their efforts accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\157\ Buysse, V., & Wesley, P.W. (2005). Consultation in Early
Childhood Settings. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing.
\158\ Tout, K., Halle, T., Zaslow, M., & Starr, R. (2009).
Evaluation of the Early Childhood Educator Professional Development
Program: Final Report: Report prepared for the U.S. Department of
Education.
\159\ Zaslow, M., Tout, K., Halle, T., Vick, J., & Lavelle, B.
(2010). Towards the identification of features of effective
professional development for early childhood educators: A review of
the literature. Report prepared for the U.S. Department of
Education.
\160\ Isner, T., Tout, K., Zaslow, M., Soli, M., Quinn, K.,
Rothenberg, L., & Burkhauser, M. (2011). Coaching in early care and
education programs and Quality Rating and Improvement Systems
(QRIS): Identifying promising features. Child Trends.
\161\ Lloyd, C.M., & Modlin, E.L. (2012). Coaching as a key
component in teachers' professional development: Improving classroom
practices in Head Start settings. Administration for Children and
Families.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are various ways that programs can secure the services of
mentor coaches in order to meet this requirement. For example, grantees
could hire a full-time mentor coach(es), mentor coaches could work part
time in multiple programs, or geographically defined consortiums could
be created to enable grantees to access the services of mentor coaches.
However, for the purposes of this estimate, we use a caseload of one
coach per 15 teachers or teaching teams, and an overall salary
comparable to that of an education manager ($50,252 from PIR), doubled
for fringe benefits and overhead, which is estimated at $100,504 for
each mentor coach. We assumed a caseload of 15 teachers based on a
review of the literature that suggests caseloads vary across coaching
models but that full-time coaches, on average, usually reported
caseloads ranging from 13 to 22, though some coaches had much higher or
much lower caseloads.162 163 164 We then calculated the
total number of mentor coaches needed to support all education staff by
using 62,495 teachers (the number of lead Head Start and Early Head
Start teachers) as a proxy for the total number of teachers and
teaching teams that would receive mentor coaching. We estimated the
cost of providing 4,238 coaches for 63,566 teachers or teaching teams
at $425,935,952. We then assume that programs will utilize their
flexibility to identify education staff or teaching teams who would
most benefit from this type of professional development. We believe
that while the proportion of teachers and teaching teams receiving
coaching will vary by program, overall this will result in
approximately one-third of teaching staff receiving intensive coaching
on average. Therefore, our final estimate for the cost of the
requirement is $141,978,651.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\162\ Howard, E.C., Rankin, V.E., Fishman, M., Hawkinson, L.E.,
McGroder, S.M., Helsel, F.K., et al. (2013). The Descriptive Study
of the Head Start Early Learning Mentor Coach Initiative. OPRE
Report #2014-5a; Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of
Planning, Research and Evaluation.
\163\ Isner, Tout, Zaslow, Soli, Quinn, Rothenberg and
Burkhauser (2011). Coaching in Early Care and Education Programs and
Quality Rating and Improvement Systems (QRIS): Identifying Promising
Features.www.childtrends.org/wp.../2011-35CoachingQualityImprovement.pdf.
\164\ Yoshikawa, H., Weiland, C., Brooks-Gunn, J., Burchinal,
M.R., Espinosa, L.M., Gormley, W.T., . . . & Zaslow, M.J. (2013).
Investing in our future: The evidence base on preschool education.
Ann Arbor, MI: Society for Research in Child Development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the lack of data regarding the quality and scope of coaching
strategies programs may currently be using, we do not give any credit
for programs that may already utilize mentor coaches in this estimate.
Further, we acknowledge that this estimate may be an underestimate if
Congress appropriates the necessary additional funds to support
increased duration of Head Start and Early Head Start programs because
additional teaching staff will need to be hired to support the
transition of double session slots to full school day and full school
year slots. We estimate that an additional 3,906 teachers would need to
be hired to transition all programs from double sessions, which would
be associated with an additional cost of $8,723,452 and a new total
cost of $150,702,102. However, this estimate may be an overestimate if
the rule is fully implemented without additional funding and the
Secretary does not exercise the discretion to reduce the duration
requirements because the number of teachers would not increase.
Therefore, a reasonable assumption for calculating this estimate is to
use the status quo as the basis of the total number of education staff
who may receive mentor coaching.
These costs will be realized in year two and annually thereafter.
Mentor Coaching: Costs Borne by Head Start
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Mentor coach salary, fringe and overhead teachers and Number of Estimate for Estimate for \1/
FCC providers coaches all teachers 3\ of teachers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$100,504.................................... 63,566 4,238 $425,935,952 $141,978,651
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Curriculum and Assessment Provisions
This rule includes several provisions to improve curriculum and
assessments. We analyzed costs associated with the following specific
requirements: Improving curriculum in Sec. 1302.32(a)(1); monitoring
the fidelity of curriculum implementation in Sec. 1302.32(a)(2);
language assessment in home language and English for all dual language
learners in Sec. 1302.33(c)(2), and opportunities for parents to
participate in a parenting curriculum in Sec. 1302.51(b). We analyzed
savings associated with the removal of Head Start designed IEPs from
part 1308 of the previous standards.
Improving Curriculum
In this rule, we include several provisions intended to improve the
quality of curricula that programs select in Sec. 1302.32(a)(1).
Specifically, these new provisions will require programs to critically
analyze the curricula they use to determine whether they are
appropriately aligned with and sufficiently content-rich to support
growth in the domains outlined in the Head Start Early Learning
Outcomes Framework: Ages Birth to Five. This change will ensure all
programs select and implement curricula with the key qualities that
research suggests are critical to promoting child
outcomes.165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 For some
[[Page 61390]]
programs, these new provisions may require purchasing new curricula, or
purchasing curricular add-ons or enhancements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\165\ Clements, D.H., & Sarama, J. (2008). Experimental
Evaluation of the Effects of a Research-Based Preschool Mathematics
Curriculum. American Educational Research Journal, 45(2), 443-494.
\166\ Starkey, P., Klein, A., & Wakeley, A. (2004). Enhancing
young children's mathematical knowledge through a pre-kindergarten
mathematics intervention. Special issue on Early Learning in Math
and Science, 19(1), 99-120.
\167\ Bierman, K.L., Domitrovich, C.E., Nix, R.L., Gest, S.D.,
Welsh, J.A., Greenberg, M.T., . . . Gill, S. (2008). Promoting
Academic and Social-Emotional School Readiness: The Head Start REDI
Program. Child Development, 79(6), 1802-1817.
\168\ Clements, D.H. (2007). Curriculum research: Toward a
framework for ``Research-based Curricula''. Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education, 38(1), 35-70.
\169\ Fantuzzo, J.W., Gadsden, V.L., & McDermott, P.A. (2011).
An integrated curriculum to improve mathematics, language, and
literacy for Head Start children. American Educational Research
Journal, 48, 763-793.
\170\ Lonigan, C.J., Farver, J.M., Phillips, B.M., & Clancy-
Menchetti, J. (2011). Promoting the development of preschool
children's emergent literacy skills: A randomized evaluation of a
literacy-focused curriculum and two professional development models.
Reading and Writing, 24, 305-337.
\171\ Preschool Curriculum Evaluation Research Consortium
(2008). Effects of preschool curriculum programs on school readiness
(NCER 2008-2009). Washington, DC: National Center for Education
Research, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of
Education. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
\172\ Wasik, B.A., Bond, M.A., & Hindman, A.H. (2006). The
effects of a language and literacy intervention on Head Start
children and teachers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 63-74.
\173\ Riggs, N.R., Greenberg, M.T., Kusch[eacute], C.A., &
Pentz, M.A. (2006). The mediational role of neurocognition in the
behavioral outcomes of a social-emotional prevention program in
elementary school students: Effects of the PATHS curriculum.
Prevention Science, 7, 91-102.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to estimate the cost associated with these provisions, we
assumed that education managers would need to allocate an additional
thirty hours of analysis and planning time. We estimated the average
hourly rate from the average annual salary of education managers and
determined the total cost per manager for thirty hours. We then
multiplied the cost by the total number of all programs to find a total
cost to society of $1,477,847. We then found the cost borne by Head
Start ($1,056,660) by applying the proportion of education manager
salaries borne by Head Start funds of 71.5 percent, and then found the
cost borne by other parties ($421,187). In addition, we estimated the
cost of a curricular enhancement to be $4,500 for a three year multi-
site license. We know that most programs routinely upgrade their
curriculum or purchase a new curriculum. For this cost estimate, we
assumed an average of two-thirds of programs (1,346) would identify the
need to purchase additional curricular enhancements, and multiplied
that number of programs by the average cost of an enhancement to
estimate its total cost ($12,114,000). We then summed the cost of
managerial time and curricular enhancements ($13,591,847). Since most
licensing will be for three years, we assumed grantees will conduct a
curriculum assessment process every three years and divided the cost by
three. This results in an estimated annual cost of improving curriculum
of $4,530,616, and the annual cost borne by Head Start is $4,390,220
with an annual cost borne by other parties of $140,396. These costs
will be realized in year two and annually thereafter.
Improving Curriculum: Costs Borne by Head Start and by Other Parties
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Avg. ed Cost of 30 Number of Estimated cost Costs borne by Costs borne by
manager salary hours programs to society Head Start other parties
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional Staff Time................................. $50,252 $724.79 2,039 $1,477,847 $1,056,660 $421,187
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Avg. cost of Number of 66% of Estimated cost
enhancement programs programs to society
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Curricular Enhancement................................ $9,000 2,039 1,346 $12,114,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated cost Costs borne by Costs borne by
to society Head Start other parties
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................. .............. .............. .............. $13,591,847 $13,170,660 $421,187
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual Total.................................. .............. .............. .............. 4,530,616 4,390,220 140,396
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monitoring Fidelity of Curriculum Implementation
In addition to the curriculum quality requirements described in the
previous section, this rule also requires in Sec. 1302.32(a)(2) that
programs provide adequate supervision and regular monitoring of
curriculum use to ensure effective curriculum implementation, which is
critical to reaping the benefits of using high quality curricula
described above. 174 175
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\174\ Lieber, J., Butera, G., Hanson, M., Palmer, S., Horn, E.,
Czaja, C., . . . & Odom, S. (2009). Factors that influence the
implementation of a new preschool curriculum: Implications for
professional development. Early Education and Development, 20(3),
456-481.
\175\ Landry, S.H., Anthony, J.L., Swank, P.R., & Monseque-
Bailey, P. (2009). Effectiveness of comprehensive professional
development for teachers of at-risk preschoolers. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 101(2), 448.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to estimate the cost associated with this provision, we
researched the cost of curriculum fidelity kits, which help programs
assess how well their teachers are implementing a particular curricula
through planned activities. At present, few curricula offer such a kit.
However, based on those that are available, we assessed the average
cost of an implementation tool kit at $50. We then multiplied that
estimate by the number of programs to find the total cost of this
provision. We did not estimate additional staff time, because
monitoring and staff supervision was required in the previous rule and
individualization of this information is included in our mentor
coaching estimate. Using this method, we estimate the cost of fidelity
tools for all programs to be $101,950. However, in response to
comments, we modified the requirement in the final rule to provide
additional flexibility for programs to determine how well their
curriculum is being implemented. Therefore, we assume approximately
one-third of programs will use a fidelity tool and estimate the total
cost of this requirement to be $33,983. These costs will be realized in
year two and annually thereafter.
[[Page 61391]]
Monitoring Fidelity of Curriculum Implementation: Costs Borne by Head Start
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated cost for Estimated cost of
Avg. cost of implementation tool kit Number of programs all programs requirement
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$50.............................................. 2,039 $101,950 $33,983
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assessments for Dual Language Learners
In this rule, we also codify best practice in assessing dual
language learners (DLL) in Sec. 1302.33(c)(2) by requiring programs to
administer language assessments to dual language learners in both
English and their home language, as needed, either directly or through
interpreters. These requirements will ensure that screening and
assessment data is collected in both languages to ensure a more
complete understanding of these children's knowledge, skills and
abilities.\176\ In order to estimate the costs associated with this
proposal, we first determined the number of DLLs across Head Start and
Early Head Start by assuming all children who speak a language other
than English in the home are DLLs. We then determined the proportion of
DLL children who speak Spanish in the home and the number of children
who speak other languages. For the purposes of this estimate, we assume
that all DLLs who speak Spanish in the home will receive a direct
assessment in Spanish, and for all DLLs who speak any language other
than Spanish in the home will be assessed through an interpreter. For
Spanish-speaking DLLs (265,209 children), we assumed the average cost
of a Spanish-language assessment tool-kit (using the most frequently
reported assessment as our proxy) is $200 and the average cost per pack
of 25 assessment forms is $50. We determined the total number of tool-
kits needed by finding the number of programs serving at least one
Spanish-speaking child (1,651). We determined the number of packs of
assessment forms needed by dividing the total number of Spanish-
speaking children by 25 (10,610). We then multiplied the cost of the
tool-kit by the number of programs and the cost of the assessment forms
by the number of children and summed them to find the total cost of
this provision for children who can be directly assessed. For DLLs
speaking languages other than Spanish (56,658 children), we found the
average hourly rate for an interpreter from the Bureau of Labor
Statistics and assumed two hours for each assessment. Finally, we
doubled this hourly wage to account for fringe and overhead ($46.08)
even though we assume that programs will utilize the services of
interpreters on a case-by-case basis rather than employing them as
program staff. We then multiplied that cost by the number of non-
Spanish-speaking DLLs to find the cost of this provision for children
who need to be assessed through an interpreter. Finally, we summed
these two estimates to produce a total cost estimate for the provision:
$3,471,519. These costs will be realized in year two and annually
thereafter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\176\ Barrueco, S., Lopez, M., Ong, C., & Lozano, P. (2012).
Assessing Spanish-English bilingual preschoolers: A guide to best
approaches and measures. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Assessments for Dual Language Learners: Costs Borne by Head Start
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Avg. cost of Spanish Avg. cost of Number of Number of form
Type of DLL assessment 25 forms programs packs Estimated cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spanish-speaking............................................... $200 $50 1,651 10,610 $860,700
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Avg. hourly wage Cost/ Estimated cost
for interpreter assessment Number of children
inflated for fringe
and overhead
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other.......................................................... $46.08 $92.16 56,658 $5,221,638
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total...................................................... ....................... .............. 6,082,338
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Screenings for Children With IEPs and IFSPs
In Sec. 1302.33(a)(3) of the NPRM, we explicitly stated Head Start
programs were not required to perform initial developmental screenings
for children who enter the program with a current IEP or IFSP. However,
in response to public comments expressing concern about this provision,
it has been removed from the final rule and we have reinstated the
existing requirement that programs must perform initial developmental
screenings for all children, including those with a current IEP or
IFSP. Therefore, we do not have estimates associated with this
provision.
Removal of Head Start-Specific IEPs
The reauthorization of the Head Start Act in 2007 removed
previously held authority for Head Start programs to create their own
IEPs for children with disabilities. As a result, no programs currently
create their own IEPs for children. Prior to 2007, Head Start programs
frequently created such IEPs at great cost to programs. In accordance
with OMB Circular A-4, we estimate the cost/savings associated with all
new provisions in this final rule, including the removal of this
authority and the extensive regulatory requirements that accompany it
in part 1308 of the previous rule.
In order to estimate the savings associated with the removal of
these provisions, we first estimated the number of children in the
2004-2005 program year whose IEP was created by Head Start, which was
the last year in which the PIR collected this data. PIR data from that
year indicate 14,758 children had IEPs but were not eligible for
services under IDEA. We assumed, at a minimum, that the IEPs for all of
these children were created through the Head Start process. In order to
estimate the cost of an IEP, we first assumed 2 hours of staff time for
both the Education Manager and the Disabilities Coordinator. We also
assumed 4 hours
[[Page 61392]]
of Special Education Specialist consultant work, at $50 per hour on
average. We then multiplied this staff time by the number of IEPs. We
also researched the cost of a multi-disciplinary evaluation and
estimated, based on a sample of state estimates, the cost per IEP to be
$2,500 on average. We multiplied this cost by the number of IEPs and
then added it to the estimated cost of staff time to determine our
total cost savings to Head Start for this policy change at $41,180,576.
The entire cost savings associated with the removal of Head Start-
specific IEPs is considered a transfer, because these costs will be
borne by other parties, leading to a net cost to society of zero
dollars. The transfer of these costs will be realized in year one and
annually thereafter.
Removal of Head Start-Specific IEPs: Cost Savings to Head Start and Transfer Cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost savings
Cost/hour for Cost of Number of IEPs borne by head Transfer cost Net cost to
staff consultation start society
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Staff/Consultant Time................................... $90.39 $200 14,758 $4,285,576 $4,285,576 $0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost of evaluation Number Cost savings Transfer cost Net cost
of IEPs borne by to society
head start
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Multi-disciplinary Evaluation........................... $2,500 14,758 $36,895,000 $36,895,000 $0
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... .............. 41,180,576 41,180,576 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parenting Curriculum
This rule includes a requirement in Sec. 1302.51(b) that programs
provide parents with opportunities to participate in a parenting
curriculum. The NPRM proposed this requirement but the Regulatory
Impact Analysis in the NPRM did not account for any costs associated
with the requirement. We have added this cost estimate in response to
comments that suggested we should acknowledge the costs associated with
providing these opportunities to parents here.
In order to estimate the costs associated with this provision, we
researched the cost of parenting curricula online and found an average
cost of $1,087 for program-level materials and $14.25 per parent
booklet. We then estimated that programs would provide opportunities
such that one-third of parents would participate in a parenting
curriculum, which assuming one parent per child is 318,751 parent
participants. We then found the total program-level cost to be
$2,216,393 and the total parent-level cost to be $4,542,202, for a
total cost of $6,758,595. However, given recent data \177\ that
suggests that 41% of Head Start and Early Head Start parents already
participate in parenting classes, we reduce this estimate by 40% for a
total cost of $4,055,157.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\177\ Auger, A. (2015). Child Care and Community Services:
Characteristics of Service Use and Effects on Parenting and the Home
Environment, Ph.D. dissertation. University of California-Irvine
School of Education.
Parenting Curriculum
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Participating
Average program-level cost of curriculum Number of Average cost parents (one- Total cost
programs per parent third)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$1,087.......................................... 2,039 $14.25 318,751 $6,758,595
Reduced by 40%.................................. .............. .............. .............. 4,055,157
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative/Managerial Provisions
This rule includes several provisions to improve important
managerial and administrative responsibilities, and to reduce
unnecessary administrative burden. We analyzed costs associated with
the following specific requirements: Memoranda of understanding in
Sec. 1302.53(b)(1); background checks in Sec. 1302.90(b); mediation
and arbitration of disputes between the governing body and policy
council in Sec. 1301.6; data management requirements in Sec.
1302.53(b)(2) and (3), participation in Quality Rating Improvement
Systems and participation in State longitudinal data systems in Sec.
1302.53. We analyzed savings associated with the following specific
requirements: Removal of annual audits; removal of delegate appeal
process at the federal level; clarification of the facilities
application process in Sec. 1303.40; revision of community needs
assessment in Sec. 1302.11(b)(1); and revision of managerial planning
in Sec. 1302.101(b).
Memoranda of Understanding (MOU)
This rule includes a new requirement that programs establish formal
agreements with the local entity responsible for publicly funded
preschool in Sec. 1302.32. This change reflects a provision of the Act
that requires MOUs and has been in effect since 2008. Nonetheless, per
the OMB Circular Requirements for Regulatory Impact Analysis, we must
estimate the costs associated with the provision, as though no programs
have implemented the statutory change.
In order to estimate the costs associated with meeting this new
requirement, we first estimated that establishing an MOU with such
entities will require approximately 2 hours of management time, based
on grantee experience implementing similar MOUs. To estimate the cost
of that time, we multiplied the average hourly salary of all management
positions by 2. We then multiplied that cost by the total number of
programs. Using this method, we estimated the total cost associated
with this requirement to be $90,185. We then estimated the proportion
of the estimated cost borne by Head Start by applying the average
proportion of these management wages borne by Head Start
[[Page 61393]]
(68.2 percent), and found $61,506 is borne by Head Start and the
remaining $28,679 is borne by other parties. This may be an over-
estimate of cost given that one purpose of the MOU is to better
coordinate and share local resources, which may lead to savings,
associated with implementation of the MOU. These costs will be realized
in year one only.
Memoranda of Understanding: Costs Borne by Head Start and by Other Parties
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Avg. cost of
Avg. wage for 2 hours of management time wage borne by Number of Estimated Costs borne by Costs borne by
Head Start programs total cost Head Start other parties
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$44.23............................................................. $30.23 2,039 $90,185 $61,506 $28,679
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Criminal Background Checks
This rule includes two new provisions that strengthen the
requirements programs currently must meet with regard to criminal
background checks for staff in Sec. 1302.90(b). These changes will
provide alignment across federal programs about the importance and key
characteristics of comprehensive background checks, which are critical
to ensuring child safety in all early care and education settings.
Specifically, the first provision requires programs perform both a
state and FBI criminal background check on all new employees prior to
hire, whereas the previous rule only required programs to perform one
of the two checks. The second provision requires programs to renew
criminal background checks for all employees once every five years. The
FBI estimates the average cost of a criminal background check is $30.
The cost of state background checks varies significantly, with some
states charging more than $30. However, some states cover costs of the
checks for early care providers and other states reduce costs for a
combined FBI and state check. Therefore, we assume $50 to be the
average cost of both the FBI and state background check, together,
based on information from the Office of Child Care's CCDF State Plans,
in producing our cost estimate. We also assume a $5 cost for checks of
Child Abuse and Neglect registries. The national sex offender registry
can be checked online, free of charge.
We considered both monetary costs and opportunity costs when
estimating the cost of the first provision. To estimate the monetary
cost of requiring both FBI and state background checks for new hires,
we used the average turnover rate of teachers and home visitors from
the PIR data (17 percent) and applied it to all staff to estimate the
average number of new hires due to turnover per year. We then
multiplied the number of new hires (36,438) by the average cost of the
FBI background check ($30) to estimate the cost associated with this
provision ($1,275,330).
In addition to these monetary costs, we also estimated the
opportunity cost for new employees prior to hire to meet this
requirement. This represents the value of time (measured as forgone
earnings) of a prospective employee during the time, they spend to
complete a background check. To calculate the opportunity cost, we
averaged the hourly wage for a teacher and an assistant teacher of
$15.35, multiplied it by 1.5 hours for the estimated time it would
take, and multiplied that by the average number of new hires due to
turnover per year. We estimate the total opportunity cost for this
provision to be $838,985.
To estimate the cost of the second provision, we estimated the
number of staff that would need a background check renewal every five
years by dividing the total number of staff for all grantees by 5. Then
we multiplied the cost of a full background check ($55) by number of
staff needing a background check renewal per year (48,584) for a total
cost of $2,672,120.
In addition, we estimated the cost associated with administrative
staff time to process each additional background check. To calculate
this, we used the applicable number of staff that would need additional
background checks per year both through renewal and additional checks
as staff turnover (85,022) and divided that number by 6 assuming each
application will take approximately 10 minutes to process. This
provided an estimate for the number of hours that administrative staff
time to process additional background checks (12,265) annually.
Finally, we multiplied the number of hours by the hourly wage of an
administrative assistant, which we assumed to be the same rate as
teacher assistants ($11.99), to estimate the total cost of processing
at $169,898.
Using this method, we estimate the total monetary costs associated
with the background check provisions to be $4,117,348 and the total
opportunity cost to be $838,985. These costs will be realized in year
two and annually thereafter.
Criminal Background Checks: Costs Borne by Head Start
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Avg. cost of Total number Applicable
Provision check of staff staff Estimated cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initial Comprehensive Background Check.......... $35 242,918 36,438 $1,275,330
5-year Renewal.................................. 55 242,918 48,584 2,672,120
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hourly wage Applicable Number of Estimated cost
staff hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Staff time to process checks.................... $11.99 85,022 14,170 $169,898
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................... .............. .............. .............. 4,117,348
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 61394]]
Criminal Background Checks: Opportunity Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Avg. hourly Estimated Total wage Applicable
Provision wage time in hours cost staff Estimated cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FBI and State Check............. $15.35 1.5 $23.03 36,438 $838,985
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................... .............. .............. .............. .............. $838,985
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mediation and Arbitration
The rule includes a requirement in Sec. 1301.6(b) and (c) that
agencies unable to resolve impasses through their own decision-making
process must participate in a formal process of mediation. If agencies
do not reach a resolution with a mediator, they must pursue arbitration
and the arbitrator's decision is final. We assume few grantees will
reach an impasse and fewer grantees will be unable to resolve the
impasse with their own decision-making process. For purposes of
estimating the costs of these provisions, we assume one percent of
programs, or 20 programs, will pursue mediation--likely an
overestimate--and ten percent of those, or 2 programs, will go on to
pursue arbitration. According to data from the National Arbitration
Association, the costs of mediation vary but are significantly lower
than arbitration. They cite the costs of arbitration services range
from $200 to $700 per hour. To estimate the cost, we average the hourly
cost and assume $450 per hour. The National Arbitration Association
also states that arbitration usually takes no more than two weeks.
Therefore, we assume 80 hours at $450 per hour for three programs for a
total cost of $72,000. For mediation, we assume half the cost of
arbitration (both hourly rate ($225) and length of time (40 hours)),
which is consistent with estimates we saw elsewhere. We assumed 20
programs would pursue mediation for a total cost of $261,000. The total
for these two provisions is $333,000. These costs will be realized in
year one and annually thereafter.
Mediation and Arbitration: Costs Borne by Head Start
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Avg. hourly Number of Number of
Provision cost hours programs Estimated cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mediation....................................... $225 40 20 $261,000
Arbitration..................................... $450 80 2 72,000
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................... .............. .............. .............. 333,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Removal of Annual Audits
This rule eliminates the separate audit requirement for Head Start
programs in the previous standards in Sec. 1301.12 in favor of
aligning with the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles
and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance, 2 CFR part
200). This change will eliminate unnecessary burden on small grantees
and the Office of Head Start. The Omni Circular requires a Single Audit
of entities if their total federal expenditures exceed $750,000. As a
result of this $750,000 threshold, there are 18 grantees that will no
longer be required to have an audit. Using an estimate of $17,000 per
audit per the suggestion of regional grants management staff who
oversee audit procedures, we estimate a savings of $306,000. These
costs will be realized in year one and annually thereafter.
Removal of Annual Audits: Cost Savings Borne by Head Start
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Estimated
Cost per audit programs savings
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$17,000..................................... 18 $306,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parent Committees
We received comments expressing concern about the removal of the
requirement that agencies establish parent committees. As a result, we
restored this requirement in the final rule. Therefore, there are no
monetary or opportunity cost savings associated with the removal of
parent committees in the final rule.
Delegate Appeals
This rule aligns with section 641A(d) of the Act, by only requiring
grantees to establish procedures for a delegate agency to appeal a
defunding decision, which the Act established. As a result, we
eliminate the process by which current delegates can appeal grantee
decisions to HHS, as outlined in Sec. 1303.21. This change will
eliminate unnecessary burden on grantees and the Office of Head Start.
To estimate the savings associated with the removal of this process, we
determined the number of delegate appeals that have occurred across
ACF's 12 regions over two years (25) and then divided that number by
two to find the average number of appeals annually (12.5). We obtained
an estimate from a grantee on the costs of their individual appeal
($66,691) and multiplied it by two to factor in both the cost to the
grantee and the delegate agency of the appeal process. We then divided
that total by two based on the assumption that half of the costs are
spent on the HHS phase of the appeal, which we removed. We then
multiplied the average cost by the average number of appeals per year
(12.5) to arrive at the annual savings. We estimate savings of $833,638
because of this change. These savings will be realized in year one and
annually thereafter.
Delegate Appeals: Cost Savings Borne by Head Start
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Average savings from removal of HHS phase delegate Estimated
per appeal appeals/year savings
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$66,691..................................... 12.5 $833,638
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clarification of Facilities Application Process
This rule reorders the application requirements for funds to
purchase, construct or renovate facilities to align with typical
project development in Sec. 1303.40. In doing so, we anticipate
savings associated with grantees who are likely to identify unfeasible
projects
[[Page 61395]]
more quickly prior to soliciting costly professional advice or
unnecessary testing (e.g. environmental), referred to as soft costs. To
estimate the savings associated with these revisions, we assumed a per
project cost for facilities projects of $500,000, based on our
experience with facilities costs.
Since the savings would come from the soft costs that grantees
incur at the beginning of a project--which under our reordered
application process could be avoided for projects that grantees realize
more quickly are not fundable--we assume that approximately 30 percent
of the average per project costs, or $150,000 are for soft costs. Our
data systems do not capture the number of applications for facility
projects each year, so as a proxy, we used the total number of
facilities with federal interest for the past 11 years, which is the
timeframe for which we have data, with that total (4,051) divided by 11
for the number of facilities with federal interest per year (368).
Based on historical data, we then estimate that 8 percent of the 368
facilities with federal interest (29 facilities projects) submit un-
fundable applications annually. As a result, we then multiplied the
$150,000 in estimated soft costs by 29 projects to determine the
savings that would result if those grantees realized the unfeasibility
of their projects earlier and never spent those funds. We estimate the
total savings associated with these revisions to total $4,350,000.
These costs will be realized in year one and annually thereafter.
Clarification of Facilities Application Process: Cost Savings Borne by Head Start
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facilities with Unfundable
Avg. cost of facility project Avg. ``soft'' federal interest/ facility Estimated savings
costs year applications/ year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$500,000........................ $150,000 368 29 $4,350,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Community Assessment
This rule also includes provisions that change the previous
requirement for programs to conduct full community assessments from
every three years to every five years in Sec. 1302.11(b)(1). This
change will streamline the community assessment process and eliminate
unnecessary burden on grantees and the Office of Head Start. We
estimated the current cost of the community assessment and assumed a
reduction in costs of 40 percent, based on the change from three to
five years. To determine the average cost of a community assessment, we
incorporated grantee feedback about both the frequency with which they
choose to perform the assessment internally versus hiring consultants,
and the average cost, in staff time and consultant fees, respectively
of those assessments. From this feedback, we assumed 75 percent of
programs (1,529) perform their community assessments using Head Start
staff, while the remaining 25 percent (510) hire consultants.
We estimated the costs associated with Head Start staff time for 75
percent of programs by calculating the average hourly wage of the
entire management team (for the director, education manager, health
services manager, family services manager and disabilities coordinator
combined), and assumed 40 hours of the entire management team's time to
complete the assessment ($4,965). Note, this is likely an overestimate
because many programs do not have discrete managers for each service
type. We then multiplied the cost of these 40 hours by the number of
programs using Head Start staff to complete their assessments for a
total estimated cost to complete the assessment of $7,591,485. We then
divided this cost by 3 to get the previous annual cost ($2,530,495) and
by 5 to get the new annual cost ($1,518,297) and found the difference
to determine the total annual savings for this approach ($1,012,198).
We estimated the costs associated with consultants for 25 percent
of programs by the average cost for a consultant to perform the
community assessment at $6,000 and assumed an additional 10 hours of
the management team's time to support the completion of the assessment
($1,241). We then multiplied these costs by the number of programs who
choose to hire consultants for their community assessment for a total
estimated cost to complete the assessment of $3,692,910. We then
divided this cost by 3 to get the previous annual cost ($1,230,970) and
by 5 to get the new annual cost ($738,582) and found the difference to
determine the total annual savings for this approach ($492,388).
Finally, we summed the savings from these approaches to find the
estimated the savings for this policy change to be $1,504,586. We then
applied the proportion of management staff salaries paid for with Head
Start funds of 67.9 percent to find the total estimated savings borne
by Head Start of $1,152,558 and the estimated savings borne by other
parties of $352,028. These cost savings will be realized in year one
and annually thereafter.
Community Assessment: Cost Savings Borne by Head Start and by Other Parties
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost
Difference Cost savings
Option Cost Number of Total cost Previous New annual (total savings borne by
programs annual cost cost savings) borne by other
head start parties
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
External:
Staff time.................................. $1,241 510 $632,910 $210,970 $126,582 $84,388 $57,324 $27,064
Consult Time................................ 6,000 510 3,060,000 1,020,000 612,000 408,000 408,000 ...........
Internal:
Staff time.................................. 4,965 1,529 7,591,485 2,530,495 1,518,297 1,012,198 687,234 324,964
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,504,586 1,152,558 352,028
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 61396]]
Managerial Planning
This rule includes two new provisions that lessen the
administrative planning burden on programs by reducing the number and
prescriptiveness of planning processes that are required in Sec.
1302.101(b). Specifically, the first provision reduces current planning
topics from four in the previous rule (education, health, family and
community partnerships, and program design and management) to two. The
second provision significantly reduces the prescriptiveness of the
disabilities services plan and as a result significantly reduces the
costs associated with the requirement for that planning.
In order to estimate the costs associated with the first provision,
we assumed the four plans required in the existing rule took
approximately two weeks of the education manager's time to develop. Our
proposed provision would reduce the number of required plans by half.
As a result, we assume one week of the education manager's salary as
cost savings for each program. Then we multiplied this salary by the
number of programs to estimate the savings associated with this
provision. Further, we applied the proportion of the education
manager's salary paid for with Head Start funds (71.5 percent) to
determine the cost savings to Head Start and the cost savings borne by
other parties. For the second provision, we assumed the disabilities
service plan as outlined in the previous rule took an average of one
week of the disabilities coordinator's time. We also assume that the
changes to this provision will result in an 80 percent decrease in
burden, and as such, estimate the cost savings per program to be 80
percent of the disabilities coordinator's average weekly wage. We then
find estimated cost savings associated with this provision both to Head
Start and to other parties by multiplying this amount by the total
number of programs and applying the proportion of disabilities
coordinator's salaries paid for with Head Start funds (64.9 percent).
Finally, we sum these two cost savings to find the total estimated cost
savings for this policy change to be $3,341,921, the total cost savings
borne by Head Start to be $2,298,905, and the total cost savings borne
by other parties to be $1,043,016. These costs will be realized in year
one and annually thereafter.
Managerial Planning: Cost Savings Borne by Head Start and by Other Parties
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost savings Cost savings
Cost Cost of staff Savings per Number of Estimated borne by head borne by
time/ week program programs cost savings start other parties
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduction of Plans...................................... $966 .............. 2,039 $1,969,674 $1,408,317 $561,357
Revision of Disabilities Plan........................... 841 $673 2,039 1,372,247 890,588 481,659
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... .............. .............. .............. 3,341,921 2,298,905 1,043,016
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data Management
This rule includes several new requirements related to data
management, privacy, and data governance in Sec. 1302.53(b)(2) and
(3), Sec. 1302.101(b)(4), and part 1303, subpart C. Specifically,
these provisions require that programs establish procedures related to
the availability, usability, integrity, and security of data and
communicate, cooperate, and share information among agencies and their
community partners. For the purposes of estimating the costs of these
provisions, we focus on three major elements: Designing and
implementing a program-wide coordinated approach to data management and
sharing data with other programs and systems through parental consent
and memoranda of understanding.
First, we estimated the cost to programs of designing and
implementing a program-wide coordinated approach to data management. We
assumed one full day (eight hours) of planning time, using a cumulative
hourly wage of $123.81 for management staff for all 2,039 programs.
This resulted in a cost of $2,019,589. We then applied the proportion
of management salaries paid for with Head Start funds (67.9 percent) to
estimate the total cost borne by Head Start and the costs borne by
other parties for this provision. We estimate the total cost to Head
Start to be $1,371,301 and the cost to other parties to be $648,288.
Second, we estimated the cost of sharing data in order to
coordinate with other programs and systems. We assumed these costs
entail costs associated with Head Start staff time requesting parental
consent to share data and establishing Memoranda of Understanding
(MOU). We assume that the parental consent process would be performed
by family services workers; however, since we do not have PIR data on a
family service worker's hourly wage, we averaged the hourly wage of
Head Start teachers and assistant teachers as a proxy for the family
service worker wage ($15.35). To calculate the cost of the parental
consent process, we further assumed that each consent process would
take 20 minutes of the family service workers' time and divided that
hourly wage by three to arrive at the cost of each parental consent
($5.12). Then, we multiplied the cost per consent by the number of
parents from the PIR (988,923), for an estimated cost of $5,063,286.
We also estimated the cost of the MOU process for all programs. To
do so, we averaged the hourly wages of management staff and assumed an
average of three MOUs per program. We chose three MOUs based on the
assumption that most programs would have an MOU with an educational
agency, a local social services agency, and some other community
partner. We assumed two hours of a management staff time per MOU. We
used an average hourly wage for managers of $24.76 and multiplied it by
two hours per each of three MOUs for an estimated cost of $148.56 per
program. Then we multiplied this cost by the total number of programs
(2,039) for an estimated cost of $302,914 for the MOU process. We then
applied the proportion of management salaries paid for with Head Start
funds (67.9 percent) to estimate the total cost borne by Head Start and
the total cost borne by other parties for the MOU process. The cost
borne by Head Start is $205,680, and the cost borne by other parties is
$97,234.
In sum, the total estimated cost of this provision is $7,385,789,
the total estimated cost borne by Head Start is $6,643,811, and the
total estimated cost borne by other parties is $741,978. These costs
will be realized in year two and annually thereafter.
In addition to monetary costs, we also estimated the opportunity
cost associated with parents' time spent
[[Page 61397]]
completing the parental consent process. To calculate this opportunity
cost, we use foregone wages as an estimate for the value of parents'
time. This represents the value of their time when they participate in
an additional home visit rather than working. Because Head Start
families are primarily families from low-income backgrounds, we used
the federal minimum wage and assumed twenty minutes of time for one
parent from each family served (988,923 according to 2015 PIR data) to
meet this requirement. Therefore, we estimate the opportunity cost
associated with this provision to be $2,393,194. This cost will be
realized in year two and annually thereafter.
Data Management: Costs Borne by Head Start and by Other Parties
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Cost of staff program/ Total Costs borne by Costs borne by
time families estimated cost head start other parties
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coordinated Approach............ $990.48 2,039 $2,019,589 $1,374,845 $644,744
Consent Process................. 5.12 988,923 5,063,286 5,063,286 ..............
MOU Process..................... $148.56 2,039 302,914 205,680 97,234
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................... .............. .............. 7,385,789 6,643,811 741,978
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data Management: Opportunity Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Value of
parent time/ Number of Time spent Opportunity
hour parents per parent cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consent Process................................. $7.25 988,923 20 minutes $914,216
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................... .............. .............. .............. 2,393,194
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Participation in Quality Rating Improvement Systems
This rule includes a new requirement that programs participate in
their State's Quality Rating and Improvement System if it meets several
indicators described in Sec. 1302.53, including that the State accepts
Head Start monitoring data as evidence that programs meet requirements
to be assigned a rating in the State's tiered system. As a result, we
estimate costs associated with both management staff time spent
determining whether their state QRIS meets the indicators which would
trigger participation and management staff time spent preparing
monitoring reports and filling out paperwork to file with the State. We
also estimate a cost to States associated with reviewing Head Start
program documentation and assigning a rating to each program. While we
acknowledge that there may be additional costs to Head Start and other
parties associated with Head Start programs who seek to move up within
a state's tiered system, for example by opting to participate in
observational ratings such as the Early Childhood Environmental Rating
Scale (ECERS), programs are not required to do so by this provision and
we do not have data to support a reasonable assumption of how many
programs would choose to do so. Therefore we have not estimated these
costs here. Further, we assume that programs that choose to participate
in such activities to move up within a state's system would do so in
order to reap benefits such as increased subsidy reimbursement rates or
access to professional development opportunities, which would, from the
program's perspective, offset the costs involved. (From the perspective
of society as a whole, changes in reimbursement amounts are transfers,
increased resources devoted to professional development are costs, and
any improved outcomes for Head Start students that result from the
professional development are benefits.)
In order to calculate the costs associated with each program
determining whether the QRIS in their State meets the indicators, we
assumed eight hours of assessment time for the entire management team,
using a cumulative hourly wage of $124.13 for management staff for all
2,039 programs. This resulted in a cost of $2,024,809. We then applied
the proportion of management salaries paid for with Head Start funds
(67.9 percent) to estimate the total cost borne by Head Start and the
costs borne by other parties for this provision. We estimate the total
cost to Head Start to be $1,367,272 and the cost to other parties to be
$657,537.
Then to estimate the cost of program participation in QRIS in
states that meet the indicators described in Sec. 1302.53, we first
assumed that the Program Director and the Education Manager (whose
hourly wage is a total of $59.82, $40.28 of which is borne by Head
Start and $19.55 of which is borne by other parties) in programs
participating in QRIS would spend 16 hours (or two full days) preparing
monitoring reports and filling out paperwork to file with the State.
This calculation results in an estimated cost borne by Head Start of
$644.42 per program and an estimated cost borne by other parties of
$312.73 per program. Then, to estimate the cost per year, we had to
make assumptions about what percent of programs would be in States that
meet the described in Sec. 1302.53. Although we do not think most
States currently meet these indicators, we assume that States who want
Head Start programs to participate in QRIS will make adjustments to
their systems over time to meet the indicators such that the Head Start
performance standards require participation. Therefore, we assumed that
25% of programs would participate in the first year this requirement is
in place (2017/2018), 50% would participate five years after the
requirement is in place (2022/2023) and that by 2025/2026 75% of
programs would participate. To estimate the cost in each year, we
multiplied the number of programs participating (510 in 2017/2018,
1,020 in 2022/2023, and 1,529 in 2025/2026). This results in costs
borne by Head Start of $328,656 in 2017/2018, $657,311 in 2022/2023,
and $985,323 in 2025/2026; and costs borne by other parties of $159,493
in 2017/2018, $318,985 in 2022/2023, and $478,165 in 2025/2026.
Then, we further assume additional costs borne by other parties, in
costs to the State associated with reviewing Head Start program
documentation and assigning a rating to each program. In
[[Page 61398]]
order to estimate these costs, we assumed 8 hours of administrative
staff time using the average hourly wage for administrative assistants
from the Bureau of Labor Statistics 2015 data ($17.55) for a cost of
$140.40 per program participating in QRIS. We then applied this cost
per program to the number of programs participating in each year as
described above to find the cost borne by States to be $71,569 in 2017/
2018, $143,138 in 2022/2023, and $214,707 in 2025/2026.
In sum, the total costs associated with meeting this requirement
which are borne by Head Start programs are $1,695,928 in 2017/2018,
$2,024,583 in 2022/2023, and $2,352,595 in 2025/2026. Finally, the
total costs associated with meeting this requirement which are borne by
other parties are $888,598 in 2017/2018, $1,119,660 in 2022/2023, and
$1,350,409 in 2025/2026.
Participation in QRIS: Costs Borne by Head Start and by Other Parties
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost of staff Costs borne by
time per Number of Total head start Costs borne by
program programs estimated cost (67.9%) other parties
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Determining Participation.......................................... $993.04 2,039 $2,024,809 $1,367,272 $657,537
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Participation in QRIS: Costs Borne by Head Start and by Other Parties
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated cost for 25% Estimated cost for 50% Estimated cost for 75%
Cost of of programs of programs of programs
staff time Number of -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
per programs To Head To other To Head To other To Head To other
program Start parties Start parties Start parties
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HS Management Staff for Participating Programs.. $957.15 2,039 $328,656 $159,493 $657,311 $318,985 $985,323 $478,165
State Administrative Staff...................... $140.40 2,039 n/a $71,569 n/a $143,138 n/a $214,707
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Participation in QRIS: Costs Borne by Head Start and by Other Parties
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10
2017-2018 2018-2019 2019-2020 2020-2021 2021-2022 2022-2023 2023-2024 2024-2025 2025-2026
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Costs to Head Start.......... $1,695,928 $1,695,928 $1,695,928 $1,695,928 $1,695,928 $2,024,583 $2,024,583 $2,024,583 $2,352,595
Total Costs to Other Parties....... 888,598 888,598 888,598 888,598 888,598 1,119,660 1,119,660 1,119,660 1,350,409
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Participation in State Longitudinal Data Systems
This rule includes a new requirement in Sec. 1302.53 that programs
should participate in State longitudinal data systems if they can
participate and benefit in a similar fashion to other early childhood
programs. As a result of the conditions for participation to be
required, we estimate costs associated with both management staff time
spent determining whether they should participate in State longitudinal
data systems and qualified staff (such as a data analyst or the
Education Manager) time spent preparing program data to be shared with
the State. We also estimate a cost to States associated with
integrating Head Start data into the state system. While we acknowledge
that the cost of maintaining State longitudinal data systems can be
costly to States, there is no evidence to suggest that States have
passed these costs on to programs that contribute their data to the
system. In this estimate, we have not estimated costs to Head Start
programs associated with any fee for participation. If States began to
pass these maintenance costs on to participating programs the costs
presented below would represent an underestimate of the actual costs to
Head Start programs and an equal-magnitude overestimate of the costs to
other parties.
In order to calculate the costs associated with each program
determining whether the to participate in State longitudinal data
systems, we assumed four hours of assessment time for the entire
management team, using a cumulative hourly wage of $124.13 for
management staff for all 2,039 programs. This resulted in a cost of
$1,012,404. We then applied the proportion of management salaries paid
for with Head Start funds (67.9 percent) to estimate the total cost
borne by Head Start and the costs borne by other parties for this
provision. We estimate the total cost to Head Start to be $683,636 and
the cost to other parties to be $328,768.
Then to estimate the cost of program participation in State
longitudinal data systems, we first assumed that staff with
qualifications and a salaries equivalent to the Education Manager, who
may or may not be the Education Manager (whose hourly wage is a total
of $24.16, $17.27 of which is borne by Head Start and $6.89 of which is
borne by other parties) in programs participating in State longitudinal
data systems would spend 40 hours (or one full week) preparing program
data to be shared with the State. This calculation results in an
estimated cost borne by Head Start of $690.97 per program and an
estimated cost borne by other parties of $275.42 per program. Then, to
estimate the cost per year, we had to make assumptions about what
percent of programs would participate. Given the costly nature of
maintaining State longitudinal data systems for States, and the
scarcity of grant funds to support these activities, we have assumed
only a small proportion of programs will be in States who have
longitudinal data systems that meet the conditions described in Sec.
1302.53 the first year this requirement is in place. Further, we assume
only modest growth in the proportion of programs in such States over
time. Therefore, we assumed that 10% of programs would participate in
the first year this requirement is in place (2017/2018), 20% would
participate five years after the requirement is in place (2022/2023)
and that by 2025/2026 30% of programs would participate. To estimate
the cost in each year, we multiplied the number of programs
participating (204 in 2017/2018, 408 in 2022/2023, and 612 in 2025/
2026). This results in costs borne by Head Start of $140,957 in 2017/
2018, $281,914 in
[[Page 61399]]
2022/2023, and $422,871 in 2025/2026; and costs borne by other parties
of $56,186 in 2017/2018, $112,371 in 2022/2023, and $168,557 in 2025/
2026.
Then, we further assume additional costs borne by other parties, in
costs to the State associated with integrating Head Start data into the
state system. In order to estimate these costs, we assumed 4 hours of
administrative staff time using the average hourly wage for
administrative assistants from the Bureau of Labor Statistics 2015 data
($17.55) for a cost of $70.20 per program participating in State
longitudinal data systems. We then applied this cost per program to the
number of programs participating in each year as described above to
find the cost borne by States to be $14.314 in 2017/2018, $28,628 in
2022/2023, and $42,941 in 2025/2026.
In sum, the total costs associated with meeting this requirement
which are borne by Head Start programs are $824,593 in 2017/2018,
$965,550 in 2022/2023, and $1,106,507 in 2025/2026. Finally, the total
costs associated with meeting this requirement which are borne by other
parties are $399,268 in 2017/2018, $469,767 in 2022/2023, and $540,267
in 2025/2026.
Participation in State Longitudinal Data Systems: Costs Borne by Head Start and by Other Parties
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost of staff Costs borne by
time per Number of Total head start Costs borne by
program programs estimated cost (67.9%) other parties
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Determining Participation.......................................... $496.52 2,039 $1,012,404 $683,636 $328,768
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Participation in State Longitudinal Data Systems: Costs Borne by Head Start and by Other Parties
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated cost for 10% Estimated cost for 20% Estimated cost for 30%
Cost of of programs of programs of programs
staff time Number of -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
per programs To Head To other To Head To other To Head To other
program Start parties Start parties Start parties
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HS Management Staff for Participating Programs.. $690.97 2,039 $140.957 $56,186 $281,914 $112,371 $422,871 $168,557
State Administrative Staff...................... 70.20 2,039 n/a 14,314 n/a 28,628 n/a 42,941
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Participation in State Longitudinal Data Systems: Costs Borne by Head Start and by Other Parties
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 2 2017- Year 3 2018- Year 4 2019- Year 5 2020- Year 6 2021- Year 7 2022- Year 8 2023- Year 9 2024- Year 10
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2025-2026
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Costs to Head Start.......... $824,593 $824,593 $824,593 $824,593 $824,593 $965,550 $965,550 $965,550 $1,106,507
Total Costs to Other Parties....... 399,268 399,268 399,268 399,268 399,268 469,767 469,767 469,767 540,267
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Implementation of Changes in the Program Performance Standards
This rule includes numerous changes to Head Start's Program
Performance Standards. As a result, we have included provisions in
Sec. 1302.103 that require programs to develop a program-wide approach
to prepare for and implement these changes, in order to ensure their
effectiveness. In order to estimate the cost associated with these
provisions, we estimated the costs associated with Head Start staff
time by calculating the average hourly wage of the entire management
team (for the director, education manager, health services manager,
family services manager, and disabilities coordinator combined), and
assumed 40 hours of the entire management team's time to develop the
approach ($4,965). Note, this is likely an overestimate because many
programs do not have discrete managers for each service type. Using
this method we estimate the total cost of this provision at
$10,123,635. We then applied the average proportion of management
salaries paid for with Head Start funds (67.9 percent) to estimate the
total cost borne by Head Start ($6,873,948) and the total cost borne by
other parties ($3,249,687) for planning.
Further, we expect there will be costs associated with printing and
distribution of hardcopies of the standards to every grantee. We
estimate the cost of printing and distribution will be $75,000, based
on the cost associated with printing and distributing the new Head
Start Early Learning Outcomes Framework: Birth to Five, which was
similar in length and was distributed to the same entities at a cost of
$75,000. Including this cost, the total estimated cost of
implementation planning is $10,198,635, the cost borne by Head Start is
$6,948,948 and the cost borne by other parties is $3,249,687. We then
divided the cost borne by Head Start and the cost borne by other
parties in half, because we believe implementation planning will be
spread across two years. Therefore, these costs will be realized in
years one and two only.
Implementation Planning: Costs Borne by Head Start and by Other Parties
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hourly rate Annual costs
of Cost 40 of Number of Estimated Estimated Annual costs borne by
management hours programs cost cost per borne by other
team year Head Start parties
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Management Time....................................... $124.13 $4,965 2,039 $10,123,635 $5,061,818 $3,436,974 $1,624,843
Printing and Distribution............................. ............ ............ ............ 75,000 32,500 32,500 0
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................. ............ ............ ............ 10,198,635 5,099,318 3,474,474 1,624,843
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 61400]]
3. Benefits Analysis
Overall, the policies included in this final rule are designed to
strengthen Head Start quality, improve child outcomes, and increase the
return on taxpayer dollars. As discussed in more detail in the preamble
for this final rule, these policies will improve teaching practices,
through implementation of content-rich curriculum, effective use of
assessment data, and strong professional development. These
improvements are central to our effort to ensure every child in Head
Start receives high quality early learning experiences that will build
the skills they need to succeed in school and beyond. In order to
maximize the effectiveness of Head Start and yield a high rate of
return on investment, we believe it is essential to pair these
improvements to the early learning experiences provided by Head Start
with increases in program duration.
In this section, as part of our full regulatory analysis, we
describe our expectation that this rule will result in a greater return
on the federal investment in Head Start and outline our rationale. To
do so, we first consider long-standing economic analysis of the return
on investment through benefits to society of high quality early
education and summarize the research linking the most costly
provisions--extending program duration--to the expectation for
increased return on investment. Then, we describe the expected effect
of the final rule on society by exploring the benefits of the quality
and duration improvements on children enrolled in Head Start and their
parents and the potential opportunity costs for children who might not
have access to Head Start in the future, as well as other unquantified
benefits. Further, we discuss the implications of both Congressional
and Secretarial actions on the costs and benefits of this rule to
society as a whole. Finally, we provide estimates of additional federal
funding needed for overtime, adjusted for cost of living increases, to
support the full implementation of this rule and we estimate the
potential slot loss and education staff job loss that may arise from
this rule if the service duration policies described in part 1302,
subpart B, are fully implemented without adequate additional funds.
Return on Investment in Early Childhood
There is no question that high-quality early learning programs
yield significant benefits to children and society.\178\ Early learning
programs provide a unique opportunity to intervene and support
children's development during a period in which learning and growth is
at its most rapid.179 180 181 Early learning programs have
short and long term effects on children's math, reading and behavior
skills, can reduce grade retention, teen pregnancy, and the need for
special education services, and in the long-term can increase lifetime
earnings and reduce
crime.182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193
Numerous evaluations of both small-scale and large-scale early
education programs demonstrate that the benefits to children and our
society outweigh the financial costs of funding these programs. Studies
examining the return on investment for early learning programs find a
range of levels for positive returns. For example, the Perry Preschool
project, a two-year early learning intervention for children from low-
income families, netted approximately 7-10 dollars back for every
dollar spent on the program, with a baseline estimate of
$8.60.194 195 Most of these financial benefits came from
later reductions in crime. Evaluations of the Chicago Child-Parent
Center program (CPC) also show benefits from medium and long-term
positive effects. When CPC participants reach age 21, analyses
demonstrates that one and a half years of CPC preschool participation
yielded a return for society of $7.10. In comparison to preschool
children who did not participate in CPC, the preschool participants had
lower rates of special education placement and grade retention and a
higher rate of high school completion. They also had lower rates of
juvenile arrests and lower arrest rates for a violent offense.\196\ A
recent analysis by some of the country's premier child development and
early intervention experts conclude universal pre-kindergarten returns
$3-5 in benefits for every dollar spent.\197\ Nobel Prize winning
economist James Heckman concludes that educational interventions in the
first five years of life show much greater benefits than later
interventions.\198\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\178\ Heckman, J.J., Moon, S.H., Pinto, R., Savelyev, P.A., &
Yavitz, A. (2010). The rate of return to the HighScope Perry
Preschool Program. Journal of Public Economics, 94, 114-128.
\179\ National Scientific Council on the Developing Child
(2007). The Timing and Quality of Early Experiences Combine to Shape
Brain Architecture: Working Paper No. 5. Retrieved from
www.developingchild.harvard.edu
\180\ Anda R.F., Felitti V.J., Bremner J.D., Walker J.D.,
Whitfield C., Perry, B.D., Dube, S.R., & Giles, W.H. (2006). The
enduring effects of abuse and related adverse experiences in
childhood. A convergence of evidence from neurobiology and
epidemiology. European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical
Neuroscience, 256(3), 174-186.
\181\ National Scientific Council on the Developing Child
(2010). Early Experiences Can Alter Gene Expression and Affect Long-
Term Development: Working Paper No. 10. Cambridge, MA: Author.
\182\ Aikens, N., Kopack Klein, A., Tarullo, L., & West, J.
(2013). Getting Ready for Kindergarten: Children's Progress During
Head Start. FACES 2009 Report. OPRE Report 2013-21a. Washington, DC:
Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for
Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
\183\ Schweinhart, L.J., Montie, J., Xiang, Z., Barnett, W.S.,
Belfield, C.R., & Nores, M. (2005). Lifetime effects: The HighScope
Perry Preschool study through age 40. Ypsilanti, MI: HighScope
Press.
\184\ Barnett, W.S., & Hustedt, J.T. (2005). Head start's
lasting benefits. Infants & Young Children, 18(1), 16-24.
\185\ Yoshikawa, H., Weiland, C., Brooks-Gunn, J., Burchinal,
M., . . . Zaslow, M. (2013). Investing in our future: The evidence
base on preschool education. Foundation for Child Development. New
York, NY.
\186\ Camilli, G., Vargas, S., Ryan, S., & Barnett, W.S. (2010).
Meta-analysis of the effects of early education interventions on
cognitive and social development. The Teachers College Record, 112,
579-620.
\187\ Wong, V.C., Cook, T.D., Barnett, W.S., & Jung, K. (2008).
An effectiveness-based evaluation of five state prekindergarten
programs. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 27, 122-154.
\188\ Reynolds, A.J. (2000). Success in early intervention: The
Chicago Child-Parent Centers. Lincoln, Nebraska: University of
Nebraska Press.
\189\ Schweinhart, L.J., Montie, J., Xiang, Z., Barnett, W.S.,
Belfield, C.R., & Nores, M. (2005). Lifetime effects: The HighScope
Perry Preschool study through age 40. Ypsilanti, MI: HighScope
Press.
\190\ Gormley, W., Gayer, T., Phillips, D.A., & Dawson, B.
(2005). The effects of universal Pre-K on cognitive development.
Developmental Psychology, 41, 872-884.
Campbell, F.A., Ramey, C.T., Pungello, E., Sparling, J., &
Miller-Johnson, S. (2002). Early childhood education: Young adult
outcomes from the Abecedarian project. Applied Developmental
Science, 6, 42-57.
\191\ Weiland, C., & Yoshikawa, H. (2013). Impacts of a
prekindergarten program on children's mathematics, language,
literacy, executive function, and emotional skills. Child
Development, 84, 2112-2130.
\192\ Peisner-Feinberg, E.S., Schaaf, J.M., LaForett, D.R.,
Hildebrandt, L.M., & Sideris, J. (2014). Effects of Georgia's
Pre[hyphen]K Program on children's school readiness skills: Findings
from the 2012-2013 evaluation study. Chapel Hill: The University of
North Carolina, FPG Child Development Institute.
\193\ The Council of Economic Advisers. (December, 2014). The
Economics of Early Childhood Investments. Washington, DC: Authors
\194\ Heckman, J.J., Moon, S.H., Pinto, R., Savalyev, P.A. &
Yavitz, A. (2010). The Rate of Return to the High/Scope Perry
Preschool Program. Journal of Public Economics, 94(1-2), 114-128.
\195\ The Council of Economic Advisers. (December, 2014). The
Economics of Early Childhood Investments. Washington, DC: Authors.
\196\ Reynolds, A.J., Temple, J.A., Robertson, D.L., Mann, E.A.
(2002). Age 21 Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Title I Chicago Child-
Parent Centers. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 24(4),
267-303.
\197\ Yoshikawa, H., Weiland, C., Brooks-Gunn, J., Burchinal,
M., . . . Zaslow, M. (2013). Investing in our future: The evidence
base on preschool education. Foundation for Child Development.
\198\ Heckman, J.J., Moon, S.H., Pinto, R., Savelyev, P.A., &
Yavitz, A. (2010). The rate of return to the HighScope Perry
Preschool Program. Journal of Public Economics, 94, 114-128.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 61401]]
Taken together, this research suggests that participation in early
learning programs can help support optimal child development,
particularly for children from low-income families, with benefits for
society lasting well into adulthood. However, early learning programs
must be sufficiently high quality to reap these benefits. The
congressionally mandated, randomized control trial study of Head
Start's impact did not show lasting effects on the outcomes measured
beyond the end of the Head Start program years.\199\ However, recent
reanalysis of data from the Head Start Impact Study suggests that those
programs that were high-quality had greater effects on children,
providing further confidence in the benefits of participation in high-
quality Head Start programs.\200\ In addition, based on monitoring
data, including Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS), and
findings from FACES and the Head Start Impact Study, we also know that
there is significant variance in quality among Head Start
programs.201 202 203 Further, longer program duration may
allow more Head Start parents to work, which would have benefits to
Head Start children and to society.204 205 In order for Head
Start to achieve its mission to be an effective tool in supporting
children's success in kindergarten and beyond, and for society to reap
the full benefits of this investment, every Head Start program is
providing high quality services that will promote strong and lasting
child outcomes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\199\ Puma, M., Bell, S., Cook, R., Heid, C., Broene, P.,
Jenkins, F., & Downer, J. (2012). Third grade follow-up to the Head
Start impact study final report. US Department of Health and Human
Services Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation.
\200\ Walters, C. (2014). Inputs in the production of early
childhood human capital: Evidence from Head Start. Working paper.
https://eml.berkeley.edu/~crwalters/papers/HS_2_2014.pdf
\201\ Office of Head Start (2014). A National Overview of
Grantee CLASS(TM) Scores in 2013. Washington, DC: Office of Head
Start, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services.
\202\ Aikens, N., Kopack Klein, A., Tarullo, L., & J. West.
(2013). Getting Ready for Kindergarten: Children's Progress During
Head Start. FACES 2009 Report. OPRE Report 2013-21a. Washington, DC:
Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for
Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
\203\ Puma, M., Bell, S., Cook, R., Heid, C., Broene, P.,
Jenkins, F., & Downer, J. (2012). Third grade follow-up to the Head
Start impact study final report. US Department of Health and Human
Services Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation.
\204\ Huston, A.C., Duncan, G.J., McLoyd, V.C., Crosby, D.A.,
Ripke, M.N., Weisner, T.S., & Eldred, C.A. (2005). Impacts on
children of a policy to promote employment and reduce poverty for
low-income parents: new hope after 5 years. Developmental
psychology, 41(6), 902.
\205\ Huston, A.C., Duncan, G.J., Granger, R., Bos, J., McLoyd,
V., Mistry, R., . . . & Ventura, A. (2001). Work-based antipoverty
programs for parents can enhance the school performance and social
behavior of children. Child Development, 318-336.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Review of Research on Early Education Duration
The Secretary's Advisory Committee recommended Head Start look to
``optimize dosage,'' and our new requirements will ensure Head Start
programs become more aligned with state pre-kindergarten programs that
have shown strong effects over time.206 207 For example,
North Carolina pre-kindergarten, which is offered to lower income
families and operates 6.5 hours per day and 180 days per year,
demonstrates strong effects. Children who attend the program make gains
in language, literacy, math, general knowledge and social skills. At
the end of 3rd grade, children from low-income families who had
attended state pre-kindergarten scored higher on math assessments than
children from low income families who did not attend. Moreover,
children who are dual language learners make gains at even faster rates
than other children.\208\ New Jersey's state pre-kindergarten, which
operates between 6-10 hours per day and 180-245 days per year shows
significant impacts for child learning. Children who attend New Jersey
pre-kindergarten show improvements in language, print awareness, and
math at kindergarten entry, 1st grade, and 2nd grade. Gains still exist
in language arts, literacy, math, and science at 4th and 5th grade.
They also show a 40 percent decrease in grade retention and a 31
percent decrease in special education placement.\209\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\206\ Weiland, C., & Yoshikawa, H. (2013). Impacts of a
prekindergarten program on children's mathematics, language,
literacy, executive function, and emotional skills. Child
Development, 84, 2112-2130.
\207\ Barnett, W.S., Jung, K., Youn, M.J., and Frede, E.C.
(2013). Abbott Preschool Program Longitudinal Effects Study: Fifth
Grade Follow-Up. National Institute for Early Education Research
Rutgers--The State University of New Jersey.
\208\ Peisner-Feinberg, E.S., Schaaf, J.M., LaForett, D. R.,
Hildebrandt, L.M., & Sideris, J. (2014). Effects of Georgia's Pre-K
Program on children's school readiness skills: Findings from the
2012-2013 evaluation study. Chapel Hill: The University of North
Carolina, FPG Child Development Institute.
\209\ Barnett, W.S., Jung, K., Youn, M.J., and Frede, E.C.
(2013). Abbott Preschool Program Longitudinal Effects Study: Fifth
Grade Follow-Up. National Institute for Early Education Research
Rutgers--The State University of New Jersey.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other states with service duration consistent with our minimum
annual hours find strong results for children. For example, Georgia
pre-kindergarten, which operates 6.5 hours per day and typically runs
180 days per year, finds medium to large effects on children's
language, literacy, and math skills at kindergarten entry.\210\ Tulsa
pre-kindergarten also shows strong effects for children in language and
math skills. This program operates 180 days per year and is mainly a
full-day program for low-income children. There is some evidence that
full-day attendance in Tulsa supports better outcomes for low income
and minority children.\211\ Boston pre-kindergarten, which also
operates for a full school day and school year, demonstrates large
effects on children's language and math skills.\212\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\210\ Peisner-Feinberg, E. S., Schaaf, J.M., LaForett, D. R.,
Hildebrandt, L.M., & Sideris, J. (2014). Effects of Georgia's Pre-K
Program on children's school readiness skills: Findings from the
2012-2013 evaluation study. Chapel Hill: The University of North
Carolina, FPG Child Development Institute.
\211\ Gormley, G.T., Gayer, T., Phillips, D., & Dawson, B.
(2005). The effects of universal pre-k on cognitive development.
Developmental Psychology, 4(6), 872-884.
\212\ Weiland, C., & Yoshikawa, H. (2013). Impacts of a
prekindergarten program on children's mathematics, language,
literacy, executive function, and emotional skills. Child
Development, 84, 2112-2130.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only a small amount of research with young children has been able
to isolate the impact of service duration on child learning, but what
does exist links increasing the length of the program day and program
year to improved children's outcomes. For example, a randomized control
study in which one group of children attended pre-kindergarten for 8
hours per day for 45 weeks and another group of children attended the
same program for 2.5-3 hours per day for 41 weeks found that by the
spring of kindergarten, the children who had attended full-day pre-
kindergarten had improved almost twice as much on vocabulary and math
skills compared to the children who attended half day.\213\ Research
with children in child care settings found 30 hours of participation
each week to be necessary for low and middle income children to see
stronger learning outcomes.\214\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\213\ Robin, K.B., Frede, E.C., Barnett, W.S. (2006). Is More
Better? The Effects of Full-Day vs. Half-Day Preschool on Early
School Achievement. NIEER Working Paper.
\214\ Loeb, S., Bridges, M., Bassok, D., Fuller, B., Rumberger,
R., (2005). How much is too much? The influence of preschool centers
on children's social and cognitive development. Working paper.
National Bureau Of Economic Research.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, research on effective teaching practices for children at
risk of school difficulties also support the need for full-day
operation. A meta-analysis of pre-kindergarten programs found that
those that focused on intentional teaching and small group and one-to-
one interactions had larger impacts on
[[Page 61402]]
child outcomes.\215\ It is very difficult for a half-day program to
provide sufficient time for teachers to conduct learning activities and
intentional instruction in small group and one-on-one interactions in
the areas of skill development experts believe are important to later
school success.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\215\ Camilli, G., Vargas, S., Ryan, S., & Barnett, W.S. (2010).
Meta-analysis of the effects of early education interventions on
cognitive and social development. Teachers College Record, 112(3),
579-620.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Researchers believe meaningful skill development in language,
literacy, and math requires intentional, frequent, and specific methods
of instruction and teacher-child interactions. These types of
interactions are often complex, require a variety of types of
interactions and intensities, and for many children in Head Start, need
to be conducted in small groups to allow sufficient individualized
scaffolding and skill development.\216\ Experts believe math curriculum
and instruction must support development of broad and deep mathematical
thinking and knowledge, including development of abstract thought and
reasoning.\217\ Targeted instruction and small group activities are
teaching practices that are particularly important to include for
supporting the learning of children who are behind.218 219
Language and literacy experts believe teachers must take an active role
in supporting language and literacy development for children at risk of
reading difficulties. That requires systematic and explicit instruction
to foster vocabulary breadth and depth. Research with toddlers and
preschool age children also finds that greater exposure to rich
vocabulary enrichment allows for better scaffolding that can lead to
improved language and literacy.220 221 As such, experts
recommend in addition to integration into group learning and free play,
language and literacy instruction should be explicitly structured and
sequenced in 15-20 minutes small group session at least three times per
week.\222\ Math experts have similar time estimates for supporting
adequate high quality learning experiences.223 224
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\216\ Justice, L.M., Mcginty, A., Cabell, S.Q., Kilday, C.R.,
Knighton, K., & Huffman, G. (2010). Language and literacy curriculum
supplement for preschoolers who are academically at risk: A
feasibility study. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in
Schools, 41, 161-178.
\217\ Ginsburg, H.P., Ertle, B., & Presser, A.L. (2014). Math
curriculum and instruction for young children. Chapter 16 in
Handbook of Response to Intervention in Early Childhood, Buysee, V.,
& Peisner-Feinberg, E. (Eds.). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes
Publishing.
\218\ Buysse, V., Peisner-Feinber, E.S., Saikakou, E., &
LaForett, D.R. (2014). Recognition & response: A model of response
to Intervention to promote academic learning in early education.
Chapter 5 in Handbook of Response to Intervention in Early
Childhood, Buysee, V., & Peisner-Feinberg, E. (Eds.). Baltimore:
Paul H. Brookes Publishing.
\219\ Justice, L.M., McGinty, A., Cabell, S.Q., Kilday, C.R.,
Knighton, K., & Huffman, G. (2010). Language and literacy curriculum
supplement for preschoolers who are academically at risk: A
feasibility study. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in
Schools, 41, 161-178.
\220\ Harris, Golinkoff, & Hirsh-Pasell (2011). Lessons for the
Crib for the Classroom: How Children Really Learn Vocabulary. In
Handbook of Early Literacy Research, Vol 3. Ed by D. Dickinson and
S. Neuman (NY: Guilford). 49-65.
\221\ Dickinson, D.K., Flushman, T.R., & Freiberg, J.B. (2009).
Learning, reading, and classroom supports: Where we are and where we
need to be going. In B. Richards, M.H. Daller, D.D. Malvern, P.
Meara, J. Milton, & Trefers-Daller (Eds.). Vocabulary Studies in
First and Second Language Acquisition: The Interface Between Theory
and Application. (pp. 23-38). Hampshire, England: Palgrave-McMillan.
\222\ Curenton, S.M., Justice, L.M., Zucker, T.A., & McGinty,
A.S. (2014). Language and literacy curriculum and instruction.
Chapter 15 in in Handbook of Response to Intervention in Early
Childhood, Buysee, V., & Peisner-Feinberg, E. (Eds.). Baltimore:
Paul H. Brookes Publishing.
\223\ Clements, D.H., Sarama, J., Wolfe, C.B., & Spitler, M.E.
(2012). Longitudinal evaluation of a scale-up model for teaching
mathematics with trajectories and technologies: persistence of
effects in the third. American Educational Research Journal.
\224\ Clements, D.H., & Sarama, J., (2008). Experimental
evaluation of the effects of a research-based preschool mathematics
curriculum. American Educational Research Journal, 45(2), 443-494.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research on summer learning loss demonstrates the importance of
extending the minimum days of operation in Head Start. Research on
reading skills found high-income students gained skills over summer
break, middle-income students maintained their skill level, and
children from lower income families lost skills.\225\ Experts conclude
the average student loses one month worth of skills and development
over the summer break.\226\ The amount of learning loss is even greater
for children from low income families who may not have as much access
to educational resources and experiences during the summer and who are
already behind their more advantaged peers and need extra time to learn
skills and strengthen development.227 228 229 230 231 This
pattern is also true for the youngest children in elementary school.
Analysis of the ECLS finds that children from families with higher
incomes learn more over the summer between kindergarten and 1st grade
than do children from families with lower incomes.\232\ In fact,
researchers believe the effects of summer learning loss for children
from low-income families is cumulative and that the disparity in summer
gains and losses over the first four summers of elementary school is
greater than the differential between children from high and low income
families at school entry.\233\ Experts also conclude summer learning
loss in elementary school predicts poor academic achievement in high
school.\234\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\225\ Benson, J., & Borman, G.D. (2010). Family, Neighborhood,
and School Settings Across Seasons: When Do Socioeconomic Context
and Racial Composition Matter for the Reading Achievement Growth of
Young Children? Teacher's College Record, 112(5), 1338-1390.
\226\ Sloan McCombs, J. et al., (2011). Making Summer Count. How
Summer Programs Can Boost Children's Learning. Santa Monica, Calif.:
RAND Corporation.
\227\ Alexander, K.L., Entwisle D.R., & Olson L.S. (2007).
Lasting consequences of the summer learning gap. American
Sociological Review, 72, 167-180.
\228\ Ibid.
\229\ Sloan McCombs, J. et al., (2011). Making Summer Count. How
Summer Programs Can Boost Children's Learning. Santa Monica, Calif.:
RAND Corporation.
\230\ Allington, R.L. & McGill-Franzen, A. (2003). The Impact of
Summer Setback on the Reading Achievement Gap. The Phi Delta Kappan,
85(1), 68-75.
\231\ Fairchild, R. & Noam, G. (Eds.) (2007). Summertime:
Confronting Risks, Exploring Solutions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/
Wiley.
\232\ Burkam, D.T., Ready, D.D., Lee, V.E. & LoGerfo, L.F.
(2004). Social-Class Differences in Summer Learning Between
Kindergarten and First Grade: Model Specification and Estimation.
Sociology of Education, 77, 1-3
\233\ Alexander, K.L., Entwisle D.R., & Olson L.S. (2007).
Lasting consequences of the summer learning gap. American
Sociological Review, 72, 167-180.
\234\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research on attendance also finds exposure to additional learning
time is important for skill development.235 236 Research
with elementary school children has shown an increase in school
attendance predicted improved reading scores.\237\ A recent study of
preschool attendance in Chicago found that even when accounting for
children's skill level at the beginning of preschool, attendance
predicted better academic outcomes at the end of preschool and beyond
and that attendance was most beneficial for children starting preschool
with the lowest skills. Children who missed more preschool had lower
math, letter recognition, and social-emotional skills and were also
rated as lower on work habits by their teachers.\238\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\235\ Logan, J.A.R., Piasta, S.B., Justice, L.M.,
Schatschneider, C., & Petrill, S. (2011). Children's Attendance
Rates and Quality of Teacher-Child Interactions in At-Risk Preschool
Classrooms: Contribution to Children's Expressive Language Growth.
Child & Youth Forum 40(6), 457-477.
\236\ Hubbs-Tait, L., McDonald Culp, A., Huey E., Culp, R.,
Starost, H., & Hare, C. (2002). Relation of Head Start attendance to
children's cognitive and social outcomes: moderation by family risk.
Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 17, 539-558.
\237\ Lamdin, D.J. (1996). Evidence of student attendance as an
independent variable in education production functions. Journal of
Educational Research, 89(3), 155-162.
\238\ Ehrlich, S.B., Gwynne, J.A. . . . Sorice, E. (2014).
Preschool Attendance in Chicago Public Schools: Relationships with
Learning Outcomes and Reasons for Absences. University of Chicago
Consortium on Chicago School Research. Research Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 61403]]
In sum, providing high-quality early education is not a simple
task. Standards must be high to create learning environments that allow
teachers to facilitate effective early learning experiences and support
must be provided that continuously builds teachers' skills and
knowledge. Taken together this research clearly indicates previous Head
Start minimums for program operations are inadequate to achieve the
results researchers and economists have shown are possible. Although
the evidence does not point to a particular threshold for the length of
the day or length of the year that is necessary to ensure positive
child outcomes, the research is clear that children will benefit from
more exposure to early learning experiences than our previous minimums
provide.
Costs and Benefits to Society
It is our expectation that this rule will be implemented with
sufficient funds to avoid slot loss resulting from costs associated
with this rule. In FY 2016, Congress appropriated $294 million
specifically to increase service duration for Early Head Start and Head
Start programs, which cover some of the costs of the duration
requirements in this final rule. The President's FY 2017 Budget
includes a request for an additional $292 million. Collectively these
funds would allow all programs to increase service duration so that at
least 50 percent of their Head Start center-based slots and 100 percent
of their Early Head Start center-based slots would meet the respective
new minimums of 1,020 and 1,380 annual hours by August 1, 2018, as
required in this rule. Congress would need to appropriate additional
funds to support the full implementation of the Head Start center-based
service duration requirement by February 1, 2020, the date by which the
Secretary will decide whether to lower the percentage of slots required
to increase duration based on an assessment of the availability of
sufficient appropriations to mitigate substantial slot loss. If fully
funded, this rule would result in a significant increase in the quality
of Head Start and the associated benefits of Head Start participation
for all children. Ample research, also discussed above, demonstrates
the potential for early education programs to produce large returns on
investment to society through benefits associated with short and long
term effects on children's math, reading and behavior skills; reduced
grade retention, teen pregnancy, need for special education services,
crime, and delinquency; and increased lifetime
earnings.239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250
This research, coupled with research indicating the importance of
adequate duration in early learning programs, would suggest that
extending program duration and increasing program quality will result
in additional benefits for any child enrolled in a Head Start program
that does not already meet or exceed the bar set for program quality in
this rule. The relative size of these additional benefits will likely
vary from program to program and it is not possible for this analysis
to quantify the precise benefit. Additionally, if the rule is fully
implemented with adequate funding, there may be benefits associated
with additional teacher jobs, higher staff salaries, and increased
support for parental work. Finally, this rule increases clarity of Head
Start requirements which should lead to greater compliance, which
should in turn, result in improved child safety and stronger child and
family outcomes. However, it is also not possible for this analysis to
quantify these benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\239\ Aikens, N., Kopack Klein, A., Tarullo, L., & West, J.
(2013). Getting Ready for Kindergarten: Children's Progress During
Head Start. FACES 2009 Report. OPRE Report 2013-21a. Washington, DC:
Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for
Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
\240\ Schweinhart, L.J., Montie, J., Xiang, Z., Barnett, W.S.,
Belfield, C.R., & Nores, M. (2005). Lifetime effects: The HighScope
Perry Preschool study through age 40. Ypsilanti, MI: HighScope
Press.
\241\ Barnett, W.S., & Hustedt, J.T. (2005). Head start's
lasting benefits. Infants & Young Children, 18(1), 16-24.
\242\ Yoshikawa, H., Weiland, C., Brooks-Gunn, J., Burchinal,
M., Zaslow, M. (2013). Investing in our future: The evidence base on
preschool education. Foundation for Child Development. New York, NY.
\243\ Camilli, G., Vargas, S., Ryan, S., & Barnett, W.S. (2010).
Meta-analysis of the effects of early education interventions on
cognitive and social development. The Teachers College Record, 112,
579-620.
\244\ Wong, V.C., Cook, T.D., Barnett, W.S., & Jung, K. (2008).
An effectiveness-based evaluation of five state prekindergarten
programs. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 27, 122-154.
\245\ Reynolds, A.J. (2000). Success in early intervention: The
Chicago Child-Parent Centers. Lincoln, Nebraska: University of
Nebraska Press.
\246\ Schweinhart, L.J., Montie, J., Xiang, Z., Barnett, W.S.,
Belfield, C.R., & Nores, M. (2005). Lifetime effects: The HighScope
Perry Preschool study through age 40. Ypsilanti, MI: HighScope
Press.
\247\ Gormley, W., Gayer, T., Phillips, D.A., & Dawson, B.
(2005). The effects of universal Pre-K on cognitive development.
Developmental Psychology, 41, 872-884.
Campbell, F.A., Ramey, C.T., Pungello, E., Sparling, J., &
Miller-Johnson, S. (2002). Early childhood education: Young adult
outcomes from the Abecedarian project. Applied Developmental
Science, 6, 42-57.
\248\ Weiland, C., & Yoshikawa, H. (2013). Impacts of a
prekindergarten program on children's mathematics, language,
literacy, executive function, and emotional skills. Child
Development, 84, 2112-2130.
\249\ Peisner-Feinberg, E.S., Schaaf, J.M., LaForett, D.R.,
Hildebrandt, L.M., & Sideris, J. (2014). Effects of Georgia's
Pre[hyphen]K Program on children's school readiness skills: Findings
from the 2012-2013 evaluation study. Chapel Hill: The University of
North Carolina, FPG Child Development Institute.
\250\ The Council of Economic Advisers. (December, 2014). The
Economics of Early Childhood Investments. Washington, DC: Authors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the Secretary exercises this authority, the final rule would
result in a smaller benefit to society than the fully funded rule,
because fewer children would benefit from greater exposure to high-
quality early learning experiences. However, if the Secretary does not
exercise this authority, this rule could result in a decrease of as
many as 123,000 slots, depending upon appropriations and whether
programs are able to absorb any costs of the rule within their current
operating budgets. This slot loss has costs to society because fewer
children will have access to Head Start in the future; although these
costs have been estimated in preceding portions of this regulatory
impact analysis, the quantification does not account for the relative
size of these potential costs, which likely vary from program to
program and from child to child (perhaps most notably in the form of
diminishing returns to Head Start exposure). Additionally, if the rule
is fully implemented without adequate funding, there may be costs
associated with job loss, however it is not possible for this analysis
to quantify them.
Further, this cost to society may be mitigated by the availability
of other early learning programs, given findings from the Head Start
Impact Study that indicate a wide range of early childhood education
utilization among children who do not have access to Head Start.\251\
In this case, determining how the loss of slots impacts society depends
on how benefits differ between Head Start and the alternative early
childhood education programs. Among children whose future Head Start
slots are eliminated, children who enroll in alternative early
childhood education programs of similar quality would not experience a
loss of benefits, while children who enroll in programs of lower
quality or no program at all would experience lost benefits. To be
sure, quality and affordable early learning programs for poor families
are limited and there is significant unmet need. A
[[Page 61404]]
reduction in Head Start slots may is unlikely to not be fully absorbed
by other programs given that other early learning programs are not
universally available to all children and these programs only currently
serve a fraction of the eligible population. The total benefit to
society of the rule would depend upon the relative size of the benefits
to children who receive greater exposure to high-quality early learning
experiences compared to the lost benefits for children who no longer
have access to Head Start.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\251\ Puma, M., Bell, S., Cook, R., Heid, C., Broene, P.,
Jenkins, F., & Downer, J. (2012). Third grade follow-up to the Head
Start impact study final report. US Department of Health and Human
Services Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Continuing to operate under widely varying minimums for program
duration, in the face of the mounting evidence provided here, limits
Head Start's overall effectiveness and undermines Head Start's mission.
This rule is designed to ensure every child in Head Start receives the
highest quality program. The requirements to extend program duration
are inextricably linked to reaping the full range of benefits that
researchers and economists have demonstrated are possible.
Implications of Congressional and Secretarial Actions
The costs of this rule vary over the next ten years of
implementation based upon compliance dates and staff turnover. In FY
2016, Congress appropriated $294 million to pay for programs to
increase service duration. As a result and as explained throughout this
analysis, the costs associated with increasing the service duration
requirements in this rule are reduced. Further, the President's FY 2017
Budget requests an additional $292 million to further support quality
improvements. If Congress provides additional resources in FY 2017 and
beyond, the costs associated with this rule would be borne, in part or
whole, by the federal government rather than by Head Start programs. In
this scenario, there may not be any slot loss associated with the
requirements in this rule. Rather, the full additional potential
benefits of higher quality services would be realized for all children
who attend Head Start.
In the table below, we have estimated the amounts Congress would
need to appropriate in order to support the full implementation of the
requirements to increase Head Start center-based program duration. Note
that we have assumed Early Head Start center-based duration will be
fully funded using the FY 2016 appropriation for expansion of program
duration. In order to capture the full cost of the Head Start center-
based requirements over time, we have adjusted the necessary funding
levels to account for cost of living increases as forecasted in the OMB
Economic Assumptions for MSR. As the table demonstrates, in order to
fully support the requirements to increase program duration, Congress
would need to appropriate $264 million in FY 2018 or earlier to support
the 50% requirement and an additional $711 million in FY 2020 or
earlier to support the 100% requirement.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation
Cost of policy needed, Additional
(less the FY16 adjusted for appropriation,
Secretarial appropriation), COLAs (in adjusted for
Appropriation year Effective date determination date before addition to COLAs (if $264
adjustment for FY16 received by
COLAs (million) appropriation) FY2018)
(million) (million)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
50% Requirement for HS CB programs Fiscal Year 2018..... August 1, 2019....... February 1, 2018..... $245 $264 ..............
100% Requirement for HS CB Fiscal Year 2020..... August 1, 2021....... February 1, 2020..... 866 975 $711
programs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If Congress does not appropriate adequate funds, Sec.
1302.21(c)(3) of the final rule gives the Secretary the authority to
reduce the requirements for service duration based on an assessment of
what available funds can support. In this scenario, as in the scenario
where adequate funds are appropriated, there would be no slot or
teacher job loss associated with the duration requirements in this
rule.
However, if the Secretary does not exercise this authority, the
duration requirements in this rule could result in a decrease of as
many as 107,762 slots slots (full estimate described below), depending
upon appropriations and whether programs are able to absorb any costs
of the rule within their current operating budgets. This slot loss has
costs to society because fewer children will have access to Head Start
in the future. The total benefit to society of the rule would depend
upon the relative size of the benefits to children who receive greater
exposure to high-quality early learning experiences compared to the
lost benefits for children who no longer have access to Head Start.
Both Congressional and Secretarial decisions have important
implications for the number of children served by the program and the
characteristics of the program.
Although we are unable to quantify the associated costs and
benefits that would arise from these implementation scenarios, it is
important to keep these factors in mind as we consider both the
societal costs and savings and the cost-benefit analysis of this final
rule.
Potential Slot Loss
In order to estimate slot loss as programs adjust their budgets in
the absence of additional funding, we first determined the proportion
of current funded enrollment that are Head Start slots (83.8 percent)
and Early Head Start slots (16.2 percent), respectively. We then
applied this proportion to the total monetary cost associated with this
rule, in each out-year, in FY 2016 dollars, and divided the cost that
would be borne in Head Start slots by the average cost per slot for
Head Start in FY 2015 ($8,035) and the cost that will be borne in Early
Head Start by the average cost per slot for Early Head Start in FY 2015
($12,189), which is inclusive of the cost per child for Early Head
Start-Child Care Partnerships. We use FY 2015 average costs because it
is the most recent year for which we have final data. In this case, we
did not inflate the Head Start cost per child to incorporate teacher
salary increases or additional service hours because we believe the
current cost per child is the best indicator for the number of slots
programs would need to cut to absorb new costs. We also assumed that
the additional $294 million appropriated in FY 2016 will fully fund
Early Head Start duration ($30,878,060) and support some proportion of
all Head Start grantees slots serving children for 1,020 hours.
Without additional funding, the net costs of this rule borne by
Head Start, if fully implemented could be
[[Page 61405]]
associated with a reduction in slots (number of children served) of as
many as 123,614 by year ten. However, it is important to note that we
believe these are overestimates of the actual potential slot loss,
because many of the costs estimated in this section, aside from the
increases in duration, represent changes in how programs will use
existing funds rather than additional new costs that would result in
slot loss. As stated earlier, this slot loss would not occur if the
Secretary exercises discretion provided in the rule to reduce the
duration requirements or if sufficient appropriations are provided by
Congress to support the policy. This would also be an overestimate if
Congress appropriates additional funds to support the full
implementation of this rule or if the Secretary exercises the authority
to reduce the service duration requirements.
The table below describes the share of costs in years one through
ten borne by Head Start and Early Head Start programs and the potential
slot loss associated with those costs in each year. Costs vary by year
based upon effective dates of individual provisions and whether those
costs are one-time or ongoing.
Potential Slot Loss
[If Congress does not appropriate sufficient funding in future years and the Secretary does not use the
discretion provided in the Final Rule to lower the duration requirements]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 1 2016/ Year 2 2017/ Year 3 2018/ Year 4 2019/ Year 5 2020/
2017 * 2018 * 2019 * 2020 * 2021 *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Share of Costs, Including FY 2016 Funding Appropriated for Duration Increases
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HS.............................. $0 $105,964,210 $188,593,130 $350,403,218 $455,190,660
EHS............................. 0 28,673,236 44,646,846 28,503,144 48,760,382
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Potential Slot Loss
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HS.............................. 0 13,188 23,471 43,610 56,651
EHS............................. 0 2,352 3,663 2,338 4,000
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................... 0 15,540 27,134 45,948 60,651
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 6 2021/ Year 7 2022/ Year 8 2023/ Year 9 2024/ Year 10 2025/
2022 * 2023 * 2024 * 2025 * 2026 *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Share of Costs Including FY 2016 Funding Appropriated for Duration Increases
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HS.............................. $971,741,327 $972,486,346 $973,835,238 $974,263,621 $974,050,651
EHS............................. 28,655,562 28,799,587 29,060,351 29,143,165 29,101,994
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Potential Slot Loss
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HS.............................. 120,939 121,031 121,199 121,252 121,226
EHS............................. 2,351 2,363 2,384 2,391 2,388
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................... 123,289 123,394 123,583 123,643 123,614
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Year ranges refer Head Start program years, which for these estimates, begin on August 1st of each year and
end on or before July 31st.
** The costs and slot loss estimates in this table take into account the $294 million appropriated for increased
duration, and assume that this funding is applied beginning in Year 3 for Early Head Start and Year 4 for Head
Start, when the initial duration requirement would be effective, and is maintained throughout the ten year
window. This table also assumes that the share of HS and EHS slots is stable over time.
Potential Education Staff Job Loss
In order to estimate the total potential number of education staff
jobs that may be lost if a slot reduction occurs as a result of full
policy implementation without additional funding, we first reduced the
costs of the rule borne by Head Start by the cost of eliminating the
option for double sessions for Head Start and Early Head Start. Double
session programs typically have the same teacher operate a morning and
afternoon session with different groups of children. Therefore, we
assume double session teachers would not lose their jobs, even if fewer
children are served in those programs because they would teach one
group of children for a longer session. We also assumed that the
additional $294 million appropriated in FY 2016 will fully fund Early
Head Start center-based duration increase (estimated at $30,878,060).
To determine the costs borne by Head Start (not including duration)
that may be associated with education staff job loss for Early Head
Start, we subtracted center-based duration costs from the total costs
borne by Early Head Start programs ($59,980,054), which is $29,101,994.
In order to estimate the education staff job loss for Head Start
that would be associated with costs borne by Head Start programs, we
assumed that an equal distribution of double session and non-double
session Head Start center-based slots will be increased using
supplemental duration funds out of the FY 2016 appropriation of $294
million which will support all grantees providing 1,020 hours for at
least one-third of their slots. Based on this assumption, we divided
the $263,121,940 appropriated in FY 2016 for duration (less the cost of
the Early Head Start center-based duration increase) by two, which is
$131,560,970. We then subtracted the $131,560,970 from the non-double
session Head Start share of the total costs ($652,809,539) to find the
cost of non-double session slots not supported by FY 2016
appropriations, which is $521,248,569. Then, we divided the
$521,248,569 for Head Start by the average cost per child for Head
Start, or $8,035, and the non-duration costs for Early Head Start
($29,101,994) by the average cost per slot for Early Head Start, or
$12,189, to find the number of slots in Head Start (64,872) and Early
Head Start (2,388) associated with these costs.
[[Page 61406]]
Then, to account for education staff to child ratios and caseloads
that differ by the program option and the age of the child, we applied
current percentages from the Program Information Report (PIR) for the
proportion of Head Start slots that are center-based, home-based, and
other program options (including family child care, locally designed,
and combination programs), which are 96 percent, 2.2 percent, and 1.8
percent respectively. These proportions result in 62,277 Head Start
center-based slots, 1,427 home-based, and 1,168 other program option
slots, assuming programs would reduce center-based, home-based, and
other program options proportionately in the face of insufficient
funds. Finally, we applied the proportion of three- versus four- year
olds in Head Start from the PIR to find 27,679 three-year-old and
34,599 four-year old center-based slots.
We also applied the proportion of Early Head Start slots that are
center-based, home-based/pregnant women, and other program options
(including family child care, locally designed, and combination
programs), 47 percent, 48 percent, and 5 percent respectively, to
calculate that there would be 1,122 Early Head Start center-based
slots, 1,146 home-based/pregnant women slots, and 119 other program
option slots, assuming programs would reduce center-based, home-based/
pregnant women, and other program options proportionately in the face
of insufficient funds. Finally, we applied the appropriate education
staff to child ratios and caseloads for center-based program options by
age, home-based, other program options to determine the total number of
Head Start and Early Head Start education staff jobs that would
potentially be lost.
If fully implemented without additional funding, this rule could
result in a reduction of as many as 7,372 education staff jobs by year
ten.
4. Accounting Statement--Table of Quantified Costs, and Transfers
As required by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular
A-4, we have prepared an accounting statement table showing the
classification of the impacts associated with implementation of this
final rule. We decided to use a 10-year window for this regulatory
impact analysis. As required by OMB, we discount costs at 3 percent and
7 percent and have included total present value as well as annualized
value of these estimates in our analyses below.
We also include costs borne by other parties, opportunity costs and
cost transfer, separate from costs borne by Head Start, here, because
they impact the total cost to society of the rule.
Summary of Costs and Discounting
[In millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 1 2016/ Year 2 2017/ Year 3 2018/ Year 4 2019/ Year 5 2020/
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs Borne by Head Start, $(46) $135 $264 $673 $798
excluding duration funding
appropriated beginning in FY
2016...........................
Net Costs Borne by Head Start, (46) 135 264 379 504
including duration funding
appropriated beginning in FY
2016...........................
Costs Borne by Other Parties.... 42 45 44 44 45
Opportunity Costs............... 0.5 4 4 4 4
Costs to Society (Undiscounted), (3) 183 312 721 847
excluding duration funding
appropriated beginning in FY
2016...........................
3% Discount..................... (3) 178 294 660 752
7% Discount..................... (3) 171 272 589 646
Costs to Society (Undiscounted), (3) 183 312 427 553
including duration funding
appropriated beginning in FY
2016...........................
3% Discount..................... (3) 178 294 391 491
7% Discount..................... (3) 171 272 349 422
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 6 2021/ Year 7 2022/ Year 8 2023/ Year 9 2024/ Year 10 2025/
2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs Borne by Head Start, $1,294 $1,295 $1,297 $1,297 $1,297
excluding duration funding
appropriated beginning in FY
2016...........................
Net Costs Borne by Head Start, 1,000 1,001 1,003 1,003 1,003
including duration funding
appropriated beginning in FY
2016...........................
Costs Borne by Other Parties.... 45 46 46 47 46
Opportunity Costs............... 4 4 4 4 4
Cost to Society (Undiscounted), 1,344 1,345 1,347 1,348 1,348
excluding duration funding
appropriated beginning in FY
2016...........................
3% Discount..................... 1,159 1,126 1,095 1,064 1,033
7% Discount..................... 958 896 839 784 733
Costs to Society (Undiscounted), 1,050 1,051 1,053 1,053 1,053
including duration funding
appropriated beginning in FY
2016...........................
3% Discount..................... 905 880 856 832 808
7% Discount..................... 748 700 656 613 573
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Year ranges refer Head Start program years, which for these estimates, begin on August 1st of each year and
end on or before July 31st.
** Note these costs do not include the potential lost benefits of children who may no longer have access to Head
Start or the impact on children who attend other early education programs.
In total, we estimate the 10-year present value of the costs
associated with new requirements in this final rule to be $7,358
million when discounted at 3 percent, and $5,886 million when
discounted at 7 percent before accounting for the $294 million in
funding Congress has provided in FY 2016 to expand duration. We
estimate
[[Page 61407]]
the annualized costs of new requirements in this final rule to be $838
million when discounted at 3 percent, and $783 million when discounted
at 7 percent before accounting for the $294 million in funding Congress
has provided in FY 2016 to expand duration. As noted, Congress
appropriated $294 million in FY 2016 to increase the duration of Early
Head Start and Head Start programs. Thus, a substantial share of the
costs in this rule will be absorbed by this funding. Accounting for the
funding Congress has already provided in FY 2016 to increase duration,
we estimate the 10-year present value of the costs to be $5,632 million
when discounted at 3 percent, and $4,502 when discounted at 7 percent.
The annualized costs of new requirements in this final rule, when
taking into these amounts already appropriated for duration, would be
$641 million when discounted at 3 percent and $599 million when
discounted at 7 percent.
Costs to Society Discounted and Annualized
[In millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized (years 1-10) 10 year total
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discounted 3% Discounted 7% Discounted 3% Discounted 7%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost to Society, excluding duration funding $838 $783 $7,358 $5,886
appropriated beginning in FY 2016..............
Cost to Society, including duration funding 641 599 5,632 4,502
appropriated beginning in FY 2016..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Distributional Effects
As part of our regulatory analysis, we considered whether the final
rule will disproportionately benefit or harm a particular
subpopulation. If adequate funds are not appropriated, the final rule
has the potential to result in a reduction in the number of children
being served by Head Start and an improvement in quality for the much
larger group of low-income children who continue to participate. We do
not expect the children who may lose access to Head Start if the
funding is not provided to be systematically different in terms of
meaningful subpopulations from the children who will be receiving
greater benefits from higher quality services. We also acknowledge that
if adequate funds are not appropriated, as many as 7,372 teachers,
assistant teachers, and home visitors could no longer be employed.
Again, while these teachers would be economically harmed, the remaining
110,933 teachers, assistant teachers, and home visitors whose
employment is not terminated, should receive pay increases because of
working longer hours and longer program years. We do not expect the
teachers who are no longer employed to be systematically different in
terms of meaningful subpopulations from the teachers who will see
increased pay because of this rule.
We also considered whether there would be a differential impact of
the final rule, specifically the requirements to increase duration, on
either children or teachers based upon geographic location or tribal
affiliation. While we found significant variation at the state level
with regard to the proportion of slots that provide 1,020 annual hours
in Head Start and 1,380 annual hours in Early Head Start, there are no
systematic differences based on the region of the country (e.g., North
vs. South; Midwest vs. West, etc.). Further, if the rule is fully
implemented, some children in every state will benefit from increased
duration. We also found no systematic differences between tribal
programs and non-tribal programs with regard to meeting the new
minimums.
6. Regulatory Alternatives
As part of our full regulatory analysis, we have considered several
regulatory alternatives, which we outline below. Specifically, we have
considered alternatives to the policy changes we have determined to be
our largest cost-drivers: Extension of Head Start center-based program
duration and mentor coaching. We consider alternatives to these policy
changes by analyzing the effect of the net cost in dollars, slots, and
education staff jobs of making no change to the existing rule, as well
as other more costly policy changes. In fact, the requirements in this
rule for Head Start center-based duration represent an alternative to
the requirements proposed in the NPRM. Justifications for the policies
set by this rule are embedded throughout the discussion of comments
received. However, we do provide additional rationale for not opting to
propose or finalize the more costly regulatory alternatives in this
section.
Extension of Head Start Center-Based Program Duration
The rule requires Head Start center-based programs to provide a
minimum of 1,020 annual hours for all children by August 1, 2021, but
gives the Secretary authority to reduce this requirement to mitigate
slot loss from the duration requirements in the event that Congress
does not appropriate adequate funds to support the policy. As described
in great detail above, these requirements will increase the amount of
instructional time in Head Start programs, which research suggests is
critical to reaping the full benefits of the other quality improvements
in the rule.252 253 In our cost analysis, we estimated the
cost of the Head Start center-based duration requirement, if fully
implemented to be $1,128,990,485. Once the expected proportion of the
FY 2016 appropriation to increase program duration in Head Start is
applied, the cost of these requirements is $865,868,544. These
requirements are associated with a potential loss of between 0 and
107,762 slots and between 0 and 5,475 education staff jobs, depending
upon appropriations and Secretarial action. As part of our full
regulatory analysis, we considered three alternatives to this policy
change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\252\ Weiland, C., & Yoshikawa, H. (2013). Impacts of a
prekindergarten program on children's mathematics, language,
literacy, executive function, and emotional skills. Child
Development, 84, 2112-2130.
\253\ Barnett, W.S., Jung, K., Youn, M.J., and Frede, E.C.
(2013). Abbott Preschool Program Longitudinal Effects Study: Fifth
Grade Follow-Up. National Institute for Early Education Research
Rutgers--The State University of New Jersey.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, we considered the alternative of making no change to our
previous minimums, thus eliminating the associated cost of
$865,868,544. Using the methodology enumerated above, making no change
to this policy would be associated with up to 107,762 fewer slots lost
and 5,475 fewer education
[[Page 61408]]
staff no longer employed. However, not making this change would also
prevent the significant predicted increase in impacts on child outcomes
we have described in the Benefits Analysis section. We believe that
strong child outcomes are best fostered through high-quality early
education programs that provide at least a full school day and full
school year of services and that children are best served if Head Start
programs continue to move toward this goal and there is ample research
that points to increased duration in achieving positive child outcomes.
254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 Therefore we
have not included this alternative in the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\254\ Lee, V. E., Burkam, D. T., Ready, D. D., Honigman, J., &
Meisels, S. J. (2006). Full-Day versus Half-Day Kindergarten: In
Which Program Do Children Learn More? American Journal of Education,
112(2), 163-208.
\255\ Walston, J.T., and West, J. (2004). Full-day and Half-day
Kindergarten in the United States: Findings from the Early Childhood
Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 1998-99 (NCES 2004-078).
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
\256\ Sloan McCombs, J. et al., (2011). Making Summer Count. How
Summer Programs Can Boost Children's Learning. Santa Monica, Calif.:
RAND Corporation.
\257\ Downey, D.B., von Hippel, P.T. & Broh, B.A. (2004). Are
Schools the Great Equalizer? Cognitive Inequality During the Summer
Months and the School Year. American Sociological Review, 69(5),
613-635.
\258\ Ehrlich, S.B., Gwynne, J.A., . . . Sorice, E. (2014).
Preschool Attendance in Chicago Public Schools: Relationships with
Learning Outcomes and Reasons for Absences. University of Chicago
Consortium on Chicago School Research. Research Report.
\259\ Peisner-Feinberg, E. S., Schaaf, J. M., LaForett, D. R.,
Hildebrandt, L.M., & Sideris, J. (2014). Effects of Georgia's Pre-K
Program on children's school readiness skills: Findings from the
2012-2013 evaluation study. Chapel Hill: The University of North
Carolina, FPG Child Development Institute.
\260\ Barnett, W.S., Jung, K., Youn, M.J., and Frede, E.C.
(2013). Abbott Preschool Program Longitudinal Effects Study: Fifth
Grade Follow-Up. National Institute for Early Education Research
Rutgers--The State University of New Jersey.
\261\ Gormley, G.T., Gayer, T., Phillips, D., & Dawson, B.
(2005). The effects of universal pre-k on cognitive development.
Developmental Psychology, 4(6), 872-884.
\262\ Weiland, C., & Yoshikawa, H. (2013). Impacts of a
prekindergarten program on children's mathematics, language,
literacy, executive function, and emotional skills. Child
Development, 84, 2112-2130.
\263\ Walters, C. R. (2015). Inputs in the Production of Early
Childhood Human Capital: Evidence from Head Start, American Economic
Journal: Applied Economics, 7(4), 76-102.
\264\ Yoshikawa, H., Weiland, C., Brooks-Gunn, J., Burchinal,
M.R., Espinosa, L.M., Gormley, W.T., Ludwig, J., Magnuson, K.A.,
Phillips, D., & Zaslow, M.J. (2013). Investing in Our Future: The
Evidence Base on Preschool Education. Policy Brief. Foundation for
Child Development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also considered the alternative proposed in the NPRM to extend
the minimum Head Start year to 180 days and the Head Start day to 6
hours. Using the same method employed in our original cost analysis in
the NPRM. We updated the original cost analysis by using 2015 data,
inflating for missing GABI data, and inflating by 20% to reflect
changes made to the final rule cost estimate in response to comments
that account for fringe benefits and remove the assumption that
additional administrative costs will not be necessary to support
increased duration). These changes provide comparable estimates for
weighing the potential impacts of regulatory alternatives. Using this
method, the total costs of this alternative (NPRM proposal) would be $
1,308,629,691. Once the expected proportion of the FY 2016
appropriation to increase program duration in Head Start is applied,
the cost of these requirements is $1,045,507,751. These costs would
result in a total of 130,119 slots lost and 10,392 education staff no
longer employed as a result of this provision alone. The additional
associated costs of this alternative, compared to the requirements in
the final rule, would be $179,639,207, which would result in as many as
22,357 additional slots lost and 4,917 additional education staff no
longer employed.
Again, research clearly demonstrates that strong child outcomes are
best fostered through high-quality early education programs that
provide at least a full school day and full school year of services,
however, research does not specify a threshold for this
effect.265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 Given
this, we believe it is important to allow programs to design a variety
of different schedules within the minimum requirements that meet the
specific needs of their families, communities, and staff. We believe
the flexibility of the annual hours, rather than the specified hours
per day and days per year of this regulatory alternative will allow
programs to address many of the concerns that were raised in the
comments, such as alignment of the summer break with the local
education agency's calendar, the availability of facilities, the
continuation of partnerships, and state licensing requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\265\ Lee, V. E., Burkam, D. T., Ready, D. D., Honigman, J., &
Meisels, S. J. (2006). Full-Day versus Half-Day Kindergarten: In
Which Program Do Children Learn More? American Journal of Education,
112(2), 163-208.
\266\ Walston, J.T., and West, J. (2004). Full-day and Half-day
Kindergarten in the United States: Findings from the Early Childhood
Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 1998-99 (NCES 2004-078).
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
\267\ Sloan McCombs, J. et al., (2011). Making Summer Count. How
Summer Programs Can Boost Children's Learning. Santa Monica, Calif.:
RAND Corporation.
\268\ Downey, D.B., von Hippel, P.T. & Broh, B.A. (2004). Are
Schools the Great Equalizer? Cognitive Inequality During the Summer
Months and the School Year. American Sociological Review, 69(5),
613-635.
\269\ Ehrlich, S.B., Gwynne, J.A., . . . Sorice, E. (2014).
Preschool Attendance in Chicago Public Schools: Relationships with
Learning Outcomes and Reasons for Absences. University of Chicago
Consortium on Chicago School Research. Research Report.
\270\ Peisner-Feinberg, E. S., Schaaf, J. M., LaForett, D. R.,
Hildebrandt, L.M., & Sideris, J. (2014). Effects of Georgia's Pre-K
Program on children's school readiness skills: Findings from the
2012-2013 evaluation study. Chapel Hill: The University of North
Carolina, FPG Child Development Institute.
\271\ Barnett, W.S., Jung, K., Youn, M.J., and Frede, E.C.
(2013). Abbott Preschool Program Longitudinal Effects Study: Fifth
Grade Follow-Up. National Institute for Early Education Research
Rutgers--The State University of New Jersey.
\272\ Gormley, G.T., Gayer, T., Phillips, D., & Dawson, B.
(2005). The effects of universal pre-k on cognitive development.
Developmental Psychology, 4(6), 872-884.
\273\ Weiland, C., & Yoshikawa, H. (2013). Impacts of a
prekindergarten program on children's mathematics, language,
literacy, executive function, and emotional skills. Child
Development, 84, 2112-2130.
\274\ Walters, C. R. (2015). Inputs in the Production of Early
Childhood Human Capital: Evidence from Head Start, American Economic
Journal: Applied Economics, 7(4), 76-102.
\275\ Yoshikawa, H., Weiland, C., Brooks-Gunn, J., Burchinal,
M.R., Espinosa, L.M., Gormley, W.T., Ludwig, J., Magnuson, K.A.,
Phillips, D., & Zaslow, M.J. (2013). Investing in Our Future: The
Evidence Base on Preschool Education. Policy Brief. Foundation for
Child Development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, we considered the alternative of requiring Head Start
center-based programs to provide a minimum of 1,020 annual hours for
all children by August 1, 2021, but not giving the Secretary authority
to reduce this requirement to mitigate slot loss in the event that
adequate funds to support the policy are not appropriated. This policy
would guarantee, in the event that Congress does not appropriate
adequate funds to support the policy, at least some children would lose
access to Head Start and some education staff would no longer be
employed by Head Start.
However, the negative effects of implementing this model in such a
way that could lead to significant reductions in the number of children
and families served by Head Start programs, may outweigh the benefits.
Therefore, we specify an incremental timeline and process for grantees
to shift their programs to provide at least a full school day and a
full school year of services to all preschoolers in center-based
settings, which will allow programs to extend their service duration
models thoughtfully. Further, we gave the Secretary the discretion to
[[Page 61409]]
lower the required percentage of funded enrollment slots for which
grantees must offer 1,020 annual hours of planned class operations to
the percentage the Secretary estimates available appropriations can
support. This balances the important policy goal of providing all
preschoolers with a full school day and a full school year of services
in Head Start with the disruption and potential slot loss such a policy
might create in the absence of sufficient funding in a way that this
regulatory alternative would not.
We believe the policy set by this final rule represents a balance
between empowering Head Start programs to ensure all Head Start
children receive enough high quality early learning experiences to
improve their outcomes, and ensuring as many children from low-income
families as possible are served by Head Start.
Regulatory Alternatives: Head Start Center-Based Duration
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
100% to 1,020 for
Head Start
Status quo NPRM proposal * Center-based Final rule
without Sec.
authority
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs Borne by Head Start, excluding 0 $1,308,629,691 $1,128,990,485 $1,128,990,485
FY 2016 duration funding...........
Costs Borne by Head Start, including ................. 1,045,507,751 865,868,544 865,868,544
FY 2016 duration funding...........
Slot Loss........................... 0 130,119 107,762 0-107,762
Job Loss............................ 0 10,392 5,475 0-5,475
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Note the NPRM proposal cost estimate has been inflated to reflect changes made to the final rule cost estimate
that account for fringe benefits and remove the assumption that additional administrative costs will not be
necessary to support increased duration.
Mentor Coaching
In this rule, we require programs to have a system of professional
development in place that includes an intensive coaching strategy. As
with our other largest cost drivers, as part of our full regulatory
analysis, we considered two alternatives to this policy change.
Specifically, we considered the alternative of not requiring mentor
coaches for any teaching staff, thus eliminating the associated cost of
$141,978,651. This alternative would be associated with 16,694 fewer
slots potentially lost and 1,902 fewer educations staff potentially no
longer employed. However, a growing body of research demonstrates the
effectiveness of intensive professional development for improving
teacher practices in early care and education settings
276 277 278 and that such strategies support improved
teacher practice in the classroom and an increase in classroom
quality.279 280 This alternative would not allow children to
reap the benefits of higher quality early learning programs, through
improved teaching practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\276\ Buysse, V., & Wesley, P. W. (2005). Consultation in Early
Childhood Settings. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing.
\277\ Tout, K., Halle, T., Zaslow, M., & Starr, R. (2009).
Evaluation of the Early Childhood Educator Professional Development
Program: Final Report: Report prepared for the U.S. Department of
Education.
\278\ Zaslow, M., Tout, K., Halle, T., Vick, J., & Lavelle, B.
(2010). Towards the identification of features of effective
professional development for early childhood educators: A review of
the literature. Report prepared for the U.S. Department of
Education.
\279\ Isner, T., Tout, K., Zaslow, M., Soli, M., Quinn, K.,
Rothenberg, L., & Burkhauser, M. (2011). Coaching in early care and
education programs and Quality Rating and Improvement Systems
(QRIS): Identifying promising features. Child Trends.
\280\ Lloyd, C. M., & Modlin, E. L. (2012). Coaching as a key
component in teachers' professional development: Improving classroom
practices in Head Start settings. Administration for Children and
Families.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also considered the alternative of requiring mentor coaches for
all teaching staff, rather than allowing programs to allocate mentor
coaches to the teachers who need intensive professional development,
most (an estimated one-third of all teaching staff). Using the same
method employed in our original cost analysis, the additional
associated costs of this alternative would be $425,935,952 total or
$283,957,301 more than our final policy, which would result in 50,083
total or 33,389 additional slots potentially lost and 5,707 total or
3,805 additional education staff potentially no longer employed. As
described in previous sections, we strongly believe that more
intensive, focused professional development is critical to improving
teaching quality and thereby increasing impacts on child outcomes.
However, we believe it would be inefficient to mandate that every
teacher receive intensive individualized coaching when local
professional development needs may need to be met.
Our requirement will achieve our goal of improving teacher
practices by targeting teachers most in need of coaching to improve
their teaching practices while still maintaining local flexibility for
individualized professional development.
Regulatory Alternatives: Mentor Coaching
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final rule
Status quo (no Coaching for all (coaching for one-
coaching) teachers third of
teachers)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost................................................... 0 $425,935,952 $141,978,651
Potential slot loss.................................... 0 50,083 16,694
Potential job loss..................................... 0 5,707 1,902
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 61410]]
c. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) \281\ was enacted to avoid
imposing unfunded federal mandates on state, local, and tribal
governments, or on the private sector. Most of UMRA's provisions apply
to proposed and final rules for which a general notice of proposed
rulemaking was published, and that include a federal mandate that may
result in expenditures by state, local, or tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more (adjusted
annually for inflation) in any one year. The current threshold after
adjustment for inflation is $146 million, using the most current (2015)
implicit price deflator for the gross domestic product. This final rule
does not impose unfunded mandates on state, local, and tribal
governments, or on the private sector.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\281\ 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
d. Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act of 1999 requires federal agencies to determine whether a policy or
regulation may negatively affect family well-being. If the agency
determines a policy or regulation negatively affects family well-being,
then the agency must prepare an impact assessment addressing seven
criteria specified in the law. This rule does not have any impact on
the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly,
we concluded it was not necessary to prepare a family policymaking
assessment.\282\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\282\ Public Law 105-277.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
e. Federalism Assessment Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132 requires federal agencies to consult with
state and local government officials if they develop regulatory
policies with federalism implications. Federalism is rooted in the
belief that issues that are not national in scope or significance are
most appropriately addressed by the level of government close to the
people. This final rule does not have substantial direct impact on the
states, on the relationship between the federal government and the
states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with section 6
of Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this final rule does
not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation
of a federalism summary impact statement.
f. Congressional Review
The Congressional Review Act (CRA) allows Congress to review
``major'' rules issued by federal agencies before the rules take
effect.\283\ The CRA defines a major rule as one that has resulted or
is likely to result in (1) an annual effect on the economy of $100
million or more; (2) a major increase in costs or prices for consumers,
individual industries, federal, state or local government agencies, or
geographic regions; or (3) significant adverse effects on competition,
employment, investment, productivity, or innovation, or on the ability
of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based
enterprises in domestic and export markets.\284\ This regulation is a
major rule because it will likely result in an annual effect of more
than $100 million on the economy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\283\ 5 U.S.C. 802(a).
\284\ 5 U.S.C. Chapter 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
g. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), P.L. 104-13, minimizes
government imposed burden on the public. In keeping with the notion
that government information is a valuable asset, it also is intended to
improve the practical utility, quality, and clarity of information
collected, maintained, and disclosed.
Regulations at 5 CFR part 1320 implemented the provisions of the
PRA and Sec. 1320.3 of this part defines a ``collection of
information,'' ``information,'' and ``burden.'' A ``collection of
information'' is broadly defined and includes any requirement or
request for persons to collect, maintain, or publicly disclose
information. ``Information'' is defined in as any statement or estimate
of fact or opinion, regardless of form or format, whether numerical,
graphic, or narrative form, and whether oral or maintained on paper,
electronic or other media. ``Burden'' means the total time, effort, or
financial resources expended by persons to collect, maintain, or
disclose information. Burden includes actions for the purposes of
information request such as reviewing instructions, acquiring and using
technology and systems, adjusting the existing ways to comply with any
previously applicable instructions and requirements, completing and
reviewing the collection of information, and transmitting the
information. The PRA only counts as burden the net additional burden
needed to comply with information request. Time, effort, and resources
to collect information that would be incurred by persons in the normal
course of their activities are excluded from the burden.
Section 1320.11(f) of 5 CFR part 1320 requires an agency to explain
in the final rule how information collections proposed in an NPRM
respond to any comments received or the reasons such comments were
rejected. We did not receive any comments directly related to
information collections we proposed in the NPRM. Therefore, we did not
make any changes here.
Below, we describe information collections and their burden
estimates:
Title: Head Start Grants Administration
Description: We require information collections related to the
protection for the privacy of child records. We require programs to
collect parents' written consent before they disclose personally
identifiable information from a child's records. We require programs to
notify parents annually of their rights described in Sec. Sec. 1303.20
through 1303.24 and of applicable definitions in part 1305. We also
require programs to maintain, with each child record, information on
all individuals, agencies, or organizations that have obtained access
to personal identifiable information from child records.
Title: Head Start Performance Standards
Description: We require a new information collection to codify best
practice in assessing dual language learners. Specifically, we require
programs to administer language assessments to dual language learners
in both English and their home language, either directly or through
interpreters.
We also strengthen background check procedures to require state/
tribal or federal criminal background checks, as well as clearance
through available child abuse and neglect and sex offender registries.
This requirement is consistent with the Office of Child Care's
requirement to minimize burden on programs that operate with both Head
Start and Child Care Development Funds. This increases the record-
keeping burden related to criminal record checks.
Description of Respondents and Burden Estimate: The total annual
burden hours estimated is 1,019,473 hours. For some items, we
calculated burden hours for individual children and families, for other
items, we calculated burden hours for staff.
The table below lists burden hour estimates and indicates our bases
for these estimations. See the Regulatory
[[Page 61411]]
Impact Analysis section for cost estimations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Information collection OMB Control Number of responses per Average burden per Total burden
No. respondents respondent response hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual Reporting Burden Estimates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
N/A......................... N/A N/A N/A N/A............... N/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual Recording Keeping Burden Estimates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Head Start Grants
Administration:
Sec. 1303.22, 1303.24 0970-0423 988,923 (F) 1 20 minutes........ 329,641
Parental Consent,
Annual Notice, and
Recordkeeping of PII
Disclosure.
Head Start Performance
Standards:
Sec. 1302.33 Language 0970-0148 332,651 (C) 1 2 hours........... 665,302
Assessments of Dual
Language Learners.
Head Start Performance
Standards:
Sec. 1302.90 0970-0148 73,591 (S) 1 20 minutes........ 24,530
Background Checks.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual Third-Party Disclosure Burden Estimates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
N/A......................... N/A N/A N/A N/A............... N/A
---------------
Total Burden Hours...... .............. .............. .............. .................. 1,019,473
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Key: C = Children, F = Families, S = Staff.
For informational purposes, currently approved collections of
information that will no longer be required are described below:
Head Start Grants Administration. This rule removed
certain requirements for grantee agencies including the submission of
audits, accounting systems certifications, and provisions applicable to
personnel management.
Appeal Procedures for Head Start. Grantees and Current or
Prospective Delegate Agencies--This rule removed the appeal procedures
by delegate agencies that came from denials or failure to act by
grantees. It also removed the appeal procedures by a grantee of a
suspension continuing for more than 30 days.
Head Start Program Performance Standards. Numerous record-
keeping requirements were removed which will result in a decrease in
burden, i.e. documentation of the level of effort undertaken to
establish community partnerships, written records of roles and
responsibilities for each governing body members, the annual written
and approval of plans for implementation services for each program
area, provisions applicable to personnel management, and record-keeping
and sharing of a set of community services and resources.
Purchase, Construction and Major Renovation of Head Start
Facilities. We removed some requirements that involved collection of
information that will result in a reduction in burden, including the
submission of drawings and specifications, costs related to
installation of modular unit, statement of procurement procedure for
modular units, and obtaining an independent analysis of the cost
comparison.
Tribal Consultation Statement
The Office of Head Start conducts an average of 5 Tribal
Consultations each year for those tribes operating Head Start and Early
Head Start. The consultations are held in geographic areas across the
country--Southwest, Northwest, Midwest (Northern and Southern), and
Eastern. The consultations are often held in conjunction with other
tribal meetings or conferences, to ensure the opportunity for most of
the 150 tribes served through OHS to be able to attend, and voice their
concerns and issues for their HS/EHS programs. A report is completed
after each consultation, and then a final report is compiled and
submitted to the Secretary at the end of the year, summarizing the
consultations. For the past several years, the primary issues raised
have been around Head Start requirements which are the subject of this
regulation and ensuring tribes have sufficient funding to meet those
requirements. Language and culture are also a primary topic,
particularly Head Start supporting efforts to preserve and revitalize
language within each tribe, which is specifically addressed in this
final rule. Teacher credentials, and, Monitoring, and fiscal issues
were also common themes across the consultations, which have allowed us
to gather valuable information that informed the development of this
rule. Through the notice and comment process we also received comments
from tribal communities, including form the National Indian Head Start
Directors Association which informed the development of this final
rule.
List of Subjects
45 CFR Part 1301
Education of disadvantaged.
45 CFR Part 1302
Education of disadvantaged, Grant programs--social programs,
Homeless, Immunization, Migrant labor, Individuals with disabilities,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Indians, Health care, Oral
health, Mental health programs, Nutrition, Safety, Maternal and child
health, Volunteers.
45 CFR Part 1303
Administrative practice and procedure, Education of disadvantaged,
Grant programs--social programs, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Privacy, Real property, acquisition, Individuals with
disabilities, Transportation, Motor vehicles.
45 CFR Part 1304
Education of disadvantaged, Grant programs--social programs,
Designation renewal system, Scholarships and fellowships, Indians.
45 CFR Part 1305
Definitions.
[[Page 61412]]
Approved: June 10, 2016.
Mark H. Greenberg,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Children and Families.
Sylvia M. Burwell,
Secretary.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, under the authority at
42 U.S.C. 9801 et seq., subchapter B of 45 CFR chapter XIII is revised
to read as follows:
SUBCHAPTER B--THE ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, HEAD START
PROGRAM
PART 1300--[Reserved]
PART 1301--PROGRAM GOVERNANCE
PART 1302--PROGRAM OPERATIONS
PART 1303--FINANCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS
PART 1304--FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES
PART 1305--DEFINITIONS
PART 1300--[Reserved]
PART 1301--PROGRAM GOVERNANCE
Sec.
1301.1 Purpose.
1301.2 Governing body.
1301.3 Policy council and policy committee.
1301.4 Parent committees.
1301.5 Training.
1301.6 Impasse procedures.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9801 et seq.
Sec. 1301.1 In general.
An agency, as defined in part 1305 of this chapter, must establish
and maintain a formal structure for program governance that includes a
governing body, a policy council at the agency level and policy
committee at the delegate level, and a parent committee. Governing
bodies have a legal and fiscal responsibility to administer and oversee
the agency's Head Start and Early Head Start programs. Policy councils
are responsible for the direction of the agency's Head Start and Early
Head Start programs.
Sec. 1301.2 Governing body.
(a) Composition. The composition of a governing body must be in
accordance with the requirements specified at section 642(c)(1)(B) of
the Act, except where specific exceptions are authorized in the case of
public entities at section 642(c)(1)(D) of the Act. Agencies must
ensure members of the governing body do not have a conflict of
interest, pursuant to section 642(c)(1)(C) of the Act.
(b) Duties and responsibilities. (1) The governing body is
responsible for activities specified at section 642(c)(1)(E) of the
Act.
(2) The governing body must use ongoing monitoring results, data on
school readiness goals, other information described in Sec. 1302.102,
and information described at section 642(d)(2) of the Act to conduct
its responsibilities.
(c) Advisory committees. (1) A governing body may establish
advisory committees as it deems necessary for effective governance and
improvement of the program.
(2) If a governing body establishes an advisory committee to
oversee key responsibilities related to program governance, it must:
(i) Establish the structure, communication, and oversight in such a
way that the governing body continues to maintain its legal and fiscal
responsibility for the Head Start agency; and,
(ii) Notify the responsible HHS official of its intent to establish
such an advisory committee.
Sec. 1301.3 Policy council and policy committee.
(a) Establishing policy councils and policy committees. Each agency
must establish and maintain a policy council responsible for the
direction of the Head Start program at the agency level, and a policy
committee at the delegate level. If an agency delegates operational
responsibility for the entire Head Start or Early Head Start program to
one delegate agency, the policy council and policy committee may be the
same body.
(b) Composition. (1) A program must establish a policy council in
accordance with section 642(c)(2)(B) of the Act, or a policy committee
at the delegate level in accordance with section 642(c)(3) of the Act,
as early in the program year as possible. Parents of children currently
enrolled in each program option must be proportionately represented on
the policy council and on the policy committee at the delegate level.
(2) The program must ensure members of the policy council, and of
the policy committee at the delegate level, do not have a conflict of
interest pursuant to sections 642(c)(2)(C) and 642(c)(3)(B) of the Act.
Staff may not serve on the policy council or policy committee at the
delegate level except parents who occasionally substitute as staff. In
the case of tribal grantees, this exclusion applies only to tribal
staff who work in areas directly related to or which directly impact
administrative, fiscal, or programmatic issues.
(c) Duties and responsibilities. (1) A policy council is
responsible for activities specified at section 642(c)(2)(D) of the
Act. A policy committee must approve and submit to the delegate agency
its decisions in each of the following areas referenced at section
642(c)(2)(D)(i) through (vii) of the Act.
(2) A policy council, and a policy committee at the delegate level,
must use ongoing monitoring results, data on school readiness goals,
other information described in Sec. 1302.102, and information
described in section 642(d)(2) of the Act to conduct its
responsibilities.
(d) Term. (1) A member will serve for one year.
(2) If the member intends to serve for another year, s/he must
stand for re-election.
(3) The policy council, and policy committee at the delegate level,
must include in its bylaws how many one-year terms, not to exceed five
terms, a person may serve.
(4) A program must seat a successor policy council, or policy
committee at the delegate level, before an existing policy council, or
policy committee at the delegate level, may be dissolved.
(e) Reimbursement. A program must enable low-income members to
participate fully in their policy council or policy committee
responsibilities by providing, if necessary, reimbursements for
reasonable expenses incurred by the low-income members.
Sec. 1301.4 Parent committees.
(a) Establishing parent committees. A program must establish a
parent committee comprised exclusively of parents of currently enrolled
children as early in the program year as possible. This committee must
be established at the center level for center-based programs and at the
local program level for other program options. When a program operates
more than one option, parents may choose to have a separate committee
for each option or combine membership. A program must ensure that
parents of currently enrolled children understand the process for
elections to the policy council or policy committee and other
leadership opportunities.
(b) Requirements of parent committees. Within the parent committee
structure, a program may determine the best methods to engage families
using strategies that are most effective in their community, as long as
[[Page 61413]]
the program ensures the parent committee carries out the following
minimum responsibilities:
(1) Advise staff in developing and implementing local program
policies, activities, and services to ensure they meet the needs of
children and families;
(2) Have a process for communication with the policy council and
policy committee; and
(3) Within the guidelines established by the governing body, policy
council or policy committee, participate in the recruitment and
screening of Early Head Start and Head Start employees.
Sec. 1301.5 Training.
An agency must provide appropriate training and technical
assistance or orientation to the governing body, any advisory committee
members, and the policy council, including training on program
performance standards and training indicated in Sec. 1302.12(m) to
ensure the members understand the information they receive and can
effectively oversee and participate in the programs in the Head Start
agency.
Sec. 1301.6 Impasse procedures.
(a) To facilitate meaningful consultation and collaboration about
decisions of the governing body and the policy council, each agency's
governing body and policy council jointly must establish written
procedures for resolving internal disputes between the governing board
and policy council in a timely manner that include impasse procedures.
These procedures must:
(1) Demonstrate that the governing body considers proposed
decisions from the policy council and that the policy council considers
proposed decisions from the governing body;
(2) If there is a disagreement, require the governing body and the
policy council to notify the other in writing why it does not accept a
decision; and,
(3) Describe a decision-making process and a timeline to resolve
disputes and reach decisions that are not arbitrary, capricious, or
illegal.
(b) If the agency's decision-making process does not result in a
resolution and an impasse continues, the governing body and policy
council must select a mutually agreeable third party mediator and
participate in a formal process of mediation that leads to a resolution
of the dispute.
(c) For all programs except American Indian and Alaska Native
programs, if no resolution is reached with a mediator, the governing
body and policy council must select a mutually agreeable arbitrator
whose decision is final.
PART 1302--PROGRAM OPERATIONS
Sec.
1302.1 Overview.
Subpart A--Eligibility, Recruitment, Selection, Enrollment, and
Attendance
1302.10 Purpose.
1302.11 Determining community strengths, needs, and resources.
1302.12 Determining, verifying, and documenting eligibility.
1302.13 Recruitment of children.
1302.14 Selection process.
1302.15 Enrollment.
1302.16 Attendance.
1302.17 Suspension and expulsion.
1302.18 Fees.
Subpart B--Program Structure
1302.20 Determining program structure.
1302.21 Center-based option.
1302.22 Home-based option.
1302.23 Family child care option.
1302.24 Locally-designed program option variations.
Subpart C--Education and Child Development Program Services
1302.30 Purpose.
1302.31 Teaching and the learning environment.
1302.32 Curricula.
1302.33 Child screenings and assessments.
1302.34 Parent and family engagement in education and child
development services.
1302.35 Education in home-based programs.
1302.36 Tribal language preservation and revitalization.
Subpart D--Health Program Services
1302.40 Purpose.
1302.41 Collaboration and communication with parents.
1302.42 Child health status and care.
1302.43 Oral health practices.
1302.44 Child nutrition.
1302.45 Child mental health and social and emotional well-being.
1302.46 Family support services for health, nutrition, and mental
health.
1302.47 Safety practices.
Subpart E--Family and Community Engagement Program Services
Subpart F--Additional Services for Children With Disabilities
1302.60 Full participation in program services and activities.
1302.61 Additional services for children.
1302.62 Additional services for parents.
1302.63 Coordination and collaboration with the local agency
responsible for implementing IDEA.
Subpart G--Transition Services
1302.70 Transitions from Early Head Start.
1302.71 Transitions from Head Start to kindergarten.
1302.72 Transitions between programs.
Subpart H--Services to Enrolled Pregnant Women
1302.80 Enrolled pregnant women.
1302.81 Prenatal and postpartum information, education, and
services.
1302.82 Family partnership services for enrolled pregnant women.
Subpart I--Human Resources Management
1302.90 Personnel policies.
1302.91 Staff qualification and competency requirements.
1302.92 Training and professional development.
1302.93 Staff health and wellness.
1302.94 Volunteers.
Subpart J--Program Management and Quality Improvement
1302.100 Purpose.
1302.101 Management system.
1302.102 Achieving program goals.
1302.103 Implementation of program performance standards.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9801 et seq.
Sec. 1302.1 Overview.
This part implements these statutory requirements in Sections 641A,
645, 645A, and 648A of the Act by describing all of the program
performance standards that are required to operate Head Start, Early
Head Start, American Indian and Alaska Native and Migrant or Seasonal
Head Start programs. The part covers the full range of operations from
enrolling eligible children and providing program services to those
children and their families, to managing programs to ensure staff are
qualified and supported to effectively provide services. This part also
focuses on using data through ongoing program improvement to ensure
high-quality service. As required in the Act, these provisions do not
narrow the scope or quality of services covered in previous
regulations. Instead, these regulations raise the quality standard to
reflect science and best practices, and streamline and simplify
requirements so programs can better understand what is required for
quality services.
Subpart A--Eligibility, Recruitment, Selection, Enrollment, and
Attendance
Sec. 1302.10 Purpose.
This subpart describes requirements of grantees for determining
community strengths, needs and resources as well as recruitment areas.
It contains requirements and procedures for the eligibility
determination, recruitment, selection, enrollment and attendance of
children and explains the policy concerning the charging of fees.
Sec. 1302.11 Determining community strengths, needs, and resources.
(a) Service area. (1) A program must propose a service area in the
grant application and define the area by county or sub-county area,
such as a municipality, town or census tract or
[[Page 61414]]
jurisdiction of a federally recognized Indian reservation.
(i) A tribal program may propose a service area that includes areas
where members of Indian tribes or those eligible for such membership
reside, including but not limited to Indian reservation land, areas
designated as near-reservation by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)
provided that the service area is approved by the tribe's governing
council, Alaska Native Villages, Alaska Native Regional Corporations
with land-based authorities, Oklahoma Tribal Statistical Areas, and
Tribal Designated Statistical Areas where federally recognized Indian
tribes do not have a federally established reservation.
(ii) If the tribe's service area includes any area specified in
paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section, and that area is also served by
another program, the tribe may serve children from families who are
members of or eligible to be members of such tribe and who reside in
such areas as well as children from families who are not members of the
tribe, but who reside within the tribe's established service area.
(2) If a program decides to change the service area after ACF has
approved its grant application, the program must submit to ACF a new
service area proposal for approval.
(b) Community wide strategic planning and needs assessment
(community assessment). (1) To design a program that meets community
needs, and builds on strengths and resources, a program must conduct a
community assessment at least once over the five-year grant period. The
community assessment must use data that describes community strengths,
needs, and resources and include, at a minimum:
(i) The number of eligible infants, toddlers, preschool age
children, and expectant mothers, including their geographic location,
race, ethnicity, and languages they speak, including:
(A) Children experiencing homelessness in collaboration with, to
the extent possible, McKinney-Vento Local Education Agency Liaisons (42
U.S.C. 11432 (6)(A));
(B) Children in foster care; and
(C) Children with disabilities, including types of disabilities and
relevant services and resources provided to these children by community
agencies;
(ii) The education, health, nutrition and social service needs of
eligible children and their families, including prevalent social or
economic factors that impact their well-being;
(iii) Typical work, school, and training schedules of parents with
eligible children;
(iv) Other child development, child care centers, and family child
care programs that serve eligible children, including home visiting,
publicly funded state and local preschools, and the approximate number
of eligible children served;
(v) Resources that are available in the community to address the
needs of eligible children and their families; and,
(vi) Strengths of the community.
(2) A program must annually review and update the community
assessment to reflect any significant changes including increased
availability of publicly-funded pre-kindergarten- (including an
assessment of how the pre-kindergarten available in the community meets
the needs of the parents and children served by the program, and
whether it is offered for a full school day), rates of family and child
homelessness, and significant shifts in community demographics and
resources.
(3) A program must consider whether the characteristics of the
community allow it to include children from diverse economic
backgrounds that would be supported by other funding sources, including
private pay, in addition to the program's eligible funded enrollment. A
program must not enroll children from diverse economic backgrounds if
it would result in a program serving less than its eligible funded
enrollment.
Sec. 1302.12 Determining, verifying, and documenting eligibility.
(a) Process overview. (1) Program staff must:
(i) Conduct an in-person interview with each family, unless
paragraph (a)(2) of this section applies;
(ii) Verify information as required in paragraphs (h) and (i) of
this section; and,
(iii) Create an eligibility determination record for enrolled
participants according to paragraph (k) of this section.
(2) Program staff may interview the family over the telephone if an
in-person interview is not possible or convenient for the family.
(3) If a program has an alternate method to reasonably determine
eligibility based on its community assessment, geographic and
administrative data, or from other reliable data sources, it may
petition the responsible HHS official to waive requirements in
paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(b) Age requirements. (1) For Early Head Start, except when the
child is transitioning to Head Start, a child must be an infant or a
toddler younger than three years old.
(2) For Head Start, a child must:
(i) Be at least three years old or, turn three years old by the
date used to determine eligibility for public school in the community
in which the Head Start program is located; and,
(ii) Be no older than the age required to attend school.
(3) For Migrant or Seasonal Head Start, a child must be younger
than compulsory school age by the date used to determine public school
eligibility for the community in which the program is located.
(c) Eligibility requirements. (1) A pregnant woman or a child is
eligible if:
(i) The family's income is equal to or below the poverty line; or,
(ii) The family is eligible for or, in the absence of child care,
would be potentially eligible for public assistance; including TANF
child-only payments; or,
(iii) The child is homeless, as defined in part 1305; or,
(iv) The child is in foster care.
(2) If the family does not meet a criterion under paragraph (c)(1)
of this section, a program may enroll a child who would benefit from
services, provided that these participants only make up to 10 percent
of a program's enrollment in accordance with paragraph (d) of this
section.
(d) Additional allowances for programs. (1) A program may enroll an
additional 35 percent of participants whose families do not meet a
criterion described in paragraph (c) of this section and whose incomes
are below 130 percent of the poverty line, if the program:
(i) Establishes and implements outreach, and enrollment policies
and procedures to ensure it is meeting the needs of eligible pregnant
women, children, and children with disabilities, before serving
pregnant women or children who do not meet the criteria in paragraph
(c) of this section; and,
(ii) Establishes criteria that ensure pregnant women and children
eligible under the criteria listed in paragraph (c) of this section are
served first.
(2) If a program chooses to enroll participants who do not meet a
criterion in paragraph (c) of this section, and whose family incomes
are between 100 and 130 percent of the poverty line, it must be able to
report to the Head Start regional program office:
(i) How it is meeting the needs of low-income families or families
potentially eligible for public assistance, homeless children, and
children in foster care, and include local demographic data on these
populations;
(ii) Outreach and enrollment policies and procedures that ensure it
is meeting
[[Page 61415]]
the needs of eligible children or pregnant women, before serving over-
income children or pregnant women;
(iii) Efforts, including outreach, to be fully enrolled with
eligible pregnant women or children;
(iv) Policies, procedures, and selection criteria it uses to serve
eligible children;
(v) Its current enrollment and its enrollment for the previous
year;
(vi) The number of pregnant women and children served,
disaggregated by the eligibility criteria in paragraphs (c) and (d)(1)
of this section; and,
(vii) The eligibility criteria category of each child on the
program's waiting list.
(e) Additional allowances for Indian tribes. (1) Notwithstanding
paragraph (c)(2) of this section, a tribal program may fill more than
10 percent of its enrollment with participants who are not eligible
under the criteria in paragraph (c) of this section, if:
(i) The tribal program has served all eligible pregnant women or
children who wish to be enrolled from Indian and non-Indian families
living within the approved service area of the tribal agency;
(ii) The tribe has resources within its grant, without using
additional funds from HHS intended to expand Early Head Start or Head
Start services, to enroll pregnant women or children whose family
incomes exceed low-income guidelines or who are not otherwise eligible;
and,
(iii) At least 51 percent of the program's participants meet an
eligibility criterion under paragraph (c)(1) of this section.
(2) If another program does not serve the approved service area,
the program must serve all eligible Indian and non-Indian pregnant
women or children who wish to enroll before serving over-income
pregnant women or children.
(3) A program that meets the conditions of this paragraph (e) must
annually set criteria that are approved by the policy council and the
tribal council for selecting over-income pregnant women or children who
would benefit from program services.
(4) An Indian tribe or tribes that operates both an Early Head
Start program and a Head Start program may, at its discretion, at any
time during the grant period involved, reallocate funds between the
Early Head Start program and the Head Start program in order to address
fluctuations in client populations, including pregnant women and
children from birth to compulsory school age. The reallocation of such
funds between programs by an Indian tribe or tribes during a year may
not serve as a basis for any reduction of the base grant for either
program in succeeding years.
(f) Migrant or Seasonal eligibility requirements. A child is
eligible for Migrant or Seasonal Head Start, if the family meets an
eligibility criterion in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section; and
the family's income comes primarily from agricultural work.
(g) Eligibility requirements for communities with 1,000 or fewer
individuals. (1) A program may establish its own criteria for
eligibility provided that it meets the criteria outlined in section
645(a)(2) of the Act.
(2) No child residing in such community whose family is eligible
under criteria described in paragraphs (c) through (f) of this section,
may be denied an opportunity to participate in the program under the
eligibility criteria established under this paragraph (g).
(h) Verifying age. Program staff must verify a child's age
according to program policies and procedures. A program's policies and
procedures cannot require families to provide documents that confirm a
child's age, if doing so creates a barrier for the family to enroll the
child.
(i) Verifying eligibility. (1) To verify eligibility based on
income, program staff must use tax forms, pay stubs, or other proof of
income to determine the family income for the relevant time period.
(i) If the family cannot provide tax forms, pay stubs, or other
proof of income for the relevant time period, program staff may accept
written statements from employers, including individuals who are self-
employed, for the relevant time period and use information provided to
calculate total annual income with appropriate multipliers.
(ii) If the family reports no income for the relevant time period,
a program may accept the family's signed declaration to that effect, if
program staff describes efforts made to verify the family's income, and
explains how the family's total income was calculated or seeks
information from third parties about the family's eligibility, if the
family gives written consent. If a family gives consent to contact
third parties, program staff must adhere to program safety and privacy
policies and procedures and ensure the eligibility determination record
adheres to paragraph (k)(2) of this section.
(iii) If the family can demonstrate a significant change in income
for the relevant time period, program staff may consider current income
circumstances.
(2) To verify whether a family is eligible for, or in the absence
of child care, would be potentially eligible for public assistance, the
program must have documentation from either the state, local, or tribal
public assistance agency that shows the family either receives public
assistance or that shows the family is potentially eligible to receive
public assistance.
(3) To verify whether a family is homeless, a program may accept a
written statement from a homeless services provider, school personnel,
or other service agency attesting that the child is homeless or any
other documentation that indicates homelessness, including
documentation from a public or private agency, a declaration,
information gathered on enrollment or application forms, or notes from
an interview with staff to establish the child is homeless; or any
other document that establishes homelessness.
(i) If a family can provide one of the documents described in this
paragraph (i)(3), program staff must describe efforts made to verify
the accuracy of the information provided and state whether the family
is eligible because they are homeless.
(ii) If a family cannot provide one of the documents described in
this paragraph (i)(3) to prove the child is homeless, a program may
accept the family's signed declaration to that effect, if, in a written
statement, program staff describe the child's living situation that
meets the definition of homeless in part 1305 of this chapter.
(iii) Program staff may seek information from third parties who
have firsthand knowledge about a family's living situation, if the
family gives written consent. If the family gives consent to contact
third parties, program staff must adhere to program privacy policies
and procedures and ensure the eligibility determination record adheres
to paragraph (k) of this section.
(4) To verify whether a child is in foster care, program staff must
accept either a court order or other legal or government-issued
document, a written statement from a government child welfare official
that demonstrates the child is in foster care, or proof of a foster
care payment.
(j) Eligibility duration. (1) If a child is determined eligible
under this section and is participating in a Head Start program, he or
she will remain eligible through the end of the succeeding program year
except that the Head Start program may choose not to enroll a child
when there are compelling reasons for the child not to remain in Head
Start, such as when there is a change in the child's family income and
there is a child with a greater need for Head Start services.
[[Page 61416]]
(2) Children who are enrolled in a program receiving funds under
the authority of section 645A of the Act remain eligible while they
participate in the program.
(3) If a child moves from an Early Head Start program to a Head
Start program, program staff must verify the family's eligibility
again.
(4) If a program operates both an Early Head Start and a Head Start
program, and the parents wish to enroll their child who has been
enrolled in the program's Early Head Start, the program must ensure,
whenever possible, the child receives Head Start services until
enrolled in school, provided the child is eligible.
(k) Records. (1) A program must keep eligibility determination
records for each participant and ongoing records of the eligibility
training for staff required by paragraph (m) of this section. A program
may keep these records electronically.
(2) Each eligibility determination record must include:
(i) Copies of any documents or statements, including declarations,
that are deemed necessary to verify eligibility under paragraphs (h)
and (i) of this section;
(ii) A statement that program staff has made reasonable efforts to
verify information by:
(A) Conducting either an in-person, or a telephone interview with
the family as described under paragraph (a)(1)(i) or (a)(2) of this
section; and,
(B) Describing efforts made to verify eligibility, as required
under paragraphs (h) through (i) of this section; and, collecting
documents required for third party verification that includes the
family's written consent to contact each third party, the third
parties' names, titles, and affiliations, and information from third
parties regarding the family's eligibility.
(iii) A statement that identifies whether:
(A) The family's income is below income guidelines for its size,
and lists the family's size;
(B) The family is eligible for or, in the absence of child care,
potentially eligible for public assistance;
(C) The child is a homeless child or the child is in foster care;
(D) The family was determined to be eligible under the criterion in
paragraph (c)(2) of this section; or,
(E) The family was determined to be eligible under the criterion in
paragraph (d)(1) of this section.
(3) A program must keep eligibility determination records for those
currently enrolled, as long as they are enrolled, and, for one year
after they have either stopped receiving services; or are no longer
enrolled.
(l) Program policies and procedures on violating eligibility
determination regulations. A program must establish written policies
and procedures that describe all actions taken against staff who
intentionally violate federal and program eligibility determination
regulations and who enroll pregnant women and children that are not
eligible to receive Early Head Start or Head Start services.
(m) Training on eligibility. (1) A program must train all governing
body, policy council, management, and staff who determine eligibility
on applicable federal regulations and program policies and procedures.
Training must, at a minimum:
(i) Include methods on how to collect complete and accurate
eligibility information from families and third party sources;
(ii) Incorporate strategies for treating families with dignity and
respect and for dealing with possible issues of domestic violence,
stigma, and privacy; and,
(iii) Explain program policies and procedures that describe actions
taken against staff, families, or participants who attempt to provide
or intentionally provide false information.
(2) A program must train management and staff members who make
eligibility determinations within 90 days of hiring new staff.
(3) A program must train all governing body and policy council
members within 180 days of the beginning of the term of a new governing
body or policy council.
(4) A program must develop policies on how often training will be
provided after the initial training.
Sec. 1302.13 Recruitment of children.
In order to reach those most in need of services, a program must
develop and implement a recruitment process designed to actively inform
all families with eligible children within the recruitment area of the
availability of program services, and encourage and assist them in
applying for admission to the program. A program must include specific
efforts to actively locate and recruit children with disabilities and
other vulnerable children, including homeless children and children in
foster care.
Sec. 1302.14 Selection process.
(a) Selection criteria. (1) A program must annually establish
selection criteria that weigh the prioritization of selection of
participants, based on community needs identified in the community
needs assessment as described in Sec. 1302.11(b), and including family
income, whether the child is homeless, whether the child is in foster
care, the child's age, whether the child is eligible for special
education and related services, or early intervention services, as
appropriate, as determined under the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA) (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.) and, other relevant
family or child risk factors.
(2) If a program serves migrant or seasonal families, it must
select participants according to criteria in paragraph (a)(1) of this
section, and give priority to children whose families can demonstrate
they have relocated frequently within the past two-years to pursue
agricultural work.
(3) If a program operates in a service area where Head Start
eligible children can enroll in high-quality publicly funded pre-
kindergarten for a full school day, the program must prioritize younger
children as part of the selection criteria in paragraph (a)(1) of this
section. If this priority would disrupt partnerships with local
education agencies, then it is not required. An American Indian and
Alaska Native or Migrant or Seasonal Head Start program must consider
whether such prioritization is appropriate in their community.
(4) A program must not deny enrollment based on a disability or
chronic health condition or its severity.
(b) Children eligible for services under IDEA. (1) A program must
ensure at least 10 percent of its total funded enrollment is filled by
children eligible for services under IDEA, unless the responsible HHS
official grants a waiver.
(2) If the requirement in paragraph (b)(1) of this section has been
met, children eligible for services under IDEA should be prioritized
for the available slots in accordance with the program's selection
criteria described in paragraph (a) of this section.
(c) Waiting lists. A program must develop at the beginning of each
enrollment year and maintain during the year a waiting list that ranks
children according to the program's selection criteria.
Sec. 1302.15 Enrollment.
(a) Funded enrollment. A program must maintain its funded
enrollment level and fill any vacancy as soon as possible. A program
must fill any vacancy within 30 days.
(b) Continuity of enrollment. (1) A program must make efforts to
maintain enrollment of eligible children for the following year.
[[Page 61417]]
(2) Under exceptional circumstances, a program may maintain a
child's enrollment in Head Start for a third year, provided that family
income is verified again. A program may maintain a child's enrollment
in Early Head Start as described in Sec. 1302.12(j)(2).
(3) If a program serves homeless children or children in foster
care, it must make efforts to maintain the child's enrollment
regardless of whether the family or child moves to a different service
area, or transition the child to a program in a different service area,
as required in Sec. 1302.72(a), according to the family's needs.
(c) Reserved slots. If a program determines from the community
assessment there are families experiencing homelessness in the area, or
children in foster care that could benefit from services, the program
may reserve one or more enrollment slots for pregnant women and
children experiencing homelessness and children in foster care, when a
vacancy occurs. No more than three percent of a program's funded
enrollment slots may be reserved. If the reserved enrollment slot is
not filled within 30 days, the enrollment slot becomes vacant and then
must be filled in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section.
(d) Other enrollment. Children from diverse economic backgrounds
who are funded with other sources, including private pay, are not
considered part of a program's eligible funded enrollment.
(e) State immunization enrollment requirements. A program must
comply with state immunization enrollment and attendance requirements,
with the exception of homeless children as described in Sec.
1302.16(c)(1).
(f) Voluntary parent participation. Parent participation in any
program activity is voluntary, including consent for data sharing, and
is not required as a condition of the child's enrollment.
Sec. 1302.16 Attendance.
(a) Promoting regular attendance. A program must track attendance
for each child.
(1) A program must implement a process to ensure children are safe
when they do not arrive at school. If a child is unexpectedly absent
and a parent has not contacted the program within one hour of program
start time, the program must attempt to contact the parent to ensure
the child's well-being.
(2) A program must implement strategies to promote attendance. At a
minimum, a program must:
(i) Provide information about the benefits of regular attendance;
(ii) Support families to promote the child's regular attendance;
(iii) Conduct a home visit or make other direct contact with a
child's parents if a child has multiple unexplained absences (such as
two consecutive unexplained absences); and,
(iv) Within the first 60 days of program operation, and on an
ongoing basis thereafter, use individual child attendance data to
identify children with patterns of absence that put them at risk of
missing ten percent of program days per year and develop appropriate
strategies to improve individual attendance among identified children,
such as direct contact with parents or intensive case management, as
necessary.
(3) If a child ceases to attend, the program must make appropriate
efforts to reengage the family to resume attendance, including as
described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section. If the child's
attendance does not resume, then the program must consider that slot
vacant. This action is not considered expulsion as described in Sec.
1302.17.
(b) Managing systematic program attendance issues. If a program's
monthly average daily attendance rate falls below 85 percent, the
program must analyze the causes of absenteeism to identify any
systematic issues that contribute to the program's absentee rate. The
program must use this data to make necessary changes in a timely manner
as part of ongoing oversight and correction as described in Sec.
1302.102(b) and inform its continuous improvement efforts as described
in Sec. 1302.102(c).
(c) Supporting attendance of homeless children. (1) If a program
determines a child is eligible under Sec. 1302.12(c)(1)(iii), it must
allow the child to attend for up to 90 days or as long as allowed under
state licensing requirements, without immunization and other records,
to give the family reasonable time to present these documents. A
program must work with families to get children immunized as soon as
possible in order to comply with state licensing requirements.
(2) If a child experiencing homelessness is unable to attend
classes regularly because the family does not have transportation to
and from the program facility, the program must utilize community
resources, where possible, to provide transportation for the child.
Sec. 1302.17 Suspension and expulsion.
(a) Limitations on suspension. (1) A program must prohibit or
severely limit the use of suspension due to a child's behavior. Such
suspensions may only be temporary in nature.
(2) A temporary suspension must be used only as a last resort in
extraordinary circumstances where there is a serious safety threat that
cannot be reduced or eliminated by the provision of reasonable
modifications.
(3) Before a program determines whether a temporary suspension is
necessary, a program must engage with a mental health consultant,
collaborate with the parents, and utilize appropriate community
resources--such as behavior coaches, psychologists, other appropriate
specialists, or other resources--as needed, to determine no other
reasonable option is appropriate.
(4) If a temporary suspension is deemed necessary, a program must
help the child return to full participation in all program activities
as quickly as possible while ensuring child safety by:
(i) Continuing to engage with the parents and a mental health
consultant, and continuing to utilize appropriate community resources;
(ii) Developing a written plan to document the action and supports
needed;
(iii) Providing services that include home visits; and,
(iv) Determining whether a referral to a local agency responsible
for implementing IDEA is appropriate.
(b) Prohibition on expulsion. (1) A program cannot expel or
unenroll a child from Head Start because of a child's behavior.
(2) When a child exhibits persistent and serious challenging
behaviors, a program must explore all possible steps and document all
steps taken to address such problems, and facilitate the child's safe
participation in the program. Such steps must include, at a minimum,
engaging a mental health consultant, considering the appropriateness of
providing appropriate services and supports under section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act to ensure that the child who satisfies the
definition of disability in 29 U.S.C. 705(9)(b) of the Rehabilitation
Act is not excluded from the program on the basis of disability, and
consulting with the parents and the child's teacher, and:
(i) If the child has an individualized family service plan (IFSP)
or individualized education program (IEP), the program must consult
with the agency responsible for the IFSP or IEP to ensure the child
receives the needed support services; or,
(ii) If the child does not have an IFSP or IEP, the program must
collaborate, with parental consent, with the local agency responsible
for implementing IDEA to determine the child's eligibility for
services.
[[Page 61418]]
(3) If, after a program has explored all possible steps and
documented all steps taken as described in paragraph (b)(2) of this
section, a program, in consultation with the parents, the child's
teacher, the agency responsible for implementing IDEA (if applicable),
and the mental health consultant, determines that the child's continued
enrollment presents a continued serious safety threat to the child or
other enrolled children and determines the program is not the most
appropriate placement for the child, the program must work with such
entities to directly facilitate the transition of the child to a more
appropriate placement.
Sec. 1302.18 Fees.
(a) Policy on fees. A program must not charge eligible families a
fee to participate in Head Start, including special events such as
field trips, and cannot in any way condition an eligible child's
enrollment or participation in the program upon the payment of a fee.
(b) Allowable fees. (1) A program must only accept a fee from
families of enrolled children for services that are in addition to
services funded by Head Start, such as child care before or after
funded Head Start hours. A program may not condition a Head Start
child's enrollment on the ability to pay a fee for additional hours.
(2) In order to support programs serving children from diverse
economic backgrounds or using multiple funding sources, a program may
charge fees to private pay families and other non-Head Start enrolled
families to the extent allowed by any other applicable federal, state
or local funding sources.
Subpart B--Program Structure
Sec. 1302.20 Determining program structure.
(a) Choose a program option. (1) A program must choose to operate
one or more of the following program options: Center-based, home-based,
family child care, or an approved locally-designed variation as
described in Sec. 1302.24. The program option(s) chosen must meet the
needs of children and families based on the community assessment
described in Sec. 1302.11(b). A Head Start program serving preschool-
aged children may not provide only the option described in Sec.
1302.22(a) and (c)(2).
(2) To choose a program option and develop a program calendar, a
program must consider in conjunction with the annual review of the
community assessment described in Sec. 1302.11(b)(2), whether it would
better meet child and family needs through conversion of existing slots
to full school day or full working day slots, extending the program
year, conversion of existing Head Start slots to Early Head Start slots
as described in paragraph (c) of this section, and ways to promote
continuity of care and services. A program must work to identify
alternate sources to support full working day services. If no
additional funding is available, program resources may be used.
(b) Comprehensive services. All program options must deliver the
full range of services, as described in subparts C, D, E, F, and G of
this part, except that Sec. Sec. 1302.30 through 1302.32 and Sec.
1302.34 do not apply to home-based options.
(c) Conversion. (1) Consistent with section 645(a)(5) of the Head
Start Act, grantees may request to convert Head Start slots to Early
Head Start slots through the re-funding application process or as a
separate grant amendment.
(2) Any grantee proposing a conversion of Head Start services to
Early Head Start services must obtain policy council and governing body
approval and submit the request to their regional office.
(3) With the exception of American Indian and Alaska Native
grantees as described in paragraph (c)(4) of this section, the request
to the regional office must include:
(i) A grant application budget and a budget narrative that clearly
identifies the funding amount for the Head Start and Early Head Start
programs before and after the proposed conversion;
(ii) The results of the community assessment demonstrating how the
proposed use of funds would best meet the needs of the community,
including a description of how the needs of eligible Head Start
children will be met in the community when the conversion takes places;
(iii) A revised program schedule that describes the program
option(s) and the number of funded enrollment slots for Head Start and
Early Head Start programs before and after the proposed conversion;
(iv) A description of how the needs of pregnant women, infants, and
toddlers will be addressed;
(v) A discussion of the agency's capacity to carry out an effective
Early Head Start program in accordance with the requirements of section
645A(b) of the Head Start Act and all applicable regulations;
(vi) Assurances that the agency will participate in training and
technical assistance activities required of all Early Head Start
grantees;
(vii) A discussion of the qualifications and competencies of the
child development staff proposed for the Early Head Start program, as
well as a description of the facilities and program infrastructure that
will be used to support the new or expanded Early Head Start program;
(viii) A discussion of any one-time funding necessary to implement
the proposed conversion and how the agency intends to secure such
funding; and,
(ix) The proposed timetable for implementing this conversion,
including updating school readiness goals as described in subpart J of
this part.
(4) Consistent with section 645(d)(3) of the Act, any American
Indian and Alaska Native grantee that operates both an Early Head Start
program and a Head Start program may reallocate funds between the
programs at its discretion and at any time during the grant period
involved, in order to address fluctuations in client populations. An
American Indian and Alaska Native program that exercises this
discretion must notify the regional office.
(d) Source of funding. A program may consider hours of service that
meet the Head Start Program Performance Standards, regardless of the
source of funding, as hours of planned class operations for the
purposes of meeting the Head Start and Early Head Start service
duration requirements in this subpart.
Sec. 1302.21 Center-based option.
(a) Setting. The center-based option delivers the full range of
services, consistent with Sec. 1302.20(b). Education and child
development services are delivered primarily in classroom settings.
(b) Ratios and group size. (1) Staff-child ratios and group size
maximums must be determined by the age of the majority of children and
the needs of children present. A program must determine the age of the
majority of children in a class at the start of the year and may adjust
this determination during the program year, if necessary. Where state
or local licensing requirements are more stringent than the teacher-
child ratios and group size specifications in this section, a program
must meet the stricter requirements. A program must maintain
appropriate ratios during all hours of program operation, except:
(i) For brief absences of a teaching staff member for no more than
five minutes; and,
(ii) During nap time, one teaching staff member may be replaced by
one staff member or trained volunteer who does not meet the teaching
qualifications required for the age.
[[Page 61419]]
(2) An Early Head Start or Migrant or Seasonal Head Start class
that serves children under 36 months old must have two teachers with no
more than eight children, or three teachers with no more than nine
children. Each teacher must be assigned consistent, primary
responsibility for no more than four children to promote continuity of
care for individual children. A program must minimize teacher changes
throughout a child's enrollment, whenever possible, and consider mixed
age group classes to support continuity of care.
(3) A class that serves a majority of children who are three years
old must have no more than 17 children with a teacher and teaching
assistant or two teachers. A double session class that serves a
majority of children who are three years old must have no more than 15
children with a teacher and teaching assistant or two teachers.
(4) A class that serves a majority of children who are four and
five years old must have no more than 20 children with a teacher and a
teaching assistant or two teachers. A double session class that serves
a majority of children who are four and five years old must have no
more than 17 children with a teacher and a teaching assistant or two
teachers.
Table to Sec. 1302.21(b)--Center-Based Group Size
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4 and 5 year olds...................................... No more than 20 children enrolled in any class.
No more than 17 children enrolled in any double session
class.
3 year olds............................................ No more than 17 children enrolled in any class.
No more than 15 children enrolled in any double session
class.
Under 3 years old...................................... No more than 8 or 9 children enrolled in any class,
depending on the number of teachers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) Service duration--(1) Early Head Start. (i) By August 1, 2018,
a program must provide 1,380 annual hours of planned class operations
for all enrolled children.
(ii) A program that is designed to meet the needs of young parents
enrolled in school settings may meet the service duration requirements
in paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section if it operates a center-based
program schedule during the school year aligned with its local
education agency requirements and provides regular home-based services
during the summer break.
(2) Head Start. (i) Until a program is operating all of its Head
Start center-based funded enrollment at the standard described in
paragraph (c)(2)(iv) or (v) of this section, a program must provide, at
a minimum, at least 160 days per year of planned class operations if it
operates for five days per week, or at least 128 days per year if it
operates four days per week. Classes must operate for a minimum of 3.5
hours per day.
(ii) Until a program is operating all of its Head Start center-
based funded enrollment at the standard described in paragraph
(c)(2)(iv) or (v) of this section, if a program operates a double
session variation, it must provide classes for four days per week for a
minimum of 128 days per year and 3.5 hours per day. Each double session
class staff member must be provided adequate break time during the
course of the day. In addition, teachers, aides, and volunteers must
have appropriate time to prepare for each session together, to set up
the classroom environment, and to give individual attention to children
entering and leaving the center.
(iii) By August 1, 2019, a program must provide 1,020 annual hours
of planned class operations over the course of at least eight months
per year for at least 50 percent of its Head Start center-based funded
enrollment.
(iv) By August 1, 2021, a program must provide 1,020 annual hours
of planned class operations over the course of at least eight months
per year for all of its Head Start center-based funded enrollment.
(v) A Head Start program providing fewer than 1,020 annual hours of
planned class operations or fewer than eight months of service is
considered to meet the requirements described in paragraphs (c)(2)(iii)
and (iv) of this section if its program schedule aligns with the annual
hours required by its local education agency for grade one and such
alignment is necessary to support partnerships for service delivery.
(3) Secretarial determination. (i) On or before February 1, 2018,
the Secretary may lower the required percentage described in paragraph
(c)(2)(iii) of this section, based on an assessment of the availability
of sufficient funding to mitigate a substantial reduction in funded
enrollment; and,
(ii) On or before February 1, 2020, the Secretary may lower the
required percentage described in paragraph (c)(2)(iv) of this section,
based on an assessment of the availability of sufficient funding to
mitigate a substantial reduction in funded enrollment.
(4) Extension. If an extension is necessary to ensure children
enrolled in the program on November 7, 2016 are not displaced from the
Early Head Start or Head Start program, a program may request a one-
year extension from the responsible HHS official of the requirements
outlined in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2)(iii) of this section.
(5) Exemption for Migrant or Seasonal Head Start programs. A
Migrant or Seasonal program is not subject to the requirements
described in Sec. 1302.21(c)(1) or (2), but must make every effort to
provide as many days and hours of service as possible to each child and
family.
(6) Calendar planning. A program must:
(i) Plan its year using a reasonable estimate of the number of days
during a year that classes may be closed due to problems such as
inclement weather; and,
(ii) Make every effort to schedule makeup days using existing
resources if hours of planned class operations fall below the number
required per year.
(d) Licensing and square footage requirements. (1) The facilities
used by a program must meet state, tribal, or local licensing
requirements, even if exempted by the licensing entity. When state,
tribal, or local requirements vary from Head Start requirements, the
most stringent provision takes precedence.
(2) A center-based program must have at least 35 square feet of
usable indoor space per child available for the care and use of
children (exclusive of bathrooms, halls, kitchen, staff rooms, and
storage places) and at least 75 square feet of usable outdoor play
space per child.
(3) A program that operates two or more groups within an area must
ensure clearly defined, safe divisions to separate groups. A program
must ensure such spaces are learning environments that facilitate the
implementation of the requirements in subpart C of this part. The
divisions must limit noise transfer from one group to another to
prevent disruption of an effective learning environment.
Sec. 1302.22 Home-based option.
(a) Setting. The home-based option delivers the full range of
services, consistent with Sec. 1302.20(b), through
[[Page 61420]]
visits with the child's parents, primarily in the child's home and
through group socialization opportunities in a Head Start classroom,
community facility, home, or on field trips. For Early Head Start
programs, the home-based option may be used to deliver services to some
or all of a program's enrolled children. For Head Start programs, the
home-based option may only be used to deliver services to a portion of
a program's enrolled children.
(b) Caseload. A program that implements a home-based option must
maintain an average caseload of 10 to 12 families per home visitor with
a maximum of 12 families for any individual home visitor.
(c) Service duration--(1) Early Head Start. By August 1, 2017, an
Early Head Start home-based program must:
(i) Provide one home visit per week per family that lasts at least
an hour and a half and provide a minimum of 46 visits per year; and,
(ii) Provide, at a minimum, 22 group socialization activities
distributed over the course of the program year.
(2) Head Start. A Head Start home-based program must:
(i) Provide one home visit per week per family that lasts at least
an hour and a half and provide a minimum of 32 visits per year; and,
(ii) Provide, at a minimum, 16 group socialization activities
distributed over the course of the program year.
(3) Meeting minimum requirements. A program that implements a home-
based option must:
(i) Make up planned home visits or scheduled group socialization
activities that were canceled by the program, and to the extent
possible attempt to make up planned home visits canceled by the family,
when this is necessary to meet the minimums described in paragraphs
(c)(1) and (2) of this section; and,
(ii) Not replace home visits or scheduled group socialization
activities for medical or social service appointments for the purposes
of meeting the minimum requirements described in paragraphs (c)(1) and
(2) of this section.
(d) Safety requirements. The areas for learning, playing, sleeping,
toileting, preparing food, and eating in facilities used for group
socializations in the home-based option must meet the safety standards
described in Sec. 1302.47(1)(ii) through (viii).
Sec. 1302.23 Family child care option.
(a) Setting. The family child care program option delivers the full
range of services, consistent with Sec. 1302.20(b). Education and
child development services are primarily delivered by a family child
care provider in their home or other family-like setting. A program may
choose to offer the family child care option if:
(1) The program has a legally binding agreement with one or more
family child care provider(s) that clearly defines the roles, rights,
and responsibilities of each party, or the program is the employer of
the family child care provider, and ensures children and families
enrolled in this option receive the full range of services described in
subparts C, D, E, F, and G of this part; and,
(2) The program ensures family child care homes are available that
can accommodate children and families with disabilities.
(b) Ratios and group size. (1) A program that operates the family
child care option where Head Start children are enrolled must ensure
group size does not exceed the limits specified in this section. If the
family child care provider's own children under the age of six are
present, they must be included in the group size.
(2) When there is one family child care provider, the maximum group
size is six children and no more than two of the six may be under 24
months of age. When there is a provider and an assistant, the maximum
group size is twelve children with no more than four of the twelve
children under 24 months of age.
(3) One family child care provider may care for up to four children
younger than 36 months of age with a maximum group size of four
children, and no more than two of the four children may be under 18
months of age.
(4) A program must maintain appropriate ratios during all hours of
program operation. A program must ensure providers have systems to
ensure the safety of any child not within view for any period. A
program must make substitute staff and assistant providers available
with the necessary training and experience to ensure quality services
to children are not interrupted.
(c) Service duration. Whether family child care option services are
provided directly or via contractual arrangement, a program must ensure
family child care providers operate sufficient hours to meet the child
care needs of families and not less than 1,380 hours per year.
(d) Licensing requirements. A family child-care provider must be
licensed by the state, tribal, or local entity to provide services in
their home or family-like setting. When state, tribal, or local
requirements vary from Head Start requirements, the most stringent
provision applies.
(e) Child development specialist. A program that offers the family
child care option must provide a child development specialist to
support family child care providers and ensure the provision of quality
services at each family child care home. Child development specialists
must:
(1) Conduct regular visits to each home, some of which are
unannounced, not less than once every two weeks;
(2) Periodically verify compliance with either contract
requirements or agency policy;
(3) Facilitate ongoing communication between program staff, family
child care providers, and enrolled families; and,
(4) Provide recommendations for technical assistance and support
the family child care provider in developing relationships with other
child care professionals.
Sec. 1302.24 Locally-designed program option variations.
(a) Waiver option. Programs may request to operate a locally-
designed program option, including a combination of program options, to
better meet the unique needs of their communities or to demonstrate or
test alternative approaches for providing program services. In order to
operate a locally-designed program option, programs must seek a waiver
as described in this section and must deliver the full range of
services, consistent with Sec. 1302.20(b), and demonstrate how any
change to their program design is consistent with achieving program
goals in subpart J of this part.
(b) Request for approval. A program's request to operate a locally-
designed variation may be approved by the responsible HHS official
through the end of a program's current grant or, if the request is
submitted through a grant application for an upcoming project period,
for the project period of the new award. Such approval may be revoked
based on progress toward program goals as described in Sec. 1302.102
and monitoring as described in Sec. 1304.2.
(c) Waiver requirements. (1) The responsible HHS official may waive
one or more of the requirements contained in Sec. 1302.21(b),
(c)(1)(i), and (c)(2)(iii) and (iv); Sec. 1302.22(a) through (c); and
Sec. 1302.23(b) and (c), but may not waive ratios or group size for
children under 24 months. Center-based locally-designed options must
meet the minimums described in section 640(k)(1) of the Act for center-
based programs.
(2) If the responsible HHS official determines a waiver of group
size for center-based services would better meet
[[Page 61421]]
the needs of children and families in a community, the group size may
not exceed the limits below:
(i) A group that serves children 24 to 36 months of age must have
no more than ten children; and,
(ii) A group that serves predominantly three-year-old children must
have no more than twenty children; and,
(iii) A group that serves predominantly four-year-old children must
have no more than twenty-four children.
(3) If the responsible HHS official approves a waiver to allow a
program to operate below the minimums described in Sec.
1302.21(c)(2)(iii) or (iv), a program must meet the requirements
described in Sec. 1302.21(c)(2)(i), or in the case of a double session
variation, a program must meet the requirements described in Sec.
1302.21(c)(2)(ii).
(4) In order to receive a waiver under this section, a program must
provide supporting evidence that demonstrates the locally-designed
variation effectively supports appropriate development and progress in
children's early learning outcomes.
(5) In order to receive a waiver of service duration, a program
must meet the requirement in paragraph (c)(4) of this section, provide
supporting evidence that it better meets the needs of parents than the
applicable service duration minimums described in Sec. 1302.21(c)(1)
and (c)(2)(iii) and (iv), Sec. 1302.22(c), or Sec. 1302.23(c), and
assess the effectiveness of the variation in supporting appropriate
development and progress in children's early learning outcomes.
(d) Transition from previously approved program options. If, before
November 7, 2016, a program was approved to operate a program option
that is no longer allowable under Sec. Sec. 1302.21 through 1302.23, a
program may continue to operate that model until July 31, 2018.
Subpart C--Education and Child Development Program Services
Sec. 1302.30 Purpose.
All programs must provide high-quality early education and child
development services, including for children with disabilities, that
promote children's cognitive, social, and emotional growth for later
success in school. A center-based or family child care program must
embed responsive and effective teacher-child interactions. A home-based
program must promote secure parent-child relationships and help parents
provide high-quality early learning experiences. All programs must
implement a research-based curriculum, and screening and assessment
procedures that support individualization and growth in the areas of
development described in the Head Start Early Learning Outcomes
Framework: Ages Birth to Five and support family engagement in
children's learning and development. A program must deliver
developmentally, culturally, and linguistically appropriate learning
experiences in language, literacy, mathematics, social and emotional
functioning, approaches to learning, science, physical skills, and
creative arts. To deliver such high-quality early education and child
development services, a center-based or family child care program must
implement, at a minimum, the elements contained in Sec. Sec. 1302.31
through 1302.34, and a home-based program must implement, at a minimum,
the elements in Sec. Sec. 1302.33 and 1302.35.
Sec. 1302.31 Teaching and the learning environment.
(a) Teaching and the learning environment. A center-based and
family child care program must ensure teachers and other relevant staff
provide responsive care, effective teaching, and an organized learning
environment that promotes healthy development and children's skill
growth aligned with the Head Start Early Learning Outcomes Framework:
Ages Birth to Five, including for children with disabilities. A program
must also support implementation of such environment with integration
of regular and ongoing supervision and a system of individualized and
ongoing professional development, as appropriate. This includes, at a
minimum, the practices described in paragraphs (b) through (e) of this
section.
(b) Effective teaching practices. (1) Teaching practices must:
(i) Emphasize nurturing and responsive practices, interactions, and
environments that foster trust and emotional security; are
communication and language rich; promote critical thinking and problem-
solving; social, emotional, behavioral, and language development;
provide supportive feedback for learning; motivate continued effort;
and support all children's engagement in learning experiences and
activities;
(ii) Focus on promoting growth in the developmental progressions
described in the Head Start Early Learning Outcomes Framework: Ages
Birth to Five by aligning with and using the Framework and the
curricula as described in Sec. 1302.32 to direct planning of organized
activities, schedules, lesson plans, and the implementation of high-
quality early learning experiences that are responsive to and build
upon each child's individual pattern of development and learning;
(iii) Integrate child assessment data in individual and group
planning; and,
(iv) Include developmentally appropriate learning experiences in
language, literacy, social and emotional development, math, science,
social studies, creative arts, and physical development that are
focused toward achieving progress outlined in the Head Start Early
Learning Outcomes Framework: Ages Birth to Five.
(2) For dual language learners, a program must recognize
bilingualism and biliteracy as strengths and implement research-based
teaching practices that support their development. These practices
must:
(i) For an infant or toddler dual language learner, include
teaching practices that focus on the development of the home language,
when there is a teacher with appropriate language competency, and
experiences that expose the child to English;
(ii) For a preschool age dual language learner, include teaching
practices that focus on both English language acquisition and the
continued development of the home language; or,
(iii) If staff do not speak the home language of all children in
the learning environment, include steps to support the development of
the home language for dual language learners such as having culturally
and linguistically appropriate materials available and other evidence-
based strategies. Programs must work to identify volunteers who speak
children's home language/s who could be trained to work in the
classroom to support children's continued development of the home
language.
(c) Learning environment. A program must ensure teachers implement
well-organized learning environments with developmentally appropriate
schedules, lesson plans, and indoor and outdoor learning experiences
that provide adequate opportunities for choice, play, exploration, and
experimentation among a variety of learning, sensory, and motor
experiences and:
(1) For infants and toddlers, promote relational learning and
include individualized and small group activities that integrate
appropriate daily routines into a flexible schedule of learning
experiences; and,
(2) For preschool age children, include teacher-directed and child-
initiated activities, active and quiet learning activities, and
opportunities for
[[Page 61422]]
individual, small group, and large group learning activities.
(d) Materials and space for learning. To support implementation of
the curriculum and the requirements described in paragraphs (a), (b),
(c), and (e) of this section a program must provide age-appropriate
equipment, materials, supplies and physical space for indoor and
outdoor learning environments, including functional space. The
equipment, materials and supplies must include any necessary
accommodations and the space must be accessible to children with
disabilities. Programs must change materials intentionally and
periodically to support children's interests, development, and
learning.
(e) Promoting learning through approaches to rest, meals, routines,
and physical activity. (1) A program must implement an intentional, age
appropriate approach to accommodate children's need to nap or rest, and
that, for preschool age children in a program that operates for 6 hours
or longer per day provides a regular time every day at which preschool
age children are encouraged but not forced to rest or nap. A program
must provide alternative quiet learning activities for children who do
not need or want to rest or nap.
(2) A program must implement snack and meal times in ways that
support development and learning. For bottle-fed infants, this approach
must include holding infants during feeding to support socialization.
Snack and meal times must be structured and used as learning
opportunities that support teaching staff-child interactions and foster
communication and conversations that contribute to a child's learning,
development, and socialization. Programs are encouraged to meet this
requirement with family style meals when developmentally appropriate. A
program must also provide sufficient time for children to eat, not use
food as reward or punishment, and not force children to finish their
food.
(3) A program must approach routines, such as hand washing and
diapering, and transitions between activities, as opportunities for
strengthening development, learning, and skill growth.
(4) A program must recognize physical activity as important to
learning and integrate intentional movement and physical activity into
curricular activities and daily routines in ways that support health
and learning. A program must not use physical activity as reward or
punishment.
Sec. 1302.32 Curricula.
(a) Curricula. (1) Center-based and family child care programs must
implement developmentally appropriate research-based early childhood
curricula, including additional curricular enhancements, as appropriate
that:
(i) Are based on scientifically valid research and have
standardized training procedures and curriculum materials to support
implementation;
(ii) Are aligned with the Head Start Early Learning Outcomes
Framework: Ages Birth to Five and, as appropriate, state early learning
and development standards; and are sufficiently content-rich to promote
measurable progress toward development and learning outlined in the
Framework; and,
(iii) Have an organized developmental scope and sequence that
include plans and materials for learning experiences based on
developmental progressions and how children learn.
(2) A program must support staff to effectively implement curricula
and at a minimum monitor curriculum implementation and fidelity, and
provide support, feedback, and supervision for continuous improvement
of its implementation through the system of training and professional
development.
(b) Adaptation. A program that chooses to make significant
adaptations to a curriculum or a curriculum enhancement described in
paragraph (a)(1) of this section to better meet the needs of one or
more specific populations must use an external early childhood
education curriculum or content area expert to develop such significant
adaptations. A program must assess whether the adaptation adequately
facilitates progress toward meeting school readiness goals, consistent
with the process described in Sec. 1302.102(b) and (c). Programs are
encouraged to partner with outside evaluators in assessing such
adaptations.
Sec. 1302.33 Child screenings and assessments.
(a) Screening. (1) In collaboration with each child's parent and
with parental consent, a program must complete or obtain a current
developmental screening to identify concerns regarding a child's
developmental, behavioral, motor, language, social, cognitive, and
emotional skills within 45 calendar days of when the child first
attends the program or, for the home-based program option, receives a
home visit. A program that operates for 90 days or less must complete
or obtain a current developmental screening within 30 calendar days of
when the child first attends the program.
(2) A program must use one or more research-based developmental
standardized screening tools to complete the screening. A program must
use as part of the screening additional information from family
members, teachers, and relevant staff familiar with the child's typical
behavior.
(3) If warranted through screening and additional relevant
information and with direct guidance from a mental health or child
development professional a program must, with the parent's consent,
promptly and appropriately address any needs identified through:
(i) Referral to the local agency responsible for implementing IDEA
for a formal evaluation to assess the child's eligibility for services
under IDEA as soon as possible, and not to exceed timelines required
under IDEA; and,
(ii) Partnership with the child's parents and the relevant local
agency to support families through the formal evaluation process.
(4) If a child is determined to be eligible for services under
IDEA, the program must partner with parents and the local agency
responsible for implementing IDEA, as appropriate, and deliver the
services in subpart F of this part.
(5) If, after the formal evaluation described in paragraph
(a)(3)(i) of this section, the local agency responsible for
implementing IDEA determines the child is not eligible for early
intervention or special education and related services under IDEA, the
program must:
(i) Seek guidance from a mental health or child development
professional to determine if the formal evaluation shows the child has
a significant delay in one or more areas of development that is likely
to interfere with the child's development and school readiness; and,
(ii) If the child has a significant delay, partner with parents to
help the family access services and supports to help address the
child's identified needs.
(A) Such additional services and supports may be available through
a child's health insurance or it may be appropriate for the program to
provide needed services and supports under section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act if the child satisfies the definition of disability
in 29 U.S.C. 705(9)(b) of the Rehabilitation Act, to ensure that the
child who satisfies the definition of disability in 29 U.S.C. 705(9)(b)
of the Rehabilitation Act is not excluded from the program on the basis
of disability.
[[Page 61423]]
(B) A program may use program funds for such services and supports
when no other sources of funding are available.
(b) Assessment for individualization. (1) A program must conduct
standardized and structured assessments, which may be observation-based
or direct, for each child that provide ongoing information to evaluate
the child's developmental level and progress in outcomes aligned to the
goals described in the Head Start Early Learning Child Outcomes
Framework: Ages Birth to Five. Such assessments must result in usable
information for teachers, home visitors, and parents and be conducted
with sufficient frequency to allow for individualization within the
program year.
(2) A program must regularly use information from paragraph (b)(1)
of this section along with informal teacher observations and additional
information from family and staff, as relevant, to determine a child's
strengths and needs, inform and adjust strategies to better support
individualized learning and improve teaching practices in center-based
and family child care settings, and improve home visit strategies in
home-based models.
(3) If warranted from the information gathered from paragraphs
(b)(1) and (2) of this section and with direct guidance from a mental
health or child development professional and a parent's consent, a
program must refer the child to the local agency responsible for
implementing IDEA for a formal evaluation to assess a child's
eligibility for services under IDEA.
(c) Characteristics of screenings and assessments. (1) Screenings
and assessments must be valid and reliable for the population and
purpose for which they will be used, including by being conducted by
qualified and trained personnel, and being age, developmentally,
culturally and linguistically appropriate, and appropriate for children
with disabilities, as needed.
(2) If a program serves a child who speaks a language other than
English, a program must use qualified bilingual staff, contractor, or
consultant to:
(i) Assess language skills in English and in the child's home
language, to assess both the child's progress in the home language and
in English language acquisition;
(ii) Conduct screenings and assessments for domains other than
language skills in the language or languages that best capture the
child's development and skills in the specific domain; and,
(iii) Ensure those conducting the screening or assessment know and
understand the child's language and culture and have sufficient skill
level in the child's home language to accurately administer the
screening or assessment and to record and understand the child's
responses, interactions, and communications.
(3) If a program serves a child who speaks a language other than
English and qualified bilingual staff, contractors, or consultants are
not able to conduct screenings and assessments, a program must use an
interpreter in conjunction with a qualified staff person to conduct
screenings and assessments as described in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through
(iii) of this section.
(4) If a program serves a child who speaks a language other than
English and can demonstrate that there is not a qualified bilingual
staff person or interpreter, then screenings and assessments may be
conducted in English. In such a case, a program must also gather and
use other information, including structured observations over time and
information gathered in a child's home language from the family, for
use in evaluating the child's development and progress.
(d) Prohibitions on use of screening and assessment data. The use
of screening and assessment items and data on any screening or
assessment authorized under this subchapter by any agent of the federal
government is prohibited for the purposes of ranking, comparing, or
otherwise evaluating individual children for purposes other than
research, training, or technical assistance, and is prohibited for the
purposes of providing rewards or sanctions for individual children or
staff. A program must not use screening or assessments to exclude
children from enrollment or participation.
Sec. 1302.34 Parent and family engagement in education and child
development services.
(a) Purpose. Center-based and family child care programs must
structure education and child development services to recognize
parents' roles as children's lifelong educators, and to encourage
parents to engage in their child's education.
(b) Engaging parents and family members. A program must offer
opportunities for parents and family members to be involved in the
program's education services and implement policies to ensure:
(1) The program's settings are open to parents during all program
hours;
(2) Teachers regularly communicate with parents to ensure they are
well-informed about their child's routines, activities, and behavior;
(3) Teachers hold parent conferences, as needed, but no less than
two times per program year, to enhance the knowledge and understanding
of both staff and parents of the child's education and developmental
progress and activities in the program;
(4) Parents have the opportunity to learn about and to provide
feedback on selected curricula and instructional materials used in the
program;
(5) Parents and family members have opportunities to volunteer in
the class and during group activities;
(6) Teachers inform parents, about the purposes of and the results
from screenings and assessments and discuss their child's progress;
(7) Teachers, except those described in paragraph (b)(8) of this
section, conduct at least two home visits per program year for each
family, including one before the program year begins, if feasible, to
engage the parents in the child's learning and development, except that
such visits may take place at a program site or another safe location
that affords privacy at the parent's request, or if a visit to the home
presents significant safety hazards for staff; and,
(8) Teachers that serve migrant or seasonal families make every
effort to conduct home visits to engage the family in the child's
learning and development.
Sec. 1302.35 Education in home-based programs.
(a) Purpose. A home-based program must provide home visits and
group socialization activities that promote secure parent-child
relationships and help parents provide high-quality early learning
experiences in language, literacy, mathematics, social and emotional
functioning, approaches to learning, science, physical skills, and
creative arts. A program must implement a research-based curriculum
that delivers developmentally, linguistically, and culturally
appropriate home visits and group socialization activities that support
children's cognitive, social, and emotional growth for later success in
school.
(b) Home-based program design. A home-based program must ensure all
home visits are:
(1) Planned jointly by the home visitor and parents, and reflect
the critical role of parents in the early learning and development of
their children, including that the home visitor is able to effectively
communicate with the parent, directly or through an interpreter;
[[Page 61424]]
(2) Planned using information from ongoing assessments that
individualize learning experiences;
(3) Scheduled with sufficient time to serve all enrolled children
in the home and conducted with parents and are not conducted when only
babysitters or other temporary caregivers are present;
(4) Scheduled with sufficient time and appropriate staff to ensure
effective delivery of services described in subparts D, E, F, and G of
this part through home visiting, to the extent possible.
(c) Home visit experiences. A program that operates the home-based
option must ensure all home visits focus on promoting high-quality
early learning experiences in the home and growth towards the goals
described in the Head Start Early Learning Outcomes Framework: Ages
Birth to Five and must use such goals and the curriculum to plan home
visit activities that implement:
(1) Age and developmentally appropriate, structured child-focused
learning experiences;
(2) Strategies and activities that promote parents' ability to
support the child's cognitive, social, emotional, language, literacy,
and physical development;
(3) Strategies and activities that promote the home as a learning
environment that is safe, nurturing, responsive, and language- and
communication- rich;
(4) Research-based strategies and activities for children who are
dual language learners that recognize bilingualism and biliteracy as
strengths, and:
(i) For infants and toddlers, focus on the development of the home
language, while providing experiences that expose both parents and
children to English; and,
(ii) For preschoolers, focus on both English language acquisition
and the continued development of the home language; and,
(5) Follow-up with the families to discuss learning experiences
provided in the home between each visit, address concerns, and inform
strategies to promote progress toward school readiness goals.
(d) Home-based curriculum. A program that operates the home-based
option must:
(1) Ensure home-visiting and group socializations implement a
developmentally appropriate research-based early childhood home-based
curriculum that:
(i) Promotes the parent's role as the child's teacher through
experiences focused on the parent-child relationship and, as
appropriate, the family's traditions, culture, values, and beliefs;
(ii) Aligns with the Head Start Early Learning Outcomes Framework:
Ages Birth to Five and, as appropriate, state early learning standards,
and, is sufficiently content-rich within the Framework to promote
measurable progress toward goals outlined in the Framework; and,
(iii) Has an organized developmental scope and sequence that
includes plans and materials for learning experiences based on
developmental progressions and how children learn.
(2) Support staff in the effective implementation of the curriculum
and at a minimum monitor curriculum implementation and fidelity, and
provide support, feedback, and supervision for continuous improvement
of its implementation through the system of training and professional
development.
(3) If a program chooses to make significant adaptations to a
curriculum or curriculum enhancement to better meet the needs of one or
more specific populations, a program must:
(i) Partner with early childhood education curriculum or content
experts; and,
(ii) Assess whether the adaptation adequately facilitates progress
toward meeting school readiness goals consistent with the process
described in Sec. 1302.102(b) and (c).
(4) Provide parents with an opportunity to review selected
curricula and instructional materials used in the program.
(e) Group socialization. (1) A program that operates the home-based
option must ensure group socializations are planned jointly with
families, conducted with both child and parent participation, occur in
a classroom, community facility, home or field trip setting, as
appropriate.
(2) Group socializations must be structured to:
(i) Provide age appropriate activities for participating children
that are intentionally aligned to school readiness goals, the Head
Start Early Learning Outcomes Framework: Ages Birth to Five and the
home-based curriculum; and,
(ii) Encourage parents to share experiences related to their
children's development with other parents in order to strengthen
parent-child relationships and to help promote parents understanding of
child development;
(3) For parents with preschoolers, group socializations also must
provide opportunities for parents to participate in activities that
support parenting skill development or family partnership goals
identified in Sec. 1302.52(c), as appropriate and must emphasize peer
group interactions designed to promote children's social, emotional and
language development, and progress towards school readiness goals,
while encouraging parents to observe and actively participate in
activities, as appropriate.
(f) Screening and assessments. A program that operates the home-
based option must implement provisions in Sec. 1302.33 and inform
parents about the purposes of and the results from screenings and
assessments and discuss their child's progress.
Sec. 1302.36 Tribal language preservation and revitalization.
A program that serves American Indian and Alaska Native children
may integrate efforts to preserve, revitalize, restore, or maintain the
tribal language for these children into program services. Such language
preservation and revitalization efforts may include full immersion in
the tribal language for the majority of the hours of planned class
operations. If children's home language is English, exposure to English
as described in Sec. 1302.31(b)(2)(i) and (ii) is not required.
Subpart D--Health Program Services
Sec. 1302.40 Purpose.
(a) A program must provide high-quality health, oral health, mental
health, and nutrition services that are developmentally, culturally,
and linguistically appropriate and that will support each child's
growth and school readiness.
(b) A program must establish and maintain a Health Services
Advisory Committee that includes Head Start parents, professionals, and
other volunteers from the community.
Sec. 1302.41 Collaboration and communication with parents.
(a) For all activities described in this part, programs must
collaborate with parents as partners in the health and well-being of
their children in a linguistically and culturally appropriate manner
and communicate with parents about their child's health needs and
development concerns in a timely and effective manner.
(b) At a minimum, a program must:
(1) Obtain advance authorization from the parent or other person
with legal authority for all health and developmental procedures
administered through the program or by contract or agreement, and,
maintain written documentation if they refuse to give authorization for
health services; and,
[[Page 61425]]
(2) Share with parents the policies for health emergencies that
require rapid response on the part of staff or immediate medical
attention.
Sec. 1302.42 Child health status and care.
(a) Source of health care. (1) A program, within 30 calendar days
after the child first attends the program or, for the home-based
program option, receives a home visit, must consult with parents to
determine whether each child has ongoing sources of continuous,
accessible health care--provided by a health care professional that
maintains the child's ongoing health record and is not primarily a
source of emergency or urgent care--and health insurance coverage.
(2) If the child does not have such a source of ongoing care and
health insurance coverage or access to care through the Indian Health
Service, the program must assist families in accessing a source of care
and health insurance that will meet these criteria, as quickly as
possible.
(b) Ensuring up-to-date child health status. (1) Within 90 calendar
days after the child first attends the program or, for the home-based
program option, receives a home visit, with the exceptions noted in
paragraph (b)(3) of this section, a program must:
(i) Obtain determinations from health care and oral health care
professionals as to whether or not the child is up-to-date on a
schedule of age appropriate preventive and primary medical and oral
health care, based on: The well-child visits and dental periodicity
schedules as prescribed by the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis,
and Treatment (EPSDT) program of the Medicaid agency of the state in
which they operate, immunization recommendations issued by the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention, and any additional recommendations
from the local Health Services Advisory Committee that are based on
prevalent community health problems;
(ii) Assist parents with making arrangements to bring the child up-
to-date as quickly as possible; and, if necessary, directly facilitate
provision of health services to bring the child up-to-date with parent
consent as described in Sec. 1302.41(b)(1).
(2) Within 45 calendar days after the child first attends the
program or, for the home-based program option, receives a home visit, a
program must either obtain or perform evidence-based vision and hearing
screenings.
(3) If a program operates for 90 days or less, it has 30 days from
the date the child first attends the program to satisfy paragraphs
(b)(1) and (2) of this section.
(4) A program must identify each child's nutritional health needs,
taking into account available health information, including the child's
health records, and family and staff concerns, including special
dietary requirements, food allergies, and community nutrition issues as
identified through the community assessment or by the Health Services
Advisory Committee.
(c) Ongoing care. (1) A program must help parents continue to
follow recommended schedules of well-child and oral health care.
(2) A program must implement periodic observations or other
appropriate strategies for program staff and parents to identify any
new or recurring developmental, medical, oral, or mental health
concerns.
(3) A program must facilitate and monitor necessary oral health
preventive care, treatment and follow-up, including topical fluoride
treatments. In communities where there is a lack of adequate fluoride
available through the water supply and for every child with moderate to
severe tooth decay, a program must also facilitate fluoride
supplements, and other necessary preventive measures, and further oral
health treatment as recommended by the oral health professional.
(d) Extended follow-up care. (1) A program must facilitate further
diagnostic testing, evaluation, treatment, and follow-up plan, as
appropriate, by a licensed or certified professional for each child
with a health problem or developmental delay, such as elevated lead
levels or abnormal hearing or vision results that may affect child's
development, learning, or behavior.
(2) A program must develop a system to track referrals and services
provided and monitor the implementation of a follow-up plan to meet any
treatment needs associated with a health, oral health, social and
emotional, or developmental problem.
(3) A program must assist parents, as needed, in obtaining any
prescribed medications, aids or equipment for medical and oral health
conditions.
(e) Use of funds. (1) A program must use program funds for the
provision of diapers and formula for enrolled children during the
program day.
(2) A program may use program funds for professional medical and
oral health services when no other source of funding is available. When
program funds are used for such services, grantee and delegate agencies
must have written documentation of their efforts to access other
available sources of funding.
Sec. 1302.43 Oral health practices.
A program must promote effective oral health hygiene by ensuring
all children with teeth are assisted by appropriate staff, or
volunteers, if available, in brushing their teeth with toothpaste
containing fluoride once daily.
Sec. 1302.44 Child nutrition.
(a) Nutrition service requirements. (1) A program must design and
implement nutrition services that are culturally and developmentally
appropriate, meet the nutritional needs of and accommodate the feeding
requirements of each child, including children with special dietary
needs and children with disabilities. Family style meals are encouraged
as described in Sec. 1302.31(e)(2).
(2) Specifically, a program must:
(i) Ensure each child in a program that operates for fewer than six
hours per day receives meals and snacks that provide one third to one
half of the child's daily nutritional needs;
(ii) Ensure each child in a program that operates for six hours or
more per day receives meals and snacks that provide one half to two
thirds of the child's daily nutritional needs, depending upon the
length of the program day;
(iii) Serve three- to five-year-olds meals and snacks that conform
to USDA requirements in 7 CFR parts 210, 220, and 226, and are high in
nutrients and low in fat, sugar, and salt;
(iv) Feed infants and toddlers according to their individual
developmental readiness and feeding skills as recommended in USDA
requirements outlined in 7 CFR parts 210, 220, and 226, and ensure
infants and young toddlers are fed on demand to the extent possible;
(v) Ensure bottle-fed infants are never laid down to sleep with a
bottle;
(vi) Serve all children in morning center-based settings who have
not received breakfast upon arrival at the program a nourishing
breakfast;
(vii) Provide appropriate healthy snacks and meals to each child
during group socialization activities in the home-based option;
(viii) Promote breastfeeding, including providing facilities to
properly store and handle breast milk and make accommodations, as
necessary, for mothers who wish to breastfeed during program hours, and
if necessary, provide referrals to lactation consultants or counselors;
and,
(ix) Make safe drinking water available to children during the
program day.
(b) Payment sources. A program must use funds from USDA Food,
Nutrition,
[[Page 61426]]
and Consumer Services child nutrition programs as the primary source of
payment for meal services. Early Head Start and Head Start funds may be
used to cover those allowable costs not covered by the USDA.
Sec. 1302.45 Child mental health and social and emotional well-being.
(a) Wellness promotion. To support a program-wide culture that
promotes children's mental health, social and emotional well-being, and
overall health, a program must:
(1) Provide supports for effective classroom management and
positive learning environments; supportive teacher practices; and,
strategies for supporting children with challenging behaviors and other
social, emotional, and mental health concerns;
(2) Secure mental health consultation services on a schedule of
sufficient and consistent frequency to ensure a mental health
consultant is available to partner with staff and families in a timely
and effective manner;
(3) Obtain parental consent for mental health consultation services
at enrollment; and,
(4) Build community partnerships to facilitate access to additional
mental health resources and services, as needed.
(b) Mental health consultants. A program must ensure mental health
consultants assist:
(1) The program to implement strategies to identify and support
children with mental health and social and emotional concerns;
(2) Teachers, including family child care providers, to improve
classroom management and teacher practices through strategies that
include using classroom observations and consultations to address
teacher and individual child needs and creating physical and cultural
environments that promote positive mental health and social and
emotional functioning;
(3) Other staff, including home visitors, to meet children's mental
health and social and emotional needs through strategies that include
observation and consultation;
(4) Staff to address prevalent child mental health concerns,
including internalizing problems such as appearing withdrawn and
externalizing problems such as challenging behaviors; and,
(5) In helping both parents and staff to understand mental health
and access mental health interventions, if needed.
(6) In the implementation of the policies to limit suspension and
prohibit expulsion as described in Sec. 1302.17.
Sec. 1302.46 Family support services for health, nutrition, and
mental health.
(a) Parent collaboration. Programs must collaborate with parents to
promote children's health and well-being by providing medical, oral,
nutrition and mental health education support services that are
understandable to individuals, including individuals with low health
literacy.
(b) Opportunities. (1) Such collaboration must include
opportunities for parents to:
(i) Learn about preventive medical and oral health care, emergency
first aid, environmental hazards, and health and safety practices for
the home including health and developmental consequences of tobacco
products use and exposure to lead, and safe sleep;
(ii) Discuss their child's nutritional status with staff, including
the importance of physical activity, healthy eating, and the negative
health consequences of sugar-sweetened beverages, and how to select and
prepare nutritious foods that meet the family's nutrition and food
budget needs;
(iii) Learn about healthy pregnancy and postpartum care, as
appropriate, including breastfeeding support and treatment options for
parental mental health or substance abuse problems, including perinatal
depression;
(iv) Discuss with staff and identify issues related to child mental
health and social and emotional well-being, including observations and
any concerns about their child's mental health, typical and atypical
behavior and development, and how to appropriately respond to their
child and promote their child's social and emotional development; and,
(v) Learn about appropriate vehicle and pedestrian safety for
keeping children safe.
(2) A program must provide ongoing support to assist parents'
navigation through health systems to meet the general health and
specifically identified needs of their children and must assist
parents:
(i) In understanding how to access health insurance for themselves
and their families, including information about private and public
health insurance and designated enrollment periods;
(ii) In understanding the results of diagnostic and treatment
procedures as well as plans for ongoing care; and,
(iii) In familiarizing their children with services they will
receive while enrolled in the program and to enroll and participate in
a system of ongoing family health care.
Sec. 1302.47 Safety practices.
(a) A program must establish, train staff on, implement, and
enforce a system of health and safety practices that ensure children
are kept safe at all times. A program should consult Caring for our
Children Basics, available at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/ecd/caring_for_our_children_basics.pdf, for additional
information to develop and implement adequate safety policies and
practices described in this part.
(b) A program must develop and implement a system of management,
including ongoing training, oversight, correction and continuous
improvement in accordance with Sec. 1302.102, that includes policies
and practices to ensure all facilities, equipment and materials,
background checks, safety training, safety and hygiene practices and
administrative safety procedures are adequate to ensure child safety.
This system must ensure:
(1) Facilities. All facilities where children are served, including
areas for learning, playing, sleeping, toileting, and eating are, at a
minimum:
(i) Meet licensing requirements in accordance with Sec. Sec.
1302.21(d)(1) and 1302.23(d);
(ii) Clean and free from pests;
(iii) Free from pollutants, hazards and toxins that are accessible
to children and could endanger children's safety;
(iv) Designed to prevent child injury and free from hazards,
including choking, strangulation, electrical, and drowning hazards,
hazards posed by appliances and all other safety hazards;
(v) Well lit, including emergency lighting;
(vi) Equipped with safety supplies that are readily accessible to
staff, including, at a minimum, fully-equipped and up-to-date first aid
kits and appropriate fire safety supplies;
(vii) Free from firearms or other weapons that are accessible to
children;
(viii) Designed to separate toileting and diapering areas from
areas for preparing food, cooking, eating, or children's activities;
and,
(ix) Kept safe through an ongoing system of preventative
maintenance.
(2) Equipment and materials. Indoor and outdoor play equipment,
cribs, cots, feeding chairs, strollers, and other equipment used in the
care of enrolled children, and as applicable, other equipment and
materials meet standards set by the Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC) or the American Society for Testing and Materials, International
(ASTM). All equipment and materials must at a minimum:
(i) Be clean and safe for children's use and are appropriately
disinfected;
[[Page 61427]]
(ii) Be accessible only to children for whom they are age
appropriate;
(iii) Be designed to ensure appropriate supervision of children at
all times;
(iv) Allow for the separation of infants and toddlers from
preschoolers during play in center-based programs; and,
(v) Be kept safe through an ongoing system of preventative
maintenance.
(3) Background checks. All staff have complete background checks in
accordance with Sec. 1302.90(b).
(4) Safety training--(i) Staff with regular child contact. All
staff with regular child contact have initial orientation training
within three months of hire and ongoing training in all state, local,
tribal, federal and program-developed health, safety and child care
requirements to ensure the safety of children in their care; including,
at a minimum, and as appropriate based on staff roles and ages of
children they work with, training in:
(A) The prevention and control of infectious diseases;
(B) Prevention of sudden infant death syndrome and use of safe
sleeping practices;
(C) Administration of medication, consistent with standards for
parental consent;
(D) Prevention and response to emergencies due to food and allergic
reactions;
(E) Building and physical premises safety, including identification
of and protection from hazards, bodies of water, and vehicular traffic;
(F) Prevention of shaken baby syndrome, abusive head trauma, and
child maltreatment;
(G) Emergency preparedness and response planning for emergencies;
(H) Handling and storage of hazardous materials and the appropriate
disposal of biocontaminants;
(I) Appropriate precautions in transporting children, if
applicable;
(J) First aid and cardiopulmonary resuscitation; and,
(K) Recognition and reporting of child abuse and neglect, in
accordance with the requirement at paragraph (b)(5) of this section.
(ii) Staff without regular child contact. All staff with no regular
responsibility for or contact with children have initial orientation
training within three months of hire; ongoing training in all state,
local, tribal, federal and program-developed health and safety
requirements applicable to their work; and training in the program's
emergency and disaster preparedness procedures.
(5) Safety practices. All staff and consultants follow appropriate
practices to keep children safe during all activities, including, at a
minimum:
(i) Reporting of suspected or known child abuse and neglect,
including that staff comply with applicable federal, state, local, and
tribal laws;
(ii) Safe sleep practices, including ensuring that all sleeping
arrangements for children under 18 months of age use firm mattresses or
cots, as appropriate, and for children under 12 months, soft bedding
materials or toys must not be used;
(iii) Appropriate indoor and outdoor supervision of children at all
times;
(iv) Only releasing children to an authorized adult, and;
(v) All standards of conduct described in Sec. 1302.90(c).
(6) Hygiene practices. All staff systematically and routinely
implement hygiene practices that at a minimum ensure:
(i) Appropriate toileting, hand washing, and diapering procedures
are followed;
(ii) Safe food preparation; and,
(iii) Exposure to blood and body fluids are handled consistent with
standards of the Occupational Safety Health Administration.
(7) Administrative safety procedures. Programs establish, follow,
and practice, as appropriate, procedures for, at a minimum:
(i) Emergencies;
(ii) Fire prevention and response;
(iii) Protection from contagious disease, including appropriate
inclusion and exclusion policies for when a child is ill, and from an
infectious disease outbreak, including appropriate notifications of any
reportable illness;
(iv) The handling, storage, administration, and record of
administration of medication;
(v) Maintaining procedures and systems to ensure children are only
released to an authorized adult; and,
(vi) Child specific health care needs and food allergies that
include accessible plans of action for emergencies. For food allergies,
a program must also post individual child food allergies prominently
where staff can view wherever food is served.
(8) Disaster preparedness plan. The program has all-hazards
emergency management/disaster preparedness and response plans for more
and less likely events including natural and manmade disasters and
emergencies, and violence in or near programs.
(c) A program must report any safety incidents in accordance with
Sec. 1302.102(d)(1)(ii).
Subpart E--Family and Community Engagement Program Services
Sec. 1302.50 Family engagement.
(a) Purpose. A program must integrate parent and family engagement
strategies into all systems and program services to support family
well-being and promote children's learning and development. Programs
are encouraged to develop innovative two-generation approaches that
address prevalent needs of families across their program that may
leverage community partnerships or other funding sources.
(b) Family engagement approach. A program must:
(1) Recognize parents as their children's primary teachers and
nurturers and implement intentional strategies to engage parents in
their children's learning and development and support parent-child
relationships, including specific strategies for father engagement;
(2) Develop relationships with parents and structure services to
encourage trust and respectful, ongoing two-way communication between
staff and parents to create welcoming program environments that
incorporate the unique cultural, ethnic, and linguistic backgrounds of
families in the program and community;
(3) Collaborate with families in a family partnership process that
identifies needs, interests, strengths, goals, and services and
resources that support family well-being, including family safety,
health, and economic stability;
(4) Provide parents with opportunities to participate in the
program as employees or volunteers;
(5) Conduct family engagement services in the family's preferred
language, or through an interpreter, to the extent possible, and ensure
families have the opportunity to share personal information in an
environment in which they feel safe; and,
(6) Implement procedures for teachers, home visitors, and family
support staff to share information with each other, as appropriate and
consistent with the requirements in part 1303, subpart C, of this
chapter; FERPA; or IDEA, to ensure coordinated family engagement
strategies with children and families in the classroom, home, and
community.
Sec. 1302.51 Parent activities to promote child learning and
development.
(a) A program must promote shared responsibility with parents for
children's early learning and development, and implement family
engagement strategies that are designed
[[Page 61428]]
to foster parental confidence and skills in promoting children's
learning and development. These strategies must include:
(1) Offering activities that support parent-child relationships and
child development including language, dual language, literacy, and bi-
literacy development as appropriate;
(2) Providing parents with information about the importance of
their child's regular attendance, and partner with them, as necessary,
to promote consistent attendance; and,
(3) For dual language learners, information and resources for
parents about the benefits of bilingualism and biliteracy.
(b) A program must, at a minimum, offer opportunities for parents
to participate in a research-based parenting curriculum that builds on
parents' knowledge and offers parents the opportunity to practice
parenting skills to promote children's learning and development. A
program that chooses to make significant adaptations to the parenting
curriculum to better meet the needs of one or more specific populations
must work with an expert or experts to develop such adaptations.
Sec. 1302.52 Family partnership services.
(a) Family partnership process. A program must implement a family
partnership process that includes a family partnership agreement and
the activities described in this section to support family well-being,
including family safety, health, and economic stability, to support
child learning and development, to provide, if applicable, services and
supports for children with disabilities, and to foster parental
confidence and skills that promote the early learning and development
of their children. The process must be initiated as early in the
program year as possible and continue for as long as the family
participates in the program, based on parent interest and need.
(b) Identification of family strengths and needs. A program must
implement intake and family assessment procedures to identify family
strengths and needs related to the family engagement outcomes as
described in the Head Start Parent Family and Community Engagement
Framework, including family well-being, parent-child relationships,
families as lifelong educators, families as learners, family engagement
in transitions, family connections to peers and the local community,
and families as advocates and leaders.
(c) Individualized family partnership services. A program must
offer individualized family partnership services that:
(1) Collaborate with families to identify interests, needs, and
aspirations related to the family engagement outcomes described in
paragraph (b) of this section;
(2) Help families achieve identified individualized family
engagement outcomes;
(3) Establish and implement a family partnership agreement process
that is jointly developed and shared with parents in which staff and
families review individual progress, revise goals, evaluate and track
whether identified needs and goals are met, and adjust strategies on an
ongoing basis, as necessary, and;
(4) Assign staff and resources based on the urgency and intensity
of identified family needs and goals.
(d) Existing plans and community resources. In implementing this
section, a program must take into consideration any existing plans for
the family made with other community agencies and availability of other
community resources to address family needs, strengths, and goals, in
order to avoid duplication of effort.
Sec. 1302.53 Community partnerships and coordination with other early
childhood and education programs.
(a) Community partnerships. (1) A program must establish ongoing
collaborative relationships and partnerships with community
organizations such as establishing joint agreements, procedures, or
contracts and arranging for onsite delivery of services as appropriate,
to facilitate access to community services that are responsive to
children's and families' needs and family partnership goals, and
community needs and resources, as determined by the community
assessment.
(2) A program must establish necessary collaborative relationships
and partnerships, with community organizations that may include:
(i) Health care providers, including child and adult mental health
professionals, Medicaid managed care networks, dentists, other health
professionals, nutritional service providers, providers of prenatal and
postnatal support, and substance abuse treatment providers;
(ii) Individuals and agencies that provide services to children
with disabilities and their families, elementary schools, state
preschool providers, and providers of child care services;
(iii) Family preservation and support services and child protective
services and any other agency to which child abuse must be reported
under state or tribal law;
(iv) Educational and cultural institutions, such as libraries and
museums, for both children and families;
(v) Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, nutrition assistance
agencies, workforce development and training programs, adult or family
literacy, adult education, and post-secondary education institutions,
and agencies or financial institutions that provide asset-building
education, products and services to enhance family financial stability
and savings;
(vi) Housing assistance agencies and providers of support for
children and families experiencing homelessness, including the local
educational agency liaison designated under section 722(g)(1)(J)(ii) of
the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11431 et seq.);
(vii) Domestic violence prevention and support providers; and,
(viii) Other organizations or businesses that may provide support
and resources to families.
(b) Coordination with other programs and systems. A program must
take an active role in promoting coordinated systems of comprehensive
early childhood services to low-income children and families in their
community through communication, cooperation, and the sharing of
information among agencies and their community partners, while
protecting the privacy of child records in accordance with subpart C of
part 1303 of this chapter and applicable federal, state, local, and
tribal laws.
(1) Memorandum of understanding. To support coordination between
Head Start and publicly funded preschool programs, a program must enter
into a memorandum of understanding with the appropriate local entity
responsible for managing publicly funded preschool programs in the
service area of the program, as described in section 642(e)(5) of the
Act.
(2) Quality Rating and Improvement Systems. A program, with the
exception of American Indian and Alaska Native programs, must
participate in its state or local Quality Rating and Improvement System
(QRIS) if:
(i) Its state or local QRIS accepts Head Start monitoring data to
document quality indicators included in the state's tiered system;
(ii) Participation would not impact a program's ability to comply
with the Head Start Program Performance Standards; and,
[[Page 61429]]
(iii) The program has not provided the Office of Head Start with a
compelling reason not to comply with this requirement.
(3) Data systems. A program, with the exception of American Indian
and Alaska Native programs unless they would like to and to the extent
practicable, should integrate and share relevant data with state
education data systems, to the extent practicable, if the program can
receive similar support and benefits as other participating early
childhood programs.
(4) American Indian and Alaska Native programs. An American Indian
and Alaska Native program should determine whether or not it will
participate in the systems described in paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) of
this section.
Subpart F--Additional Services for Children With Disabilities
Sec. 1302.60 Full participation in program services and activities.
A program must ensure enrolled children with disabilities,
including but not limited to those who are eligible for services under
IDEA, and their families receive all applicable program services
delivered in the least restrictive possible environment and that they
fully participate in all program activities.
Sec. 1302.61 Additional services for children.
(a) Additional services for children with disabilities. Programs
must ensure the individualized needs of children with disabilities,
including but not limited to those eligible for services under IDEA,
are being met and all children have access to and can fully participate
in the full range of activities and services. Programs must provide any
necessary modifications to the environment, multiple and varied formats
for instruction, and individualized accommodations and supports as
necessary to support the full participation of children with
disabilities. Programs must ensure all individuals with disabilities
are protected from discrimination under and provided with all services
and program modifications required by section 504 of the Rehabilitation
Act (29 U.S.C. 794), the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C.
12101 et seq.), and their implementing regulations.
(b) Services during IDEA eligibility determination. While the local
agency responsible for implementing IDEA determines a child's
eligibility, a program must provide individualized services and
supports, to the maximum extent possible, to meet the child's needs.
Such additional supports may be available through a child's health
insurance or it may be appropriate or required to provide the needed
services and supports under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act if
the child satisfies the definition of disability in section 705(9)(b)
of the Rehabilitation Act. When such supports are not available through
alternate means, pending the evaluation results and eligibility
determination, a program must individualize program services based on
available information such as parent input and child observation and
assessment data and may use program funds for these purposes.
(c) Additional services for children with an IFSP or IEP. To ensure
the individual needs of children eligible for services under IDEA are
met, a program must:
(1) Work closely with the local agency responsible for implementing
IDEA, the family, and other service partners, as appropriate, to
ensure:
(i) Services for a child with disabilities will be planned and
delivered as required by their IFSP or IEP, as appropriate;
(ii) Children are working towards the goals in their IFSP or IEP;
(iii) Elements of the IFSP or IEP that the program cannot implement
are implemented by other appropriate agencies, related service
providers and specialists;
(iv) IFSPs and IEPs are being reviewed and revised, as required by
IDEA; and,
(v) Services are provided in a child's regular Early Head Start or
Head Start classroom or family child care home to the greatest extent
possible.
(2) Plan and implement the transition services described in subpart
G of this part, including at a minimum:
(i) For children with an IFSP who are transitioning out of Early
Head Start, collaborate with the parents, and the local agency
responsible for implementing IDEA, to ensure appropriate steps are
undertaken in a timely and appropriate manner to determine the child's
eligibility for services under Part B of IDEA; and,
(ii) For children with an IEP who are transitioning out of Head
Start to kindergarten, collaborate with the parents, and the local
agency responsible for implementing IDEA, to ensure steps are
undertaken in a timely and appropriate manner to support the child and
family as they transition to a new setting.
Sec. 1302.62 Additional services for parents.
(a) Parents of all children with disabilities. (1) A program must
collaborate with parents of children with disabilities, including but
not limited to children eligible for services under IDEA, to ensure the
needs of their children are being met, including support to help
parents become advocates for services that meet their children's needs
and information and skills to help parents understand their child's
disability and how to best support the child's development;
(2) A program must assist parents to access services and resources
for their family, including securing adaptive equipment and devices and
supports available through a child's health insurance or other
entities, creating linkages to family support programs, and helping
parents establish eligibility for additional support programs, as
needed and practicable.
(b) Parents of children eligible for services under IDEA. For
parents of children eligible for services under IDEA, a program must
also help parents:
(1) Understand the referral, evaluation, and service timelines
required under IDEA;
(2) Actively participate in the eligibility process and IFSP or IEP
development process with the local agency responsible for implementing
IDEA, including by informing parents of their right to invite the
program to participate in all meetings;
(3) Understand the purposes and results of evaluations and services
provided under an IFSP or IEP; and,
(4) Ensure their children's needs are accurately identified in, and
addressed through, the IFSP or IEP.
Sec. 1302.63 Coordination and collaboration with the local agency
responsible for implementing IDEA.
(a) A program must coordinate with the local agency responsible for
implementing IDEA to identify children enrolled or who intend to enroll
in a program that may be eligible for services under IDEA, including
through the process described in Sec. 1302.33(a)(3) and through
participation in the local agency Child Find efforts.
(b) A program must work to develop interagency agreements with the
local agency responsible for implementing IDEA to improve service
delivery to children eligible for services under IDEA, including the
referral and evaluation process, service coordination, promotion of
service provision in the least restrictive appropriate community-based
setting and reduction in dual enrollment which causes reduced time in a
less restrictive setting, and transition services as children move from
services provided under Part C of IDEA to services provided under Part
B of IDEA and from preschool to kindergarten.
[[Page 61430]]
(c) A program must participate in the development of the IFSP or
IEP if requested by the child's parents, and the implementation of the
IFSP or IEP. At a minimum, the program must offer:
(1) To provide relevant information from its screenings,
assessments, and observations to the team developing a child's IFSP or
IEP; and,
(2) To participate in meetings with the local agency responsible
for implementing IDEA to develop or review an IEP or IFSP for a child
being considered for Head Start enrollment, a currently enrolled child,
or a child transitioning from a program.
(d) A program must retain a copy of the IEP or IFSP for any child
enrolled in Head Start for the time the child is in the program,
consistent with the IDEA requirements in 34 CFR parts 300 and 303.
Subpart G--Transition Services
Sec. 1302.70 Transitions from Early Head Start.
(a) Implementing transition strategies and practices. An Early Head
Start program must implement strategies and practices to support
successful transitions for children and their families transitioning
out of Early Head Start.
(b) Timing for transitions. To ensure the most appropriate
placement and service following participation in Early Head Start, such
programs must, at least six months prior to each child's third
birthday, implement transition planning for each child and family that:
(1) Takes into account the child's developmental level and health
and disability status, progress made by the child and family while in
Early Head Start, current and changing family circumstances and, the
availability of Head Start, other public pre-kindergarten, and other
early education and child development services in the community that
will meet the needs of the child and family; and,
(2) Transitions the child into Head Start or another program as
soon as possible after the child's third birthday but permits the child
to remain in Early Head Start for a limited number of additional months
following the child's third birthday if necessary for an appropriate
transition.
(c) Family collaborations. A program must collaborate with parents
of Early Head Start children to implement strategies and activities
that support successful transitions from Early Head Start and, at a
minimum, provide information about the child's progress during the
program year and provide strategies for parents to continue their
involvement in and advocacy for the education and development of their
child.
(d) Early Head Start and Head Start collaboration. Early Head Start
and Head Start programs must work together to maximize enrollment
transitions from Early Head Start to Head Start, consistent with the
eligibility provisions in subpart A, and promote successful transitions
through collaboration and communication.
(e) Transition services for children with an IFSP. A program must
provide additional transition services for children with an IFSP, at a
minimum, as described in subpart F of this part.
Sec. 1302.71 Transitions from Head Start to kindergarten.
(a) Implementing transition strategies and practices. A program
that serves children who will enter kindergarten in the following year
must implement transition strategies to support a successful transition
to kindergarten.
(b) Family collaborations for transitions. (1) A program must
collaborate with parents of enrolled children to implement strategies
and activities that will help parents advocate for and promote
successful transitions to kindergarten for their children, including
their continued involvement in the education and development of their
child.
(2) At a minimum, such strategies and activities must:
(i) Help parents understand their child's progress during Head
Start;
(ii) Help parents understand practices they use to effectively
provide academic and social support for their children during their
transition to kindergarten and foster their continued involvement in
the education of their child;
(iii) Prepare parents to exercise their rights and responsibilities
concerning the education of their children in the elementary school
setting, including services and supports available to children with
disabilities and various options for their child to participate in
language instruction educational programs; and,
(iv) Assist parents in the ongoing communication with teachers and
other school personnel so that parents can participate in decisions
related to their children's education.
(c) Community collaborations for transitions. (1) A program must
collaborate with local education agencies to support family engagement
under section 642(b)(13) of the Act and state departments of education,
as appropriate, and kindergarten teachers to implement strategies and
activities that promote successful transitions to kindergarten for
children, their families, and the elementary school.
(2) At a minimum, such strategies and activities must include:
(i) Coordination with schools or other appropriate agencies to
ensure children's relevant records are transferred to the school or
next placement in which a child will enroll, consistent with privacy
requirements in subpart C of part 1303 of this chapter;
(ii) Communication between appropriate staff and their counterparts
in the schools to facilitate continuity of learning and development,
consistent with privacy requirements in subpart C of part 1303 of this
chapter; and,
(iii) Participation, as possible, for joint training and
professional development activities for Head Start and kindergarten
teachers and staff.
(3) A program that does not operate during the summer must
collaborate with school districts to determine the availability of
summer school programming for children who will be entering
kindergarten and work with parents and school districts to enroll
children in such programs, as appropriate.
(d) Learning environment activities. A program must implement
strategies and activities in the learning environment that promote
successful transitions to kindergarten for enrolled children, and at a
minimum, include approaches that familiarize children with the
transition to kindergarten and foster confidence about such transition.
(e) Transition services for children with an IEP. A program must
provide additional transition services for children with an IEP, at a
minimum, as described in subpart F of this part.
Sec. 1302.72 Transitions between programs.
(a) For families and children who move out of the community in
which they are currently served, including homeless families and foster
children, a program must undertake efforts to support effective
transitions to other Early Head Start or Head Start programs. If Early
Head Start or Head Start is not available, the program should assist
the family to identify another early childhood program that meets their
needs.
(b) A program that serves children whose families have decided to
transition them to other early education programs, including public
pre-kindergarten, in the year prior to kindergarten entry must
undertake strategies and activities described in Sec. 1302.71(b) and
(c)(1) and (2), as practicable and appropriate.
(c) A migrant or seasonal Head Start program must undertake efforts
to
[[Page 61431]]
support effective transitions to other migrant or seasonal Head Start
or, if appropriate, Early Head Start or Head Start programs for
families and children moving out of the community in which they are
currently served.
Subpart H--Services to Enrolled Pregnant Women
Sec. 1302.80 Enrolled pregnant women.
(a) Within 30 days of enrollment, a program must determine whether
each enrolled pregnant woman has an ongoing source of continuous,
accessible health care--provided by a health care professional that
maintains her ongoing health record and is not primarily a source of
emergency or urgent care--and, as appropriate, health insurance
coverage.
(b) If an enrolled pregnant woman does not have a source of ongoing
care as described in paragraph (a) of this section and, as appropriate,
health insurance coverage, a program must, as quickly as possible,
facilitate her access to such a source of care that will meet her
needs.
(c) A program must facilitate the ability of all enrolled pregnant
women to access comprehensive services through referrals that, at a
minimum, include nutritional counseling, food assistance, oral health
care, mental health services, substance abuse prevention and treatment,
and emergency shelter or transitional housing in cases of domestic
violence.
(d) A program must provide a newborn visit with each mother and
baby to offer support and identify family needs. A program must
schedule the newborn visit within two weeks after the infant's birth.
Sec. 1302.81 Prenatal and postpartum information, education, and
services.
(a) A program must provide enrolled pregnant women, fathers, and
partners or other relevant family members the prenatal and postpartum
information, education and services that address, as appropriate, fetal
development, the importance of nutrition, the risks of alcohol, drugs,
and smoking, labor and delivery, postpartum recovery, parental
depression, infant care and safe sleep practices, and the benefits of
breastfeeding.
(b) A program must also address needs for appropriate supports for
emotional well-being, nurturing and responsive caregiving, and father
engagement during pregnancy and early childhood.
Sec. 1302.82 Family partnership services for enrolled pregnant women.
(a) A program must engage enrolled pregnant women and other
relevant family members, such as fathers, in the family partnership
services as described in Sec. 1302.52 and include a specific focus on
factors that influence prenatal and postpartum maternal and infant
health.
(b) A program must engage enrolled pregnant women and other
relevant family members, such as fathers, in discussions about program
options, plan for the infant's transition to program enrollment, and
support the family during the transition process, where appropriate.
Subpart I--Human Resources Management
Sec. 1302.90 Personnel policies.
(a) Establishing personnel policies and procedures. A program must
establish written personnel policies and procedures that are approved
by the governing body and policy council or policy committee and that
are available to all staff.
(b) Background checks and selection procedures. (1) Before a person
is hired, directly or through contract, including transportation staff
and contractors, a program must conduct an interview, verify
references, conduct a sex offender registry check and obtain one of the
following:
(i) State or tribal criminal history records, including fingerprint
checks; or,
(ii) Federal Bureau of Investigation criminal history records,
including fingerprint checks.
(2) A program has 90 days after an employee is hired to complete
the background check process by obtaining:
(i) Whichever check listed in paragraph (b)(1) of this section was
not obtained prior to the date of hire; and,
(ii) Child abuse and neglect state registry check, if available.
(3) A program must review the information found in each employment
application and complete background check to assess the relevancy of
any issue uncovered by the complete background check including any
arrest, pending criminal charge, or conviction and must use Child Care
and Development Fund (CCDF) disqualification factors described in 42
U.S.C. 9858f(c)(1)(D) and 42 U.S.C. 9858f(h)(1) or tribal
disqualifications factors to determine whether the prospective employee
can be hired or the current employee must be terminated.
(4) A program must ensure a newly hired employee, consultant, or
contractor does not have unsupervised access to children until the
complete background check process described in paragraphs (b)(1)
through (3) of this section is complete.
(5) A program must conduct the complete background check for each
employee, consultant, or contractor at least once every five years
which must include each of the four checks listed in paragraphs (b)(1)
and (2) of this section, and review and make employment decisions based
on the information as described in paragraph (b)(3) of this section,
unless the program can demonstrate to the responsible HHS official that
it has a more stringent system in place that will ensure child safety.
(6) A program must consider current and former program parents for
employment vacancies for which such parents apply and are qualified.
(c) Standards of conduct. (1) A program must ensure all staff,
consultants, contractors, and volunteers abide by the program's
standards of conduct that:
(i) Ensure staff, consultants, contractors, and volunteers
implement positive strategies to support children's well-being and
prevent and address challenging behavior;
(ii) Ensure staff, consultants, contractors, and volunteers do not
maltreat or endanger the health or safety of children, including, at a
minimum, that staff must not:
(A) Use corporal punishment;
(B) Use isolation to discipline a child;
(C) Bind or tie a child to restrict movement or tape a child's
mouth;
(D) Use or withhold food as a punishment or reward;
(E) Use toilet learning/training methods that punish, demean, or
humiliate a child;
(F) Use any form of emotional abuse, including public or private
humiliation, rejecting, terrorizing, extended ignoring, or corrupting a
child;
(G) Physically abuse a child;
(H) Use any form of verbal abuse, including profane, sarcastic
language, threats, or derogatory remarks about the child or child's
family; or,
(I) Use physical activity or outdoor time as a punishment or
reward;
(iii) Ensure staff, consultants, contractors, and volunteers
respect and promote the unique identity of each child and family and do
not stereotype on any basis, including gender, race, ethnicity,
culture, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or family
composition;
(iv) Require staff, consultants, contractors, and volunteers to
comply with program confidentiality policies
[[Page 61432]]
concerning personally identifiable information about children,
families, and other staff members in accordance with subpart C of part
1303 of this chapter and applicable federal, state, local, and tribal
laws; and,
(v) Ensure no child is left alone or unsupervised by staff,
consultants, contractors, or volunteers while under their care.
(2) Personnel policies and procedures must include appropriate
penalties for staff, consultants, and volunteers who violate the
standards of conduct.
(d) Communication with dual language learners and their families.
(1) A program must ensure staff and program consultants or contractors
are familiar with the ethnic backgrounds and heritages of families in
the program and are able to serve and effectively communicate, either
directly or through interpretation and translation, with children who
are dual language learners and to the extent feasible, with families
with limited English proficiency.
(2) If a majority of children in a class or home-based program
speak the same language, at least one class staff member or home
visitor must speak such language.
Sec. 1302.91 Staff qualifications and competency requirements.
(a) Purpose. A program must ensure all staff, consultants, and
contractors engaged in the delivery of program services have sufficient
knowledge, training and experience, and competencies to fulfill the
roles and responsibilities of their positions and to ensure high-
quality service delivery in accordance with the program performance
standards. A program must provide ongoing training and professional
development to support staff in fulfilling their roles and
responsibilities.
(b) Early Head Start or Head Start director. A program must ensure
an Early Head Start or Head Start director hired after November 7,
2016, has, at a minimum, a baccalaureate degree and experience in
supervision of staff, fiscal management, and administration.
(c) Fiscal officer. A program must assess staffing needs in
consideration of the fiscal complexity of the organization and
applicable financial management requirements and secure the regularly
scheduled or ongoing services of a fiscal officer with sufficient
education and experience to meet their needs. A program must ensure a
fiscal officer hired after November 7, 2016, is a certified public
accountant or has, at a minimum, a baccalaureate degree in accounting,
business, fiscal management, or a related field.
(d) Child and family services management staff qualification
requirements--(1) Family, health, and disabilities management. A
program must ensure staff responsible for management and oversight of
family services, health services, and services to children with
disabilities hired after November 7, 2016, have, at a minimum, a
baccalaureate degree, preferably related to one or more of the
disciplines they oversee.
(2) Education management. As prescribed in section 648A(a)(2)(B)(i)
of the Act, a program must ensure staff and consultants that serve as
education managers or coordinators, including those that serve as
curriculum specialists, have a baccalaureate or advanced degree in
early childhood education or a baccalaureate or advanced degree and
equivalent coursework in early childhood education with early education
teaching experience.
(e) Child and family services staff--(1) Early Head Start center-
based teacher qualification requirements. As prescribed in section
645A(h) of the Act, a program must ensure center-based teachers that
provide direct services to infants and toddlers in Early Head Start
centers have a minimum of a Child Development Associate (CDA)
credential or comparable credential, and have been trained or have
equivalent coursework in early childhood development with a focus on
infant and toddler development.
(2) Head Start center-based teacher qualification requirements. (i)
The Secretary must ensure no less than fifty percent of all Head Start
teachers, nationwide, have a baccalaureate degree in child development,
early childhood education, or equivalent coursework.
(ii) As prescribed in section 648A(a)(3)(B) of the Act, a program
must ensure all center-based teachers have at least an associate's or
bachelor's degree in child development or early childhood education,
equivalent coursework, or otherwise meet the requirements of section
648A(a)(3)(B) of the Act.
(3) Head Start assistant teacher qualification requirements. As
prescribed in section 648A(a)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act, a program must
ensure Head Start assistant teachers, at a minimum, have a CDA
credential or a state-awarded certificate that meets or exceeds the
requirements for a CDA credential, are enrolled in a program that will
lead to an associate or baccalaureate degree or, are enrolled in a CDA
credential program to be completed within two years of the time of
hire.
(4) Family child care provider qualification requirements. (i) A
program must ensure family child care providers have previous early
child care experience and, at a minimum, are enrolled in a Family Child
Care CDA program or state equivalent, or an associate's or
baccalaureate degree program in child development or early childhood
education prior to beginning service provision, and for the credential
acquire it within eighteen months of beginning to provide services.
(ii) By August 1, 2018, a child development specialist, as required
for family child care in Sec. 1302.23(e), must have, at a minimum, a
baccalaureate degree in child development, early childhood education,
or a related field.
(5) Center-based teachers, assistant teachers, and family child
care provider competencies. A program must ensure center-based
teachers, assistant teachers, and family child care providers
demonstrate competency to provide effective and nurturing teacher-child
interactions, plan and implement learning experiences that ensure
effective curriculum implementation and use of assessment and promote
children's progress across the standards described in the Head Start
Early Learning Outcomes Framework: Ages Birth to Five and applicable
state early learning and development standards, including for children
with disabilities and dual language learners, as appropriate.
(6) Home visitors. A program must ensure home visitors providing
home-based education services:
(i) Have a minimum of a home-based CDA credential or comparable
credential, or equivalent coursework as part of an associate's or
bachelor's degree; and,
(ii) Demonstrate competency to plan and implement home-based
learning experiences that ensure effective implementation of the home
visiting curriculum and promote children's progress across the
standards described in the Head Start Early Learning Outcomes
Framework: Ages Birth to Five, including for children with disabilities
and dual language learners, as appropriate, and to build respectful,
culturally responsive, and trusting relationships with families.
(7) Family services staff qualification requirements. A program
must ensure staff who work directly with families on the family
partnership process hired after November 7, 2016, have within eighteen
months of hire, at a minimum, a credential or certification in social
work, human services, family services, counseling or a related field.
[[Page 61433]]
(8) Health professional qualification requirements. (i) A program
must ensure health procedures are performed only by a licensed or
certified health professional.
(ii) A program must ensure all mental health consultants are
licensed or certified mental health professionals. A program must use
mental health consultants with knowledge of and experience in serving
young children and their families, if available in the community.
(iii) A program must use staff or consultants to support nutrition
services who are registered dieticians or nutritionists with
appropriate qualifications.
(f) Coaches. A program must ensure coaches providing the services
described in Sec. 1302.92(c) have a minimum of a baccalaureate degree
in early childhood education or a related field.
Sec. 1302.92 Training and professional development.
(a) A program must provide to all new staff, consultants, and
volunteers an orientation that focuses on, at a minimum, the goals and
underlying philosophy of the program and on the ways they are
implemented.
(b) A program must establish and implement a systematic approach to
staff training and professional development designed to assist staff in
acquiring or increasing the knowledge and skills needed to provide
high-quality, comprehensive services within the scope of their job
responsibilities, and attached to academic credit as appropriate. At a
minimum, the system must include:
(1) Staff completing a minimum of 15 clock hours of professional
development per year. For teaching staff, such professional development
must meet the requirements described in section 648A(a)(5) of the Act.
(2) Training on methods to handle suspected or known child abuse
and neglect cases, that comply with applicable federal, state, local,
and tribal laws;
(3) Training for child and family services staff on best practices
for implementing family engagement strategies in a systemic way, as
described throughout this part;
(4) Training for child and family services staff, including staff
that work on family services, health, and disabilities, that builds
their knowledge, experience, and competencies to improve child and
family outcomes; and,
(5) Research-based approaches to professional development for
education staff, that are focused on effective curricula
implementation, knowledge of the content in Head Start Early Learning
Outcomes Framework: Ages Birth to Five, partnering with families,
supporting children with disabilities and their families, providing
effective and nurturing adult-child interactions, supporting dual
language learners as appropriate, addressing challenging behaviors,
preparing children and families for transitions (as described in
subpart G of this part), and use of data to individualize learning
experiences to improve outcomes for all children.
(c) A program must implement a research-based, coordinated coaching
strategy for education staff that:
(1) Assesses all education staff to identify strengths, areas of
needed support, and which staff would benefit most from intensive
coaching;
(2) At a minimum, provides opportunities for intensive coaching to
those education staff identified through the process in paragraph
(c)(1) of this section, including opportunities to be observed and
receive feedback and modeling of effective teacher practices directly
related to program performance goals;
(3) At a minimum, provides opportunities for education staff not
identified for intensive coaching through the process in paragraph
(c)(1) of this section to receive other forms of research-based
professional development aligned with program performance goals;
(4) Ensures intensive coaching opportunities for the staff
identified through the process in paragraph (c)(1) of this section
that:
(i) Align with the program's school readiness goals, curricula, and
other approaches to professional development;
(ii) Utilize a coach with adequate training and experience in adult
learning and in using assessment data to drive coaching strategies
aligned with program performance goals;
(iii) Provide ongoing communication between the coach, program
director, education director, and any other relevant staff; and,
(iv) Include clearly articulated goals informed by the program's
goals, as described in Sec. 1302.102, and a process for achieving
those goals; and,
(5) Establishes policies that ensure assessment results are not
used to solely determine punitive actions for staff identified as
needing support, without providing time and resources for staff to
improve.
(d) If a program needs to develop or significantly adapt their
approach to research-based professional development to better meet the
training needs of education staff, such that it does not include the
requirements in paragraph (c) of this section, the program must partner
with external early childhood education professional development
experts. A program must assess whether the adaptation adequately
supports staff professional development, consistent with the process
laid out in subpart J of this part.
Sec. 1302.93 Staff health and wellness.
(a) A program must ensure each staff member has an initial health
examination and a periodic re-examination as recommended by their
health care provider in accordance with state, tribal, or local
requirements, that include screeners or tests for communicable
diseases, as appropriate. The program must ensure staff do not, because
of communicable diseases, pose a significant risk to the health or
safety of others in the program that cannot be eliminated or reduced by
reasonable accommodation, in accordance with the Americans with
Disabilities Act and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.
(b) A program must make mental health and wellness information
available to staff regarding health issues that may affect their job
performance, and must provide regularly scheduled opportunities to
learn about mental health, wellness, and health education.
Sec. 1302.94 Volunteers.
(a) A program must ensure regular volunteers have been screened for
appropriate communicable diseases in accordance with state, tribal or
local laws. In the absence of state, tribal or local law, the Health
Services Advisory Committee must be consulted regarding the need for
such screenings.
(b) A program must ensure children are never left alone with
volunteers.
Subpart J--Program Management and Quality Improvement
Sec. 1302.100 Purpose.
A program must provide management and a process of ongoing
monitoring and continuous improvement for achieving program goals that
ensures child safety and the delivery of effective, high-quality
program services.
Sec. 1302.101 Management system.
(a) Implementation. A program must implement a management system
that:
(1) Ensures a program, fiscal, and human resource management
structure that provides effective management and oversight of all
program areas and fiduciary responsibilities to enable delivery of
high-quality services in all of
[[Page 61434]]
the program services described in subparts C, D, E, F, G, and H of this
part;
(2) Provides regular and ongoing supervision to support individual
staff professional development and continuous program quality
improvement;
(3) Ensures budget and staffing patterns that promote continuity of
care for all children enrolled, allow sufficient time for staff to
participate in appropriate training and professional development, and
allow for provision of the full range of services described in subparts
C, D, E, F, G, and H of this part; and,
(4) Maintains an automated accounting and record keeping system
adequate for effective oversight.
(b) Coordinated approaches. At the beginning of each program year,
and on an ongoing basis throughout the year, a program must design and
implement program-wide coordinated approaches that ensure:
(1) The training and professional development system, as described
in Sec. 1302.92, effectively supports the delivery and continuous
improvement of high-quality services;
(2) The full and effective participation of children who are dual
language learners and their families, by:
(i) Utilizing information from the program's community assessment
about the languages spoken throughout the program service area to
anticipate child and family needs;
(ii) Identifying community resources and establishing ongoing
collaborative relationships and partnerships with community
organizations consistent with the requirements in Sec. 1302.53(a);
and,
(iii) Systematically and comprehensively addressing child and
family needs by facilitating meaningful access to program services,
including, at a minimum, curriculum, instruction, staffing,
supervision, and family partnerships with bilingual staff, oral
language assistance and interpretation, or translation of essential
program materials, as appropriate.
(3) The full and effective participation of all children with
disabilities, including but not limited to children eligible for
services under IDEA, by providing services with appropriate facilities,
program materials, curriculum, instruction, staffing, supervision, and
partnerships, at a minimum, consistent with section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act; and,
(4) The management of program data to effectively support the
availability, usability, integrity, and security of data. A program
must establish procedures on data management, and have them approved by
the governing body and policy council, in areas such as quality of data
and effective use and sharing of data, while protecting the privacy of
child records in accordance with subpart C of part 1303 of this chapter
and applicable federal, state, local, and tribal laws.
Sec. 1302.102 Achieving program goals.
(a) Establishing program goals. A program, in collaboration with
the governing body and policy council, must establish goals and
measurable objectives that include:
(1) Strategic long-term goals for ensuring programs are and remain
responsive to community needs as identified in their community
assessment as described in subpart A of this part;
(2) Goals for the provision of educational, health, nutritional,
and family and community engagement program services as described in
the program performance standards to further promote the school
readiness of enrolled children;
(3) School readiness goals that are aligned with the Head Start
Early Learning Outcomes Framework: Ages Birth to Five, state and tribal
early learning standards, as appropriate, and requirements and
expectations of schools Head Start children will attend, per the
requirements of subpart B of part 1304 of this part; and,
(4) Effective health and safety practices to ensure children are
safe at all times, per the requirements in Sec. Sec. 1302.47,
1302.90(b) and (c), 1302.92(c)(1), and 1302.94 and part 1303, subpart
F, of this chapter.
(b) Monitoring program performance--(1) Ongoing compliance
oversight and correction. In order to ensure effective ongoing
oversight and correction, a program must establish and implement a
system of ongoing oversight that ensures effective implementation of
the program performance standards, including ensuring child safety, and
other applicable federal regulations as described in this part, and
must:
(i) Collect and use data to inform this process;
(ii) Correct quality and compliance issues immediately, or as
quickly as possible;
(iii) Work with the governing body and the policy council to
address issues during the ongoing oversight and correction process and
during federal oversight; and,
(iv) Implement procedures that prevent recurrence of previous
quality and compliance issues, including previously identified
deficiencies, safety incidents, and audit findings.
(2) Ongoing assessment of program goals. A program must effectively
oversee progress towards program goals on an ongoing basis and annually
must:
(i) Conduct a self-assessment that uses program data including
aggregated child assessment data, and professional development and
parent and family engagement data as appropriate, to evaluate the
program's progress towards meeting goals established under paragraph
(a) of this section, compliance with program performance standards
throughout the program year, and the effectiveness of the professional
development and family engagement systems in promoting school
readiness;
(ii) Communicate and collaborate with the governing body and policy
council, program staff, and parents of enrolled children when
conducting the annual self-assessment; and,
(iii) Submit findings of the self-assessment, including information
listed in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section to the responsible HHS
official.
(c) Using data for continuous improvement. (1) A program must
implement a process for using data to identify program strengths and
needs, develop and implement plans that address program needs, and
continually evaluate compliance with program performance standards and
progress towards achieving program goals described in paragraph (a) of
this section.
(2) This process must:
(i) Ensure data is aggregated, analyzed and compared in such a way
to assist agencies in identifying risks and informing strategies for
continuous improvement in all program service areas;
(ii) Ensure child-level assessment data is aggregated and analyzed
at least three times a year, including for sub-groups, such as dual
language learners and children with disabilities, as appropriate,
except in programs operating fewer than 90 days, and used with other
program data described in paragraph (c)(2)(iv) of this section to
direct continuous improvement related to curriculum choice and
implementation, teaching practices, professional development, program
design and other program decisions, including changing or targeting
scope of services; and,
(iii) For programs operating fewer than 90 days, ensures child
assessment data is aggregated and analyzed at least twice during the
program operating period, including for subgroups, such as dual
language learners and children with disabilities, as appropriate, and
[[Page 61435]]
used with other program data described in paragraph (c)(2)(iv) of this
section to direct continuous improvement related to curriculum choice
and implementation, teaching practices, professional development,
program design and other program decisions, including changing or
targeting scope of services;
(iv) Use information from ongoing monitoring and the annual self-
assessment, and program data on teaching practice, staffing and
professional development, child-level assessments, family needs
assessments, and comprehensive services, to identify program needs, and
develop and implement plans for program improvement; and,
(v) Use program improvement plans as needed to either strengthen or
adjust content and strategies for professional development, change
program scope and services, refine school readiness and other program
goals, and adapt strategies to better address the needs of sub-groups.
(d) Reporting. (1) A program must submit:
(i) Status reports, determined by ongoing oversight data, to the
governing body and policy council, at least semi-annually;
(ii) Reports, as appropriate, to the responsible HHS official
immediately or as soon as practicable, related to any significant
incidents affecting the health and safety of program participants,
circumstances affecting the financial viability of the program,
breaches of personally identifiable information, or program involvement
in legal proceedings, any matter for which notification or a report to
state, tribal, or local authorities is required by applicable law,
including at a minimum:
(A) Any reports regarding agency staff or volunteer compliance with
federal, state, tribal, or local laws addressing child abuse and
neglect or laws governing sex offenders;
(B) Incidents that require classrooms or centers to be closed for
any reason;
(C) Legal proceedings by any party that are directly related to
program operations; and,
(D) All conditions required to be reported under Sec. 1304.12,
including disqualification from the Child and Adult Care Food Program
(CACFP) and license revocation.
(2) Annually, a program must publish and disseminate a report that
complies with section 644(a)(2) of the Act and includes a summary of a
program's most recent community assessment, as described in Sec.
1302.11(b), consistent with privacy protections in subpart C of part
1303 of this chapter.
(3) If a program has had a deficiency identified, it must submit,
to the responsible HHS official, a quality improvement plan as required
in section 641A(e)(2) of the Act.
Sec. 1302.103 Implementation of program performance standards.
(a) A current program as of November 7, 2016, must implement a
program-wide approach for the effective and timely implementation of
the changes to the program performance standards, including the
purchase of materials and allocation of staff time, as appropriate.
(b) A program's approach to implement the changes included in parts
1301 through 1304 of this chapter must ensure adequate preparation for
effective and timely service delivery to children and their families
including, at a minimum, review of community assessment data to
determine the most appropriate strategy for implementing required
program changes, including assessing any changes in the number of
children who can be served, as necessary, the purchase of and training
on any curriculum, assessment, or other materials, as needed,
assessment of program-wide professional development needs, assessment
of staffing patterns, the development of coordinated approaches
described in Sec. 1302.101(b), and the development of appropriate
protections for data sharing; and children enrolled in the program on
November 7, 2016 are not displaced during a program year and that
children leaving Early Head Start or Head Start at the end of the
program year following November 7, 2016 as a result of any slot
reductions received services described in Sec. Sec. 1302.70 and
1302.72 to facilitate successful transitions to other programs.
PART 1303--FINANCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS
Sec.
1303.1 Overview.
Subpart A--Financial Requirements
1303.2 Purpose.
1303.3 Other requirements.
1303.4 Federal financial assistance, non-federal match, and waiver
requirements.
1303.5 Limitations on development and administrative costs.
Subpart B--Administrative Requirements
1303.10 Purpose.
1303.11 Limitations and prohibitions.
1303.12 Insurance and bonding.
Subpart C--Protections for the Privacy of Child Records
1303.20 Establishing procedures.
1303.21 Program procedures--applicable confidentiality provisions.
1303.22 Disclosures with, and without, parental consent.
1303.23 Parental rights.
1303.24 Maintaining records.
Subpart D--Delegation of Program Operations
1303.30 Grantee responsibility and accountability.
1303.31 Determining and establishing delegate agencies.
1303.32 Evaluations and corrective actions for delegate agencies.
1303.33 Termination of delegate agencies.
Subpart E--Facilities
1303.40 Purpose.
1303.41 Approval of previously purchased facilities.
1303.42 Eligibility to purchase, construct, and renovate facilities.
1303.43 Use of grant funds to pay fees.
1303.44 Applications to purchase, construct, and renovate
facilities.
1304.45 Cost-comparison to purchase, construct, and renovate
facilities.
1303.46 Recording and posting notices of federal interest.
1303.47 Contents of notices of federal interest.
1303.48 Grantee limitations on federal interest.
1303.49 Protection of federal interest in mortgage agreements.
1303.50 Third party leases and occupancy arrangements.
1303.51 Subordination of the federal interest.
1303.52 Insurance, bonding, and maintenance.
1303.53 Copies of documents.
1303.54 Record retention.
1303.55 Procurement procedures.
1303.56 Inspection of work.
Subpart F--Transportation
1303.70 Purpose.
1303.71 Vehicles.
1303.72 Vehicle operation.
1303.73 Trip routing.
1303.74 Safety procedures.
1303.75 Children with disabilities.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9801 et seq.
Sec. 1303.1 Overview.
Section 641A of the Act requires that the Secretary modify as
necessary program performance standards including administrative and
financial management standards (section 641A(a)(1)(C)). This part
specifies the financial and administrative requirements of agencies.
Subpart A of this part outlines the financial requirements consistent
with sections 640(b) and 644(b) and (c) of the Act. Subpart B of this
part specifies the administrative requirements consistent with sections
644(a)(1), 644(e), 653, 654, 655, 656, and 657A of the Act. Subpart C
of this part implements the statutory provision at section 641A(b)(4)
of the Act that directs the Secretary to ensure the confidentiality of
any personally
[[Page 61436]]
identifiable data, information, and records collected or maintained.
Subpart D of this part prescribes regulations for the operation of
delegate agencies consistent with Section 641(A)(d). Subpart E of this
part implements the statutory requirements in Section 644(c), (f) and
(g) related to facilities. Subpart F prescribes regulations on
transportation consistent with section 640(i) of the Act.
Subpart A--Financial Requirements
Sec. 1303.2 Purpose.
This subpart establishes regulations applicable to program
administration and grants management for all grants under the Act.
Sec. 1303.3 Other requirements.
The following chart includes HHS regulations that apply to all
grants made under the Act:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cite Title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
45 CFR part 16.............. Department grant appeals process.
45 CFR part 30.............. HHS Standards and Procedures for Claims
collection.
45 CFR part 46.............. Protection of human subjects.
45 CFR part 75.............. Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost
Principles, and Audit Requirements for
Federal Awards.
45 CFR part 80.............. Nondiscrimination under programs receiving
federal assistance through the Department
of Health and Human Services--
Effectuation of title VI and VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964.
45 CFR part 81.............. Practice and procedure for hearings under
part 80.
45 CFR part 84.............. Nondiscrimination on the basis of handicap
in federally assisted programs.
45 CFR part 87.............. Equal treatment for faith based
organizations.
2 CFR part 170.............. FFATA Sub-award and executive
compensation.
2 CFR 25.110................ CCR/DUNS requirement.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 1303.4 Federal financial assistance, non-federal match, and
waiver requirements.
In accordance with section 640(b) of the Act, federal financial
assistance to a grantee will not exceed 80 percent of the approved
total program costs. A grantee must contribute 20 percent as non-
federal match each budget period. The responsible HHS official may
approve a waiver of all or a portion of the non-federal match
requirement on the basis of the grantee's written application submitted
for the budget period and any supporting evidence the responsible HHS
official requires. In deciding whether to grant a waiver, the
responsible HHS official will consider the circumstances specified at
section 640(b) of the Act and whether the grantee has made a reasonable
effort to comply with the non-federal match requirement.
Sec. 1303.5 Limitations on development and administrative costs.
(a) Limitations. (1) Costs to develop and administer a program
cannot be excessive or exceed 15 percent of the total approved program
costs. Allowable costs to develop and administer a Head Start program
cannot exceed 15 percent of the total approved program costs, which
includes both federal costs and non-federal match, unless the
responsible HHS official grants a waiver under paragraph (b) of this
section that approves a higher percentage in order to carry out the
purposes of the Act.
(2) To assess total program costs and determine whether a grantee
meets this requirement, the grantee must:
(i) Determine the costs to develop and administer its program,
including the local costs of necessary resources;
(ii) Categorize total costs as development and administrative or
program costs;
(iii) Identify and allocate the portion of dual benefits costs that
are for development and administration;
(iv) Identify and allocate the portion of indirect costs that are
for development and administration versus program costs; and,
(v) Delineate all development and administrative costs in the grant
application and calculate the percentage of total approved costs
allocated to development and administration.
(b) Waivers. (1) The responsible HHS official may grant a waiver
for each budget period if a delay or disruption to program services is
caused by circumstances beyond the agency's control, or if an agency is
unable to administer the program within the 15 percent limitation and
if the agency can demonstrate efforts to reduce its development and
administrative costs.
(2) If at any time within the grant funding cycle, a grantee
estimates development and administration costs will exceed 15 percent
of total approved costs, it must submit a waiver request to the
responsible HHS official that explains why costs exceed the limit, that
indicates the time period the waiver will cover, and that describes
what the grantee will do to reduce its development and administrative
costs to comply with the 15 percent limit after the waiver period.
Subpart B--Administrative Requirements
Sec. 1303.10 Purpose.
A grantee must observe standards of organization, management, and
administration that will ensure, so far as reasonably possible, that
all program activities are conducted in a manner consistent with the
purposes of the Act and the objective of providing assistance
effectively, efficiently, and free of any taint of partisan political
bias or personal or family favoritism.
Sec. 1303.11 Limitations and prohibitions.
An agency must adhere to sections 644(e), 644(g)(3), 653, 654, 655,
656, and 657A of the Act. These sections pertain to union organizing,
the Davis-Bacon Act, limitations on compensation, nondiscrimination,
unlawful activities, political activities, and obtaining parental
consent.
Sec. 1303.12 Insurance and bonding.
An agency must have an ongoing process to identify risks and have
cost-effective insurance for those identified risks; a grantee must
require the same for its delegates. The agency must specifically
consider the risk of accidental injury to children while participating
in the program. The grantee must submit proof of appropriate coverage
in its initial application for funding. The process of identifying
risks must also consider the risk of losses resulting from fraudulent
acts by individuals authorized to disburse Head Start funds. Consistent
with 45 CFR part 75, if the agency lacks sufficient coverage to protect
the federal government's interest, the agency must maintain adequate
fidelity bond coverage.
Subpart C--Protections for the Privacy of Child Records
Sec. 1303.20 Establishing procedures.
A program must establish procedures to protect the confidentiality
of any
[[Page 61437]]
personally identifiable information (PII) in child records.
Sec. 1303.21 Program procedures--applicable confidentiality
provisions.
(a) If a program is an educational agency or institution that
receives funds under a program administered by the Department of
Education and therefore is subject to the confidentiality provisions
under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), then it
must comply with those confidentiality provisions of FERPA instead of
the provisions in this subpart.
(b) If a program serves a child who is referred to, or found
eligible for services under, IDEA, then a program must comply with the
applicable confidentiality provisions in Part B or Part C of IDEA to
protect the PII in records of those children, and, therefore, the
provisions in this subpart do not apply to those children.
Sec. 1303.22 Disclosures with, and without, parental consent.
(a) Disclosure with parental consent. (1) Subject to the exceptions
in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, the procedures to protect
PII must require the program to obtain a parent's written consent
before the program may disclose such PII from child records.
(2) The procedures to protect PII must require the program to
ensure the parent's written consent specifies what child records may be
disclosed, explains why the records will be disclosed, and identifies
the party or class of parties to whom the records may be disclosed. The
written consent must be signed and dated.
(3) ``Signed and dated written consent'' under this part may
include a record and signature in electronic form that:
(i) Identifies and authenticates a particular person as the source
of the electronic consent; and,
(ii) Indicates such person's approval of the information.
(4) The program must explain to the parent that the granting of
consent is voluntary on the part of the parent and may be revoked at
any time. If a parent revokes consent, that revocation is not
retroactive and therefore it does not apply to an action that occurred
before the consent was revoked.
(b) Disclosure without parental consent but with parental notice
and opportunity to refuse. The procedures to protect PII must allow the
program to disclose such PII from child records without parental
consent if the program notifies the parent about the disclosure,
provides the parent, upon the parent's request, a copy of the PII from
child records to be disclosed in advance, and gives the parent an
opportunity to challenge and refuse disclosure of the information in
the records, before the program forwards the records to officials at a
program, school, or school district in which the child seeks or intends
to enroll or where the child is already enrolled so long as the
disclosure is related to the child's enrollment or transfer.
(c) Disclosure without parental consent. The procedures to protect
PII must allow the program to disclose such PII from child records
without parental consent to:
(1) Officials within the program or acting for the program, such as
contractors and subrecipients, if the official provides services for
which the program would otherwise use employees, the program determines
it is necessary for Head Start services, and the program maintains
oversight with respect to the use, further disclosure, and maintenance
of child records, such as through a written agreement;
(2) Officials within the program, acting for the program, or from a
federal or state entity, in connection with an audit or evaluation of
education or child development programs, or for enforcement of or
compliance with federal legal requirements of the program; provided the
program maintains oversight with respect to the use, further
disclosure, and maintenance of child records, such as through a written
agreement, including the destruction of the PII when no longer needed
for the purpose of the disclosure, except when the disclosure is
specifically authorized by federal law or by the responsible HHS
official;
(3) Officials within the program, acting for the program, or from a
federal or state entity, to conduct a study to improve child and family
outcomes, including improving the quality of programs, for, or on
behalf of, the program, provided the program maintains oversight with
respect to the use, further disclosure, and maintenance of child
records, such as through a written agreement, including the destruction
of the PII when no longer needed for the purpose of the disclosure;
(4) Appropriate parties in order to address a disaster, health or
safety emergency during the period of the emergency, or a serious
health and safety risk such as a serious food allergy, if the program
determines that disclosing the PII from child records is necessary to
protect the health or safety of children or other persons;
(5) Comply with a judicial order or lawfully issued subpoena,
provided the program makes a reasonable effort to notify the parent
about all such subpoenas and court orders in advance of the compliance
therewith, unless:
(i) A court has ordered that neither the subpoena, its contents,
nor the information provided in response be disclosed;
(ii) The disclosure is in compliance with an ex parte court order
obtained by the United States Attorney General (or designee not lower
than an Assistant Attorney General) concerning investigations or
prosecutions of an offense listed in 18 U.S.C. 2332b(g)(5)(B) or an act
of domestic or international terrorism as defined in 18 U.S.C. 2331.
(iii) A parent is a party to a court proceeding directly involving
child abuse and neglect (as defined in section 3 of the Child Abuse
Prevention and Treatment Act (42 U.S.C. 5101)) or dependency matters,
and the order is issued in the context of that proceeding, additional
notice to the parent by the program is not required; or,
(iv) A program initiates legal action against a parent or a parent
initiates legal action against a program, then a program may disclose
to the court, also without a court order or subpoena, the child records
relevant for the program to act as plaintiff or defendant.
(6) The Secretary of Agriculture or an authorized representative
from the Food and Nutrition Service to conduct program monitoring,
evaluations, and performance measurements for the Child and Adult Care
Food Program under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act or
the Child Nutrition Act of 1966, if the results will be reported in an
aggregate form that does not identify any individual: Provided, that
any data collected must be protected in a manner that will not permit
the personal identification of students and their parents by other than
the authorized representatives of the Secretary of Agriculture and any
PII must be destroyed when the data are no longer needed for program
monitoring, evaluations, and performance measurements;
(7) A caseworker or other representative from a state, local, or
tribal child welfare agency, who has the right to access a case plan
for a child who is in foster care placement, when such agency is
legally responsible for the child's care and protection, under state or
tribal law, if the agency agrees in writing to protect PII, to use
information from the child's case plan for specific purposes intended
of addressing the child's needs, and to
[[Page 61438]]
destroy information that is no longer needed for those purposes; and,
(8) Appropriate parties in order to address suspected or known
child maltreatment and is consistent with applicable federal, state,
local, and tribal laws on reporting child abuse and neglect.
(d) Written agreements. When a program establishes a written
agreement with a third party, the procedures to protect such PII must
require the program to annually review and, if necessary, update the
agreement. If the third party violates the agreement, then the program
may:
(1) Provide the third party an opportunity to self-correct; or,
(2) Prohibit the third party from access to records for a set
period of time as established by the programs governing body and policy
council.
(e) Annual notice. The procedures to protect PII must require the
program to annually notify parents of their rights in writing described
in this subpart and applicable definitions in part 1305 of this
chapter, and include in that notice a description of the types of PII
that may be disclosed, to whom the PII may be disclosed, and what may
constitute a necessary reason for the disclosure without parental
consent as described in paragraph (c) of this section.
(f) Limit on disclosing PII. A program must only disclose the
information that is deemed necessary for the purpose of the disclosure.
Sec. 1303.23 Parental rights.
(a) Inspect record. (1) A parent has the right to inspect child
records.
(2) If the parent requests to inspect child records, the program
must make the child records available within a reasonable time, but no
more than 45 days after receipt of request.
(3) If a program maintains child records that contain information
on more than one child, the program must ensure the parent only
inspects information that pertains to the parent's child.
(4) The program shall not destroy a child record with an
outstanding request to inspect and review the record under this
section.
(b) Amend record. (1) A parent has the right to ask the program to
amend information in the child record that the parent believes is
inaccurate, misleading, or violates the child's privacy.
(2) The program must consider the parent's request and, if the
request is denied, render a written decision to the parent within a
reasonable time that informs the parent of the right to a hearing.
(c) Hearing. (1) If the parent requests a hearing to challenge
information in the child record, the program must schedule a hearing
within a reasonable time, notify the parent, in advance, about the
hearing, and ensure the person who conducts the hearing does not have a
direct interest in its outcome.
(2) The program must ensure the hearing affords the parent a full
and fair opportunity to present evidence relevant to the issues.
(3) If the program determines from evidence presented at the
hearing that the information in the child records is inaccurate,
misleading, or violates the child's privacy, the program must either
amend or remove the information and notify the parent in writing.
(4) If the program determines from evidence presented at the
hearing that information in the child records is accurate, does not
mislead, or otherwise does not violate the child's privacy, the program
must inform the parent of the right to place a statement in the child
records that either comments on the contested information or that
states why the parent disagrees with the program's decision, or both.
(d) Right to copy of record. The program must provide a parent,
free of charge, an initial copy of child records disclosed to third
parties with parental consent and, upon parent request, an initial copy
of child records disclosed to third parties, unless the disclosure was
for a court that ordered neither the subpoena, its contents, nor the
information furnished in response be disclosed.
(e) Right to inspect written agreements. A parent has the right to
review any written agreements with third parties.
Sec. 1303.24 Maintaining records.
(a) A program must maintain child records in a manner that ensures
only parents, and officials within the program or acting on behalf of
the program have access, and such records must be destroyed within a
reasonable timeframe after such records are no longer needed or
required to be maintained.
(b) A program must maintain, with the child records, for as long as
the records are maintained, information on all individuals, agencies,
or organizations to whom a disclosure of PII from the child records was
made (except for program officials and parents) and why the disclosure
was made. If a program uses a web-based data system to maintain child
records, the program must ensure such child records are adequately
protected and maintained according to current industry security
standards.
(c) If a parent places a statement in the child record, the program
must maintain the statement with the contested part of the child record
for as long as the program maintains the record and, disclose the
statement whenever it discloses the portion of the child record to
which the statement relates.
Subpart D--Delegation of Program Operations
Sec. 1303.30 Grantee responsibility and accountability.
A grantee is accountable for the services its delegate agencies
provide. The grantee supports, oversees and ensures delegate agencies
provide high-quality services to children and families and meet all
applicable Head Start requirements. The grantee can only terminate a
delegate agency if the grantee shows cause why termination is necessary
and provides a process for delegate agencies to appeal termination
decisions. The grantee retains legal responsibility and authority and
bears financial accountability for the program when services are
provided by delegate agencies.
Sec. 1303.31 Determining and establishing delegate agencies.
(a) If a grantee enters into an agreement with another entity to
serve children, the grantee must determine whether the agreement meets
the definition of ``delegate agency'' in section 637(3) of the Act.
(b) A grantee must not award a delegate agency federal financial
assistance unless there is a written agreement and the responsible HHS
official approves the agreement before the grantee delegates program
operations.
Sec. 1303.32 Evaluations and corrective actions for delegate
agencies.
A grantee must evaluate and ensure corrective action for delegate
agencies according to section 641A(d) of the Act.
Sec. 1303.33 Termination of delegate agencies.
(a) If a grantee shows cause why termination is appropriate or
demonstrates cost effectiveness, the grantee may terminate a delegate
agency's contract.
(b) The grantee's decision to terminate must not be arbitrary or
capricious.
(c) The grantee must establish a process for defunding a delegate
agency, including an appeal of a defunding decision and must ensure the
process is fair and timely.
[[Page 61439]]
(d) The grantee must notify the responsible HHS official about the
appeal and its decision.
Subpart E--Facilities
Sec. 1303.40 Purpose.
This subpart prescribes what a grantee must establish to show it is
eligible to purchase, construct and renovate facilities as outlined in
section 644(c), (f) and (g) of the Act. It explains how a grantee may
apply for funds, details what measures a grantee must take to protect
federal interest in facilities purchased, constructed or renovated with
grant funds, and concludes with other administrative provisions. This
subpart applies to major renovations. It only applies to minor
renovations and repairs, when they are included with a purchase
application and are part of purchase costs.
Sec. 1303.41 Approval of previously purchased facilities.
If a grantee purchased a facility after December 31, 1986, and
seeks to use grant funds to continue to pay purchase costs for the
facility or to refinance current indebtedness and use grant funds to
service the resulting debt, the grantee may apply for funds to meet
those costs. The grantee must submit an application that conforms to
requirements in this part and in the Act to the responsible HHS
official. If the responsible HHS official approves the grantee's
application, Head Start funds may be used to pay ongoing purchase
costs, which include principal and interest on approved loans.
Sec. 1303.42 Eligibility to purchase, construct, and renovate
facilities.
(a) Preliminary eligibility. (1) Before a grantee can apply for
funds to purchase, construct, or renovate a facility under Sec.
1303.44, it must establish that:
(i) The facility will be available to Indian tribes, or rural or
other low-income communities;
(ii) The proposed purchase, construction or major renovation is
within the grantee's designated service area; and,
(iii) The proposed purchase, construction or major renovation is
necessary because the lack of suitable facilities in the grantee's
service area will inhibit the operation of the program.
(2) If a program applies to construct a facility, that the
construction of such facility is more cost-effective than the purchase
of available facilities or renovation.
(b) Proving a lack of suitable facilities. To satisfy paragraph
(a)(1)(iii) of this section, the grantee must have a written statement
from an independent real estate professional familiar with the
commercial real estate market in the grantee's service area, that
includes factors considered and supports how the real estate
professional determined there are no other suitable facilities in the
area.
Sec. 1303.43 Use of grant funds to pay fees.
A grantee may submit a written request to the responsible HHS
official for reasonable fees and costs necessary to determine
preliminary eligibility under Sec. 1303.42 before it submits an
application under Sec. 1303.44. If the responsible HHS official
approves the grantee's application, the grantee may use federal funds
to pay fees and costs.
Sec. 1303.44 Applications to purchase, construct, and renovate
facilities.
(a) Application requirements. If a grantee is preliminarily
eligible under Sec. 1303.42 to apply for funds to purchase, construct,
or renovate a facility, it must submit to the responsible HHS official:
(1) A statement that explains the anticipated effect the proposed
purchase, construction or renovation has had or will have on program
enrollment, activities and services, and how it determined what the
anticipated effect would be;
(2) A deed or other document showing legal ownership of the real
property where facilities activity is proposed, legal description of
the facility site, and an explanation why the location is appropriate
for the grantee's service area;
(3) Plans and specifications for the facility, including square
footage, structure type, the number of rooms the facility will have or
has, how the rooms will be used, where the structure will be positioned
or located on the building site, and whether there is space available
for outdoor play and for parking;
(4) Certification by a licensed engineer or architect that the
facility is, or will be upon completion, structurally sound and safe
for use as a Head Start facility and that the facility complies, or
will comply upon completion, with local building codes, applicable
child care licensing requirements, the accessibility requirements of
the Americans with Disabilities Act, section 504 of the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973, the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, and the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966;
(5) A description of proposed renovations or repairs to make the
facility suitable for program activities, and plans and specification
that describe the facility after renovation or repair;
(6) A proposed schedule that details when the grantee will acquire,
renovate, repair and occupy the facility;
(7) An estimate by a licensed independent certified appraiser of
the facility's fair market value after proposed purchase and associated
repairs and renovations construction, or major renovation is completed
is required for all facilities activities except for major renovations
to leased property;
(8) The cost comparison described in Sec. 1303.45;
(9) A statement that shows what share of the purchase,
construction, or major renovation will be paid with grant funds and
what the grantee proposes to contribute as a nonfederal match to the
purchase, construction or major renovation;
(10) A statement from a lender, if a grantee applies to use Head
Start funds to continue purchase on a facility or refinance existing
debt on a facility that indicates the lender is willing to comply with
Sec. 1303.49;
(11) The terms of any proposed or existing loan(s) related to
purchase, construction or major renovation of the facility, including
copies of any funding commitment letters, mortgages, promissory notes,
potential security agreements to be entered into, information on all
other sources of funding, construction or major renovation, and any
restrictions or conditions imposed by other funding sources;
(12) A Phase I environmental site assessment that describes the
environmental condition of the proposed facility site and any
structures on the site;
(13) A description of the efforts by the grantee to coordinate or
collaborate with other providers in the community to seek assistance,
including financial assistance, prior to the use of funds under this
section; and,
(14) Any additional information the responsible HHS official may
require.
(b) Additional requirements for leased properties. (1) If a grantee
applies to renovate leased property, it must submit to the responsible
HHS official information described in paragraph (a) of this section, a
copy of the existing or proposed lease agreement, and the landlord or
lessor's consent.
(2) If a grantee applies to purchase a modular unit it intends to
site on leased property or on other property the grantee does not own,
the grantee must submit to the responsible HHS official information
described in paragraph (a) of this section and a copy of the
[[Page 61440]]
proposed lease or other occupancy agreement that will allow the grantee
access to the modular unit for at least 15 years.
(c) Non-federal match. Any non-federal match associated with
facilities activities becomes part of the federal share of the
facility.
Sec. 1303.45 Cost-comparison to purchase, construct, and renovate
facilities.
(a) Cost comparison. (1) If a grantee proposes to purchase,
construct, or renovate a facility, it must submit a detailed cost
estimate of the proposed activity, compare the costs associated with
the proposed activity to other available alternatives in the service
area, and provide any additional information the responsible HHS
official requests. The grantee must demonstrate that the proposed
activity will result in savings when compared to the costs that would
be incurred to acquire the use of an alternative facility to carry out
program.
(2) In addition to requirements in paragraph (a)(1) of this
section, the grantee must:
(i) Identify who owns the property;
(ii) List all costs related to the purchase, construction, or
renovation;
(iii) Identify costs over the structure's useful life, which is at
least 20 years for a facility that the grantee purchased or constructed
and at least 15 years for a modular unit the grantee renovated, and
deferred costs, including mortgage balloon payments, as costs with
associated due dates; and,
(iv) Demonstrate how the proposed purchase, construction, or major
renovation is consistent with program management and fiscal goals,
community needs, enrollment and program options and how the proposed
facility will support the grantee as it provides quality services to
children and families.
(b) Continue purchase or refinance. To use funds to continue
purchase on a facility or to refinance an existing indebtedness, the
grantee must compare the costs of continued purchase against the cost
of purchasing a comparable facility in the service area over the
remaining years of the facility's useful life. The grantee must
demonstrate that the proposed activity will result in savings when
compared to the cost that would be incurred to acquire the use of an
alternative facility to carry out the program.
(c) Multi-purpose use. If the grantee intends to use a facility to
operate a Head Start program and for another purpose, it must disclose
what percentage of the facility will be used for non-Head Start
activities, along with costs associated with those activities, in
accordance with applicable cost principles.
Sec. 1303.46 Recording and posting notices of federal interest.
(a) Survival of federal interest. A grantee that receives funds
under this subpart must file notices of federal interest as set forth
in paragraph (b) of this section. Federal interest cannot be defeated
by a grantee's failure to file a notice of federal interest.
(b) Recording notices of federal interest. (1) If a grantee uses
federal funds to purchase real property or a facility, excluding
modular units, appurtenant to real property, it must record a notice of
federal interest in the official real property records for the
jurisdiction where the facility is or will be located. The grantee must
file the notice of federal interest as soon as it uses Head Start funds
to either fully or partially purchase a facility or real property where
a facility will be constructed or as soon as it receives permission
from the responsible HHS official to use Head Start funds to continue
purchase on a facility.
(2) If a grantee uses federal funds in whole or in part to
construct a facility, it must record the notice of federal interest in
the official real property records for the jurisdiction in which the
facility is located as soon as it receives the notice of award to
construct the facility.
(3) If a grantee uses federal funds to renovate a facility that it,
or a third party owns, the grantee must record the notice of federal
interest in the official real property records for the jurisdiction in
which the facility is located as soon as it receives the notice of
award to renovate the facility.
(4) If a grantee uses federal funds in whole or in part to purchase
a modular unit or to renovate a modular unit, the grantee must post the
notice of federal interest, in clearly visible locations, on the
exterior of the modular unit and inside the modular unit.
Sec. 1303.47 Contents of notices of federal interest.
(a) Facility and real property a grantee owns. A notice of federal
interest for a facility, other than a modular unit, and real property
the grantee owns or will own, must include:
(1) The grantee's correct legal name and current mailing address;
(2) A legal description of the real property;
(3) Grant award number, amount and date of initial facilities
funding award or initial use of base grant funds for ongoing purchase
or mortgage payments;
(4) A statement that the notice of federal interest includes funds
awarded in grant award(s) and any Head Start funds subsequently used to
purchase, construct or to make major renovations to the real property;
(5) A statement that the facility and real property will only be
used for purposes consistent with the Act and applicable Head Start
regulations;
(6) A statement that the facility and real property will not be
mortgaged or used as collateral, sold or otherwise transferred to
another party, without the responsible HHS official's written
permission;
(7) A statement that the federal interest cannot be subordinated,
diminished, nullified or released through encumbrance of the property,
transfer of the property to another party or any other action the
grantee takes without the responsible HHS official's written
permission;
(8) A statement that confirms that the agency's governing body
received a copy of the notice of federal interest prior to filing and
the date the governing body was provided with a copy; and,
(9) The name, title, and signature of the person who drafted the
notice.
(b) Facility leased by a grantee. (1) A notice of federal interest
for a leased facility, excluding a modular unit, on land the grantee
does not own, must be recorded in the official real property records
for the jurisdiction where the facility is located and must include:
(i) The grantee's correct legal name and current mailing address;
(ii) A legal description of affected real property;
(iii) The grant award number, amount and date of initial funding
award or initial use of base grant funds for major renovation;
(iv) Acknowledgement that the notice of federal interest includes
any Head Start funds subsequently used to make major renovations on the
affected real property;
(v) A statement the facility and real property will only be used
for purposes consistent with the Act and applicable Head Start
regulations; and,
(vi) A lease or occupancy agreement that includes the required
information from paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (v) of this section may
be recorded in the official real property records for the jurisdiction
where the facility is located to serve as a notice of federal interest.
(2) If a grantee cannot file the lease or occupancy agreement
described in paragraph (b)(1)(vi) of this section in the official real
property records for the jurisdiction where the facility is located, it
may file an abstract. The abstract must include the names and addresses
of
[[Page 61441]]
parties to the lease or occupancy agreement, terms of the lease or
occupancy agreement, and information described in paragraphs (a)(1)
through (9) of this section.
(c) Modular units. A notice of federal interest on a modular unit
the grantee purchased or renovated must be visible and clearly posted
on the exterior of the modular and inside the modular and must include:
(1) The grantee's correct legal name and current mailing address;
(2) The grant award number, amount and date of initial funding
award or initial use of base grant funds to purchase or renovate;
(3) A statement that the notice of federal interest includes any
Head Start funds subsequently used for major renovations to the modular
unit;
(4) A statement that the facility and real property will only be
used for purposes consistent with the Act and applicable Head Start
regulations;
(5) A statement that the modular unit will not be mortgaged or used
as collateral, sold or otherwise transferred to another party, without
the responsible HHS official's written permission;
(6) A statement that the federal interest cannot be subordinated,
diminished, nullified or released through encumbrance of the property,
transfer to another party, or any other action the grantee takes
without the responsible HHS official's written permission;
(7) A statement that the modular unit cannot be moved to another
location without the responsible HHS official's written permission;
(8) A statement that confirms that the agency's governing body has
received a copy of the filed notice of federal interest and the date
the governing body was provided with a copy; and,
(9) The name, title, and signature of the person who completed the
notice for the grantee agency.
Sec. 1303.48 Grantee limitations on federal interest.
(a) A grantee cannot mortgage, use as collateral for a credit line
or for other loan obligations, or, sell or transfer to another party, a
facility, real property, or a modular unit it has purchased,
constructed or renovated with Head Start funds, without the responsible
HHS official's written permission.
(b) A grantee must have the responsible HHS official's written
permission before it can use real property, a facility, or a modular
unit subject to federal interest for a purpose other than that for
which the grantee's application was approved.
Sec. 1303.49 Protection of federal interest in mortgage agreements.
(a) Any mortgage agreement or other security instrument that is
secured by real property or a modular unit constructed or purchased in
whole or in part with federal funds or subject to renovation with
federal funds must:
(1) Specify that the responsible HHS official can intervene in case
the grantee defaults on, terminates or withdraws from the agreement;
(2) Designate the responsible HHS official to receive a copy of any
notice of default given to the grantee under the terms of the agreement
and include the regional grants management officer's current address;
(3) Include a clause that requires any action to foreclose the
mortgage agreement or security agreement be suspended for 60 days after
the responsible HHS official receives the default notice to allow the
responsible HHS official reasonable time to respond;
(4) Include a clause that preserves the notice of federal interest
and the grantee's obligation for its federal share if the responsible
HHS official fails to respond to any notice of default provided under
this section;
(5) Include a statement that requires the responsible HHS official
to be paid the federal interest before foreclosure proceeds are paid to
the lender, unless the official's rights under the notice of federal
interest have been subordinated by a written agreement in conformance
with Sec. 1303.51;
(6) Include a clause that gives the responsible HHS official the
right to cure any default under the agreement within the designated
period to cure the default; and,
(7) Include a clause that gives the responsible HHS official the
right to assign or transfer the agreement to another interim or
permanent grantee.
(b) A grantee must immediately notify the responsible HHS official
of any default under an agreement described in paragraph (a) of this
section.
Sec. 1303.50 Third party leases and occupancy arrangements.
(a) After November 7, 2016, if a grantee receives federal funds to
purchase, construct or renovate a facility on real property the grantee
does not own or to purchase or renovate a modular unit on real property
the grantee does not own, the grantee must have a lease or other
occupancy agreement of at least 30 years for purchase or construction
of a facility and at least 15 years for a major renovation or placement
of a modular unit.
(b) The lease or occupancy agreement must:
(1) Provide for the grantee's right of continued use and occupancy
of the leased or occupied premises during the entire term of the lease;
(2) Designate the regional grants management officer to receive a
copy of any notice of default given to the grantee under the terms of
the agreement and include the regional grants management officer's
current address;
(3) Specify that the responsible HHS official has the right to cure
any default under the lease or occupancy agreement within the
designated period to cure default; and,
(4) Specify that the responsible HHS official has the right to
transfer the lease to another interim or replacement grantee.
Sec. 1303.51 Subordination of the federal interest.
Only the responsible HHS official can subordinate federal interest
to the rights of a lender or other third party. Subordination
agreements must be in writing and the mortgage agreement or security
agreement for which subordination is requested must comply with Sec.
1303.49. When the amount of federal funds already contributed to the
facility exceeds the amount to be provided by the lender seeking
subordination, the federal interest may only be subordinated if the
grantee can show that funding is not available without subordination of
the federal interest.
Sec. 1303.52 Insurance, bonding, and maintenance.
(a) Purpose. If a grantee uses federal funds to purchase or
continue purchase on a facility, excluding modular units, the grantee
must obtain a title insurance policy for the purchase price that names
the responsible HHS official as an additional loss payee.
(b) Insurance coverage. (1) If a grantee uses federal funds to
purchase or continue purchase on a facility or modular unit the grantee
must maintain physical damage or destruction insurance at the full
replacement value of the facility, for as long as the grantee owns or
occupies the facility.
(2) If a facility is located in an area the National Flood
Insurance Program defines as high risk, the grantee must maintain flood
insurance for as long as the grantee owns or occupies the facility.
(3) A grantee must submit to the responsible HHS official, within
10 days after coverage begins, proof of insurance coverage required
under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.
[[Page 61442]]
(c) Maintenance. A grantee must keep all facilities purchased or
constructed in whole or in part with Head Start funds in good repair in
accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, rules
and regulations, including Head Start requirements, zoning
requirements, building codes, health and safety regulations and child
care licensing standards.
Sec. 1303.53 Copies of documents.
A grantee must submit to the responsible HHS official, within 10
days after filing or execution, copies of deeds, leases, loan
instruments, mortgage agreements, notices of federal interest, and
other legal documents related to the use of Head Start funds for
purchase, construction, major renovation, or the discharge of any debt
secured by the facility.
Sec. 1303.54 Record retention.
A grantee must retain records pertinent to the lease, purchase,
construction or renovation of a facility funded in whole or in part
with Head Start funds, for as long as the grantee owns or occupies the
facility, plus three years.
Sec. 1303.55 Procurement procedures.
(a) A grantee must comply with all grants management regulations,
including specific regulations applicable to transactions in excess of
the current simplified acquisition threshold, cost principles, and its
own procurement procedures, and must provide, to the maximum extent
practical, open and full competition.
(b) A grantee must obtain the responsible HHS official's written
approval before it uses Head Start funds, in whole or in part, to
contract construction or renovation services. The grantee must ensure
these contracts are paid on a lump sum fixed-price basis.
(c) A grantee must obtain prior written approval from the
responsible HHS official for contract modifications that would change
the scope or objective of a project or would materially alter the
costs, by increasing the amount of grant funds needed to complete the
project.
(d) A grantee must ensure all construction and renovation contracts
paid, in whole or in part with Head Start funds contain a clause that
gives the responsible HHS official or his or her designee access to the
facility, at all reasonable times, during construction and inspection.
Sec. 1303.56 Inspection of work.
The grantee must submit to the responsible HHS official a final
facility inspection report by a licensed engineer or architect within
30 calendar days after the project is completed. The inspection report
must certify that the facility complies with local building codes,
applicable child care licensing requirements, is structurally sound and
safe for use as a Head Start facility, complies with the access
requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act, section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act, and the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, and
complies with National Historic Preservation Act of 1966.
Subpart F--Transportation
Sec. 1303.70 Purpose.
(a) Applicability. This rule applies to all agencies, including
those that provide transportation services, with the exceptions and
exclusions provided in this section, regardless of whether such
transportation is provided directly on agency owned or leased vehicles
or through arrangement with a private or public transportation
provider.
(b) Providing transportation services. (1) If a program does not
provide transportation services, either for all or a portion of the
children, it must provide reasonable assistance, such as information
about public transit availability, to the families of such children to
arrange transportation to and from its activities, and provide
information about these transportation options in recruitment
announcements.
(2) A program that provides transportation services must make
reasonable efforts to coordinate transportation resources with other
human services agencies in its community in order to control costs and
to improve the quality and the availability of transportation services.
(3) A program that provides transportation services must ensure all
accidents involving vehicles that transport children are reported in
accordance with applicable state requirements.
(c) Waiver. (1) A program that provides transportation services
must comply with all provisions in this subpart. A Head Start program
may request to waive a specific requirement in this part, in writing,
to the responsible HHS official, as part of an agency's annual
application for financial assistance or amendment and must submit any
required documentation the responsible HHS official deems necessary to
support the waiver. The responsible HHS official is not authorized to
waive any requirements with regard to children enrolled in an Early
Head Start program. A program may request a waiver when:
(i) Adherence to a requirement in this part would create a safety
hazard in the circumstances faced by the agency; and,
(ii) For preschool children, compliance with requirements related
to child restraint systems at Sec. Sec. 1303.71(d) and 1303.72(a)(1)
or bus monitors at Sec. 1303.72(a)(4) will result in a significant
disruption to the program and the agency demonstrates that waiving such
requirements is in the best interest of the children involved.
(2) The responsible HHS official is not authorized to waive any
requirements of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) made
applicable to any class of vehicle under 49 CFR part 571.
Sec. 1303.71 Vehicles.
(a) Required use of schools buses or allowable alternative
vehicles. A program, with the exception of transportation services to
children served under a home-based option, must ensure all vehicles
used or purchased with grant funds to provide transportation services
to enrolled children are school buses or allowable alternate vehicles
that are equipped for use of height- and weight-appropriate child
restraint systems, and that have reverse beepers.
(b) Emergency equipment. A program must ensure each vehicle used in
providing such services is equipped with an emergency communication
system clearly labeled and appropriate emergency safety equipment,
including a seat belt cutter, charged fire extinguisher, and first aid
kit.
(c) Auxiliary seating. A program must ensure any auxiliary seating,
such as temporary or folding jump seats, used in vehicles of any type
providing such services are built into the vehicle by the manufacturer
as part of its standard design, are maintained in proper working order,
and are inspected as part of the annual inspection required under
paragraph (e)(2)(i) of this section.
(d) Child restraint systems. A program must ensure each vehicle
used to transport children receiving such services is equipped for use
of age-, height- and weight-appropriate child safety restraint systems
as defined in part 1305 of this chapter.
(e) Vehicle maintenance. (1) A program must ensure vehicles used to
provide such services are in safe operating condition at all times.
(2) The program must:
(i) At a minimum, conduct an annual thorough safety inspection of
each vehicle through an inspection program licensed or operated by the
state;
(ii) Carry out systematic preventive maintenance on vehicles; and,
[[Page 61443]]
(iii) Ensure each driver implements daily pre-trip vehicle
inspections.
(f) New vehicle inspection. A program must ensure bid announcements
for school buses and allowable alternate vehicles to transport children
in its program include correct specifications and a clear statement of
the vehicle's intended use. The program must ensure vehicles are
examined at delivery to ensure they are equipped in accordance with the
bid specifications and that the manufacturer's certification of
compliance with the applicable FMVSS is included with the vehicle.
Sec. 1303.72 Vehicle operation.
(a) Safety. A program must ensure:
(1) Each child is seated in a child restraint system appropriate to
the child's age, height, and weight;
(2) Baggage and other items transported in the passenger
compartment are properly stored and secured, and the aisles remain
clear and the doors and emergency exits remain unobstructed at all
times;
(3) Up-to-date child rosters and lists of the adults each child is
authorized to be released to, including alternates in case of
emergency, are maintained and no child is left behind, either at the
classroom or on the vehicle at the end of the route; and,
(4) With the exception of transportation services to children
served under a home-based option, there is at least one bus monitor on
board at all times, with additional bus monitors provided as necessary.
(b) Driver qualifications. A program, with the exception of
transportation services to children served under a home-based option,
must ensure drivers, at a minimum:
(1) In states where such licenses are granted, have a valid
Commercial Driver's License (CDL) for vehicles in the same class as the
vehicle the driver will operating; and,
(2) Meet any physical, mental, and other requirements as necessary
to perform job-related functions with any necessary reasonable
accommodations.
(c) Driver application review. In addition to the applicant review
process prescribed Sec. 1302.90(b) of this chapter, a program, with
the exception of transportation services to children served under a
home-based option, must ensure the applicant review process for drivers
includes, at minimum:
(1) Disclosure by the applicant of all moving traffic violations,
regardless of penalty;
(2) A check of the applicant's driving record through the
appropriate state agency, including a check of the applicant's record
through the National Driver Register, if available;
(3) A check that drivers qualify under the applicable driver
training requirements in the state or tribal jurisdiction; and,
(4) After a conditional employment offer to the applicant and
before the applicant begins work as a driver, a medical examination,
performed by a licensed doctor of medicine or osteopathy, establishing
that the individual possesses the physical ability to perform any job-
related functions with any necessary accommodations.
(d) Driver training. (1) A program must ensure any person employed
as a driver receives training prior to transporting any enrolled child
and receives refresher training each year.
(2) Training must include:
(i) Classroom instruction and behind-the-wheel instruction
sufficient to enable the driver to operate the vehicle in a safe and
efficient manner, to safely run a fixed route, to administer basic
first aid in case of injury, and to handle emergency situations,
including vehicle evacuation, operate any special equipment, such as
wheelchair lifts, assistance devices or special occupant restraints,
conduct routine maintenance and safety checks of the vehicle, and
maintain accurate records as necessary; and,
(ii) Instruction on the topics listed in Sec. 1303.75 related to
transportation services for children with disabilities.
(3) A program must ensure the annual evaluation of each driver of a
vehicle used to provide such services includes an on-board observation
of road performance.
(e) Bus monitor training. A program must train each bus monitor
before the monitor begins work, on child boarding and exiting
procedures, how to use child restraint systems, completing any required
paperwork, how to respond to emergencies and emergency evacuation
procedures, how to use special equipment, child pick-up and release
procedures, how to conduct and pre- and post-trip vehicle checks. Bus
monitors are also subject to staff safety training requirements in
Sec. 1302.47(b)(4) of this chapter including Cardio Pulmonary
Resuscitation (CPR) and first aid.
Sec. 1303.73 Trip routing.
(a) A program must consider safety of the children it transports
when it plans fixed routes.
(b) A program must also ensure:
(1) The time a child is in transit to and from the program must not
exceed one hour unless there is no shorter route available or any
alternative shorter route is either unsafe or impractical;
(2) Vehicles are not loaded beyond maximum passenger capacity at
any time;
(3) Drivers do not back up or make U-turns, except when necessary
for safety reasons or because of physical barriers;
(4) Stops are located to minimize traffic disruptions and to afford
the driver a good field of view in front of and behind the vehicle;
(5) When possible, stops are located to eliminate the need for
children to cross the street or highway to board or leave the vehicle;
(6) Either a bus monitor or another adult escorts children across
the street to board or leave the vehicle if curbside pick-up or drop
off is impossible; and,
(7) Drivers use alternate routes in the case of hazardous
conditions that could affect the safety of the children who are being
transported, such as ice or water build up, natural gas line breaks, or
emergency road closing.
Sec. 1303.74 Safety procedures.
(a) A program must ensure children who receive transportation
services are taught safe riding practices, safety procedures for
boarding and leaving the vehicle and for crossing the street to and
from the vehicle at stops, recognition of the danger zones around the
vehicle, and emergency evacuation procedures, including participating
in an emergency evacuation drill conducted on the vehicle the child
will be riding.
(b) A program that provides transportation services must ensure at
least two bus evacuation drills in addition to the one required under
paragraph (a) of this section are conducted during the program year.
Sec. 1303.75 Children with disabilities.
(a) A program must ensure there are school buses or allowable
alternate vehicles adapted or designed for transportation of children
with disabilities available as necessary to transport such children
enrolled in the program. This requirement does not apply to the
transportation of children receiving home-based services unless school
buses or allowable alternate vehicles are used to transport the other
children served under the home-based option by the grantee. Whenever
possible, children with disabilities must be transported in the same
vehicles used to transport other children enrolled in the Head Start or
Early Head Start program.
(b) A program must ensure special transportation requirements in a
child's IEP or IFSP are followed, including special pick-up and drop-
off
[[Page 61444]]
requirements, seating requirements, equipment needs, any assistance
that may be required, and any necessary training for bus drivers and
monitors.
PART 1304--FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES
Subpart A--Monitoring, Suspension, Termination, Denial of Refunding,
Reduction in Funding, and Their Appeals
Sec.
1304.1 Purpose.
1304.2 Monitoring.
1304.3 Suspension with notice.
1304.4 Emergency suspension without advance notice.
1304.5 Termination and denial of refunding.
1304.6 Appeal for prospective delegate agencies.
1304.7 Legal fees.
Subpart B--Designation Renewal
1304.10 Purpose and scope.
1304.11 Basis for determining whether a Head Start agency will be
subject to an open competition.
1304.12 Grantee reporting requirements concerning certain
conditions.
1304.13 Requirements to be considered for designation for a five-
year period when the existing grantee in a community is not
determined to be delivering a high-quality and comprehensive Head
Start program and is not automatically renewed.
1304.14 Tribal government consultation under the Designation Renewal
System for when an Indian Head Start grant is being considered for
competition.
1304.15 Designation request, review and notification process.
1304.16 Use of CLASS: Pre-K instrument in the Designation Renewal
System.
Subpart C--Selection of Grantees Through Competition
1304.20 Selection among applicants.
Subpart D--Replacement of American Indian and Alaska Native Grantees
1304.30 Procedure for identification of alternative agency.
1304.31 Requirements of alternative agency.
1304.32 Alternative agency--prohibition.
Subpart E--Head Start Fellows Program
1304.40 Purpose.
1304.41 Fellows Program.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9801 et seq.
Subpart A--Monitoring, Suspension, Termination, Denial of
Refunding, Reduction in Funding, and Their Appeals
Sec. 1304.1 Purpose.
(a) Section 641A(c) of the Act requires the Secretary to monitor
whether a grantee meets program governance, program operations, and
financial and administrative standards described in this regulation and
to identify areas for improvements and areas of strength as part of the
grantee's ongoing self-assessment process. This subpart focuses on the
monitoring process. It discusses areas of noncompliance, deficiencies,
and corrective action through quality improvement plans.
(b) Section 646(a) of the Act requires the Secretary to prescribe
procedures for notice and appeal for certain adverse actions. This
subpart establishes rules and procedures to suspend financial
assistance to a grantee, deny a grantee's application for refunding,
terminate, or reduce a grantee's assistance under the Act when the
grantee improperly uses federal funds or fails to comply with
applicable laws, regulations, policies, instructions, assurances, terms
and conditions or, if the grantee loses its legal status or financial
viability. This subpart does not apply to reductions to a grantee's
financial assistance based on chronic under-enrollment procedures at
section 641A(h) of the Act or to matters described in subpart B. This
subpart does not apply to any administrative action based upon any
violation, or alleged violation, of title VI of the Civil Rights Act of
1964. Except as otherwise provided for in this subpart, the appeals and
processes in this subpart will be governed by the Departmental Appeals
Board regulations at 45 CFR part 16.
Sec. 1304.2 Monitoring.
(a) Areas of noncompliance. If a responsible HHS official
determines through monitoring, pursuant to section 641(A)(c)(1) and (2)
of the Act, that a grantee fails to comply with any of the standards
described in parts 1301, 1302, and 1303 of this chapter, the official
will notify the grantee promptly in writing, identify the area of
noncompliance, and specify when the grantee must correct the area of
noncompliance.
(b) Deficiencies. If the Secretary determines that a grantee meets
one of the criteria for a deficiency, as defined in section 637(2)(C)
of the Act, the Secretary shall inform the grantee of the deficiency.
The grantee must correct the deficiency pursuant to section
641A(e)(1)(B) of the Act, as the responsible HHS official determines.
(c) Quality improvement plans. If the responsible HHS official does
not require the grantee to correct a deficiency immediately as
prescribed under section 641A(e)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, the grantee must
submit to the official, for approval, a quality improvement plan that
adheres to section 641A(e)(2)(A) of the Act.
Sec. 1304.3 Suspension with notice.
(a) Grounds to suspend financial assistance with notice. If a
grantee breaches or threatens to breach any requirement stated in
Sec. Sec. 1304.3 through 1304.5, the responsible HHS official may
suspend the grantee's financial assistance, in whole or in part, after
it has given the grantee notice and an opportunity to show cause why
assistance should not be suspended.
(b) Notice requirements. (1) The responsible HHS official must
notify the grantee in writing that ACF intends to suspend financial
assistance, in whole or in part. The notice must:
(i) Specify grounds for the suspension;
(ii) Include the date suspension will become effective;
(iii) Inform the grantee that it has the opportunity to submit to
the responsible HHS official, at least seven days before suspension
becomes effective, any written material it would like the official to
consider, and to inform the grantee that it may request, in writing, no
later than seven days after the suspension notice was mailed, to have
an informal meeting with the responsible HHS official;
(iv) Invite the grantee to voluntarily correct the deficiency; and,
(v) Include a copy of this subpart.
(2) The responsible HHS official must promptly transmit the
suspension notice to the grantee. The notice becomes effective when the
grantee receives the notice, when the grantee refuses delivery, or when
the suspension notice is returned to sender unclaimed.
(3) The responsible HHS official must send a copy of the suspension
notice to any delegate agency whose actions or whose failures to act
substantially caused or contributed to the proposed suspension. The
responsible HHS official will inform the delegate agency that it is
entitled to submit written material to oppose the suspension and to
participate in the informal meeting, if one is held. In addition, the
responsible HHS official may give notice to the grantee's other
delegate agencies.
(4) After the grantee receives the suspension notice, it has three
days to send a copy of the notice to delegate agencies that would be
financially affected by a suspension.
(c) Opportunity to show cause. The grantee may submit to the
responsible HHS official any written material to show why financial
assistance should not be suspended. The grantee may also request, in
writing, to have an informal meeting with the responsible HHS official.
If the grantee requests an informal meeting, the responsible HHS
official must schedule the meeting within seven days after the grantee
receives the suspension notice.
[[Page 61445]]
(d) Extensions. If the responsible HHS official extends the time or
the date by which a grantee has to make requests or to submit material,
it must notify the grantee in writing.
(e) Decision. (1) The responsible HHS official will consider any
written material presented before or during the informal meeting, as
well as any proof the grantee has adequately corrected what led to
suspension, and will render a decision within five days after the
informal meeting. If no informal meeting is held, the responsible HHS
official will render a decision within five days after it receives
written material from all concerned parties.
(2) If the responsible HHS official finds the grantee failed to
show cause why ACF should not suspend financial assistance, the
official may suspend financial assistance, in whole or in part, and
under terms and conditions as he or she deems appropriate.
(3) A suspension must not exceed 30 days, unless the conditions
under section 646(a)(5)(B) are applicable or the grantee requests the
suspension continue for an additional period of time and the
responsible HHS official agrees.
(4) The responsible HHS official may appoint an agency to serve as
an interim grantee to operate the program until the grantee's
suspension is lifted, or as otherwise provided under section
646(a)(5)(B) of the Act.
(f) Obligations incurred during suspension. New obligations the
grantee incurs while under suspension are not allowed unless the
responsible HHS official expressly authorizes them in the suspension
notice or in an amendment to the suspension notice. Necessary and
otherwise allowable costs which the grantee could not reasonably avoid
during the suspension period will be allowed if they result from
obligations the grantee properly incurred before suspension and not in
anticipation of suspension or termination. The responsible HHS official
may allow third-party in-kind contributions applicable to the
suspension period to satisfy cost sharing or matching requirements.
(g) Modify or rescind suspension. The responsible HHS official may
modify or rescind suspension at any time, if the grantee can
satisfactorily show that it has adequately corrected what led to
suspension and that it will not repeat such actions or inactions.
Nothing in this section precludes the HHS official from imposing
suspension again for additional 30 day periods if the cause of the
suspension has not been corrected.
Sec. 1304.4 Emergency suspension without advance notice.
(a) Grounds to suspend financial assistance without advance notice.
The responsible HHS official may suspend financial assistance, in whole
or in part, without prior notice and an opportunity to show cause if
there is an emergency situation, such as a serious risk for substantial
injury to property or loss of project funds, a federal, state, or local
criminal statute violation, or harm to staff or participants' health
and safety.
(b) Emergency suspension notification requirements. (1) The
emergency suspension notification must:
(i) Specify the grounds for the suspension;
(ii) Include terms and conditions of any full or partial
suspension;
(iii) Inform that grantee it cannot make or incur any new
expenditures or obligations under suspended portion of the program;
and,
(iv) Advise that within five days after the emergency suspension
becomes effective, the grantee may request, in writing, an informal
meeting with the responsible HHS official to show why the basis for the
suspension was not valid and should be rescinded and that the grantee
has corrected any deficiencies.
(2) The responsible HHS official must promptly transmit the
emergency suspension notification to the grantee that shows the date of
receipt. The emergency suspension becomes effective upon delivery of
the notification or upon the date the grantee refuses delivery, or upon
return of the notification unclaimed.
(3) Within two workdays after the grantee receives the emergency
suspension notification, the grantee must send a copy of the notice to
delegate agencies affected by the suspension.
(4) The responsible HHS official must inform affected delegate
agencies that they have the right to participate in the informal
meeting.
(c) Opportunity to show cause. If the grantee requests an informal
meeting, the responsible HHS official must schedule a meeting within
five workdays after it receives the grantee's request. The suspension
will continue until the grantee has been afforded such opportunity and
until the responsible HHS official renders a decision. Notwithstanding
provisions in this section, the responsible HHS official may proceed to
deny refunding or to initiate termination proceedings at any time even
though the grantee's financial assistance has been suspended in whole
or in part.
(d) Decision. (1) The responsible HHS official will consider any
written material presented before or during the informal meeting, as
well as any proof the grantee has adequately corrected what led to
suspension, and render a decision within five work days after the
informal meeting.
(2) If the responsible HHS official finds the grantee failed to
show cause why suspension should be rescinded, the responsible HHS
official may continue the suspension, in whole or in part, and under
the terms and conditions specified in the emergency suspension
notification.
(3) A suspension must not exceed 30 days, unless the conditions
under section 646(a)(5)(B) are applicable or the grantee requests the
suspension to continue for an additional period of time and the
responsible HHS official agrees.
(4) The responsible HHS official may appoint an agency to serve as
an interim grantee to operate the program until either the grantee's
emergency suspension is lifted or a new grantee is selected.
(e) Obligations incurred during suspension. Any new obligations the
grantee incurs during the suspension period will not be allowed unless
the responsible HHS official expressly authorizes them in the
suspension notice or in an amendment to the suspension notice.
Necessary and otherwise allowable costs which the grantee could not
reasonably avoid during the suspension period will be allowed if those
costs result from obligations properly incurred before suspension and
not in anticipation of suspension, denial of refunding or termination.
The responsible HHS official may allow third-party in-kind
contributions applicable to the suspension period to satisfy cost
sharing or matching requirements.
(f) Modify or rescind suspension. The responsible HHS official may
modify or rescind suspension at any time, if the grantee can
satisfactorily show that is has adequately corrected what led to the
suspension and that it will not repeat such actions or inactions.
Nothing in this section precludes the HHS official from imposing
suspension again for additional 30 day periods if the cause of the
suspension has not been corrected.
Sec. 1304.5 Termination and denial of refunding.
(a) Grounds to terminate financial assistance or deny a grantee's
application for refunding. (1) A responsible HHS official may terminate
financial assistance in whole or in part
[[Page 61446]]
to a grantee or deny a grantee's application for refunding.
(2) The responsible HHS official may terminate financial assistance
in whole or in part, or deny refunding to a grantee for any one or for
all of the following reasons:
(i) The grantee is no longer financially viable;
(ii) The grantee has lost the requisite legal status or permits;
(iii) The grantee has failed to timely correct one or more
deficiencies as defined in the Act;
(iv) The grantee has failed to comply with eligibility
requirements;
(v) The grantee has failed to comply with the Head Start grants
administration or fiscal requirements set forth in 45 CFR part 1303;
(vi) The grantee has failed to comply with requirements in the Act;
(vii) The grantee is debarred from receiving federal grants or
contracts; or
(viii) The grantee has failed to abide by any other terms and
conditions of its award of financial assistance, or any other
applicable laws, regulations, or other applicable federal or state
requirements or policies.
(b) Notice requirements. (1) The responsible HHS official will
notify the grantee and such notice will:
(i) Include the legal basis for termination or adverse action as
described in paragraph (a) of this section;
(ii) Include factual findings on which the action is based or
reference specific findings in another document that form the basis for
termination or denial of refunding;
(iii) Cite to any statutory provisions, regulations, or policy
issuances on which ACF relies for its determination;
(iv) Inform the grantee that it may appeal the denial or
termination within 30 days to the Departmental Appeals Board, that the
appeal will be governed by 45 CFR part 16, except as otherwise provided
in the Head Start appeals regulations, that a copy of the appeal must
sent to the responsible HHS official, and that it has the right to
request and receive a hearing, as mandated under section 646 of the
Act;
(v) Inform the grantee that only its board of directors, or an
official acting on the board's behalf can appeal the decision;
(vi) Name the delegate agency, if the actions of that delegate are
the basis, in whole or in part, for the proposed action; and,
(vii) Inform the grantee that the appeal must meet requirements in
paragraph (c) of this section; and, that if the responsible HHS
official fails to meet requirements in this paragraph, the pending
action may be dismissed without prejudice or remanded to reissue it
with corrections.
(2) The responsible HHS official must provide the grantee as much
notice as possible, but must notify the grantee no later than 30 days
after ACF receives the annual application for refunding, that it has
the opportunity for a full and fair hearing on whether refunding should
be denied.
(c) Grantee's appeal. (1) The grantee must adhere to procedures and
requirements for appeals in 45 CFR part 16, file the appeal with the
Departmental Appeals Board, and serve a copy of the appeal on the
responsible HHS official who issued the termination or denial of
refunding notice. The grantees must also serve a copy of its appeal on
any affected delegate.
(2) Unless funding has been suspended, funding will continue while
a grantee appeals a termination decision, unless the responsible HHS
official renders an adverse decision, or unless the current budget
period is expired. If the responsible HHS official has not rendered a
decision by the end of the current budget period, the official will
award the grantee interim funding until a decision is made or the
project period ends.
(d) Funding during suspension. If a grantee's funding is suspended,
the grantee will not receive funding during the termination
proceedings, or at any other time, unless the action is rescinded or
the grantee's appeal is successful.
(e) Interim and replacement grantees. The responsible HHS official
may appoint an interim or replacement grantee as soon as a termination
action is affirmed by the Departmental Appeals Board.
(f) Opportunity to show cause. (1) If the Departmental Appeals
Board sets a hearing for a proposed termination or denial of refunding
action, the grantee has five workdays to send a copy of the notice it
receives from the Departmental Appeals Board, to all delegate agencies
that would be financially affected by termination and to each delegate
agency identified in the notice.
(2) The grantee must send to the Departmental Appeals Board and to
the responsible HHS official a list of the delegate agencies it
notified and the dates when it notified them.
(3) If the responsible HHS official initiated proceedings because
of a delegate agency's activities, the official must inform the
delegate agency that it may participate in the hearing. If the delegate
agency chooses to participate in the hearing, it must notify the
responsible HHS official in writing within 30 days of the grantee's
appeal. If any other delegate agency, person, agency or organization
wishes to participate in the hearing, it may request permission to do
so from the Departmental Appeals Board.
(4) If the grantee fails to appear at the hearing, without good
cause, the grantee will be deemed to have waived its right to a hearing
and consented to have the Departmental Appeals Board make a decision
based on the parties' written information and argument.
(5) A grantee may waive the hearing and submit written information
and argument for the record, within a reasonable period of time to be
fixed by the Departmental Appeals Board.
(6) The responsible HHS official may attempt, either personally or
through a representative, to resolve the issues in dispute by informal
means prior to the hearing.
(g) Decision. The Departmental Appeals Board's decision and any
measure the responsible HHS official takes after the decision is fully
binding upon the grantee and its delegate agencies, whether or not they
actually participated in the hearing.
Sec. 1304.6 Appeal for prospective delegate agencies.
(a) Appeal. If a grantee denies, or fails to act on, a prospective
delegate agency's funding application, the prospective delegate may
appeal the grantee's decision or inaction.
(b) Process for prospective delegates. To appeal, a prospective
delegate must:
(1) Submits the appeal, including a copy of the funding
application, to the responsible HHS official within 30 days after it
receives the grantee's decision; or within 30 days after the grantee
has had 120 days to review but has not notified the applicant of a
decision; and,
(2) Provide the grantee with a copy of the appeal at the same time
the appeal is filed with the responsible HHS official.
(c) Process for grantees. When an appeal is filed with the
responsible HHS official, the grantee must respond to the appeal and
submit a copy of its response to the responsible HHS official and to
the prospective delegate agency within 30 work days.
(d) Decision. (1) The responsible HHS official will sustain the
grantee's decision, if the official determines the grantee did not act
arbitrarily, capriciously, or otherwise contrary to law, regulation, or
other applicable requirements.
(2) The responsible HHS official will render a written decision to
each party within a reasonable timeframe. The
[[Page 61447]]
official's decision is final and not subject to further appeal.
(3) If the responsible HHS official finds the grantee did act
arbitrarily, capriciously, or otherwise contrary to law, regulation, or
other applicable requirements, the grantee will be directed to
reevaluate their applications.
Sec. 1304.7 Legal fees.
(a) An agency is not authorized to charge to its grant legal fees
or other costs incurred to appeal terminations, reductions of funding,
or denials of applications of refunding decisions.
(b) If a program prevails in a termination, reduction, or denial of
refunding decision, the responsible HHS official may reimburse the
agency for reasonable and customary legal fees, incurred during the
appeal, if:
(1) The Departmental Appeals Board overturns the responsible HHS
official's decision;
(2) The agency can prove it incurred fees during the appeal; and,
(3) The agency can prove the fees incurred are reasonable and
customary.
Subpart B--Designation Renewal
Sec. 1304.10 Purpose and scope.
The purpose of this subpart is to set forth policies and procedures
for the designation renewal of Head Start and Early Head Start
programs. It is intended that these programs be administered
effectively and responsibly; that applicants to administer programs
receive fair and equitable consideration; and that the legal rights of
current Head Start and Early Head Start grantees be fully protected.
The Designation Renewal System is established in this part to determine
whether Head Start and Early Head Start agencies deliver high-quality
services to meet the educational, health, nutritional, and social needs
of the children and families they serve; meet the program and financial
requirements and standards described in section 641A(a)(1) of the Head
Start Act; and qualify to be designated for funding for five years
without competing for such funding as required under section 641(c) of
the Head Start Act with respect to Head Start agencies and pursuant to
section 645A(b)(12) and (d) with respect to Early Head Start agencies.
A competition to select a new Head Start or Early Head Start agency to
replace a Head Start or Early Head Start agency that has been
terminated voluntarily or involuntarily is not part of the Designation
Renewal System established in this Part, and is subject instead to the
requirements of Sec. 1304.20.
Sec. 1304.11 Basis for determining whether a Head Start agency will
be subject to an open competition.
A Head Start or Early Head Start agency shall be required to
compete for its next five years of funding whenever the responsible HHS
official determines that one or more of the following seven conditions
existed during the relevant time period covered by the responsible HHS
official's review under Sec. 1304.15:
(a) An agency has been determined by the responsible HHS official
to have one or more deficiencies on a single review conducted under
section 641A(c)(1)(A), (C), or (D) of the Act in the relevant time
period covered by the responsible HHS official's review under Sec.
1304.15.
(b) An agency has been determined by the responsible HHS official
based on a review conducted under section 641A(c)(1)(A), (C), or (D) of
the Act during the relevant time period covered by the responsible HHS
official's review under Sec. 1304.15 not to have:
(1) After December 9, 2011, established program goals for improving
the school readiness of children participating in its program in
accordance with the requirements of section 641A(g)(2) of the Act and
demonstrated that such goals:
(i) Appropriately reflect the ages of children, birth to five,
participating in the program;
(ii) Align with the Birth to Five Head Start Child Outcomes
Framework, state early learning guidelines, and the requirements and
expectations of the schools, to the extent that they apply to the ages
of children, birth to five, participating in the program and at a
minimum address the domains of language and literacy development,
cognition and general knowledge, approaches toward learning, physical
well-being and motor development, and social and emotional development;
(iii) Were established in consultation with the parents of children
participating in the program.
(2) After December 9, 2011, taken steps to achieve the school
readiness goals described under paragraph (b)(1) of this section
demonstrated by:
(i) Aggregating and analyzing aggregate child-level assessment data
at least three times per year (except for programs operating less than
90 days, which will be required to do so at least twice within their
operating program period) and using that data in combination with other
program data to determine grantees' progress toward meeting its goals,
to inform parents and the community of results, and to direct
continuous improvement related to curriculum, instruction, professional
development, program design and other program decisions; and,
(ii) Analyzing individual ongoing, child-level assessment data for
all children birth to age five participating in the program and using
that data in combination with input from parents and families to
determine each child's status and progress with regard to, at a
minimum, language and literacy development, cognition and general
knowledge, approaches toward learning, physical well-being and motor
development, and social and emotional development and to individualize
the experiences, instructional strategies, and services to best support
each child.
(c) An agency has been determined during the relevant time period
covered by the responsible HHS official's review under Sec. 1304.15:
(1) After December 9, 2011, to have an average score across all
classrooms observed below the following minimum thresholds on any of
the three CLASS: Pre-K domains from the most recent CLASS: Pre-K
observation:
(i) For the Emotional Support domain the minimum threshold is 4;
(ii) For the Classroom Organization domain, the minimum threshold
is 3;
(iii) For the Instructional Support domain, the minimum threshold
is 2;
(2) After December 9, 2011, to have an average score across all
classrooms observed that is in the lowest 10 percent on any of the
three CLASS: Pre-K domains from the most recent CLASS: Pre-K
observation among those currently being reviewed unless the average
score across all classrooms observed for that CLASS: Pre-K domain is
equal to or above the standard of excellence that demonstrates that the
classroom interactions are above an exceptional level of quality. For
all three domains, the ``standard of excellence'' is a 6.
(d) An agency has had a revocation of its license to operate a Head
Start or Early Head Start center or program by a state or local
licensing agency during the relevant time period covered by the
responsible HHS official's review under Sec. 1304.15, and the
revocation has not been overturned or withdrawn before a competition
for funding for the next five-year period is announced. A pending
challenge to the license revocation or restoration of the license after
correction of the violation shall not affect application of this
requirement after the competition for funding for the next five-year
period has been announced.
(e) An agency has been suspended from the Head Start or Early Head
Start program by ACF during the relevant time period covered by the
responsible
[[Page 61448]]
HHS official's review under Sec. 1304.16 and the suspension has not
been overturned or withdrawn. If there is a pending appeal and the
agency did not have an opportunity to show cause as to why the
suspension should not have been imposed or why the suspension should
have been lifted if it had already been imposed under this part, the
agency will not be required to compete based on this condition. If an
agency has received an opportunity to show cause, the condition will be
implemented regardless of appeal status.
(f) An agency has been debarred from receiving federal or state
funds from any federal or state department or agency or has been
disqualified from the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) any
time during the relevant time period covered by the responsible HHS
official's review under Sec. 1304.15 but has not yet been terminated
or denied refunding by ACF. (A debarred agency will only be eligible to
compete for Head Start funding if it receives a waiver described in 2
CFR 180.135.)
(g) An agency has been determined within the twelve months
preceding the responsible HHS official's review under Sec. 1304.15 to
be at risk of failing to continue functioning as a going concern. The
final determination is made by the responsible HHS official based on a
review of the findings and opinions of an audit conducted in accordance
with section 647 of the Act; an audit, review or investigation by a
state agency; a review by the National External Audit Review (NEAR)
Center; or an audit, investigation or inspection by the Department of
Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General.
Sec. 1304.12 Grantee reporting requirements concerning certain
conditions.
(a) Head Start agencies must report in writing to the responsible
HHS official within 30 working days of December 9, 2011, if the agency
has had a revocation of a license to operate a center by a state of
local licensing entity during the period between June 12, 2009, and
December 9, 2011.
(b) Head Start agencies must report in writing to the responsible
HHS official within 10 working days of occurrence any of the following
events following December 9, 2011:
(1) The agency has had a revocation of a license to operate a
center by a state or local licensing entity.
(2) The agency has filed for bankruptcy or agreed to a
reorganization plan as part of a bankruptcy settlement.
(3) The agency has been debarred from receiving federal or state
funds from any federal or state department or agency or has been
disqualified from the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP).
(4) The agency has received an audit, audit review, investigation
or inspection report from the agency's auditor, a state agency, or the
cognizant federal audit agency containing a determination that the
agency is at risk for ceasing to be a going concern.
Sec. 1304.13 Requirements to be considered for designation for a
five-year period when the existing grantee in a community is not
determined to be delivering a high-quality and comprehensive Head Start
program and is not automatically renewed.
In order to compete for the opportunity to be awarded a five-year
grant, an agency must submit an application to the responsible HHS
official that demonstrates that it is the most qualified entity to
deliver a high-quality and comprehensive Head Start or Early Head Start
program. The application must address the criteria for selection listed
at section 641(d)(2) of the Act for Head Start. Any agency that has had
its Head Start or Early Head Start grant terminated for cause in the
preceding five years is excluded from competing in such competition for
the next five years. A Head Start or Early Head Start agency that has
had a denial of refunding, as defined in 45 CFR part 1305, in the
preceding five years is also excluded from competing.
Sec. 1304.14 Tribal government consultation under the Designation
Renewal System for when an Indian Head Start grant is being considered
for competition.
(a) In the case of an Indian Head Start or Early Head Start agency
determined not to be delivering a high-quality and comprehensive Head
Start or Early Head Start program, the responsible HHS official will
engage in government-to-government consultation with the appropriate
tribal government or governments for the purpose of establishing a plan
to improve the quality of the Head Start program or Early Head Start
program operated by the Indian Head Start or Indian Early Head Start
agency.
(1) The plan will be established and implemented within six months
after the responsible HHS official's determination.
(2) Not more than six months after the implementation of that plan,
the responsible HHS official will reevaluate the performance of the
Indian Head Start or Early Head Start agency.
(3) If the Indian Head Start or Early Head Start agency is still
not delivering a high-quality and comprehensive Head Start or Early
Head Start program, the responsible HHS official will conduct an open
competition to select a grantee to provide services for the community
currently being served by the Indian Head Start or Early Head Start
agency.
(b) A non-Indian Head Start or Early Head Start agency will not be
eligible to receive a grant to carry out an Indian Head Start program,
unless there is no Indian Head Start or Early Head Start agency
available for designation to carry out an Indian Head Start or Indian
Early Head Start program.
(c) A non-Indian Head Start or Early Head Start agency may receive
a grant to carry out an Indian Head Start program only until such time
as an Indian Head Start or Indian Early Head Start agency in such
community becomes available and is designated pursuant to this part.
Sec. 1304.15 Designation request, review and notification process.
(a) Grantees must apply to be considered for Designation Renewal.
(1) For the transition period, each Head Start or Early Head Start
agency wishing to be considered to have their designation as a Head
Start or Early Head Start agency renewed for a five year period without
competition shall request that status from ACF within six months of
December 9, 2011.
(2) After the transition period, each Head Start or Early Head
Start agency wishing to be considered to have their designation as a
Head Start or Early Head Start agency renewed for another five year
period without competition shall request that status from ACF at least
12 months before the end of their five year grant period or by such
time as required by the Secretary.
(b) ACF will review the relevant data to determine if one or more
of the conditions under Sec. 1304.11 were met by the Head Start and
Early Head Start agency's program:
(1) During the first year of the transition period, ACF shall
review the data on each Head Start and Early Head Start agency to
determine if any of the conditions under Sec. 1304.11(a) or (d)
through (g) were met by the agency's program since June 12, 2009.
(2) During the remainder of the transition period, ACF shall review
the data on each Head Start and Early Head Start agency still under
grants with indefinite project periods and for whom ACF has relevant
data on all of the conditions in Sec. 1304.11(a) through (g) to
determine if any of the conditions under Sec. 1304.11(a) or (d)
through (g) were met by the agency's program since June 12, 2009, or if
the conditions under Sec. 1304.11(b) or (c) existed in the agency's
program since December 9, 2011.
[[Page 61449]]
(3) Following the transition period, ACF shall review the data on
each Head Start and Early Head Start agency in the fourth year of the
grant to determine if any of the conditions under Sec. 1304.11 existed
in the agency's program during the period of that grant.
(c) ACF will give notice to grantees on Designation Renewal System
status, except as provided in Sec. 1304.14:
(1) During the first year of the transition period, ACF shall give
written notice to all grantees meeting any of the conditions under
Sec. 1304.11(a) or (d) through (g) since June 12, 2009, by certified
mail return receipt requested or other system that establishes the date
of receipt of the notice by the addressee, stating that the Head Start
or Early Head Start agency will be required to compete for funding for
an additional five-year period, identifying the conditions ACF found,
and summarizing the basis for the finding. All grantees that do not
meet any of the conditions under Sec. 1304.11(a) or (d) through (g)
will remain under indefinite project periods until the time period
described under paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
(2) During the remainder of the transition period, ACF shall give
written notice to all grantees still under grants with indefinite
project periods and on the conditions in Sec. 1304.11(a) through (g)
by certified mail return receipt requested or other system that
establishes the date of receipt of the notice by the addressee stating
either:
(i) The Head Start or Early Head Start agency will be required to
compete for funding for an additional five-year period because ACF
finds that one or more conditions under Sec. 1304.11(a) through (g)
has been met during the relevant time period described in paragraph (b)
of this section, identifying the conditions ACF found, and summarizing
the basis for the finding; or
(ii) That such agency has been determined on a preliminary basis to
be eligible for renewed funding for five years without competition
because ACF finds that none of the conditions under Sec. 1304.11 have
been met during the relevant time period described in paragraph (b) of
this section. If prior to the award of that grant, ACF determines that
the grantee has met one of the conditions under Sec. 1304.11 during
the relevant time period described in paragraph (b) of this section,
this determination will change and the grantee will receive notice
under paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section that it will be required to
compete for funding for an additional five-year period.
(3) Following the transition period, ACF shall give written notice
to all grantees at least 12 months before the expiration date of a Head
Start or Early Head Start agency's then current grant by certified mail
return receipt requested or other system that establishes the date of
receipt of the notice by the addressee, stating:
(i) The Head Start or Early Head Start agency will be required to
compete for funding for an additional five-year period because ACF
finds that one or more conditions under Sec. 1304.11 were met by the
agency's program during the relevant time period described in paragraph
(b) of this section, identifying the conditions ACF found, and
summarizing the basis for the finding; or,
(ii) That such agency has been determined on a preliminary basis to
be eligible for renewed funding for five years without competition
because ACF finds that none of the conditions under Sec. 1304.11 have
been met during the relevant time period described in paragraph (b) of
this section. If prior to the award of that grant, ACF determines that
the grantee has met one of the conditions under Sec. 1304.11 during
the relevant time period described in paragraph (b) of this section,
this determination will change and the grantee will receive notice
under paragraph (c)(3)(i) of this section that it will be required to
compete for funding for an additional five-year period.
Sec. 1304.16 Use of CLASS: Pre-K instrument in the Designation
Renewal System.
Except when all children are served in a single classroom, ACF will
conduct observations of multiple classes operated by the grantee based
on a random sample of all classes and rate the conduct of the classes
observed using the CLASS: Pre-K instrument. When the grantee serves
children in its program in a single class, that class will be observed
and rated using the CLASS: Pre-K instrument. The domain scores for that
class will be the domain scores for the grantee for that observation.
After the observations are completed, ACF will report to the grantee
the scores of the classes observed during the CLASS: Pre-K observations
in each of the domains covered by the CLASS: Pre-K instrument. ACF will
average CLASS: Pre-K instrument scores in each domain for the classes
operated by the agency that ACF observed to determine the agency's
score in each domain.
Subpart C--Selection of Grantees Through Competition
Sec. 1304.20 Selection among applicants.
(a) In selecting an agency to be designated to provide Head Start,
Early Head Start, Migrant or Seasonal Head Start or tribal Head Start
or Early Head Start services, the responsible HHS official will
consider the applicable criteria at Section 641(d) of the Head Start
Act and any other criteria outlined in the funding opportunity
announcement.
(b) In competitions to replace or potentially replace a grantee the
responsible HHS official will also consider the extent to which the
applicant supports continuity for participating children, the community
and the continued employment of effective, well qualified personnel.
(c) In competitions to replace or potentially replace a current
grantee, the responsible HHS official will give priority to applicants
that have demonstrated capacity in providing effective, comprehensive,
and well-coordinated early childhood education and development services
and programs to children and their families.
Subpart D--Replacement of American Indian and Alaska Native
Grantees
Sec. 1304.30 Procedure for indentification of alternative agency.
(a) An Indian tribe whose Head Start grant has been terminated,
relinquished, designated for competition or which has been denied
refunding as a Head Start agency, may identify an alternate agency and
request the responsible HHS official to designate such agency as an
alternative agency to provide Head Start services to the tribe if:
(1) The tribe was the only agency that was receiving federal
financial assistance to provide Head Start services to members of the
tribe; and,
(2) The tribe would be otherwise precluded from providing such
services to its members because of the termination or denial of
refunding.
(b)(1) The responsible HHS official, when notifying a tribal
grantee of the intent to terminate financial assistance or deny its
application for refunding, or its designation for competition must
notify the grantee that it may identify an agency and request that the
agency serve as the alternative agency in the event that the grant is
terminated or refunding denied, or the grant is not renewed without
competition.
(2) The tribe must identify the alternate agency to the responsible
HHS official in writing.
(3) The responsible HHS official will notify the tribe, in writing,
whether the alternative agency proposed by the tribe is found to be
eligible for Head Start funding and capable of operating a Head Start
program. If the alternative agency identified by the tribe is not an
eligible agency capable of operating a Head Start
[[Page 61450]]
program, the tribe will have 15 days from the date of the sending of
the notification to that effect from the responsible HHS official to
identify another agency and request that the agency be designated. The
responsible HHS official will notify the tribe in writing whether the
second proposed alternate agency is found to be an eligible agency
capable of operating the Head Start program.
(4) If the tribe does not identify an eligible, suitable
alternative agency, a grantee will be designated under these
regulations.
(c) If the tribe appeals a termination of financial assistance or a
denial of refunding, it will, consistent with the terms of Sec.
1304.5, continue to be funded pending resolution of the appeal.
However, the responsible HHS official and the grantee will proceed with
the steps outlined in this regulation during the appeal process.
(d) If the tribe does not identify an agency and request that the
agency be appointed as the alternative agency, the responsible HHS
official will seek a permanent replacement grantee under these
regulations.
Sec. 1304.31 Requirements of alternative agency.
The agency identified by the Indian tribe must establish that it
meets all requirements established by the Head Start Act and these
requirements for designation as a Head Start grantee and that it is
capable of conducting a Head Start program. The responsible HHS
official, in deciding whether to designate the proposed agency, will
analyze the capacity and experience of the agency according to the
criteria found in section 641(d) of the Head Start Act and Sec.
1304.20.
Sec. 1304.32 Alternative agency--prohibition.
(a) No agency will be designated as the alternative agency pursuant
to this subpart if the agency includes an employee who:
(1) Served on the administrative or program staff of the Indian
tribal grantee described under section 646(e)(1)(A) of the Act; and
(2) Was responsible for a deficiency that:
(i) Relates to the performance standards or financial management
standards described in section 641A(a)(1) of the Act; and,
(ii) Was the basis for the termination of assistance under section
646(e)(1)(A) of the Act or denial of refunding described in Sec.
1304.4.
(b) The responsible HHS official shall determine whether an
employee was responsible for a deficiency within the meaning and
context of this section.
Subpart E--Head Start Fellows Program
Sec. 1304.40 Purpose.
As provided in section 648A(d) of the Act, the Head Start Fellows
Program is designed to enhance the ability of Head Start Fellows to
make significant contributions to Head Start and to other child
development and family services programs.
Sec. 1304.41 Fellows Program.
(a) Selection. An applicant must be working on the date of
application in a local Head Start program or otherwise working in the
field of child development and family services. The qualifications of
the applicants for Head Start Fellowship positions will be
competitively reviewed.
(b) Placement. Head Start Fellows may be placed in the Head Start
national and regional offices; local Head Start agencies and programs;
institutions of higher education; public or private entities and
organizations concerned with services to children and families; and
other appropriate settings.
(c) Restrictions. A Head Start Fellow who is not an employee of a
local Head Start agency or program may only be placed in the national
or regional offices within the Department of Health and Human Services
that administer Head Start or local Head Start agencies. Head Start
Fellows shall not be placed in any agency whose primary purpose, or one
of whose major purposes is to influence federal, state or local
legislation.
(d) Duration. Head Start Fellowships will be for terms of one year,
and may be renewed for a term of one additional year.
(e) Status. For the purposes of compensation for injuries under
chapter 81 of title 5, United States Code, Head Start Fellows shall be
considered to be employees, or otherwise in the service or employment,
of the federal government. Head Start Fellows assigned to the national
or regional offices within the Department of Health and Human Services
shall be considered employees in the Executive Branch of the federal
government for the purposes of chapter 11 of title 18, United States
Code, and for the purposes of any administrative standards of conduct
applicable to the employees of the agency to which they are assigned.
PART 1305--DEFINITIONS
Sec.
1305.1 Purpose.
1305.2 Terms.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9801 et seq.
Sec. 1305.1 Purpose.
The purpose of this part is to define terms for the purposes of
this subchapter.
Sec. 1305.2 Terms.
For the purposes of this subchapter, the following definitions
apply:
ACF means the Administration for Children and Families in the
Department of Health and Human Services.
Act means the Head Start Act, Sec. 635 et seq., Public Law 97-
35, 95 Stat. 499-511 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. Section 9801,
et seq.).
Agency means the body that receives the Head Start grant.
Aggregate child-level assessment data means the data collected
by an agency on the status and progress of the children it serves
that have been combined to provide summary information about groups
of children enrolled in specific classes, centers, home-based or
other options, groups or settings, or other groups of children such
as dual language learners, or to provide summary information by
specific domains of development.
Allowable alternate vehicle means a vehicle designed for
carrying eleven or more people, including the driver, that meets all
the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards applicable to school
buses, except 49 CFR 571.108 and 571.131.
Budget period means the interval of time, into which a multi-
year period of assistance (project period) is divided for budgetary
and funding purposes.
Case plan is defined as presented in 42 U.S.C. 675(1) which, in
summary, is a written document that must include a number of
specified items including, but is not limited to, a plan for safe
and proper care of the child in foster care placement, health
records, and a plan for ensuring the educational stability of the
child in foster care.
Child-level assessment data means the data collected by an
agency on an individual child from one or more valid and reliable
assessments of a child's status and progress, including but not
limited to direct assessment, structured observations, checklists,
staff or parent report measures, and portfolio records or work
samples.
Child records means records that:
(1) Are directly related to the child;
(2) Are maintained by the program, or by a party acting for the
program; and
(3) Include information recorded in any way, such as print,
electronic, or digital means, including media, video, image, or
audio format.
Child restraint system means any device designed to restrain,
seat, or position children that meets the current requirements of
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, Child Restraint
Systems, 49 CFR 571.213, for children in the weight category
established under the regulation, or any device designed to
restrain, seat, or position children, other than a Type I seat belt
as defined at 49 CFR 571.209, for children not in the weight
category currently established by 49 CFR 571.213.
[[Page 61451]]
Child with a disability is defined in the same manner as
presented in the Head Start Act, 42 U.S.C. 9801.
CLASS: Pre-K means The Classroom Assessment Scoring System
(CLASS). The CLASS is an observational instrument that assesses
classroom quality in preschool through third grade classrooms. This
tool meets the requirements described in 641(c)(1)(D) and
641A(c)(2)(F) of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9836(c)(1)(D) and
9836a(c)(2)(F)). The CLASS assesses three domains of classroom
experience: Emotional Support, Classroom Organization, and
Instructional Support.
(1) Emotional Support measures children's social and emotional
functioning in the classroom, and includes four dimensions: Positive
Climate, Negative Climate, Teacher Sensitivity and Regard for
Student Perspectives. Positive Climate addresses the emotional
connection, respect, and enjoyment demonstrated between teachers and
children and among children. Negative Climate addresses the level of
expressed negativity such as anger, hostility, or aggression
exhibited by teachers and/or children in the classroom. Teacher
Sensitivity addresses teachers' awareness of and responsivity to
children's academic and emotional concerns. Regard for Student
Perspectives addresses the degree to which teachers' interactions
with children and classroom activities place an emphasis on
children's interests, motivations, and points of view.
(2) Classroom Organization measures a broad array of classroom
processes related to the organization and management of children's
behavior, time, and attention in the classroom. It includes three
dimensions: Behavior Management, Productivity, and Instructional
Learning Formats. Behavior Management addresses how effectively
teachers monitor, prevent, and redirect behavior. Productivity
addresses how well the classroom runs with respect to routines and
the degree to which teachers organize activities and directions so
that maximum time can be spent on learning activities. Instructional
Learning Formats addresses how teachers facilitate activities and
provide interesting materials so that children are engaged and
learning opportunities are maximized.
(3) Instructional Support measures the ways in which teachers
implement curriculum to effectively support cognitive and language
development. It includes three dimensions: Concept Development,
Quality of Feedback, and Language Modeling. Concept Development
addresses how teachers use instructional discussions and activities
to promote children's higher order thinking skills in contrast to a
focus on rote instruction. Quality of Feedback addresses how
teachers extend children's learning through their responses to
children's ideas, comments, and work. Language Modeling addresses
the extent to which teachers facilitate and encourage children's
language.
(4) Assessments with the CLASS involve observation-based
measurement of each dimension on a seven point scale. A score
ranging from 1 (minimally characteristic) to 7 (highly
characteristic) is given for each dimension and represents the
extent to which that dimension is characteristic of that classroom.
Relevant dimension scores are used to calculate each domain score.
Commercial Driver's License (CDL) means a license issued by a
state or other jurisdiction, in accordance with the standards
contained in 49 CFR part 383, to an individual which authorizes the
individual to operate a class of commercial motor vehicles.
Construction means new buildings, and excludes renovations,
alterations, additions, or work of any kind to existing buildings.
Continuity of care means Head Start or Early Head Start services
provided to children in a manner that promotes primary caregiving
and minimizes the number of transitions in teachers and teacher
assistants that children experience over the course of the day,
week, program year, and to the extent possible, during the course of
their participation from birth to age three in Early Head Start and
in Head Start.
Deficiency is defined in the same manner as presented in the
Head Start Act, 42 U.S.C. 9801.
Delegate agency is defined in the same manner as presented in
the Head Start Act, 42 U.S.C. 9801.
Development and administrative costs mean costs incurred in
accordance with an approved Head Start budget which do not directly
relate to the provision of program component services, including
services to children with disabilities, as set forth and described
in the Head Start program performance standards (45 CFR part 1304).
Disclosure means to permit access to or the release, transfer,
or other communication of PII contained in child records by any
means, including oral, written, or electronic means, to any party
except the party identified as the party that provided or created
the record.
Double session variation means a center-based option that
employs a single teacher to work with one group of children in the
morning and a different group of children in the afternoon.
Dual benefit costs mean costs incurred in accordance with an
approved Head Start budget which directly relate to both development
and administrative functions and to the program component services,
including services to children with disabilities, as set forth and
described in the Head Start program performance standards (45 CFR
part 1304).
Dual language learner means a child who is acquiring two or more
languages at the same time, or a child who is learning a second
language while continuing to develop their first language. The term
``dual language learner'' may encompass or overlap substantially
with other terms frequently used, such as bilingual, English
language learner (ELL), Limited English Proficient (LEP), English
learner, and children who speak a Language Other Than English
(LOTE).
Early Head Start agency means a public or private non-profit or
for-profit entity designated by ACF to operate an Early Head Start
program to serve pregnant women and children from birth to age
three, pursuant to Section 645A(e) of the Head Start Act.
Enrolled (or any variation of) means a child has been accepted
and attended at least one class for center-based or family child
care option or at least one home visit for the home-based option.
Enrollment year means the period of time, not to exceed twelve
months, during which a Head Start program provides center or home-
based services to a group of children and their families.
Facility means a structure, such as a building or modular unit,
appropriate for use in carrying out a Head Start program and used
primarily to provide Head Start services, including services to
children and their families, or for administrative purposes or other
activities necessary to carry out a Head Start program.
Family means all persons living in the same household who are
supported by the child's parent(s)' or guardian(s)' income; and are
related to the child's parent(s) or guardian(s) by blood, marriage,
or adoption; or are the child's authorized caregiver or legally
responsible party.
Federal interest is a property right which secures the right of
the federal awarding agency to recover the current fair market value
of its percentage of participation in the cost of the facility in
the event the facility is no longer used for Head Start purposes by
the grantee or upon the disposition of the property. When a grantee
uses Head Start funds to purchase, construct or renovate a facility,
or make mortgage payments, it creates a federal interest. The
federal interest includes any portion of the cost of purchase,
construction, or renovation contributed by or for the entity, or a
related donor organization, to satisfy a matching requirement.
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) means the
National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration's standards for
motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment (49 CFR part 571)
established under section 30111 of Title 49, United States Code.
Financial viability means that an organization is able to meet
its financial obligations, balance funding and expenses and maintain
sufficient funding to achieve organizational goals and objectives.
Fixed route means the established routes to be traveled on a
regular basis by vehicles that transport children to and from Head
Start or Early Head Start program activities, and which include
specifically designated stops where children board or exit the
vehicle.
Foster care means 24-hour substitute care for children placed
away from their parents or guardians and for whom the state agency
has placement and care responsibility. This includes, but is not
limited to, placements in foster family homes, foster homes of
relatives, group homes, emergency shelters, residential facilities,
child-care institutions, and pre-adoptive homes. A child is in
foster care in accordance with this definition regardless of whether
the foster care facility is licensed and payments are made by the
state or local agency for the care of the child, whether adoption
subsidy payments are being made prior to the finalization of an
adoption, or whether there is federal matching of any payments that
are made.
Full-working-day means not less than 10 hours of Head Start or
Early Head Start services per day.
[[Page 61452]]
Funded enrollment means the number of participants which the
Head Start grantee is to serve, as indicated on the grant award.
Going concern means an organization that operates without the
threat of liquidation for the foreseeable future, a period of at
least 12 months.
Grantee means the local public or private non-profit agency or
for-profit agency which has been designated as a Head Start agency
under 42 U.S.C. 9836 and which has been granted financial assistance
by the responsible HHS official to operate a Head Start program.
Head Start agency means a local public or private non-profit or
for-profit entity designated by ACF to operate a Head Start program
to serve children age three to compulsory school age, pursuant to
section 641(b) and (d) of the Head Start Act.
Head Start Early Learning Outcomes Framework: Ages Birth to Five
means the Head Start Early Learning Outcomes Framework: Ages Birth
to Five, which describes the skills, behaviors, and knowledge that
programs must foster in all children. It includes five central
domains: Approaches to Learning; Social and Emotional Development;
Language and Literacy; Cognition; and Perceptual, Motor, and
Physical Development. These central domains are broken into five
domains for infants and toddlers and seven domains for preschoolers.
Infant and Toddler domains are Approaches to Learning; Social and
Emotional Development; Language and Communication; Cognition; and
Perceptual, Motor, and Physical Development. Preschool domains are
Approaches to Learning; Social and Emotional Development; Language
and Communication; Literacy; Mathematics Development; Scientific
Reasoning; and Perceptual, Motor, and Physical Development. Domains
are divided into sub-domains with goals that describe broad skills,
behaviors, and concepts that are important for school success.
Developmental progressions describe the skills, behaviors and
concepts that children may demonstrate as they progress. As
described in the Head Start Act, the Framework is central to program
operations that promote high-quality early learning environments (42
U.S.C. 9832(21)(G)(iv)(II)(aa), 42 U.S.C. 9835(o), 42 U.S.C.
9836(d)(2)(C), 42 U.S.C. 9836a(g)(2)(A), 42 U.S.C. 9837(f)(3)(E), 42
U.S.C. 9837a(a)(3), 42 U.S.C. 9837a(a)(14), 42 U.S.C.
9837b(a)(2)(B)(iii), 42 U.S.C. 9837b(a)(4)(A)(i), and 42 U.S.C.
9837b(a)(4)(B)(iii)).
Homeless children means the same as homeless children and youths
in Section 725(2) of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act at
42 U.S.C. 11434a(2).
Home visitor means the staff member in the home-based program
option assigned to work with parents to provide comprehensive
services to children and their families through home visits and
group socialization activities.
Hours of planned class operations means hours when children are
scheduled to attend. Professional development, training,
orientation, teacher planning, data analysis, parent-teacher
conferences, home visits, classroom sanitation, and transportation
do not count toward the hours of planned class operations.
Income means gross cash income and includes earned income,
military income (including pay and allowances, except those
described in Section 645(a)(3)(B) of the Act), veteran's benefits,
Social Security benefits, unemployment compensation, and public
assistance benefits. Additional examples of gross cash income are
listed in the definition of ``income'' which appears in U.S. Bureau
of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P-60-185
(available at https://www2.census.gov/prod2/popscan/p60-185.pdf).
Indian Head Start agency means a program operated by an Indian
tribe (as defined by the Act) or designated by an Indian tribe to
operate on its behalf.
Indian tribe is defined in the same manner as presented in the
Head Start Act, 42 U.S.C. 9801.
Individualized Education Program is defined in the same manner
as presented in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20
U.S.C. 1400 et seq.).
Individualized Family Service Plan is defined in the same manner
as presented in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20
U.S.C. 1400 et seq.).
Legal status means the existence of an applicant or grantee as a
public agency or organization under the law of the state in which it
is located, or existence as a private nonprofit or for-profit agency
or organization as a legal entity recognized under the law of the
state in which it is located. Existence as a private non-profit
agency or organization may be established under applicable state or
federal law.
Local agency responsible for implementing IDEA means the early
intervention service provider under Part C of IDEA and the local
educational agency under Part B of IDEA.
Major renovation means any individual or collection renovation
that has a cost equal to or exceeding $250,000. It excludes minor
renovations and repairs except when they are included in a purchase
application.
Migrant family means, for purposes of Head Start eligibility, a
family with children under the age of compulsory school attendance
who changed their residence by moving from one geographic location
to another, either intrastate or interstate, within the preceding
two years for the purpose of engaging in agricultural work and whose
family income comes primarily from this activity.
Migrant or Seasonal Head Start Program means:
(1) With respect to services for migrant farm workers, a Head
Start program that serves families who are engaged in agricultural
labor and who have changed their residence from one geographic
location to another in the preceding 2-year period; and,
(2) With respect to services for seasonal farmworkers, a Head
Start program that serves families who are engaged primarily in
seasonal agricultural labor and who have not changed their residence
to another geographic location in the preceding 2-year period.
Minor renovation means improvements to facilities, which do not
meet the definition of major renovation.
Modular unit means a portable prefabricated structure made at
another location and moved to a site for use by a Head Start grantee
to carry out a Head Start program, regardless of the manner or
extent to which the modular unit is attached to underlying real
property.
National Driver Register means the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration's automated system for assisting state driver
license officials in obtaining information regarding the driving
records of individuals who have been denied licenses for cause; had
their licenses denied for cause, had their licenses canceled,
revoked, or suspended for cause, or have been convicted of certain
serious driving offenses.
Parent means a Head Start child's mother or father, other family
member who is a primary caregiver, foster parent or authorized
caregiver, guardian or the person with whom the child has been
placed for purposes of adoption pending a final adoption decree.
Participant means a pregnant woman or child who is enrolled in
and receives services from a Head Start, an Early Head Start, a
Migrant or Seasonal Head Start, or an American Indian and Alaska
Native Head Start program.
Personally identifiable information (PII) means any information
that could identify a specific individual, including but not limited
to a child's name, name of a child's family member, street address
of the child, social security number, or other information that is
linked or linkable to the child.
Program means a Head Start, Early Head Start, migrant, seasonal,
or tribal program, funded under the Act and carried out by an
agency, or delegate agency, to provide ongoing comprehensive child
development services.
Program costs mean costs incurred in accordance with an approved
Head Start budget which directly relate to the provision of program
component services, including services to children with
disabilities, as set forth and described in the Head Start Program
Performance Standards (45 CFR part 1304).
Purchase means to buy an existing facility, including outright
purchase, down payment or through payments made in satisfaction of a
mortgage or other loan agreement, whether principal, interest or an
allocated portion principal and/or interest. The use of grant funds
to make a payment under a capital lease agreement, as defined in the
cost principles, is a purchase subject to these provisions. Purchase
also refers to an approved use of Head Start funds to continue
paying the cost of purchasing facilities or refinance an existing
loan or mortgage beginning in 1987.
Real property means land, including land improvements,
buildings, structures and all appurtenances thereto, excluding
movable machinery and equipment.
Recruitment area means that geographic locality within which a
Head Start program seeks to enroll Head Start children and families.
The recruitment area can be the
[[Page 61453]]
same as the service area or it can be a smaller area or areas within
the service area.
Relevant time period means:
(1) The 12 months preceding the month in which the application
is submitted; or
(2) During the calendar year preceding the calendar year in
which the application is submitted, whichever more accurately
reflects the needs of the family at the time of application.
Repair means maintenance that is necessary to keep a Head Start
facility in working condition. Repairs do not add significant value
to the property or extend its useful life.
Responsible HHS official means the official of the Department of
Health and Human Services who has authority to make grants under the
Act.
School readiness goals mean the expectations of children's
status and progress across domains of language and literacy
development, cognition and general knowledge, approaches to
learning, physical well-being and motor development, and social and
emotional development that will improve their readiness for
kindergarten.
School bus means a motor vehicle designed for carrying 11 or
more persons (including the driver) and which complies with the
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards applicable to school buses.
Service area means the geographic area identified in an approved
grant application within which a grantee may provide Head Start
services.
Staff means paid adults who have responsibilities related to
children and their families who are enrolled in programs.
State is defined in the same manner as presented in the Head
Start Act, 42 U.S.C. 9801.
Termination of a grant or delegate agency agreement means
permanent withdrawal of the grantee's or delegate agency's authority
to obligate previously awarded grant funds before that authority
would otherwise expire. It also means the voluntary relinquishment
of that authority by the grantee or delegate agency. Termination
does not include:
(1) Withdrawal of funds awarded on the basis of the grantee's or
delegate agency's underestimate of the unobligated balance in a
prior period;
(2) Refusal by the funding agency to extend a grant or award
additional funds (such as refusal to make a competing or
noncompeting continuation renewal, extension or supplemental award);
(3) Withdrawal of the unobligated balance as of the expiration
of a grant; and
(4) Annulment, i.e., voiding of a grant upon determination that
the award was obtained fraudulently or was otherwise illegal or
invalid from its inception.
Total approved costs mean the sum of all costs of the Head Start
program approved for a given budget period by the Administration for
Children and Families, as indicated on the Financial Assistance
Award. Total approved costs consist of the federal share plus any
approved non-federal match, including non-federal match above the
statutory minimum.
Transition period means the three-year time period after
December 9, 2011, on the Designation Renewal System during which ACF
will convert all of the current continuous Head Start and Early Head
Start grants into five-year grants after reviewing each grantee to
determine if it meets any of the conditions under Sec. 1304.12 of
this chapter that require recompetition or if the grantee will
receive its first five-year grant non-competitively.
Transportation services means the planned transporting of
children to and from sites where an agency provides services funded
under the Head Start Act. Transportation services can involve the
pick-up and discharge of children at regularly scheduled times and
pre-arranged sites, including trips between children's homes and
program settings. The term includes services provided directly by
the Head Start and Early Head Start grantee or delegate agency and
services which such agencies arrange to be provided by another
organization or an individual. Incidental trips, such as
transporting a sick child home before the end of the day, or such as
might be required to transport small groups of children to and from
necessary services, are not included under the term.
Verify or any variance of the word means to check or determine
the correctness or truth by investigation or by reference.
[FR Doc. 2016-19748 Filed 9-1-16; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4184-01-P