Supporting the Head Start Workforce and Consistent Quality Programming, 80818-80908 [2023-25038]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
80818
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lindsey Hutchison, Office of Head Start,
Division of Planning, Oversight, and
Policy, 202–205–8539, OHS_NPRM@
acf.hhs.gov. Telecommunications Relay
users may dial 711 first.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Administration for Children and
Families
45 CFR Parts 1301, 1302, 1303, 1304,
and 1305
RIN 0970–AD01
Supporting the Head Start Workforce
and Consistent Quality Programming
Office of Head Start (OHS),
Administration for Children and
Families (ACF), Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
We propose to add new
requirements to the Head Start Program
Performance Standards (HSPPS) to
support and stabilize the Head Start
workforce, including requirements for
wages and benefits, breaks for staff, and
enhanced supports for staff health and
wellness. We also propose to enhance
several existing requirements and add
new requirements to promote consistent
quality of services across Head Start
programs. This includes proposed
enhancements to requirements for
mental health services to better integrate
these services into every aspect of
programs as well as elevate the role of
mental health consultation to support
the well-being of children, families, and
staff. Enhancements are also proposed
in the areas of family service, worker
family assignments, identifying and
meeting community needs, ensuring
child safety, services for pregnant
women and people, and alignment with
State early childhood systems. Finally,
we propose minor clarifications to
existing standards to promote better
transparency and clarity of
understanding for grant recipients.
DATES: Consideration will be given to
comments received on or before January
19, 2024.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by [docket number and/or
RIN number] by any of the following
methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Mail: Office of Head Start,
Attention: Director of Policy and
Planning, 330 C Street SW, 4th Floor,
Washington, DC 20201.
Instructions: All submissions received
must include the agency name and
docket number or Regulatory
Information Number (RIN) for this
rulemaking. All comments received will
be posted without change to https://
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:04 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Statutory Authority To Issue NPRM
III. Section-by-Section Discussion of
Proposed Changes
Definition of Head Start and Related Terms
(§ 1305.2)
Workforce Supports: Staff Wages
(§ 1302.90)
The Need for Wage Requirements
Progress to Pay Parity for Head Start
Education Staff With Elementary School
Education Staff
Pay Scale for All Staff
Minimum Pay Requirement
Wage Comparability Across Head Start
Preschool and Early Head Start
Staff for Whom Wage Standards Apply
Workforce Supports: Staff Benefits
(§ 1302.90)
Workforce Supports: Staff Wellness
(§ 1302.93)
Workforce Supports: Employee
Engagement (§§ 1302.92, 1302.101)
Mental Health Services (Subpart D;
Subpart H; Subpart I)
1302 Subpart A—Eligibility, Recruitment,
Selection, Enrollment, and Attendance
1302 Subpart D—Health Program Services
§ 1302.40 Purpose
§ 1302.41 Collaboration and
Communication With Parents
§ 1302.42 Child Health Status and Care
§ 1302.45 Child Mental Health and Social
and Emotional Well-Being
§ 1302.46 Family Support Services for
Health, Nutrition, and Mental Health
1302 Subpart H—Services to Enrolled
Pregnant Women and People
1302 Subpart I—Human Resources
Management
§ 1302.91 Staff Qualification and
Competency Requirements
§ 1302.93 Staff Health and Wellness
Modernizing Head Start’s Engagement
With Families (§§ 1302.11; 1302.13;
1302.15; 1302.34; 1302.50)
Community Assessment (§ 1302.11)
Adjustment for Excessive Housing Costs
for Eligibility Determination (§ 1302.12)
Migrant and Seasonal Head Start Eligibility
(§ 1302.12)
Transportation & Other Barriers to
Enrollment and Attendance (§§ 1302.14;
1302.16)
Serving Children With Disabilities
(§ 1302.14)
Ratios in Center-Based Early Head Start
Programs (§ 1302.21)
Center-Based Service Duration for Early
Head Start (§ 1302.21)
Center-Based Service Duration for Head
Start Preschool (§§ 1302.21; 1302.24)
Ratios in Family Child Care Settings
(§ 1302.23)
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Safety Practices (§ 1302.47)
Preventing and Addressing Lead Exposure
(§ 1302.48)
Lead in Water
Lead in Paint
Notification
Conflicting Requirements
Family Service Worker Family
Assignments (§ 1302.52)
Participation in Quality Rating and
Improvement Systems (§ 1302.53)
Services to Enrolled Pregnant Women and
People (§ 1302.80; § 1302.82)
Standards of Conduct (§ 1302.90)
Staff Training To Support Child Safety
(§§ 1302.92; 1302.101)
Incident Reporting (§ 1302.102)
Facilities Valuation (§ 1303.44)
Definition of Income (§ 1305.2)
Definition of Federal Interest and Major
Renovations (§ 1305.2)
Definition of the Poverty Line (§ 1305.2)
Effective Dates
Removal of Outdated Sections
Compliance With Sec. 641A(a)(2) of the
Act
Severability
IV. Regulatory Process Matters
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Federalism Assessment Executive Order
13132
Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act of 1999
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
V. Regulatory Impact Analysis
Introduction and Summary
A. Introduction
B. Summary of Benefits, Costs, and
Transfers
Preliminary Economic Analysis of Impacts
A. Analytic Approach
B. Baseline: Budget, Staffing, and Slots
Baseline Budget Scenario
Baseline Scenario for Staffing, Wages, and
Enrollment
Connecting Baseline Uncertainty With
Differing Estimates of Regulatory Effects
C. Workforce Supports: Staff Wages and
Staff Benefits
Wage-Parity Targets
Disaggregation of Wage-Parity Policy
Implementation Costs
Impact of the Minimum Pay Requirement
Impact on Expenditures Through Wage
Compression
Overall Impacts of Wage Parity on
Expenditures, Holding Benefits Constant
Expenditures Associated With Fringe
Benefits
Disaggregation of Fringe Benefit Estimates
Discussion of Uncertainty
D. Workforce Supports: Staff Wellness—
Staff Breaks
E. Family Service Worker Family
Assignments
F. Mental Health Services
G. Preventing and Addressing Lead
Exposure
Lead in Water
Lead-Based Paint
H. Administrative Costs
I. Timing of Impacts
J. Sensitivity Analysis—Potential
Enrollment Reductions
K. Alternative Policy Scenario: Required
Retirement
E:\FR\FM\20NOP2.SGM
20NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
L. Non-Quantified Impacts of Certain
Elements of the Proposed Rule
Estimated Impact of Relevant Provisions on
Slot Loss
Expected Impact of Preventing and
Addressing Lead Exposure (§ 1302.48)
Additional Impact of Workforce Supports:
Staff Wages and Benefits (§ 1302.90)
Estimated Impact of Mental Health
Services (§ 1302 Subpart D; Subpart H;
Subpart I)
Estimated Impact of Modernizing
Engagement With Families (§ 1302.11;
§ 1302.13; § 1302.15; § 1302.34;
§ 1302.50)
Estimated Impact of Community
Assessments (§ 1302.11)
Estimated Impact of Adjustment for
Excessive Shelter Costs for Eligibility
Determination (§ 1302.12)
Estimated Impact of Migrant and Seasonal
Head Start Eligibility (§ 1302.12)
Estimated Impact of Serving Children With
Disabilities (§ 1302.14)
Expected Benefits of Ratios in CenterBased Early Head Start Programs
(§ 1302.21)
Expected Benefits of Center-Based Service
Duration for Early Head Start (§ 1302.21)
Expected Benefits of Family Service
Worker Family Assignments (§ 1302.52)
Expected Benefits of Participation in
Quality Rating and Improvement
Systems (§ 1302.53)
Expected Benefits of Services to Enrolled
Pregnant People (§ 1302.80; § 1302.82)
Expected Benefits of Standards of Conduct
(§ 1302.90)
Expected Benefits of Staff Training To
Support Child Safety (§ 1302.92;
§ 1302.101)
Expected Benefits of Definition of Income
(§ 1305.2)
Initial Small Entity Analysis
A. Description and Number of Affected
Small Entities
B. Description of the Potential Impacts of
the Rule on Small Entities
C. Alternatives To Minimize the Burden on
Small Entities
I. Background
The Federal Head Start program
provides early education and other
comprehensive services to children
birth to age 5 and during pregnancy in
center- and home-based settings across
the country. Since its inception in 1965,
Head Start has been a leader in
providing high-quality services that
support the development of children
from low-income families, helping them
enter kindergarten more prepared to
succeed in school and in life. Evidence
continues to support the positive
outcomes for children and families who
participate in and graduate from Head
Start programs.1 The most essential
1 Deming, D. (2009). Early Childhood Intervention
and Life-Cycle Skill Development: Evidence from
Head Start. American Economic Journal: Applied
Economics, 1:3, 111–134.; Lipscomb, S.T., Pratt,
M.E., Schmitt, S.A., Pears, K.C., and Kim, H.K.
(2013). School readiness is children living in non-
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:04 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
component to accomplishing Head
Start’s mission of providing high-quality
early childhood education and
comprehensive services is the workforce
of approximately 260,000 staff 2 that
provide the services to children and
families each day.
However, due to a severe nationwide
staffing shortage, Head Start grant
recipients across the country are
struggling to retain and hire qualified
staff to fully enroll classrooms. Early
educators provide a critical foundation
for children to learn and develop 3 and
positively impact children’s outcomes.4
Strong, stable relationships between
young children and educators are the
key to promoting early development. If
programs cannot retain high-quality
staff, these relationships are disrupted
and outcomes for children and families
are negatively impacted.5 Currently,
Head Start programs across the nation
are experiencing a severe staff shortage
with turnover at its highest point in two
decades.6 For Head Start classroom
teachers, the rate of turnover has more
than doubled over the past decade.7
Low wages and poor benefits—despite
increased expectations and
requirements for staff—are a key driver
of rapidly increasing staff turnover
among Head Start teachers and staff.
Since 2010, the share of Head Start
Preschool teachers with a bachelor’s
degree increased substantially, but
inflation-adjusted salaries for these
teachers decreased by 2 percent.8
Research indicates that well
compensated early childhood teachers
and staff have lower turnover rates and
provide higher quality services.9 For
parental care: Impacts of Head Start. Journal of
Applied Developmental Psychology, 31 (1), 28–37.
2 Source: Head Start 2022 Program Information
Report (PIR).
3 Burchinal, M., Zaslow, M., & Tarullo, L. (eds.)
(2016). Quality thresholds, features, and dosage in
early care and education: Secondary data analyses
of child outcomes. Monographs of the Society for
Research in Child Development. 81(2).
4 Choi, Y., Horm, D., Jeon, S. & Ryu, D. (2019).
Do Stability of Care and Teacher-Child Interaction
Quality Predict Child Outcomes in Early Head
Start?, Early Education and Development, 30:3,
337–356.
5 Hamre, B., Hatfield, B., Pianta, R., Jamil, F.
(2013). Evidence for General and Domain-Specific
Elements of Teacher-Child Interactions:
Associations with Preschool Children’s
Development. Child Development, 85:3; Grunewald,
R., Nunn, R., Palmer, V. (2022). Examining teacher
turnover in early care and education. Federal
Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.
6 Source: Head Start 2022 PIR.
7 Ibid.
8 Source: Head Start 2010–2022 PIR.
9 Bassok, D., Doromal, J., Michie, M., & Wong, V.
(2021). The Effects of Financial Incentives on
Teacher Turnover in Early Childhood Settings:
Experimental Evidence from Virginia.
EdPolicyWorks at the University of Virginia.;
Whitebook, M., Howes, C., & Phillips, D. (2014).
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
80819
decades, the Head Start program has
been subsidized by low paid workers
committed to the mission; and the
absence of clear Federal requirements
for staff compensation has allowed this
practice to continue. Urgent regulatory
action is needed to stabilize the
workforce and ensure the Head Start
program can continue to fulfill its
mission to promote strong outcomes for
children and families. The background
context and need for this regulatory
action is expanded on further in the
following paragraphs.
Through the Improving Head Start for
School Readiness Act of 2007 (the 2007
Reauthorization), which amended the
Head Start Act (the Act), Congress
required the Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS) to ensure
children and families receive the
highest quality Head Start services
possible. In line with this, Congress
mandated HHS to revise the Head Start
Program Performance Standards
(HSPPS). Through the 2007
Reauthorization, Congress also made a
number of changes to increase
qualifications and other requirements
for staff, particularly education staff.
This proposed rule responds to the
mandate to revise and improve the
HSPPS in the Act and makes additional
revisions to the HSPPS that were
finalized in 2016.
The HSPPS, first published in the
1970s, are the foundation on which
programs design and deliver highquality, comprehensive services to
children and their families. The HSPPS
set forth the requirements local grant
recipients must meet to support the
cognitive, social, emotional, and healthy
development of children enrolled in the
program. They include requirements to
provide education, health, mental
health, nutrition, and family and
community engagement services, as
well as requirements for local program
governance and Federal administration
of the program. In response to
requirements in the 2007
Reauthorization, HHS conducted a
major revision of the performance
standards, through a final rule
published in 2016. In line with statutory
requirements, the 2016 overhaul of the
Worthy Work, STILL Unlivable Wages: The Early
Childhood Workforce 25 Years after the National
Child Care Staffing Study. Center for the Study of
Child Care Employment. https://cscce.berkeley.edu/
publications/report/worthy-work-still-unlivablewages/.; Whitebook, M., Sakai, L., Gerber, E., &
Howes, C. (2001). Then & Now: Changes in Child
Care Staffing, 1994–2000. Washington, DC: Center
for the Child Care Workforce and Institute of
Industrial Relations, University of California,
Berkeley. https://cscce.berkeley.edu/publications/
report/then-and-now-changes-in-child-care-saffing1994-2000/.
E:\FR\FM\20NOP2.SGM
20NOP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
80820
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
performance standards updated and
enhanced program requirements to
reflect the latest science on child
development, while also streamlining
requirements where possible, to
promote stronger transparency and
support programs to deliver more
efficient and effective services.
While the 2016 revision to the HSPPS
gave careful attention to the type and
quality of early education and
comprehensive services to be provided
to children and their families, as well as
requirements for training, professional
development, and qualifications for
staff, other supports for the Head Start
workforce were not included. Indeed,
the 2007 Reauthorization and the 2016
revision to the HSPPS resulted in
enhanced requirements and
responsibilities for program staff, but
lacked specific requirements for staff
pay, benefits, and other supports for
staff wellness necessary to sustain a
workforce that could implement those
quality provisions. For instance, while
qualifications for Head Start preschool
teachers have increased dramatically
over the past decade (52 percent
nationwide had a bachelor’s degree in
2010 compared to 71 percent in 2022),
inflation-adjusted salary for these
teachers decreased by 2 percent during
this timeframe, from $39,912 in 2010 to
$39,096 in 2022.10 Given the increased
expectations and requirements for these
staff positions without corresponding
increases in wages, it is unsurprising
that turnover among classroom teachers
as well as other staff positions has
increased markedly over the past
decade.11
For decades, Head Start staff—
particularly frontline staff whose daily
job responsibilities include working
directly with children and families—
have received low, stagnant wages, poor
benefits, and inadequate supports for
health and wellness. Research
demonstrates that low wages in the
early care and education (ECE) sector
are a critical driver of staff turnover.12
Frontline Head Start staff do important
and difficult jobs to promote the
development of children participating
in Head Start and provide
individualized supports to families. A
strong relationship between a child and
their early educator provides the
foundation for all learning and
10 Source:
Head Start 2022 PIR.
Head Start 2010–2022 PIR.
12 Whitebook, M., Philipps, D., & Howes, C.
(2014). Worthy work, still unlivable wages: The
early childhood workforce 25 years after the
national child care staffing study. Center for the
Study of Child Care Employment.
11 Source:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
development in ECE settings.13 Stability
and continuity in these relationships are
important for high-quality care and for
supporting positive developmental
outcomes for children.14 Conversely, a
higher rate of turnover among ECE staff
is associated with lower quality services
and care, as well as poorer
developmental outcomes for children.15
For instance, research has demonstrated
that turnover among early childhood
educators is linked to worse cognitive
and social developmental outcomes in
children birth to age 5.16 Given this, the
unprecedented rate of turnover and staff
vacancies programs are currently
experiencing is concerning and
threatens the stability of the national
Head Start program and the quality of
services it provides, which are a critical
resource for hundreds of thousands of
families annually.
Head Start and ECE programs
nationwide have faced increasing rates
of staff turnover, a situation that has
been exacerbated drastically by the
COVID–19 pandemic. While high staff
turnover rates are an issue for the entire
ECE sector in the United States, HHS
has the authority and opportunity to
address the systemic problems driving
high turnover in Head Start, and this
NPRM proposes policies to address
these issues. In 2022, turnover across all
staff positions was 19 percent, marking
the highest rate of turnover in Head
Start in over two decades, and a drastic
jump from 13.5 percent in 2019 (prior
to the COVID–19 pandemic). While
turnover rates were exacerbated by the
labor market conditions during the
pandemic, the workforce challenges in
Head Start remain intractable even after
some other industries have regained
13 Lippard, C.L., La Paro, K.M., Rouse, H.L.,
Crosby, D.A. (2018). A closer look at teacher-child
relationships and classroom emotional context in
preschool. Child Youth Care Forum, 47, 1–21.;
Sabol, T.J. & Pianta, R.C. (2012). Recent Trends in
Research on Teacher-Child Relationships.
Attachment and Human Development, 14(3), 213–
231.
14 Pianta, R. & Stuhlman, M.W. (2019). Teacherchild relationships and children’s success in the
first years of school. School Psychology Review,
33(3), 444–458; Ros Pilarz, A. & Hill, H.D. (2014).
Unstable and multiple child care arrangements and
young children’s behavior. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 29(4), 471–483; Tran, H. &
Winsler, A.W. (2011). Teacher and center stability
and school readiness among low-income, ethnically
diverse children in subsidized, center-based child
care. Children and Youth Services Review, 33(11),
2241–2252.
15 Hale-Jinks, C., Knopf, H., & Kemple, K. (2006).
Tackling teacher turnover in childcare:
Understanding causes and consequences,
identifying solutions. Childhood Education, 82,
219–226.
16 Hale-Jinks, Knopf, & Kemple (2006). Tackling
teacher turnover in childcare: Understanding causes
and consequences, identifying solutions. Childhood
Education, 82, 219–226.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
pre-pandemic employment levels.
Because Head Start serves the children
and families most in need, it is critical
the workforce is well-positioned to be
stable as communities recover from the
pandemic and during and after future
emergencies. Thus, the changes in this
proposed regulation are necessary in
both the long and short terms. The
staffing crisis faced by programs across
the nation is an untenable situation for
the future of Head Start. This proposed
regulation is urgently needed to
establish clearer requirements for
programs to support and stabilize their
workforce, while also serving those
children and families most in need of
Head Start services. The challenges
faced by the workforce—and the need
for Federal guardrails in the form of
additional regulations—are described in
additional detail in the subsequent
section, Workforce Supports: Staff
Wages.
This NPRM will also propose new or
enhanced standards to promote more
consistent implementation of quality
services in other programmatic areas.
Enhancements and clarifications to
existing standards are proposed in the
following areas: family service worker
caseloads; procedures for identifying
and meeting community needs,
including consideration of
transportation as a possible barrier to
children’s attendance; ensuring child
safety; services for pregnant women and
people; and better aligning with State
early childhood systems. We also
propose enhancements to requirements
for mental health services to integrate
mental health more fully into every
aspect of program services, as well as
elevate the role of mental health
consultation to support the well-being
of children, families, and staff. Existing
requirements in the performance
standards in these areas are broad and
flexible and have contributed to wide
variation in the quality of the
implementation of those standards. For
instance, some programs have many
families (e.g., more than 100 17) assigned
to one family service worker, which
reduces the quality of services provided
to each family. Many programs have
also made decisions to cut
transportation services as a primarily
budgetary decision, resulting in families
in need of services no longer being able
to attend the program. Within
constrained budgets, programs must
make difficult choices about where to
invest funds as they strive to provide
high-quality Head Start services to as
many eligible children as possible.
Programs often make decisions aimed at
17 Source:
E:\FR\FM\20NOP2.SGM
Head Start 2022 PIR.
20NOP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
enrolling as many children and families
as possible and sometimes accomplish
this by cutting back on critical areas of
services. The enhancements proposed in
this NPRM will promote more
consistent implementation of program
services across a variety of areas,
ultimately improving outcomes for
enrolled children and their families.
Additionally, since the inception of
the 2016 revision to the performance
standards, the Administration for
Children and Families (ACF) received
feedback about areas where standards
have not been implemented as intended
in the field, or areas where standards are
not clear. Therefore, this proposed
regulation will also enhance and clarify
standards across a variety of areas,
codify certain essential best practices,
and/or streamline processes for
programs implementing the standards,
with the goal of further improving the
quality of services.
Finally, the changes proposed to the
HSPPS are necessary to maintain the
quality of the Head Start program and
respond to the current early childhood
landscape which has changed
dramatically since the HSPPS were first
published in the 1970s and even since
the 2016 overhaul of the HSPPS. As
discussed elsewhere, Head Start
workforce compensation has not kept
pace with inflation or with rising wages
in other industries. Further, postpandemic workforce recovery has been
slow and mental and behavioral health
issues have risen among children and
adults. Head Start programs must adapt
and evolve to continue leading the
sector in quality programing for
children and families. These factors
together suggest that regulatory action is
warranted and necessary. As explained
in detail in this section and throughout
the NPRM, stronger workforce supports
are necessary to meet the purpose of the
Act of promoting school readiness for
low-income children. See 42 U.S.C.
9831. The Act authorizes the Secretary
to modify the program performance
standards as necessary, and while the
proposals here retain flexibility and
discretion that Head Start programs are
accustomed to, it is evident by the
lagging compensation and other
workforce supports that additional
guardrails are necessary to maintain
quality. Head Start’s standards have
historically provided a benchmark for
high-quality early childhood programs.
This NPRM affirms that higher wages
and benefits are a key driver of quality
in early childhood.
Establishing the new or enhanced
standards described below—particularly
for the workforce—will promote higherquality services for children in Head
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:04 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
Start programs across the country and
are necessary to ensure there is a stable
workforce to maintain consistent
operations. There will be a substantial
cost associated with enacting the
proposed standards at current Head
Start funded enrollment levels.
However, ACF asserts that the policy
proposals in this NPRM are necessary
for the Head Start program to continue
to operate effectively and meet its
mission. ACF understands that as a
result of these necessary reforms, one
potential impact could be a reduction in
Head Start slots in some programs in
order to ensure the quality of services
delivered. The NPRM proposals contain
some ability to mitigate the magnitude
of slot loss by providing a longer
implementation timeline for the
proposed wage requirements (see a
further discussion on this in the section
on Workforce Supports: Wage
Requirements). While slot loss is a
difficult trade-off, a number of programs
are already reducing slots because they
are forced to close classrooms due to a
severe shortage of qualified staff. The
current staffing shortage needs to be
addressed quickly, as it is imperative
that programs be able to retain qualified
staff in order to provide high-quality
services to children and prepare them
for success in elementary school and
beyond.18 Failure to act would threaten
the ability for Head Start to continue to
recruit and retain effective staff and
thereby deliver high-quality services.
This action carefully balances the ability
of programs to maintain staffing with
the goal to serve as many children as
possible, while helping stabilize the
Head Start program long-term. Further,
the establishment of new or enhanced
expectations in program quality through
the proposed standards described in this
NPRM will provide a better foundation
for more consistent implementation of
high-quality services and provide an
opportunity for future Congressional
investments in quality improvement.
18 Barr, A., & Gibbs, C.R. (2002). Breaking the
Cycle? Intergenerational Effects of an Antipoverty
Program in Early Childhood. Journal of Political
Economy, 130.; Bauer, L., & Schanzenbach, D.
(2016). The Long-Term Impact of the Head Start
Program. The Hamilton Project, The Brookings
Institution.; Deming, D. (2009). Early Childhood
Intervention and Life-Cycle Skill Development:
Evidence from Head Start. American Economic
Journal: Applied Economics, 111–134. Montialoux,
C. (2016). Revisiting the impact of Head Start. IRLE:
Institute for Research on Labor and Employment.
University of California: Berkeley; Phillips, D.,
Gormley, W., & Anderson, S. (2016). The Effects of
Tulsa’s CAP Head Start Program on Middle-School
Academic Outcomes and Progress. Developmental
Psychology 52(8), 1247–61.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
80821
II. Statutory Authority To Issue NPRM
We publish this NPRM under the
authority granted to the Secretary of
Health and Human Services by sections
640(a)(5)(A)(i) and (B)(viii), 641A, 645,
645A, 648A, and 653 of the Act (42
U.S.C. 9835, 9836a, 9840, 9840a, 9843a,
and 9848), as amended by the
Improving Head Start for School
Readiness Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110–
134). Under these sections, the Secretary
is required to establish performance
standards and other regulations for
Head Start and Early Head Start
programs. Specifically, the Act requires
the Secretary to ‘‘. . . modify, as
necessary, program performance
standards by regulation applicable to
Head Start agencies and programs
. . .’’ 19 and explicitly directs the
Secretary to prescribe eligibility
standards, establish staff qualification
goals, and assure the comparability of
wages. This rule meets the statutory
requirements Congress put forth in its
2007 bipartisan reauthorization of the
Head Start and addresses Congress’s
mandate that called for the Secretary to
review and revise the performance
standards. As discussed throughout the
preamble, the performance standards in
this proposed rule build upon field
knowledge and experience to codify
best practices and ensure Head Start
programs deliver high-quality education
and comprehensive services to the
children and families they serve. The
Secretary has determined that the
modifications to performance standards
contained in this regulation are
appropriate and needed to effectuate the
goals of the performance standards and
the purposes of the Act.
III. Section-by-Section Discussion of
Proposed Changes
Definition of Head Start and Related
Terms (§ 1305.2)
Section 1305.2 establishes definitions
for key terms used throughout the
HSPPS. These include terms to define
programs that operate Head Start
services, including Early Head Start
Agency, Head Start Agency, and
Program. We begin by explaining
proposed changes to clarify these terms
and definitions used to describe Head
Start and Early Head Start programs.
Our proposed changes will also promote
more consistent use of these terms
throughout the HSPPS and in subregulatory policy guidance and training
and technical assistance (TTA) materials
developed by ACF. The proposed
revised terms and definitions described
in this section are also used throughout
19 See
E:\FR\FM\20NOP2.SGM
section 641A(a)(1) and (2) of the Act.
20NOP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
80822
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
the rest of the preamble to describe
other proposed changes, where
applicable.
First, the term Head Start, which is
not currently defined in § 1305.2, is
used inconsistently throughout the
current HSPPS, sometimes in reference
to a program that serves children ages
three to compulsory school age and
other times in reference to any type of
program authorized under the Act.
Consequently, this inconsistency is also
present throughout sub-regulatory
policy and TTA documents published
by ACF. In some cases, a footnote is
used to denote that the term Head Start
refers to programs including Head Start,
Early Head Start, and Migrant or
Seasonal Head Start (MSHS). In other
cases, the phrase ‘‘Head Start and Early
Head Start’’ is used to represent all
types of programs. This inconsistency
may be challenging for those who are
new to Head Start and troublesome for
the field in the general. ACF recognizes
the need for consistent and clear
terminology in this area.
Therefore, we propose to use the term
Head Start as an umbrella term that
represents all program types authorized
under the Act. We propose to add to
§ 1305.2 a definition for Head Start that
states that Head Start refers to any
program authorized under the Head
Start Act. Furthermore, we propose to
add to § 1305.2 a definition for Head
Start Preschool so that programs that
provide services to children from age
three to compulsory school age will be
referred to as Head Start Preschool
(HSP). In order to maintain consistency
across definitions of program types, we
also propose adding a definition of Early
Head Start that refers to a program that
serves pregnant women and children
from birth to age three.
We propose two other definitional
changes to align with the revised terms
above. First, we propose to revise the
current definition of Program by striking
‘‘a Head Start’’ and adding ‘‘any funded
Head Start Preschool;’’ striking
‘‘migrant, seasonal, or’’ and replacing
with ‘‘Migrant or Seasonal Head Start;’’
and striking the word ‘‘program’’ and
adding ‘‘or other program authorized’’
after the comma.
Furthermore, we propose to revise the
definition of Head Start Agency to add
the word ‘‘Preschool’’ after ‘‘Head Start’’
and replace the words after ‘‘program’’
with ‘‘, an Early Head Start program, or
Migrant or Seasonal Head Start program
pursuant to the Head Start Act.’’ We
further propose to update the usage of
these terms as they are used throughout
the HSPPS.
We propose to remove the term Early
Head Start Agency. We further propose
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:04 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
a nomenclature change of ‘‘grantee’’ to
‘‘grant recipient’’. We do not propose
any changes to other relevant terms
including Agency, Delegate Agency,
Indian Head Start Agency, and Migrant
or Seasonal Head Start Program.
We believe that these revised
definitions will provide more clear and
consistent terminology when referring
to the various program types authorized
by the Act and to the entirety of Head
Start. Distinguishing Head Start
Preschool from Head Start is intended to
improve comprehension for both
experienced and novice readers of the
HSPPS and will codify the colloquial
use of the term Head Start.
Note that ACF will not consider
comments regarding changes to the
HSPPS that purely reflect the updated
usage of these terms, such as those
throughout Part 1304 Subpart B—
Designation Renewal.
Workforce Supports: Staff Wages
(§ 1302.90)
Section 1302.90 outlines requirements
for personnel policies, including the
establishment of personnel policies and
procedures, background check
procedures, standards of conduct, and
communication with dual language
learners. In this section, we propose the
addition of a new paragraph (e) that
outlines four areas of proposed
requirements for wages for Head Start
staff. First, we describe requirements for
programs to make progress to pay parity
with kindergarten to third grade
teachers, for Head Start education staff
who work directly with children as part
of their daily job responsibilities. Head
Start programs will demonstrate
progress to parity by ensuring that Head
Start educators are paid at a rate that is
at least comparable to preschool
teachers in public school settings.
Second, we describe requirements to
establish or enhance a salary scale, wage
ladder, or other pay structure that
applies to all staff in the program and
incorporates the requirements for pay
for education staff. Third, we describe
requirements that all staff must receive
a salary that is sufficient to cover basic
costs of living in their geographic area,
including those at the lowest end of the
pay structure. Lastly, we describe
requirements to affirm and emphasize
that the requirements for progress to pay
parity should also promote
comparability of wages across Head
Start Preschool and Early Head Start
staff positions. Taken together,
implementing this set of standards will
stabilize and strengthen Head Start
programs across the country by ensuring
competitive wages that will promote
recruitment and retention of qualified
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
staff and support delivery of highquality education and comprehensive
services for children and families. These
proposed standards will also support
more equitable, fair wages for a
workforce that is largely comprised of
women and people of color.
In addition to the authority to modify
all program performance standards, the
Head Start Act mandates that programs
provide compensation that is adequate
to attract and retain qualified staff to
enhance program quality. See 42 U.S.C.
9836A(a) and 42 U.S.C. 9835(a)(5)(i).
Section 653 of the Head Start Act, 42
U.S.C. 9848 directs the Secretary to
encourage Head Start agencies to
provide compensation according to
salary scales that are based on training
and experience. This section also directs
the Secretary to take such actions as are
necessary to assure that compensation is
not in excess of the average rate of
compensation paid in the area where
the program is carried out to a
substantial number of persons providing
substantially comparable services as
well as See 42 U.S.C. 9848. Historically,
the Office of Head Start has seen very
few instances of excessive
compensation for staff, especially for
education staff, as evidenced in data
from the Program Information Report
(PIR). Nothing in these proposed
regulations is expected to result in the
excess compensation described by
Congress in this section. In rare cases,
there may be some risk that positions of
leadership are paid salaries in excess of
compensation paid to similar positions.
This risk should be addressed with a
program’s wage scale. However, this
limit is not intended to suppress wages,
because, as discussed herein, underpaid
staff is a pervasive issue. This section
makes it clear that staff salaries should
be comparable to compensation in other
comparable services, including
consideration of salaries paid to
elementary school staff. The proposed
requirements will help programs design
their staff compensation packages and
salary scales while still allowing
programs some flexibility to determine
what works best for their program.
The Need for Wage Requirements
The main goals of Head Start
programs are to support the
development of children from lowincome families and to promote
economic self-sufficiency for families
through the delivery of high-quality
comprehensive services. Head Start’s
critical mission is carried out every day
by the staff working with children and
families. Strong, stable relationships
between children and their early
educators provide the foundation for
E:\FR\FM\20NOP2.SGM
20NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
children to learn and develop.20 Indeed,
research indicates that high-quality
interactions between staff and children
in ECE settings relate to stronger
developmental outcomes for children.21
Conversely, high turnover among ECE
staff is related to lower quality
education and care and poorer outcomes
for enrolled children.22 But, as
described previously, Head Start
programs nationwide are experiencing a
severe shortage of staff across a variety
of positions, particularly for those that
provide direct services to children and
families. The staffing crisis is a result of
a confluence of factors, including
persistently low, stagnant wages,
particularly for frontline staff; a lack of
comprehensive benefits; and
insufficient supports for staff health and
wellness, despite increased need for
staff to be more qualified, more
competent, and bear more complex job
responsibilities. Urgent action and
change are needed to stabilize the Head
Start workforce to ensure the future
viability of Head Start programs
nationwide.
The qualifications, expectations, and
responsibilities of Head Start staff have
significantly increased over the past
decade, first with the reauthorization of
the Head Start Act in 2007 and then
with the revisions to the HSPPS
finalized in 2016. This increase in
expectations and responsibilities is
largely a reflection of advancing science
in child development, particularly
research on birth to 5 as an important
period for brain development and as a
critical foundation on which all later
development builds.23 Relatedly, our
20 Lippard, C.L., La Paro, K.M., Rouse, H.L.,
Crosby, D.A. (2018). A closer look at teacher-child
relationships and classroom emotional context in
preschool. Child Youth Care Forum, 47, 1–21;
Sabol, T.J. & Pianta, R.C. (2012). Recent Trends in
Research on Teacher-Child Relationships.
Attachment and Human Development, 14(3), 213–
231.
21 Nguyen, T., Ansari, A., Pianta, R., Whittaker,
J.V., Vitiello, V.E., & Ruzek, E. (2020). The
classroom relational environment and children’s
early development in preschool. Social
Development, 00, 1–21; Pearlman, M., Falenchuk,
O., Fletcher, B., McMullen, E., Beyene, J., & Shah,
P. (2016). A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
of a Measure of Staff/Child Interaction Quality (the
Classroom Assessment Scoring System) in Early
Childhood Education and Care Settings and Child
Outcomes, PLOS ONE 11 (12).
22 Bassok, D., Markowitz, A.J., Bellows, L.,
Sadowski, K. (2021). New Evidence on Teacher
Turnover in Early Childhood. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 43(1), 172–180;
Phillips, D., Austin, L.J.E., & Whitebook, M. (2016).
The Early Care and Education Workforce. The
Future of Children, 26(2), 139–158.
23 Institute of Medicine and National Research
Council. (2015). Transforming the Workforce for
Children Birth Through Age 8: A Unifying
Foundation. Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press.; National Research Council and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
understanding of what an early educator
needs to know and do in order to
effectively promote child development
during this period has also advanced. A
notable report from the National
Academies for Science, Engineering,
and Medicine provided a framework for
knowledge and competencies that early
educators need, grounded in the latest
science on child development.24 A
subsequent report from the National
Academies highlighted the importance
of a highly qualified ECE workforce that
is well compensated with appropriate
professional development supports and
career opportunities, in order to provide
high quality services to children and
families.25
However, these increased
expectations, qualifications, and
requirements have not been followed by
increases in compensation. As a result,
average wages have remained low and
stagnant for years, particularly for staff
who work directly with children and
families as their primary job
responsibility. From 2010 to 2022, the
share of Head Start Preschool teachers
with a bachelor’s degree increased from
52 percent to 71 percent, but inflationadjusted salaries for these teachers
decreased by 2 percent during this
timeframe, with an average teacher
salary of just $39,096 in 2022 compared
to $39,912 in 2010.26 By comparison, in
2022, the average salaries for a
preschool teacher in a school-based
setting and a kindergarten teacher were
$53,200 and $65,120, respectively.27
This is a persistent issue not just for
Head Start, but also for the broader early
childhood field. ECE as a field is
comprised primarily of women—
including a large share of women of
color—doing work that has been
historically uncompensated and led to
Institute of Medicine. (2000). From Neurons to
Neighborhoods: The Science of Early Childhood
Development. Committee on Integrating the Science
of Early Childhood Development. Jack P. Shonkoff
and Deborah A. Phillips, eds. Board on Children,
Youth, and Families, Commission on Behavioral
and Social Sciences and Education. Washington,
DC: National Academies Press.
24 Institute of Medicine and National Research
Council. (2015). Transforming the Workforce for
Children Birth Through Age 8: A Unifying
Foundation. Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press.
25 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering,
and Medicine. (2018). Transforming the Financing
of Early Care and Education. Washington, DC: The
National Academies Press.
26 Source: Head Start 2010–2022 PIR.
27 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Occupational
Employment and Wages. May 2022. 25–2012
Kindergarten Teachers, Except Special Education.
https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes252012.htm;
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Occupational
Employment and Wages. May 2022. 25–2011
Preschool Teachers, Except Special Education.
https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes252011.htm.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
80823
today’s workforce being undervalued
and underpaid.28 Additionally, ACF
administrative data indicates that just
over 60 percent of Head Start education
staff (i.e., teachers, assistant teachers,
home visitors, and family child care
providers) are people of color.29 It is
critical to maintain and strengthen the
incredible diversity of our workforce
while we seek to fix the historic
problem of a reliance on staff committed
to the mission of early care and
education that has led to an underpaid
workforce today. This is especially
important since Head Start programs
serve a large share of children of color
and there are benefits when program
staff reflect the communities they
serve.30
In addition to low compensation,
Head Start staff often report insufficient
supports for their health and wellness.
Even prior to the pandemic, many Head
Start programs reported challenges with
increasing rates of staff stress and
burnout, which is a common experience
throughout ECE programs. See the
section in this NPRM on Workforce
Supports: Staff Wellness for a fuller
discussion on the poor physical and
mental health experienced by Head
Start and other ECE staff, as well as
proposed new standards for supports to
address these issues.
Taken together, low wages and
benefits for demanding work, and high
rates of stress and burnout, are causing
qualified staff to leave for higher paid
positions with better benefits in public
schools or to leave the early childhood
field entirely (e.g., retail, service, food
industries).31 The turnover rate for Head
Start classroom teachers doubled over
the past decade, from 11 percent in 2010
to an alarming 22 percent in 2022.32 As
a point of comparison, in 2019, turnover
for preschool teachers in school-based
28 Whitebook, M., Philipps, D., & Howes, C.
(2014). Worthy work, still unlivable wages: The
early childhood workforce 25 years after the
national child care staffing study. Center for the
Study of Child Care Employment; U.S. Department
of Labor (2022). Bearing the cost: How
overrepresentation in undervalued jobs
disadvantaged women during the pandemic.
https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/WB/media/
BearingTheCostReport.pdf.
29 Source: Head Start 2021 PIR.
30 Downer, J.T., Goble, P., Myers, S.S., & Pianta,
R.C. (2016). Teacher-child racial/ethnic match
within pre-kindergarten classrooms and children’s
early school adjustment. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 37, 26–38.; Markowitz, A., Bassok, D., &
Grissom, J.A. (2020). Teacher-child racial/ethnic
match and parental engagement with Head Start.
American Educational Research Journal, 57(5),
2132–2174.
31 National Head Start Association (NHSA).
(2023). An Update on Head Start’s Ongoing
Workforce Crisis. Washington, DC: NHSA.
32 Source: Head Start 2022 PIR.
E:\FR\FM\20NOP2.SGM
20NOP2
80824
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
settings was about 7.7 percent.33 This
situation has also been exacerbated by
the COVID–19 pandemic, during which
staff continued to do their utmost to
support children and families despite
high uncertainty and widespread
closure of many aspects of the economy
across the country. Across all Head Start
staff positions, between 2019 and 2022
turnover jumped by an unprecedented
41 percent, from 13.5 percent to 19
percent.34
Overall, these turnover rates are
sobering and have grim implications for
the viability of Head Start if they are not
addressed. Given these rates of turnover,
it is unsurprising that many programs
are unable to reach full enrollment and/
or are impeded from providing highquality services to enrolled children and
families. Inadequate and unstable
staffing prevents programs from opening
all classrooms, conducting home visits,
providing family services, or providing
transportation services. In April 2022,
about two-thirds of Head Start programs
reported experiencing significant
enrollment challenges and half of those
programs reported that staffing
shortages contributed to those
challenges, which resulted in many
classroom closures.35 Furthermore, in a
2022 survey of 900 Head Start programs
staff conducted by the National Head
Start Association, 85 percent of
respondents indicated staff turnover
was higher than in a typical program
year. Almost all respondents (90
percent) said staff shortages forced their
programs to close classrooms either
permanently or temporarily. Over half
(57 percent) of respondents said
compensation is the number one reason
staff are leaving Head Start programs.36
In a November 2022 survey conducted
by ACF on a random sample of Head
Start grant recipients, the majority
reported experiencing shortages with
teaching positions (85 percent), assistant
teaching positions (86 percent), bus
drivers (70 percent), and home visitor
positions (60 percent).37 At least half of
those recipients described the staff
shortage as very severe for teachers (59
33 Grunewald, R., Nunn, R., Palmer, V. (2022).
Examining teacher turnover in early care and
education. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.
34 Ibid.
35 Source: Head Start program monthly
enrollment data reported internally to OHS. Note
that the percent of programs experiencing staffing
challenges is likely higher since it was not
explicitly requested that programs report this
information.
36 National Head Start Association (NHSA).
(2022). Confronting Head Start’s Workforce Crisis.
Washington, DC: NHSA.
37 Source: OHS administered survey on
background checks and the workforce. Percentages
exclude positions reported as not applicable.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:04 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
percent), bus drivers (53 percent), and
assistant teachers (50 percent).38 These
shortages were forcing the closure of a
large portion of classrooms for the
majority of respondents, with nearly
half reporting difficulty keeping up to a
quarter of their classrooms open and
another 16 percent reporting difficult
keeping up to half of their classrooms
open.
This problem is not unique to Head
Start, as a recent study in North
Carolina found that the most common
reason staff leave the early childhood
workforce in the State is to make more
money.39 Indeed, a large body of
research indicates that low wages in the
field of ECE are a strong driver of
turnover among staff. And some
research indicates that low wages are in
fact the strongest determinant of staff
turnover, with the lowest paid early
educators being twice as likely to leave
their jobs compared to the highest paid
early educators.40
Each staff position in a program is
critical to the mission and vision of
Head Start, and to the delivery of highquality services. As summarized
previously, strong, stable relationships
between young children and their
teachers and caregivers provide a
critical foundation for children to learn
and develop.41 If programs cannot retain
high-quality education staff, these
relationships are disrupted and
outcomes for children and families are
negatively impacted.42 Research
38 In the survey, recipients were instructed that
‘‘high’’ or very severe indicates the staffing shortage
is a severe problem for that position. For example,
there are several staff vacancies and/or relatively
high turnover, impacting enrollment to a great
extent; there are concerns that these issues cannot
be resolved within the next few months.
39 Child Care Services Association, 2020.
childcareservices.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/
CCSA_2020_TchrTurnover_Brief_Final_InteractiveFINAL.pdf.
40 Caven, M., Khanani, N., Zhang, X., & Parker, C.
E. (2021). Center-and program-level factors
associated with turnover in the early childhood
education workforce (REL 2021–069). U.S.
Department of Education, Institute of Education
Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation
and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational
Laboratory Northeast & Islands.; Whitebook, M.,
Howes, C., & Phillips, D. (2014). Worthy Work,
STILL Unlivable Wages: The Early Childhood
Workforce 25 Years after the National Child Care
Staffing Study. Center for the Study of Child Care
Employment. https://cscce.berkeley.edu/wpcontent/uploads/publications/ReportFINAL.pdf.
41 Burchinal, M., Zaslow, M., & Tarullo, L. (eds.)
(2016). Quality thresholds, features, and dosage in
early care and education: Secondary data analyses
of child outcomes. Monographs of the Society for
Research in Child Development. 81(2).
42 Hamre, B., Hatfield, B., Pianta, R., Jamil, F.
(2013). Evidence for General and Domain-Specific
Elements of Teacher-Child Interactions:
Associations with Preschool Children’s
Development. Child Development, 85:3; Grunewald,
R., Nunn, R., Palmer, V. (2022). Examining teacher
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
indicates that stable early care and
education and strong teacher-child
relationships positively influence
children’s outcomes.43 In addition,
family services staff in Head Start
programs play a critical role of engaging
and supporting economic stability of
families (see the section on Family
Service Worker Family Assignments for
a further discussion on the critical role
of these staff). Further, capable,
consistent leadership and management
staff are necessary to support a high
functioning work environment that is
positive and welcoming for both direct
service staff and children and families.
Bus drivers, janitors, and cooks are
needed to ensure other important
aspects of Head Start services are
provided in a high-quality manner,
including safe transportation, clean
environments, and nutritious meals for
children. Without a workforce at all
levels that is stable, well-compensated,
and supported, Head Start is not able to
fully meet its mission of closing the
achievement gap and preparing young
children from low-income families for
entry into kindergarten. Head Start staff
work with children that need a range of
developmental supports to ensure their
success and preparedness for school. In
order to break the cycle of poverty for
children in Head Start, it is critical that
the key change agents in this process
(the staff) are compensated
appropriately and supported in
achieving their mission.
To promote the retention of talented
staff at all levels of the program, fill
vacancies in a sustainable manner, keep
classrooms open, provide the highest
quality services, and ultimately promote
strong outcomes for enrolled children
and their families, staff must receive
compensation (wages and benefits) that
better reflects their experience and
qualification and the value and
importance of their critical work, as
well as necessary staff wellness
supports.44 Compensation must be
competitive with other local employers
that draw qualified staff away from
turnover in early care and education. Federal
Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.
43 Choi, Y., Horm, D., Jeon, S. & Ryu, D. (2019).
Do Stability of Care and Teacher-Child Interaction
Quality Predict Child Outcomes in Early Head
Start?, Early Education and Development, 30:3,
337–356.
44 Institute of Medicine (IOM) and National
Research Council (NRC). 2015. Transforming the
workforce for children birth through age 8: A
unifying foundation. Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press.; Rhodes, H., & Huston, A. (2012).
Building the Workforce Our Youngest Children
Deserve. Social Policy Report. Volume 26, Number
1. Society for Research in Child Development.
E:\FR\FM\20NOP2.SGM
20NOP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
Head Start, including local school
districts.
There is a clear need for better
guardrails in the form of strong Federal
requirements in this area. While ACF
strongly values local flexibility and has
historically allowed for substantial local
flexibility in many areas of service
delivery, in other areas, the HSPPS are
quite prescriptive about what all
programs must do. One area in which
flexibility is most prominent is in what
ACF currently requires for the
workforce, including wages, benefits,
and other supports for health and
wellness. For instance, currently, the
HSPPS do not require wage targets or
include other compensation
requirements for Head Start programs,
and national program data show that
Head Start grant recipients have
historically prioritized serving more
children over increasing wages for
qualified education staff to be
comparable to similar industries that
compete for these staff, particularly
elementary schools. This is not because
programs do not value their staff or
want to compensate them fairly.
Without additional appropriations,
programs would have to serve fewer
children to achieve the necessary cost
savings to fund increases in staff
compensation. Faced with this difficult
decision to either increase staff
compensation or serve the same number
or more children, Head Start grant
recipients have, in general, chosen to
serve the same or more children and
have chosen to rely on a missioncommitted workforce—largely women
of color—to bear the cost of this
decision. In the fall of 2022, ACF
published an information memorandum
(IM) encouraging programs to consider
restructuring their programs, including
reducing the number of children served
if needed, in order to permanently
increase staff compensation. Since the
release of this IM, many programs have
responded to this guidance and taken
initial steps to improve wages; however,
despite this, compensation for Head
Start staff still falls far below that in the
public education sector. It is clear that
regulatory action is needed in order to
provide Head Start staff with
appropriate compensation and stabilize
the program long-term.
The proposed changes to workforce
supports will provide clarity to Head
Start grant recipients that, in the
absence of additional appropriations,
slot loss is an acceptable tradeoff in
order to improve staff compensation and
other supports. Without required
compensation targets at the Federal
level, severe inequities in the pay of
these workers will likely persist. This
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:04 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
fact jeopardizes the ability of Head Start
programs to provide high-quality
services and promote strong outcomes
for children and results in classrooms
being closed due to staffing shortages.45
In other words, failure to address the
current severe inequities in pay would
likely also have a negative impact on the
number of children served due to
ongoing and worsening staffing
shortages. The proposed regulations in
this area will promote consistent
expectations in staff pay and once
implemented, will substantially
increase the ability of programs to
recruit and retain qualified staff.
Even at the expense of serving more
children in the absence of additional
appropriations, these changes are
necessary for Head Start programs to
enable the children that are served to
reach their full potential and attain
school readiness. A stable, wellqualified workforce is fundamental to
providing high-quality Head Start
services to children and families.
We recognize there will be costs
associated with enacting the proposed
standards at current Head Start funded
enrollment levels, however, we note
that the number of children currently
served in Head Start is well below the
funded enrollment level, primarily due
to closed classrooms because programs
cannot find qualified staff. While
programs may need to reduce their
funded slots to better reflect their
enrollment levels, we expect that many
programs will be able to redirect
portions of their budget to wage
increases and other requirements. As
described in this section, we propose a
7-year ramp-up for the full
implementation of the new wage
requirements. This will allow ample
time for programs to prepare for
implementation. Due to the long
implementation timeline, reductions in
the number of children served would
not be realized immediately or soon
after the effective date of a final rule and
would only occur in future years in the
absence of additional funding. We
understand funded slot loss is a difficult
trade-off to consider, but a number of
programs are already requesting and
enacting slot reductions due to closed
classrooms that are a result of staffing
challenges, and programs are often
proposing to reinvest these cost savings
into better wage and other supports for
staff. The current staffing challenges and
inequities that Head Start is facing make
45 Source: Head Start program monthly
enrollment data reported internally to OHS. Note
that the percent of programs experiencing staffing
challenges is likely higher since it was not
explicitly requested that programs report this
information.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
80825
it imperative to act now to establish
these requirements that are critical to set
the Head Start program on the pathway
to stabilizing their workforce that can
allow for continued high quality
operations of this program.
The following four sections go into
more detail on the proposed standards
to establish this pathway which include
requirements for: (1) progress to pay
parity for Head Start education staff
with elementary school education staff
(§ 1302.90(e)(2); (2) pay scale for all staff
(§ 1302.90(e)(1)); (3) minimum pay
standard § 1302.90(e)(3); and (4) wage
comparability across Head Start
Preschool and Early Head Start
§ 1302.90(e)(4).
Progress To Pay Parity for Head Start
Education Staff With Elementary School
Education Staff
We intentionally begin with a
discussion of the proposed standards in
new paragraph § 1302.90(e)(2), Progress
to pay parity for education staff with
elementary school staff, as the rationale
for these standards sets the foundation
for the rest of the proposed wage
standards. This set of proposed
standards requires programs to make
progress towards achieving pay parity
for Head Start education staff with
kindergarten through third grade
teachers by providing these staff with
wages that are at least comparable to
those paid to public school preschool
teachers. These proposed standards
require programs to take into account
staff responsibilities, qualifications, and
experience when determining these
wages. In the context of these standards,
Head Start education staff refers to those
staff who work directly with children as
part of their daily job responsibilities,
including lead teachers, assistant
teachers, home visitors and family child
care providers. There is a body of
research evidence to indicate that
increasing compensation can help with
retention of ECE teachers. Studies of the
broader ECE field indicate strategies to
improve compensation for ECE
professionals can improve employment
stability for teachers and reduce
turnover (and vice versa, with lower
wages linked to higher turnover).46 For
46 Bassok, D., Doromal, J., Michie, M., & Wong, V.
(2021). The Effects of Financial Incentives on
Teacher Turnover in Early Childhood Settings:
Experimental Evidence from Virginia.
EdPolicyWorks at the University of Virginia.;
Caven, M., Khanani, N., Zhang, X., & Parker, C.E.
(2021). Center-and program-level factors associated
with turnover in the early childhood education
workforce (REL 2021–069). U.S. Department of
Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National
Center for Education Evaluation and Regional
E:\FR\FM\20NOP2.SGM
Continued
20NOP2
80826
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
instance, a recent randomized
controlled trial study in Virginia found
that financial incentives (i.e., bonuses)
for early educators of up to $1,500
reduced teacher turnover by 11
percentage points, with even stronger
impacts for educators with the lowest
levels of compensation.47 Other
research demonstrates that programs
that have better compensated staff also
have lower turnover and provide higher
quality services to children.48
Several states, cities, and localities are
implementing targeted efforts to
strengthen wages for early educators.
For instance, San Francisco is newly
investing up to $60 million annually to
significantly raise wages for educators
in eligible ECE programs in the city. The
investment will raise annual salaries by
anywhere from $8,000 to $30,000 and
by 2025, the city aims to ensure all early
educators in eligible programs are
earning at least $28 per hour.49 Further,
through the formation of the Early
Childhood Educator Equitable
Compensation Task Force, the District
of Columbia recently developed a pay
scale for all early educators in DC that
will promote pay parity for early
educators with elementary teachers,
with gradations within the pay scaled
based on job role, credentials, and
experience.50 Additionally, New Mexico
created two programs to support the
early childhood workforce. In 2021,
New Mexico created a $1,500 incentive
payment plan in recognition of
pandemic recovery efforts.51 Later, in
2022, New Mexico began a new
initiative where child care providers are
Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory
Northeast & Islands.
47 Bassok et al. (2021).
48 Whitebook, M., Howes, C., & Phillips, D.
(2014). Worthy Work, STILL Unlivable Wages: The
Early Childhood Workforce 25 Years after the
National Child Care Staffing Study. Center for the
Study of Child Care Employment. https://
cscce.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/
publications/ReportFINAL.pdf.; Whitebook, M.,
Sakai, L., Gerber, E., & Howes, C. (2001). Then &
Now: Changes in Child Care Staffing, 1994–2000.
Washington, DC: Center for the Child Care
Workforce and Institute of Industrial Relations,
University of California, Berkeley. https://
cscce.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/
publications/Then-and-Now.pdf.
49 Retrieved from: https://sfdec.org/mayor-breedannounces-landmark-pay-raise-initiative-for-earlyeducators-in-city-funded-programs/.
50 Early Educator Equitable Compensation Task
Force. (March 2022). Final Report of the Early
Educator Equitable Compensation Task Force.
Washington, DC. Retrieved from: https://
lims.dccouncil.gov/downloads/LIMS/49122/
Introduction/RC24-0154-Introduction.pdf.
51 New Mexico Early Childhood Education and
Care Department. (2021). Child Care Workers in
New Mexico Eligible for $1,500 Incentive Payments.
https://www.nmececd.org/2021/11/01/child-careworkers-in-new-mexico-eligible-for-1500-incentivepayments/.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
able to apply for funding to increase
their staff wages $3 per hour for all staff,
and raise the wage floor to $15 per hour
for new teachers and $20 per hour for
lead teachers.52
There are four provisions to the
proposed § 1302.90(e)(2). We begin with
a proposed standard, § 1302.90(e)(2)(i)
that requires programs to make progress
towards pay parity for Head Start and
Early Head Start teachers with
kindergarten through 3rd grade teachers
by providing wages that are at least
comparable with preschool teachers in
the local public schools. The proposed
standard requires a program to make
measurable progress towards pay parity
for Head Start teachers with
kindergarten through third grade
teachers. To demonstrate progress to
pay parity, by August 1, 2031, a program
must ensure each Head Start teacher
receives an annual salary that is at least
comparable to the annual salary paid to
preschool teachers in public school
settings in the program’s local or
neighboring school district, adjusted for
responsibilities, qualifications, and
experience. A program may provide
annual salaries comparable to a
neighboring school district if the
salaries are higher than a program’s
local school district. We recognize there
are many nuances to this proposed
standard, and we further explain our
intent in the following paragraphs.
First, the standard states that a
program must make measurable
progress towards pay parity for Head
Start teachers with kindergarten through
3rd grade teachers. Teachers in these
elementary grades perform similar
duties and have similar responsibilities
in supporting young children’s learning
and development—in other words, they
provide similar services—as teachers in
Head Start programs. It is widely
understood in the fields of child
development and education that the
‘early childhood’ developmental stage
encompasses birth through age 8.53
Indeed, a recent well-regarded report
from the Institute of Medicine and
National Research Council provides a
framework and foundation for
supporting the workforce that educates
and works with children from birth
52 New Mexico Early Childhood Education and
Care Department. (2022) Gov. Lujan Grisham
announces historic pay increase for early childhood
workforce. https://www.nmececd.org/2022/10/11/
gov-lujan-grisham-announces-historic-pay-increasefor-early-childhood-workforce/.
53 American Academy of Pediatrics. (2023). Early
childhood. https://www.aap.org/en/patient-care/
early-childhood/; Hyson, M., & Tomlinson, H.B.
(2014). The early years matter: Education, care, and
the well-being of children, birth to 8. Washington,
DC: National Association for the Education of
Young Children and Teachers College Press.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
through age 8.54 The report emphasizes
that this developmental time period
should be supported holistically by
supporting the diverse workforce that
works with this age group across
sectors. Typically, children are 8 years
old when they enter 3rd grade, which
aligns with our reference point in the
proposed standard for programs to make
progress towards pay parity for Head
Start teachers with public school
teachers through 3rd grade.
Despite the similar roles and
responsibilities of Head Start teachers
and elementary teachers both working
with children in early childhood, these
educators have stark differences in
average pay. For instance, in 2022
average pay was approximately: $39,096
for Head Start Preschool teachers and
$32,373 for Early Head Start teachers,55
as compared to $53,200 for preschool
teachers in school-based settings and
$65,120 for public school kindergarten
teachers.56
This represents alarming pay gaps for
Head Start Preschool teachers and Early
Head Start teachers compared to both
kindergarten teachers and school-based
preschool teachers. Furthermore, as
discussed previously, many Head Start
teachers are highly skilled and
credentialed; 71 percent of Head Start
Preschool teachers and 23 percent of
Early Head Start teachers have at least
a bachelor’s degree. Further, 94 percent
of Head Start Preschool teachers and 45
percent of Early Head Start teachers
have at least an associate degree.57 Head
Start programs often report that they
compete with public schools to retain
teachers, particularly those with
bachelor’s degrees, as they are well
qualified to work in elementary school
settings. In fact, Head Start programs in
multiple school districts across the
country have anecdotally reported to
ACF that public schools are
intentionally recruiting their most
qualified Head Start teachers. Therefore,
the first part of this standard sets the
goal of making progress toward pay
parity for Head Start educators with
elementary school educators by
54 Institute of Medicine (IOM) and National
Research Council (NRC). 2015. Transforming the
workforce for children birth through age 8: A
unifying foundation. Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press.
55 Source: Head Start 2022 PIR.
56 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Occupational
Employment and Wages. May 2022. 25–2012
Kindergarten Teachers, Except Special Education.
https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes252012.htm;
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Occupational
Employment and Wages. May 2022. 25–2011
Preschool Teachers, Except Special Education.
https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes252011.htm.
57 Source: Head Start 2022 PIR.
E:\FR\FM\20NOP2.SGM
20NOP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
narrowing the pay gap between these
groups. The proposed standard also
requires ‘‘measurable progress’’ towards
pay parity, which is discussed further
below in the context of proposed
§ 1302.90(e)(2)(iv). Finally, this
language also aligns with section 653(a)
of the Act, which requires that program
staff are not paid in excess of the
average rate of compensation in the area
where the program is carried out to a
substantial number of persons providing
comparable services.
Next, assuming publication of a final
rule in 2024, this standard provides
approximately a 7-year implementation
window for programs to meet this
requirement by August 2031, aligning
with the approximate start of a new
program year. We believe this 7-year
window is necessary to allow programs
sufficient time to thoughtfully plan and
prepare for implementation of this
standard, without impacting currently
enrolled students. We recognize it will
require significant effort on the part of
programs to establish and revise their
pay structures to align with these
proposed requirements (and a
requirement to establish or update an
overall pay structure is discussed
further in the next section). The 7-year
implementation timeline also creates an
opportunity for future potential
Congressional investment in Head Start.
However, we recognize that there are
a range of possible options regarding the
effective dates for the proposed
standards to improve staff wages. We
request public comment on our
proposed effective date for this standard
for progress to pay parity for Head Start
teachers.
Next, the proposed standard
(§ 1302.90(e)(2)(i)) clarifies that
programs must demonstrate they are
making progress to pay parity by
ensuring that the salary paid to Head
Start Preschool and Early Head Start
teachers is at least comparable to the
salary paid to preschool teachers in
public school settings. The goal of this
phrasing is to clarify that, in order to
demonstrate sufficient progress on pay
parity for Head Start teachers with
kindergarten through third grade
teachers, programs must ensure Head
Start teachers receive wages that are, on
average, comparable with those paid to
preschool teachers in elementary and
secondary schools, who are educating
young children. This standard serves as
a progress marker towards ultimately
achieving full pay parity for Head Start
teachers with kindergarten through
third grade teachers. As noted
previously, preschool teachers in
school-based settings earn an average
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:04 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
annual salary of $53,200,58 which is
$14,000 more than the average salary of
$39,096 for Head Start Preschool
teachers and nearly $21,000 more than
the average salary of $32,373 for Early
Head Start teachers.59
The target comparison of preschool
teachers in public school settings is
intended to represent substantial
progress towards parity with K-third
grade public school elementary
teachers. Specifically, we intend the
benchmark of preschool teacher annual
salaries in public school settings to
represent about 90% of the amount of
kindergarten teacher annual salaries, for
those with comparable qualifications.60
Achieving wages for Head start teachers
that are at least comparable to salaries
for preschool teachers in school-based
settings will provide a significant boost
in wages for this well-qualified but
underpaid workforce.
Next, the proposed standard,
§ 1302.90(e)(2)(i), states that wages for
Head Start teachers should be
comparable to preschool teachers in
school-based settings in the program’s
local school district. However, research
indicates that teachers in public schools
that serve a high proportion of children
living in poverty are paid significantly
lower on average compared to teachers
in low-poverty schools.61 To avoid
unintentionally suppressing wage
growth of Head Start teachers by
requiring a comparison to public school
teachers in only one school district, who
may be underpaid, we include an
additional sentence in § 1302.90(e)(2)(i)
that allows a program to provide annual
salaries comparable to a neighboring
school district if the salaries are higher
than a program’s local school district.
This sentence intentionally allows a
Head Start program the flexibility to
consider salaries of preschool teachers
58 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Occupational
Employment and Wages. May 2022. 25–2011
Preschool Teachers, Except Special Education.
https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes252011.htm.
59 Source: Head Start 2022 PIR.
60 This analysis uses BLS average annual salaries
as wage targets. However, since the BLS national
average for kindergarten teacher salaries ($65,120)
includes all kindergarten teachers, of which
approximately half have a master’s degree or higher,
adjust this annual salary to reflect the target salary
for a teacher with a bachelor’s degree ($58,608)
guided by salary differences observed in National
Center for Education Statistics data (https://
nces.ed.gov/surveys/ntps/). The BLS reported
annual salary for preschool teacher in school
settings ($53,200) is therefore approximately 90% of
the annual salary for kindergarten teachers with a
bachelor’s degree ($58,608).
61 Garcia, E., & Weiss, E. (2019). Low relative pay
and high incidence of moonlighting play a role in
the teacher shortage, particularly in high-poverty
schools. The third report in ‘The Perfect Storm in
the Teacher Labor Market’ series. Washington, DC:
Economic Policy Institute.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
80827
in public schools across multiple school
districts in their geographic area when
determining what benchmark to use for
teacher salaries, if those school districts
offer higher salaries. We recognize some
programs may be located in geographic
areas where there is not a sufficient
number of preschool teachers in public
schools in their local or neighboring
school district to benchmark to, in terms
of comparable wages. Below, we discuss
proposed § 1302.90(e)(2)(iii) that
describes what programs should do in
these instances, to develop an
appropriate wage comparison. We
request comment on any barriers that
Head Start programs may face in
identifying a comparable population of
school-based preschool teachers for the
purposes of benchmarking wages and
whether the options described below for
an alternative method to benchmark to
preschool wages are sufficient to
overcome any potential challenges. We
also request comment on whether the
benchmark of annual salaries paid to
public school preschool teachers is an
accurate reflection of approximately
90% of annual salaries paid to
kindergarten teachers with comparable
qualifications.
Finally, the proposed standard,
§ 1302.90(e)(2)(i), requires a program to
consider responsibilities, qualifications,
and experience of the teachers when
determining salaries. This aligns with
recommendations from ECE research
experts, which suggest that wages for
the ECE workforce should be reflective
of job role, experience, and education.62
This portion of the proposed standard
acknowledges that responsibilities and
expectations of a job position should be
a key factor in determining wages. In
general, an individual in a given
position with a more advanced degree
or credential should be compensated
more than an individual in the same
position with a lower degree or
credential, all other factors being equal.
However, degrees or credentials are not
the only important factor to consider
when determining salaries. Experience
is also key, particularly in the field of
ECE where many teachers have years of
experience, but may have never attained
a bachelor’s degree, for instance.63
Further, research indicates that degrees
are not the only thing that matters for
62 https://cscce.berkeley.edu/workforce-index2020/state-policies-to-improve-early-childhoodeducator-jobs/early-childhood-educator-workforcepolicies/compensation-financial-relief/.
63 Kini, T. & Podolsky, A. (2016). Does Teaching
Experience Increase Teacher Effectiveness? A
Review of the Research. Palo Alto: Learning Policy
Institute. Retrieved from: https://learningpolicy
institute.org/product/does-teaching-experienceincrease-teacher-effectiveness-review-research.
E:\FR\FM\20NOP2.SGM
20NOP2
80828
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
determining teaching quality in ECE;
experience and other supports such as
professional development, coaching,
and training, are also critically
important for high quality teaching.64
Therefore, the proposed standard
elevates the importance of considering
an individual’s experience when
establishing wages, in addition to
qualifications.
We recognize that qualifications and
experience intersect in complex ways
when determining wages. For instance,
we would expect that a teacher with a
bachelors who is new to the ECE field
would likely earn a higher wage than a
teacher with an associate degree who is
also new to the field. However, we
would expect that a teacher with an
associate degree and many years of
experience in ECE may likely earn a
higher wage than a teacher with a
bachelor’s degree who is brand new to
the field. This is consistent with section
653 of the Act which encourages
programs to consider experience when
determining salaries. The phrasing of
the proposed requirement provides
flexibility to programs to determine how
they consider responsibilities,
qualifications and experience when
determining salaries. Our goal here is to
provide programs with flexibility to
determine wages that make the most
sense for their program structure, while
also balancing experience and
qualifications.
Next, we turn to the second provision
of § 1302.90(e)(2). Here we propose a
new standard in § 1302.90(e)(2)(ii) that
provides a deadline of August 1, 2031,
for programs to make measurable
progress towards pay parity for all other
education staff who work directly with
children as part of their daily job
responsibilities. To demonstrate this, a
program must provide these staff an
annual salary that is at least comparable
to salaries for Head Start teachers as
described above, but adjusted for role,
responsibilities, qualifications, and
experience. This proposed standard is
intended to apply to education staff
other than lead teachers whose primary
job is to work in classrooms or homes
with children, including assistant
teachers, home visitors, and family
child care providers. Once
64 Kini, T. & Podolsky, A. (2016). Does Teaching
Experience Increase Teacher Effectiveness? A
Review of the Research. Palo Alto: Learning Policy
Institute. Retrieved from: https://learningpolicy
institute.org/product/does-teaching-experienceincrease-teacher-effectiveness-review-research;
Yoshikawa, H., Weiland, C., Brooks-Gunn, J.,
Burchinal, M., Espinosa, L., Gormley, W.T.,
Ludwig, J., Magnuson, K., Phillips, D., & Zaslow, M.
(October, 2013). Investing in our future: The
evidence base on preschool. Society for Research in
Child Development.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:04 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
implemented, this standard would
significantly raise wages for these
positions. We request public comment
on whether there are other education
staff positions besides these who work
regularly with children to whom this
standard should apply.
To align with the prior standard on
progress to pay parity that applies to
Head Start teachers, this standard will
also go into effect in August of 2031,
approximately 7 years after publication
of the final rule. We request public
comment on our proposed effective date
for this standard for progressing towards
pay parity for Head Start education staff.
The average salaries for these
education staff are far below what they
could earn with other employers and do
not reflect the qualifications they hold
or the important work they do. In 2022,
average salaries for these education staff
were as follows: $25,570 for assistant
teachers; $38,510 for home visitors; and
$40,902 for family child care
providers.65 Meanwhile, 52 percent of
home visitors have a bachelor’s
degree,66 and 88 percent of assistant
teachers have at least a Child
Development Associate (CDA) or
comparable credential.67 These
education staff provide critical services
in classroom- and home-based settings
in Head Start programs.
Similar to lead teachers, without
qualified staff in these positions, the
quality and availability of classroomand home-based services are impacted,
which in turn negatively impacts
outcomes for children. Home-based
services in particular—through home
visiting or family child care—are
provided to a large share of infants and
toddlers in Early Head Start. In
addition, assistant teachers play critical
roles in Head Start Preschool classrooms
to support children’s learning and
development alongside lead teachers.
As previously noted, all classroom staff,
regardless of position, build strong
relationships with children that are
crucial to healthy child development
and can be damaging when disrupted.
Retaining assistant teachers is as
beneficial to the program—and to the
children enrolled—as retaining lead
teachers. Further, promoting stronger
wages for assistant teachers can help
support career pathways so that they
eventually may become lead teachers or
take on other positions in programs.
Therefore, in the context of these
proposed standards, we expect that
65 Source:
Head Start 2022 PIR.
Head Start 2019 PIR; this was the last
year of PIR that collected data on the number of
home visitors with a bachelor’s degree.
67 Source: Head Start 2022 PIR.
66 Source:
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
education staff with less experience or
qualifications will still receive
significant compensation increases, and
that these increases will be reflective of
the important jobs they perform.
The phrasing of proposed standard
§ 1302.90(e)(2)(ii) requires that a
program provide an annual salary to
these other education staff positions that
is comparable to salaries described in
the prior provision in proposed
paragraph (e)(2)(i), but is adjusted for
role, responsibilities, qualifications, and
experience. As summarized previously,
the intention of this phrasing is to
acknowledge that education staff in
different positions, with different
qualifications, and/or with different
experience may receive different levels
of compensation, relative to lead
teachers. However, it is our intention
that salaries for these other education
positions with varying qualifications
and experience are not simply
compared to and set at the same level
as salaries for other potentially lower
paid staff in school-based settings, such
as teacher aides or paraprofessionals.
Rather, salaries for Head Start teachers
established under proposed
§ 1302.90(e)(2)(i) should serve as an
anchor for salaries for other education
staff captured by the standard proposed
in (e)(2)(ii). This is best described with
a few concrete examples.
For instance, a home visitor and a
lead teacher could reasonably be
considered to hold similar important
responsibilities within the context of the
Head Start program; both play a primary
role in supporting the development of
enrolled children. Therefore, if a home
visitor holds a bachelor’s degree and
similar experience as a lead teacher
with a bachelor’s degree, the program
should consider compensating this
home visitor at a similar level as a lead
teacher. However, if a home visitor
holds an associate degree and a few
years of experience, the program could
reasonably compensate the home visitor
at an amount below an experienced
teacher with a bachelor’s degree, with
an expectation of salary growth as the
home visitor gains experience. As
another example, an assistant teacher
and a lead teacher could be reasonably
considered to hold different levels of
responsibilities within the Head Start
classroom. Therefore, a program could
reasonably choose to compensate an
assistant teacher with an associate
degree below that for a lead teacher with
an associate degree.
Taken together, we do expect that
wages will vary for education staff
across the complex intersections of role,
responsibilities, qualifications, and
experience. However, it is also our
E:\FR\FM\20NOP2.SGM
20NOP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
intention that programs ensure wage
scales are not drastically different
between education staff positions based
solely on degrees or credentials held,
particularly for positions that have the
same or similar responsibilities in the
program. Programs must also consider
experience when determining pay for
education staff.
Next, we propose a new standard
§ 1302.90(e)(2)(iii) that provides an
allowance for programs to use an
alternative method for determining the
comparable preschool salaries in
specific circumstances. More
specifically, if there is not a sufficient
number of comparable public school
preschool teachers in the program’s
local or neighboring school district, this
proposed standard allows a program to
use an alternative method to implement
the requirements in clause (i) and (ii) of
§ 1302.90(e)(2) to determine appropriate
comparison salaries. The alternative
method must be approved by ACF. This
standard acknowledges that some
programs are located in areas which do
not have, or have a small number of,
preschool teachers in school-based
settings in local or neighboring school
districts. In these cases, we recognize
that it may not be possible to obtain a
reliable estimate of comparison salaries.
Programs are still required to make
measurable progress toward pay parity
in such circumstances, but this standard
allows for an alternative approach to
anchor comparison salaries. The
proposed standard would require
programs to use an alternative method
for determining comparison salaries,
and this method must be approved by
ACF. For instance, this could include
using salaries from preschool teachers
in school-based settings in a
geographically and/or
socioeconomically similar area. Or
programs may consider increasing
salaries to a specified percentage of
kindergarten to third grade teacher
salaries in the local school district. ACF
may provide guidance on pre-approved
alternative methods to facilitate
implementation of this standard where
applicable. We request comment on
what type of guidance or technical
assistance Head Start programs need to
develop an alternative method in areas
without school-based preschool teachers
in local school districts.
Finally, as referenced previously, ACF
expects that programs will make
measurable progress towards pay parity
for Head Start education staff with
kindergarten to third grade teachers.
The fourth and final provision of
§ 1302.90(e)(2) proposes a new standard
that requires programs to examine their
progress to pay parity by regularly
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:04 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
tracking data on how wages paid to their
education staff compare to wages paid
to preschool through third grade
teachers in their local or neighboring
school district. The intention of this
standard is for programs to regularly
track and examine pay gaps between
Head Start education staff and teachers
in comparable settings. The comparison
to preschool teachers serves as a way to
track in alignment with the proposed
standards on progress to pay parity as
described above. Programs should
capitalize on existing data sources to
implement this requirement to track
wage data. Many, if not all, programs
have internal data which they can
leverage to track wages paid to their
education staff. Additionally, to track
wages for preschool through third grade
teachers in the local or neighboring
school district, programs can leverage
publicly available information from
these settings. Programs may already
have methods for obtaining this
information as part of their wage
comparability surveys, or through
existing partnerships with local
education agencies and local schoolbased preschool programs. Regular
tracking would ideally occur on an
annual basis at minimum so that
programs are aware of their progress, or
lack thereof, in closing pay gaps and can
make necessary adjustments.
Pay Scale for All Staff
Here we discuss the proposed changes
to the new § 1302.90(e)(1), Pay scale.
There has been growing interest in the
field to implement wage ladders or pay
scales that promote more competitive
wages for the ECE workforce. As
summarized previously, the District of
Columbia (DC) recently developed a pay
scale for all early educators in DC that
will promote pay parity for early
educators with elementary teachers,
with gradations within the pay scaled
based on job role, credentials, and
experience.68 Alabama and a handful of
other states have pushed forward to
require pay parity for staff across all
preschool programs in the State with K–
3 elementary staff, including the same
starting salary and salary schedule.69 A
few cities, such as New York City and
San Antonio, have also pushed forward
with policies for pay parity for
68 Early Educator Equitable Compensation Task
Force. (March 2022). Final Report of the Early
Educator Equitable Compensation Task Force.
Washington, DC. Retrieved from: https://
lims.dccouncil.gov/downloads/LIMS/49122/
Introduction/RC24-0154-Introduction.pdf.
69 https://cscce.berkeley.edu/workforce-index2020/state-policies-to-improve-early-childhoodeducator-jobs/early-childhood-educator-workforcepolicies/compensation-financial-relief/.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
80829
preschool staff with elementary staff.70
We propose three provisions to
§ 1302.90(e)(1) to describe requirements
for pay scales in Head Start programs.
In the first provision,
§ 1302.90(e)(1)(i), we propose a new
requirement that, by August 1, 2031,
programs must implement a pay scale,
salary scale, wage ladder, or other pay
structure that applies to all staff in the
program. This pay structure must
incorporate the requirements in
paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) of
§ 1302.90(e) and promote salaries that
are comparable to similar services in
relevant industries in their geographic
area. The pay structure must consider,
at a minimum, responsibilities,
qualifications, and experience relevant
to the position, and schedule or hours
worked. The intention of this standard
is to ensure a program’s pay structure
promotes competitive wages for all staff
in the program, in addition to education
staff. The proposed § 1302.90(e)(1)(i)
contains many components; we explain
each here in further detail.
First, we intentionally structured this
standard with the same implementation
timeline—August 1, 2031—as the
proposed standards for progress to pay
parity for education staff,
§ 1302.90(e)(2), that were described
previously. We recognize it is critical for
program planning and implementation
purposes for these standards to go into
effect within the same timeframe. We
request public comment on our
proposed effective date for this
standard.
Next, we specify that a program must
develop or update a pay structure for
program staff salaries. Since ACF
believes the majority of programs
already have a pay structure of some
kind in place for employees, such as a
pay scale, salary schedule, or wage
ladder. In cases where a program does
not have a pay structure in place, a
program must establish one under this
proposed requirement.
For the majority of programs that
already have an established pay
structure, they must update it to reflect
the requirements of the proposed
§ 1302.90(e)(1)(i). Next, we specify that
the program’s pay structure must
incorporate the requirements in newly
proposed § 1302.90(e)(2), (e)(3), and
(e)(4), as well as wages for all other staff
70 CityHealth & NIEER (n.d.); McLean, C., Dichter,
H., & Whitebook, M. (2017). Strategies in Pursuit of
Pre-K Teacher Compensation Parity: Lessons From
Seven States and Cities. Berkeley, CA: Center for
the Study of Child Care Employment, University of
California, Berkeley and New Brunswick, NJ: the
National Institute for Early Education Research.
Retrieved from https://cscce.berkeley.edu/wpcontent/uploads/publications/Strategies-in-Pursuitof-Pre-K.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\20NOP2.SGM
20NOP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
80830
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
in the program. As summarized
previously, proposed § 1302.90(e)(2)
outlines wage requirements for Head
Start teachers and other education staff.
Newly proposed paragraphs (e)(3) and
(e)(4) are discussed in further detail in
subsequent sections and encompass
requirements for a pay floor and for
wage comparability across Head Start
Preschool and Early Head Start staff
positions.
The proposed § 1302.90(e)(1)(i)
specifies that the program’s pay
structure must promote salaries that are
comparable to similar services in
relevant industries. This phrasing is the
main thrust of this proposed
requirement. Overall, we intend for this
standard to improve wages for a variety
of staff positions in the program, in
addition to improved wages for
education staff specified in
§ 1302.90(e)(2). As discussed
previously, education staff are not the
only positions for which programs are
struggling to recruit and retain staff.
Programs report difficulty filling other
positions including family services staff,
bus drivers, janitors, cooks, mid-level
managers, and center directors. While
not all these staff necessarily leave Head
Start due to low wages, many do. It is
critical to retain high-quality staff across
these positions in order to maintain a
high functioning program.
Therefore, ACF expects programs will
thoroughly consider wages of
comparable industries to assess whether
and how wages for various positions in
their program should be improved. For
instance, a family services staff member
who holds a bachelor’s degree in social
work or another related field could be
considered to provide comparable
services to a family outreach or
engagement specialist in a public school
setting. If a health services staff member
holds a nursing degree, this staff
member could be comparable to a nurse
with a similar degree providing similar
services in other healthcare settings. In
addition, as programs consider how to
restructure their pay scales to provide
significantly higher raises for education
staff as described in § 1302.90(e)(2), we
expect that wages for most other staff
positions will need to be lifted as well,
to avoid the unintended consequence of
wage compression.
Finally, in establishing or updating
their pay scale, proposed
§ 1302.90(e)(1)(i) requires that a program
consider responsibilities, qualifications,
and experience relevant to the position,
as well as schedule or hours worked.
We believe these factors are important
to consider when establishing or
updating a pay scale, for the same
reasons as described previously for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:04 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
proposed § 1302.90(e)(2). Here we
specify that the responsibilities,
qualifications, and experience
considered when establishing wages
should be relevant to the position. This
specification is meant to clarify that a
program does not necessarily have to
consider qualifications that are
irrelevant to a given position, when
determining wages. For instance, if a
janitor holds a master’s degree and the
program determines this position does
not require a degree, the program does
not have to compensate that individual
at a similar rate as other staff members
in the program who hold master’s
degrees that are relevant to their job role
and responsibilities.
Next, we turn to the second provision
of § 1302.90(e)(1). Here we propose a
new paragraph § 1302.90(e)(1)(ii) that
requires, after August 1, 2031, programs
to review their pay structure at least
once every 5 years to ensure it continues
to provide competitive wages for staff
reflective of the requirements described
previously, without causing undue
burden by requiring it more frequently.
By requiring this at least once every 5
years, it is our intention that grant
recipients can align this review of their
pay structure with other planning and
strategic activities as part of their 5-year
grant cycle, if desired. We request
public comment on our proposed
effective date for this standard.
In the third and final provision of
§ 1302.90(e)(1), we propose a new
paragraph that requires programs to
ensure that staff salaries do not exceed
the rate payable for level II of the
Executive Schedule, which aligns with
42 U.S.C. 9848(b)(1). This provision
reminds programs of the limitations on
excessive compensation for the highest
paid positions and ensures that salaries
at the highest end of the pay scale are
compliant with the limits described in
the Act.
Finally, we recognize programs may
need training and technical assistance
(TTA) support to revise their salary
scale or pay structure. Materials are
available that describe key components
and considerations of a salary scale for
ECE staff.71 Upon publication of a final
rule, ACF will also be prepared to offer
TTA supports to grant recipients. We
invite public comment on what types of
TTA supports programs will need to
successfully implement the standards
described here.
71 See for instance this resource on salary/wage
scales for the ECE workforce: https://www.teachec
nationalcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/
CCSA_2021_Salary-Scale-White-Paper-FINAL.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Minimum Pay Requirement
Here we discuss the proposed changes
to the new § 1302.90(e)(3), Salary floor.
We propose a new standard in
§ 1302.90(e)(3) that requires programs to
establish a salary floor or minimum pay
that is sufficient to cover basic costs of
living in the geographic area. This
standard is intended to ensure that all
staff in the program earn a wage
sufficient to cover their basic living
needs. More specifically, the proposed
standard requires that, by August 1,
2031, a program must ensure the pay
scale established or updated under
§ 1302.90(e)(1)(i) provides all staff with
a wage or salary that is generally
sufficient to cover basic needs such as
food, housing, utilities, medical costs,
transportation, and taxes, or would be
sufficient if the worker’s hourly rate
were paid according to a full-time, fullyear schedule. It is our intention that
this standard targets those staff who
currently receive the lowest wages in
the program; this requirement will raise
the pay for these staff. This could
include aides, floaters, office staff,
janitors, cooks, bus monitors, or other
positions. This proposed standard
contains multiple components each
explained here in further detail.
First, the proposed § 1302.90(e)(3)
specifies the same implementation
timeline of August 1, 2031, as the other
proposed wage requirements described
in this section. We believe this will
make it easier for programs to consider
changes in wages holistically across
these new requirements and provides
programs ample time to plan for
implementation. We request public
comment on our proposed effective date
for this standard.
Next, the proposed standard specifies
that the wage or salary structure
established or updated under
§ 1302.90(e)(1)(i) must provide all staff
with a wage or salary that is generally
sufficient to cover basic needs. With this
language, we intend for programs to
carefully consider costs of living in their
local geographic area to cover basic
needs, and what an individual should
truly be earning to cover all of those
costs. The language of the proposed
standard further provides examples of
basic needs which a full-time staff
member’s hourly wages or annual salary
should be able to cover, no matter the
job they work for the program, including
food, housing, utilities, medical costs,
transportation, and taxes. In most
geographic areas of the country, ACF
expects that, at a minimum, a sufficient
wage under this provision would be
equivalent to $15 per hour. We
recognize that in some communities or
E:\FR\FM\20NOP2.SGM
20NOP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
geographic areas, this floor may not be
sufficient and may need to be adjusted
to reflect higher costs of living. Further,
programs would still be required to pay
higher salaries when required by other
sections of this NPRM.
Finally, the proposed § 1302.90(e)(3)
specifies that the minimum pay or pay
floor would be sufficient if the workers’
hourly rate were paid according to a
full-time, full-year schedule (or over
2,080 hours per year). This phrasing of
the proposed requirement is to
recognize that not all staff are full-time
employees of the program, and it allows
the implementation of this standard for
staff employed part time. The proposed
standard is intended to convey that
programs are not expected to pay wages
to a part-time employee that, in total,
would cover all costs of living. Rather,
this phrasing conveys that the wage
paid to a part-time employee would be
sufficient to cover the costs of living if
that employee worked full time for the
program. To illustrate, consider an
example of a program that has
determined $35,000 per year is the
appropriate salary floor for their area. It
is not the expectation that all employees
of that program earn at least $35,000 per
year, regardless of how many hours they
work. Instead, the program should
calculate the hourly rate associated with
their salary floor, $35,000 in this
example, according to a full-time, full
year schedule. A standard full-time
employee works 2,080 hours per year
(i.e., 40 hours per week for 52 weeks per
year), which in this example
corresponds to a minimum hourly rate
of $16.83. As such, in our example, all
employees of the program must earn at
least $16.83 per hour.
We recognize that programs may need
support or guidance to determine what
wages are necessary, at the minimum, to
cover basic costs of living for staff. Upon
publication of a final rule, ACF will
provide grant recipients with TTA
supports in this area. We also
acknowledge that there are several
possible ways and existing resources
available to calculate and determine
what wage is required to cover basic
costs of living. We offer a few examples
here. It is of note that these are
examples only and should not be
considered an endorsement by ACF of
these specific calculators or tools. First,
there are multiple nationally recognized
tools or calculators to assist employers
in making this kind of determination.
One such tool is the Living Wage
Calculator developed by experts at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
(MIT).72 Another is the Self-Sufficiency
Standard developed by experts at the
Center for Women’s Welfare of the
University of Washington.73 These types
of publicly available calculators take
into account a variety of costs for basic
needs and how these costs vary by
geographic area, to help determine an
appropriate hourly wage sufficient to
cover these costs. Some calculators
provide estimates for different family
sizes and structures, but it is not the
intent of the proposed standard to
require programs to pay a wage
sufficient to cover basic needs for staff
that is adjusted by family size or family
structure.
Alternatively, programs who wish to
calculate their own minimum pay
estimates could consider looking to
other reliable data sources to determine
expected costs for different types of
expenditures for their geographic area,
such as the following publicly available
alternatives. Examples of publicly
available data include, but are not
limited to: Housing costs could be
approximated using Fair Market Rent
estimates published annually by the
U.S. Department for Housing and Urban
Development (HUD); 74 Food costs can
be estimated using the USDA’s food
plan national average for adult food
consumption; 75 Health care costs can be
estimated using estimates from the
Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS)
Consumer Expenditures Survey for
average consumer costs for health
insurance, medical services, drugs, and
medical supplies; 76 Transportation
expenses can also be estimated using
estimates from BLS Consumer
Expenditures Survey for average
consumer costs for cars and trucks, gas
and oil, other vehicle expenses, and
public transportation; 77 Expenses for
taxes can be estimated by calculating
percentages based on required Federal
and State taxes. Finally, a program
could consider if they want to
incorporate estimates for other
important costs such as personal care
products, apparel, basic supplies,
broadband, and telephone services.
72 Glasmeier, A.K. Living Wage Calculator. 2020.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
livingwage.mit.edu.
73 The Center for Women’s Welfare. The SelfSufficiency Standard. University of Washington.
https://selfsufficiencystandard.org/.
74 https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/
fmr.html#2023.
75 https://www.fns.usda.gov/cnpp/usda-foodplans-cost-food-reports-monthly-reports.
76 https://www.bls.gov/cex/.
77 https://www.bls.gov/cex/.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
80831
Wage Comparability Across Head Start
Preschool and Early Head Start
Finally, now we turn to the last of the
proposed changes on wages, new
paragraph § 1302.90(e)(4), Wage
comparability for all ages served. Here,
we propose a new standard that
promotes wage comparability across
Head Start Preschool and Early Head
Start staff positions by requiring that the
pay structure established or updated
under § 1302.90(e)(1)(i) does not differ
by age of children served for similar
program staff positions with similar
qualifications and experience. Head
Start Preschool and Early Head Start
staff perform similar important roles
and responsibilities to support the
development of enrolled infants,
toddlers, and preschoolers. In classroom
settings, Early Head Start teachers must
have at least a CDA credential or
equivalent credential, with training or
coursework in infant and toddler
development (§ 1302.91(e)(1)). Head
Start Preschool teachers must have at
least an associate or bachelor’s degree in
child development or early childhood
education or otherwise meet the
requirements of section 648(a)(3)(B) of
the Act (§ 1302.91(e)(2)(ii)). The Act also
requires that at least 50 percent of Head
Start Preschool teachers nationwide
have a bachelor’s degree. We would
expect that these differences in
qualifications would result in different
salaries or wages. However, a good share
of Early Head Start teachers also hold a
bachelors or higher degree (23 percent
in 2022). Nonetheless, our
administrative data from Head Start
programs indicates a stark difference in
average salaries between Head Start
Preschool and Early Head Start teachers,
even among those teachers with similar
qualifications.
In 2022, the average Early Head Start
teacher with a bachelor’s degree earned
an annual salary of $37,805, compared
to $40,041 for the average Head Start
Preschool teacher with a bachelor’s
degree, a salary gap of just over $2,000
per year.78 For teachers with advanced
degrees, the disparity is even greater; in
2022, these Head Start Preschool
teachers earned on average 20 percent
more in annual salary ($51,162)
compared to Early Head Start teachers
($42,761), a salary gap of over $8,000.79
This is a substantial gap in average
salary between professionals holding
the same qualifications and performing
similar roles in supporting the learning
and development of Head Start
children. These disparities are common
78 Source:
Head Start 2021 PIR.
79 Ibid.
E:\FR\FM\20NOP2.SGM
20NOP2
80832
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
in the field and lead to increased
turnover.80 Anecdotally, ACF has
received reports that programs find it
more difficult to hire Early Head Start
teachers than Head Start Preschool
teachers. The proposed § 1302.90(e)(4)
will help close the wage gap between
Early Head Start and Head Start
Preschool teachers with similar degrees
and promote stronger retention of Early
Head Start teachers, thereby improving
quality of services for enrolled infants
and toddlers.
Staff for Whom Wage Standards Apply
Taken together, the new standards for
wage requirements proposed in this
NPRM include requirements for (1)
progress to pay parity for Head Start
education staff with kindergarten
through third grade elementary teachers
by providing wages comparable to
preschool teachers in school-based
settings, adjusted for responsibilities,
qualifications, and experience ; (2) a pay
scale that applies to all staff and
promotes competitive wages across
positions; (3) a minimum pay floor
sufficient to cover basic costs of living;
and (4) wage comparability across Head
Start and Early Head Start positions for
staff with similar qualifications and
experience. We recognize that it must be
clear for programs to which staff these
newly proposed standards apply. It is
our intention that these newly proposed
standards improve wages for staff in the
program who are either employees or
contractors and who provide regular
services for children and families in the
program that are integral to program
quality or functioning.
First, we propose that these standards
apply to staff who are employees of the
Head Start program, whose salary is
paid at least in part with Head Start
funds, and whose regular job
responsibilities include activities or
services to support enrolled children
and families. We invite public comment
on this clarification of which staff the
wages standards apply to, including any
potential unintended consequences.
Next, we summarize our expectations
for how the proposed wage standards
should apply to contracted staff.
Contracted staff typically includes
individuals who are not Head Start
employees, with whom the program has
contracted to provide an ongoing service
(e.g., disabilities specialists and mental
health professionals, bus drivers, etc.).
We recognize that many individuals
who provide critical services for Head
Start programs do so through contracted
services. We also recognize that for
Early Head Start—Child Care
80 Ibid.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:04 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
Partnership grant recipients, many child
care partners are funded through
contracts or other mechanisms with the
grant recipients. In the context of the
new wage standards, we propose that,
for contracted staff, language in the
contract must provide for wages
comparable to what the recipient
organization would provide if they were
the employer. Further, we propose to
require that programs strongly
encourage contractors to use the funding
to increase salaries for their staff.
We invite public comment on this
expectation for how the wage standards
apply to contractors or other partnership
agreements, including any potential
unintended consequences.
Finally, we recognize that these
proposed standards will have different
ramifications for implementation within
certain organizational structures or for
certain types of agencies. For example,
grant recipients with employee
bargaining agreements and those in
organizations with existing formal
salary structures that extend beyond just
Head Start staff, such as in community
action agencies, may need to engage
representatives of workers if they need
to negotiate new collective bargaining
agreements that increase wages for Head
Start staff (or for specific groups of Head
Start staff, such as teachers). We also
recognize that many Tribal grant
recipients may have pay structures
already in place for Tribal employees
that include staff beyond Head Start. We
encourage all programs, not solely those
with collective bargaining agreements,
to engage Head Start staff as they work
to meet these new proposed standards,
both for wages and other proposed
changes. ACF intends to provide TTA
supports to understand options and
strategies for implementing wage
increases within the context of varied
organizational structures and agency
types.
ACF recognizes that the proposed
wage requirements are complex, and as
discussed previously, may be
experienced differently by different
communities. We seek public comment
on how any of the proposed wage
requirements in this section may impact
various communities. We specifically
request public comment from the
special populations served by Head
Start, including American Indian and
Alaska Native (AIAN) and MSHS
programs and communities. We also
specifically request comment from Head
Start staff and their representatives, and
other early childhood program
providers.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Workforce Supports: Staff Benefits
(§ 1302.90)
Section 1302.90 outlines requirements
for personnel policies, including the
establishment of personnel policies and
procedures, background check
procedures, standards of conduct, and
communication with dual language
learners. In alignment with the newly
proposed requirements in § 1302.90(e)
to improve wages for staff, we also
propose a new paragraph (f) in this
section that outlines requirements for
grant recipients to provide benefits to
staff. The proposed new standards
require grant recipients to provide or
facilitate access to health insurance for
all staff; paid sick leave, and paid family
leave for full-time staff; provide shortterm behavioral health services for fulltime staff for free or at minimal cost to
them; and facilitate access to Public
Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) and
child care subsidies for eligible staff. We
are also considering a requirement for
recipients to provide retirement benefits
to all full-time staff and we specifically
request public comment on whether to
add such a requirement in a final rule.
This request for comment on a possible
requirement for retirement benefits is
discussed in further detail below. In the
context of these proposed requirements,
we propose to define ‘‘full-time staff’’ as
those working 30 hours per week or
more while the program is in session.
For programs operating longer than a
typical school year (e.g., year-round
programs), we propose a requirement
that such programs develop a policy for
vacation or personal leave. Grant
recipients are encouraged to consider
and offer other benefits that may
support staff recruitment and retention.
First, we propose to add
§ 1302.90(f)(1) as a lead in statement to
define full-time staff as it applies to
several proposed benefit requirements.
Proposed (f)(1) defines full-time staff as
those working 30 or more hours per
week during the program year. Next, we
propose to add (f)(1)(i) which requires a
program to provide or facilitate access to
high-quality, affordable health
insurance. This proposed standard
would require grant recipients to either:
(1) provide and contribute to employersponsored health insurance coverage, or
(2) educate, connect, and facilitate the
enrollment of employees in health
insurance options in the Healthcare.gov
Marketplace (Marketplace), the
appropriate State-specific health
insurance marketplace, or Medicaid, for
full-time staff. Employees are not
obligated to accept employer-provided
or employer-facilitated health
insurance, such as those receiving
E:\FR\FM\20NOP2.SGM
20NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
insurance coverage through a spouse or
another manner. Through input from
OHS regional office staff and members
of the Head Start community, we are
aware that, while many Head Start staff
are already offered employer-sponsored
health coverage, this coverage may still
entail considerable out-of-pocket costs
for staff. Thus, if grant recipients choose
to offer employer-sponsored coverage,
we encourage employers to provide an
insurance plan that offers coverage
similar to that offered by silver, gold, or
platinum plans in the Marketplace.81
Definitions of affordable coverage,
minimum value,82 and minimum
essential health benefits 83 are
determined by the Affordable Care Act
(ACA), and large Head Start grant
recipients are already subject to the
employer shared responsibility
provisions in the ACA.84 Premium tax
credits 85 subsidize the cost of health
insurance coverage in the Marketplace
and are available to individuals in
households with incomes up to 400
percent of the Federal Poverty
Guidelines. We anticipate most Head
Start staff are currently eligible for these
tax credits, and some may be eligible for
Medicaid depending on their family
size, household income, and the State in
which they live. Because premium tax
credit amounts vary with household
income and household compositional
changes, we also anticipate that as the
wage requirements proposed in new
paragraph (e) of this section are
implemented, this would affect
premium tax credit amounts or
eligibility, as well as Medicaid
eligibility, for some staff.
For part-time staff who work fewer
than the 30 hour per week as defined
above, we propose to require programs
to facilitate the enrollment of these staff
in health insurance options in the
Marketplace or through Medicaid for
which they may be eligible. Specifically,
we propose to add new paragraph (f)(2)
which requires a program to facilitate
access to high-quality, affordable health
81 See the healthcare.gov website for a description
of Marketplace plans and actuarial value: https://
www.healthcare.gov/choose-a-plan/planscategories/.
82 See the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) website
for more information on minimum value and
affordability: https://www.irs.gov/affordable-careact/employers/minimum-value-and-affordability.
83 See healthcare.gov for a list of essential health
benefits: https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/
essential-health-benefits/.
84 See the IRS website for more information on
the employer shared responsibility provisions:
https://www.irs.gov/affordable-care-act/employers/
employer-shared-responsibility-provisions.
85 See the healthcare.gov website for a description
of premium tax credits and eligibility: https://
www.healthcare.gov/lower-costs/save-on-monthlypremiums/.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:04 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
insurance for each part-time staff
member. That is, grant recipients would
not be required to offer nor precluded
from offering employer-sponsored
health insurance to part-time staff, but
the proposed standard would require, at
a minimum, that the grant recipient
make part-time staff aware of potential
benefits through premium tax credits for
which they may be eligible and facilitate
their connection to the Marketplace or
Medicaid.
Increasing Head Start staff access to
and the quality of health insurance
benefits is key to attracting and
retaining skilled staff and to being
competitive with other jobs. In March
2022, 73 percent of the civilian
workforce had access to employersponsored healthcare benefits (88
percent of full-time workers and 23
percent of part-time workers), with
employers paying on average 80 percent
of premiums for employee coverage and
67 percent for family coverage.86 By
comparison, in 2019, only 27 percent of
ECE workers in center-based settings
had private health insurance through
their own employer, while nearly all K–
12 educators had employer-sponsored
coverage.87 Nearly 16 percent of the ECE
workforce lacked health insurance.88 As
previously described, we are also aware
that, while many Head Start staff may be
offered employer-sponsored health
coverage, it may not cover many health
expenses, may not cover family
members and/or may entail
considerable out of pocket costs for
staff. In order for Head Start programs
to compete with other sectors that could
potentially employ staff qualified for
Head Start—including public schools—
it is critical that Head Start programs
offer or connect staff to quality,
affordable health insurance.
Based on our analysis of OHS
administrative data from grant
recipients, we have determined that
most recipients employ more than 50
workers and are therefore subject to the
ACA’s shared responsibility for
employers regarding health coverage,
and many offer some level of health
86 Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). (2022).
Employee Benefits in the United States, March
2022. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/
ebs2.pdf.
87 Rudich, J., Sugar, S., Chien, N., Peters, C., &
Sommers, B. (2021, November). Assessing
uninsured rates in early care and education
workers. Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services. https://www.aspe.hhs.gov/
sites/default/files/documents/
557aff156a2eac8dd50b489172c7eac6/earlyeducators-uninsured-data-point.pdf?_
ga=2.163634812.2117647616.1661871770774747381.1611252684.
88 Rudich et al. (2021).
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
80833
insurance or other employee benefits.89
We anticipate some implementation
issues for small grant recipients with
fewer than 50 employees who do not
currently offer or administer employersponsored benefits like health
insurance. However, the proposed
requirements as written allow recipients
to facilitate full-time staff members’
enrollment in health insurance options
in the Marketplace, which helps the
logistical difficulties of negotiating
employee benefits plans with insurers,
though we acknowledge that recipients
may require technical assistance to
connect with Navigators or other
resources. The American Rescue Plan
Act of 2021 and the Inflation Reduction
Act of 2022 90 increased the subsidies
for purchasing private health insurance
in the Marketplace available to those
meeting income and other requirements,
and grant recipients may choose to
administer or contribute to employees’
flexible spending accounts (FSAs) to
defray out-of-pocket health care costs.
When employees are covered by a
health savings account (HSA)-eligible
high-deductible health plan, grant
recipients may choose to administer or
contribute to employees’ HSAs to defray
out-of-pocket health care costs.
Next, we propose a new paragraph
(f)(1)(ii) which requires that programs
offer paid sick leave to full-time staff,
based on an accrual system based on
hours worked or by offering a number
of days updated annually. At a
minimum, the accrual must meet the
standards set by State or local laws, if
applicable. Paid leave due to illness or
other reasons is a typical employersponsored benefit in the U.S. workforce.
We do not propose a specific required
number of days per year but seek
comments on whether the standard
should specify a minimum number of
leave days or accrual rate.
Paid sick leave for workers allows for
recovery from personal illness or the
time to care for ill family members, but
employer-provided paid sick leave is
not universal and varies with worker
wages. In March 2022, 79 percent of
civilian workers had access to paid sick
leave, 79 percent had paid holidays, and
77 percent had paid vacation leave, but
just 40 percent of the lowest 10 percent
of earners had access to paid sick leave
compared to nearly all (96 percent) of
89 See https://www.federalregister.gov/
documents/2014/02/12/2014-03082/sharedresponsibility-for-employers-regarding-healthcoverage.
90 See https://www.cms.gov/blog/inflationreduction-act-tax-credits-improve-coverageaffordability-middle-income-americans#_ftnref6/.
E:\FR\FM\20NOP2.SGM
20NOP2
80834
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
the top 10 percent of earners.91 Eightyeight percent of full-time civilian
workers had access to paid sick leave
compared to just about half (51 percent)
of part-time workers.92 Workers who
lack paid sick leave are more likely to
go to work while ill and to forgo
medical care for themselves and their
families,93 problems exacerbated by the
pandemic. Having access to sick leave is
particularly important for a workforce
that directly cares for, teaches, and
interacts with young children in group
settings in which the spread of
communicable illness is common.94
Next, we propose a new paragraph
(f)(1)(iii) which requires that programs
offer job-protected periods of paid
family leave to employees consistent
with eligibility for and protections in
the Family and Medical Leave Act
(FMLA) of 1993 regardless of employer
size. Or, if applicable, the proposed
standard clarifies that programs should
comply with requirements set by State
or local laws for paid family leave.
Periods of leave that are longer than the
few days per year typically offered by
paid sick leave may be needed during
certain life events, including a serious
illness for a staff member or their family
members, or the birth of a child. A
growing body of research shows that
access to paid family leave improves
maternal and child health and family
economic well-being and increases
father engagement and preventive care
receipt.95 We intend for this
requirement to apply to all programs,
even those who are not covered by
FMLA due to employer size (e.g., fewer
91 BLS. (2022). Table 6. Selected paid leave
benefits: Access, March 2022.
92 BLS. (2022). Table 6. Selected paid leave
benefits: Access, March 2022. https://www.bls.gov/
news.release/pdf/ebs2.pdf.
93 Schneider D. Paid sick leave in Washington
State: Evidence on employee outcomes, 2016–2018.
Am J Public Health. 2020;110(4):499–504.
doi:10.2105/AJPH.2019.305481; DeRigne LA,
Stoddard-Dare P, Quinn L. Workers without paid
sick leave less likely to take time off for illness or
injury compared to those with paid sick leave.
Health Aff. 2016;35(3):520–527. doi:10.1377/
hlthaff.2015.0965. Schenider, D., Harknett, K., &
Vivas-Portillo, E. Olive Garden’s expasion of paid
sick leave during COVID–19 reduced the share of
employees workign while sick. Health Aff.
2021;40(8):1328–1336. https://www.health
affairs.org/doi/10.1377/hlthaff.2020.02320.
94 Bradley, R. H. (2003). Child care and common
communicable illnesses in children aged 37 to 54
months. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent
Medicine, 157(2), 196–200. https://
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12580692/.
95 Rossin-Slater, M., & Uniat, L. (2019). Paid
family leave policies and Population Health. Health
Affairs Brief. https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/
10.1377/hpb20190301.484936/ Waldfogel, J., Doran,
E., & Pac, J. (2019). Paid family and medical leave
improves the well-being of children and families.
SRCD Child Evidence Brief. https://www.srcd.org/
research/paid-family-and-medical-leave-improveswell-being-children-and-families.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:04 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
than 50 employees). As such, we expect
that the proposed paid family leave
policy would apply for full-time
employees in all Head Start programs,
regardless of the number of employees
in the program, who have had at least
12 months of tenure with their
employer. The reason for the leave must
be a qualifying reason under FMLA,
regardless of whether the employer is
covered by FMLA.
An estimated 29 percent of Head Start
staff work in one of the 11 states and the
District of Columbia that have enacted
paid family leave laws as of October
2022, though the requirements in these
laws vary.96 In March 2022, more than
one-quarter (29%) of primary and
secondary, and special education
teachers had access to paid family leave
benefits through their employers,97 with
others having access to State-sponsored
public paid family leave programs.98
Employer-provided paid family leave
benefits are inequitably distributed in
the workforce, with 34 percent of
civilian workers in management,
professional and related occupations
having access, compared to 15 percent
of those in service occupations.99
FMLA entitles eligible workers to
periods of unpaid, job-protected leave
for up to 12 weeks per 12-month period
for the birth, adoption, or foster care
placement of a new child within one
year of birth, adoption, or placement; to
care for a spouse, child, or parent with
a serious health condition; a serious
health condition that makes the
employee unable to perform the
essential functions of his or her job; or
a qualifying exigency arising out of the
fact that the employee’s spouse, son,
daughter, or parent is a covered military
member on covered active duty. Up to
26 weeks of leave is available for an
employee to care for a covered
servicemember with a serious injury or
illness if the eligible employee is the
servicemember’s spouse, son, daughter,
96 See: https://www.nationalpartnership.org/ourwork/resources/economic-justice/paid-leave/statepaid-family-leave-laws.pdf.
97 BLS. (2022). National Compensation Survey:
Employee Benefits in the United States, March
2022. Table 7: Leave benefits by occupational
category, Civilian workers, March 2022. https://
www.bls.gov/ebs/publications/september-2022landing-page-employee-benefits-in-the-unitedstates-march-2022.htm.
98 As of October 2022, paid family leave laws
were in place in 11 states and the District of
Columbia. See: https://www.national
partnership.org/our-work/resources/economicjustice/paid-leave/state-paid-family-leave-laws.pdf.
99 BLS. (2022). National Compensation Survey:
Employee Benefits in the United States, March
2022. Table 7: Leave benefits by occupational
category, Civilian workers, March 2022. https://
www.bls.gov/ebs/publications/september-2022landing-page-employee-benefits-in-the-unitedstates-march-2022.htm.
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
parent, or next of kin.100 To be eligible
for FMLA, workers must work for a
covered employer at a location with 50
or more employees within 75 miles;
have worked 1,250 hours or more
during the 12 months prior to the start
of leave; and have worked for the
employer for 12 months or more before
the start of leave.101 However, under
this proposed new requirement, all
Head Start programs, regardless of
employer size, would be required to
provide full-time staff that meet the
employee eligibility requirements (i.e.,
have worked 1,250 hours or more
during the 12 months prior to the start
of leave; and have worked for the
employer for 12 months or more before
the start of leave) with partial or full
wage replacement during qualifying
periods of leave. We request comments
on whether the reasons for leave or
eligibility requirements, such as how
long a staff member has been with an
employer or employer size, should be
modified for this proposed standard, or
if aligning with FMLA is the best
approach.
Next, for programs whose program
year lasts longer than a typical school
year, we propose in new paragraph
(f)(1)(iv) to require such programs offer
full-time staff the accrual of paid
vacation or personal leave
commensurate with experience or time
working at the program. In 2022, 77
percent of civilian workers had paid
vacation leave and 48 percent had paid
leave designated as personal leave. That
year, only 21 percent of primary and
secondary teachers had paid vacation
leave.102 But as noted by BLS,103 the
majority of K–12 school districts
function on a school year schedule (37–
38 weeks per year) with regular breaks,
as do many Head Start Preschool
programs. However, most Early Head
Start programs and some Head Start
Preschool programs operate throughout
the summer months as well, and these
‘‘year-round’’ program staff are not
benefitting from a summer break. We
believe these staff working on more of
a year-round schedule should have the
opportunity to accrue paid vacation
leave, but we do not propose a specific
100 https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/fmla.
101 U.S. Department of Labor. FMLA Frequently
Asked Questions. https://www.dol.gov/agencies/
whd/fmla/faq#3.
102 BLS. (2022). National Compensation Survey:
Employee Benefits in the United States, March
2022. Table 7: Leave benefits by occupational
category, Civilian workers, March 2022. https://
www.bls.gov/ebs/publications/september-2022landing-page-employee-benefits-in-the-unitedstates-march-2022.htm.
103 BLS. (2022). Employee Benefits in the United
States, March 2022. https://www.bls.gov/
news.release/pdf/ebs2.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\20NOP2.SGM
20NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
required number of days per year or
accrual rate. We request comment on
whether these requirements regarding
paid vacation or personal leave are
important for attracting and retaining
qualified staff. We seek comments on
whether the implementation of these
requirements would lead to unintended
consequences or unpredictable
expenses, particularly in the case of
paying out upon an employee leaving a
program.
Next, we propose to add new
paragraph (f)(1)(v) which requires that
employers offer access to short-term
behavioral health services for full-time
staff that entails minimal or no out-ofpocket costs for staff. We propose that
these services include access to
approximately three to five outpatient
visits per year.104 The Paul Wellstone
and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity
and Addiction Equity Act of 2008
requires that group health plans and
health insurance coverage ensure that
financial requirements and treatment
limitations on mental health and
substance-use disorder services are no
more restrictive than the predominant
financial requirements and treatment
limitations applicable to medical and
surgical health services, and that there
are no financial requirements and
treatment limitations applicable only
with respect to mental health and
substance use disorder services. Mental
health and substance-use disorder
services, including treatment such as
counseling and psychotherapy, are also
one category of the essential health
benefits that health insurance issuers
offering non-grandfathered 105 group or
104 When offering access to the behavioral health
services that would be required under these
proposed rules, an employer should be aware that
other provisions of law may apply to that
arrangement. In general, the provision of medical
care, including the provision of behavioral health
services, could result in the arrangement being
considered a group health plan subject to the
relevant provisions of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA) that applies to group
health plans, unless the arrangement qualifies as an
excepted benefit. For an Employee Assistance
Program (EAP) to qualify as an excepted benefit, the
EAP must meet the requirements of 26 CFR
54.9831–1(c)(3)(vi); 29 CFR 2590.732(c)(3)(vi) and
45 CFR 146.145(b)(3)(vi), including that the
program may not provide significant benefits in the
nature of medical care and that no employee
premiums or contributions or cost-sharing can be
required as a condition of participation in the EAP.
To the extent the arrangement that provides the
behavioral health visits required under these
proposed rules does not meet the requirements to
qualify as an excepted benefit, the arrangement may
be considered a group health plan subject to the
requirements of Part 7 of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA).
105 Section 1251 of the Affordable Care Act
provides that grandfathered health plans are not
subject to certain provisions of the Code, ERISA,
and the PHS Act, as added by the Affordable Care
Act, for as long as they maintain their status as
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:04 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
individual health insurance coverage
(including health insurance coverage
offered in the Marketplace) must cover
without annual dollar caps.
Even with health insurance, out-ofpocket expenses like high deductibles or
copays may serve as barriers for
individuals facing mental illness or
symptoms for receiving care. In 2010,
only 15 percent of private industry
workers had a high deductible plan,
compared to 45 percent in 2018.106 In a
2020 nationally representative survey,
among those reporting perceived unmet
mental health care needs in the prior
year, 46 percent reported that they
could not afford the cost of treatment,
19 percent reported that their health
insurance did not pay enough for
mental health services, and 29 percent
reported they did not know where to go
for services.107
Research suggests that Head Start staff
face a constellation of stressors,
including financial stress and
challenging behaviors in the classroom,
which are in turn associated with poorer
staff physical and psychological wellbeing, and may benefit from increased
access to mental health care services.
Head Start teachers experience high
rates of health problems and depressive
symptoms, with some studies finding
that nearly one-third have depressive
symptoms.108 A 2013 study in
Pennsylvania found that Head Start
teachers showed higher rates of poor or
fair health, depressive symptoms,
unhealthy days, and having three or
more health conditions compared to
women with similar backgrounds.109
The challenges surrounding the COVID–
19 pandemic exacerbated stress and
health problems among early childhood
teachers. A study of ECE professionals
conducted in summer 2020 in New York
grandfathered health plans. See 26 CFR 54.9815–
1251; 29 CFR 2590.715–1251 and 45 CFR 147.140.
For a list of the market reform provisions applicable
to grandfathered health plans under title XXVII of
the PHS Act that the Affordable Care Act added or
amended and that were incorporated into the Code
and ERISA, visit https://www.dol.gov/sites/default/
files/ebsa/laws-and-regulations/laws/affordablecare-act/for-employers-andadvisers/grandfatheredhealth-plans-provisions-summary-chart.pdf.
106 BLS. (2023). High deductible health plans and
health savings accounts. https://www.bls.gov/ebs/
factsheets/high-deductible-health-plans-and-healthsavings-accounts.htm.
107 Council of Economic Advisors. (2022, May).
Reducing the economic burden of unmet mental
health needs. The White House. https://
www.whitehouse.gov/cea/written-materials/2022/
05/31/reducing-the-economic-burden-of-unmetmental-health-needs/.
108 Ibid.
109 Whitaker, R., Becker, B., Herman, A., & Gooze,
R. (2013). The physical and mental health of Head
Start staff: The Pennsylvania Head Start staff
wellness survey, 2012. Preventing chronic disease,
10(1), 1–9.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
80835
City found that 31 percent reported
doctor-diagnosed anxiety and 23
percent reported doctor-diagnosed
depressive symptoms.110 Another study
of over 80,000 ECE professionals found
that 47.5 percent screened positive for
depression and 66.5 percent reported
moderate to high stress levels, which
was a higher prevalence of both
depression and stress than among US
adults overall in 2020.111 Further,
research on Head Start programs has
linked staff job stressors and poor
mental health to lower-quality teacherchild interactions and teachers’
behavioral management skills.112 In a
sample of Head Start programs,
teachers’ depressive symptoms were
associated with fewer gains in
children’s math skills across the year.113
Access to free or low-cost short term
mental health services is key to
promoting staff well-being and
children’s development. Programs may
use a variety of strategies to ensure staff
facing mental health conditions or
symptoms have access to short-term,
affordable mental health treatment.
Employers may do so through an
employer-sponsored group health plan
that provides short-term, outpatient
behavioral health care at low out-ofpocket costs, or through an Employee
Assistance Program (EAP) that qualifies
as an excepted benefit and can refer and
connect employees to mental health
resources and providers. While we
propose to require programs to cover
approximately three to five outpatient
visits, nothing in these rules prohibit a
110 Kwon, K.-Ah., Ford, T.G., Tsotsoros, J.,
Randall, K., Malek-Lasater, A., & Kim, S.G. (2021).
Challenges in working conditions and well-being of
early childhood teachers by teaching modality
during the COVID–19 pandemic. International
Journal of Environmental Research and Public
Health, 19, 4919.
111 Elharake, J.A., Shafiq, M., Cobanoglu, A.,
Malik, A.A., Klotz, M., Humphries, J.E., . . . &
Gilliam, W.S. (2022). Prevalence of Chronic
Diseases, Depression, and Stress among US Child
Care Professionals during the COVID–19 Pandemic.
medRxiv, 2022–03.
112 Li-Grining, C.L., Raver, C.C., Champion, K.,
Sardin, L., Metzger, M., & Jones, S.M. (2010).
Understanding and improving classroom emotional
climate and behavior management in the ‘‘real
world’’: The role of Head Start teachers’
psychosocial stressors. Early Education and
Development, 21(1), 65–94.; Roberts, A., LoCasaleCrouch, J., Hamre, B., & DeCoster, J. (2016).
Exploring Teachers’ Depressive Symptoms,
Interaction Quality, and Children’s SocialEmotional Development in Head Start. Early
Education and Development, 27(5), 642–654.;
Whitaker, R.C., Dearth-Wesley, T., & Gooze, R.A.
(2015). Workplace stress and the quality of teacherchildren relationships in Head Start. Early
Childhood Research Quarterly, 30, 57–69.
113 Jeon, S., Jeon, L., Lang, S. & Newell, K. (2021).
Teacher depressive symptoms and child math
achievement in Head Start: The roles of familyteacher relationships and approaches to learning.
Child Development, 92(6), 2478–2495.
E:\FR\FM\20NOP2.SGM
20NOP2
80836
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
program from providing additional
visits.
Next, we propose to add new
paragraph (f)(3) which requires
programs to connect staff members who
are parents with affordable child care
resources and information—including
connections to child care resource and
referral agencies if applicable—and to
facilitate the enrollment of staff
members who may be eligible in the
child care subsidy program. The early
childhood workforce, including Head
Start staff, are disproportionately
women of color,114 many of whom rely
on child care for their own children.
High-quality child care is expensive and
difficult to find,115 particularly for
infants and toddlers, but key to both
promoting labor force participation and
children’s development.116 Child Care
Resource and Referral (CCR&R)
organizations and other child care
consumer education organizations serve
as resource hubs to connect families to
high-quality, affordable child care
through referrals and information on
licensing, subsidies, and how to access
services for children with disabilities.117
Head Start programs can ensure that
staff members are aware of and
connected to local CCR&Rs or other
consumer education organizations in
their communities. For each staff
member who may be eligible for public
child care assistance, a program should
educate and facilitate application to and
enrollment in the child care subsidy
program.
Further, we recognize that many Head
Start staff members’ own children may
be eligible for Head Start services. Being
able to enroll one’s own child in an ECE
program where that individual is also
employed could be an important benefit
to support recruitment and retention of
114 Coffey, M. (2022). Still underpaid and
unequal: Early childhood educators face low pay
and a worsening wage gap. Center for American
Progress. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/
still-underpaid-and-unequal/; Mayfield, W., & Cho,
I. (2022). The National Workforce Registry Alliance
2021 Workforce Dataset: Early Childhood and
School-age Workforce Trends, with a Focus on
Racial/Ethnic Equity. National Workforce Registry
Alliance. https://www.registryalliance.org/wpcontent/uploads/2022/05/NWRA-2022-ECEworkforce-data-report-final.pdf ; Smith, L.,
McHenry, K., Morris, & Chong, H. (2021).
Characteristics of the child care workforce.
Bipartisan Policy Center. https://bipartisan
policy.org/blog/characteristics-of-the-child-careworkforce/.
115 Child Care Aware. (2022). 2021 Child Care
Affordability. https://www.childcareaware.org/
catalyzing-growth-using-data-to-change-child-care/
#ChildCareAffordability.
116 Chaudry, A., Morrissey, T.W., Weiland, C., &
Yoshikawa, Y. (2021). Cradle to Kindergarten: A
New plan to combat inequality, 2nd Edition. New
York: Russell Sage Foundation.
117 https://www.childcareaware.org/about/childcare-resource-referral/.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:04 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
staff. Therefore, we also propose to add
a new paragraph (5) to § 1302.14(a)
Selection criteria that clarifies programs
can choose to prioritize the enrollment
of staff members’ children through
selection criteria. Section 1302.14(a)
includes requirements for establishing
selection criteria to weigh the
prioritization of selection of participants
for the program. The proposed standard
in new paragraph (5) clarifies that
programs can choose, as part of this
process, to prioritize staff members’
children. Programs are reminded that in
order to be enrolled in a Head Start
funded slot, such children would still
need to be age eligible and meet an
eligibility category described in
§ 1302.12(c) or (d). We also note that as
the wage requirements proposed in this
NPRM are implemented, this would
likely affect eligibility for some staff.
Next, we propose a new paragraph (4)
in § 1302.90(f) that requires programs to
facilitate access to Public Service Loan
Forgiveness (PSLF), or other applicable
student loan debt relief programs, for
any Head Start staff who may have
student loan debt. This includes timely
certification of employment for the staff
member. Evidence suggests that student
loan debt is higher among the ECE
workforce than the overall population.
When combined with relatively low
wages, this compounds economic
hardship. According to a March 2022
survey of approximately 2,500 ECE
providers, 19 percent reported they had
student debt, compared to 17 percent of
the U.S. adult population overall, and
17 percent reported they carried debt for
others.118
The PSLF Program, administered by
the U.S. Department of Education, is
intended to encourage individuals to
enter and continue in full-time public
service employment by forgiving the
remaining balance of their Direct loans
after they satisfy public service and loan
payment requirements. Many Head Start
programs share information with staff
about the PSLF program as well as other
State or local student debt relief
opportunities they may be eligible for as
a staff recruitment and retention strategy
that can reduce financial stress among
staff. Individual borrowers who are
eligible for PSLF must submit with their
PSLF application a certification of
qualifying employment which requires a
signature from the employer. It is
important that Head Start programs offer
timely certification of employment to
facilitate debt relief for Head Start staff.
118 RAPID Survey, Student Debt in the Early
Childhood Workforce, May 2022. Retrieved from:
https://rapidsurveyproject.com/our-research/
student-debt-in-the-early-childhood-workforce.
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
This proposed standard would require
programs to facilitate access to PSLF
and other available student debt relief
by providing information about debt
relief opportunities and offering timely
certification of employment.
Next, recognizing that there are other
benefits that may enhance programs’
ability to compete for skilled staff, we
propose to require programs, at least
once every 5 years, to assess and
determine if their benefits package is
adequate for recruiting and retaining
full-time staff and competitive with
benefits offered by local or neighboring
school districts. The proposed standard
specifies that programs may offer
additional benefits to staff, including
more enhanced health benefits,
retirement savings plans, flexible
savings accounts, or life, disability, and
long-term care insurance. We propose to
encourage programs to offer additional
benefits to all staff based on the needs
of their workforce. Additional benefits
may include but are not limited to
retirement, dental or vision benefits;
subsidized health insurance for staff
members’ dependents; tax-exempt
health, dependent care, or flexible
spending accounts; or other benefits to
staff such as life, long-term care, and
disability insurance.
Finally, ACF is considering adding
retirement savings plans to the list of
required benefits to be provided to fulltime Head Start staff and specifically
seeks public comment on whether to
add an additional requirement for
recipients to provide retirement savings
benefits to full-time staff. Research
indicates that the majority of public
school teachers are offered some type of
retirement or pension plan.119 And a
study of ECE professionals in one State
found that 80 percent were worried
about their retirement savings.120
Providing retirement benefits may
provide another mechanism for Head
Start programs to recruit and retain staff.
However, we also recognize that such a
requirement could lead to additional
slot loss in Head Start absent additional
appropriations. We seek public
comment on whether retirement savings
benefits, ranging from employer
assistance in establishing retirement
accounts to more comprehensive
benefits with employer matching
119 BLS. (2022). Employee benefits in the United
States. Table 1. Retirement benefits: Access,
participation, and take-up rates.
120 Sakai, L. (2014). ‘‘Economic Insecurity and
Early Childhood Teaching.’’ In Worthy Work, Still
Unlivable Wages: The Early Childhood Workforce
25 Years after the National Child Care Staffing
Study, edited by Marcy Whitebook, Deborah
Phillips, and Carollee Howes, 41–54. Berkeley, CA:
Center for the Study of Child Care Employment.
E:\FR\FM\20NOP2.SGM
20NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
contributions, consistent with what
public schools offer, should be required
as an effective mechanism for staff
recruitment and retention, especially
when weighed against potential slot
loss. Overall, we believe this set of
employer-provided benefits is necessary
to attract and retain a skilled, qualified
workforce in Head Start programs. In
general, as Head Start programs phase in
wage increases and benefits, they
should hold harmless existing benefits
such that employees receive benefits
that are at least as generous as their
current benefits. ACF requests comment
about the degree to which grant
recipients are currently offering a set of
high-quality benefits and the
administrative difficulty or expense
creating these benefits would entail. We
also seek public comment on how any
of the proposed benefit requirements in
this section may impact various
communities. We specifically request
public comment from the special
populations served by Head Start,
including AIAN and MSHS programs
and communities.
Workforce Supports: Staff Wellness
(§ 1302.93)
Section 1302.93 outlines program
requirements for promoting staff health
and wellness, including that staff: have
regular health examinations; do not
pose a risk of exposing others in the
program to communicable diseases; are
provided access to mental health and
wellness information, including
opportunities to learn about these
topics. However, these current
standards lack critical requirements to
promote staff physical and mental
wellness on the job, including regular
breaks during the workday and access to
appropriate adult-size furniture in
classrooms. We believe the proposed
requirements described in this section,
together with the proposed
requirements described in the Subpart
I—Human Resources Management
subsection of the Mental Health Services
section of this preamble, will provide
much needed supports to reduce staff
stress and burnout; improve the quality
of interactions between teachers and
children; and improve staff recruitment
and retention. Importantly, improving
staff retention will also contribute to a
more positive, improved working
environment for all staff.
In this section we describe newly
proposed requirements for grant
recipients to provide a minimal level of
regular breaks for staff as well as brief
unscheduled ‘wellness breaks’ for staff
who work directly in classrooms with
children to support stress management,
improve well-being, reduce turnover,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:04 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
and improve staff retention and the
quality of services. We also propose a
requirement for classroom staff to have
access to appropriate adult-sized
furniture in classrooms to support
ergonomic health. These newly
proposed provisions are consistent with
the proposed requirements in new
paragraphs (e) and (f) of § 1302.90 that
support improved staff wages and
benefits.
First, we propose to add a new
paragraph (c) to § 1302.93 which
outlines requirements for break times
during work shifts. In new paragraph
(c)(1)(i) we specify that a program must
provide, for each staff member working
a shift lasting between four and six
hours, a minimum of one 15-minute
break per shift. In new paragraph
(c)(1)(ii), we specify that a program must
provide, for each staff member working
a shift lasting six hours or more, a
minimum of one 30-minute break per
shift. Newly proposed paragraph (c)(2)
requires programs to comply with State
laws or regulations that are more
stringent for staff breaks, if applicable.
The required breaks outlined in new
paragraph (c)(1) are minimums, and
programs may choose to provide staff
with longer or more frequent breaks
depending on the needs of staff,
children, and their programs.
For staff members who regularly work
in classrooms with children, the breaks
for staff described in (c)(1) will be
subject to required staff-child ratios.
However, in newly proposed paragraph
(c)(3), we specify that during break
times for classroom staff, one teaching
staff member may be replaced by one
staff member who does not meet the
teaching qualifications required for the
age, as long as this staff member has the
necessary training and experience to
ensure safety of children and minimal
disruption to the quality of services.
ACF expects that, for classroom staff,
these regular breaks will be scheduled
for periods that are least disruptive for
classroom instruction or routines, such
as during nap times, meals, or outside
play periods and will be covered by staff
who have completed the appropriate
background checks.
In addition, we propose to add new
paragraph (c)(4), which requires a
program to design and implement a
systematic approach to ensure each staff
member that works directly with
children as part of their regular job
responsibilities can have access to brief
unscheduled wellness breaks of about 5
minutes as needed while ensuring child
safety. ACF expects these unscheduled
breaks to be brief, of approximately 5
minutes in length. The safety of
children is of the utmost importance to
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
80837
ACF, and we recognize this is a key
priority for programs as well. By
designing an intentional, systematic
approach for brief ‘wellness’ breaks, we
think programs will be able to better
support staff members who feel
temporarily overwhelmed or stressed by
the challenges of the position in the
classroom or otherwise need a very brief
break (e.g., to use the restroom or take
an emergency phone call). It will allow
staff the opportunity to briefly step
away from an overwhelming situation,
calm down as needed, and think
through an appropriate approach to
handling the given situation. We believe
this can help prevent or reduce child
incidents in classrooms. At the same
time, careful attention should be given
at the program level to allow for these
brief wellness breaks while also
promoting the safety of children. It is
expected that the number of
unscheduled breaks could vary daily,
and it may be the case that on any given
day individuals may not need
unscheduled breaks whereas on other
days they could need more. We request
public comment on the length or ideal
frequency of these brief wellness breaks.
We also propose to add a new
paragraph (d) to § 1302.93 which
requires programs to ensure staff have
access to adult size furniture in
classrooms. This could include, for
instance, adult sized chairs or desks
depending on what the classroom layout
allows. This change was motivated by
the data indicating that staff in Head
Start programs experience work-related
ergonomic pain. For example, a survey
of Head Start teachers in Baltimore
found that 80 percent reported
musculoskeletal pain as a result of their
work.121 In an Oklahoma sample of
Head Start teachers, more than seven in
ten (73 percent) Head Start staff
reported work-related ergonomic pain,
including in routine activities like
diapering or stooping to pick up
children.122 Additionally, nearly onethird reported neck pain (31 percent),
one in four reported shoulder pain (26
percent), and over half reported back
pain (56 percent).123 The proposed
requirement for adult size furniture will
support the physical health of teachers
and aligns with ACF’s goal of improving
121 The Happy Teacher Project. (2020).
Strengthening Health, Wellness, and Psychosocial
Environments in Head Start: Technical Report
2020. Johns Hopkins University and Oklahoma
State University
122 Kwon, K., Ford, T., Randall, K., Castle, S.
(2021). Head Start Teacher Paradox: Working
conditions, well-being, and classroom quality. The
Happy Teacher Project: Johns Hopkins University
and Oklahoma State University.
123 Ibid.
E:\FR\FM\20NOP2.SGM
20NOP2
80838
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
and investing in staff health and
wellness.
Together, regularly scheduled breaks,
brief unscheduled wellness breaks, and
access to adult size furniture in
classrooms will provide staff with more
of the support they need to provide
high-quality education and care to
enrolled children. There are no Federal
and few State or local laws regarding
employers’ offering of staff breaks. The
work of ECE staff, including Head Start
teachers, involves actively educating,
caring for, and supervising young
children, jobs that require the full
attention of staff members and can be
physically, mentally, and emotionally
demanding, particularly if done for long
shift periods. Prior research suggests
that Head Start teachers have low or
inconsistent access to regular or
unscheduled breaks at work. For
instance, in 2021, the Happy Teacher
Project found that 62 percent of Head
Start teachers have no designated
breaks, compared to 44 percent of the
general ECE workforce.124 In another
survey of Head Start teachers in
Maryland, 85 percent reported there was
no designated break time for staff (other
than children’s nap time) and 69
percent reported there were no
consistent bathroom breaks for staff; 55
percent indicated that more daily breaks
would improve overall well-being.125 In
samples of ECE teachers, up to one-third
have reported diseases such as urinary
tract infections and high blood pressure
at higher rates than in populations of
similar sociodemographic
composition.126 This research suggests
some Head Start staff may work full-day
shifts without adequate breaks to eat
their own meals, attend to minor
personal tasks, or take care of their own
mental and physical well-being.
The lack of access to breaks at work
may be part of a constellation of
workplace stressors faced by Head Start
staff, which as described previously,
includes financial stress and the
significant responsibility entrusted to
Head Start staff who are charged with
supporting the most vulnerable children
and families who face a myriad of
challenges. Work climate and stressors
124 Kwon, K., Ford, T., Randall, K., Castle, S.
(2021). Head Start Teacher Paradox: Working
conditions, well-being, and classroom quality. The
Happy Teacher Project: Johns Hopkins University
and Oklahoma State University.
125 The Happy Teacher Project. (2020).
Strengthening Health, Wellness, and Psychosocial
Environments in Head Start: Technical Report
2020. Johns Hopkins University and Oklahoma
State University.
126 Kwon, K., et al., (2022). Neglected elements of
a high-quality early childhood workforce: Whole
teacher well-being and working conditions. Early
Childhood Education Journal, 50, 157–168.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:04 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
are associated with teacher
psychological well-being,127 and in
turn, contribute to staff turnover.128 In
the Baltimore survey, 43 percent of
Head Start teachers surveyed reported
an intention to leave the job.129
Additionally, as stated earlier, Head
Start staff turnover in 2022 was the
highest it has been in two decades. Staff
turnover interrupts adult-child
relationships and is associated with
poorer child outcomes 130 and increases
the workloads and schedule changes for
the teachers who remain.131 Among staff
who remain in their jobs, work
environments and physical and
psychological well-being are associated
with teachers’ relationships with
children and children’s outcomes.132 In
a study of ECE centers that included
Head Start programs, lead and assistant
teachers’ work stress was associated
with children’s social and emotional
outcomes, including anxiety-withdrawal
and social competence.133
Research suggests that early
childhood teacher well-being was low
127 Jeon, L., & Ardeleau, K. (2020). Work climate
in early care and education and teachers’ stress:
Indirect associations through emotion regulation.
Early Education & Development, 31(7), 1031–1051;
Jeon, L., Buettner, C., & Grant, A. (2018). Early
childhood teachers’ psychological well-being:
Exploring potential predictors of depression, stress,
and emotional exhaustion. Early Education &
Development, 29(1), 53–69.
128 Grant, A., Jeon, L. & Buettner, C. (2019).
Relating early childhood teachers’ working
conditions and wellbeing in their turnover
intentions. Educational Psychology, 39(3), 294–312.
129 The Happy Teacher Project. (2020).
Strengthening Health, Wellness, and Psychosocial
Environments in Head Start: Technical Report
2020. Johns Hopkins University and Oklahoma
State University.
130 Markowitz, A., & Bassok, D. (2018). Teacher
turnover and child development in Head Start.
Paper presented at the Association for Public Policy
Analysis and Management Conference. U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services & U.S.
Department of Education. (2016).
131 Cassidy, D.J., Lower, J.K., Kintner-Duffy, V.L.,
Hegde, A.V., & Shim, J. (2011). The day-to-day
reality of teacher turnover in preschool classrooms:
An analysis of classroom context and teacher,
director, and parent perspectives. Journal of
Research in Childhood Education, 25(1), 1–23.
132 Jeon, L., Buettner, C., Grant, A., & Lang, S.
(2019). Early childhood teachers’ stress and
children’s social, emotional, and behavioral
functioning. Journal of Applied Developmental
Psychology, 61, 21–32.; Jeon, S., Jeon, L., Lang, S.
& Newell, K. (2021). Teacher depressive symptoms
and child math achievement in Head Start: The
roles of family-teacher relationships and
approaches to learning. Child Development, 92(6),
2478–2495.; The Happy Teacher Project (2020).;
Smith, S., & Lawrence, S. (2019). Early Care and
Education Teacher Well-Being: Associations with
Children’s Experience, Outcomes, and Workplace
Conditions (Issue March). https://www.nccp.org/
publications/pdf/text_1224.pdf.
133 Jeon, L., Buettner, C., Grant, A., & Lang, S.
(2019). Early childhood teachers’ stress and
children’s social, emotional, and behavioral
functioning. Journal of Applied Developmental
Psychology, 61, 21–32.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
prior to the COVID–19 pandemic, and
that the pandemic exacerbated the
workplace, financial, and other stressors
among the ECE workforce, contributing
to reductions in emotional well-being,
physical health, and job commitment in
the workforce.134 Further, research finds
evidence of racial differences, such as
higher rates of stress for Black teachers
and higher rates of ergonomic pain for
Latinx teachers for those teaching inperson when compared to their White
counterparts, with implications for
equity among a workforce that is
disproportionately women of color.135
The pandemic also exacerbated the
challenges in recruiting and retaining
ECE staff.
Each standard that ACF proposes in
this section is responsive to research,
survey data, and Head Start
administrative and internal data which
collectively demonstrate that more
attention must be paid to educator
wellness and well-being. Evidence from
the field shows that early childhood
educators’ mental and physical health
and well-being are often neglected or
overlooked. One survey administered
during the COVID–19 pandemic found
that teachers ranked ‘‘more daily breaks
and paid leave’’ in the top five items
needed to support their well-being.136
Other research prior to the pandemic in
a national sample and one in Oklahoma
134 Hanno, E., Gardner, M., Jones, S., & Lesaux, N.
(2022). An ecological perspective on early educator
well-being at the start of the COVID–19 pandemic.
Early Childhood Research Quarterly. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2022.02.002; Kwon, K.,
Ford, T., Tsotsoros, J., Randall, K., Malek-Lasater,
A., & Kim, S. (2022). Challenges in working
conditions and well-being of early childhood
teachers by teaching modality during the COVID–
19 pandemic. International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health, 19,
4919.; Markowitz, A., & Bassok, D. (2022).
Understanding the well-being of early educators in
the wake of the coronavirus pandemic: Lessons
from Louisiana. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ecresq.2022.05.001; Souto-Manning, M., & Melvin,
S. (2022). Early childhood teachers of color in New
York City: Heightened stress, lower quality of life,
declining health, and compromised sleep amidst
COVID–19. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 60,
34–48.
135 Kwon, K., Ford, T., Tsotsoros, J., Randall, K.,
Malek-Lasater, A., & Kim, S. (2022). Challenges in
working conditions and well-being of early
childhood teachers by teaching modality during the
COVID–19 pandemic. International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health, 19,
4919.; Souto-Manning, M., & Melvin, S. (2022).
Early childhood teachers of color in New York City:
Heightened stress, lower quality of life, declining
health, and compromised sleep amidst COVID–19.
Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 60, 34–48.
136 Kwon, K., Ford, T., Tsotsoros, J., Randall, K.,
Malek-Lasater, A., & Kim, S. (2022). Challenges in
working conditions and well-being of early
childhood teachers by teaching modality during the
COVID–19 pandemic. International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health, 19,
4919.
E:\FR\FM\20NOP2.SGM
20NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
found that teachers rated breaks as fifth
and second, respectively, as needs for
their workplaces.137 ACF’s proposed
requirements in this section are
intended to be responsive to these
research findings and support Head
Start staff well-being by ensuring they
have access to regular, scheduled
breaks, and to brief unscheduled breaks,
which may be useful stress management
strategies in infrequent circumstances
when a teacher is feeling overwhelmed.
Additionally, these proposed standards
will strengthen supports for Head Start
early educators during the on-going
post-pandemic and long-term recovery
of the workforce.
We seek public comment on how any
of the proposed staff wellness
requirements in this section may impact
various communities. We specifically
request public comment from the
special populations served by Head
Start, including AIAN and MSHS
programs and communities.
Workforce Supports: Employee
Engagement (§ 1302.92, § 1302.101)
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Section 1302.101(a)(2) requires
programs to implement a management
system that provides regular and
ongoing staff supervision to support
individual professional development
and continuous program quality
improvement. Disengaged staff are not
as emotionally committed to or proud of
their work or organization, are less
motivated, and are more eager to
leave.138 Disengagement negatively
affects the well-being of staff, the quality
of their work, and the attitudes held
toward children.139 Meaningful and
effective employee engagement
practices that promote clear roles and
responsibilities are needed to improve
the well-being of the workforce by
helping identify and address job-related
stress, burnout, and workload issues.
These practices also empower the
workforce, build respect in the
workplace, and improve staff retention
and overall job satisfaction. As such, we
propose to revise this requirement to
discourage staff supervision approaches
that are primarily top-down by requiring
137 Kwon, K., Ford, T., Randall, K., Castle, S.
(2021). Head Start Teacher Paradox: Working
conditions, well-being, and classroom quality. The
Happy Teacher Project: Johns Hopkins University
and Oklahoma State University.
138 Gallup, I. State of the global workplace report.
Gallup.com. https://www.gallup.com/workplace/
349484/state-of-the-global-workplace-2022report.aspx.
139 Jennings, P.A., & Greenberg, M.T. (2009). The
Prosocial Classroom: Teacher Social and Emotional
Competence in Relation to Student and Classroom
Outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 79(1),
491–525. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465
4308325693.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:04 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
programs to promote clear and
reasonable roles and responsibilities for
all staff with meaningful and effective
employee engagement practices as part
of their systematic approach to staff
supervision. The changes proposed in
this section are intended to be scaled to
the size of the Head Start organization
and are not anticipated to incur a large
cost.
Specifically, in § 1302.101(a)(2) we
propose to strike ‘‘Provides regular and
ongoing supervision to support
individual staff professional
development and continuous program
improvement’’ and replace it with
‘‘Promotes clear and reasonable roles
and responsibilities for all staff and
provides regular and ongoing staff
supervision with meaningful and
effective employee engagement
practices.’’
Meaningful and effective employee
engagement practices will vary among
programs, but examples include
discussions of explicit and implicit
expectations, recognition for highquality work, open communication
between management and staff,
conducting and responding to
workplace climate surveys, responding
to feedback, working in partnership
with staff to identify and ameliorate any
barriers to high-quality job performance
that may exist including workload
issues, formal and informal
opportunities for discussions related to
job satisfaction and performance, and
having employee engagement inform
professional development opportunities
for staff. In general, these practices
should aim to understand the
expectations imposed on staff, identify
and address barriers staff are
experiencing in being able to fulfill their
roles and responsibilities (e.g., filling
multiple roles, job-related stressors
impacting job performance, unclear
roles and responsibilities), and
recognize high-quality work.
We also propose two revisions to
§ 1302.92(b), which requires programs
to implement a systematic approach to
staff training and professional
development, in order to integrate
meaningful and effective employee
engagement practices and professional
development. First, in § 1302.92(b) we
propose to add the phrase ‘‘and
integrated with employee engagement
practices in accordance with
§ 1302.101(a)(2).’’ This revision builds
on the proposed revision to
§ 1302.101(a)(2) and is intended to
ensure programs implement an
approach to staff training and
professional development that is
designed to be informed by input from
staff, identified barriers to job
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
80839
performance, and other employee
engagement practices. Training and
professional development opportunities
are more effective in transferring to
practice when staff are opting into the
training and receive support from their
supervisor in the process.140
Second, we propose a change to
§ 1302.92(b)(1). Currently,
§ 1302.92(b)(1) requires that staff receive
a minimum of 15 clock hours of
professional development per year. For
teaching staff, this professional
development must meet the
requirements described in section
648A(a)(5) of the Act, which specifies
that the professional development must
be high-quality, sustained, intensive,
and classroom-focused in order to have
a lasting positive impact on classroom
instruction and teacher performance.
The program must also regularly
evaluate the professional development
for effectiveness. Section 648A(f) of the
Act requires programs to create, in
consultation with an employee, a
professional development plan for all
full-time Head Start employees who
provide direct services to children and
requires that such plans are regularly
evaluated for their impact on teacher
and staff effectiveness. The agency and
staff shall implement the plan to the
extent feasible and practicable. Section
648A(f) of the Act has been
implemented in practice through
technical assistance and monitoring, but
it has not been explicitly codified in the
HSPPS. We propose to add new
language to § 1302.92(b)(1) that codifies
the requirement in section 648A(f) of
the Act for the creation of individual
professional development plans. This
proposed change is anticipated to be
cost neutral and is not a policy change
or a new or modified requirement, since
programs have always been held to this
statutory requirement in practice.
Further, programs are currently able to
use their professional development and
training and technical assistance funds
to help staff earn their credentials and
degrees.
We believe this proposed change is an
important clarification as data from
OHS monitoring findings show that
programs are being cited for lacking
professional development plans for their
education staff. Indeed, analysis of
internal data from fiscal year 2020–2022
reveals a top cited monitoring finding in
OHS oversight reviews of programs was
related to lack of appropriate
140 Salamon, J., Blume D., Orosz G., Nagy T.
(2021). The interplay between the level of voluntary
participation and supervisor support on trainee
motivation and transfer. Human Resource
Development Quarterly Volume 32, Issue 4, pages
459–481. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21428.
E:\FR\FM\20NOP2.SGM
20NOP2
80840
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
professional development plans for
staff.141 Additionally, as described
previously, since the onset of the 2020
COVID–19 pandemic, many Head Start
programs have had turnover in
leadership and have suffered from ongoing staffing shortages and vacancies in
staff positions. The proposed addition to
§ 1302.92(b)(1) will remind new
program leaders of this important
requirement for their program staff to
support the professional development of
their workforce. It can also help
improve staff retention by leveraging an
existing requirement intended to
support staff growth and professional
development.
Mental Health Services (Subpart D;
Subpart H; Subpart I)
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Currently, programmatic requirements
related to mental health appear in
several areas of the standards, including
§ 1302 Subpart A, Subpart D, Subpart H,
and Subpart I. In this NPRM, we
propose several changes to these
sections of the HSPPS to enhance and
clarify the importance of mental health
services for Head Start children,
families, and staff. Mental health and
social-emotional well-being during early
childhood are foundational for family
well-being and children’s healthy
development and early learning and are
associated with positive long-term
outcomes.142
We know that social-emotional
difficulties impact up to 20 percent of
children under the age of 5, and that
over half of mental health disorders
begin before age 14.143 We also know
that children and families experiencing
poverty are more likely to encounter
stressors linked to mental health
challenges as well as experience barriers
to accessing mental health services.
Research findings specifically indicate
that children and families living in
high-poverty neighborhoods exhibit
worse mental health outcomes
compared to individuals living in lowpoverty neighborhoods.144 Therefore, a
141 Data from narrative responses from monitoring
reviews from fiscal years 2020–2022.
142 https://www.acf.hhs.gov/ecd/policy-guidance/
dear-colleague-social-emotional-development-andmental-health.
143 National Research Council and Institute of
Medicine Committee. Preventing mental, emotional,
and behavioral disorders among young people:
progress and possibilities. Washington, DC:
National Academies Press; 2009.
Brauner, C.B., & Stephens, C.B. (2006). Estimating
the prevalence of early childhood serious
emotional/behavioral disorders: Challenges and
recommendations. Public health reports, 121(3),
303–310.
144 Leventhal, T., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2003).
Moving to Opportunity: an Experimental Study of
Neighborhood Effects on Mental Health. American
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:04 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
focus on social determinants of health,
or the conditions in which individuals
live, work and play, can lead to better
mental health outcomes and prevent
future mental illness.145 Head Start
programs are well positioned to support
children and families experiencing
poverty by strengthening the focus on
mental health in the settings where
children spend most of their day and
where families are provided the services
that they need to help their children
succeed in school and in life.
In addition to children, the impact of
poor adult mental health has also
garnered national attention, including
the importance of addressing mental
health for the ECE workforce.146 In
2021, 57.8 million adults (22.8 percent)
were affected by mental illness and 46.3
million (16.5 percent) of people aged 12
and older had a substance use
disorder.147 We know that mental health
of young children is intertwined with
the mental health of the adults that care
for them. We also know that early
childhood experiences, like trusting
relationships with caregivers in a stable,
nurturing environment, aid in the
development of skills that build
resilience. Head Start is in a unique
position to provide these experiences
and extend them to the home
environment. Fostering a child’s
relationship with adults in their life and
providing them with the best
environment to grow requires an
intentional focus on both child and
adult well-being. Head Start strives to
do both.
Changes to the HSPPS related to
mental health are needed to leverage
and build on Head Start’s capacity to
promote wellness and prevent future
mental health challenges for Head Start
children, families, and staff. The
approach taken in this NPRM aligns
with efforts across HHS 148 to (1)
Journal of Public Health 93(9). 1576–1582. doi:
10.2105/ajph.93.9.1576.
145 https://www.nami.org/Blogs/NAMI-Blog/
August-2020/Ways-We-Can-Address-the-SocialDeterminants-of-Mental-Health.
146 Otten, J.J., Bradford, V.A., Stover, B., Hill,
H.D., Osborne, C., Getts, K., & Seixas, N. (2019). The
culture of health in early care and education:
workers’ wages, health, and job characteristics.
Health affairs, 38(5), 709–720.
147 Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration. (2022). Key substance use and
mental health indicators in the United States:
Results from the 2021 National Survey on Drug Use
and Health (HHS Publication No. PEP22–07–01–
005, NSDUH Series H–57). Center for Behavioral
Health Statistics and Quality, Substance Abuse and
Mental Health Services Administration. https://
www.samhsa.gov/data/report/2021-nsduh-annualnational-report.
148 Working to ensure that all young children and
their caregivers have access to high-quality
resources that equitably support social-emotional
development and mental health. U.S. Department of
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
increase mental health integration,
coordination, and consultation in a
range of settings outside traditional
mental health service spaces; (2) create
healthy environments that focus on
promotion and prevention efforts across
the lifespan; and (3) connect people to
the care they need via an approach that
engages high-risk populations in
integrated mental health care through
targeted outreach tailored to their
needs.149
The proposed changes described here
cut across multiple areas of the
standards and serve to strengthen,
clarify, and enhance existing Head Start
requirements to highlight a
comprehensive and integrated approach
to elevate mental health across the
entire Head Start program. Head Start
programs are a conduit to mental health
services for those most in need and are
settings in which children spend a
significant amount of time. With an
emphasis on a holistic approach to
healthy development, it stands to reason
that the HSPPS should reflect the
importance of this service in an
integrated fashion. The proposed
changes clarify what is meant by
wellness promotion, affirm that mental
health is included in health services
provided in Head Start, strengthen
language to integrate coordinating
support for child and adult mental
health, incorporate strengths-based
language by reducing the focus on
concerns or challenging behaviors
related to mental health and adding a
focus on supports and development of
children, strengthen requirements to
prevent and work towards eliminating
all suspension and expulsions in Head
Start programs, clarify expectations and
responsibilities of the mental health
consultant by aligning the definition of
infant and early childhood mental
health consultation with the Substance
Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration (SAMHSA) and research
in the field, and reduce barriers to
obtaining mental health consultation
services by clarifying staff qualifications
and removing language that consent is
needed by a parent as mental health
consultants do not provide treatment.150
Implementation of these changes will
involve both updates to existing practice
Health and Human Services, Administration for
Children and Families, Early Childhood
Development, 2022.
149 https://aspe.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/
documents/4e2fff45d3f5706d35326b320ed842b3/
roadmap-behavioral-health-integration.pdf.
150 Mental health consultation is a preventionbased approach that teams a mental health
professional with early care and education staff and
families. This team works on ways to help promote
the social and emotional development of the young
children in their care.
E:\FR\FM\20NOP2.SGM
20NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
as well as new internal processes for
programs. OHS will support programs
as they implement these enhanced
requirements through the robust Head
Start training and technical assistance
system.
1302 Subpart A—Eligibility,
Recruitment, Selection, Enrollment, and
Attendance
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Section 1302.17 describes Head
Start’s policies that severely limit
suspension and prohibit expulsion due
to a child’s behavior. Data with
nationally representative samples of
State-funded prekindergarten programs,
including Head Start programs, have
found that over 10 percent of preschool
teachers expelled at least one
preschooler in the previous year, which
was three times the rate for K–12
students.151 Suspension and expulsion
practices have long-lasting negative
impacts for young children and their
families, including on children’s later
school attendance, academics, and
family stress. Additionally, research has
well documented that
disproportionalities exist in suspending
or expelling students who are young
boys of color, children with disabilities,
and children who are dual language
learners.152 For example, in the 2017–
2018 school year there were about 2800
preschool suspensions, and African
American boys received 43 percent of
suspensions despite making up 18
percent of preschool enrollment.153
ACF has a focus on preventing use of
suspension and expulsion in programs,
and ensuring that any use of these
disciplinary practices does not
perpetuate disproportionalities across
different groups of children, and many
of the proposed changes to regulations
codify this further. This NPRM retains
the prohibition on expulsions and
severe limitations on use of suspension,
clarifying that suspension is a measure
of last resort to allow the program time
to put needed supports and
accommodations in place. Additionally,
several of the mental health related
approaches proposed in this NPRM are
targeted at building adult capacity to
151 Gilliam, W.S. (2005). Prekindergarteners left
behind: Expulsion rates in state prekindergarten
systems. New York, NY: Foundation for Child
Development.
152 Horowitz, M. (2015). Early Childhood
Suspension and Expulsion. Center on Enhancing
Early Learning Outcomes (CEELO). Retrieved from:
https://ceelo.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/
ceelo_annotated_bib_expulsion_2015_08_final_
web.pdf.
153 U.S Department of Education Office for Civil
Rights (2021). An overview of exclusionary
discipline practices in public schools for the 2017–
18 school year. See https://ocrdata.ed.gov/assets/
downloads/crdc-exclusionary-school-discipline.pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:04 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
understand and respond to challenging
behaviors associated with suspension/
expulsion early and effectively, such as
requiring staff to be trained to
understand behavior and implement
positive disciplinary strategies as well
as effective implementation of mental
health consultation.154 The proposed
changes to the suspension and
expulsion section of the standards are
intended to further our efforts to reduce
the use of suspension and expulsion
and clarify terminology and
expectations related to suspension and
expulsion practices.
First, we propose to add broad
definitions of suspension and expulsion
to § 1305.2 to provide clarity on which
disciplinary practices are captured
under these respective categories. The
broader definitions proposed here align
with Caring for our Children standards,
which are developed in collaboration
with experts and widely used in ECE
settings, and the Head Start Center for
Inclusion.155 We propose to define
expulsion as the permanent removal of
a child from the learning setting or a
requirement that a child unenroll in a
program. We propose to define
suspension as the temporary removal of
a child from the learning setting
including all reductions in the amount
of time a child may be in attendance of
the regular group setting, either by
requiring the child to cease attendance
for a particular period of time or
reducing the number of days or amount
of time that a child may attend.
Requiring a child to attend the program
away from the other children in the
regular group setting is included in this
definition. Requiring the parent or the
parent’s designee to pick up a child for
reasons other than illness or injury is
also included in this definition.
The goal of suspension should always
be for the child to return to the least
restrictive and most integrated
educational environment safely and
expediently. We do not provide
guidelines for the specific length of time
for suspensions because the appropriate
time depends on many factors, such as
the immediacy and severity of the safety
concern and the complexity and
availability of supports needed to
facilitate the child’s return to full
participation. Suspensions should not
be used indefinitely or repeatedly, and
longer periods of suspension take away
opportunities for children to develop
the social and emotional skills that
154 Perry, D.F., Holland, C., Darling-Kuria, N., &
Nadiv, S. (2011). Challenging behavior from child
care: The role of mental health consultation (32, pp.
4–11). Zero to Three.
155 https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/childrendisabilities/article/head-start-center-inclusion.
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
80841
improve challenging behaviors in the
long-term.156 Programs should use the
temporary suspension period to actively
collaborate with families, mental health
professionals, the multidisciplinary
team responsible for mental health and
others to develop a coordinated plan
and timeline for supporting the
identified child and their family to
return to full participation. Programs
should also engage with the child and
family, mental health professionals,
multidisciplinary team responsible for
mental health, and other relevant staff,
regularly during the temporary
suspension period to ensure that the
child continues to be supported during
this time, such as through home
visitation or community services, and to
provide regular check-ins on the
program’s progress in implementing the
collaborative plan.
The existing suspension standards in
§ 1302.17(a) already include many of the
components of the approach described
above. However, we propose to add
language to clarify the expectations of
the steps that should be taken before a
suspension can be determined to be
necessary, and that a program needs to
thoroughly document plans related to
suspension similar to how they
document plans related to transferring a
child to a setting that can better meet
their needs. By documenting suspension
practices, we intend to be better
positioned to assess how and when
disproportionalities in the use of
suspensions may be occurring across
different groups of children.
Specifically, we propose to modify
§ 1302.17(a)(2) to say that a suspension
must be used only as a resort where
there is a serious safety threat that ‘‘has
not been’’ reduced instead of ‘‘cannot
be’’ reduced or eliminated to emphasize
that the program should take active
steps to attempt to reduce or eliminate
the concern and demonstrate that these
have not worked. Additionally, the
current standard notes the provision of
‘‘reasonable modifications’’ which we
propose to change to ‘‘interventions and
supports recommended by the mental
health consultant’’ to again emphasize
that prior to a suspension being
considered, it is expected that the
program engages with the mental health
consultant to apply and assess whether
supports and interventions, such as use
of visual aids or preferred seating, can
have an impact. Finally, we add an
additional phrase that reflects the
156 McCabe, L.A & Frede, E.C. (2007). Challenging
behaviors and the role of preschool education. New
Brunswick, NJ: National Institute for Early
Education Research. Available: nieer.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/08/16.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\20NOP2.SGM
20NOP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
80842
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
intended purpose of a temporary
suspension, ‘‘and the program needs
time to put additional appropriate
services in place.’’
In addition to the mental health
consultant, we have added in
§ 1302.17(a)(3) that ‘‘the
multidisciplinary team responsible for
mental health’’ must also be part of the
discussion before a program determines
whether a temporary suspension is
necessary. This new addition of a
multidisciplinary team is discussed
further in proposed changes to § 1302.45
below.
If a temporary suspension is deemed
necessary by the program, we have
added proposed language to
1302.17(a)(4) to clarify and strengthen
existing standards regarding what a
program must do to bring the child back
to the program as expediently as
possible. Specifically, we propose to
add a statement to of § 1302.17(a)(4) that
states a program must explore all
possible steps and document all steps
taken to address the behavior(s) and
supports needed to facilitate the child’s
safe reentry and continued participation
in the program. In outlining these steps,
we propose to strengthen existing
language in § 1302.17(a)(4)(i) to (iii) to
further clarify and enhance the actions
a program must take to reengage the
child in program services. First, we
propose to revise § 1302.17(a)(4)(i) by
adding ‘‘the multidisciplinary team
responsible for mental health, and other
appropriate staff’’ to clarify that these
are additional groups the program must
continue to engage to support the child.
Next, we propose to remove current
§ 1302.17(a)(4)(ii), which requires a
written plan to document action and
supports, as this is now incorporated
into new language proposed for
§ 1302.17(a)(4), described previously.
Next, we propose to redesignate
§ 1302.17(a)(4)(iii) as § 1302.17(a)(4)(ii)
and further enhance this requirement by
adding language that clarifies that home
visits could be one of multiple
additional services for the child. The
revised § 1302.17(a)(4)(ii) reads
‘‘Providing additional program supports
and services, including home visits.’’
Finally, we propose to redesignate
§ 1302.17(a)(4)(iv) as § 1302.17(a)(4)(iii)
and enhance this standard with
additional language that requires
coordination with a child’s individual
family service plan (IFSP) or individual
education plan (IEP), if appropriate. In
the rare instance the program is unable
to meet the needs of a child while they
are in the learning setting, our intent is
that these changes will provide
sufficient clarity on how to return a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:04 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
child quickly to program services with
the correct supports in place.
Furthermore, while Head Start
prohibits expulsion, as stated in
§ 1302.17(b), we do know there are
instances where there is a more
appropriate placement for a child. In
those instances, it is imperative that the
child is not unenrolled from the Head
Start program without having a more
appropriate placement to attend that is
prepared to provide services
immediately. Therefore, we propose to
add additional language to the end of
§ 1302.17(b)(3) to clarify that a program
must work to directly facilitate the
transition of the child to a more
appropriate placement ‘‘that can
immediately enroll and provide services
to the child.’’ We also propose to add
language to § 1302.17(b)(2) and (b)(3) to
require that the multidisciplinary team
responsible for mental health join in
discussions of how to prevent an
expulsion from occurring, as well as
new language to require engagement of
parents in § 1302.17(b)(2). Taken
together, we believe these changes will
ensure that the child is surrounded by
the appropriate care team that can make
decisions in the best interest of the
child. It is particularly important that
we incorporate parents early on as we
know that high expulsion rates are an
indicator that we are not helping
parents and caregivers to support the
positive social and emotional
development that is foundational for
positive future outcomes.157
ACF seeks public comment on
whether the proposed definitions for
suspension and expulsion are
appropriate, as well as on the process
proposed in order to support programs
in determining whether a temporary
suspension is warranted.
1302 Subpart D—Health Program
Services
There are many barriers to mental
health care, including stigmatization of
mental health and concerns about
availability of the behavioral health
workforce.158 By strengthening
promotion and prevention efforts
throughout the standards, we are
seeking to provide a strong socialemotional foundation for children by
being more intentional about the
integration of mental health supports
across all aspects of the Head Start
program. We intend to reinforce that
mental health is integral to many other
aspects of the Head Start system and
157 https://www.zerotothree.org/preventingexpulsion-from-preschool-and-child-care/.
158 https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-23105250.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
propose regulatory changes that utilize
preventive approaches to mental health
in other comprehensive service areas,
such as health and family engagement.
If programs have conversations about
mental health early and often, they can
also identify children, families, and staff
with specific needs and intervene before
more time and resource intensive care
becomes necessary.
Subpart D outlines the program
requirements to support the provision of
high-quality health, oral health, mental
health, and nutrition services. We
propose to change the name of this
section from ‘‘Health Program Services’’
to ‘‘Health and Mental Health Program
Services’’ to include mental health more
explicitly in the standards, affirm that
mental health is a critical component of
health, and to facilitate ease of access to
standards that closely relate to mental
health topics.
§ 1302.40 Purpose
This section describes the overarching
purpose of health and mental health
program services in Head Start. In
paragraph (b) we propose to replace
‘‘Health Services Advisory Committee’’
with ‘‘Health and Mental Health
Services Advisory Committee’’ to
include mental health more explicitly in
this requirement. The proposed change
will clarify that mental health should be
represented in conversations about
health needs and services, including in
the advisory committee. The proposed
change would carry throughout the
proposed standards for consistency,
including in § 1302.42(b)(1)(i),
§ 1302.43(b)(4), and § 1302.94(a).
§ 1302.41 Collaboration and
Communication With Parents
Section 1302.41 requires Head Start
programs to collaborate with parents as
partners in the health and well-being of
their children and communicate timely
with parents about their children’s
health needs and development
concerns.
Throughout § 1302.41, we propose to
add ‘‘mental health’’ wherever health is
mentioned to clarify that mental health
is an integral part of health.
Incorporating mental health into
conversations about a child’s
development and health normalizes and
destigmatizes talking about mental
health. These proposed regulatory
changes are intended to increase
conversations about mental health
strengths and areas of concern early on
with parents so that everyone has the
information and tools to support the
child’s mental health across different
settings, contributing to reducing
barriers to accessing care and increasing
E:\FR\FM\20NOP2.SGM
20NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
the chance that future mental illness
will be prevented.
§ 1302.42
Child Health Status and Care
Section 1302.42 describes the
requirements of programs with respect
to a child’s health status and care,
including the timelines by which
programs must ensure a child has an
ongoing source of continuous,
accessible health care; determine if a
child is up to date on a schedule of ageappropriate care; and obtain or perform
evidence-based vision and hearing
screenings. We propose two changes to
this section.
First, we know that many young
children with mental health issues do
not have them identified by the time
they enter elementary school,159 and are
therefore losing a critical opportunity to
receive early interventions and
supports. The current regulations only
specify that programs should ensure
that children are up to date with
medical, developmental, and oral health
care schedules. Regular screening for
mental health concerns is also necessary
to ensure children and families with
needs are identified early so that they
can access appropriate interventions.
Therefore, in § 1302.42 (b)(1)(i), we
propose to add ‘‘mental health’’ to align
with the purpose and intent of the Early
and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic and
Treatment (EPSDT) benefit that provides
comprehensive and preventive health
care services, including mental health,
for children who are enrolled in
Medicaid.160
Second, in § 1302.42 (b)(4), we
propose to add ‘‘relevant developmental
or mental health concerns’’ to clarify
that when a program is identifying a
child’s nutritional health needs, that
developmental and mental health
concerns should also be considered.
This proposed addition is intended to
capture best practices in the field,
which acknowledge that developmental
and mental health factors such as
sensory aversions and feeding disorders
play a role in nutritional health.161
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
159 Glascoe,
F.P. (2005). Screening for
developmental and behavioral problems. Mental
retardation and developmental disabilities research
reviews, 11(3), 173–179.
160 https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/benefits/
early-and-periodic-screening-diagnostic-andtreatment/.
161 Zero to Three (2016). DC: 0–5: Diagnostic
Classification of mental health and developmental
disorders of infancy and early childhood.
Washington, DC; American Psychiatric Association.
Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental
disorders (DSM–5) American Psychiatric Pub; 2013.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:04 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
§ 1302.45 Child Mental Health and
Social and Emotional Well-Being
This section outlines what programs
must do to support a culture that
promotes children’s mental health and
outlines the scope of responsibilities of
mental health consultants. For reasons
stated at the outset of this section, Head
Start has the capacity to reach people
who are at higher risk for experiencing
stressors and barriers to care and
provide integrated preventive mental
health supports into comprehensive
services provided for the child and
family. We propose numerous changes
to § 1302.45 to strengthen, clarify and
enhance existing Head Start mental
health requirements, including
intentionally integrating more staff
attuned to the mental health needs of
children and families by requiring a
multidisciplinary team responsible for
mental health within the program. This
multidisciplinary team is intended to
both destigmatize mental health and
increase the capacity and reach of the
mental health consultant. Other
proposed changes range from important
revisions to language to proposed
changes to the approach to service
delivery. We describe each of these
changes in turn.
First, we propose to change the title
of this section from ‘‘Child mental
health and social and emotional wellbeing’’ to ‘‘Supports for mental health
and well-being.’’ Research demonstrates
that child well-being is inextricably
linked to adult well-being and in order
to address child mental health, we need
to address the mental health of
caregivers as well, including both staff
and parents.162
Next, we propose four changes in
§ 1302.45(a). First, in the overarching
requirement, we propose to change
‘‘Wellness promotion’’ to ‘‘Programwide wellness supports’’ to align with
the new title of this section and to
clarify that programs should provide
wellness supports across the program.
Second, we propose to remove
‘‘children’s’’ in this section to clarify
that program-wide wellness supports
162 Wolicki SB, Bitsko RH, Cree RA, et al.
Associations of mental health among parents and
other primary caregivers with child health
indicators: Analysis of caregivers, by sex—National
Survey of Children’s Health, 2016–2018, Adversity
and Resilience Science: Journal of Research and
Practice. Published online April 19, 2021. Lowry C,
Stegeman I, Rauch F, Jani A. Modifying the school
determinants of children’s health. J R Soc Med.
2022;115(1):16–21. doi:10.1177/
01410768211051718. Jeon L, Buettner CK, Grant
AA, Lang SN. Early childhood teachers’ stress and
children’s social, emotional, and behavioral
functioning. Journal of Applied Developmental
Psychology. 2019;61:21–32. doi: 10.1016/
j.appdev.2018.02.002.
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
80843
are intended to promote the wellness of
both children and adults. Third, we also
propose to add ‘‘safety’’ in the
description of a program-wide culture
because wellness is dependent on
meeting basic needs, including safety,
and because it aligns with language in
other standards which refer to
children’s health and safety.163
Fourth, to clarify what programs must
do to support a program-wide culture
that promotes mental health, social and
emotional well-being, and overall health
and safety, we add new guidance to
§ 1302.45(a) that a program must ‘‘have
a multidisciplinary team responsible for
mental health.’’ In addition to
integrating more people into the
conversation to address mental health,
the multidisciplinary team responsible
for mental health is also intended to
develop and implement mental health
efforts and supports that are not related
to consultation, and to facilitate
communication across service areas and
systems in Head Start. The formation of
such a team also aligns with
recommendations by infant and early
childhood consultation experts to have
a group that can provide strategic
planning, guidance and coordination
related to mental health.164 By requiring
a multidisciplinary team focused on
mental health, we also aim for mental
health supports and interventions,
which have the potential to be more
sustainable in programs. Currently, if
the program relies on a consultant to
provide all mental health related
services, issues such as the availability
of the mental health workforce and
turnover may have a larger impact on
the continuation of quality services.
Multidisciplinary means the
involvement of two or more separate
disciplines or professions that actively
work in tandem with parents to provide
supports for children and families.165
For example, a mental health team may
be comprised of a family service worker,
teacher, mental health manager,
disability service coordinator, and
health specialist. This list is not
intended to be exhaustive, and the
intent is for programs to have flexibility
in determining the appropriate
163 SAMHSA (2016). Creating a Healthier Life: A
Step-by-Step Guide to Wellness. Publication ID:
SMA16–4958. Available online at https://
store.samhsa.gov/product/Creating-a-HealthierLife/SMA16-4958.
164 Green, B. & Allen, M.D. (2012). Developing
and Implementing a Program wide Vision for
Effective Mental Health Consultation. Center for
Early Childhood Mental Health Consultation.
https://www.iecmhc.org/documents/CECMHC_
AdministratorsToolkit.pdf.
165 For a federally accepted definition of
‘multidisciplinary,’ see: https://sites.ed.gov/idea/
regs/c/a/303.24.
E:\FR\FM\20NOP2.SGM
20NOP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
80844
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
composition of the multidisciplinary
team. The rationale for this change is
that providing program-wide wellness
supports cannot rely on one individual
such as a mental health consultant, and
that many individuals working in Head
Start already have expertise that can
benefit program-wide wellness support
efforts. Based on our experience
overseeing the implementation of the
Head Start program across the country,
recipients that are most effective at
supporting mental health create a team
comprised of multiple individuals that
may work with children, families, or
staff in different capacities. We also
want to acknowledge that many Head
Start programs already have this
practice in place in the form of case
conferencing, which will facilitate the
implementation of this practice as
described in the proposed regulation.
Furthermore, the establishment of a
formal multidisciplinary team focused
on mental health will support programs
in the implementation of the other
enhancements to mental health services
described in this proposal.
In addition to the changes to the
overarching requirement in paragraph
(a), we also propose changes and
additions to the provisions for what
activities are expected from the
program-wide wellness supports, for a
total of six provisions. The first
provision, new § 1302.45(a)(1),
describes that the multidisciplinary
team responsible for mental health
‘‘coordinates supports for adult mental
health and well-being including
engaging in nurturing and responsive
relationships with families, engaging
families in home visiting services, and
promoting staff health and wellness, as
described in § 1302.93.’’ We believe this
language clarifies how a program most
effectively addresses adult mental
health.
For the second provision, we propose
to redesignate current § 1302.45(a)(1) to
become § 1302.45(a)(2) with the revised
language describing that the
multidisciplinary team’s role is to
‘‘coordinate’’ as opposed to ‘‘provide
supports.’’ We then propose language
changes to describe what supports the
team is responsible for coordinating,
including supports for positive learning
environments, supportive teacher
practices and strategies to support
children’s mental health concerns.
Specifically, we propose to remove
‘‘effective classroom management’’ since
this specific term is less aligned with a
strengths-based approach and can
contribute to stigma related to a child’s
behavior. Instead, we keep the broader
strengths-based term of positive learning
environments, as classroom
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:04 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
management is one part of creating a
positive learning environment, and the
need to monitor and effectively respond
to child behavior applies across program
options. We also make clear that these
positive learning environments are for
‘‘all children’’. Finally, we propose to
replace ‘‘challenging behaviors’’ with
‘‘behavioral or mental health concerns’’
to align with mental health language in
other sectors that are less stigmatizing
and more reflective of the concern
programs are addressing within infant
and early childhood mental health.
We propose to remove the current
§ 1302.45(a)(3), which states that ‘‘a
program must obtain parental consent
for mental health consultation services
at enrollment’’ as this phrasing implies
that mental health consultants provide
treatment when, in fact, they provide
consultation services, which do not
require parental consent because the
child is not directly receiving the
service. Further, consistent with how
programs communicate with parents
about health and developmental
services, we propose to include mental
health services (which can include
consultation services) in § 1302.41(b)(1).
For the third provision, in new
paragraph § 1302.45(a)(3), we propose to
redesignate language from the current
(a)(2) and further revise the language by
replacing ‘‘schedule of sufficient and
consistent frequency’’ with ‘‘no less
than once a month’’ to specify, at a
minimum, how often mental health
consultation services should be
provided in the program in order for
partnerships with staff and families to
be timely and effective. Experts from
SAMHSA’s Center of Excellence in
Infant and Early Childhood Mental
Health Consultation recommend that
mental health consultation services
should be provided at least every other
week, though considerations such as the
size of the program and availability of
services in the community can also
impact the suggested frequency of
consultation.166 We recognize that a
biweekly frequency may not be feasible
for all programs at this time, particularly
in the context of larger concerns about
recruiting and retaining an adequate
mental health workforce.167 Therefore,
we propose a minimum monthly
frequency for these services, which we
believe provides a regular enough
schedule of services to allow for
166 U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Administration for Children and Families,
Office of Head Start, National Center on Parent,
Family, and Community Engagement. (2019). Infant
and Early Childhood Mental Health Consultation:
Engaging with Families.
167 https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-23105250.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
opportunities to embed the consultant
into the program and therefore provide
more effective services. ACF specifically
requests comment on this section
regarding whether ‘‘no less than once a
month’’ as a minimum frequency is
appropriate to meet the mental health
consultation needs of programs. We also
add to new (a)(3) that the
multidisciplinary team responsible for
mental health ‘‘examines the approach
to mental health consultation on an
annual basis to determine if it meets the
needs of the program’’ in order to
provide continuous quality
improvement to ensure that the systems
set up in the program are meeting the
mental health needs of adults and
children in the program. Examples of
ways programs may want to examine
their approach could include
determining whether the program size
and needs are being met by the
frequency of consultation services or
whether the program needs to change
who is targeted to receive consultation
services.
For the fourth provision, we propose
an entirely new § 1302.45(a)(4) that
requires that the multidisciplinary team
responsible for mental health ‘‘ensures
that all children receive adequate
screening and appropriate follow up
and the parent receives referrals about
how to access services for potential
social, emotional, behavioral, or other
mental health concerns, as described in
§ 1302.33.’’ This language clarifies the
responsibility of the program to ensure
screenings related to social and
emotional milestones that impact
mental health are completed or obtained
from an appropriate provider.
Additionally, the responsibility of the
program is to ensure appropriate follow
up and referral for necessary supports or
services takes place, as warranted,
which may be done in coordination
with health and other early childhood
systems.
For the fifth provision, we propose an
entirely new § 1302.45(a)(5) where we
propose to add that the
multidisciplinary team responsible for
mental health must facilitate
coordination and collaboration between
mental health and other relevant
program services, including education,
disability, family engagement, and
health services. We believe this
language clarifies and emphasizes that
mental health should be considered
holistically along with physical health
and requires a program-wide approach
that includes coordinating across
program services.
Finally, the sixth provision in
§ 1302.45(a) is a redesignation of an
existing provision. We propose that the
E:\FR\FM\20NOP2.SGM
20NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
current § 1302.45(a)(4) be redesignated
to new § 1302.45(a)(6) to accommodate
the changes described in the previous
paragraphs.
Next, we propose numerous changes
to paragraph (b) of § 1302.45 and its
provisions. We recognize there is an
ongoing need to strengthen and build a
more diverse behavioral health
workforce. We also recognize that
mental health consultants with specific
early childhood expertise are
particularly challenging for programs to
identify and secure. To address this
barrier and facilitate the implementation
of the proposed enhancements to other
mental health policies, the proposed
regulation changes in § 1302.91(e)(8)(ii),
discussed later in this section,
specifically allow programs to secure
mental health consultation from
professionals who are in the process of
obtaining licensure and are under the
supervision of a licensed mental health
professional. We also include proposed
language that reflects the existing
literature on effective practices in infant
and early childhood consultation.
Together, the proposed changes in
§ 1302.45(b) are intended to align the
standards with best practices in infant
and early childhood mental health
consultation.168 Most notably, the
changes are intended to require that
programs focus consultation services on
promotion and prevention efforts by
broadening and building programmatic
and adult capacity to support the mental
health of the children for whom they
care. We also add language in this
section that clarifies expectations and
responsibilities of the mental health
consultant by aligning with the
definition of the consultation model that
appears in research as well as in other
Federal entities such as the Substance
Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration. We include general
types of consultation services that can
be leveraged within programs in the six
provisions that follow. However,
effective consultation occurs when there
is ongoing collaboration between
consultant and consultee and
consideration of individualized
strengths and needs.169
168 Duran, F. et al. (2009). What Works?: A Study
of Effective Early Childhood Mental Health
Consultation Programs. Washington, DC:
Georgetown University Center for Child and Human
Development.; Kaufmann, R. et al. (2012). Creating
Practice-Based Principles for Effective Early
Childhood Mental Health Consultation Services.
Washington, DC: Georgetown University Center for
Child and Human Development.
169 Kaufmann, R., Perry, D., Irvine, M., Duran, F.,
Hepburn, K., & Bruno, A. (2012. Creating PracticeBased Principles for Effective Early Childhood
Mental Health Consultation Services. Center for
Child and Human Development, Georgetown
University.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:04 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
In the first provision, § 1302.45(b)(1),
we add to the existing language to
clarify a central type of mental health
consultation with the program is
focused on promotion and prevention of
mental health concerns, in addition to
identifying and supporting existing
mental health concerns.
For the second provision,
§ 1302.45(b)(2), we propose several
changes that clarify that mental health
consultants can consult with any staff
who work with children and families,
which may include teachers, family
child care providers, or home visitors,
and describe the general goals of this
type of consultation. This change aligns
with our approach of ensuring that
every adult who works with children
can benefit from understanding and
receiving supports related to mental
health. First, we propose to replace
‘‘teachers, including family child care
providers’’ with ‘‘child and family
services staff’’ to clarify that mental
health consultation can occur with any
staff member who works with children
and families. For example, some
programs may determine with their
consultant that they would like to
increase consultation targeted at
engaging home visitors, given that
program’s specific needs. We also
propose to remove the phrase ‘‘improve
classroom management and supportive
teacher practices’’ to align with the
clarification that mental health
consultation is not solely focused on
specific classroom or teaching practices.
Next, we propose to replace ‘‘through
strategies that include using classroom
observations and consultations to
address teacher and individual child
needs and creating physical and cultural
environments’’ with ‘‘implement
strategies that build nurturing and
responsive relationships and create
positive learning environments.’’ We
believe this language more clearly aligns
with the intended role of a mental
health consultant to help child and
family staff implement strategies that
will build strong relationships and
positive learning environments, which
should not be limited only to
conducting observations. We also note
that building positive learning
environments may still include
activities such as classroom
management, supportive teacher
practices, and creating positive physical
and cultural environments. Our
intention is to encourage flexibility and
to acknowledge that there are many
ways to build relationships and learning
environments. Finally, we also propose
to replace the phrase ‘‘functioning’’ with
‘‘development of all children’’ to specify
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
80845
that when working with infants and
toddlers as well as preschoolers, the
focus is on social and emotional
development and creating environments
and relationships that have the capacity
to help young children grow in these
foundational skills.
In the third provision, § 1302.45(b)(3),
we propose to replace ‘‘other staff,
including home visitors’’ with ‘‘staff
who have contact with children’’ to
clarify that the mental health
consultants can provide consultation to
any staff that have contact with children
as needed, including, for example,
transportation staff or food services
staff. Our rationale for this change is to
elevate that any staff who have contact
with children play an important role in
promoting young children’s mental
health and wellness. We also propose to
remove ‘‘to meet children’s mental
health and social and emotional needs
through strategies that include
observation and consultation’’ as mental
health consultation is not a strategy of
consultation. Instead, we propose to add
the elements outlined in the current
§ 1302.45(b)(4) to § 1302.45(b)(3),
including the existing phrase ‘‘prevalent
child mental health concerns;
internalizing problems such as
appearing withdrawn and externalizing
problems such as challenging
behaviors’’, which we propose to further
revise. We propose to clarify what is
meant by ‘‘addressing’’ prevalent child
mental health concerns in the current
§ 1302.45(b)(4) by adding to
§ 1302.45(b)(3) ‘‘to understand and
appropriately respond to.’’ Finally, we
propose to revise and expand what is
meant by prevalent child mental health
concerns by revising that phrase to
‘‘prevalent child mental health
concerns, including internalizing
problems such as appearing withdrawn,
externalizing problems such as
behavioral concerns; and how exposure
to trauma and substance use can
influence risk’’.
In a new fourth provision,
§ 1302.45(b)(4), we use language from
the current § 1302.45(b)(5) and propose
to replace ‘‘parents’’ with ‘‘families’’ to
expand with whom the consultant can
provide consultation within a child’s
family unit. We also propose to add the
phrase ‘‘or supports’’ to clarify that
mental health consultation is not
limited to accessing interventions.
Furthermore, we propose to add
‘‘including in the event of a natural
disaster or crisis’’ to clarify that mental
health consultants are vital in
emergency, preparedness, response and
recovery.
Finally, the last provisions of
1302.45(b) are intended to highlight two
E:\FR\FM\20NOP2.SGM
20NOP2
80846
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
situations in which involving a mental
health consultant is crucial. Expulsion
and suspension, as reviewed previously,
can have long-lasting impacts on stress
and mental health of children and
families and therefore Head Start has
prohibited or severely limited these
disciplinary practices. The proposed
changes require the program to engage
the mental health consultant so that
supports and accommodations are in
place to ensure children’s safe and full
participation in the program.
Specifically, in the fifth provision,
§ 1302.45(b)(5), we propose to use
language from the current
§ 1302.45(b)(6) and add ‘‘the program’’
to clarify that implementation of
policies to limit suspension and
prohibit expulsion would occur in
consultation with the program.
Similarly, we recognize that child
safety incidents can negatively impact
the mental health of children and their
families, as well as their relationships
with the program. Therefore, we
propose to add a sixth provision,
§ 1302.45(b)(6), which requires a
program to support the well-being of
children and families involved in any
significant child health, mental health,
or safety incident described in
§ 1302.102(d)(1)(ii). As health and safety
are a part of well-being, it falls within
the role of a mental health consultant to
ensure that the program, affected staff,
child, and/or family members are
connected to appropriate supports if an
incident impacting a child’s health and
safety occurs.
§ 1302.46 Family Support Services for
Health, Nutrition, and Mental Health
Section 1302.46 requires programs to
collaborate with families to promote
children’s health and well-being and
describes what that collaboration must
include. We propose several changes to
this section. These proposed changes
are intended to integrate the preventive
approach to mental health into family
support services by using more
strengths-based language, providing
opportunities to engage families in
discussions about mental health even
when there is not an identified problem,
and ensuring the mental health of
parents is also a function of family
support services. First, in paragraph
§ 1302.46(b)(1)(iii), we propose to
replace ‘‘substance abuse problems’’
with ‘‘substance use concerns’’ to use
language that is person-centered and
destigmatizing. We also propose to
remove ‘‘perinatal’’ before ‘‘depression’’
and add ‘‘anxiety’’ to provide a more
comprehensive description of what is
meant by common parent mental health
concerns.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:04 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
Second, in § 1302.46(b)(1)(iv), we
propose to remove ‘‘identify issues
related to child mental health and social
and emotional well-being, including
observations and any concerns about
their child’s mental health’’ and replace
it with ‘‘information related to their
child’s mental health with staff,
including.’’ We believe that this
language clarifies a strengths-based
approach to mental health where
parents are not expected to identify
issues with child mental health and that
the focus of collaboration with parents
is to help them respond appropriately to
their individual child.
Third, in § 1302.46(b)(2), we propose
to add ‘‘and mental health systems’’ to
clarify that a program must support
parents’ navigation of mental health
systems in addition to the health
system. The purpose of this change is to
acknowledge that navigation of health
and mental health systems may be
complex for families served by Head
Start. The intent is to clarify our
expectation that Head Start programs
assist families in navigating these
systems, which will ultimately benefit
the family beyond their time in Head
Start. Finally, we also propose a new
§ 1302.46(b)(2)(iv) that reads ‘‘in
providing information about how to
access evidence-based mental health
services for young children and their
families, including referrals if
appropriate’’ to clarify what is meant by
helping parents navigate the mental
health system.
1302 Subpart H—Services to Enrolled
Pregnant Women and People
Section 1302.81 describes the prenatal
and postpartum information, education,
and services programs must provide
enrolled pregnant women and people,
fathers, and partners or other relevant
family members. Perinatal mental health
conditions are experienced in up to 20
percent of pregnancies and can have
significant impacts on children and
families.170 There is increasing
recognition that depression is not the
only mental health condition that can be
exacerbated by or emerge during the
perinatal period, and that mental health
concerns can impact family members
who are not pregnant.171 Therefore, we
propose changes in § 1302.81 that are
intended to broaden the scope of
170 Howard, L.M., & Khalifeh, H. (2020). Perinatal
mental health: a review of progress and challenges.
World Psychiatry, 19(3), 313–327.
171 Rao, W.W., Zhu, X.M., Zong, Q.Q., Zhang, Q.,
Hall, B.J., Ungvari, G.S., & Xiang, Y.T. (2020).
Prevalence of prenatal and postpartum depression
in fathers: A comprehensive meta-analysis of
observational surveys. Journal of affective disorders,
263, 491–499. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jad.2019.10.030.
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
awareness of the mental health
information and education that may be
helpful to provide to expectant families.
Additionally, our proposed changes
more explicitly recognize ties between
social support and mental health and
call for programs to ensure that social
support is part of prenatal and postnatal services for enrolled families.
More specifically, we propose four
changes to § 1302.81(a) to highlight
potential services related to mental
health and to promote language that is
more inclusive of family members and
social supports. First, we propose to
remove the word ‘‘relevant’’ that
currently precedes ‘‘family members.’’
This change is intended to be inclusive
of different family compositions, clarify
that any family member identified by
the enrolled pregnant woman or person
may be eligible to receive such
information, and make clear that a
program does not have to determine
whether a family member is relevant.
Second, we propose to revise the phrase
‘‘benefits of breastfeeding’’ to
‘‘including breastfeeding’’ and relocate
it to earlier in the standard to clarify
that this is a component of ‘‘the
importance of nutrition.’’ The purpose
of this change is to clarify that
breastfeeding, in addition to other forms
of healthy infant feeding, is one aspect
of nutrition when programs are
providing prenatal and postpartum
information. We also propose in
§ 1302.81(a) to move ‘‘parental
depression’’ from the list of information,
education, and services to a newly
created paragraph § 1302.81(b) focused
on mental health, which is discussed in
the following paragraph. We also
propose to add ‘‘and the benefits of
substance use treatment’’ to the list of
topics. Finally, we propose to add
‘‘mothers’’ to the list of family members
a program must provide information to,
to be inclusive of women who have
already given birth.
We further propose to redesignate the
current § 1302.81(b) to § 1302.81(c) and
insert a new § 1302.81(b). The proposed
new § 1302.81(b) requires programs to
support pregnant women, mothers,
fathers, partners, or other family
members to access mental health
services, including referrals, as
appropriate, to address concerns
including perinatal depression, anxiety,
grief or loss, birth trauma, and substance
use. This language captures common
mental health concerns that can arise
during the perinatal period.172
172 Maternal Mental Health Leadership Alliance.
(July 2020). Maternal Mental Health Overview. Fact
Sheet available on online at: www.mmhla.org/factsheets Maternal Mental Health Leadership Alliance.
E:\FR\FM\20NOP2.SGM
20NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
Finally, in redesignated § 1302.81(c),
we propose to add ‘‘pregnant women’s’’
after ‘‘A program must also address’’ to
clarify whose needs are being
addressed. We also propose to add
‘‘social’’ before emotional well-being to
provide consistency with other language
throughout the HSPPS. Finally, we
propose to add ‘‘partner, or other family
member’’ to clarify that programs must
address the potential benefits of
building supports and engagement with
other family members in addition to
fathers.
1302 Subpart I—Human Resources
Management
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 1302.91 Staff Qualification and
Competency Requirements
Section 1302.91 establishes the staff
qualifications and competencies for all
staff, consultants, and contractors
engaged in the delivery of program
services. We propose two changes in
§ 1302.91(e)(8)(ii) that pertain to mental
health consultants and align with our
goals of reducing barriers to securing
consultants while maintaining effective
consultation services. First, we propose
to remove ‘‘certified’’ and replace it
with ‘‘under the supervision of a
licensed’’ to align with qualifications of
mental health consultation in the field.
Second, we propose to remove ‘‘if
available in the community.’’ We
believe that clarifying that mental health
consultants can include individuals
who are working under the supervision
of another licensed individual will open
avenues to a larger pool of mental health
consultants to choose from and provide
opportunities to build the mental health
workforce in the ECE field. We also
know that in recent years, access to
telehealth services has expanded and
overall use of telehealth modality for
services has become more prevalent.173
Even if a consultant cannot be on site,
teleconsultation services can be utilized
to work with adults in the program.
Finally, striking the ‘‘if available’’
language is intended to emphasize that
mental health consultation is vital to
(June 2021). Dads and Depression. Fact Sheet
available on online at: www.mmhla.org/fact-sheets.
173 Chu, R.C., Peters, C., De Lew, N., and
Sommers, B.D. State Medicaid Telehealth Policies
Before and During the COVID–19 Public Health
Emergency (Issue Brief No. HP–2021–17). Office of
the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation,
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
July 2021. https://aspe.hhs.gov/reports/statemedicaid-telehealth-policies. Karimi, M., Lee, E.C.,
Couture, S.J., Gonzales, A.B., Grigorescu, V., Smith,
S.R., De Lew, N., and Sommers, B.D. National
Trends in Telehealth Use in 2021: Disparities in
Utilization and Audio vs. Video Services. (Research
Report No. HP–2022–04). Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services.
February 2022.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:04 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
providing high quality comprehensive
services in Head Start programs.
§ 1302.93 Staff Health and Wellness
As described in the earlier section,
Workforce Supports: Staff Wellness,
§ 1302.93 outlines requirements of
programs in the area of staff health and
wellness with § 1302.93(b) speaking
specifically to mental health and
wellness information for staff. We
propose to expand on these
requirements to align with the goals
described in the earlier sections
Workforce Supports: Staff Wellness and
Workforce Supports: Employee
Engagement. These changes are
intended to further amplify the
importance of an intentional focus on
staff wellness to improve staff wellbeing, reduce burnout, and improve
retention, as well as to promote highquality services for children and
families.
Specifically, we propose to add a new
§ 1302.93(e) that states that a program
should cultivate a program-wide culture
of wellness that empowers staff as
professionals and supports staff to
effectively accomplish their job
responsibilities in a high-quality
manner, in line with the requirement at
§ 1302.101(a)(2). We believe this
language clarifies that program-wide
wellness supports extend to staff and
that these supports include addressing
program management such as
implementing positive employee
engagement practices, opportunities for
training and professional development
and ongoing supervisory support.174
Indeed, a recent report from the U.S.
Surgeon General highlights the
importance of employers focusing
intentionally on the mental health and
well-being of their employees. The
report establishes a framework for
workers’ mental health with a focus on
five essential areas including, creating
connection and community in the
workplace; protecting workers from
physical and mental harm; providing
intentional supports for work-life
balance including paid leave; providing
opportunities for growth and career
advancement; and making employees
feel valued in their roles in the
workplace.175
Taken together, ACF believes the
proposed changes discussed in the
Mental Health Services section will
174 https://www.cdc.gov/workplacehealth
promotion/planning/leadership.html; https://
aspe.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/private/pdf/76661/
rpt_wellness.pdf.
175 U.S. Surgeon General. (2022). The U.S.
Surgeon General’s Framework for Workplace
Mental Health & Well-Being. U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services.
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
80847
greatly improve services for children,
families, and staff. We seek public
comment on how any of the proposed
mental health requirements in this
section may impact various
communities. We specifically request
public comment from the special
populations served by Head Start,
including AIAN and MSHS programs
and communities.
Modernizing Head Start’s Engagement
With Families (§ 1302.11; § 1302.13;
§ 1302.15; § 1302.34; § 1302.50)
In Head Start’s nearly 60-year history,
programs have cultivated trust with the
public. However, ACF acknowledges
there are areas that could benefit from
time-saving improvements and muchneeded efficiencies. Below, we outline
several areas in the HSPPS where we
would like to draw specific attention to
and elevate the need for programs to
dedicate time, attention, and resources
to making improvements in the
efficiency of delivering services.
Section 1302.11 describes the
requirements programs must follow
when completing their community
needs assessment. ACF believes this is
an area where we should require
programs to identify the best and most
efficient ways of communicating with
families who are both currently enrolled
and prospective families who might be
eligible. Specifically, we propose a new
(v) under § 1302.11(b)(1) that requires
programs to identify communication
methods and modalities that best engage
with prospective and enrolled families
of all abilities. This ensures that
programs will use the community needs
assessment as a method to determine
the optimal communication modalities
(be it digital through text messaging
software, improved websites, automated
phone calls or phone lines that provide
program updates, etc.) that families
prefer.
Second, § 1302.13 outlines the
requirements for recruiting children to a
Head Start program. We propose to
include specific language regarding the
usage of modern technologies in the
program’s recruitment strategies, and we
propose to include a specific phrase on
reducing family burden during the
enrollment process. We envision
programs utilizing information they
gather from current families to learn
about ways they can reduce unnecessary
paperwork during the enrollment
process. We propose to require that
Head Start programs examine their
current enrollment processes and
determine ways to streamline and
improve their strategies. Specifically,
we propose to edit § 1302.13 to clarify
that programs must use modern
E:\FR\FM\20NOP2.SGM
20NOP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
80848
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
technologies to encourage and assist
families in applying for admission to the
program, and to streamline the
application and enrollment process,
while ensuring families without access
to technology have equitable access to
the program.
Section 1302.15 contains
requirements related to enrolling new
families into the Head Start program.
We propose the addition of a new
paragraph (g) that requires a userfriendly enrollment process. Programs
must regularly examine their enrollment
processes and implement any identified
improvements to streamline the
enrollment experience for families. This
new provision would require programs
to establish new procedures, or update
current procedures, that are streamlined
and efficient and keep the end-user in
mind. This provision would also require
programs to regularly update these
procedures to keep up with latest
innovative practices.
Section 1302.34 describes parent and
family engagement in education
services. We propose to add a new
subparagraph (9) to § 1302.34(b) that
clarifies that communication methods
and modalities used by the program
should be the best available for engaging
families of all abilities, including
currently enrolled families as well as
prospective families. These changes
would ensure that programs are
consulting and engaging with current
parents and families to be involved in
the methods the program uses to
communicate with both prospective
families and enrolled families of all
abilities. Parents and families may have
suggestions for how to improve
communication channels, methods or
modalities, or for potential innovations.
Head Start’s customers are the children
and families it serves. Including their
voices in the creation of processes and
communication streams is imperative to
making improvements to efficiencies.
The final section that we propose
updates to is § 1302.50, Family
engagement. We propose to modify the
purpose statement in § 1302.50(a) by
adding a sentence at the end that states,
‘‘This includes communicating with
families in a format that is most
accessible.’’ This section of the HSPPS
requires programs to serve both the
child and their family in innovative
two-generation approaches. Our
proposed addition would require
programs to also address
communication methods and determine
the most efficient and accessible format
that families prefer and that may be
necessary to address the needs of family
members who have limited English
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:04 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
proficiency or who are individuals with
disabilities.
We expect that many Head Start
programs are already engaging in several
of these strategies to improve their
communication methods and reach
families using the modalities and
methods that are easiest for them,
though some programs may need to
make bigger changes to meet this
proposed standard. However, overall,
we anticipate minimal costs associated
with this new requirement. Importantly,
ACF would like to ensure that all
programs are implementing these
strategies equitably and universally.
ACF recognizes that what works for one
community may not work for another,
so programs are tasked with the
challenge of meeting the unique needs
of the communities they serve. ACF
seeks public comment on how the
proposed requirements in this section
may differentially impact different
communities. We specifically request
public comment from the special
populations served by Head Start,
including AIAN and MSHS programs
and communities. Additionally, ACF
requests comments on what new and
innovative approaches or methodologies
programs might use to fulfill this
requirement, as well as potential costs
associated with new approaches.
Community Assessment (§ 1302.11)
Section 1302.11(b) requires Head Start
programs to conduct a community
assessment to design a program that
meets community needs and builds on
strengths and resources. The current
requirement describes a broad and
comprehensive assessment of
community needs, strengths, and
resources and specifies the minimum
data Head Start programs must use in
this process. The community
assessment must be done at least once
during a 5-year grant period with an
annual update of significant changes.
We recognize that many Head Start
programs utilize the community
assessment to inform the design of the
program to a great extent. However,
Head Start programs and others from the
field have raised concerns with the
requirements as currently written. First,
the standards do not clearly articulate
the purpose of the community
assessment or the purpose and scope of
the annual update. The requirement
lists the data a program must collect and
analyze without identifying the
overarching goals of the endeavor.
Second, there is concern that in some
cases, programs approach the
community assessment as an
unnecessarily detailed community
assessment with overly complex
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
analytical methodologies. Third, some
community members express concern
about the cost of the requirement. These
concerns are related; the cost can be
particularly great, for example, if a
program deploys time-consuming
surveys using complex analytical
techniques. Additionally, some
programs use program funds to hire
demographers and analysts to conduct
community assessments, which is not a
concern in itself. However, the costs of
this work could balloon if the scope of
project is too exhaustive and complex
and does not efficiently leverage
existing available data. These concerns
combined can cause costly barriers to
some programs being able to use their
community assessment data effectively
to guide programmatic decisions as
intended. Changes are proposed to this
section to promote clarity on the intent
of the community assessment, align
with best practices, incorporate
feedback from programs, and increase
the effectiveness in how the community
assessment is used to inform key aspects
of program design and approach.
In this section, we propose new
language to be specific on the intended
outcomes of the community assessment
and requiring programs to be strategic in
what data is collected and how it will
be used to achieve those intended
outcomes. This better reflects best
practices to collect meaningful data and
use it with purpose. We also propose
new language to ensure programs assess
readily available data on their
community that provides usable
information on the community for the
grant recipient to design a program that
meets the needs in the community.
Altogether, these revisions direct
programs to more effectively focus
resources allocated to their community
assessment on areas that matter most for
program design, enrolling and serving
the most in need in the community,
what services are provided, and how or
by whom families are served including
which community strengths and
resources are leveraged in service
delivery.
Specifically, we propose to split
current § 1302.11(b)(1) into two
paragraphs in order to expand on the
purpose of the community assessment
before detailing the data that programs
are required to collect and utilize.
Section 1302.11(b)(1) has been revised
to articulate the goals of the community
assessment and is designed to clarify the
purpose and intended outcomes of the
community assessment. We propose to
add a new (i) to (iv) which describe in
more detail the objectives of community
assessment which include: identifying
who programs will serve and their
E:\FR\FM\20NOP2.SGM
20NOP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
associated risk factors; how they will
serve them in a manner that reflects
their needs and diversity, while
promoting equity, inclusion, and
accessibility in service delivery;
informing eligibility, recruitment,
selection, enrollment and attendance
(ERSEA) processes to prioritize the
enrollment of those most in need of
services; and identify strengths and
resources in the community a program
can leverage in service delivery.
We propose to revise paragraph (b)(2)
so that it contains mostly existing
standards redesignated from current
paragraph (b)(1) and continues to focus
on what data a program is required to
collect, but with a few revisions. We
propose to revise (b)(2)(i) to be the stem
of the requirement to collect relevant
data on eligible children and expectant
mothers. Additionally, we revise this
clause to no longer specifically require
counts of eligible children and
expectant mothers including counts by
their geographic location, race,
ethnicity, and languages spoken for
enumerated items that follow. This has
been moved to a new item as described
in the following paragraph. Upon
moving it, it has been broadened in the
stem to ‘‘relevant demographic and
other data about’’ eligible children and
expectant mothers. This change allows
programs to make strategic decisions on
what relevant demographic and other
data to collect on eligible populations to
meet the intended outcomes of their
community assessment. Also, it
challenges programs to consider what
demographic and relevant data to
collect beyond counts of eligible
populations by geographic location,
race, ethnicity, and languages spoken.
We propose to add ‘‘Children living in
poverty’’ as the first enumerated item to
follow the revised clause in paragraph
(b)(2) to promote clarity. Programs were
already required to include data on
children living in poverty in their
community assessments since these
children are considered ‘‘eligible
infants, toddlers, and preschool age
children,’’ but adding it to the list makes
this more explicit. We propose to
redesignate A, B and C from previous
paragraph (b)(1) to follow the newly
added item (A) in paragraph (b)(2). A
new (E) is added to revised paragraph
(b)(2) which includes the language from
the current introductory clause in
(b)(1)(i) which reads ‘‘Geographic
location, race, ethnicity and languages
they speak.’’ This specific language is
pulled out to become (b)(2)(i)(E) to
continue to highlight the importance of
understanding these elements related to
the diversity of populations most in
need of services, which in turn can help
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:04 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
promote equity, inclusion, and
accessibility in service delivery as noted
in the proposed new (b)(1)(ii).
We do not propose any changes to the
rest of the required list of factors
programs must consider in redesignated
§ 1302.11(b)(2)(ii)–(vi). The only
revisions to the list are the addition of
the phrases ‘‘such as transportation
needs’’ in § 1302.11(b)(ii) as an
economic factor impacting well-being
and ‘‘especially transportation
resources’’ in § 1302.11(b)(2)(v) to
require programs to consider what
resources are available in the
community to address the needs of
eligible children and families. The
rationale for proposing to include
transportation explicitly in the
requirements for relevant data in the
community assessment is because
transportation remains a significant
barrier for many of the hardest to serve
families and impedes Head Start’s
mission. Access or lack of access to
transportation plays a role in
determining which families enroll in
and attend Head Start programs. ACF
wants to ensure transportation needs
and resources are part of the data that
informs a program’s design and service
delivery. A more extensive discussion of
transportation is included in the
Transportation and Other Barriers to
Enrollment and Attendance section of
this preamble.
We propose to add a new paragraph
(b)(3), which requires programs to have
a strategic approach to determine what
data to collect prior to conducting the
community assessment and how to use
the data acquired after conducting the
community assessment in order to
achieve the intended outcomes outlined
in the newly proposed (b)(1). This
proposed requirement helps address the
concern that some programs use overly
exhaustive approaches or using
unnecessarily complex analytical
techniques to assess their communities.
This requirement intends to align with
best practices and promote overall
effectiveness of the community
assessment to drive programmatic
decision making.
We also propose adding a new
paragraph (b)(4) to require programs to
identify certain data that would be
unreasonably burdensome and costly to
collect and consider using publicly or
locally available data as a proxy instead.
This proposed requirement addresses
the cost and complexity some programs
report in accessing certain data. For
example, a program may determine it is
unreasonable to collect data on the exact
counts of children under the age of 6
experiencing homelessness due to the
general difficulties and costliness in
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
80849
collecting accurate counts of
populations experiencing
homelessness.176 Although these counts
may be helpful, the proposed
requirement encourages this program to
consider other available data that can be
used as a proxy to meet the intended
outcomes of the community assessment
including how to prioritize the
enrollment of populations experiencing
homelessness in their community, in
what areas of their community are they
located, and what community strengths
and resources can be leveraged to
promote the delivery of program
services to these populations. It is
feasible to meet these intended
outcomes without exact counts of
children under the age of 6 experiencing
homelessness using other available data
such as location of homeless shelters,
enrollment rates of children
experiencing homelessness in schools,
and through discussions with local
community-based organizations that
provide services to populations
experiencing homelessness.
Furthermore, programs may be able to
leverage existing data collected in
community health assessments
conducted by local health
departments 177 and non-profit
hospitals 178 to support their own
community assessments.
We propose to redesignate paragraph
(b)(2) to become (b)(5) and revise it to
describe the purpose and goals of the
annual review and update of the
community assessment. There is a
concern that the current annual update
standard effectively requires a
comprehensive update each year of the
community assessment. The proposed
requirement in redesignated and revised
(b)(5) allows the program to determine
where updates are needed based on
areas where significant shifts in their
community may have occurred that may
impact their program design and service
delivery, while also establishing that the
annual update must consider how it can
inform and support other relevant
management and program improvement
efforts as required in § 1302 Subpart J.
These revisions to the annual update are
intended to ensure programs are
strategic in their approach to the annual
176 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/
NBK218229/#:∼:text=Counting%20the%
20homeless%20population%20is,
of%20homelessness%20for%20many%20
individuals.
177 https://www.naccho.org/programs/publichealth-infrastructure/performance-improvement/
community-health-assessment; https://
phaboard.org/accreditation-recognition/
reaccreditation/.
178 https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/
community-health-needs-assessment-for-charitablehospital-organizations-section-501r3.
E:\FR\FM\20NOP2.SGM
20NOP2
80850
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
update, which in turn can promote the
effectiveness and usefulness of the
update. Finally, we propose to
redesignate paragraph (b)(3) to become
(b)(6) without revisions to the regulatory
text.
Conducting the community
assessment is a complex process and we
want to understand whether these
proposed revisions to § 1302.11(b) will
help address underlying challenges with
the community assessment and whether
they may cause any unintended
consequences. Therefore, we are seeking
public comment on the current
development, utilization, and
challenges of the community assessment
as well as perceived impact of the
changes proposed in this NPRM. ACF
also seeks public comment on how the
proposed requirements in this section
may differentially impact different
communities. We specifically request
public comment from the special
populations served by Head Start,
including AIAN and MSHS programs
and communities. We appreciate input
that is specific and actionable. We also
request public comment on whether any
of the proposed revisions to the
community assessment described in this
NPRM will reduce program operational
costs related to the community
assessment.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Adjustment for Excessive Housing Costs
for Eligibility Determination (§ 1302.12)
Head Start is intended to promote the
school readiness of children living in
low-income households.179 However,
many programs have expressed concern
that Head Start eligibility criteria does
not account for high cost of living in
some areas across the country. Many
families earn just above poverty wages,
but more than 30 percent of their
income goes to housing costs. In 2015,
the Congressional Budget Office
estimated that about 14 million
households are eligible for housing
assistance since they paid more than 30
percent of their income on housing,
with some households paying more than
50 percent of their income on rent.180
Children whose families earn nearpoverty level wages and who live in
areas with a high-cost of living have
fewer family resources remaining after
paying for shelter costs, compared to
families in lower-cost of living areas.
179 See the Head Start Act: https://
eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/HS_
Act_2007.pdf.
180 Congressional Budget Office. (2015,
September). Federal Housing Assistance for Lowincome Households. https://www.cbo.gov/sites/
default/files/114th-congress-2015-2016/reports/
50782-lowincomehousing-onecolumn.pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:04 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
High housing cost burdens have
increased for low- and moderate-income
renting households since the 1960s.181
Affordable housing costs have long been
defined as costs that total 30 percent or
less of a family’s total gross income. The
30 percent threshold is an income
standard that has been incorporated into
laws for Federal housing assistance
programs since the early 1980s. It has
been a norm for defining housing
affordability and is used by the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) as a rent limit in
the HOME Investment Partnerships
Program for low-income rental units.182
Other means-tested programs that aim
to serve those experiencing poverty, like
SNAP, use an income adjustment to
account for excessive housing costs.183
Adjusting income for housing expenses
is an effective way to provide additional
flexibility for families who are making
above or near poverty wages, but face
high housing costs, and would be
eligible for Head Start if those
disproportionally high housing costs
were taken into account when
determining eligibility.
Therefore, we propose to revise
§ 1302.12(i)(1) by adding a new (i) and
(ii) to allow a program to adjust a
family’s income to account for excessive
housing costs, when determining
eligibility. We propose to redesignate
current § 1302.12(i)(1)(i) as clause (iii)
and subsequent clauses are renumbered
accordingly. Additionally, we propose
to add a definition of ‘‘housing
expenses’’ to § 1305.2.
Specifically, § 1302.12(i)(1)(i) is a new
stem to introduce the calculation of
income and it states, ‘‘The program
must calculate total gross income using
applicable sources of income.’’ In a
subsequent section of this NPRM, we
described proposed clarifications to the
definition of ‘‘income’’ in § 1305.2.
Proposed new clause, § 1302.12(i)(1)(ii)
introduces the adjustment for housing
expenses and states that a program may
make an adjustment to a family’s gross
income calculation for the purposes of
determining eligibility in order to
account for excessive housing expenses.
A program must use available bills,
bank statements, and other relevant
documentation provided by the family
to calculate total annual housing
181 https://www.huduser.gov/portal/pdredge/pdredge-featd-article-081417.html.
182 Measuring Housing Affordability: Assessing
the 30 Percent of Income Standard. https://
www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/Harvard_
JCHS_Herbert_Hermann_McCue_measuring_
housing_affordability.pdf.
183 Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. (2023,
January). A Quick Guide to SNAP Eligibility and
Benefits. https://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/
11-18-08fa.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
expenses with appropriate multipliers.
There are two additional subclauses (A)
and (B) that describe how programs
should adjust income to account for
housing expenses. Specifically, (A)
states that programs should determine if
a family spends more than 30 percent of
their total gross income on housing
expenses, and (B) states that, if
applicable, programs may reduce the
total gross income by the amount spent
in housing expenses above the 30
percent threshold to calculate the
adjusted gross income for determining
income eligibility.
In addition, a new term for housing
expenses in § 1305.2 is proposed which
means the total annual applicable
expenses spent by the family on rent or
mortgage payments, homeowner’s or
renter’s insurance, utilities, interest, and
taxes on the home. Utilities includes
electricity, gas, water, sewer, and trash.
To illustrate how income deductions
would be calculated under these new
proposed regulations, we describe the
following example. If a family’s annual
gross income is $10,000 and they spend
$5,000 on housing, their housing cost is
50 percent of their total gross income.
Therefore, the percent of the family’s
income spent on housing is 20 percent
higher than the 30 percent threshold,
and the family’s total gross income can
be adjusted down by an amount equal
to 20 percent of annual gross income.
This results in a $2,000 reduction.
Therefore, instead of a total gross
income of $10,000 that the program
must consider for eligibility purposes,
this family’s total gross income would
be $8,000 after application of proposed
§ 1302.12(i)(1)(ii). ACF recognizes that
programs do not need to calculate
housing expenses for all families since
many will still qualify for Head Start
services based on income alone, or due
to some other qualifying factor,
including participation in SNAP or
TANF. Therefore, the proposed
regulatory language in (i)(1)(ii) indicates
that a program ‘‘may’’ use available
documents to calculate housing
expenses.
We propose to add the definition of
‘‘housing expenses’’ to provide clarity
about what can be considered in the
calculation of total housing costs
including what utility costs can be taken
into account. In considering what
utilities to include in the definition,
ACF used HUD regulatory guidance for
utility allowances as a resource.184 The
184 Utility Allowances. U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development. https://
www.hud.gov/program_offices/public_indian_
housing/programs/ph/phecc/allowances#:∼:text=
The%20utilities%20for%20which%20allowances,
as%20well%20as%20garbage%20collection.
E:\FR\FM\20NOP2.SGM
20NOP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
HUD definition of utility allowances
includes electricity, natural gas,
propane, fuel oil, wood or coal, and
water and sewage service, as well as
garbage collection. Programs can use
bills and expenses from one month to
calculate the average expenses that a
family has throughout the year. Further,
programs should only be using bills for
which families have paid for out of
pocket. For example, housing vouchers,
rental assistance, support from the Low
Income Energy Assistance Program
(LIHEAP), or other types of financial
assistance should not be included in
calculations of housing expenses.
Programs should continue using their
current methods of verifying eligibility
based on tax forms, pay stubs, or other
proof of income. These proposed
regulatory changes would allow
programs to also use bills, lease
agreements, mortgage statements, and
other documentation that shows
housing and utility expenses.
By including this income deduction
calculation in eligibility determination
for Head Start, ACF expects many
programs to utilize this deduction
calculation for families seeking
eligibility. However, programs must
adhere to their recruitment and
selection criteria to ensure they
prioritize enrollment for those who may
benefit most from Head Start services.
Specifically, all Head Start programs
must continue to use their selection
criteria to prioritize the enrollment of
the families most in need of services as
required in 45 CFR 1302.13. The sole
purpose of this proposed rule is to allow
programs to consider income
deductions for the purposes of
determining Head Start eligibility.
ACF would like to invite comment on
including a limit to the total amount in
housing costs that can be deducted from
a family’s income. ACF is not concerned
with high income families being
enrolled in Head Start since families
still must be income-eligible after
accounting for high housing costs, and
programs should continue prioritizing
highest need families based on their
selection criteria. However, we invite
comments on whether there should be
a dollar limit or percentage limit to how
much is allowed to be deducted from
income to account for housing costs.
ACF seeks public comment on how the
proposed requirements in this section
may differentially impact different
communities. We specifically request
public comment from the special
populations served by Head Start,
including AIAN and MSHS programs
and communities.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:04 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
Migrant and Seasonal Head Start
Eligibility (§ 1302.12)
Section 1302.12(f) describes the
eligibility requirements for enrollment
in MSHS programs. Currently, to be
eligible for MSHS, a family must
demonstrate that their income comes
primarily from agricultural labor which
has been interpreted and implemented
to mean a family’s income must be more
than 50 percent from agricultural work.
This presents an additional challenge to
MSHS programs in finding eligible
families. It has become increasingly less
common for agricultural work to be the
primary source of an entire family’s
income as agricultural work has become
less available or stable due to
unpredicted weather events and due to
higher pay in other industries. These
changes impacting the agriculture
industry have resulted in barriers to
enrolling farmworker families in need of
program services.
To address this barrier, we propose to
add language to § 1302.12(f) to add the
policy that ‘‘one family member is
primarily engaged in agricultural
employment’’ rather than ‘‘family’s
income comes primarily from
agricultural work.’’ A family must still
meet an eligibility criterion for Head
Start services under 45 CFR 1302.12(c)
(i.e., living at or below the 100 percent
poverty guideline, experiencing
homelessness, receiving public
assistance, or in foster care). However,
due to challenges migrant families face
in relocating often to seek agricultural
work, MSHS programs must prioritize
migrant families for selection as
required in § 1302.14(a)(2).
Additionally, § 1302.12(j) outlines the
requirements related to the period of
time a child remains eligible for Head
Start and when program staff must
verify the family’s eligibility again
before continuing services. In paragraph
(2), specifically, the HSPPS notes that
children who are enrolled in a program
receiving funds under the authority of
section 645A of the Act, which refers to
the Early Head Start program, remain
eligible while they participate in the
program.
The current standards do not specify
eligibility duration related to the unique
programs operated by MSHS. Current
practice is that MSHS programs verify
eligibility every two years. However,
MSHS programs serve children from
birth to school age and nearly half of
MSHS enrollment consists of children
under the age of three. Furthermore,
many MSHS programs also receive Early
Head Start funding.
The existing requirement creates an
inequity because infants and toddlers
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
80851
served in Early Head Start programs can
receive services for the duration of the
program, meaning until they turn three
and age out of the program, whereas the
MSHS family is no longer considered
eligible for the program after two years.
Therefore, the young children of
agricultural workers are not provided
the same potential duration of services
as infants and toddlers served by Early
Head Start.
To address this inequity and extend
the same opportunity to MSHS infants
and toddlers that is available to infants
and toddlers served through an Early
Head Start grant, we propose to add a
paragraph to address eligibility duration
for infants and toddlers participating in
MSHS programs. Specifically, we
propose to add a new paragraph (5) to
existing § 1302.12(j). The new language
clarifies that MSHS programs can serve
infants and toddlers for 3 years,
consistent with the requirement in
§ 1302.12(j)(2) that children
participating in Early Head Start are
eligible for the duration of the program.
We believe this new language will
correct this inequity and promote
continuity for families served by MSHS
and reduce paperwork for families and
programs.
Transportation & Other Barriers to
Enrollment and Attendance (§ 1302.14;
§ 1302.16)
Sections 1302.14 and 1302.16 address
the requirements for the selection
process and attendance, two key
components of ERSEA. Section 1302.14
outlines the current requirements for
programs’ selection of eligible children.
It currently specifies that programs must
annually develop selection criteria,
based on community needs identified in
the community needs assessment, for
how they will prioritize the selection of
eligible children. It also requires that a
program ensure at least 10 percent of its
total funded enrollment is filled by
children eligible for services under
IDEA unless a wavier is granted
throughout the program year once the
assessments are completed. Finally, it
requires that programs maintain a
waitlist. Section 1302.16 outlines the
requirements of programs in the area of
attendance. It articulates what programs
must do to support regular attendance,
to manage systematic program
attendance issues, and to support
attendance for children who are
homeless.
Through the course of implementing
these provisions and discussions with
constituents, ACF believes strongly that
these requirements do not adequately
reflect the importance of acknowledging
barriers to enrollment and attendance,
E:\FR\FM\20NOP2.SGM
20NOP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
80852
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
which is a critical part of selecting
children for participation and ensuring
they can attend regularly. There are
many barriers that may impede
enrollment or attendance in Head Start
programs even after a child is selected.
These barriers include, but are not
limited to, transportation access,
affordability and reliability challenges,
particularly for individuals with
disabilities; demands of family life (e.g.,
balancing work and school schedules,
housing instability, caring for sick or
disabled relatives); or hours and
schedules that are not flexible enough to
meet a family’s needs (e.g., additional
child care needed to enable attendance
at programs that do not operate for a full
work day).
We expand here on the example of
transportation because of concerns that
transportation to local programs remains
a significant barrier for many of the
hardest to serve families and impedes
Head Start’s mission. The decision to
cut or reduce transportation services is
often part of a difficult budget decisionmaking process to free up funds for
other rising program costs. For instance,
in an analysis of Head Start Preschool
and Early Head Start grants across the
county, the average cost of a bus is
about $90,000, or roughly $2,500 per
seat. This cost excludes the cost of bus
drivers and ongoing bus maintenance.
As a result, Head Start programs
nationally provide transportation to
only 20 percent of enrolled children,
more than 100,000 fewer children as
compared to a decade ago.185
According to the Bureau of
Transportation Statistics, about 70
percent of low-income families with
children ages 5 to 14 take a school bus
to school.186 The Consumer Expenditure
Survey (CE), administered by the
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), found
that households spent an average of
$9,826 on transportation in 2020—the
second largest household expenditure
category after housing. And low-income
households spend a much higher
proportion of their income on
transportation expenses than non-lowincome households. In 2021, the average
household with an income equal to or
below $24,127 spent nearly a third of
their income, 26.9 percent, on
transportation. To compare, households
with an income equal to or above
$129,534 spent an average of 10.4
percent on transportation.187 Having
185 Source:
Head Start 2010–2020 PIR.
Note: Uniform data on the population of
children under five taking a bus or other ECE
transportation services is not collected by the
Bureau of Transportation Statistics.
187 U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of
Transportation Statistics, Transportation Economic
186 Ibid.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:04 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
better clarity on this particular barrier
and providing more targeted
transportation assistance, if possible,
allows these households to use their
limited funds for other essential
expenses.
Research has shown that
transportation is linked to economic
mobility and documented links between
poor public transit access and higher
rates of unemployment.188 Additionally,
accessing public transportation can be
challenging and less reliable for lowincome communities, the same
communities in which many eligible
families are located and are most in
need of reliable public transportation.189
We propose new language in § 1302.14
and § 1302.16 to require programs to
consider barriers to enrollment and
attendance. In § 1302.14 Selection, we
propose to add a new paragraph (d) to
require programs to use data from the
selection process to understand why
children selected for the program do not
enroll or attend. We specifically name
transportation in the proposed language
as one such barrier. We propose to
amend paragraph § 1302.16 Attendance
by adding § 1302.16(a)(2)(v) to require
programs to examine barriers to regular
attendance. Given the centrality of
transportation as a barrier to reaching
children and families, we again name
access to transportation in the proposed
language, and require programs to, if
possible, provide or facilitate
transportation if needed. Note that we
also explicitly include transportation in
§ 1302.11 on the community assessment
to ensure that transportation needs and
resources are part of the community
wide strategic planning and needs
assessment.
The objective of the proposed changes
to these requirements is to ensure
programs are using their data to
understand the factors that impede
Head Start enrollment and participation
in their service area, and ultimately,
equip programs with more data to
inform continuous improvement of
service delivery as described in
§ 1302.102(c). We propose to
Trends, available at www.bts.gov/product/
transportation-economic-trends.
188 Chetty, R., Hendren, N., Kline, P., & Saez, E.
(2014). Where is the land of opportunity? The
geography of intergenerational mobility in the
United States. The Quarterly Journal of Economics,
129(4), 1553–1623.; Kaufman, S., Moss, M.L.,
Tyndall, J., & Hernandez, J. (2014). Mobility,
economic opportunity and New York City
neighborhoods. NYU Wagner Research Paper,
(2598566).
189 Stern, A., Stacy, C., Blagg, K., Su, Y., Noble,
E., Rainer, M., & Ezike, R. (2020). Access to
Opportunity through Equitable Transportation.
Available at: https://www.urban.org/research/
publication/access-opportunity-through-equitabletransportation.
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
specifically require programs to
consider transportation as a barrier to
enrollment and attendance because of
its significance in determining which
children can enroll and participate in
Head Start. In tandem with proposed
revisions in § 1302.11(b) and
§ 1302.16(a)(2), strengthening our
HSPPS to increase transportation
services to more children will help to
provide more educational opportunity
while also addressing these inequities.
We believe these proposed changes will
promote the thoughtful use of the
community assessment, selection
process, and attendance process to
inform responsive program design, and
ultimately, ensure children who would
benefit most from Head Start services
are identified, enrolled, and supported
in attendance. With the additional data
required in these sections, Head Start
programs can better meet their current
families’ needs and help to make
services more accessible to future
families. ACF seeks public comment on
how the proposed requirements in this
section may differentially impact
different communities. We specifically
request public comment from the
special populations served by Head
Start, including AIAN and MSHS
programs and communities.
Serving Children With Disabilities
(§ 1302.14)
Section 1302.14 outlines the
requirements for selecting eligible
children for participation in the Head
Start program. Paragraph (b) of this
section requires a program to ensure at
least 10 percent of its total funded
enrollment is filled by children eligible
for services under the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) unless
the responsible HHS official grants a
waiver.
Though § 1302.14(b) reads ‘‘funded
enrollment,’’ section 640(d)(1) in the
Act states the percentage of children
with disabilities (eligible under IDEA) is
based on ‘‘the number of children
actually enrolled,’’ rather than the
funded enrollment. ACF has received
feedback from various interested groups
that this error has caused confusion
among programs because the Act and
the HSPPS state different requirements.
To address this inconsistency, we
propose to change ‘‘funded’’ to ‘‘actual’’
in 1304(b)(1) so the HSPPS are
consistent with the Act. This change
will clarify the requirement and address
the confusion caused by the
discrepancy.
We encourage all Head Start programs
to recruit and enroll as many children
who are eligible for IDEA services as
possible. The 10 percent requirement is
E:\FR\FM\20NOP2.SGM
20NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
Ratios in Center-Based Early Head Start
Programs (§ 1302.21)
This section establishes requirements
for staff-child ratios and group sizes for
center-based Head Start Preschool, Early
Head Start, and Migrant or Seasonal
Head Start classes. The current
standards at § 1302.21(b)(1) require
staff-child ratios and group size
maximums to be determined by the age
of the majority of children in a class.
The age of majority of the children is
generally determined at the start of the
year but may be adjusted during the
program year if needed. Where State or
local licensing requirements are more
stringent, then staff-child ratios and
group size specifications must meet the
stricter requirements.
Further, § 1302.21(b)(2) requires that
classrooms that serve children under 36
months old must have two teachers with
no more than eight children, or three
teachers with no more than nine
children. The current standards in
paragraph (b)(2) also emphasize that
each teacher serving children under 36
months must be assigned consistent,
primary responsibility for no more than
four children to promote continuity of
care for individual children. A program
must also minimize teacher changes
throughout a child’s enrollment and
consider mixed age group classes to
support continuity of care.
However, we propose to add a new
standard that encourages programs to
use a lower teacher-child ratio of no
more than three children to every
teacher for classrooms where the
majority of children are infants under 12
months. Specifically, we propose to add
the following new sentence after the
second sentence in § 1302.21(b)(2), that
states that programs are encouraged to
establish a lower teacher to child ratio
for the youngest children they serve,
provided that it does not jeopardize
continuity of care for children. As the
premier ECE provider in the United
States, Head Start sets an example for
early childhood programs nationwide.
Head Start programs are known for
providing high-quality early childhood
services. Furthermore, a warm,
responsive relationship between an
infant and caregiver is a crucial
foundation for infants to learn and
develop. A lower teacher-child ratio can
support the establishment of this strong,
secure relationship and allow for more
individualized attention between the
infant and teacher. A lower ratio of one
teacher to three infants also aligns with
the National Resource Center for Health
and Safety in Child Care and Early
Education recommendations for centerbased programs with classrooms where
the majority of children are under 12
months old.191 Further, research
190 Letter can be found at this link: https://
eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/local-early-childhoodpartnerships/press-release/encouraging-ideacollaboration-between-state-agencies-localagencies-head-start-programs.
191 American Academy of Pediatrics, American
Public Health Association, & National Resource
Center for Health and Safety in Child Care and
Early Education. (2020). Caring for Our Children
(CFOC) online standards database. National
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
meant to be a floor rather than a ceiling
for serving children who would benefit
from the program. ACF strongly
encourages Head Start programs to
maximize services to children with
disabilities who will benefit from the
program’s strong focus on inclusive
early childhood settings. Early
intervention and access to available
services through Head Start provides
children with disabilities with supports
that can positively impact their
education and well-being over the long
term. Through partnerships with State
and local education agencies, Head Start
plays an important role in identifying
children with disabilities or
developmental delays and referring
families to services and follow-up care.
Head Start programs are required to
design and implement a coordinated
approach that ensures the full and
effective participation of all children
with disabilities and their families (45
CFR 1302.101(b)(3)). The long-standing
collaboration between ACF and the U.S.
Department of Education Office of
Special Education Programs (OSEP)
seeks to ensure young children with
disabilities are served in high-quality
early childhood programs, including
Head Start programs. This requires
ongoing partnerships between the
Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (IDEA) Part C early intervention and
Part B, section 619 preschool special
education programs and Head Start
programs.
During the return to in-person
services in 2022, OHS and OSEP issued
a joint letter 190 to reiterate important
policies and practices related to
providing services to young children
with disabilities. The joint letter (1)
reminds programs of requirements
under Part B of the IDEA to provide
special education and related services to
eligible preschool-aged children with
disabilities, (2) promotes collaboration
at the State and local program level to
meet requirements, and (3) provides
resources to assist Head Start and other
providers in creating effective
memoranda of understanding for
coordinating the implementation of
high-quality programs for all children.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:04 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
80853
indicates that, generally, lower teacherchild ratios in ECE classrooms relate to
higher classroom quality and stronger
child outcomes.192 This proposed
revision takes into consideration
research findings and recommendations
and encourages programs to consider
reducing teacher-child ratios for their
youngest classrooms, to provide the
highest quality care and learning
opportunities for infants enrolled in
Head Start.
We further clarify that this proposed
change is an encouragement for
programs and should not be interpreted
as a new ratio requirement for
classrooms very young children. We
recognize that a lower teacher-child
ratio will likely be challenging for some
programs to implement during the
current staffing shortage. We further
emphasize that the requirements in
§ 1302.21(b)(2) on promoting continuity
of care by minimizing teacher changes
throughout a child’s enrollment in Head
Start, and doing so through mixed age
classrooms, is still of top priority. ACF
understands that implementing different
ratio requirements for different age
groups in Early Head Start can be
challenging and antithetical to
continuity of care (e.g., if children need
to switch classrooms after their first
birthday). This can be challenging when
programs are also trying to ensure that
teacher-child relationships are stable
across a child’s early years in a program.
ACF intentionally prioritizes continuity
of care especially for younger children
and programs should continue to create
policies that support strong teacherchild relationships. ACF invites public
comment on possible costs associated
with lowering ratios for the youngest
children served, for programs that may
choose to do so.
We would also like to understand the
potential implications of lowering ratio
requirements for the youngest
classrooms, particularly for children 12
months old or younger. According to
2020 State licensing standards, there are
three states that have a ratio of one
Resource Center for Health and Safety in Child Care
and Early Education. https://nrckids.org/CFOC.
192 Bowne, J.B., Magnuson, K.A., Schindler, H.S.,
Duncan, G.J., & Yoshikawa, H. (2017). A MetaAnalysis of Class Sizes and Ratios in Early
Childhood Education Programs: Are Thresholds of
Quality Associated With Greater Impacts on
Cognitive, Achievement, and Socioemotional
Outcomes? Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 39(3), 407–428. https://doi.org/10.3102/
0162373716689489; Xue, Y., Atkins-Burnett, S.,
Vogel, C., and Cannon, J. (2022). Teacher–Child
Relationship Quality and Beyond: Unpacking
Quality in Early Head Start Classrooms in 2018.
OPRE Report 2022–122. Washington, DC: Office of
Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Administration
for Children and Families, U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services.
E:\FR\FM\20NOP2.SGM
20NOP2
80854
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
teacher to three children for infants 12
months old or younger.193 ACF is
interested in applying this reduced
teacher-child ratio requirement for
classrooms where the majority of
children are 12 months old or younger.
We invite public comment on such a
possible change, as well as possible
costs associated with such a change.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Center-Based Service Duration for Early
Head Start (§ 1302.21)
Section 1302.21(c)(1)(i) requires Early
Head Start center-based programs to
provide 1,380 annual hours of planned
class operations for all enrolled
children. It has been a long-standing
expectation of ACF that EHS programs
provide continuous services, which we
have interpreted as full-day, full-year
services. Therefore, while not explicitly
stated, the intent of the Early Head Start
1,380 hours requirement for centerbased service duration is for programs to
provide full-day, full-year services.
Research on full-day and full-year
programs suggests children in poverty
benefit from longer exposure to highquality early learning programs than
what is provided by part-day and/or
part-year programs.194
However, the standard does not
explicitly require a minimum number of
weeks per year over which the 1,380
hours should be provided. Therefore,
we propose to add a phrase to
§ 1302.21(c)(1)(i) to clarify that the 1,380
hours of planned class operations for
children in EHS should occur across a
minimum of 46 weeks per year. Based
on our experiences implementing the
current requirement, we believe most
programs are already operating yearround; however, a small number of
programs may be operating less than a
full year and we would like to promote
full-year services for infants and
toddlers in EHS. However, we are also
aware that specifying the requirement as
at least 46 weeks per year may have
unintended consequences, such as
programs moving to part-day services or
reducing their weeks per year to 46 to
align with a new requirement.
Therefore, we request comment on these
possible unintended consequences as
193 https://childcareta.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/
files/public/center_licensing_trends_brief_2020_
final.pdf.
194 Yoshikawa, H., Weiland, C., Brooks-Gunn, J.,
Burchinal, M.R., Espinosa, L.M., Gormley, W.T.,
Ludwig, J., Magnuson, K.A., Phillips, D., & Zaslow,
M.J. (2013). Investing in Our Future: The Evidence
Base on Preschool Education. Policy Brief.
Foundation for Child Development.; Wasik, B.A., &
Snell, E.K. (2019). Synthesis of preschool dosage:
How quantity, quality, and content impact child
outcomes. In A.J. Reynolds & J.A. Temple (Eds.),
Sustaining early childhood learning gains: Program,
school, and family influences (pp. 31–51).
Cambridge University Press.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:04 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
well as on other ways we can ensure
EHS services are full-day and full-year
as intended, while still providing
flexibility to programs in developing
their program schedules. ACF also seeks
public comment on how the proposed
requirements in this section may
differentially impact different
communities. We specifically request
public comment from the special
populations served by Head Start,
including AIAN and MSHS programs
and communities. Finally, we also
invite comment on how such a change
would impact service delivery and any
challenges that may be associated with
meeting a revised standard, including
the implementation timeframe.
Center-Based Service Duration for Head
Start Preschool (§ 1302.21; § 1302.24)
Section 1302.21 establishes the
program structure standards that are
required to operate Head Start
Preschool, Early Head Start, American
Indian and Alaska Native, and Migrant
or Seasonal Head Start center-based
program options. This includes
standards for ratios and group size,
service duration, and licensing and
square footage. In this section, we
propose seven technical corrections to
existing provisions in § 1302.21(c)(1)
through (6) to remove outdated text and
improve readability of these standards.
We do not propose any change in policy
to these existing standards.
First, in § 1302.21, we propose to
revise paragraph (c)(1)(i) by removing
the phrase ‘‘By August 1, 2018.’’ That
date has already passed and does not
add any substance to that paragraph.
Second, we propose to revise
paragraph (c)(2)(i) by adding the phrase
‘‘Service Duration for at Least 45
Percent’’ as a subheading. We remove
the phrase ‘‘Until a program is operating
all of its Head Start center-based funded
enrollment at the standard described in
paragraph (c)(2)(iv) or (c)(2)(v)’’ and
replace it with ‘‘A program must
provide 1,020 annual hours of planned
class operation over the course of at
least eight months per year for at least
45 percent of its Head Start Preschool
center-based funded enrollment,’’ which
reflects the current requirement. We
also propose to amend paragraph
(c)(2)(i) by removing the language that
details the minimum number of hours
per day and days per year a program
must operate for any child (‘‘a program
must provide, at a minimum, at least
160 days per year of planned class
operations if it operates for five days per
week, or at least 128 days per year if it
operates four days per week. Classes
must operate for a minimum of 3.5
hours per day’’) and moving that
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
language into a new paragraph (ii). We
also propose to add the phrase ‘‘Service
Duration for Remaining Slots’’ as a
subheading to the new paragraph (ii).
Third, we propose to redesignate
existing paragraph (c)(2)(ii) as paragraph
(c)(2)(iii) and revise the redesignated
paragraph (c)(2)(iii) by adding the
phrase ‘‘Double session’’ as a
subheading. In redesignated paragraph
(c)(2)(iii) we also propose to remove the
language ‘‘Until a program is operating
all of its Head Start center-based funded
enrollment at the standard described in
paragraph (c)(2)(iv) or (c)(2)(v) of this
section, if a program operates’’ and
instead begin that paragraph with
‘‘Double session variation must,’’ to
improve readability. In addition, we
propose to remove the term ‘‘aides’’
from the third sentence of redesignated
paragraph (c)(2)(iii) and replace that
term with ‘‘assistants.’’ We propose the
term ‘‘assistant’’ as this term more
accurately reflects this staff role in Head
Start Preschool classrooms and aligns
with other requirements for preschool
classrooms to have at least a teacher and
teacher assistant in each classroom.
Fourth, we propose to remove existing
paragraphs (c)(2)(iii) and (iv), which
describe the two-part phase in for the
outdated 100-percent service duration
requirement. The 100-percent service
duration requirement 195 was effectively
eliminated when the Secretary lowered
the Head Start center-based service
duration requirement from 100 percent
to 45 percent in a Federal Register
notice, 85 FR 5332.
Fifth, we propose to redesignate
existing paragraph (c)(2)(v) as new
paragraph (iv). We propose to revise the
redesignated paragraph (iv) by adding
‘‘Special Provision for Alignment with
Local Education Agency’’ as a
subheading to make this section easier
for the public to read. We also propose
to update cross-references to existing
paragraphs by replacing the phrase
‘‘paragraphs (c)(2)(iii) and (iv)’’ with
‘‘paragraph (c)(2)(i)’’ to align with the
proposed revisions described
previously.
Sixth, we propose to eliminate
paragraph (c)(3) since the provisions in
this paragraph are outdated; the
Secretary already exercised authority to
lower the Head Start center-based
service duration requirements and the
dates have passed.196
195 This requirement would have required all
Head Start programs to provide at least 1,020
annual hours of service for all (100 percent) of their
center-based preschool slots.
196 https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/
2020/01/30/2020-00635/secretarial-determinationto-lower-head-start-center-based-service-durationrequirements; https://www.federalregister.gov/
E:\FR\FM\20NOP2.SGM
20NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Lastly, we propose to remove
paragraph (c)(4) because the November
7, 2016, date mentioned in that standard
has passed and the standard is no longer
applicable. We propose to redesignate
existing paragraph (c)(5) ‘‘Exemption for
Migrant or Seasonal Head Start
programs’’ as the new paragraph (3) and
redesignate existing paragraph (6)
‘‘Calendar planning’’ as the new
paragraph (4).
Section 1302.24 describes locally
designed program option variations,
including waiver requirements. We
propose to make updates in this section
to align with the proposed updates for
center-based service duration in
§ 1302.21. Specifically, in paragraph
(c)(1) we propose to remove the
reference to ‘‘(c)(2)(iii) and (iv)’’ and
replace it with ‘‘(c)(2)(i).’’ In paragraph
(c)(3) we propose to remove the
reference to ‘‘(c)(2)(iii) or (iv)’’ and
update it with ‘‘(c)(2)(i).’’ In paragraph
(c)(3) we also propose to remove the
reference to ‘‘(c)(2)(i)’’ and update it
with ‘‘(c)(2)(ii).’’ Finally, at the end of
the sentence in paragraph (c)(3), we
propose to remove the reference to
‘‘(c)(2)(ii)’’ and update it with
‘‘(c)(2)(iii).’’ In paragraph (c)(5) we
propose to remove the reference to
‘‘(c)(2)(iii) and (iv)’’ and replace it with
‘‘(c)(2)(i).’’ Finally, we propose to
remove paragraph (d) ‘‘Transition from
previously approved program options’’
because the November 7, 2016, date
mentioned in that standard has passed
and the standard is no longer
applicable.
Ratios in Family Child Care Settings
(§ 1302.23)
Family child care is an important
component of a robust state mixed
delivery early care and education
system that supports flexibility and
choice for parents. Families may prefer
a home-based option for various
reasons, including meeting their
cultural or scheduling needs, offering a
smaller family like setting, or enabling
younger and older siblings to be served
in the same location. For families who
opt for a home-based program for their
children, Head Start services provided
within a family child care option can
help to ensure services are high-quality
and include supports such as
professional development and technical
assistance to home-based providers.
Section 1302.23(b) lays out the provider
to child ratio and group size
requirements for programs that operate
a family child care option with enrolled
documents/2018/01/19/2018-00897/secretarialdetermination-to-lower-head-start-center-basedservice-duration-requirement.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:04 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
Head Start children. Paragraph (b)
requires a grant recipient that operates
this option to maintain a group size of
no more than six children in mixed age
groupings with no more than two of
those children under age 24 months
with one family child care provider.
And a provider may have no more than
four children in a grouping of children
under age 36 months with no more than
two of those children under age 18
months.
We believe that these standards for
the family child care option
demonstrate a commitment to quality;
however, we recognize that the wording
of the existing standards has led to
confusion among grant recipients,
particularly in understanding the
difference between the standards for
groupings that include older children
and those that serve only infants and
toddlers. It was our intent during the
initial drafting of the standards that an
acceptable grouping of infants and
toddlers should be smaller than a mixed
age grouping of children that includes
preschool or older children. However,
we received feedback from the field that
the current standards are unclear.
Based on this input, we propose to
make clarifying revisions to the current
standard. Specifically, § 1302.23(b)(2) as
written establishes the maximum group
size of six children with no more than
two children under the age of 24 months
of age with one provider but does not
reference the age makeup allowances for
the rest of the group. The language at
§ 1302.23(b)(3) references an acceptable
ratio and group size of one provider
with up to four children younger than
age 36 months with no more than two
of the four children under 18 months of
age. Taken together the two standards
§ 1302.23(b)(2) and (3) are not
sufficiently distinct. Therefore, we
propose to amend § 1302.23(b)(2) to
clarify that the maximum group size
with one provider and six children,
with no more than two under 24 months
of age, refers to a mixed age grouping
that includes preschool children (e.g.,
children over the age of 36 months).
Specifically, we propose to add the
header ‘‘Mixed Age with Preschoolers’’
to paragraph § 1302.23(b)(2) and add the
following language to the first sentence
after the phrase ‘‘family child care
provider’’: ‘‘with a mixed-age group of
children that includes children over 36
months of age.’’ Similarly, we propose
to clarify § 1302.23(b)(3) by adding the
header ‘‘Infants and Toddlers Only’’,
and deleting ‘‘One family child care
provider may care for up to four
children younger than 36 months of age
with a maximum group size of four
children’’ and replacing it with ‘‘When
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
80855
there is one family child care provider
with a group of children that are all
under 36 months of age, the maximum
group size is four children.’’
ACF believes these fixes will not alter
the substance of the regulation but will
provide much needed clarity to Head
Start programs with a family child care
option while acknowledging the
importance of maintaining ratios and
group sizes that facilitate high-quality
interactions and support children’s
safety and development.
In making these clarifying revisions,
we noted that the standards in
§ 1302.23(b)(2) allow for an increased
group size when both a family child
care provider and an assistant provider
are present. However, the role of
‘‘family child care assistant provider’’ is
not defined and is not addressed in the
staff qualifications and competency
requirements outlined in § 1302.91(e)(5)
for child and family services staff.
We believe that all adults who
provide direct services to children
regardless of setting should have
appropriate, training, knowledge, and
experience that will enable them to
support children’s development through
effective teaching practices and
nurturing adult-child interactions. As a
model for high quality early childhood
supports and services, Head Start
programs must ensure that providers
have the necessary skills to ensure
quality programming that will lead to
positive outcomes for children and
families. Therefore, we propose to
amend the second sentence of
§ 1302.23(b)(2) by removing the phrase
‘‘When there is a provider and an
assistant provider’’ and replacing it with
the phrase ‘‘When there are two
providers.’’ We believe this change will
help ensure that large mixed-age groups
(of up to twelve children) in family
child care settings are supported by
qualified family child care providers. In
addition, for consistency and clarity, we
propose to strike the phrase ‘‘and
assistant providers’’ from the final
sentence of § 1302.23(b)(4) to emphasize
that programs must ensure any staff who
may have primary responsibility for
children have the necessary training and
experience to ensure quality services are
not interrupted.
We invite comment on the potential
impact of removing these two references
to ‘‘assistant provider’’ in the family
child care option and the requirement
that all family child care providers meet
the qualification requirements. We seek
comment specifically from family child
care programs that currently employ
assistant providers. ACF also seeks
public comment from the special
populations served by Head Start,
E:\FR\FM\20NOP2.SGM
20NOP2
80856
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
including AIAN and MSHS programs
and communities.
Safety Practices (§ 1302.47)
Section 1302.47 establishes
expectations for Head Start programs to
ensure basic health and safety measures
are taken for the protection of all
children. Here, we propose changes to
§ 1302.47(b), which requires programs
to implement a system of management,
training, and oversight to ensure safe
practices in a list of areas in order to
ensure child safety. In the years of
implementing these requirements since
the 2016 revision of the HSPPS, grant
recipients and other interested parties
have raised questions about these
requirements and to whom they apply.
Given how critical child safety is in
Head Start programs, it is imperative
that we are as clear as possible and that
our requirements reflect current best
practices and terminology. In this
section, we propose to clarify expected
safety practices related to child health,
mental health, and safety incidents.
More specifically, the proposed
requirements specify that any adult
working in Head Start is responsible for
safety practices and more precisely
define safety practices by including the
existing minimum Federal standard for
abuse and neglect, clarifying that
children should be supervised at all
times, and drawing attention to the
relevant paragraphs of the Standards of
Conduct.
We propose to remove from
§ 1302.47(b)(5) the phrase ‘‘staff and
consultants’’ and replace it with ‘‘staff,
consultants, contractors, and
volunteers.’’ This revision is intended to
clarify that Head Start contractors and
volunteers, in addition to staff and
consultants, should be aware of and are
expected to follow safety practices. The
proposed change will clarify that all
individuals working in Head Start must
be aware of and responsible for child
safety practices.
Section 1302.47(b)(5)(i) describes the
safety practice of reporting suspected or
known child abuse and neglect. We
propose to add the phrase ‘‘as defined
by the Federal Child Abuse Prevention
and Treatment Act (CAPTA) (42 U.S.C.
5101 note).’’ The proposed change will
clarify the definition of child abuse and
neglect that is aligned with existing
Federal statute, CAPTA, which states
that ‘‘the term ‘child abuse and neglect’
means, at a minimum, any recent act or
failure to act on the part of a parent or
caretaker, which results in death,
serious physical or emotional harm,
sexual abuse or exploitation (including
sexual abuse as determined under
section 111), or an act or failure to act
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:04 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
which presents an imminent risk of
serious harm.’’ The Federal definition is
a minimum standard and programs
must also comply with State, local, and
Tribal laws, which may have additional
stipulations related to defining child
abuse and neglect and other
requirements for mandated reporting. If
there are discrepancies between Federal
and State, local, and Tribal laws,
programs should comply with the more
stringent regulation.
In § 1302.47(b)(5)(iii), appropriate
supervision of children is described as
a safety practice. We propose to remove
the phrase ‘‘indoor and outdoor.’’ This
proposed change clarifies that
appropriate supervision of children is
expected at all times and aligns with
Caring for Our Children guidelines.197
Next, in § 1302.47(b)(5)(v), the
standards of conduct in § 1302.90(c) are
referenced as a safety practice. We
propose to add the designation ‘‘(ii)’’ to
the citation to clarify that
§ 1302.47(b)(5)(v) references the specific
standards of conduct that are related to
staff behavior that could be reasonably
suspected to negatively impact children,
which are described in § 1302.90(c)(ii).
This addition would also reduce
redundancies since supervision and
reporting of suspected or known child
abuse and neglect are listed as standalone safety practices as well as
embedded in subparagraphs of the
broader standards of conduct. Further
discussion of child safety, which is of
the utmost importance to Head Start
programs, can be found in the sections
of this preamble titled Standards of
Conduct and Staff Training to Support
Child Safety.
Lastly, we propose to add a clause to
the end of § 1302.47(b)(1)(ii), ‘‘including
lead consistent with § 1302.48’’, to align
with the changes discussed in the
following section of this preamble.
ACF seeks public comment on how
the proposed requirements in this
section may differentially impact
different communities. We specifically
request public comment from the
special populations served by Head
Start, including AIAN and MSHS
programs and communities.
Preventing and Addressing Lead
Exposure (§ 1302.48)
In this section, we propose new
requirements on preventing and
addressing lead exposure through water
and lead-based paint in Head Start
197 Caring for our Children. (2022). Chapter 2.2
Supervision and Discipline. National Resource
Center for Health and Safety in Child Care and
Early Education, Department of Health and Human
Services. Available online at https://nrckids.org/
cfoc/database/2.2.0.1.
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
facilities. Protecting children from
exposure to lead is important to
promote lifelong good health, as there is
no safe level of lead, especially for the
ages of children Head Start serves. Even
low levels of lead in blood have been
shown to affect learning, ability to pay
attention, and academic achievement.198
These requirements together will help
prevent and address lead exposure for
children in settings used to provide
Head Start program services by ensuring
programs test for and remediate lead
hazards on a regular basis. Specifically,
we propose to add a new section
§ 1302.48 to Subpart D Health and
Mental Health Program Services that
includes four paragraphs: paragraph (a)
contains proposed requirements to
prevent and address lead exposure
through water, paragraph (b) contains
proposed requirements to prevent and
address lead exposure through paint,
paragraph (c) contains proposed
requirements to ensure public
notification of test results and
remediation actions as an outcome of
paragraphs (a) and (b), and paragraph
(d) contains a requirement that, should
applicable State or local laws or
regulations have more stringent
requirements for lead testing or
remediation, programs should comply
with the more stringent requirements.
Lead in Water
Paragraph (a) of § 1302.48 introduces
new proposed requirements to address
lead in water from water fixtures used
for human consumption (see proposed
definition for water fixtures used for
human consumption in § 1305.2). These
include requirements on sampling and
testing for lead in water from such
fixtures, the frequency of testing,
detectable lead level that requires
remediation action, and requirements
on point-of-use (POU) devices for
reducing lead levels. This regulation is
supportive of ongoing efforts across the
Federal Government that is addressing
lead in water in early care and
education settings.199
As specified in paragraph (a), these
requirements only apply to Head Start
facilities constructed before 2014 and
where lead service lines, plumbing, or
fixtures may still exist. The year 2014 is
selected as it aligns with the effective
198 See https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/
prevention/health-effects.htm
#:∼:text=Lead%20exposure%
20occurs%20when%20a,Slowed%20
growth%20and%20development.
199 Dear Colleague Letter on Funding to Test for
and Address Lead in Water in Early Care and
Education Settings. (2023). https://
www.acf.hhs.gov/ecd/policy-guidance/dearcolleague-letter-funding-test-and-address-leadwater-early-care-and.
E:\FR\FM\20NOP2.SGM
20NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
date of the Reduction of Lead in
Drinking Water Act which established
that any pipe, pipe fitting, plumbing
fitting, and fixture installed,
manufactured, or imported for new
construction is lead-free at a weighted
lead content average of less than or
equal to 0.25 percent 200 We also
recognize some older facilities have all
lead service lines, plumbing, and
fixtures removed and replaced, and we
do not intend to impose unnecessary
burden on testing for lead in water for
programs operating in such facilities. If
a program operates in a facility
constructed prior to 2014 and can
demonstrate that all of these lead-based
facility features no longer exist, then
requirements in paragraph (a) do not
apply.
We propose in paragraph (a)(1) that
programs sample and test water for lead
from such fixtures on an annual basis.
This requirement is to ensure programs
test for lead in water to catch and
address lead contamination on a regular
schedule. A sample test is a snapshot of
the lead level taken at the time it was
collected. Lead levels at a fixture or
within a building have been shown to
vary over time. Factors that contribute
to this variability include water
chemistry, hydraulics, lead plumbing
sources, and water consumption
patterns.201 Regularly scheduled testing
and routine maintenance are essential to
reducing lead in drinking water.
Annual monitoring of lead levels in
water can provide information to the
program on potential changes in the
lead levels, the ongoing effectiveness of
remediation or treatment efforts, and
detection of lead levels that need to be
addressed. We recognize that how
frequently programs should test is
dependent on a variety of factors
including the age of the facility and
plumbing, characteristics of plumbing
infrastructure, water quality, prior lead
testing and results, and remediation
efforts implemented.202 To provide
flexibility to test less frequently when
reasonable, we propose that a program
may choose to only test water from a
proportion of fixtures each year with
governing body approval. If a program
decides to use this flexibility, they must
still ensure that all water fixtures used
for human consumption are tested at
200 See https://www.epa.gov/sdwa/use-lead-freepipes-fittings-fixtures-solder-and-flux-drinkingwater.
201 Triantafyllidou S, Burkhardt J, Tully J, et al.
Variability and sampling of lead (Pb) in drinking
water: Assessing potential human exposure
depends on the sampling protocol. Environ Int.
2021;146:106259. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.envint.2020.106259.
202 See https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/
prevention/sources/water.htm.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:04 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
least once every 5 years. For example,
a program will meet this requirement if
they decide to test one-fifth and a
different set of their water fixtures each
year since this would result in all water
fixtures being tested within a 5-year
timeframe. This flexibility is proposed
to allow programs to weigh the variety
of factors discussed earlier when
determining the frequency of testing,
while still ensuring all water fixtures are
tested within at least a 5-year window.
We propose in paragraph (a)(2) that
programs sample and test water fixtures
used for human consumption following
remediation actions to address
detectable lead or following a change to
the water profile (see proposed
definition for change in water profile in
§ 1305.2). This proposed requirement
adds an additional layer of protection to
the requirements in the prior clause on
frequency of testing to ensure testing
occurs on water fixtures following an
event that has a high likelihood of
impacting the lead level in water used
for human consumption. Additionally,
testing following remediation actions to
address detectable lead supports
programs in meeting the other proposed
requirements in paragraphs (a)(5)
through (7).
We propose in paragraph (a)(3) that
all samples must be collected by an
individual who is adequately trained to
collect samples for lead testing. We
recognize that most programs will need
to train an individual to collect samples.
Programs should leverage available
trainings and technical assistance,
including resources developed by the
EPA 3Ts for Reducing Lead in Drinking
Water in Schools and Child Care
Facilities—A Training, Testing and
Taking Action Approach (3Ts) program,
to ensure the individual is adequately
trained to collect samples. A trained
individual should understand how to
conduct a 2-step sampling procedure
(i.e., a first draw sample and flush
sample), ensure water remained
stationary in the plumbing system of the
facility for at least 8 but no more than
18 hours 203 prior to collecting the
sample when appropriate, ensure
samples are collected at correct
volumes, and how to have the sample
delivered to a laboratory.
We propose in paragraph (a)(4) that
all samples are analyzed for lead by a
laboratory that is certified by EPA or the
203 U.S. EPA 3Ts Program—Lead Sample
Collection field Guide for Schools and Child Care
Facilities; EPA 816–F–22–009, July 2022 at https://
www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-07/
US%20EPA%203Ts%20Lead%20Sample%20
Collection%20Field%20Guide%20
For%20Schools%20and%20Child%20
Care%20Facilities_508.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
80857
State, territory, or Tribe for testing lead
in drinking water. The resource,
‘‘Contact Information for Certification
Programs and Certified Laboratories for
Drinking Water’’ is readily available for
programs to find EPA certified
laboratories by State: https://
www.epa.gov/dwlabcert/contactinformation-certification-programs-andcertified-laboratories-drinking-water.
This requirement ensures the entity
conducting the lead level test is
following EPA Federal standards on
testing to promote consistent and highquality results.
We propose in clause paragraphs
(a)(5) and (6) that, together, programs
are required to restrict access to water
fixtures used for human consumption
within 24 hours of determining the
water has a lead sample result at or
above 5 parts per billion, provide notice
in a timely manner to parents of
children who may have consumed the
water, and access to these water fixtures
is not allowed for human consumption
until lead sample results indicate the
water fixture is below 5 parts per billion
following remediation actions. Ways to
restrict access can include closing the
water supply valve to the fixture or
placing a sign that the water cannot be
consumed. The 24-hour timeframe for
restricting access was selected to
provide a reasonable timeframe for the
program to take action to restrict access
and prevent any exposure to the
identified source of lead. The 5 parts per
billion level requiring remediation
action was selected for several reasons,
including that it aligns with the Food
and Drug Administration (FDA) lead
level limit 204 in bottled water and the
NSF/ANSI 53 certification for POU
devices.205 While not explicitly stated
in the regulatory text, OHS encourages
programs to notify parents of children
who may have consumed water within
24 hours if feasible, and not later than
10 business days.
We understand that there is no safe
lead level for children and therefore we
propose in paragraph (a)(7) a
requirement that programs still consider
taking remediation actions to address
water fixtures used for human
consumption with detectable lead below
5 parts per billion with the goal to lower
the lead level as low as practicable. This
proposed requirement promotes a
shared health goal of no detectable lead
in water, while recognizing that there
204 See https://www.fda.gov/consumers/
consumer-updates/bottled-water-everywherekeeping-it-safe.
205 See https://www.nsf.org/news/drinking-watertreatment-units-stricter-requirements-leadreduction-cert.
E:\FR\FM\20NOP2.SGM
20NOP2
80858
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
may be challenges achieving such a
goal.
As part of these proposed
requirements, programs have the
flexibility in determining which
remediation steps to take when
addressing elevated lead levels in water,
including the use of POU 206 devices on
water fixtures, replacement of plumbing
materials including pipes and fixtures,
or a combination of these and other
approaches. Programs can determine
which remediation actions 207 to take
based on various factors including the
options and resources available to them.
We propose in paragraph (a)(8) that
when programs decide to use POU
devices to address lead in water, that
programs must appropriately use and
maintain POU devices that reduce lead
levels as tested and certified by a third
party according to NSF/ANSI Standards
for lead reduction. Programs should
follow manufacturer instructions to
appropriately maintain POU devices,
which would include replacing filters in
a timely manner and ensuring
replacement filters also comply with
NSF/ANSI standards. Currently, NSF/
ANSI Standard 53 for Drinking Water
Treatment Units is the nationally
recognized standard for evaluating and
certifying POU devices for the reduction
of lead in drinking water.208
EPA implements safe drinking water
in partnership with states, Tribes, and
water system operators. EPA regulates
public water systems (PWSs) in
accordance with the Safe Drinking
Water Act. EPA’s Lead and Copper Rule
establishes requirements for PWSs to
address lead in drinking water. Most
Head Start facilities are served by PWSs.
Even when water entering a facility
meets all Federal and State public
health standards for lead, internal
building plumbing and fixtures may
contribute to sources of lead in drinking
water, particularly those installed prior
to the EPA 1986 Lead Ban.209 Another
significant source of lead localized to
the Head Start building can occur
through the main service line if it is a
lead service line. This is why it is
206 U.S. EPA Consumer Tool for Identifying POU
Drinking Water Filters Certified to Reduce Lead at
https://www.epa.gov/water-research/consumer-toolidentifying-pou-drinking-water-filters-certifiedreduce-lead.
207 For details specific to remediation, go to EPA
3Ts guidance at https://www.epa.gov/ground-waterand-drinking-water/3ts-reducing-lead-drinkingwater#mod6.
208 See https://www.nsf.org/consumer-resources/
articles/standards-water-treatment-systems.
209 Use of Lead Free Pipes, Fittings, Fixtures,
Solder, and Flux for Drinking Water—Final ‘‘Lead
Free’’ Rule at https://www.epa.gov/sdwa/use-leadfree-pipes-fittings-fixtures-solder-and-flux-drinkingwater.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:04 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
important that programs test for and
remediate detectable lead in water
within Head Start facilities. We
recognize that a few programs may be
using privately owned water systems. If
this privately owned water system has
at least 15 service connections or serves
at least 25 people per day for 60 days
of the year, it is considered a public
water system and would be regulated by
EPA.210 If the facility does not meet this
definition, then the system is not
regulated by EPA. The owners of these
systems are responsible for the safety of
their water, and it is important Head
Start programs in these rare
circumstances take steps to understand
the overall quality of their water and to
also remediate exceedances of the 5
parts per billion lead level.
In implementing these requirements,
ACF encourages programs to refer to the
EPA voluntary program: 3Ts available at
https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-anddrinking-water/3ts-reducing-leaddrinking-water. The purpose of this
program is to assist states, schools, and
child care facilities with implementing
their own testing and remediation
programs, developing a plan,
conducting outreach, and taking action
to address elevated levels of lead.
Further, programs may be able to utilize
funding available from the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Act to cover some of the
costs associated with lead testing and
remediation.
Lead in Paint
Paragraph (b) introduces new
requirements on preventing and
addressing lead exposure in paint, with
its associated exposures from lead in
dust and lead in soil, in facilities
constructed before 1978 and in facilities
where lead-based paint may exist,
including appropriate abatement
actions, and the frequency of reassessing lead-based paint hazards
following abatement.
We propose to limit requirements
associated with paragraph (b) to
programs operating in facilities
constructed prior to 1978 and where
lead-based paint may still exist. The
year 1978 is when the Federal
Government banned the consumer use
of lead-based paint, and this
requirement targets the risk associated
with facilities constructed prior to this
date.211 However, we recognize that
there are facilities constructed prior to
1978 where lead paint has been
completely removed (e.g., through major
210 See https://www.epa.gov/dwreginfo/
information-about-public-water-systems.
211 See https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/
prevention/sources/paint.htm.
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
renovation or studs-out remodel), or that
were constructed without lead paint. If
a program operates in a facility
constructed prior to 1978 and is able to
demonstrate that lead-based paint no
longer exists, then requirements in
paragraph (b) do not apply. We propose
in paragraph (b)(1) that programs work
with a risk assessor who is certified by
either the EPA or by a State, territory,
or Tribe with an EPA-authorized leadbased paint certification program to
inspect for lead-based paint and assess
for lead-based paint hazards. Of rooms
in Head Start facilities undergoing an
evaluation, we assume approximately
43.8% would be identified as
potentially having a lead-based paint
hazard requiring abatement.212 We
understand this value may be an
overestimate since it is based on a study
covering pre-1978 child care centers,
and we request public comment on
whether there is a better assumption
that can be applied regarding the
percent of rooms in Head Start facilities
that may require abatement.
We propose in paragraphs (b)(2) and
(3) that programs immediately restrict
access to identified lead hazards until
abatement actions are completed by a
lead abatement contractor certified by
the EPA or State, territory, or Tribal
agency (see proposed definition for
abatement in section 1305.2). These
provisions aim to minimize risk of lead
exposure for children, while
maintaining flexibility for programs to
determine appropriate lead abatement
strategies that best meet local program
needs and available resources, in
consultation with certified lead
abatement experts and contractors.
Lead is naturally present in soil, but
we recognize that deposits from leaded
gasoline, exterior lead-based paint, and
industrial sources may contribute to
concerning levels of lead in the soil
surrounding a program, especially in
urban areas with historic use of leaded
paint or leaded gasoline, and in rural
areas where there was heavy pesticide
use for agriculture.213 Lead does not
biodegrade over time and remains in
soil for a long time.214 Although there
are no proposed requirements to
explicitly address lead in soil, the
requirements in this paragraph may
212 https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/HH/
documents/AHHS_II_Lead_Findings_Report_Final_
29oct21.pdf.
213 See https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/
2020-10/documents/lead-in-soil-aug2020.pdf.
214 Urban-Soil Pedogenesis Drives Contrasting
Legacies of Lead from Paint and Gasoline in City
Soil,’’ Anna M. Wade, Daniel D. Richter,
Christopher B. Craft, Nancy Y. Bao, Paul R. Heine,
Mary C. Osteen and Kevin G. Tan; May 21, 2021,
Environmental Science & Technology. DOI: https://
doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c00546.
E:\FR\FM\20NOP2.SGM
20NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
result in hazardous levels of lead in soil
to be identified and addressed through
inspections of lead-paint hazards and
associated abatement efforts.
Additionally, we encourage programs to
consider the risk of lead in their soil,
and take any steps needed to ensure any
bare soil where children play is nontoxic.
We propose in paragraph (b)(4) that
following the conclusion of any
abatement actions, those facilities that
have lead-based paint or lead-based
paint hazards as determined by the
initial inspection and risk assessment,
would have a certified risk assessor
reassess for lead-based paint hazards at
least once every 2 years unless two
reassessments conducted two years
apart identify no lead-based paint
hazards, indicating the quality of the
ongoing lead-based paint maintenance
of the facility. Two years is selected as
it aligns with the Lead Safe Housing
Rule recommendation for reevaluation
of HUD-assisted properties (24 CFR
35.1355(b)(4)). Further, allowing a
program to no longer reassess every 2
years when two reassessments
conducted 2 years apart identify no
lead-based paint hazards is intended to
remove unnecessary burden of
reassessments when the risk of leadbased paint hazards to re-emerge is low.
However, programs are encouraged to
visually monitor for potential
deterioration of lead abatement
measures on an ongoing basis, including
looking for any peeling or chipping
paint. We request comment on whether
we should require regular visual
inspections.
We request comment on whether the
dust-lead hazards should be specified or
referenced to EPA established clearance
levels and whether the reassessment
process proposed following abatements
of lead-based paint hazards should be
modified such that a reassessment is
required if the EPA promulgates more
stringent abatement requirements that
take effect following the two
reassessments envisioned by this
proposal’s regulatory text.
Notification
In paragraph (c), we propose
requirements that programs provide
notification of lead testing results and
remediation actions to parents,
caregivers, and staff to promote
transparency and raise awareness.
Additionally, notification of results and
actions to parents, caregivers, and
program staff can help build community
trust and engagement and demonstrate a
commitment to children’s health and
safety. While the proposed provision
does not provide a specific timeframe
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:04 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
for notification, EPA’s 3T’s program
encourages beginning
communication 215 before testing begins
and ongoing throughout the testing
process. We encourage programs to
consider leveraging existing methods of
communication already established
throughout the program year. For
example, if there is suspicion that a
child may have been exposed to lead,
programs should encourage parents to
talk to their child’s healthcare provider
about completing the appropriate blood
lead tests. We also encourage programs
to consider a notification schedule and
approach that is appropriate for their
community. Notifications must be
translated and interpreted for families
with limited English proficiency, in
alignment with § 1302.90(d)(1) and
consistent with Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964. Programs also must
provide effective communication to
individuals with disabilities about lead
testing results and remediation actions,
consistent with the Rehabilitation Act of
1973.
Conflicting Requirements
As with many areas of the HSPPS,
there may be situations in which the
HSPPS differ somewhat from State or
local laws or regulations. In those cases,
it is standard practice that programs
adhere to the more stringent
requirement. In paragraph (d) we
propose a requirement that specifically
states that programs should comply
with the more stringent requirement,
should State or local laws or regulations
differ from the requirements described
in paragraphs (a) through (c). We note
that we interpret this standard to apply
to each specific aspect of these
requirements. For example, if a State
requires licensed programs to have a
more stringent action level when lead is
identified in water but a less stringent
standard for testing frequency, a
program should use the more stringent
action level required by the State and
the more stringent testing frequency
required by the proposed standard in
HSPPS.
We welcome all public comments on
the proposed requirements to prevent
and address lead exposure through
water and paint (including associated
dust and soil exposures). We are
specifically interested in public
comment on the issues programs have
experienced with previously addressing
harmful lead exposure in water or paint,
whether the proposed flexibilities are
215 US EPA 3Ts communication templates can be
found at https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-anddrinking-water/3ts-reducing-lead-drinkingwater#mod1.
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
80859
helpful or if additional flexibility is
needed, and the action level requiring
remediation for lead in water, as well as
any areas that are particularly unclear.
We did not propose any requirements
to specifically target lead in soil, since
we believe this will be captured through
proposed requirements on lead-paint
inspections and through programs
determining when it is necessary to test
lead in their soil (e.g., programs testing
bare soil accessible for children to play
in since they are in an urban area near
older buildings that currently or
previously contained lead paint). We
were concerned that lead in soil testing
and remediation requirements would
cause too much undue burden and by
not including them, we aim to ensure
programs have flexibility in their
approaches to determining and
addressing lead in soil hazards.
Finally, ACF seeks public comment
on how the proposed requirements in
this section may differentially impact
different communities. We specifically
request public comment from the
special populations served by Head
Start, including AIAN and MSHS
programs and communities.
Family Service Worker Family
Assignments (§ 1302.52)
Since its inception in 1965, Head
Start has been a leader in anti-poverty,
two generation early childhood
programming focused on school
readiness, family well-being, and family
and community engagement. Section
1302.52 outlines the requirements for
family partnership services, the
foundational and central process by
which staff engage with each family of
enrolled children. This section
describes the required components of
the family partnership process: the
intake and family assessment
procedures to identify family strengths
and needs related to family engagement
outcomes; what must occur as part of
individualizing family partnership
services; and the need to consider
existing plans and community resources
to support families in order to ensure
that families can take full advantage of
services for which they are eligible and
promote coordination across service
providers. This section also describes
what is needed to individualize family
partnership services and how staff must
collaborate with families to identify
needs, interests, and individualized
family goals. Head Start staff who
partner with families play a critical role
in helping families achieve their goals
and aspirations for themselves and for
their children.
Family well-being is one of the
greatest predictors of school
E:\FR\FM\20NOP2.SGM
20NOP2
80860
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
readiness.216 Many families of all
backgrounds in the U.S. face various
challenges, such as unemployment,
poverty, high housing costs, food
insecurity, community violence, limited
education, and poor health. Each of
these alone can cause family stress and
negatively impact family well-being.
When combined, these negative effects
on family well-being and child
outcomes can be even greater.217 The
Head Start workforce that supports
families provides many of the
comprehensive services that reflect
Head Start’s focus not only on the
health and development of young
children, but the well-being and
leadership of their families.
When Head Start staff that provide
family services have high family
assignments, which are sometimes
referred to as caseloads, they may feel
overwhelmed and experience burnout,
which in turn negatively impacts the
quality of family services. Data from
Head Start’s technical assistance
trainings shows that high family
assignments and being asked to take on
additional responsibilities beyond the
job description are often accompanied
by expressions of job frustration and
dissatisfaction among staff who work
directly with families. Further, OHS
regional offices have reported that when
cost savings are needed, programs will
first look to personnel budgets by
decreasing family service positions.
This can lead to larger family
assignments for remaining staff and less
stability in staffing for family support
216 Chazan-Cohen, R., Raikes, H., Brooks-Gunn, J.,
Ayoub, C., Pan, B.A., Kisker, E.E., . . . Fuligni, A.S.
(2009). Low-income children’s school readiness:
Parent contributions over the first five years. Early
Education & Development, 20(6), 958–977. Duncan
G.J. & Magnuson, K.A., (2005). Can family
socioeconomic resources account for racial and
ethnic test score gaps? The Future of Children,
15(1). Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/
1602661 Fantuzzo, J., Leboeuf, W., Brumley, B., &
Perlman, S. (2013). A population-based inquiry of
homeless episode characteristics and early
educational well-being. Children and Youth
Services Review, 35(6), 966–972. Mistry, R.S.,
Benner, A.D., Biesanz, J.C., Clark, S.L., & Howes, C.
(2010). Family and social risk, and parental
investments during the early childhood years as
predictors of low-income children’s school
readiness outcomes. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 25(4), 432–449. Ryu, J.H., & Bartfeld, J.S.
(2012). Household food insecurity during childhood
and subsequent health status: The Early Childhood
Longitudinal Study—Kindergarten Cohort.
American Journal of Public Health, 102(11), e50–
e55.
217 Brooks-Gunn, J., Duncan, G.J., & Maritato, N.
(1999). Poor families, poor outcomes: The wellbeing of children and youth. In G.J. Duncan & J.
BrooksGunn (Eds.), Consequences of growing up
poor (pp. 1–17). New York: Russell Sage
Foundation; Vernon-Feagans, L., & Cox, M. (2012).
I. Poverty, rurality, parenting, and risk: An
introduction. Monographs of the Society for
Research in Child Development, 78(5), 1–23.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:04 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
services in Head Start, which may
decrease the quality of services. Many
family services staff with higher family
assignments share with OHS that they
have too many family assignments to
meaningfully and consistently address
supports for family wellbeing,
parenting, and family engagement
around children’s early learning and
education. Though there is not much
literature on the family engagement
specialist caseload experience, research
on home visiting demonstrates that
stressors in caseload management relate
to diminished engagement with
participants that could negatively
impact the participant experience.218
Research from related fields shows
that high family assignments
compromise workers’ ability to provide
effective services to families. High
family assignments also exacerbate
already high levels of staff burnout and
turnover.219 Further, program leaders
describe family assignments as a major
challenge. In a 2019 National TTA study
of Head Start programs, Family and
Community Services Managers, who
oversee family services staff, cited their
top two program challenges as (1)
workload/family assignments being too
large for staff and (2) families faced so
many challenges that staff were not able
to support families as well as they
would like.220
ACF has sought various ways to
support the family services workforce.
For example, ACF established the
National Center on Parent, Family and
Community Engagement (NC PFCE) in
2010. The NC PFCE developed researchbased resources, including a set of
family services competencies which
218 Alitz, P., Geary, S., Birriel, P., Sayi, T.,
Ramakrishnan, R., Balogun, O., . . . Marshall, J.
(2018). Work-Related Stressors Among Maternal,
Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting
(MIECHV) Home Visitors: A Qualitative Study.
Maternal and Child Health Journal, 22, 62–69.
219 Boston Children’s Hospital. (2012). Family
connections. U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Administration for Children and Families,
Office of Head Start. Retrieved from https://
eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/
introduction-to-family-connections.pdf; Child
Welfare Information Gateway. (2016, July). Caseload
and workload management. Retrieved from https://
www.childwelfare.gov/pubPDFs/case_work_
management.pdf; Howes, C., Phillips, D.A., &
Whitebook, M. (1992). Thresholds of Quality:
Implications for the Social Development of
Children in Center-Based Child Care. Child
Development, 63(2), 449–460.; Social Work Policy
Institute. (2010, January). High caseloads: How do
they impact delivery of health and human services?
Retrieved from https://www.socialworkpolicy.org/
wp-content/uploads/2010/02/r2p-cw-caseloadswpi-1-10.pdf.
220 Administration for Children and Families,
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
(2022). Survey of Head Start Grantees on Training
and Technical Assistance. [Unpublished data
analyses].
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
articulate best practices in family
assignment limits. NC PFCE also
conducted hundreds of trainings to
assist Head Start programs with
implementing these best practices.
Additionally, to improve workloads for
staff working directly with families, in
the 2016 revisions to the HSPPS, ACF
added § 1302.52(c)(4) ‘‘Assign staff and
resources based on the urgency and
intensity of identified family needs and
goals.’’ Despite these efforts, we have
seen little change to family assignment
ratios across time, as evidenced by our
own Head Start Program Information
Report (PIR) data.
According to the PIR for program year
2021, 50 percent of programs had one
staff partnering with 40 or more
families. Of those programs, 21 percent
had family assignments of one staff to
40–50 families; 16 percent had family
assignments of one staff to 50–60
families; seven percent had family
assignments of one staff to 60–75
families; and six percent of programs
had family assignments of one staff to
75–200+ families. Based on these data,
there is a wide range of family
assignments across our programs,
therefore we feel it is necessary to
establish a standardized family
assignment requirement.
Section 648A(c)(2) of the Act provides
ACF with the authority to review and if
necessary, revise, requirements related
to family assignments, as suggested by
best practice, to improve the quality and
effectiveness of staff providing services
to families. We believe the research in
this field coupled with our own PIR
data and feedback we received from
programs indicates a strong need for
clearer standards for management of
family assignments. We propose an
additional provision in § 1302.52
Family Partnership Services, (d)
Approaches to Family Services.
We propose to add this section to
address the long-standing problem of
overly high family assignments for
many family services staff. We
recommend this change to promote
consistent, reasonable family
assignments for staff who work directly
with families in the family partnership
process. We believe this change will
improve the quality of support that
family support services provide and
improve their own well-being as well.
For these reasons, we propose to
insert a new section (d) Approaches to
family services to 1302.52 Family
Partnerships. In (d)(1), we propose
minor edits for alignment with the new
section and to emphasize the familycentered nature of the process by
including language that specifies both
family interests and family needs. Next,
E:\FR\FM\20NOP2.SGM
20NOP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
we propose a new (d)(2) that requires
programs to ensure the planned number
of families assigned to work with
individual family services staff is no
greater than 40, unless a program can
demonstrate higher family assignments
provide high quality family and
community engagement services and
maintain reasonable staff workload as
described in (d)(3).
There are no research-based
assignment ratios to adopt from other
fields that are aligned enough in job
description with this unique early
childhood workforce. Therefore, we
propose a maximum of 40 families per
family services staff member,
considering the large variation in
families’ interests, needs, goals and the
variation of families’ engagement with
their programs.
We include an implementation date of
two years from an estimated date of a
final rule because we recognize the
degree of change required by programs
will vary depending on programs’
current family assignment systems and
procedures. This proposal could mean
substantial change for some programs
and little to no change for others. In fact,
2021 PIR data reveals that
approximately 50 percent of programs
have staff family assignments that are 40
families or less. It should be noted that
the proposed maximum is intended for
programs with higher than 40
assignments per staff to lower their
family assignment ratios. The proposed
maximum is not meant to bring
programs with lower assignment
numbers up to 40. Programs who have
already established best practices at
lower staff: family ratios are encouraged
to continue these responsive family
services.
In addition to the proposed family
assignment maximum, we propose to
include language in a new (d)(3) to
allow for program designs that best meet
the needs of the program and
community, based on community and
family assessment data. We include this
language recognizing that programs may
need the flexibility to design family and
community engagement services in
ways that are preventative and
responsive to emerging family and
community needs.
Finally, we also propose a
requirement for effective and
meaningful employee engagement
practices that include opportunities for
staff to discuss and address workloadrelated issues. We propose this language
to promote such practices to address the
negative impact of family services
workload factors, such as the stress of
unofficial job duties and lack of clear
job expectations can have on staff
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:04 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
wellness, job satisfaction, and providing
high-quality services.
ACF seeks input from the public on
the benefits and challenges of
implementing a family assignment cap
of 40 families per family service worker,
using a phased in approach over a
period of 3 years from the publication
date of a final rule. To better understand
programs’ specific experiences, ACF is
also seeking programs’ feedback on the
benefits and challenges of implementing
family assignments between 30 and 40
per individual staff and the same for
implementing family assignments
between 40 and 50 per individual staff.
Finally, ACF also seeks public comment
on how the proposed requirements in
this section may differentially impact
different communities. We specifically
request public comment from the
special populations served by Head
Start, including AIAN and MSHS
programs and communities.
Participation in Quality Rating and
Improvement Systems (§ 1302.53)
Section 1302.53 establishes the
requirements for Head Start programs to
participate in State quality rating and
improvement systems (QRIS). With the
exception of American Indian and
Alaska Native programs, each Head
Start program must currently participate
in its State QRIS if three conditions are
met—its State or local QRIS accepts
Head Start monitoring data to document
quality indicators included in the
State’s tiered system; participation
would not impact a program’s ability to
comply with the HSPPS; and the
program has not provided ACF with a
compelling reason not to comply with
this requirement.
A QRIS is a systemic approach to
assess, improve, and communicate the
level of quality in early and school-age
care and education programs within a
State or locality. These accountability
systems unify standards, evaluate and
report quality to the public, and provide
supports and incentives for
improvement.221 These systems award
quality ratings to programs that meet a
set of criteria as defined by the QRIS.
221 Bipartisan Policy Center. (2018). Creating an
integrated efficient early care and education system
to support children and families: A state-by-state
analysis. https://bipartisanpolicy.org/report/eceadministration-state-by-state/; Warner-Richter M.
(2016, February 9). Promoting quality improvement
in early care and education. Child Trends. https://
www.childtrends.org/promoting-qualityimprovement-in-early-care-and-education; Tout, K.,
Friese, S., Starr, R. & Hirilall, A. (2018).
Understanding and Measuring Program Engagement
in Quality Rating and Improvement Systems. OPRE
Research Brief #2018–84. Washington, DC: Office of
Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration
for Children and Families, U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services.
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
80861
Criteria Head Start programs must meet
to enter the QRIS and maintain
participation vary greatly by State.
QRIS can be an important mechanism
for coordinating and aligning various
programs into a broader statewide
system of early care and education.
Participation by Head Start and other
programs into a QRIS can provide
continuity, alignment of standards and
a common means by which families can
understand and make decisions among
which program options are best for their
family. As states continue to move in
the direction of more streamlined,
coordinated early care and education
systems that are easier for families to
navigate, Head Start participation in
QRIS can serve to ensure that Head Start
programs are part of these statewide
coordination efforts and that eligible
families consider Head Start alongside
other options in the QRIS.
Currently, 41 states have statewide
QRIS (Florida has three local QRIS). Of
these 41 states with statewide QRIS, 27
states require at least some types of
programs (generally licensed programs
and programs receiving child care
subsidy funds) to participate in the
system. In 15 States, Head Start
programs are required by the State to
participate in the QRIS, either as a
function of licensing or receiving
subsidy funds, or through reciprocity
agreements or alternate pathways that
bring Head Start programs into the
system automatically.222 Fourteen states
have fully voluntary systems in which
programs are not required to participate
regardless of licensure status or receipt
of child care subsidies.
State QRIS are structured very
differently across states, and
participation may be required for all
types or some types of programs or may
be voluntary for all programs. In states
with voluntary QRIS, participation rates
average 40 percent for licensed centerbased programs. While at least some
Head Start programs participate in QRIS
even within voluntary systems, states
may require a broad range of
documentation for entry into the QRIS,
as well as additional assessments,
monitoring visits, or reviews. These
requirements, along with periodic
revisions to aspects of a State’s QRIS 223
may impact a Head Start program’s
ability to participate in the system.
We recognize the importance of
quality improvements and encourage
Head Start programs to continue their
222 Build Initiative & Child Trends. (2021). A
Catalog and Comparison of Quality Improvement
Systems [Data System]. Retrieved from https://
qualitycompendium.org/ on September 29, 2022.
223 Ibid.
E:\FR\FM\20NOP2.SGM
20NOP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
80862
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
participation in these important quality
improvement efforts. Many Head Start
grant recipients receive funds from
Head Start as well as other early
childhood funding streams.
Participating in QRIS and other State
and local quality initiatives can help
drive quality across a program. At the
same time, ACF wants to ensure that
QRIS requirements are not duplicative
of Head Start requirements, thus
requiring a program to undergo the same
process multiple times. Nor does ACF
want Head Start programs to draw
resources away from other early
childhood programs that do not have
access to resources provided through
ACF and are in greater need of support
from State and local resources that
support quality. Based on findings from
an analysis of current State QRIS
systems and their evolutions, and input
from ACF regional staff and Head Start
Collaboration Offices who support
coordination among Head Start
programs and State systems, we propose
to revise the language at § 1302.53(b)(2)
to clarify that Head Start programs
should participate in QRIS to the extent
practicable if the State system has
strategies in place to support their
participation. These proposed changes
recognize that QRIS systems differ
significantly across states and continue
to evolve rapidly. Substantive changes
to QRIS may require additional burden
on programs in the form of revised
processes and potentially additional or
different documentation, as well as
possible duplication of monitoring and
assessment processes. These proposed
changes are intended to allow Head
Start programs to focus their resources
on activities that are most likely to
support quality services for children
and families. For programs in states
where the QRIS does not have strategies
in place to support Head Start
participation, does not accept existing
documentation for participation, or that
would in any way impact a program’s
ability to comply with the HSPPS, staff
effort and program resources may be
better directed at other activities.
However, ACF notes that Head Start
programs currently participating in their
State QRIS are encouraged to continue
to do so.
We propose further to eliminate the
three conditions for participation in the
State QRIS as written in the current
standards at § 1302.53(b)(2)(i)–(iii), as
we believe these conditions
unnecessarily require the Head Start
grant recipient to document individual
circumstances that support or impede
participation in the system. By
eliminating these specific conditions
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:04 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
and substituting language that
emphasizes the State strategies for Head
Start participation in general, we believe
Head Start grant recipients, along with
Head Start Collaboration Offices and
OHS regional staff, can collectively
encourage the evolution of State systems
like QRIS to better receive Head Start
programs.
In paragraph (b)(2), we propose to
replace ‘‘must’’ with ‘‘should’’ in the
overarching requirement. We propose to
add ‘‘to the extent practicable, if a State
or local QRIS has a strategy to support
Head Start participation without
requiring programs to duplicate existing
documentation from Office of Head
Start oversight.’’ We believe this change
will clarify for programs that there is an
expectation from ACF that they
participate in the QRIS if the system has
a strategy that will support Head Start
participation. Strategies may include
reciprocal agreements or alternate
pathways, as well as mandatory
requirements for Head Start programs to
participate. Some Head Start programs
may be required to participate if they
receive other funds or are licensed as a
child care program. The change further
emphasizes that ACF does not expect
programs to duplicate documentation
efforts that are required for Head Start
oversight purposes in order to
participate in the QRIS. We also propose
to delete paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through
(iii) in this section in their entirety
which delineate the current conditions
for QRIS participation.
The current standards include the
State’s acceptance of Head Start
monitoring data, which continues to be
a barrier to participation in some states.
We believe that eliminating these
criteria will lessen the documentation
required on individual circumstances
for participating or not participating in
a QRIS, but rather would help programs
examine their State’s QRIS as a State
system and better understand Head
Start’s overall role in that broader
system. ACF still strongly supports the
central requirement that programs
should participate in a QRIS to the
extent practicable as this standard
provides programs with an important
lever for participating in a State’s highquality mixed delivery ECE system and
in accessing State quality improvement
efforts where participation pathways
and strategies exist. Participation in the
QRIS also serves as an important
mechanism in some states to assist
families in recognizing quality program
options that can include Head Start
programs. Head Start programs must
maintain a high level of quality, and it
is important that parents understand the
services offered in Head Start.
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Services to Enrolled Pregnant Women
and People (§ 1302.80; § 1302.82)
Section 1302.80 describes the services
programs must provide to enrolled
pregnant women and people. It requires
programs to: assess whether enrolled
pregnant women and people have
access to an ongoing source of health
care and health insurance, and if not, to
facilitate their access to such care and
insurance; facilitate access to
comprehensive services; and schedule a
visit with each newborn and their
mother or birthing parent within two
weeks after the newborn’s birth, to
identify family needs and offer support
(referred to as the ‘‘newborn visit’’).
Women and people receiving Head
Start services face social determinants of
health that may impact their prenatal
and postpartum outcomes. Early
postpartum intervention is key to
preventing and addressing maternal
health-related challenges.224 Postpartum
support and intervention can identify
and address issues such as postpartum
depression, intimate partner violence,
and physical health issues that occur
during pregnancy. The period after
childbirth is critical to assess the child
care, health, and mental health needs of
mothers and families. In fact, over half
of maternal deaths occur between 1
week and 1 year after birth, most of
which are preventable.225 Early Head
Start programs are critical in addressing
the maternal mortality crisis and other
maternal-health related challenges as
they are positioned to provide
postpartum support by ensuring the
required newborn visit provides
intentional opportunities for
collaboration, intervention, and support.
Paragraph (d) in this section focuses
on the required newborn visit. We
propose to revise paragraph (d) by
adding a new sentence to the end of the
paragraph that requires the newborn
visit to include a discussion of
postpartum mental and physical health,
infant health, and support for basic
needs. We believe this language will
clarify for programs what areas—at a
224 Firoz, T., McCaw-Binns, A., Filippi, V., Magee,
L.A., Costa, M.L., Cecatti, J.G., Barreix, M., Adanu,
R., Chou, D., & Say, L. (2018), A framework for
healthcare interventions to address maternal
morbidity. Int J Gynecol Obstet, 141: 61–68. https://
doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.12469.
225 Trost SL, Beauregard J, Njie F, et al.
Pregnancy-Related Deaths: Data from Maternal
Mortality Review Committees in 36 US States,
2017–2019. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention, US Department of Health and
Human Services; 2022.; Petersen EE, Davis NL,
Goodman D, et al. Vital Signs: Pregnancy-Related
Deaths, United States, 2011–2015, and Strategies for
Prevention, 13 States, 2013–2017. MMWR Morb
Mortal Wkly Rep 2019;68:423–429. DOI: https://
dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6818e1.
E:\FR\FM\20NOP2.SGM
20NOP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
minimum—should be included as part
of the newborn visit. This requirement
is intended to reflect the minimum
requirements for the newborn visit.
Programs may choose to include other
areas of assessment or support based on
the needs of both parent and newborn.
The proposed requirement is intended
to clarify requirements and provide
consistency in topics covered during the
newborn visit.
Section 645A(a) of the Act authorizes
funding for Early Head Start programs to
provide services that encompass the full
range of the family’s needs, from
pregnancy through a child’s third
birthday, to promote the child’s
development and move the parents
toward self-sufficiency. Early Head Start
programs are not required to enroll
expectant families, but many choose to
do so. If an Early Head Start program
chooses to enroll pregnant women and
people, they must identify the total
number of pregnant women and people
they anticipate serving each program
year in the grant application, provide
high-quality prenatal and postnatal
education, and help them access
comprehensive prenatal services.
However, currently, Early Head Start
programs are not explicitly required in
regulation to track and record
interactions with pregnant women and
people. Moreover, programs are not
currently required to detail and record
the services they provide enrolled
pregnant women and people as well as
the services received from community
partners or providers. Although
programs are not required to do so,
generally, programs do track and record
this information. However, there is
significant variation in format and level
of detail across programs, which often
makes it difficult to verify actual
enrollment numbers and challenging for
OHS to understand the services
provided to pregnant women and
people.
Early Head Start programs with
identified slots to serve pregnant
women and people are responsible for
creating a system of care that supports
the well-being of mothers, parents, and
newborns. This includes tracking and
documenting services a pregnant
woman or person receives, including
those received via referrals to
community partners, to the extent
practical, in order to identify how to
best be responsive to the needs of the
enrolled pregnant woman and people.
Information captured about individual
services provided to pregnant women
and people is essential because it can be
used to validate the use of Federal funds
to serve pregnant women and people
and to inform ongoing conversations
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:04 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
program staff have with a pregnant
woman or person about their needs
before and after the baby is born.226
As such, we also propose to amend
§ 1302.80 by adding a new paragraph
(e). The goal of new paragraph (e) is to
enhance program accountability by
requiring programs to track and record
information on service delivery for
enrolled pregnant women and people.
We believe this proposed standard will
enhance program accountability by
requiring programs to verify the number
of pregnant women and people they
serve along with details on the services
received.
Head Start PIR data from FY 2022 227
reveals that most pregnant parents that
enroll in Early Head Start services do so
during their second and third trimesters.
Early prenatal care is key for optimal
outcomes for pregnant women and
newborns.228 We believe all Head Start
programs are in unique positions to
support pregnant women and people,
including staff working in programs, by
identifying, understanding, and
addressing barriers to healthy
pregnancies. This begins by
understanding the impact systemic
racism has on the maternal health
outcomes of women of color,229—
particularly African American or Black
and AIAN women—as many women of
color and their children are served in
Head Start programs.
According to the Office of Minority
Health and Health Equity, pregnancyrelated death impacts Black women at
higher rates than White women.230 Data
from 2021 shows that the maternal
mortality rate for non-Hispanic Black
women was over twice the rate for nonHispanic White women.231 There are
also disparities in maternal mortality for
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific
Islander (NHOPI) and AIAN
populations.232 Inadequate access to
226 See ACF–IM–HS–22–02, Documenting
Services to Enrolled Pregnant Women, https://
eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/policy/im/acf-im-hs-22-02.
227 Source: Head Start 2022 PIR.
228 Novoa, C. (2020). Ensuring Healthy Births
Through Prenatal Support Innovations From Three
Models. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/
ensuring-healthy-births-prenatal-support/.
229 Bornstein, E., Eliner, Y., Chervenak, F. A., &
Gru¨nebaum, A. (2020). Racial Disparity in
Pregnancy Risks and Complications in the US:
Temporal Changes during 2007–2018. Journal of
clinical medicine, 9(5), 1414.
230 Office of Minority Health & Health Equity
(OMHHE). April 2022. https://www.cdc.gov/
healthequity/features/maternal-mortality/
index.html.
231 Hoyert DL. Maternal mortality rates in the
United States, 2021. NCHS Health E-Stats. 2023.
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.15620/cdc:1246.
232 U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Centers of Disease Control and Prevention,
National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and
Health Promotion, Division of Reproductive Health.
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
80863
quality health care, systemic racism,
and disparities in social determinants of
health may contribute to disparities in
healthy pregnancy and birth outcomes
for many pregnant women and people
from racial and ethnic minority
groups.233
Newborn babies are also impacted by
systemic racism. Infant mortality data
show that African American or Black,
NHOPI, and AIAN babies are dying at
higher rates in the U.S. than other racial
or ethnic groups.234 Head Start
programs are positioned to address
racial gaps in maternal mortality,
morbidity, and infant deaths by
customizing services for the pregnant
women and people they serve based on
the needs of their community.
To help programs better understand
and address barriers a pregnant woman
or person may have to a healthy
pregnancy and childbirth, we further
propose to amend § 1302.80 by adding
a new paragraph (f). The new paragraph
requires programs to identify and
reduce barriers to healthy pregnancy
outcomes for enrolled pregnant women
and people based on the information
and data collected on this population.
The goal is also to help reduce racial
inequities in maternal and infant
morbidity 235 and mortality. This
proposed paragraph states, ‘‘The
program must provide services that help
reduce barriers to healthy maternal and
birthing outcomes for each family,
including services that address
disparities across racial and ethnic
groups, and use data on enrolled
pregnant women to inform program
services.’’ We believe this new
paragraph will ensure programs
customize prenatal and postnatal
services to help improve outcomes and
contribute to the reduction of racial
inequities in maternal and infant
morbidity and mortality. Programs
should use data and information
collected from referrals and general case
management to inform and
individualize services. Documentation
of services should include a summary of
Pregnancy Mortality Surveillance System: Trends in
pregnancy-related mortality ratio by race/ethnicity:
2017–2019. https://www.cdc.gov/reproductive
health/maternal-mortality/pregnancy-mortalitysurveillance-system.htm.
233 Ibid.
234 Ely DM, Driscoll AK. Infant mortality in the
United States, 2019: Data from the period linked
birth/infant death file. National Vital Statistics
Reports; vol 70 no 14. Hyattsville, MD: National
Center for Health Statistics. 2021. DOI: https://
dx.doi.org/10.15620/cdc:111053.
235 Maternal morbidity describes any short- or
long-term health problems that result from being
pregnant and giving birth. National Institute of
Child Health and Human Development. (June 2021).
https://www.nichd.nih.gov/health/topics/maternalmorbidity-mortality.
E:\FR\FM\20NOP2.SGM
20NOP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
80864
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
interactions with the pregnant woman
or person through case notes, strengths
and needs assessment, referrals and the
results of the referrals to community
partners, and information from the
family partnership agreement and any
relevant community partnership
agreements. The program should
examine this information and data for
any barriers that prevent pregnant
women and people from having healthy
pregnancies and birth outcomes. Plans
may include approaches developed with
the Health Services Advisory Committee
and community partners to help address
or reduce identified barriers.
Next, we discuss proposed revisions
to § 1302.82. In general, this section
highlights that, as with all other
families, enrolled pregnant women and
people should receive the family
partnership services described in
§ 1302.52 Family partnership services.
However, § 1302.82 clarifies that these
services should be explicitly directed
toward their prenatal and postpartum
care needs. This section also describes
requirements to support the enrollment
of the newborn into a program as
appropriate.
Programs are not currently required to
use a curriculum in the provision of
services to pregnant women and people,
nor are there any requirements for the
type of curriculum if one is used.
However, if a curriculum is used, it
should be responsive to the needs of the
population served. As such, programs
opting to use a maternal health
curriculum should consider the needs of
the pregnant women and people in their
program. If used, the curriculum should
provide information that increases the
knowledge of pregnant women or
people and their support system. Those
who attend maternal health courses
with their partners are more likely to
attend postpartum visits and had higher
positive maternal health behaviors.236 It
is imperative that any selected
curriculum be responsive to the cultures
and context of the communities served.
Therefore, we propose to revise
paragraph (a) in § 1302.82 by adding
language to clarify that if a program
chooses to use a curriculum with
pregnant women and people, they
should select a curriculum that focuses
on maternal and child health. We
believe this will improve maternal and
child outcomes by helping to reduce
prematurity and low birth weight, as
well as support increased initiation and
236 Britta C. Mullany, S Becker, MJ Hindin, The
impact of including husbands in antenatal health
education services on maternal health practices in
urban Nepal: results from a randomized controlled
trial, Health Education Research, 22(2), April 2007,
Pages 166–176.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:04 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
continuation of breastfeeding and other
healthy infant feeding.
ACF seeks public comment on how
the proposed requirements in this
section may differentially impact
different communities. We specifically
request public comment from the
special populations served by Head
Start, including AIAN and MSHS
programs and communities.
Standards of Conduct (§ 1302.90)
Section 1302.90(c) establishes the
standards of conduct for all staff,
consultants, contractors, and volunteers,
which are part of a program’s personnel
policies. Given how critical child safety
is in Head Start programs, we propose
revisions to these requirements to
ensure we are as clear as possible and
that our requirements reflect current
best practices and more precise
terminology.
The proposed revisions to this section
would align definitions related to child
maltreatment with other Federal
resources. We propose this alignment to
facilitate understanding of staff
responsibilities related to child health,
mental health, and safety incidents.
Additionally, the proposed revisions
would underscore typical
responsibilities of mandated
reporters 237 of child abuse and neglect,
which applies to all Head Start staff.
These responsibilities include reporting
when an individual ‘‘suspects or has
reason to believe that a child has been
abused or neglected,’’ or when a
reporter has knowledge of or observes
‘‘conditions that would reasonably
result in harm to the child.’’ 238 The
proposed changes further clarify that
reports must include suspected or
known incidents perpetrated by Head
Start staff before they have been
verified.
First, we propose to redefine and
reorganize provisions related to the
prohibition of child maltreatment or
endangerment in § 1302.90(c)(1)(ii).
First, in § 1302.90(c)(1)(ii) we propose to
remove the phrase ‘‘do not maltreat or
endanger the health or safety of
children, including at a minimum, that
staff must not’’ and replace it with ‘‘do
not engage in behaviors that would be
reasonably suspected to negatively
impact the health, mental health, or
237 ‘‘Mandated’’ reporter or reporting refers to
statutory requirements related to mandatory
reporting of suspected instances of child abuse and
neglect by individuals as applicable under State law
and in accordance with the Federal Child Abuse
Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA), 42 U.S.C.
5106a(b)(2)(B)(i).
238 Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2019).
Mandatory reporters of child abuse and neglect.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, Children’s Bureau.
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
safety of children, including at a
minimum.’’ We believe the proposed
revisions set a higher yet reasonable
standard for staff conduct to include
prohibition of behaviors that have the
potential to negatively impact children.
We believe removing the word
‘‘maltreat’’ from this paragraph and
instead providing clearer definitions
and examples of maltreatment in the
subsection that follows will provide
greater clarification about expectations.
The inclusion of children’s mental
health as a potential area of impact is
proposed to underscore that a behavior
does not have to cause physical harm to
a child to be of notable concern for a
child’s well-being. This understanding
is consistent with research and guidance
in the field of child maltreatment.239
More specifically, under
§ 1302.90(c)(1)(ii), we propose to
remove paragraphs (A) through (I) in
their entirety and to replace these with
paragraphs (A) through (D), each of
which specifies a category of potential
child abuse or neglect including a
definition and specific examples. First
in new paragraph (A) we define corporal
punishment or physically abusive
behavior as the intentional use of
physical force that results in, or has the
potential to result in, physical injury.
Examples in the definition include, but
are not limited to, hitting, kicking,
shaking, biting, forcibly moving,
restraining, force feeding, or dragging a
child. Next in new paragraph (B) we
define sexually abusive behavior as any
completed or attempted sexual act,
sexual contact, or exploitation.
Examples in the definition include, but
are not limited to, behaviors such as
inappropriate touching, inappropriate
filming, or exposing a child to other
sexual activities. Next in new paragraph
(C) we define emotionally harmful or
abusive behavior as behaviors that harm
a child’s self-worth or emotional wellbeing or behaviors that are insensitive to
the child’s developmental needs.
Examples in the definition include, but
are not limited to, using isolation as
discipline, exposing a child to public or
private humiliation, or name calling,
shaming, intimidating, or threatening a
child. Finally, in new paragraph (D) we
define neglectful behavior as the failure
to meet a child’s basic physical and
emotional needs including access to
food, education, medical care,
appropriate supervision by an adequate
caregiver, and safe physical and
239 Leeb R.T., Paulozzi L., Melanson C., Simon T.,
Arias I. (2008). Child Maltreatment Surveillance:
Uniform Definitions for Public Health and
Recommended Data Elements, Version 1.0. Atlanta
(GA): Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.
E:\FR\FM\20NOP2.SGM
20NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
emotional environments. Examples in
the definition include, but are not
limited to, withholding food as
punishment or refusing to change soiled
diapers as punishment. These proposed
categories, definitions, and examples of
potential child maltreatment are
adapted from the CDC resources, Child
Maltreatment Surveillance: Uniform
Definitions for Public Health and
Recommended Data Elements 240 and an
online Fast Facts review of child abuse
and neglect prevention.241 The CDC
resources were established through
extensive consultation with experts to
recommend consistent terminology
related to potential child maltreatment.
By providing definitions, we intend to
clarify that adults in Head Start
programs may not engage in any
behavior that may have potential to
negatively impact children. The
examples are intended to provide more
concrete information for clarification
but are not an exhaustive list. The
proposed paragraphs (A) through (D)
retain some examples from the current
standards that have been of particular
concern to early child care settings
according to internal data. Namely, we
retained behaviors related to corporal
punishment, public or private
humiliation, and feeding and toileting
practices as punishment in the
examples. Forcibly moving and
restraining are included as examples
because they are also harmful to
children’s well-being.
Furthermore, under § 1302.90(c)(1),
we propose to add a new paragraph
(c)(1)(iii) that clarifies the requirement
to ensure staff, consultants, contractors,
and volunteers report reasonably
suspected or known incidents of child
abuse and neglect, as defined by the
Federal Child Abuse Prevention and
Treatment Act (CAPTA) (42 U.S.C. 5101
note) 242 and in compliance with
Federal, State, local, and Tribal laws.
We believe that including this provision
in the standards of conduct will bring
attention to existing requirements that
all staff are mandated reporters of
suspected incidents of child abuse and
240 Leeb RT, Paulozzi L, Melanson C, Simon T,
Arias I. Child Maltreatment Surveillance: Uniform
Definitions for Public Health and Recommended
Data Elements, Version 1.0. Atlanta (GA): Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center
for Injury Prevention and Control; 2008.
241 Fortson B, Klevens J, Merrick M, Gilbert L,
Alexander S. (2016). Preventing Child Abuse and
Neglect: A Technical Package for Policy, Norm, and
Programmatic Activities. Atlanta, GA: National
Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention. Available
online at https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/
childabuseandneglect/fastfact.html.
242 42 U.S.C. 5106g. Available online at https://
www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2017title42/html/USCODE-2017-title42-chap67.htm.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:04 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
neglect, even in the absence of
definitive proof and even in instances in
which the reporting staff member did
not directly engage in or witness the
alleged behavior. The Federal definition
in CAPTA provides a minimum
standard that ‘‘the term ‘child abuse and
neglect’ means, at a minimum, any
recent act or failure to act on the part
of a parent or caretaker, which results in
death, serious physical or emotional
harm, sexual abuse or exploitation
(including sexual abuse as determined
under section 111), or an act or failure
to act which presents an imminent risk
of serious harm.’’ Programs must also
comply with State, local, and Tribal
laws, which may have additional
stipulations related to defining child
abuse and neglect and other
requirements for mandated reporting. If
there are differences between Federal
and State, local, and Tribal laws,
programs should comply with the more
stringent regulation. As a result of this
proposed new paragraph (iii), we
propose to redesignate in § 1302.90(c)(1)
current paragraphs in (iii), (iv), and (v)
as paragraphs (iv), (v), and (vi),
respectively.
In redesignated § 1302.90(c)(1)(iv),
formerly § 1302.90(c)(1)(iii), we propose
to remove the phrase ‘‘child and family’’
and replace it with ‘‘each individual.’’
This proposed change to ensure staff are
included is aligned with efforts to
promote well-being and safety across
Head Start and increase the supportive
and responsive relationships among
staff.
Finally, the requirement in Standards
of Conduct for staff at redesignated
paragraph § 1302.90(c)(1)(vi), formerly
§ 1302.90(c)(1)(v), underscores that
children cannot be left alone or
unsupervised by staff, consultants,
contractors, or volunteers under their
care. However, as it is currently written,
the language can be erroneously
interpreted to mean that a child may be
left solely under the supervision of
volunteers. ACF has been clear that this
is not allowed, and § 1302.94(b) states
that ‘‘a program must ensure children
are never left alone with volunteers.’’
For this reason, we propose to update
the provision at § 1302.90(c)(1)(vi).
Specifically, we propose to remove
the phrase ‘‘by staff, consultants,
contractors, or volunteers while under
their care’’ in paragraph (v). The stem of
§ 1302.90 (c)(1) reads ‘‘a program must
ensure all staff, consultants, contractors,
and volunteers abide by the program’s
standards of conduct that:’’ and
effectively captures the applicable
subjects of the requirement without
allowing for alternative inaccurate
interpretations of the requirement. This
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
80865
update to the language is not a policy
change but rather clarifies the longstanding requirement to prevent any
misinterpretation and to bring it into
full alignment with requirement
§ 1302.94(b).
ACF seeks public comment on how
the proposed requirements in this
section may differentially impact
different communities. We specifically
request public comment from the
special populations served by Head
Start, including AIAN and MSHS
programs and communities.
Staff Training To Support Child Safety
(§ 1302.92; § 1302.101)
As described in the earlier section on
Workforce Supports: Employee
Engagement, § 1302.92 establishes
requirements for staff training and
professional development. Specifically,
§ 1302.92(b) requires programs to
establish and implement systematic
approaches to training and professional
development in key areas. We know
Head Start programs are experiencing a
workforce shortage and the continued
effects of the pandemic, both of which
place significant stress on staff.243 We
also know that higher caregiver stress
and lower quality caregiver-child
relationships can be risk factors for
child abuse and neglect, and that
prevention of child abuse and neglect
often relies on strategies to reduce
caregiver stress, increase caregiver
supports, and foster higher quality
caregiver-child relationships.244
Ongoing training to build and apply
staff knowledge of child development
and positive guidance or other
developmentally appropriate behavior
strategies are critical components of
reducing caregiver stress and associated
risks in ECE settings.245 Given the
potential harm that any single incident
may pose to children, families, and staff,
we believe that providing ample
243 Elharake JA, Shafiq M, Cobanoglu A, Malik
AA, Klotz M, Humphries JE, et al. Prevalence of
Chronic Diseases, Depression, and Stress Among
US Childcare Professionals During the COVID–19
Pandemic. Prev Chronic Dis 2022;19:220132. DOI:
https://dx.doi.org/10.5888/pcd19.220132. NAEYC,
‘‘NAEYC Pandemic Surveys,’’ February 2022.
https://www.naeyc.org/pandemic-surveys.
244 Fortson, B.L., Klevens, J., Merrick, M.T.,
Gilbert, L.K., & Alexander, S.P. (2016). Preventing
child abuse and neglect: A technical package for
policy, norm, and programmatic activities. Atlanta,
GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and
Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Daly & Dowd (1992), Characteristics of effective,
harm free environments for children in out of home
care, Child Welfare, 71(6):487–96.
245 Koralek, D. (1992). Caregivers of young
children: Preventing and responding to child
maltreatment. U.S. National Center on Child Abuse
and Neglect, Department of Health and Human
Services. Available online at https://www.ojp.gov/
pdffiles1/Digitization/142411NCJRS.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\20NOP2.SGM
20NOP2
80866
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
opportunities to learn and practice
safety skills is essential to preventing
incidents. This emphasis is of utmost
importance to the Head Start population
since younger children are more likely
to be victims of child abuse and
neglect.246 In this section, we propose
revisions and an addition to emphasize
training and professional development
related to child safety.
In § 1302.92(b)(2), we propose to add
a requirement that mandated reporter
training is conducted on an annual
basis. We believe that more frequent
training will support staff in recognizing
potential child abuse and neglect and
understanding their legal responsibility
as a mandated reporter. Many states do
not require mandated reporter
trainings 247 but all Head Start staff are
mandated reporters regardless of
whether they work directly with
children and, as previously noted,
young children are a particularly
vulnerable population. We believe this
proposed policy change will create more
equitable opportunities for staff to
understand and discuss their ethical
and legal responsibilities. The greater
frequency of training would also allow
programs to offer staff advanced training
opportunities on areas of local
importance or greater complexity, such
as culturally responsive practices in
reporting, issues related to
disproportionate reporting, and
information about at-risk populations,
as well as emphasize the importance of
child safety in Head Start. We also add
language to clarify expectations with
more precise language in this section.
Currently, training and professional
development related to using positive
strategies to support children is only
required for education staff, per
§ 1302.92(b)(5). Yet, all staff are required
to use positive strategies to support
children according to existing standards
of conduct, per § 1302.90(c)(1)(i), and
ongoing training and professional
development is an effective strategy for
preventing child maltreatment.248 As
such, under this section, we propose to
add a new paragraph as § 1302.92(b)(3)
which will require annual training on
246 U.S. Department of Health & Human Services,
Administration for Children and Families,
Administration on Children, Youth and Families,
Children’s Bureau. (2022). Child Maltreatment
2020. Available from https://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb/
data-research/child-maltreatment.
247 Lee, J. & Weigensberg, E. (2022). ‘‘How Do
Laws and Policies for Reporting Child Abuse and
Neglect Vary Across States?’’ OPRE Report #2022–
165. Washington, D.C.: Office of Planning,
Research, and Evaluation, Administration for
Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services.
248 National Center for Community-Based Child
Abuse Prevention (CBCAP).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:04 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
positive strategies to understand and
support children’s social and emotional
development, including the
implementation of tools for preventing
and managing challenging behavior. We
also believe enhancing use of positive
strategies among all staff will have the
added benefit of increasing
opportunities for peer support as
appropriate. We are prescribing general
areas of focus but allowing for programs
to select approaches so that programs
may fulfill this requirement in ways that
are responsive to their community
needs and cultural practices. As a result
of this proposed addition, we further
propose to redesignate current
paragraphs (3), (4), and (5) of
§ 1302.92(b) to (4), (5), and (6),
respectively.
We also propose a revision to
§ 1302.101 which establishes
management responsibilities governed
by a system that enables the delivery of
the high-quality services. ACF is aware
that there has been inconsistent
implementation of required reporting
procedures.249 In order to promote
consistent implementation of paragraph
(a)(5), we propose to add a new clause
to § 1302.101(a)(5) to require a system
that ensures that all staff are trained to
implement reporting procedures in
§ 1302.102 (d)(1)(ii). By requiring that
programs provide training on reporting
procedures, we anticipate that staff will
have greater familiarity with and
understanding of institutional reporting
procedures. Additionally, with an
implementation system in place, ACF
may more easily provide guidance on
what steps should be taken to ensure
that staff report incidents appropriately.
Incident Reporting (§ 1302.102)
Section 1302.102 outlines the
requirements that programs establish
program goals and a process for
monitoring program performance,
including how programs use data and
report out to the governing body and
policy council. Paragraph (d) of
§ 1302.102 establishes required reports
that programs must submit for
monitoring and oversight purposes, and
§ 1302.102(d)(1)(ii) specifically
addresses required incident reports.
In the years of implementing these
provisions since the 2016 revision of the
HSPPS, it is evident that child incidents
are not always reported to the OHS
Regional Office or are not reported in a
timely manner. The importance of
reporting child incidents to OHS cannot
be overstated. We propose several
249 OIG Final Report: ACF Should Improve
Oversight of Head Start To Better Protect Children’s
Safety, OEI–BL–19–00560.
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
changes to § 1302.102(d)(1)(ii) to make
clear and strengthen the reporting
requirements associated with child
health and safety incidents.
Section 1302.102(d)(1)(ii) introduces
general requirements related to when
and to whom incident reports should be
submitted and specifies types of
situations that require incident reports.
We make two changes to
§ 1302.102(d)(1)(ii). First, we propose to
remove the phrase ‘‘as soon as
practicable’’ and replace it with ‘‘no
later than 3 business days following the
incident’’ to clarify the timeline by
which programs are expected to make
reports. The timeline of three business
days more closely aligns our
institutional reporting practices with
child welfare reporting practices, which
often require reports to be filed within
48 hours of learning of a suspected
incident. Shortening the timeline will
allow for earlier processing and
monitoring of reports, and for more
expedient access to technical assistance
or other supports for programs when
needed.
Our second proposed change is to add
two new paragraphs to
§ 1302.102(d)(1)(ii) to clarify reportable
incidents. First, the new
§ 1302.102(d)(1)(ii)(A) describes one
type of reportable incident as any
significant incident that affects the
health, mental health, or safety of a
child that occurs in a setting where
Head Start services are provided and
that involve either a Head Start adult or
Head Start child, as further defined
below. This change clarifies that mental
health incidents are included in
significant incidents and that only those
incidents that occur in settings where
Head Start services are provided, such
as a Head Start program, playground, or
transportation utilized by a Head Start
program, are reportable to OHS. This
definition is intentionally broad and
intended to capture any setting for
which Head Start funding is used. The
following two new sub-paragraphs
clarify who must be involved in the
incident in order for it to be reportable
to OHS. Reportable incidents include
those that involve either (I) a staff
member, contractor, volunteer, or other
adult that participates in either a Head
Start program or a classroom at least
partially funded by Head Start,
regardless of whether the child receives
Head Start services; or (II) a child that
receives services fully or partially
funded by Head Start or a child that
participates in a classroom at least
partially funded by Head Start.
The proposed change is intended to
expand incidents that are reportable to
Head Start to include more individuals
E:\FR\FM\20NOP2.SGM
20NOP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
than the current standard. However,
incidents that do not meet both of these
conditions: (1) a child incident that
occurs in a setting where Head Start
services are provided and (2) that
involves a person described by either
§ 1302.102(d)(1)(ii)(A)(I) or
§ 1302.102(d)(1)(ii)(A)(II), would be
beyond the scope of what is reportable
to OHS. We note that these incidents
may still be reportable to other agencies,
such as child care licensing agencies.
We retain the language in the current
standard describing another type of
reportable incident in the new
§ 1302.102(d)(1)(ii)(B), which pertains to
circumstances affecting the financial
viability of the program; breaches of
personally identifiable information, or
program involvement in legal
proceedings; or any matter for which
notification or a report to State, Tribal,
or local authorities is required by
applicable law.
Additional proposed language also
requires programs to report other health,
mental health, or safety incidents of
concern to Head Start that are not
explicitly named in the sections that
follow. The following subsections of
redesignated § 1302.102(d)(1)(iii)
describe minimum expectations for
situations that require an incident report
to be submitted. We propose several
changes to further clarify and strengthen
incident reporting requirements. We
note that some of the changes describe
situations that are currently expected to
require incident reports. However, our
goal in including them explicitly in the
list of minimally reportable incidents is
to make this expectation clear and
facilitate navigation and understanding
of the OHS reporting requirements.
First, we propose to add ‘‘mandated’’
to § 1302.102(d)(1)(iii)(A) to provide
clarification that any incidents
involving mandated reporter
responsibilities should be reported to
Head Start as well as the appropriate
State, local, or Tribal authority,
independent of the status of
investigation or outcome of such
reports.
Second, in § 1302.102(d)(1)(iii)(B) we
propose to remove ‘‘for any reason’’ and
replace it with ‘‘except for
circumstances such as natural disasters
that interfere with program operations.’’
This revision is intended to account for
circumstances where it may be unsafe or
unreasonable to expect a program to
report center closings within the
proposed revised timeline in
§ 1302.102(d)(1)(ii) especially if
communication channels are not
operable.
Next, we propose to add three new
paragraphs (E), (F), and (G) to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:04 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
§ 1302.102(d)(1)(iii) to better describe
the types of incidents that should be
reported to OHS. First, we propose a
requirement that programs report any
suspected or known violations of
Standards of Conduct under
§ 1302.90(c)(ii). The standards of
conduct, described in the earlier
section, Standards of Conduct, outline
behaviors that staff must not engage in
that would be reasonably suspected to
negatively impact the health, mental
health, and safety of children.
Therefore, the addition of
§ 1302.102(d)(1)(iii)(E) is intended to
clarify that programs must submit
incident reports for any violations of
Head Start standards of conduct in
§ 1302.90(c)(ii), even if those violations
do not require a mandated report under
State, Tribal, or local law.
The second addition to incidents that
should be reported to OHS is significant
health or safety incidents related to
suspected or known lack of supervision
or lack of preventative maintenance in
§ 1302.102(d)(1)(iii)(F). This addition is
intended to clarify that programs must
submit reports for significant incidents
that may be associated with reasonably
suspected or known lack of appropriate
supervision or failure to carry out
reasonably expected maintenance, such
as maintenance of playground
equipment. We acknowledge that some
incidents involving injuries to children
may be unintentional and unavoidable.
Therefore, we wish to provide clarity
about which health and safety incidents
should be reported to OHS. We consider
significant incidents in these cases to be
those that result in serious injury or
harm to a child, specifically incidents
that require hospitalization or
emergency room care, such as a broken
bone; severe sprain; chipped or cracked
teeth; head trauma; deep cuts;
contusions or lacerations; or animal
bites. In addition, we would like to
clarify that lack of supervision while in
the care of program staff includes
leaving a child unsupervised anywhere
on the grounds of a Head Start facility,
such as in a classroom, bathroom, or on
a playground, as well as outside the
facility, such as in a parking lot, on a
nearby street, on a bus, or during
another program-approved
transportation or excursion. Including
these types of incidents in what is
reportable to Head Start allows us to
expedite access to technical assistance
or other supports, as needed, to address
systemic issues that impact children’s
health and safety.
The third addition of
§ 1302.102(d)(1)(iii)(G) describes any
unauthorized release of a child as a
reportable incident and is intended to
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
80867
ensure that programs submit reports for
incidents involving the unauthorized
release of children. Unauthorized
release occurs when a child is released
from a Head Start facility, bus, or other
approved program transportation to a
person without the permission or
authorization of a parent or legal
guardian and whose identity had not
been verified by photo identification.
This addition codifies expectations
outlined in ACF–IM–HS–22–07 and
aligns with Caring for Our Children
standards.250
Finally, we propose to revise the title
for § 1302.102 ‘‘Achieving Program
Goals’’ to read ‘‘Program Goals,
Continuous Improvement, and
Reporting,’’ to clarify the contents of
this section and further improve ease of
navigation.
ACF seeks public comment on how
the proposed requirements in this
section may differentially impact
different communities. We specifically
request public comment from the
special populations served by Head
Start, including AIAN and MSHS
programs and communities.
Facilities Valuation (§ 1303.44)
Section 1303.44(a)(7) establishes that
if a grant recipient is preliminarily
eligible under § 1303.42 to apply for
funds to purchase, construct, or
renovate a facility, the recipient must
submit to the responsible HHS official,
among other requirements, an estimate
by a licensed independent certified
appraiser of the facility’s fair market
value.
Fair market value can take many
forms; this depends on the purpose or
intended use of the valuation.
Appraisers generally rely on three
methods of establishing real estate
value, which complies with the Uniform
Standards of Professional Appraisal
Practice (USPAP) and local guidelines:
sales approach, cost approach, and
income approach. Sales approach
compares the sales price of comparable
facilities, and it accounts for the price
at sale of the facility. Cost approach
evaluates the cost to reproduce or
replace an equivalent facility, and it
accounts for the acquisition cost of the
land, construction expense, and
depreciation of the property. Income
approach estimates the value based on
income potential of an equivalent
facility.
250 Caring for our Children. (2022). Chapter 9.2:
Policies. National Resource Center for Health and
Safety in Child Care and Early Education,
Department of Health and Human Services.
Available online at https://nrckids.org/CFOC/
Database/9.2.4.8.
E:\FR\FM\20NOP2.SGM
20NOP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
80868
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
Applications under this section
include applications for constructions,
purchase, and significant renovation to
facilities. Based on a review of
applications to purchase, construct, or
renovate facilities, the cost approach to
valuation is most relevant.
The sales approach can be
problematic since many facility projects
show large discrepancies in sales
valuation and total project cost,
particularly as real property sales prices
depend heavily on the locality of the
property. Sales valuation does not
account for the large cost needed to
ready the property for its intended use.
Sales approach can be relevant for
certain proposed facility projects, but
when relevant, it is already covered by
other required activities under § 1303.
Specifically, recipients are required to
compare the cost associated with the
proposed action to other available
alternatives in the service area, pursuant
to § 1303.45. Requirements under
§ 1303.45 discover the actual purchase
cost of comparable alternate facilities in
the service area and therefore the sales
approach valuation remains less
relevant to require in paragraph (7) of
§ 1303.44(a).
Head Start facilities are woven into
the fabric of communities they serve as
highly valued, safe spaces for children
and families. This is especially
important as Head Start programs are
often located in low-income
communities and geographic areas with
a high concentration of poverty.
Programs are often also located in
communities with more people of color
as people of color are more likely than
their white counterparts to live in lowincome neighborhoods. For instance, in
2020, about 14 percent of people of
color lived in high-poverty
neighborhoods, compared to about 4
percent of White people.251 Head Start
programs are known to invigorate their
communities including the
development of strong partnerships
with many local community-based
organizations.252 As such, it is essential
that Head Start programs receive
accurate valuation of facility project
costs to ensure responsible acquisition
of facilities continues in communities in
need.
For these reasons, we propose to
eliminate from § 1303.44(a)(7) the term
251 National Equity Analysis. (2020).
Neighborhood poverty: All neighborhoods should
be communities of opportunity. Retrieved from:
https://nationalequityatlas.org/indicators/
Neighborhood_poverty.
252 Phillips, D. A. & Cabrera, N. J. (eds.) (1996).
Beyond the Blueprint: Direction for Research on
Head Start’s Families. Washington, DC: National
Academies Press.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:04 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
‘‘fair market’’ and replace it with the
term ‘‘cost’’ because the cost valuation
is most relevant in determining fair cost
of a facility acquisition action under this
section. This will assist the awarding
agency in making determinations on
proposed project costs and fair market
costs.
We welcome any additional public
comments on the 45 CFR 1303 process
and associated requirements. We
specifically request public comment
from the special populations served by
Head Start, including AIAN and MSHS
programs and communities.
Definition of Income (§ 1305.2)
The current HSPPS definition lists
several types of income sources that
could be included in the calculation of
gross income and references additional
sources that can be found in a lengthy
document from the Census Bureau. The
current definition has caused confusion
regarding what should be included in
income calculations. We propose to
revise the definition of income to make
it up to date, clear, and less burdensome
to implement. The proposed language
provides a clear and finite list of what
is considered income. It also provides
clarification on what is not considered
income as it relates to military income
and refundable tax credits and public
assistance. These changes are to ensure
programs can more easily identify an
applicants’ income. This will also
promote consistent interpretation on
what to include in calculating income
across programs.
Specifically, we proposed to strike the
current definition: ‘‘Income means gross
cash income and includes earned
income, military income (including pay
and allowances, except those described
in section 645(a)(3)(B) of the Act),
veteran’s benefits, Social Security
benefits, unemployment compensation,
and public assistance benefits.
Additional examples of gross cash
income are listed in the definition of
‘‘income,’’ which appears in U.S.
Bureau of the Census, Current
Population Reports, Series P–60–185
(available at https://www2.census.gov/
prod2/popscan/p60-185.pdf).
We propose to replace the definition
and define income as gross income that
only includes wages, business income,
veteran’s benefits, Social Security
benefits, unemployment compensation,
alimony, pension or annuity payments,
gifts that exceed the threshold for
taxable income, and military income
(excluding special pay for a member
subject to hostile fire or imminent
danger under 37 U.S.C. 310 or any basic
allowance for housing under 37 U.S.C.
403 including housing acquired under
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
the alternative authority under 10 U.S.C.
169 or any related provision of law).
The revised definition is clear that gross
income only includes sources of income
provided in the definition; it does not
include refundable tax credits nor any
forms of public assistance.
As mentioned previously, the current
HSPPS definition includes a link to a
250+ page Census Bureau document
from 1992. We believe the definition
and reference to the document are
outdated and complicated for programs
to utilize. We propose to remove the
current reference to this dated Census
report and replace the definition with a
finite number of income sources and
remove the reference to the Census
Bureau report. The proposed revision
includes many sources of income from
the definition in the Census Bureau
document currently cited.
The proposed language removes the
term ‘‘cash’’ from ‘‘gross cash income’’
in recognition that most income is not
provided in the form of cash. The word
‘‘only’’ is proposed before ‘‘includes’’ to
clearly define a finite list of sources
considered income for Head Start
purposes. Further the proposal replaces
the term ‘‘earned income’’ with more
specific terms ‘‘wages,’’ and ‘‘business
income.’’ Business income includes
income obtained from rental properties,
as defined by the Internal Revenue
Service.253 We also do not propose to
include ‘‘dividends’’ or ‘‘capital gains’’
to avoid unnecessary burden in
requesting this information from
families since we believe it unlikely
Head Start applicants would have such
sources of income that would make
them ineligible for Head Start, and these
terms may be difficult to understand
and cause confusion to families during
the eligibility determination process.
We remove ‘‘public assistance’’ from
the definition because if a family is
receiving SNAP, TANF, or SSI, then
they are already eligible for Head Start.
Removing this source of income reduces
the administrative burden of calculating
income from such sources. The current
referenced Census Bureau document
includes ‘‘regular contributions from
others not living in the household,’’
which we do not include in the
proposal. We interpret this to mean
money received periodically to assist
the family in meeting basic needs. We
do not believe one-time or periodic gifts
should be counted as income for Head
Start eligibility purposes, especially
since it may not be relied upon as a
regular source of income. We have
determined that these payments should
be considered gifts and therefore not
253 See:
E:\FR\FM\20NOP2.SGM
https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc407.
20NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
taxable until they reach the IRS
threshold for gifts which is $17,000 for
2023 and updated on an annual basis.
Therefore, we propose to include ‘‘gifts
that exceed the threshold for taxable
income’’ as a source of income.
To facilitate the implementation of
the exclusions from military pay
specified by the Head Start Act, we
detail the exclusions from military pay
as designated in the statute rather than
referencing it. We propose this to allow
programs and families to determine
what counts as income through the
definition in the regulations.
We clarify that gross income only
includes sources of income provided in
the definition, and does not include
refundable tax credits nor any forms of
public assistance, to be explicit that this
is a finite list of sources of income and
call out two common other sources of
income that might be inadvertently
considered to be added. Although the
finite list does not include refundable
tax credits, we are concerned that
programs may include it as part of the
‘‘wages’’ category. We believe this
makes it clear that the tax credits
commonly received by Head Start
applicants such as the Earned Income
Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit are
not included as part of calculated
income. Furthermore, the finite list of
sources of income intentionally
precludes any other emergency or
temporary forms of income or assistance
from being included in calculations of
income for eligibility purposes, such as
the enhanced unemployment insurance
that was available during the COVID–19
pandemic.
All the revisions proposed together
simplify the definition of income and
clarify how it will be implemented
consistently across programs when
determining income eligibility for Head
Start. We seek public comment on this
definition so that we ensure this is the
most accurate and streamlined
definition. We also specifically request
public comment from the special
populations served by Head Start,
including AIAN and MSHS programs
and communities.
Definition of Federal Interest and Major
Renovations (§ 1305.2)
ACF has received questions that
suggest our definitions of Major
Renovation and Federal Interest are too
imprecise and consequently lead to
Head Start grant recipients
misinterpreting and inconsistently
applying the definitions when filing an
official Notice of Federal Interest
(NOFI). In this section, we propose
technical fixes and additional clarifying
language to address common questions.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:04 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
The proposed changes do not
substantively change the meaning of the
definitions, but rather clarify issues that
have arisen since the implementation of
the 2016 revisions to the HSPPS. ACF
believes these minor revisions
encourage recipients to maintain safe
and updated facilities.
First, we propose changes to the
definition of Major Renovation. We
propose to address a typo in the
definition—the term, ‘‘collection
renovation’’—and in amending this
minor error, we offer some additional
text to improve understanding.
Furthermore, we add additional text to
clarify that separate renovation
activities only equate to a major
renovation if (1) they have a cost equal
to or exceeding $250,000, (2) the
renovation activities are intended to
occur concurrently or consecutively, or
altogether address a specific part or
feature of a facility, and (3) per
§ 1303.44, certification from a licensed,
independent architect or engineer
indicates that the repair(s) adds
significant value to the real property to
be repaired or extends its useful life. If
these three conditions are met, the
group of renovations should be
understood as a Major Renovation.
We understand that grant recipients
have been misinterpreting the definition
of Major Renovation to include multiple
renovation activities on the same facility
that have a cost equal to or exceeding
$250,000. To help clarify, ACF is
providing the following common
examples:
• A recipient completes a minor
renovation to install a new roof at
$150,000. The next year, the recipient
replaced all the windows at a cost of
$50,000. The year after that, the
recipient re-surfaced the parking lot for
$75,000. While this was always the case,
under this clarified definition, it is
clearer that the unrelated renovation
project activities in this example do not
equate to a Major Renovation.
• A recipient replaces the roof of one
of their facilities for $200,000. Two
years later, the recipient replaces the
same facility’s HVAC units for
additional $200,000. These renovation
activities are not considered a collective
group of facility renovation activities
because the project activities are not
intended to occur concurrently or
consecutively, or altogether address a
specific part or feature of a facility, and
thus, they are not considered a Major
Renovation.
• In 1 year, a recipient repairs the
roofs of two different centers totaling
$300,000, each for $150,000. Since these
are separate centers, they are not related
to the same facility and therefore, the
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
80869
collective renovation activities are not
considered a Major Renovation.
• A recipient replaces part of their
roof at one of their facilities for
$200,000. Two years later, the recipient
replaces another part of the same roof
for $200,000. In this instance, whether
the roof repairs are considered a Major
Renovation depends. While these
collective renovation activities address a
specific part or feature of a facility, and
are greater than the $250,000 threshold,
the expenditure may not add significant
value to the real property. In advance of
commencing the proposed roof repairs,
the recipient must submit a certification
from a licensed, independent architect
or engineer indicating whether the
expenditure identified as repairs adds
significant value to the real property to
be repaired or extends its useful life. If
the required certification is not
provided, the activity will be classified
as a Major Renovation and compliance
with part 1303, subpart E of the HSPPS
is required.
• In 1 year, a recipient repairs the
roof, replaces the HVAC system,
repaints walls, and renovates a
bathroom, totaling $350,000. These
collective renovation activities are
greater than the $250,000 threshold and
are occurring concurrently or
consecutively to address a specific part
or feature of a facility, so they are likely
related. However, the expenditure may
or may not add significant value to the
real property so whether the repairs are
considered a Major Renovation
depends. In advance of commencing the
renovations, the recipient must submit a
certification from a licensed,
independent architect or engineer
indicating whether the expenditure
adds significant value to the real
property to be repaired or extends its
useful life. If the required certification is
not provided, the activity will be
classified as a Major Renovation and
compliance with part 1303, subpart E is
required.
We propose technical fixes to the
definition of Federal Interest to address
confusion with respect to the type of
facility activities that result in Federal
interest and what satisfies the nonFederal matching requirement.
Specifically, the proposed additional
language, in tandem with the proposed
definition for Major Renovation,
clarifies the distinction between repairs
and minor renovations versus purchase,
construction and major renovations
under § 1303, the latter of which do
result in a Federal interest. This
proposed definition also clarifies that
the non-Federal match, which is
separate from the base grant non-Federal
match, is only intended to include the
E:\FR\FM\20NOP2.SGM
20NOP2
80870
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
non-Federal match associated with the
facility activity funded under subpart E.
In sum, these changes are not
substantive changes to the definition
itself but rather provide clarification on
how Federal interest works.
Together, these proposed specified
conditions to the definition of Major
Renovation, and clarification proposed
to the definition of Federal Interest,
ultimately seek to ensure recipients
understand when a group of renovations
would require filing of a NOFI.
Definition of the Poverty Line (§ 1305.2)
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
In this section, we propose to add to
§ 1305.2 a definition for the term
Poverty line that is currently used in
§ 1302.12 paragraph (c) and (d) on
income eligibility to clarify and codify
existing practice. This is only intended
to codify the working definition for
poverty line, including the existing
practice that the HHS poverty
guidelines set for the contiguous-statesand-DC also apply to Puerto Rico and
U.S. Territories. The HHS poverty
guidelines are used to determine income
eligibility in Head Start and align with
requirements in the Head Start Act set
by Congress. The requirements in the
Head Start Act are set by statute and
cannot be changed through regulation.
Therefore, we cannot consider public
comments regarding changes to the
poverty line.
• § 1302.80(e) Enrolled pregnant
women: 120 days after publication of
final rule;
• § 1302.80(f) Enrolled pregnant
women: 180 days after publication of
final rule;
• § 1302.90(e)(1), (e)(2)(i) and (ii),
(e)(3) and (e)(4): Staff wages: Effective
August 1, 2031;
• § 1302.90(f) Staff benefits: 2 years
after publication of final rule;
• § 1302.93(c) Staff Health and
Wellness: 3 years after publication of
final rule.
We request public comment on all of
these proposed effective dates,
including whether this is sufficient time
for programs to implement the proposed
changes and any possible unintended
consequences.
Effective Dates
Removal of Outdated Sections
The current HSPPS contain regulatory
language associated with the last
overhaul of the standards, published
through a final rule in 2016. We propose
to remove two sections of the standards
that refer to the implementation
timeline of those changes, which has
since passed and therefore these
sections are no longer relevant. The first
section to be removed is § 1302.103
Implementation of program
performance standards. The second is
the term Transition Period, which is
defined under § 1305.2. These changes
do not represent substantive policy
changes.
The current Head Start Program
Performance Standards remain in effect
until this NPRM becomes final. We
propose for all changes in this NPRM to
become effective 60 days after it is
published as a final rule in the Federal
Register, unless otherwise noted in this
section. For section 1302.48(a), (b), and
(c), while the effective date is upon
publication of final rule, programs will
not be monitored on the new regulatory
requirements until 1 year after
publication of the final rule to give
programs additional time to adjust to
the new regulatory requirements.
Programs may require more time to
implement several proposed sections in
this NPRM. Therefore, we propose a 1year delay in implementation deadline
for the proposed revisions to the
following sections: § 1302.11(b);
1302.14(d); 1302.16(a)(2)(v); the changes
made to remove ‘‘assistant provider’’ in
1302.23(b); 1302.45(a); 1302.82(a); and
1302.93(d).
The following sections also have
longer implementation timelines,
outlined below:
• § 1302.52(d)(2): 3 years after
publication of final rule;
Compliance With Sec. 641A(a)(2) of the
Act
We sought extensive input to develop
this NPRM. We collaborated and
consulted with many policy and
programmatic expert staff in OHS,
ACF’s Office of Child Care, and ACF’s
Office of Early Childhood Development.
Several staff, particularly in OHS, are
former Head Start program directors,
family service workers, teachers, home
visitors, etc. and have extensive on the
ground knowledge of Head Start
program operations. We also consulted
extensively with OHS regional staff who
directly oversee and support Head Start
grants and program operations as their
primary job responsibility. We held
multiple listening and input sessions
with these regional office staff to
identify the most challenging aspects of
Head Start policy and programmatic
requirements for grant recipients. We
also sought their feedback on proposed
policies we were considering for the
NPRM. We intentionally consulted with
OHS staff that oversee Migrant and
Seasonal Head Start and Tribal Head
Start programs, to learn about specific
challenges and considerations for these
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:04 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
programs. Similarly, we met with
members of the OHS Diversity, Equity,
Inclusion, and Accessibility
Commission to discuss possible equity
implications of the proposed changes.
We consulted with experts in early
childhood development including staff
in ACF’s Office of Planning, Research
and Evaluation. These staff hold
research expertise in a wide range of
early childhood issues relevant to Head
Start. Additionally, we reviewed many
research reports on a variety of topics,
including NAS reports on the
workforce. Taken together, our
consultation with all of these groups
and sources allowed provided us with
relevant data points and advice on how
to promote quality across all Head Start
settings.
Furthermore, over the past several
years since the last revision of the
HSPPS (finalized in 2016), OHS has
held many webinars for grant recipients
on a variety of policy and programmatic
topics, including the workforce,
eligibility, mental health, child health
and safety, and more. OHS has also
given multiple presentations on key
policy and program issues at Head Start
relevant conferences, including those
organized by the National Head Start
Association. During these webinars and
conference presentations, grant
recipient participants often ask
questions and provide input regarding
challenges with implementing various
aspects of program requirements,
including for different types of child
and family populations and in different
types of geographic settings. This allows
OHS the opportunity to gain critical onthe-ground understanding of areas
where the standards are confusing and
could be made clearer, particularly
since the 2016 revisions. We also
regularly hear from Tribal leaders at
OHS’s annual Tribal consultations. In
addition, in consultation with our OHS
training and technical assistance
experts, we considered the types of
technical assistance requested by and
provided to Head Start agencies and
programs. We also reviewed findings
from monitoring reports to glean more
insights into where grant recipients
struggle the most with implementing
requirements. We also recently fielded a
survey of grant recipients (November
2022) which provided real time
information on workforce challenges
programs are experiencing. Lastly, ACF
asserts that the revisions to the HSPPS
proposed in this NPRM will not result
in the elimination of or any reduction in
quality, scope, or types of health,
educational, parental involvement,
nutritional, social, or other services
E:\FR\FM\20NOP2.SGM
20NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
required to be provided under the
standards that were in effect when the
Head Start Act was last reauthorized in
2007.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Severability
To the extent that any portion of the
requirements arising from the rule once
it becomes final is declared invalid by
a court, HHS intends for all other parts
of the final rule that are capable of
operating in the absence of the specific
portion that has been invalidated to
remain in effect.
IV. Regulatory Process Matters
We have examined the impacts of the
proposed rule under Executive Order
12866, Executive Order 13563,
Executive Order 13132, the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601–612), and
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995 (Pub. L. 104–4). Executive Orders
12866 and 13563 direct us to assess all
benefits, costs, and transfers of available
regulatory alternatives and, when
regulation is necessary, to select
regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential
economic, environmental, public health
and safety, and other advantages;
distributive impacts; and equity).
Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866,
as amended by Executive Order 14094,
defines a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’
as an action that is likely to result in a
rule: (1) Having an annual effect on the
economy of $200 million or more, or
adversely affecting in a material way the
economy, a sector of the economy,
productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or
State, local, territorial, or Tribal
governments or communities; (2)
creating a serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfering with an action
taken or planned by another agency; (3)
materially altering the budgetary
impacts of entitlement grants, user fees,
or loan programs or the rights and
obligations of recipients thereof; or (4)
raising legal or policy issues for which
centralized review would meaningfully
further the President’s priorities or the
principles set forth in Executive Order
12866, as specifically authorized in a
timely manner by the Administrator of
OIRA in each case. This proposed rule
is a significant rule and the Regulatory
Impact Analysis for this proposed rule
identifies economic impacts that exceed
the threshold for significance under
Section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order
12866.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601–612) requires us to analyze
regulatory options that would minimize
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:04 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
any significant impact of a rule on small
entities. Because the proposed rule, if
finalized, would result in increased
expenditures by Head Start programs
that exceed HHS’s default threshold, we
have initially determined that the
proposed rule will have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4, section 202(a))
requires us to prepare a written
statement, which includes estimates of
anticipated impacts, before proposing
‘‘any rule that includes any Federal
mandate that may result in the
expenditure by State, local, and Tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of $100,000,000 or more
(adjusted annually for inflation) in any
one year.’’ The current threshold after
adjustment for inflation is $177 million,
using the most current (2022) Implicit
Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic
Product. This proposed rule would
likely result in expenditures that meet
or exceed this amount.
Federalism Assessment Executive Order
13132
Executive Order 13132 requires
Federal agencies to consult with State
and local government officials if they
develop regulatory policies with
federalism implications. Federalism is
rooted in the belief that issues that are
not national in scope or significance are
most appropriately addressed by the
level of government close to the people.
This proposed rule will not have
substantial direct impact on the States,
on the relationship between the Federal
Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with section 6 of Executive
Order 13132, it is determined that this
action does not have sufficient
federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a federalism summary
impact statement.
Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act of 1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act of 1999 requires Federal agencies to
determine whether a policy or
regulation may negatively affect family
well-being. If the agency determines a
policy or regulation negatively affects
family well-being, then the agency must
prepare an impact assessment
addressing seven criteria specified in
the law. ACF believes it is not necessary
to prepare a family policymaking
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
80871
assessment, see Public Law 105–277,
because the action it takes in this
proposed rule will not have any impact
on the autonomy or integrity of the
family as an institution.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.,
minimizes government-imposed burden
on the public. In keeping with the
notion that government information is a
valuable asset, it also is intended to
improve the practical utility, quality,
and clarity of information collected,
maintained, and disclosed.
The PRA requires that agencies obtain
OMB approval, which includes issuing
an OMB number and expiration date,
before requesting most types of
information from the public.
Regulations at 5 CFR part 1320
implemented the provisions of the PRA
and § 1320.3 of this part defines a
‘‘collection of information,’’
‘‘information,’’ and ‘‘burden.’’ PRA
defines ‘‘information’’ as any statement
or estimate of fact or opinion, regardless
of form or format, whether numerical,
graphic, or narrative form, and whether
oral or maintained on paper, electronic,
or other media (5 CFR 1320.3(h)). This
includes requests for information to be
sent to the government, such as forms,
written reports and surveys,
recordkeeping requirements, and thirdparty or public disclosures (5 CFR
1320.3(c)). ‘‘Burden’’ means the total
time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to collect,
maintain, or disclose information.
This NPRM establishes new
recordkeeping requirements under the
PRA. Under this NPRM, Head Start
grant recipients will be required to keep
and maintain records related to salary
wage scales and staff benefits,
improvements to community
assessment, documentation related to
lead exposure, among several other
requirements. In addition, changes to
policies proposed in the NPRM may
result in changes to existing information
collections approved under the PRA,
including the information collection for
the existing program performance
standards, the Program Information
Report (PIR), applicable collections in
the Head Start Enterprise Systems
(HSES), and other information
collections. ACF invites public
comments concerning changes to
existing or new information collections
that may be necessary as a result of this
NPRM, including on practical utility
and burden.
The HSPPS are covered already by an
existing OMB control number 0970–
0148. This OMB control number already
E:\FR\FM\20NOP2.SGM
20NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
covers burden associated with updating
personnel policies and documenting
eligibility. The below table outlines the
burden of complying with the proposed
standards in this NPRM. These
information collection, specified in the
table below (program, family, or
enrollee level). In 2022, there were
3,000 Head Start programs across the
country.
Information Collection
Number of
respondents
Average
burden
hours per
response
Annual
burden
hours
Updating written personnel policies and
procedures to reflect staff wage scales and
benefits and approach to staff breaks (program
level)
Documenting eligibility with application of
revised income definition (family level)
Reporting child incidents within 3 business days
(enrollee level)
Maintenance of lead testing results and
notification to families of such results (program
level)
Documenting services to enrolled pregnant
women (enrollee level)
Tracking wages for Head Start staff and staff in
local school districts
TOTAL BURDEN HOURS
3,000
1
3,000
340,000
.167
56,780
131
.083
11
3,000
1
3,000
13,000
.5
6,500
3,000
5
15,000
V. Regulatory Impact Analysis
Introduction and Summary
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
estimated burden hours represent the
additional burden to be added to this
existing information collection. We
estimate the burden at the appropriate
level depending on the given
A. Introduction
We have examined the impacts of the
proposed rule under Executive Order
12866, Executive Order 13563,
Executive Order 14094, the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601–612), and
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995 (Pub. L. 104–4). Executive Orders
12866 and 13563 direct us to assess all
benefits, costs, and transfers of available
regulatory alternatives and, when
regulation is necessary, to select
regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential
economic, environmental, public health
and safety, and other advantages;
distributive impacts; and equity). This
analysis identifies economic impacts
that exceed the threshold for
significance under Section 3(f)(1) of
Executive Order 12866, as amended by
Executive Order 14094.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act
requires us to analyze regulatory options
that would minimize any significant
impact of a rule on small entities.
Because the proposed rule, if finalized,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:04 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
84,291
would result in increased expenditures
by Head Start programs that exceed
HHS’s default threshold, we have
initially determined that the proposed
rule will have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
No unfunded mandates would be
imposed by this proposed rule. The
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(section 202(a)) requires us to prepare a
written statement, which includes
estimates of anticipated impacts, before
proposing ‘‘any rule that includes any
Federal mandate that may result in the
expenditure by State, local, and Tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of $100,000,000 or more
(adjusted annually for inflation) in any
one year.’’ The current threshold after
adjustment for inflation is $177 million,
using the most current (2022) Implicit
Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic
Product. This proposed rule would not
likely result in unfunded expenditures
that meet or exceed this amount.
B. Summary of Benefits, Costs, and
Transfers
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
The most likely impacts of the
proposed provisions depend, in large
part, on funds available to Head Start
programs; for example, the proposals to
increase remuneration per teacher
would have bigger aggregate effects to
the extent that Head Start entities
employ more teachers. Historically,
Congress has funded Head Start at levels
that exceed inflation. During the tenyear period between 2010 and 2020,
Head Start appropriations grew by 25
percent, after accounting for
inflation.254 Some of the past increase in
appropriations was in response to new
initiatives in Head Start, such as the
creation of Early Head Start-Child Care
Partnerships and other quality
initiatives. It is possible that this trend
continues and Head Start appropriations
will increase in response to the quality
improvements under the proposed rule.
In such a case, the regulation’s effects
254 If future Head Start appropriations designated
for expansion grow at similar rates —for reasons
that are independent of this proposal—then
estimates reflecting growth at or below the rate of
inflation (such as what appears in this regulatory
impact analysis) would have a tendency toward
understating effects.
E:\FR\FM\20NOP2.SGM
20NOP2
EP20NO23.000</GPH>
80872
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
manifest themselves as expenditures by
taxpayers.255 By contrast, if a
comparison of the hypothetical futures
with and without the rule is not
characterized by a difference in Head
Start appropriations or by such a
difference that is not prompted by this
proposal, then rule-induced spending
would instead be shifted within Head
Start.
One form that such shifting could take
relates to enrollment, so it is important
to distinguish between the various
benchmarks for enrollment that were
used for this analysis. Head Start
programs receive funding for a specific
number of slots (funded enrollment).
Historically there has been little
difference between funded enrollment
and actual enrollment,256 which
represents the number of children who
are actually enrolled in the Head Start
programs. However, in recent years,
Head Start programs have experienced
significant and persistent underenrollment where the number of
children actually served is far less than
the number of funded slots, due in large
part to widespread staffing shortages. As
Head Start programs work to improve
their actual enrollment levels, many are
also requesting reductions in their
funded enrollment. Head Start programs
are trying to right-size their funded
enrollment to match their community
needs, staffing realities, and fiscal
constraints. It is difficult, if not
impossible, to predict the net impacts of
these ongoing efforts in years to come.
As such, assessing whether the rule’s
effects would manifest themselves as
enrollment reductions is especially
challenging. In theory Head Start
programs could attempt to stretch their
existing budgets to provide the same
number of funded enrollment slots
while also complying with the new
requirements by choosing to not spend
funding on optional activities. However,
OHS believes that programs have long
stretched their funding as far as is
possible and are unlikely to have many
254 If future Head Start appropriations designated
for expansion grow at similar rates —for reasons
that are independent of this proposal—then
estimates reflecting growth at or below the rate of
inflation (such as what appears in this regulatory
impact analysis) would have a tendency toward
understating effects.
255 Some of the expenditures would, from a
society-wide perspective, be categorized as costs
and others would be transfers to Head Start entities
and participants.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:04 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
optional activities available to drop.257
Moreover, the difference between
funded and actual enrollment also
generates uncertainty regarding the
magnitude of regulatory effects; for
example, if Head Start entities use
excess funding for teacher bonuses, the
estimates, below, of rule-induced effects
on teacher remuneration would have
some tendency toward overstatement
(even as the form of the remuneration is
changing from bonuses to salaries,
fringe benefits or changes in working
conditions).
OHS has taken the approach of
estimating all effects based on the
projected FY2023 funded enrollment of
755,074, which is the highest
enrollment level, funded or actual,
possible absent additional
appropriations specifically designated
for expansion.
Using the current funded enrollment
as a starting point, this analysis shows
that the costs associated with the
NPRM, when fully phased in after 7
years as currently proposed, can be
mostly paid for by reducing enrollment
levels to the FY2023 actual enrollment,
leading to a funded enrollment level
decline from 755,074 to 644,374.
As compared to the current
enrollment level of about 650,000, this
represents about a 1 percent reduction
from the current number of children
served. In other words, implementation
of these proposed regulatory changes
would be a de minimis impact on actual
enrollment. With additional
appropriations—in excess of cost of
living adjustments to keep pace with
inflation—Head Start could avoid
reducing funded enrollment below
current actual enrollment. This analysis
includes estimates of the necessary
appropriations needed under the
proposed policy to serve 650,000
children, which reflects the estimated
FY2023 actual enrollment. Sometimes
the narrative description of this (same)
analysis will be framed as estimating the
increases in expenditures that would
enable full implementation of this
proposed rule without reducing funded
enrollment below projected FY2023
funded enrollment levels.
The largest elements of the proposed
rule relate to staff wages and benefits for
257 Even if this were the case, OHS asserts that
this is unlikely to meaningfully impact the quality
of services provided to children, as the necessary
components of high-quality services are required
under the Head Start Program Performance
Standards, and could not be dropped from program
offerings.
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
80873
the Head Start workforce. To fully
implement the staff wage provisions,
including the wage-parity targets,
minimum pay requirement, and impacts
associated with wage compression,
expenditures on wages 258 would need
to increase by about $1.0 billion
(reported in nominal dollars) in 2030
and then maintained annually through a
cost-of-living adjustment. In that same
year, the expenditures on staff benefits,
which include the policy to increase
fringe benefits, would require about an
additional $932 million, with further
increases in line with wage growth.
Also, in 2030, we identify the annual
expenditures to fully implement the
following provisions: staff breaks about
$118 million; family service worker
family assignments, $210 million; and
mental health supports, $152 million.
We also quantify expenditures
associated with preventing and
addressing lead exposure and
expenditures associated with program
administration.
In total, we estimate that full
implementation would require an
increase in expenditures of about $2.4
billion in 2030 assuming no reductions
in the current funded enrollment level
of 755,074, with further increases that
are consistent with impacts tied to wage
growth. Over a 10-year time horizon,
which covers for the timeline that the
proposed policies would take effect, we
estimate annualized expenditures of
$1.6 billion under a 3% discount rate or
$1.5 billion under a 7% discount rate.
In addition to calculating the
expenditures necessary to fully
implement the proposed rule, this
analysis also considers a scenario of no
additional funding above baseline
funding levels (i.e., funding increasing
over time, to account for inflation but
not in response to this regulatory
proposal). Under this scenario, we
estimate that Head Start programs
would need to reduce the total number
of funded slots available by about 15%
compared to projected FY2023 funded
enrollment, or 1% from estimated
FY2023 actual enrollment in 2030, to
fully implement the proposed rule.
Table 1 reports the summary of
expenditures of the proposed rule,
reported in constant 2023 dollars and
nominal dollars.
258 The additional benefits expenditures
associated with increased wages under the wage
policy at the baseline fringe rate of 24% are
included in the estimated benefits expenditures.
E:\FR\FM\20NOP2.SGM
20NOP2
80874
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
Table 1. Summary of Expenditures of the Proposed Rule, Millions of Dollars
Units
Federal
Expenditures
Annualized
Federal
Preliminary Economic Analysis of
Impacts
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Discount
Rate
Sl,314
2023
7%
Sl,385
2023
3%
Sl,521
Nominal
7%
Sl,611
Nominal
3%
Monetized
We request comment on our estimates
of benefits, costs, and transfers of this
proposed rule. OHS specifically
requests comment on how spending
patterns when under enrolled may be
different if funded enrollment were
reduced and the possible impact on
programs if spending were redirected
towards the policies in this proposed
rule.
A. Analytic Approach
In conducting this analysis, we began
by identifying the most consequential
impacts that would likely occur under
the proposed rule, if finalized. We
identify expenditures associated with
increases in staff wages and staff
benefits for the Head Start workforce as
the largest potential impact and devote
significant attention to those effects. We
also identify and monetize expenditures
associated with staff breaks,
expenditures associated with hiring
additional family service workers,
expenditures associated with the
increased workload required to provide
mental health supports, expenditures
associated with preventing and
addressing lead exposure, and
expenditures associated with
administrative implementation costs.
We qualitatively discuss other impacts
of the proposed rule.
For the purposes of this analysis, we
assume that the proposed rule, if it is
finalized, will be published and begin to
take effect before the 2024–2025
program year. To simplify the narrative,
we describe effects occurring in that
program year as occurring in ‘2024.’ We
adopt a time horizon of analysis of ten
19:04 Nov 17, 2023
Year
Dollars
Annualized
(Sm/year)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
High
Estimate
Monetized
(Sm/year)
Expenditures
Low
Estimate
Jkt 262001
years, covering the period 2024 through
2033.
This analysis adopts a baseline
forecast that assumes Federal
appropriations grow at a constant rate of
inflation in fiscal years 2026 through
2033, with slower growth during fiscal
years 2024 and 2025.
All analyses provided here were
completed using national level
estimations. In our main analysis, we
estimate the increases in Federal
appropriations needed to fulfill the
goals of the proposed rule while also
maintaining the size of the Head Start
workforce consistent with the projected
FY2023 funded enrollment level of
755,074 slots. We also present a
sensitivity analysis that explores how
the rule’s effects would manifest
themselves if there are no increases in
Federal appropriations above baseline
(or such increases occur but not in
response to this regulatory proposal
and/or the increased appropriations
could not be used to support the
policies in the proposed rule). For this
scenario, we report the likely reductions
in funded enrollment, and associated
reductions in the size of the Head Start
workforce, under the proposed rule. We
also report the likely reductions in
funded enrollment compared to the
estimated FY2023 actual enrollment
under the proposed rule.
In general, we have rounded total cost
estimates but have not rounded
itemized cost estimates for transparency
and reproducibility of the estimation
process. These unrounded itemized cost
estimates should not be interpreted as
representing a particular degree of
precision.
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Period
Covered
20242033
20242033
20242033
20242033
B. Baseline: Budget, Staffing, and Slots
Baseline Budget Scenario
We measure the impacts of the rule
against a common budget baseline
forecast that assumes Federal
appropriations grow at a constant rate of
inflation in fiscal years 2026 through
2033, with slower growth during fiscal
years 2024 and 2025. We adopt 2.3% for
the rate of inflation for each year in the
time horizon, matching an economic
assumption in the President’s Budget for
Fiscal Year 2024.259 Across all years, we
assume that the cost-of-living
adjustment (COLA) for Head Start staffthe portion of Head Start that goes
towards operations awards, will match
the 2.3% rate of inflation.
In FY2023, Head Start appropriations
totaled $11,996,820,000.260 About 97%
of these appropriations, $11.6 billion,
will go towards operations awards; and
from these operations awards, about
75% 261 will go towards personnel costs,
or about $8.7 billion. Compared to
FY2023, we assume that FY2024
259 Office of Management and Budget. ‘‘Analytical
Perspectives, Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal
Year 2024.’’ Table 2–1 Economic Assumptions.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/
2023/03/spec_fy2024.pdf.
260 H.R. 2617—Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2023. https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/
documents/olab/fy-2024-congressionaljustification.pdf.
261 Budget data submitted to the Office of Head
Start for FY2022, which is the most recent data
available at the time this analysis was prepared,
showed that about 74% of operations awards were
allocated to personnel costs. In this analysis, we
assume a majority share of the savings from the
projected reduction in funded enrollment from
FY2022 to FY2023 will go towards personnel costs,
and will therefore increase the overall share of
operations awards allocated to personnel costs to
about 75%.
E:\FR\FM\20NOP2.SGM
20NOP2
EP20NO23.001</GPH>
Primary
Estimate
Category
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
appropriations will increase to account
for inflation for operations awards, but
will not increase for other spending
categories. Compared to FY2024, we
assume that FY2025 appropriations will
again increase to account for inflation
for operations awards, with a 1%
increase for other spending categories.
Thus, we anticipate that total
appropriations will increase by 2.22%
80875
in FY2024, 2.26% in FY2025, and 2.3%
in all future years. Table B1 reports the
appropriations and funding breakdowns
in nominal dollars over the time horizon
of our analysis.
Baseline Scenario for Staffing, Wages,
and Enrollment
This analysis adopts one scenario
covering projections of staffing, wages,
and enrollment at Head Start programs.
This baseline scenario assumes long-run
staffing, wages, and enrollment that are
consistent with those projected for FY
2023, based on patterns observed in
FY2022.
This analysis assumes that all
programs are fully enrolled, and that
actual enrollment is consistent with
funded enrollment. Therefore, the
analysis does not distinguish between
funded slots that are actually filled with
enrolled families and funded slots that
are vacant. These assumptions
introduce uncertainty into the analysis,
creating some tendency toward
overestimation of effects (a tendency
that would partially be mitigated by a
number of decisions, for example if
Head Start entities use excess funds, in
the baseline, for teacher bonuses).262
We again note that this estimation
does not account for the underenrollment that Head Start programs are
262 For completeness, we also note that Head Start
funding increases at greater than the rate of
inflation (for reasons independent of this regulation
being proposed) would lead to effects being
underestimated in this analysis, if that funding is
designated for expansion. For exploration not of
overall magnitude of effects but instead related to
the form they take, please see the sensitivity
analysis below.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:04 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
currently facing. In 2023, Head Start
programs are projected to be funded to
serve 755,074 children; however, OHS
estimates only about 650,000 children
and families are actually being served.
Many Head Start programs are
requesting reductions to their funded
enrollment, even while they continue to
work to improve their enrollment. As
this situation is unprecedented, it is
nearly impossible to predict both
funded and actual enrollment levels in
future years.
As such, OHS first estimates costs by
using the FY2023 funded enrollment of
755,074 which represents the funding
needed to implement the proposed rule
and maintain current funded
enrollment, or the maximum
appropriations needed to fully
implement the proposed rule. Using the
cost per slot determined by this
estimate, we also describe the necessary
appropriations needed to maintain
funded slots to serve 650,000 children,
which reflects the FY2023 actual
enrollment. Relatedly, we also provide
estimates of the reduction in the total
number of funded slots in a scenario
where no additional funding is provided
(or funding increases occur but not in
response to this proposal), compared to
both projected FY2023 funded
enrollment and to estimated FY2023
actual enrollment.
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Our baseline scenario is informed by
staffing levels, credentials, wage rates,
and enrollment figures from Program
Information Report (PIR) data covering
2022,263 with a few adjustments. The
PIR contains program-level counts of
teachers, assistant teachers, home
visitors, and family child care providers,
each disaggregated by type of credential.
For teachers and assistant teachers, we
observe the following credential
categories: advanced degree,
baccalaureate degree (BA), associate
degree (AA), Child Development
Associate (CDA) credential, and no
credential. For home visitors and family
child care providers, we observe
whether staff holds a credential, but not
the type of credential. We make the
following adjustments to the raw 2022
PIR data:
(1) We adjust the counts of each rolecredential combination to account for a
small share of staff without any
credential information, which is less
than 0.3% of total staff. For simplicity,
we assume that the credentials of staff
without this information are distributed
in proportion with the observed
credentials of other staff in the same
role.
(2) We augment the 2022 PIR data
with 2019 PIR data, which contained
information on the specific credential
263 https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/data-ongoingmonitoring/article/program-information-report-pir.
E:\FR\FM\20NOP2.SGM
20NOP2
EP20NO23.002</GPH>
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Table Bl. Baseline Head Start Bud~et Scenario. Nominal Dollars (in thousands)
Total
Operations
Operations
Operations
Awards:
Awards: Other Other Head
Year Total Fundin2
Awards
Personnel Costs
Start Costs
Costs
$11,036,820
2022
$10,647,160
$7,878,898
$2,768,262
$389,660
$2,899,964
$11,996,820
$8,699,892
$396,965
2023
$1 L599,855
$12,263,617
$2,966,663
2024
$11,866,652
$8,899,989
$396,965
$12,540,519
$3,034,896
2025
$12,139,585
$9,104,689
$400,934
$12,828,951
$3,104,699
2026
$12,418,796
$9,314,097
$410,156
$13,124,017
$3,176,107
2027
$12,704,428
$9,528,321
$419,589
$13,425,870
$3,249,157
2028
$12,996,630
$9,747,472
$429,240
$13,734,665
$3,323,888
2029
$13,295,552
$9,971,664
$439,112
$14,050,562
$3,400,337
2030
$13,601,350
$10,201,012
$449,212
$14,373,725
$3,478,545
2031
$13,914,181
$10,435,636
$459,544
$14,704,320
$3,558,552
2032
$14,234,207
$10,675,655
$470,113
$15,042,520
$3,640,398
$14,561,594
$10,921,195
$480,926
2033
80876
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
type for home visitors and family child
care providers. We assume that,
conditional on reporting any credential
in 2022, the credentials of staff with
each credential type are distributed in
proportion with observed credentials of
other credentialed staff in the same role
in 2019.
With these adjustments, we report
36,517 Head Start teachers, 32,286 Early
Head Start teachers, 38,316 Head Start
assistant teachers, 6,676 home visitors,
and 2,046 family child care providers.
Table B2 reports these counts by
credential type.
Table B2. Head Start Staff Counts by Role and Credential, 2022
HS Teacher
4,528
21,080
8,774
1,181
954
36,517
In 2022, Head Start programs were
funded to serve 833,075 slots and
reported 115,841 education staff. At the
time this analysis was prepared, ACF
did not have comparable information
from the PIR for 2023, which is ongoing;
however, we anticipate significant
changes to staffing levels, wage rates,
and slots compared to those observed in
2022 for reasons described above. We
anticipate enrollment reductions,
EHS Teacher Asst. Teacher Home Visitor
754
371
429
6,405
3,712
2,964
7,271
8,178
1,444
12,791
15,416
1,128
5,065
10,639
711
32,286
38,316
6,676
including through requests from
programs proposing to reduce their
funded enrollment to maintain quality
of program services.264 We currently
project 755,074 funded slots, or a 9%
reduction in funded enrollment in 2023
compared to 2022, and adopt a
corresponding reduction in education
staff by the same percentage. Compared
to a scenario of no reduction in slots or
education staff, we anticipate that this
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Table B3. 2023 Enrollment Scenarios
Year
2022
NIA
Scenario
Operations Award Amounts
$10,647,159,826
Personnel Costs, Share
74%
Personnel Staff Costs, $
$7,878,898,271
Other Costs, Share
26%
$2,768,261 555
Other Costs
Education Staff
115,841
Education Staff Costs
$4,994,940,873
Wage Compensation
$3,796,155,063
Non-Wage Compensation
$1,198,785,809
$43,119
Cost per Education Staff
Total Slots
833,075
Cost per Slot
$12,781
will lead to increases in total
compensation for education staff. Again,
this does not reflect the difference
between funded enrollment and actual
enrollment of families in the program.
OHS anticipates that funded enrollment
will continue to decline; however, for
the reasons described above, we model
projections based on funded enrollment
in 2023 at 755,074 for the purposes of
this analysis.
2023
Baseline
$11,599,855,394
75%
$8,699,891,546
25%
$2,899,963,849
104,995
$5,515,421,367
$4,191,720,239
$1,323,701,128
$52,530
755,074
$15,363
264 https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/policy/im/acfim-hs-22-09.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:04 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
Family Child
Care Provider
38
217
241
1,238
312
2,046
E:\FR\FM\20NOP2.SGM
20NOP2
EP20NO23.003</GPH> EP20NO23.004</GPH>
De2ree
Advanced
BA
AA
CDA
No Credential
Total
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
Connecting Baseline Uncertainty With
Differing Estimates of Regulatory Effects
Head Start programs must be in a
position to serve their full funded
enrollment at all times, regardless of
their actual enrollment levels. When
programs are under-enrolled, they must
continue their operations in a way that
is sufficient to serve their funded
enrollment. As Head Start funds are
allocated to a variety of fixed cost
categories (like facilities, personnel,
supplies, and transportation), only some
of these costs are saved when a funded
slot is empty. If a slot is empty, a
program must still pay for a facility with
classrooms, along with utilities and
maintenance. Programs must also
attempt to hire (or, spend the associated
funds recruiting) staff, and have
transportation that can accommodate
the slot. Where there is a difference
between actual and funded enrollment,
the majority of the difference in
allocated funding is used in this
manner, thus doing little to improve the
Head Start experience for remaining
students.
Therefore, to the extent that underenrolled Head Start programs will, over
the analytic time horizon of this
regulatory impact assessment, be
approved to reduce their funded
enrollment without those slots being
shifted to other Head Start entities, the
estimates that use actual enrollment as
a key input or comparison—for
example, the rightmost columns of
Tables J1 and K5—are informative and
meaningful. By contrast, if reductions of
funded enrollment at entities that are
under-enrolled in the baseline were
accompanied (also in the baseline) by
shifting of those slots to other Head
Start entities, the estimates that use
funded enrollment as a key comparison
are more informative. Similarly, if
under-enrollment were to ease in the
future (perhaps to due further
stabilization in the labor market as the
biggest disruptions of the COVID–19
pandemic recede into the past), the
latter set of estimates should receive the
analytic focus.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
C. Workforce Supports: Staff Wages and
Staff Benefits
The proposed rule outlines four areas
of proposed requirements for wages for
Head Start staff: (1) that education staff
working directly with children as part of
their daily job responsibilities must
receive a salary comparable to preschool
teachers in public school settings in the
program’s local school district, adjusted
for qualifications, experience, and job
responsibilities; (2) to establish or
enhance a salary scale, wage ladder, or
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:04 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
other pay structure that applies to all
staff in the program and takes into
account job responsibilities, hours
worked, and qualifications and
experience relevant to the position; (3)
that all staff must receive a salary that
is sufficient to cover basic costs of living
in their geographic area, including those
at the lowest end of the pay structure;
and (4) to affirm and emphasize that the
requirements for pay parity should also
promote comparability of wages across
Head Start Preschool and Early Head
Start staff positions.
The proposed rule also outlines
requirements for grant recipients to
provide benefits to staff, discussing
health insurance, paid sick leave, paid
vacation or personal leave, paid family
leave, access to short-term free or lowcost mental health services, and other
considerations. We also describe an
alternative policy scenario in which
retirement benefits are also included in
the proposed benefit requirements, see
Section K below.
In this section, we describe baseline
wages for Head Start education staff and
their corresponding wage-parity targets.
We also describe baseline staff benefits
and the enhanced-benefit policy.
Wage-Parity Targets
The proposed rule would result in
Head Start staff receiving an annual
salary commensurate with preschool
teachers in local public school settings,
adjusted for qualifications, experience,
and job responsibilities. The target
comparison of preschool teachers in
public school settings is intended to
represent substantial progress towards
parity with public school elementary
teachers. Specifically, we intend the
benchmark of preschool teacher annual
salaries in public school settings to
represent about 90% of kindergarten
teacher annual salaries, for those with
comparable qualifications.265 While
wage rates would be determined locally,
we present estimates of the likely
impact measured at the national level.
For the purposes of this analysis, we
adopt an estimate of the target salary in
2022 of $53,200, which corresponds to
the mean annual wage for preschool
265 This analysis uses BLS average annual salaries
as wage targets. However, since the BLS national
average for kindergarten teacher salaries ($65,120)
includes all kindergarten teachers, of which
approximately half have a master’s degree or higher,
adjust this annual salary to reflect the target salary
for a teacher with a bachelor’s degree ($58,608)
guided by salary differences observed in National
Center for Education Statistics data (https://
nces.ed.gov/surveys/ntps/). The BLS reported
annual salary for preschool teacher in school
settings ($53,200) is therefore approximately 90% of
the annual salary for kindergarten teachers with a
bachelor’s degree ($58,608).
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
80877
teachers in elementary and school-based
settings as reported by the Bureau of
Labor Statistics for occupation code 25–
2011, Preschool Teachers, Except
Special Education for 2022.266 This
estimate is intended to be consistent
with the requirement that annual
salaries be ‘‘comparable to preschool
teachers in public school settings.’’ We
assume that a typical Preschool teacher
works 1,680 hours per year, so this
annual salary corresponded to a $31.67
hourly wage in 2022, or a $32.95 hourly
wage in 2023 under an assumption that
Preschool teacher salaries will grow
approximately in relation to inflation.267
We adopt this estimate as the hourly
wage target for teachers, home visitors,
and family child care providers with a
BA, which serves as the base wage rate
for other credentials. For staff in these
roles with an advanced degree (i.e.,
master’s degree or higher), we adopt an
hourly wage target 10% above the base
wage rate; for AA degrees, 20% below
the base wage rate; for CDA, 30% below
the base wage rate; and for no
credential, 40% below the base wage
rate. For assistant teachers, who often
have fewer responsibilities than lead
teachers, we adopt hourly wage targets
that are about 17% less than other roles.
For example, the wage rate target for
assistant teachers with a BA is $27.35
per hour. Table C1 reports the hourly
wage targets for each staff role by
credential under the proposed rule and
the baseline scenario.
We note that the assumption that a
typical Preschool teacher works 1,680
hours per year differs with the source of
the annual wage data comparison. U.S.
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)
assumes a ‘‘year-round, full-time hours
figure of 2,080 hours’’ which is
consistent with a 40-hour work week for
all 52 weeks of the year. The proposed
policy requires comparable annual
salaries, however hourly estimates are
provided and used here for the purposes
of calculating the estimated impacts of
the proposed policies. We have
therefore chosen to calculate the hourly
target wage using 1,680 hours, which is
our estimate of the number of paid
hours worked by preschool education
staff. We request comment on the best
approach to handle the discrepancy in
assumptions about the number of hours
worked. In particular, we request
266 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Occupational
Employment and Wages. May 2022. 25–2011
Preschool Teachers, Except Special Education.
https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes252011.htm.
267 Multiplied by a ratio of May 2023 (304.127) to
May 2022 (292.296) CPI. U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics. CPI for all Urban Consumers (CPI–U), Not
Seasonally Adjusted, https://data.bls.gov/
timeseries/CUUR0000SA0. Accessed June 19, 2023.
E:\FR\FM\20NOP2.SGM
20NOP2
80878
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
comment on the best estimate for the
annual hours worked by Head Start
education staff, as well as by preschool
teachers in public school settings. We
further request comment on the degree
to which paid hours worked aligns with
actual hours worked, as education staff
in both Head Start and preschools in
public school settings may perform
additional work tasks outside official
work hours.
Table Cl. Hourly Wage Targets by Credential Under Wage-Parity Targets (Constant 2023
dollars)
Family Child
HS Teacher EHS Teacher Asst. Teacher Home Visitor Care Provider
De~ree
Advanced
$36.24
$36.24
$30.08
$36.24
$36.24
BA
$32.95
$32.95
$27.35
$32.95
$32.95
AA
$26.36
$26.36
$21.88
$26.36
$26.36
CDA
$23.06
$23.06
$19.14
$23.06
$23.06
No Credential
$19.77
$19.77
$16.41
$19.77
$19.77
Weighted Average
$31.11
$25.56
$19.87
$28.66
$24.24
To estimate the likely impact of the
wage-parity policy on expenditures, we
calculate the expenditures under the
baseline scenario, then calculate the
expenditures needed to fund the wage
increases. Table C2 reports these
impacts under the baseline scenario.
Note that these are reported in constant
2023 dollars.
Table C2. Expenditure on Wages to Fund Wage Parity, Constant 2023 Dollars
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Disaggregation of Wage-Parity Policy
Implementation Costs
While estimates in this analysis are
performed at the national level, the cost
of implementing the wage policies will
likely not be borne equally by each
program. Programmatic data suggests
Head Start programs vary in their
current compensation practices and
therefore will likely have varying costs
associated with implementing the wage
parity policy. Head Start data shows
that wages and enrollment are not
distributed evenly across various
program types. Furthermore, some
programs across the country are
experiencing a workforce shortage and
are in varying stages of implementing
changes to address issues related to lack
of qualified and available staff to fill
classrooms and associated underenrollment.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:04 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
EHS
Teacher
$19.02
2,080
29,263
$1,158
$25.56
$1,556
$398
Asst.
Teacher
$18.53
1,680
34,728
$1,081
$19.87
$1,159
$78
Data from 2019 PIR shows that
programs located in school systems pay
classroom teachers at the highest rate,
on average. Grant recipients in school
districts also have more programs that
are fully enrolled compared to other
agencies. Meanwhile, grant recipients
that are Community Action Agencies
are, on average, the lowest paying
agency type and pay more than $10,000
less annually to classroom teachers, on
average, compared to school systems.
Finally, ACF published sub-regulatory
guidance to encourage Head Start
programs to increase staff and teacher
wages. Some Head Start programs have
responded to this guidance by
requesting to reduce their funded
enrollment in order to increase staff
wages, but those programs are in
varying stages of implementing these
changes.
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Home
Visitor
$22.56
2,080
6,051
$284
$28.66
$361
$77
Family
Child Care
Provider
$23.96
2,080
1,854
$92
$24.24
$94
$1
Given this information, we expect that
the cost of implementing these proposed
policies will vary depending on a
variety of factors, such as agency type.
For instance, programs in school
systems that already compensate at a
higher level, will likely incur lower
costs when implementing the wage
policies in this proposal compared to
programs in Community Action
Agencies that, on average, tend to
provide lower compensation. The costs
of implementing these proposed
policies will likely further vary based on
the local wage targets used for each
program, the distribution of
qualifications for existing staff, and the
degree to which each program has
already made efforts to improve
compensation.
E:\FR\FM\20NOP2.SGM
20NOP2
EP20NO23.005</GPH> EP20NO23.006</GPH>
Baseline Wage ($)
Hours Per Staff
Staff Count
Baseline Expenditure ($M)
Parity Wage Target
Parity Expenditure
Expenditure Increase
HS
Teacher
$28.35
1,680
33,098
$1,576
$31.11
$1,730
$153
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
The national estimates provided in
this analysis cannot necessarily be
applied at the individual program level.
For instance, the hourly wage targets
described in the previous section (Table
C2) represent national averages and
targets for individual programs will vary
based on salaries for preschool teachers
in their community. Program-level wage
targets will vary based on factors such
as local compensation rates and cost of
living. Depending on the existing
compensation structure in each
program, some programs will have to
increase their hourly wages
substantially, and others may only need
to make small increases. Program-level
costs for implementing this policy are
expected to be impacted by a variety of
factors such as local pay compensation
rates, education/credential levels of
program staff, and the degree to which
programs have already attempted to
increase wages.
HHS acknowledges that a limitation
of using national level estimates is that
these program-level nuances are not
specifically illustrated in the analysis.
However, using national averages to
estimate costs at the national level
accounts, in some ways but not others,
for program-level variation.
Impact of the Minimum Pay
Requirement
The proposed rule would require that
all staff receive, at minimum, a salary
that is sufficient to cover basic costs of
80879
living in their geographic area,
including those at the lowest end of the
pay structure. We anticipate that Head
Start programs in low-income areas
would spend additional resources to
fulfill the basic cost-of-living
requirement. We assume that the
incremental impact of this provision is
approximately $116 million per year,
which accounts for $88 million through
hourly wage increases, and $28 million
in corresponding increases in non-wage
benefits. This estimate is consistent
with about 15% of all Head Start staff,
about 35,000 staff members in the
baseline, each working an average of 30
hours per week for 42 weeks, receiving
an additional $2.00 268 per hour in
wages to meet the goal of establishing a
minimum hourly wage of $15.00, or a
total average increase in hourly
compensation of $2.63.
programs would need to plan for
compensation increases for such staff to
avoid a significant wage gap between
those positions. As another example,
with rising wages for education staff,
other staff in supervisory or midmanagement roles would likely receive
wage increases as well (e.g., coaches,
education managers, etc.). To account
for this impact, we assume that the total
impacts on expenditures associated
with wages would be 10% higher than
the sum of the impacts associated with
wage targets and the minimum pay
requirement. We seek comment on
whether 10% is an appropriate
adjustment to estimate expenses that
programs will incur to avoid wage
compression.
Impact on Expenditures Through Wage
Compression
Next, we report the total
expenditures, including the impacts of
the wage targets, minimum pay
requirement, and impacts associated
with wage compression. Table C3
reports the net impacts on expenditures,
holding benefits constant. The ‘‘wage
targets’’ row is equal to the totals of the
‘‘expenditure increase’’ rows contained
in Tables C1 and C2. When pay parity
is fully implemented, the wages policies
would result in about $875 million in
additional annual expenditures on
wages.269 Note that these estimates are
reported in constant 2023 dollars.
In addition to the direct impacts on
teachers, assistant teachers, home
visitors, and family child care providers,
we anticipate that the proposed rule
would result in increased compensation
for family service workers as well as
other non-education staff positions to
address wage compression and wage
equity issues that would arise. For
example, proposed wage increases to
lead teachers may far exceed what a
similarly credentialed family service
worker makes in a program and those
Overall Impacts of Wage Parity on
Expenditures, Holding Benefits
Constant
The estimates in Table C3 reflect the
expenditures needed to fully implement
pay parity, which would occur in 2030
under the NPRM, if finalized. Table C4
reports the expenditures by year under
the implementation schedule, reported
in constant 2023 dollars and also
nominal dollars.
268 In the absence of data from Head Start
programs that reports the wages paid to the lowest
paid staff, this estimate assumes that all of the
35,000 staff earned minimum wage in their State in
2022, which is consistent with an average hourly
wage of $10.68. The estimate of average minimum
wage was calculated using the minimum wage for
each State (https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/mwconsolidated) and the number of Head Start staff in
each State according to administrative data from the
Office of Head Start in 2022. For those staff where
minimum wage data were not available due to lack
of data for the U.S. Territory or data entry error, the
Federal minimum wage of $7.25 was used. In the
baseline analysis, we assume that all staff receive
a pay increase, to $13.00 per hour, due to the
projected reductions in funded enrollment from
FY2022 to FY2023, and the associated reduction in
staff and increased share of personnel funds. These
staff would therefore need an additional $2.00 per
hour to meet the $15 per hour minimum pay policy
goal.
269 The additional annual expenditures on fringe
associated with the wage policies (i.e., the fringe
associated with the increased wages in the wage
policies at the baseline fringe rate of 24%), are
included in the estimates reported in Table C6 in
the benefits section.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:04 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\20NOP2.SGM
20NOP2
EP20NO23.007</GPH>
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Table C3. Total Expenditures on Wages to Fund Wage Policies (Millions of Constant 2023
Dollars)
Scenario
Baseline
$707
Wage Targets
$88
Minimum Pay
$795
Subtotal
$80
Wage Compression
$875
Total
80880
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
Table C4. Total Additional Expenditures on Wages by Year to Fund Wage Policies,
Millions of Dollars
Policy Phase-In
Year
Constant 2023 Dollars
Nominal Dollars
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
Expenditures Associated With Fringe
Benefits
As discussed above, based on an
analysis of current Head Start programs,
about 24% of total personnel costs go
towards fringe benefits, rather than
wage compensation. Table B1 reports
personnel costs of about $8.7 billion in
2023. Of this figure, 76% goes to wage
compensation, or about $6.6 billion, and
24% goes to fringe benefits, or about
$2.1 billion. We assume that this ratio
will remain constant over time, absent
the staff benefits provisions of the
proposed rule.
The proposed rule outlines
requirements for grant recipients to
provide benefits to staff, discussing
health insurance, paid sick leave,
vacation or personal leave, paid family
leave, short term mental health services,
and other considerations. In our
alternative policy scenario, discussed
further in Section K, grant recipients
would also be required to provide
retirement benefits to staff. For the
purposes of this analysis, we assume
that these enhancements would increase
the share of total personnel costs that go
towards fringe benefits from 24% to
27.8%, or to 32.5% in the alternative
policy scenario, holding wages
compensation constant. Absent all other
provisions in the NPRM, adopting the
$0
$45
$92
$234
$383
$588
$802
$1,026
$1,049
$1,073
$1,098
benefits policy at baseline wages would
increase fringe benefits in constant 2023
dollars from $2.1 billion to about $2.5
billion, and total compensation from
about $8.7 billion to $9.2 billion, for an
increase of about $458 million.270 In
nominal dollars, these impacts would
increase with the Head Start COLA, or
2.3% per year.
Table C5 reports the impacts of the
benefit policy over time, accounting for
the yearly impact of the wage policies
reported in Table C4, reported in
constant and nominal dollars. These
tables report the changes to benefits,
some of which are driven by wage
increases of the wage policies.
Table C5. Total Additional Expenditures by Year on Benefits, Millions of Dollars
Year
Policy Phase-In
Constant 2023 Dollars
Nominal Dollars
$0
$0
2023
24.0%
$14
$14
2024
24.0%
$28
$29
2025
24.0%
$542
$580
2026
27.8%
$593
$649
2027
27.8%
$660
$739
2028
27.8%
$727
$834
2029
27.8%
$795
$932
2030
27.8%
$795
$953
2031
27.8%
$795
$975
2032
27.8%
$795
$998
2033
27.8%
270 Under the Required Retirement Scenario and
absent all other provisions in the NPRM, adopting
the benefits policy at baseline wages would increase
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:04 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
fringe benefits in constant 2023 dollars from $2.1
billion to about $3.2 billion, and total compensation
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
from about $8.7 billion to $9.8 billion, for an
increase of about $1.1 billion.
E:\FR\FM\20NOP2.SGM
20NOP2
EP20NO23.008</GPH> EP20NO23.009</GPH>
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
$0
$44
$87
$219
$350
$525
$700
$875
$875
$875
$875
0%
5%
10%
25%
40%
60%
80%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
Disaggregation of Fringe Benefit
Estimates
To estimate the cost associated with
each category of benefits in the
proposed rule, we refer to the
distribution of benefits provided to
teachers,271 who have an overall fringe
rate of 32.5% according to data on
employer costs for employee
compensation released by BLS in
December 2022.272 There are more
categories of benefits provided to
teachers described by the BLS than will
be required under the proposed rule,
specifically retirement benefits are
provided to teachers in the BLS data. In
order to estimate the expenditures on
the major benefits categories that will be
required under the proposed rule, we
first estimate the cost of Head Start
teachers receiving the same fringe rate
and major benefits categories (32.5%:
health insurance, retirement, and paid
leave). We then calculate the associated
reduction in fringe associated with
removing the retirement benefit in order
to estimate the cost of the benefits
policy under the proposed rule.
We tentatively apply the same
distribution of fringe associated with
each fringe category to the estimated
expenditure on benefits for Head Start
using the same overall fringe rate of
32.5%, which represents an increase of
8.5% from the current fringe rate. We
then calculate the increased expenditure
needed for each of the major benefits
categories: health insurance, retirement,
and paid leave, compared to existing
expenditures in each category for Head
Start programs.273 This approach
estimates that of the total projected cost
associated with increasing the fringe
rate from 24.0% to 32.5%, 16.6% will
be accounted for by increased spending
on health insurance. Increased spending
on retirement will account for 54.7% of
the total projected cost, and increased
spending on paid leave will account for
80881
28.7% of the total projected cost. Thus,
of the total increase of 8.5% in fringe,
we anticipate about 1.4% of this
increase will go towards health
insurance, 4.7% of this increase will go
towards retirement benefits, and 2.4%
will go towards paid leave.
As retirement benefits are only
proposed to be required under the
alternative policy scenario, we reduce
the estimated increase on fringe by the
increase associated with retirement
benefits, 4.7%, for a target fringe rate of
27.8% under the benefits policy in the
proposed rule. Under the proposed rule,
increased spending on health insurance
will account for 37% of the total cost of
the benefits policy, and increased
spending on paid leave will account for
the remaining 63% of the total cost of
the benefits policy.
Table C6 reports an expenditure
breakdown for each major category of
benefits that would be impacted by the
proposed rule.
Table C6. Additional Expenditure Breakdown by Benefit Policy, Millions of Nominal Dollars
Benefits
Benefits Policy:
Fringe
Total Benefits
Benefits
Policy: Paid
Health
Associated with
Leave
Insurance
Year Expenditures 1, 2 Policy Total
Wa~e Policy3
$14
$0
$0
$0
$14
2024
$29
$0
$0
$0
$29
2025
$580
$506
$319
$187
$74
2026
$649
$528
$333
$195
$121
2027
$739
$554
$349
$205
$186
2028
$834
$580
$366
$215
$253
2029
$932
$608
$383
$225
$324
2030
$953
$622
$392
$230
$331
2031
$975
$636
$401
$235
$339
2032
$998
$651
$410
$241
$347
2033
We identify several significant caveats
to this analysis. First, because many
existing Head Start grant recipients
provide health insurance, the growth in
costs for expanded health insurance
may be smaller than projected. We do
expect that there will be improvements
in the quality of health plans and what
employees are covered, and increases in
the provision of life and disability
insurance, which may increase overall
insurance costs for some grant
recipients, but it is likely not to increase
linearly with wage increases. Further,
some grant recipients may choose to
encourage staff to enroll in plans
available in the Marketplace because the
quality and expenses of health
insurance in the Marketplace may be
better than what they can obtain as an
employer, and therefore the proportion
of fringe spent on insurance for those
grant recipients would decrease.
Second, legally required fringe
components such as Social Security
taxes and retirement and savings fringe
are not necessarily comparable between
the reference group of teachers included
in the BLS data and Head Start staff.
Many elementary teachers are State
271 This occupational group was chosen because
the total fringe rate aligns with internal estimates
of the total fringe rate that would be associated with
the proposed benefit policies. The occupational
group includes postsecondary teachers; primary,
secondary, and special education teachers; and
other teachers and instructors.
272 https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/
ecec_03172023.pdf.
273 Estimates based on average fringe for each
category of benefits calculated from a sample of
Head Start program budgets.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:04 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\20NOP2.SGM
20NOP2
EP20NO23.010</GPH>
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
1 Only benefits expenditures associated with baseline staff are shown here. Benefits expenditures associated with hiring additional staff under other
policies in the proposed rule (e.g., additional Family Service Workers hired under the Family Service Worker Family Assignments policy) are
included in the estimates for each specific policy.
2 These estimates are calculated using the wages estimated under the proposed wage policy.
3 This cost represents the additional benefits expenditures associated with increased wages under the wage oolicv at the baseline fringe rate of 24%.
80882
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
employees and not all State employees
are covered by Social Security because
they are covered by State pension plans;
as a result, legally required fringe may
be lower and retirement fringe higher
for teachers relative to a comparable
benefits package for Head Start staff.
Discussion of Uncertainty
We have attempted to provide our
best estimates of the potential effects of
the staff wages and staff benefit
provisions. We acknowledge several
significant and unresolved sources of
uncertainty. First, we note that these
estimates use a single baseline, which is
a limitation of this analysis. We have
provided estimates using a single
baseline that assumes a stable funded
enrollment level consistent with
projected FY2023 funded enrollment of
755,074. If funded enrollment were to
increase, which would require
Congressional investment designated for
expansion (and such increase occurs for
reasons separate from this regulatory
proposal), the impacts of this proposed
rule would be underestimated. If funded
enrollment were to decrease,
particularly if it were to decrease below
the level of our current actual
enrollment of 650,000, then the impacts
of this proposed rule would be
overestimated. Furthermore, if other
baseline assumptions were to vary, such
as the child-to-staff ratio or the share of
appropriations allocated to personnel
costs, that would also impact the
estimated effects. However, absent
guiding data for the timing and
magnitude of these possible variations,
OHS presents estimates using the single,
data-informed baseline.
Second, we followed a partial
equilibrium modeling approach,
focusing the primary scope of our
analysis on the impacts to Head Start.
General equilibrium modeling could
potentially explore the impacts of the
proposed rule on wages beyond Head
Start staff. These effects could be
informative for the estimates on
expenditures, since wage increases
experienced by Head Start staff could
result in wage increases to other
occupations that draw from a similar
supply of workers, such as Kindergarten
teachers. It is possible to anticipate a
gradual feedback effect between Head
Start staff and occupations that provide
reference wages under the wage-parity
policy. If this is the case, this would
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:04 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
tend to indicate that our expenditure
estimates are underestimated.
Third, the analysis assumes that
average compensation for Head Start
staff (in the baseline scenario) and
preschool teachers in public school
settings (in the baseline scenario and
under the NPRM) increases with
inflation, or equivalently, that their
average compensation remains constant
in real terms, over the time horizon of
this analysis. If compensation for
preschool teachers in public school
settings grows more slowly over time
than compensation for Head Start staff,
this would tend to indicate that our
expenditure estimates are
overestimated. Alternatively, if
compensation for preschool teachers in
public school settings grows faster than
compensation for Head Start staff, this
would tend to indicate that our
expenditure estimates are
underestimated.
In regard to the inherent uncertainty
over the availability of funding to fully
implement this proposed rule, if
finalized, Section J presents a sensitivity
analysis on that significant source of
uncertainty.
D. Workforce Supports: Staff Wellness—
Staff Breaks
The proposed rule outlines
requirements for programs to provide
break times during work shifts.
Specifically, for each staff member
working a shift lasting between four and
six hours, programs would be required
to provide a minimum of one 15-minute
break per shift; and for each staff
member working a shift lasting six
hours or more, programs would be
required to provide a minimum of one
30-minute break per shift.
The scope of this element of the
proposed rule covers approximately
104,995 education staff, the estimate of
education staff that is proportionally
decreased to reflect the reduced
enrollment in 2023 compared to 2022.
We assume that 13% of education staff
typically work shifts lasting between
four and six hours, and that 87% of
education staff typically work shifts
lasting 6 hours or more. Thus, across all
staff, the proposed rule would require
an average break time of about 28
minutes per shift.274 We assume 180
average shifts per year for each
274 13%
PO 00000
* 15 + 87% * 30 = 28.05.
Frm 00066
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
education staff, for a total of 5,049
minutes of break time per year per
staff.275 For 104,995 total education
staff, the proposed rule would require a
minimum of about 8.8 million hours of
break time per year.276 We do not have
detailed information from Head Start
programs on their current policies for
staff breaks. For the purposes of this
analysis, we adopt the following
assumptions:
(1) Under the baseline scenario of no
regulatory action, 20% of Head Start
programs offer break time for education
staff.
(2) Under the proposed rule, 50% of
Head Start programs would shift the
workloads of existing Head Start staff to
provide coverage during the additional
breaks.
(3) Under the proposed rule, Head
Start programs who do not already
provide breaks and cannot shift
workloads of existing staff would
provide coverage during the additional
breaks by hiring ‘floaters.’
(4) On average, Head Start programs
would pay the ‘floaters’ hourly wages in
line with assistant teachers with no
credential.
In line with assumptions 1 and 2, we
adjust the 8.8 million hours estimate
downwards by 70% and estimate that
the proposed rule would result in about
2.7 million hours of additional breaks
for educational staff. Using the wage
target for assistant teachers of $16.41 per
hour under the wage-parity target, this
policy would result in additional
expenditures of about $57 million per
year, or $60 million when also
accounting for the benefits policy.277
This policy would take effect in 2027,
and the total expenditures would
increase in line with the wages under
the wage-parity policy. Table D1 reports
the expenditures needed to fund this
policy, in constant and nominal dollars.
Table D2 reports the additional value-oftime costs by year for those programs
who provide breaks by shifting existing
workloads, in constant and nominal
dollars. Both Table D1 and Table D2
reflect the policy cost using the benefits
fringe rate in the proposed benefits
policy.
275 2,805
* 180 = 5,049.
* 104,995/60 = 8,835,310.
277 Under the Required Retirement Scenario, the
Breaks policy would cost $64 million in Constant
2023 dollars.
276 5,049
E:\FR\FM\20NOP2.SGM
20NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
80883
Table Dl. Expenditures by Year to Fund Staff Breaks Policy, Millions of Dollars
Year
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
Constant 2023 Dollars
Nominal Dollars
$0
$0
$0
$0
$60
$60
$60
$60
$60
$60
$60
$0
$0
$0
$0
$66
$67
$69
$71
$72
$74
$76
E. Family Service Worker Family
Assignments
The proposed rule would ensure the
planned number of families assigned to
work with individual family services
staff is no greater than 40, unless a
program can demonstrate higher family
assignments provide high quality family
and community engagement services
and maintain reasonable staff workload.
2019 PIR data reveals that
approximately 50 percent of programs
have staff family assignments that are 40
families or less. Across all programs
with ratios of families per family
services staff that exceed 40, we
estimate that Head Start programs
would need to hire an additional 3,231
family service workers to meet this
requirement at the funded enrollment
level projected for FY2023, compared to
the baseline scenario. This estimate
includes an assumption that 10% of
programs will exceed a caseload of
40,278 as is allowable under the
proposed policy.
278 For the purposes of this estimation we assume
that all of the programs that exceed the threshold
have an average caseload of 60.
279 Under the Required Retirement Scenario total
compensation for each additional family service
worker would be $59,259 in constant 2023 dollars.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:04 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
We adopt an estimate of $40,000 in
wage compensation per year per family
service worker, which results in a
$52,631 total compensation in the
baseline scenario or $55,401 total
compensation under the benefit
policy.279 For 3,231 workers, this would
result in additional expenditures across
Head Start programs of $179,002,770.
This policy would begin to take effect in
2027. Table E1 reports the expenditures
needed to fund this policy, in constant
and nominal dollars.
E:\FR\FM\20NOP2.SGM
20NOP2
EP20NO23.011</GPH> EP20NO23.012</GPH>
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Table D2. Additional Value-of-Time Costs by Year for Staff Breaks Policy, Millions of
Dollars
Year
Constant 2023 Dollars
Nominal Dollars
$0
$0
2023
$0
$0
2024
$0
$0
2025
$0
$0
2026
$100
$110
2027
$100
$112
2028
$100
$115
2029
$100
$118
2030
$100
$120
2031
$100
$123
2032
$100
$126
2033
80884
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
Table El. Expenditures by Year to Fund Family Service Worker Policy, Millions of Dollars
Year
Constant 2023 Dollars
Nominal Dollars
$0
$0
2023
$0
$0
2024
$0
$0
2025
$0
$0
2026
$179
$196
2027
$179
$201
2028
$179
$205
2029
$179
$210
2030
$179
$215
2031
$179
$220
2032
$179
$225
2033
F. Mental Health Services
The proposed rule would enhance
requirements for mental health supports
to integrate mental health more fully
into every aspect of program services as
well as elevate the role of mental health
consultation to support the wellbeing of
children, families, and staff. We
anticipate that this element of the
proposed rule would result in
additional work for a variety of program
staff, which we estimate will add up to
together to be roughly equivalent to one
full-time employee (FTE) per Head Start
agency. We estimate 1,564 agencies
needing the additional FTE to comply
with the proposed policy.
We adopt an estimate of $60,000 in
wage compensation per year per FTE
which represents an average of the
various salaries of the staff members
who we assume will complete the
additional work. In addition to wage
compensation, we assume that fringe
benefits will be associated with the
additional FTE, or about $18,947 under
the baseline assumptions for benefits, or
$23,102 under the benefit policy. In
total, under the proposed rule, we
estimate that each additional FTE would
require $78,947 in total compensation in
years prior to the effective date of the
benefits policy, and $83,102 in total
compensation in all future years. For
1,564 FTEs, this would result in
additional expenditures across Head
Start programs of $129,972,299.280 We
assume that these impacts would begin
immediately. Table F1 reports the
expenditures needed to fund this policy,
in constant and nominal dollars.
280 Under the Required Retirement Scenario, the
fringe associated with each additional FTE is
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:04 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
estimated to be $28,889 for a total compensation of
$88,889. The total policy cost for the mental health
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
policy under the Robust Benefit Scenario is $139
million.
E:\FR\FM\20NOP2.SGM
20NOP2
EP20NO23.013</GPH> EP20NO23.014</GPH>
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Table Fl. Expenditures by Year to Fund Mental Health Services Policy, Millions of Dollars
Year
Constant 2023 Dollars
Nominal Dollars
$0
$0
2023
$123
$126
2024
$123
$129
2025
$130
$139
2026
$130
$142
2027
$130
$146
2028
$130
$149
2029
$130
$152
2030
$130
$156
2031
$130
$159
2032
$130
$163
2033
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
G. Preventing and Addressing Lead
Exposure
The proposed rule includes new
requirements on preventing and
addressing lead exposure through water
and lead-based paint in Head Start
facilities. This analysis presents
estimates of the costs associated with
testing and remediating water fixtures,
and costs associated with evaluating
and reducing the hazards from lead
paint in classrooms and common areas
at Head Start facilities.
Lead in Water
To assess the likely magnitude of the
costs associated with the lead in water
requirement, we first adopt estimates of
19,400 service locations, with an
average of 7.5 water fixtures per service
location, for 145,500 total fixtures. We
assume that half of these fixtures would
be tested annually, and half of these
fixtures would be tested once every 5
years. Thus, in a given year, about 60%
of the total fixtures, or 87,300 fixtures,
would be tested per year. We adopt an
estimate of $100 per fixture tested, for
an annual cost associated with testing of
$8,730,000. In addition to these testing
costs, we assume that 25% of fixtures,
or 35,375 fixtures, will require ongoing
remediation using point-of-use devices.
We identify filter replacements as
largest cost associated with remediation,
and adopt an estimate of $30 per filter,
with filters replaced quarterly, or a cost
per fixture of $120 per year. Across
35,375 fixtures requiring ongoing
remediation, we calculate an annual
cost of $4,365,000 for remediation. In
total, we estimate $13,095,000 per year
in annual costs associated with testing
and remediating water fixtures. Some of
this cost can be covered by Federal
funding under the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law (as enacted by the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act);
many states are already using this
funding.
Lead-Based Paint
To assess the likely magnitude of the
costs associated with the lead-based
paint requirement, we first adopt
estimates of 25,409 total rooms across
Head Start facilities, consisting of
19,500 classrooms and 5,909 common
areas. We assume that about 46% Head
Start facilities were constructed prior to
1978 and would require a lead-hazard
evaluation under the proposed rule.
Thus, about 11,688 rooms would require
evaluation. We adopt an estimate of
$700 per room for the evaluations,
which would consist of a lead-based
paint inspection and risk assessment.
Across all rooms requiring evaluation,
we estimate an initial total cost
associated with evaluations of about
$8.2 million.
Of rooms undergoing an evaluation,
we assume that 43.8% of rooms would
be identified as potentially having a
lead-based paint hazard requiring
abatement.281 282 Thus, after the first
round of assessments covering 11,688
rooms, we estimate that 5,125 rooms
80885
would require abatement. We assume
that half of the rooms requiring
abatement would require interior paint
repair, with a per-room cost of $710;
that half of the rooms would require
friction/impact work, with a per-room
cost of $280; and assume that that all
rooms undergoing abatement would
incur costs associated with unit cleanup
of $430 per room and costs associated
with clearance of $170 per room. In
total, we estimate an average cost of
abatement of $1,095 per room. Across
all 5,125 rooms requiring abatement
following the first round of assessments,
this would be about $5.6 million.
The proposed rule outlines a process
for subsequent assessments for rooms
requiring abatement. These
reassessments occur at least once every
2 years unless two reassessments
conducted two years apart identify no
lead-based paint hazards. To model
assessments in future years, we assume
that 21.9% of all rooms that are
reassessed will require abatement,
which is half the rate of abatement
compared to initial assessments. Thus,
for the 5,125 rooms that required
abatement, we estimate that 1,124
would require additional abatement.
The other 4,001 rooms would still
require a second reassessment. Table G1
reports the number of assessments and
abatements by year, the costs of those
assessments and abatements, and the
yearly costs of the lead-based paint
policy.
BILLING CODE 4184–40–P
Year Reassessments
2024
0
2025
0
2026
5,125
2027
0
2028
1,124
2029
0
2030
1,124
2031
0
2032
439
2033
0
Final
Assessments
11,688
0
0
0
4,001
0
877
0
877
0
281 https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/HH/
documents/AHHS_II_Lead_Findings_Report_Final_
29oct21.pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:04 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
Abatements
5,125
0
1,124
0
1,124
0
439
0
289
0
Cost of
Cost of
Evaluations Abatements
$8,181,727
$5,611,883
$0
$0
$3,587,505
$1,230,343
$0
$0
$3,587,505
$1,230,343
$0
$0
$1,400,605
$480,341
$0
$0
$921,152
$315,911
$0
$0
282 We note that the First National Environmental
Health Survey of Child Care Centers published by
HUD in 2003, found that child care centers were
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
Cost of
Lead-Based
Paint Policy
$13,793,611
$0
$4,817,848
$0
$4,817,848
$0
$1,880,946
$0
$1,237,063
$0
significantly less likely to have lead-based hazards
than residences. As such, cost of the proposed rule
may be overestimated.
E:\FR\FM\20NOP2.SGM
20NOP2
EP20NO23.015</GPH>
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Table G 1. Cost of Lead-Based Paint Policv
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
Table G2 reports the yearly costs
associated with the lead in water policy,
the lead-based paint policy, and the
total cost associated with the two lead
Table G2. Total Cost of Lead Policies 1 in Millions)
Cost of Lead Cost of Leadin Water
Based Paint
Total Cost,
Year
Policy
Policy
Constant$
2024
$13.1
$13.8
$26.9
2025
$13.1
$0.0
$13.1
2026
$13.1
$4.8
$17.9
2027
$13.1
$0.0
$13.1
2028
$13.1
$4.8
$17.9
2029
$13.1
$0.0
$13.1
2030
$13.1
$1.9
$15.0
2031
$13.1
$0.0
$13.1
2032
$13.1
$1.2
$14.3
2033
$13.1
$0.0
$13.1
BILLING CODE 4184–40–C
H. Administrative Costs
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Several of the provisions of the NPRM
would likely entail additional
administrative costs beyond those that
we have otherwise quantified in this
analysis. For example, we anticipate
that programs would expend resources
to develop program-specific policies
while preparing to implement the
workforce wage and benefits provisions.
To account for these impacts, we adopt
an assumption that each Head Start
program would spend a total of 600
hours per program, spread across
directors, education managers, disability
managers, health managers, and other
management staff to develop programspecific policies. To value the time
spent on these activities, we adopt a
fully loaded hourly wage of $60 per
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
hour, reflecting a mix of wages across
several roles. We assume that this
impact would primarily occur in the
first year of the time horizon of our
analysis, before most of the impacts
associated with wage and benefits
policies take effect, and thus we do not
adjust these upwards to account for
other provisions of the proposed rule.
For each program, we value this impact
at $36,000.283 Across 3,000 programs,
we estimate the total impact as $108
million, all occurring in 2024.284 We
request comment on whether 600 hours
is a reasonable assumption for each
program to review, understand, and
283 $36,000
= 600 hours * $60/hour.
= $36,000/program * 3,000
programs. Head Start funding is only used for a
portion of the salaries of these management
positions.
284 $108,000,000
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
policies in constant and nominal
dollars.
Total Cost,
Nominal$
$27.5
$13.7
$19.2
$14.3
$20.1
$15.0
$17.6
$15.7
$17.6
$16.4
plan for implementation for these
proposed changes to the standards.
I. Timing of Impacts
The proposed rule includes an
implementation timeline for several of
the provisions, described above. Table
I1 summarizes the impacts on
expenditures assuming a funded
enrollment level consistent with the
projected FY2023 funded enrollment,
consistent with this implementation
timeline, reporting yearly estimates, and
present value and annualized values
corresponding to 3% and 7% discount
rates, with all monetary estimates
reported in millions of constant 2023
dollars. Table I2 reports the same
impacts except in nominal dollars.
BILLING CODE 4184–40–P
E:\FR\FM\20NOP2.SGM
20NOP2
EP20NO23.016</GPH>
80886
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
BILLING CODE 4184–40–C
Mental
Health
Lead
Other
Total
$123
$123
$130
$130
$130
$130
$130
$130
$130
$130
$1,096
$901
$129
$128
$27
$13
$18
$13
$18
$13
$15
$13
$14
$13
$136
$114
$16
$16
$108
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$105
$101
$12
$14
$316
$252
$909
$1,325
$1,572
$1,809
$2,054
$2,052
$2,053
$2,052
$11,813
$9,226
$1,385
$1,314
J. Sensitivity Analysis—Potential
Enrollment Reductions
In the previous analysis, we framed
results as the Federal appropriations
increase needed to fully fund these
requirements and maintain current
funded enrollment of 755,074.
However, in the interest of
transparency, we perform a sensitivity
analysis to evaluate the impacts of the
proposed rule under a scenario of no
additional funding above the baseline
budget scenario in Table B1 (or
increased appropriations that cannot be
used to support this regulatory proposal
and/or are not increased in response to
it). Under this scenario, Head Start
programs would likely comply with the
proposed rule by reducing the size of
their funded enrollment, which would
also result in a reduced workforce at
Head Start programs.
To calculate the number of slots at
Head Start programs under this last
scenario, we multiply the total number
of slots under the full-funding scenario
by the share of funding available
compared to full funding. For example,
we estimate that $15.2 billion would be
necessary to fully implement the
proposed rule in 2033 and maintain
funded enrollment consistent with the
estimated FY2023 actual enrollment of
650,000. Under our baseline budget
scenario, $15.0 billion would be
available, which is about 99% of the
funding needed. Thus, we estimate
644,374 slots would be available, which
is 99% of enrollment at the estimated
FY2023 actual enrollment level, or a %
change in slots of ¥1%.
Table J1 reports the change in total
slots 285 over time that would be
necessary to implement the proposed
rule compared to both projected FY2023
funded enrollment and estimated
FY2023 actual enrollment, absent an
increase in Federal appropriations. We
estimate that programs can approach
full implementation of the policies in
the proposed rule without additional
appropriations by aligning their funded
enrollment levels with their actual
enrollment. Only a small reduction in
slots from estimated FY2023 actual
enrollment, 1%, would be needed to
reach full implementation of the
policies in the proposed rule.
Specifically, programs would need to
reduce funded enrollment from the
projected FY2023 funded enrollment of
755,074 by 15%, to a funded enrollment
of 644,605 in 2030, which reflects a 1%
reduction from estimated FY2023 actual
enrollment of 650,000.286 All monetary
estimates are reported in nominal
dollars.
285 For this analysis, we assume that staffing
reductions occur at the same rate as slot reductions.
286 We note that reductions in funded enrollment
in response to the proposed rule will require some
shifting of transfer of funds from existing
expenditures, such as those to support funded slots
that are currently empty or spending to recruit and
train staff in a high turnover environment. Please
see our request for comment on this point in
Section B and the discussion under the heading
‘‘Connecting Baseline Uncertainty with Differing
Estimates of Regulatory Effects.’’
All estimates reported above are
impacts compared to our baseline
budget scenario described reported in
Table B1. Further, we calculate the cost
per child, in 2030, when the rule is fully
implemented, using 2023 funded
enrollment levels to be $21,797
(nominal dollars). As discussed
previously, we recognize that projected
FY2023 funded enrollment greatly
exceeds estimated FY2023 actual
enrollment. If programs were to fully
implement the proposed policies and
maintain funded enrollment at least
consistent with FY2023 actual
enrollment (i.e., 650,000), they would
not need additional appropriations
beyond the baseline budget scenario
until 2030, when they would need an
additional $118 million. In 2031,
programs would again need an
additional $118 million, $122 million in
2032, and additional $124 million in
2033 above the baseline budget scenario
funding levels to fully implement the
proposed policies and maintain a
funded enrollment level consistent with
estimated FY2023 actual enrollment.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
(Millions of Constant 2023
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:04 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\20NOP2.SGM
20NOP2
EP20NO23.017</GPH>
Table 11. Expenditures of the Proposed Rule, Baseline Scenario
Dollars)
Family Service
Year
Workers
Wa2e Benefit Breaks
$44
$14
$0
$0
2024
$87
$28
$0
$0
2025
$219
$542
$0
$0
2026
$350
$593
$60
$179
2027
$525
$660
$60
$179
2028
$700
$727
$60
$179
2029
$875
$795
$60
$179
2030
$875
$795
$60
$179
2031
$875
$795
$60
$179
2032
$875
$795
$60
$179
2033
$343
PV,3%
$4,398 $4,714
$1,021
$265
$787
PV,7%
$3,377 $3,680
$516
$553
$40
$120
Annualized, 3%
$481
$524
$38
$112
Annualized, 7%
80887
80888
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
Table Jl. Slot Loss under Baseline Head Start Budget Scenario (Millions of Nominal
Dollars)
% Change in Slots % Decline in Slots
Funding under
Slots Funded by
Baseline Budget
Baseline Budget
from 2023 Funded from 2023 Actual
Year
Scenario
under Proposed Rule
Enrollment
Enrollment*
2024
$12,264
735,687
-3%
-2025
$12,541
739,542
-2%
-2026
$12,829
701,854
-7%
-2027
$13,124
679,906
-10%
-2028
$13,426
667,511
-12%
-2029
$13,735
656,017
-13%
-2030
$14,051
644,605
-15%
-1%
2031
$14,374
644,692
-15%
-1%
2032
$14,704
644,635
-15%
-1%
644,692
2033
$15 043
-15%
-1%
* We note that reductions in funded enrollment in response to the proposed rule will require some degree of shifting of funds from existing
expenditures, such as those to support funded slots that are currently empty or spending to recruit and train staff in a high turnover environment.
Please see our request for comment on this point in Section Band the discussion under the heading "Connecting Baseline Uncertainty with
Differing Estimates of Regulatory Effects."
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
The proposed rule outlines
requirements for grant recipients to
provide benefits to staff, discussing
health insurance, paid leave, access to
short-term free or low-cost mental
health services, and other
considerations. The proposed rule
requests comment on whether grant
recipients should also be required to
provide retirement savings plans as part
of their benefits.
In this section, we describe the
alternative policy scenario, the Required
Retirement Scenario, in which the
proposed benefits policy includes a
requirement that grant recipients also
provide retirement benefits to staff. We
analyze this scenario to identify the
most consequential impacts that would
likely occur under the Required
Retirement Scenario, should it be
included in a finalized rule.
We base this analysis on the same
methodology described in Section C:
Disaggregation of Fringe Benefit
Estimates. Based on the data on
employer costs for employee
compensation released by the U.S.
Bureau of Labor Statistics in December
2022, teachers have an overall fringe
rate of 32.5%, which is inclusive of
health insurance, paid leave, retirement,
and other benefits. As such, we assume
an overall fringe rate of 32.5% under the
Required Retirement Scenario, which is
inclusive of fringe associated with all
three major benefits policies included in
the policy: health insurance, paid leave,
and retirement. The disaggregation of
these costs is described in Section C:
Disaggregation of Fringe Benefit
Estimates.
Table K1 reports the impacts of the
robust benefit policy over time,
accounting for the yearly impact of the
wage policies reported in Table C5,
reported in constant and nominal
dollars. These tables report the changes
to benefits, some of which are driven by
wage increases of the wage policies.
Table K2 reports a breakdown of
increased expenditure for each major
category of benefits that would be
impacted by the proposed rule under
the Required Retirement Scenario.
BILLING CODE 4184–40–P
Table Kl. Total Additional Expenditures on Benefits by Year, Millions of Constant
and Nominal Dollars
Year
Policy Phase-In
Constant 2023 Dollars
Nominal Dollars
2023
24.0%
$0
$0
2024
24.0%
$14
$14
2025
24.0%
$28
$29
2026
32.5%
$1,201
$1,286
2027
32.5%
$1,264
$1,384
2028
32.5%
$1,348
$1,511
2029
32.5%
$1,432
$1,642
2030
32.5%
$1,517
$1,778
2031
32.5%
$1,517
$1,819
2032
32.5%
$1,517
$1,861
2033
32.5%
$1,517
$1,904
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:04 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\20NOP2.SGM
20NOP2
EP20NO23.019</GPH> EP20NO23.020</GPH>
K. Alternative Policy Scenario: Required
Retirement
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
80889
Table K2. Additional Expenditure Breakdown by Benefit Policy, Millions of Nominal
Dollars
Benefits
Benefits
Fringe
Benefits
Policy:
Policy:
Benefits
Associated
Total Benefits
Policy
Paid
Health
Policy:
with Wage
1
2
Policy3
Year Expenditures ,
Total
Leave
Insurance Retirement
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
$14
$29
$1,286
$1,384
$1,511
$1,642
$1,778
$1,819
$1,861
$1,904
$0
$0
$1,212
$1,263
$1,325
$1,389
$1,455
$1,488
$1,522
$1,557
$0
$0
$348
$363
$380
$399
$417
$427
$437
$447
$0
$0
$201
$210
$220
$231
$241
$247
$253
$258
$0
$0
$663
$692
$725
$760
$796
$815
$833
$853
$14
$29
$74
$121
$186
$253
$324
$331
$339
$347
Note that the estimates for paid leave and health insurance shown here differ slightly from those in Table C7 due to the influence of rounding
during the estimation process.
1 Only benefits expenditures associated with baseline staff are shown here. Benefits expenditures associated with hiring additional staff under
other policies in the proposed rule (e.g., additional Family Service Workers hired under the Family Service Worker Family Assignments
policy) are included in the estimates for each specific policy.
2 These estimates are calculated using the wages estimated under the proposed wage policy.
3 This cost represents the additional benefits expenditures associated with increased wages under the wage policy at the baseline fringe rate of
24%.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:04 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
the impacts on expenditures for the
Required Retirement Scenario,
consistent with the implementation
timelines described in the proposed
rule, reporting yearly estimates and
present value and annualized values
corresponding to 3% and 7% discount
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
rates, all with monetary estimates
reported in millions of constant 2023
dollars. Table K4 reports the same
impacts for the Required Retirement
Scenario in nominal dollars.
E:\FR\FM\20NOP2.SGM
20NOP2
EP20NO23.021</GPH>
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
The inclusion of retirement benefits
under the Required Retirement Scenario
impacts the cost estimates for other
policies that required increased
expenditures on compensation, such as
the family service worker and mental
health policies. Table K3 summarizes
80890
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
Table K3. Expenditures of the Proposed Rule, Required Retirement Scenario (Millions of
Constant 2023 Dollars)
Year
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
PV,3%
PV,7%
Annualized, 3%
Annualized, 7%
Wa~e
$44
$87
$219
$350
$525
$700
$875
$875
$875
$875
$4,398
$3,377
$516
$481
Benefit
$14
$28
$1,201
$1,264
$1,348
$1,432
$1,517
$1,517
$1,517
$1,517
$9,346
$7,321
$1,096
$1 042
Breaks
$0
$0
$0
$64
$64
$64
$64
$64
$64
$64
$367
$283
$43
$40
Family Service Mental
Workers
Health
$0
$123
$0
$123
$0
$139
$191
$139
$191
$139
$191
$139
$191
$139
$191
$139
$191
$139
$191
$139
$1,092
$1,156
$842
$948
$128
$136
$120
$135
Lead
$27
$13
$18
$13
$18
$13
$15
$13
$14
$13
$136
$114
$16
$16
Other Total
$108
$316
$0
$252
$0
$1,576
$2,022
$0
$0
$2,286
$2,540
$0
$0
$2,801
$2,799
$0
$2,801
$0
$2,799
$0
$105 $16,599
$101 $12,987
$12
$1,946
$1,849
$14
BILLING CODE 4184–40–C
All estimates reported above are
impacts compared to our baseline
budget scenario reported in Table B1.
Further, we calculate the cost per child,
in 2030, when the rule is fully
implemented, using 2023 funded
enrollment levels to be $22,958
(nominal dollars). As discussed
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:04 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
previously we recognize that projected
FY2023 funded enrollment greatly
exceeds estimated FY2023 actual
enrollment. If programs were to fully
implement the proposed policies and
maintain funded enrollment at least
consistent with FY2023 actual
enrollment (i.e., 650,000), they would
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
not need additional appropriations
beyond the baseline budget scenario
until 2027, when they would need an
additional $80 million. In future years
(all in nominal dollars), programs would
need $336 million in 2028, $595 million
in 2029, $872 million in 2030, $890
million in 2031, $912 million in 2032,
E:\FR\FM\20NOP2.SGM
20NOP2
EP20NO23.022</GPH> EP20NO23.023</GPH>
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Table K4. Expenditures of the Proposed Rule, Required Retirement Scenario (Millions of
Nominal Dollars)
Family Service Mental
Workers
Health Lead Other Total
Year
Wa~e Benefit Breaks
2024
$45
$14
$0
$0
$126
$28
$110
$323
$263
2025
$92
$29
$0
$0
$129
$14
$0
$1,688
2026
$234
$1,286
$0
$0
$149
$19
$0
$2,214
2027
$383
$1,384
$71
$210
$152
$14
$0
$2,561
2028
$588
$1,511
$72
$215
$156
$20
$0
$2,912
2029
$802
$1,642
$74
$219
$159
$15
$0
$3,285
2030
$1,026 $1,778
$76
$225
$163
$18
$0
$3,358
2031
$1,049 $1,819
$77
$230
$167
$16
$0
$3,437
2032
$1,073
$1,861
$79
$235
$171
$18
$0
$3,514
2033
$1,098 $1,904
$81
$240
$175
$16
$0
PV,3%
$5,165 $10,851
$430
$1,278
$1,309 $152
$107 $19,292
$3,950 $8 462
PV,7%
$1 066 $127
$103 $15,021
$331
$983
Annualized, 3%
$606
$1,272
$50
$150
$153
$18
$13
$2,262
$2,139
Annualized, 7%
$562
$1,205
$47
$140
$152
$18
$15
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
and $932 million in 2033 above the
baseline budget funding scenario to
implement the proposed policies and
maintain a funded enrollment level
consistent with estimated FY2023 actual
enrollment.
We also replicate the sensitivity
analysis described in Section J. In this
analysis, we assume an alternative
funding scenario in which no additional
funding above the baseline budget
scenario in Table B1 is available to
enact the proposed rule under the
Required Retirement Scenario (or
increases in appropriations over time
that cannot be used to support the
proposed rule, if finalized, and/or are
not increased in response to it). In this
scenario, Head Start programs would
likely comply with the proposed rule by
reducing the size of their funded
enrollment, which would also result in
80891
a reduced workforce at Head Start
programs. We apply the same
methodology used in Section J to this
analysis. Table K5 reports the change in
total slots that would be necessary to
implement the proposed rule under the
Required Retirement Scenario, absent a
responsive increase in Federal
appropriations.
Table KS. Slot Loss under Baseline Head Start Budget and Required Retirement
Scenarios (Millions of Nominal Dollars)
Slots Funded by
Baseline Budget
% Change in
% Difference in
Funding under
under Required
Slots from 2023
Slots from 2023
Baseline Budget
Retirement
Funded
Actual
Year
Scenario
Scenario
Enrollment
Enrollment*
2024
$12,264
735,687
-3%
13%
2025
$12,541
739,542
-2%
14%
2026
$12,829
667,288
-12%
3%
2027
$13,124
646,063
-14%
-1%
2028
$13,426
634,110
-16%
-2%
2029
$13,735
623,005
-17%
-4%
2030
$14,051
612,004
-19%
-6%
2031
$14,374
612,082
-19%
-6%
2032
$14,704
612,031
-19%
-6%
2033
$15,043
612,082
-19%
-6% ..
. .
* We note that reductions m funded enrollment m response to the proposed rule will reqwre some degree of shifting of funds from existing
expenditures, such as those to support funded slots that are currently empty or spending to recruit and train staff in a high turnover environment.
Please see our request for comment on this point in Section Band the discussion under the heading "Connecting Baseline Uncertainty with
Differing Estimates of Regulatory Effects."
In addition to the effects that are
quantified elsewhere in this analysis,
we have identified a select number of
provisions that would have impacts that
are not quantified or monetized.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Estimated Impact of Relevant Provisions
on Slot Loss
Sections C through G of this RIA
monetize the provisions of this
proposed rule that we anticipate would
have the largest potential impact. Some
of the provisions described in this
section may also result in costs that
have not been monetized. As quantified
above, one potential impact of enacting
the proposed standards at current
funding levels is a reduction in Head
Start slots in some programs. A
reduction in Head Start slots would
reduce access to high-quality early
childhood education for some children
ages birth to 5 from low-income
families. However, this impact is
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:04 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
difficult to qualify because a substantial
number of current Head Start slots
remain unfilled currently, due to
staffing shortage and other constraining
factors. A loss of funded slots that are
unfilled would not impact children who
are currently enrolled.
The children who would be impacted
by this loss of access would not receive
high-quality services from Head Start
and would not experience the positive
outcomes for children and families who
participate in the Head Start program.
Some children who lose access to Head
Start may receive early childhood
education through State or local
preschool programs, which are offered
in many areas of the country. Another
potential impact is that some children
who would otherwise have been served
by Head Start may receive early care
and education in programs or settings
that lack the quality to adequately
support their learning and development,
though we note that, as described in the
NPRM preamble, absent the quality
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
improvements under the proposed rule,
Head Start quality is likely to deteriorate
over time. Loss of access to Head Start
may also reduce opportunity for parents
and caregivers to participate in the
workforce.
Expected Impact of Preventing and
Addressing Lead Exposure (§ 1302.48)
This NPRM has new requirements for
programs to test the lead levels in their
facilities and if applicable, remediate
exposure risks. Below we summarize
findings from a few select research
studies. Decades of research have shown
that high lead levels are harmful for
children’s development.287 Research
also shows, however, that lead
remediation has long-term benefits to
children’s health and economic benefits
to society as they mature into
adolescence and beyond. For instance, a
287 Finkelstein, Y., Markowitz, M. E., & Rosen, J.
F. (1998). Low-level lead-induced neurotoxicity in
children: an update on central nervous system
effects. Brain research reviews, 27, 168–176.
E:\FR\FM\20NOP2.SGM
20NOP2
EP20NO23.024</GPH>
L. Non-Quantified Impacts of Certain
Elements of the Proposed Rule
80892
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
2002 CDC study found that reduced lead
exposure in the United States since
1976 has resulted in a $110 billion to
$319 billion economic benefit due to
higher IQs and worker productivity.288
Research has also found that the lead
and copper rule investment from the
EPA has led to an estimated benefit ratio
of 35:1 meaning that that for every $1
invested, the economic return would be
about $35.289 Furthermore, a research
study that conducted a cost-benefit
analysis on every dollar invested in lead
paint control has been estimated to be
a $17 to $221 return.290 This research
suggests there may be a societal benefit
that lead remediation regulations can
make. While we cannot estimate the
quantitative cost savings that this
provision will have, we note that testing
on its own does not make anyone
healthier; the cause-and-effect chain
between testing and health outcomes
includes activities that have costs. We
welcome public comment on these costs
and on this analysis more generally,
including interpretation of and
extrapolation from the studies
referenced above.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Additional Impact of Workforce
Supports: Staff Wages and Benefits
(§ 1302.90)
In addition to the effects (costs)
quantified in this RIA, these provisions
may also result in potential cost savings
to governments at various jurisdictional
levels (which are mostly transfers, when
categorized from a society-wide
perspective) due to benefit reductions
for ECE workers. Specifically, an
increase in wages and benefits for ECE
workers may result in a reduction in the
number of households receiving a range
of safety net benefits, including
LIHEAP, housing assistance, Medicaid/
CHIP, SNAP, SSI, TANF, and WIC.
Additionally, increases in staff wages
will likely have an outsized impact on
improving educational quality of Head
Start programming. When teachers are
fairly compensated their stress likely
decreases, and dedication and
commitment to their work likely
improves. This will improve the quality
288 Grosse, S. D., Matte, T. D., Schwartz, J., &
Jackson, R. J. (2002). Economic gains resulting from
the reduction in children’s exposure to lead in the
United States. Environmental health perspectives,
110(6), 563–569. https://doi.org/10.1289/
ehp.02110563.
289 Levin, R., & Schwartz, J. (2023). A better
cost:benefit analysis yields better and fairer results:
EPA’s lead and copper rule revision. Environmental
Research, 229, 115738. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.envres.2023.115738.
290 Gould, E. (2009). Childhood Lead Poisoning:
Conservative Estimates of the Social and Economic
Benefits of Lead Hazard Control. Environmental
Health Perspectives, 117(7). https://doi.org/
10.1289/ehp.0800408.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:04 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
of services delivered in programs. While
descriptive and non-causal, research
illustrates that low wages are a primary
driver of high turnover in early
childhood educator positions.291
Research has also demonstrated that
improved wages are correlated with
higher quality programs.292 These
research findings are not causal, and, to
the best of our knowledge, no costbenefit analysis has been conducted
related to the impact of increased wages
in the early childhood sector. Therefore,
our conclusions here are tentative.
By improving wages, teachers may
choose to stay in the profession longer
and may spend more time building the
skills necessary to support high-quality
early childhood programming and highquality teacher-child interactions.
Furthermore, improvements in staff
retention overall due to improved wages
and benefits likely promotes more stable
staffing across the program and provides
continuity of services for enrolled
children and may also reduce stress and
workload for other staff in the program
due to fewer staff vacancies.
It is also likely that there will be
potential cost savings from the effects of
this proposed rule mitigating the high
expenses associated with high turnover.
When Head Start programs experience
staffing shortages, they will often ask
existing staff to work additional hours to
compensate for the lack of adequate
coverage. In some cases, substitute or
temporary staff will be hired and
sometimes this comes at an increased
cost. Presumably, after the
implementation of this proposed policy,
these excess costs (experienced as
remunerations increases for the
aggregate collection of Head Start
teachers) will be reduced because the
workforce will be more stable and
programs will experience improved
retention.
291 Caven, M., Khanani, N., Zhang, X., & Parker,
C.E. (2021). Center-and program-level factors
associated with turnover in the early childhood
education workforce (REL 2021–069). U.S.
Department of Education, Institute of Education
Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation
and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational
Laboratory Northeast & Islands.; Whitebook, M.,
Howes, C., & Phillips, D. (2014). Worthy Work,
STILL Unlivable Wages: The Early Childhood
Workforce 25 Years after the National Child Care
Staffing Study. Center for the Study of Child Care
Employment. https://cscce.berkeley.edu/wpcontent/uploads/publications/ReportFINAL.pdf.
292 Isaccs, J., Adelstein, S., Kuehn, D. (2018).
Early Childhood Educator Compensation in the
Washington Region. Urban Institute. https://
www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/
97676/early_childhood_educator_compensation_
final_2.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Estimated Impact of Mental Health
Services (§ 1302 Subpart D; Subpart H;
Subpart I)
In addition to the effects (costs)
quantified in Section E of this RIA, there
are numerous additional benefits to
enhancing provisions related to mental
health supports. Advancing science in
child development demonstrates that
birth to age five is an important period
for brain development and is a critical
foundation on which all later
development builds. Mental health and
social-emotional well-being during this
period are foundational for family wellbeing, children’s healthy development,
and early learning and are associated
with positive long-term outcomes. Early
childhood experiences, like trusting
relationships with caregivers in a stable,
nurturing environment, aid in the
development of skills that build
resilience. The enhancements to the
requirements for mental health supports
would promote higher-quality services
for children in Head Start programs
across the country and would support
child, family, and staff well-being.
Specifically, enhancements to § 1302
Subpart D enhances health program
services to explicitly include mental
health. These regulatory changes also
reflect a preventative approach to
mental health across comprehensive
service areas, such as health and family
engagement. The addition of mental
health screening would support
programs in having conversations about
mental health early and often. Screening
would facilitate the identification of
children, families, and staff with
specific needs and allow for
intervention before more time and
resource intensive care becomes
necessary. Mental health screening may
result in nominal costs to programs that
elect to purchase specific screening
tools. § 1302.45(a) also adds a
requirement that a program have a
multidisciplinary team responsible for
mental health. We believe this team
would be comprised of existing staff
positions so would have an associated
opportunity cost not reflected in
budgets.
Estimated Impact of Modernizing
Engagement With Families (§ 1302.11;
§ 1302.13; § 1302.15; § 1302.34;
§ 1302.50)
These provisions enhance existing
requirements that programs must follow
when completing their community
needs assessments. Programs would be
required to identify communication
methods to best engage with prospective
and enrolled families, and to use
modern technologies to streamline
E:\FR\FM\20NOP2.SGM
20NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
information gathering and improve
communications. There is significant
benefit to families in giving them a
voice in the way that programs choose
to communicate. Using communication
modalities and methods that are easiest
to families would enhance engagement
with Head Start and increase program
accessibility. Programs would also be
required to implement improvements to
streamline the enrollment experience
for families. There may be nominal costs
for programs to make these
determinations and implement new
technologies. Streamlining the
enrollment experience for families
would create more user-friendly and
efficient processes, reduce burden and
build trust with families, and support
Head Start in more equitably and
effectively delivering services.
Estimated Impact of Community
Assessments (§ 1302.11)
The changes to these provisions
address concerns that Head Start
programs and others in the field have
raised about the burdens of the
community needs assessment. These
provisions would promote clarity on the
intent of the community assessment,
align with best practices, and increase
the effectiveness in how the community
assessment is used to inform key aspects
of program design and approach.
Requiring a strategic approach to
determine what data to collect prior to
conducting the community needs
assessment and how to use the needs
assessment to achieve intended
outcomes would promote overall
effectiveness of the community
assessment to drive programmatic
decision making. They may also
facilitate reductions in cost of timeconsuming or complex assessment and
analytical techniques and reduce
barriers to programs being able to use
their community assessment data to
effectively guide programmatic
decisions. Programs would also be
allowed to use publicly or local
available data as a proxy, which would
reduce duplication of efforts and further
lessen burden, and may facilitate
coordination with other community
programs.
Other new requirements related to the
collection of specific elements in the
community needs assessment, such as
geographic location, race, ethnicity, and
languages, would facilitate Head Start’s
ability to understand the diversity of
populations most in need of services,
which in turn would help promote
equity, inclusion, and accessibility in
service delivery. Factors related to
transportation needs and resources in
communities reflects that transportation
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:04 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
remains a significant barrier for many of
the hardest to serve families and
impedes Head Start’s mission. Ensuring
transportation needs and resources are
part of the data that informs a program’s
design and service delivery would
enable Head Start to more effectively
meet the needs of families and improve
access to Head Start services.
Estimated Impact of Adjustment for
Excessive Shelter Costs for Eligibility
Determination (§ 1302.12)
This provision would allow a program
to adjust a family’s income to account
for excessive shelter costs. This
provision reflects a transfer of benefits
from one potentially eligible family to
another, however consistent with
Section 1302.14 and 1302.13 in the
HSPPS which is unchanged in this
current proposal, programs will
continue to establish selection criteria
that prioritizes selection of participants
based on need. There may be nominal
implementation costs as Head Start
programs implement these new income
calculations. Children whose families
have few resources because they earn
near-poverty level wages and live in
areas with a high-cost of living would
newly be eligible for Head Start. This
would enable Head Start to continue to
prioritize the enrollment of families
most in need of services. This provision
also increases alignment with other
means-tested Federal programs (e.g.,
SNAP, see relevant section in Preamble
for details) that use an income
adjustment to account for excessive
shelter costs.
Estimated Impact of Migrant and
Seasonal Head Start Eligibility
(§ 1302.12)
The modifications to eligibility
requirements in this provision would
benefit MSHS programs and families by
reducing barriers to enrolling
farmworker families in need of program
services. The provisions related to
eligibility duration would address an
existing inequity between infants and
toddlers served in Early Head Start
programs and those served in MSHS
programs. The existing requirement
creates an inequity because infants and
toddlers served in Early Head Start
programs can receive services for the
duration of the program, meaning until
they turn three and age out of the
program, whereas the MSHS family is
no longer considered eligible for the
program after two years. Therefore, the
young children of agricultural workers
are not provided the same potential
duration of services as infants and
toddlers served by Early Head Start.
This change would also promote
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
80893
continuity for families served by MSHS
and reduce paperwork for families and
programs.
Estimated Impact of Serving Children
With Disabilities (§ 1302.14)
These provisions clarify language to
address an inconsistency between the
HSPPS and the Act. This provision
reflects a transfer of benefits from one
potentially eligible family to another. A
non-quantifiable benefit of this
provision would be addressing
confusion caused by the discrepancy.
Further clarification that the
requirement to fill ten percent of slots
with children with disabilities under
IDEA is a floor and not a ceiling would
support Head Start in maximizing
services to children with disabilities
who would benefit from the program’s
strong focus on inclusive early
childhood settings.
Expected Benefits of Ratios in CenterBased Early Head Start Programs
(§ 1302.21)
This provision encourages programs
to consider reducing teacher-child ratios
for their youngest classrooms, to
provide the highest quality care and
learning opportunities for infants
enrolled in Head Start. This provision
has numerous non-quantifiable benefits
for children and families served by
Head Start. A warm, responsive
relationship between an infant and
caregiver is a crucial foundation for
infants to learn and develop. A lower
teacher-child ratio would support the
establishment of this strong, secure
relationship and allow for more
individualized attention between the
infant and teacher. A lower ratio of one
teacher to three infants also aligns with
the National Resource Center for Health
and Safety in Child Care and Early
Education recommendations for centerbased programs with classrooms where
the majority of children are under 12
months old. Further, research indicates
that, generally, lower teacher-child
ratios in ECE classrooms relate to higher
classroom quality and stronger child
outcomes. As the premier ECE provider
in the United States, Head Start sets an
example for early childhood programs
nationwide, and this provision would
further support high-quality early
childhood services across the country.
Expected Benefits of Center-Based
Service Duration for Early Head Start
(§ 1302.21)
This provision clarifies that the 1,380
hours of planned class operations for
children in EHS should occur across a
minimum of 46 weeks per year. We
believe most programs are already
E:\FR\FM\20NOP2.SGM
20NOP2
80894
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
operating year-round; however, a small
number of programs may be operating
less than a full year and we would like
to promote full-year services for infants
and toddlers in EHS. These programs
may incur costs associated with
transitioning to full-year services.
However, there are substantial nonquantifiable benefits to young children’s
development. Research on full-day and
full-year programs suggests children in
poverty benefit from longer exposure to
high-quality early learning programs
than what is provided by part-day and/
or part-year programs.
Expected Benefits of Family Service
Worker Family Assignments (§ 1302.52)
This provision seeks to ensure that an
individual family services staff is
assigned to work with no greater than 40
families. Based on internal data, 42
percent of programs have caseloads that
exceed 40 families. We estimate that a
total of 3,231 new family services staff
would need to be hired to meet this new
requirement at a total cost of
$170,052,632. There are numerous nonquantifiable benefits to lower family
services staff caseloads. This provision
would address staff well-being, reduce
burnout, and lower expressions of job
frustration and dissatisfaction. For staff
well-being, large caseloads are
associated with staff burnout and
turnover, feeling overwhelmed, and
expression of job frustration and
dissatisfaction. This provision would
improve the quality of family services
and improve staff well-being and
reflects best practice in the field.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Expected Benefits of Participation in
Quality Rating and Improvement
Systems (§ 1302.53)
This provision encourages Head Start
programs to participate in State QRIS to
the extent practicable if the State system
has strategies in place to support their
participation. We assume that programs
newly participating in QRIS would
incur additional costs and burden from
substantive changes in the form of
revised processes and potentially
additional or different documentation,
as well as possible duplication of
monitoring and assessment processes.
Non-quantifiable benefits of
participation in QRIS include continued
quality improvement efforts, providing a
common metric through which families
can understand and make decisions
about program options, and aligning
standards across a statewide early care
and education system.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:04 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
Expected Benefits of Services to
Enrolled Pregnant People (§ 1302.80;
§ 1302.82)
This provision enhances services to
enrolled pregnant people by requiring
the newborn visit to include a
discussion of maternal mental and
physical health, infant health, and
support for basic needs; and requiring
programs to track and record
information on service delivery for
enrolled pregnant women. We assume
programs may incur nominal costs
associated with enhancements to
record-keeping. Non-quantifiable
benefits of these provisions would be
assessing the child care, health, and
mental health needs of mothers in the
critical period after child birth, which
would enable Head Start to provide
support to mothers and identify
opportunities for collaboration and
intervention. Improved tracking and
recording of services to enrolled
pregnant women would also support
OHS in understanding the services
provided and identifying how to best be
responsive to the needs of enrolled
pregnant people. These records would
also be used to validate the use of
Federal funds to serve pregnant people
and to inform ongoing conversations
program staff have with the pregnant
people about her needs before and after
the baby is born.
Expected Benefits of Standards of
Conduct (§ 1302.90)
These provisions revise current
requirements to ensure we are as clear
as possible and that our requirements
reflect current best practices and more
precise terminology around standards of
conduct. These changes would result in
aligned definitions with other Federal
resources and clarifications to existing
requirements. Non-quantifiable benefits
of these enhancements include critical
supports to child safety by supporting
staff in recognizing potential child
abuse and neglect and understanding
their legal responsibility as a mandated
reporter, which would improve child
safety and program response to
violations of standards of conduct.
Expected Benefits of Staff Training to
Support Child Safety (§ 1302.92;
§ 1302.101)
These provisions enhance
requirements and frequency of staff
training and professional development.
We assume there would be nominal
costs associated with more frequent
training. Non-quantifiable benefits of an
increased frequency of training would
be to allow programs to offer staff
advanced training opportunities on
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
areas of local importance or greater
complexity, such as culturally
responsive practices in reporting, issues
related to disproportionate reporting,
and information about at-risk
populations, as well as emphasize the
importance of child safety in Head Start.
This proposed policy change would also
create more equitable opportunities for
staff to understand and discuss their
ethical and legal responsibilities.
Annual training on positive strategies to
understand and support children’s
social and emotional development
would also enhance the use of positive
strategies and have the added benefit of
increasing opportunities for peer
support as appropriate.
Expected Benefits of Definition of
Income (§ 1305.2)
This provision would revise the
definition of income by providing a
clear and finite list of what is
considered income and what is not
considered income. Non-quantifiable
benefits of this provision include
making the policy less burdensome and
complicated for programs to implement,
ensuring programs can more easily
identify an applicants’ income, and
promote consistent interpretation on
what to include in calculating income
across programs.
Initial Small Entity Analysis
The Regulatory Flexibility Act
requires Agencies to analyze regulatory
options that would minimize any
significant impact of a rule on small
entities. This analysis, as well as other
sections in this document and the
Preamble of the proposed rule, serves as
the Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis, as required under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
A. Description and Number of Affected
Small Entities
The SBA maintains a Table of Small
Business Size Standards Matched to
North American Industry Classification
System Codes (NAICS).293 We replicate
the SBA’s description of this table:
This table lists small business size
standards matched to industries
described in the North American
Industry Classification System (NAICS),
as modified by the Office of
Management and Budget, effective
January 1, 2022.
The size standards are for the most
part expressed in either millions of
dollars (those preceded by ‘‘$’’) or
number of employees (those without the
293 U.S. Small Business Administration (2023).
‘‘Table of Size Standards.’’ March 17, 2023 https://
www.sba.gov/document/support--table-sizestandards.
E:\FR\FM\20NOP2.SGM
20NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
‘‘$’’). A size standard is the largest that
a concern can be and still qualify as a
small business for Federal Government
programs. For the most part, size
standards are the average annual
receipts or the average employment of a
firm. How to calculate average annual
receipts and average employment of a
firm can be found in 13 CFR 121.104
and 13 CFR 121.106, respectively.
This proposed rule will impact small
entities in NAICS category 624410,
Child Care Services, which has a size
standard of $9.5 million dollars. We
assume that most Head Start programs,
if not all, are below this threshold and
are considered small entities.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
B. Description of the Potential Impacts
of the Rule on Small Entities
In the main analysis, we estimate that
about $2.576 billion in additional
funding would be necessary to fully
implement the proposed rule in 2033,
which is about a 17% increase above
baseline funding levels. Most of the
funding needed is proportional to the
size of the Head Start program or
agency, so we do not separately assess
the potential impacts of the rule on
small entities of different sizes. The
Department considers a rule to have a
significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities if it has at least
a 3% impact on revenue on at least 5%
of small entities. Since the proposed
rule would likely result in increased
expenditures of about 17%, we find that
the proposed rule would likely have a
significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
C. Alternatives To Minimize the Burden
on Small Entities
ACF considered many policy
alternatives to the proposed rule, some
of which are quantified in this analysis.
Tables I1 through I4 summarize the
impacts on expenditures under the
wage-parity policy, reporting yearly
estimates, and present value and
annualized values corresponding to 3%
and 7% discount rates. This table
presents separate analyses of the
following policies: staff wages, staff
benefits, staff breaks, family service
worker family assignments, mental
health supports, and preventing and
addressing lead exposure. This
document also considers the impacts of
expenditures associated with the
minimum pay requirement, and
itemized impacts of the lead in water
and lead-based paint policies. These
tables and additional analyses in the
narrative of this document enabled ACF
to appropriately consider a range of
feasible policy alternatives. This
analysis also considers excluding the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:04 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
following elements of the proposed rule:
provisions related to benefits,
provisions related to staff breaks,
provisions related to family service
workers, provisions related to mental
health support, and provisions related
to lead hazards.
List of Subjects
45 CFR Part 1301
Early education, Grant programs,
Head Start, Program governance, Social
programs
45 CFR Part 1302
Compensation, Early education, Grant
programs, Head Start, Mental health,
Quality improvement, Social programs,
Workforce.
45 CFR Part 1303
Early education, Financial
management, Grant programs, Head
Start, Social programs.
45 CFR Part 1304
Accountability, Early education,
Grant programs, Head Start, Monitoring,
Social programs.
45 CFR Part 1305
Definitions, Early education, Grant
programs, Head Start, Social programs.
Dated: November 8, 2023.
Xavier Becerra,
Secretary, Department of Health and Human
Services.
For reasons stated in the preamble, we
propose to amend 45 CFR parts 1301,
1302, 1303, 1304, and 1305 as follows.
PART 1301—PROGRAM
GOVERNANCE
1. The authority citation for part 1301
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9801 et seq.
■
2. Revise § 1301.1 to read as follows:
§ 1301.1
Purpose
An agency, as defined in part 1305 of
this chapter, must establish and
maintain a formal structure for program
governance that includes a governing
body, a policy council at the agency
level and policy committee at the
delegate level, and a parent committee.
Governing bodies have a legal and fiscal
responsibility to administer and oversee
the agency’s Head Start programs.
Policy councils are responsible for the
direction of the agency’s Head Start
programs.
■ 3. Amend § 1301.3 by revising
paragraph (a) and removing the word
‘‘grantee’’ and adding in its place the
words ‘‘grant recipient’’ in paragraph
(b)(2).
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
80895
The revision reads as follows:
§ 1301.3 Policy council and policy
committee.
(a) Establishing policy councils and
policy committees. Each agency must
establish and maintain a policy council
responsible for the direction of the Head
Start program at the agency level, and a
policy committee at the delegate level.
If an agency delegates operational
responsibility for the entire Head Start
program to one delegate agency, the
policy council and policy committee
may be the same body.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 4. Amend § 1301.4 by revising
paragraph (b)(3) to read as follows:
§ 1301.4
Parent committees.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(3) Within the guidelines established
by the governing body, policy council or
policy committee, participate in the
recruitment and screening of Head Start
employees.
PART 1302—PROGRAM OPERATIONS
5. The authority for part 1302
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9801 et seq.
■
6. Revise § 1302.1 to read as follows:
§ 1302.1
Overview
This part implements these statutory
requirements in sections 641A, 645,
645A, and 648A of the Act by describing
all of the program performance
standards that are required to operate
Head Start Preschool, Early Head Start,
American Indian and Alaska Native and
Migrant or Seasonal Head Start
programs. The part covers the full range
of operations from enrolling eligible
children and providing program
services to those children and their
families, to managing programs to
ensure staff are qualified and supported
to effectively provide services. This part
also focuses on using data through
ongoing program improvement to
ensure high-quality service. As required
in the Act, these provisions do not
narrow the scope or quality of services
covered in previous regulations. Instead,
these regulations raise the quality
standard to reflect science and best
practices, and streamline and simplify
requirements so programs can better
understand what is required for quality
services.
Subpart A—Eligibility, Recruitment,
Selection, Enrollment, and Attendance
§ 1302.10
[Amended]
7. Amend § 1302.10 in the first
sentence by removing the word
■
E:\FR\FM\20NOP2.SGM
20NOP2
80896
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
‘‘grantee’’ and adding in its place the
words ‘‘grant recipient’’.
■ 8. Amend § 1302.11 by revising
paragraph (b) to read as follows:
§ 1302.11 Determining community
strengths, needs, and resources.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Community wide strategic
planning and needs assessment
(community assessment). (1) A program
must conduct a community assessment
at least once over the five-year grant
period to:
(i) Identify populations most in need
of services including relevant family or
child risk factors;
(ii) Inform the program’s design and
service delivery to reflect needs and
diversity of the community, and to
promote equity, inclusion, and
accessibility;
(iii) Inform the enrollment,
recruitment, and selection process to
prioritize the enrollment of those
populations with relevant risk factors
identified under paragraph (b)(1)(i) of
this section;
(iv) Identify strengths and resources
in the community that can be leveraged
for service delivery, coordination, and
partnership efforts including in the
delivery of education, health, nutrition,
and referrals to social services to eligible
children and families;
(v) Identify the communication
methods and modalities available to the
program that best engage with
prospective and enrolled families of all
abilities.
(2) In conducting the community
assessment, a program must collect and
utilize data that describes community
strengths, needs, and resources and
include, at a minimum:
(i) Relevant demographic and other
data about eligible children and
expectant mothers, including:
(A) Children living in poverty;
(B) Children experiencing
homelessness in collaboration with, to
the extent possible, McKinney-Vento
Local Education Agency Liaisons (42
U.S.C. 11432 (6)(A));
(C) Children in foster care;
(D) Children with disabilities,
including types of disabilities and
relevant services and resources
provided to these children by
community agencies; and
(E) Geographic location, race,
ethnicity, and languages they speak.
(ii) The education, health, nutrition
and social service needs of eligible
children and their families, including
prevalent social or economic factors,
such as transportation needs, that
impact their well-being;
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:04 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
(iii) Typical work, school, and
training schedules of parents with
eligible children;
(iv) Other child development, child
care centers, and family child care
programs that serve eligible children,
including home visiting, publicly
funded State and local preschools, and
the approximate number of eligible
children served;
(v) Resources that are available in the
community to address the needs of
eligible children and their families,
especially transportation resources; and,
(vi) Strengths of the community.
(3) Programs should have a strategic
approach:
(i) To determine what data to acquire
to reach goals in paragraph (b)(1) of this
section prior to conducting the
community assessment and
(ii) For how to use the data acquired
to reach goals in paragraph (b)(1) of this
section after conducting the community
assessment
(4) When determining what data to
acquire under paragraph (b)(2) of this
section, if the burden or cost to acquire
certain data is unreasonable, programs
should identify other publicly or locally
available data that could be used as a
proxy.
(5) A program must annually review
and, where needed as determined by the
program, update the community
assessment to identify any significant
shifts in community demographics,
needs, and resources that may impact
program design and service delivery.
Programs must consider how the annual
update can inform and support
management approaches for continuous
quality improvement, program goals,
ongoing oversight, and results from their
self-assessment as required in subpart J
of this part (§§ 1302.101 through
1302.103).
(6) A program must consider whether
the characteristics of the community
allow it to include children from diverse
economic backgrounds that would be
supported by other funding sources,
including private pay, in addition to the
program’s eligible funded enrollment. A
program must not enroll children from
diverse economic backgrounds if it
would result in a program serving less
than its eligible funded enrollment.
■ 9. Amend § 1302.12 by revising
paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2) introductory
text, (b)(2)(i), (e)(1)(ii), (e)(4), (f), (i)(1),
and (j)(3) and (4), adding paragraph
(j)(5), and revising paragraph (l) to read
as follows:
§ 1302.12 Determining, verifying, and
documenting eligibility.
*
*
*
(b) * * *
PO 00000
Frm 00080
*
Fmt 4701
*
Sfmt 4702
(1) For Early Head Start, except when
the child is transitioning to Head Start
Preschool, a child must be an infant or
a toddler younger than three years old.
(2) For Head Start Preschool, a child
must:
(i) Be at least three years old or, turn
three years old by the date used to
determine eligibility for public school in
the community in which the Head Start
Preschool program is located; and,
*
*
*
*
*
(e) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) The Tribe has resources within its
grant, without using additional funds
from HHS intended to expand Head
Start services, to enroll pregnant women
or children whose family incomes
exceed low-income guidelines or who
are not otherwise eligible; and,
*
*
*
*
*
(4) An Indian Tribe or Tribes that
operates both an Early Head Start
program and a Head Start Preschool
program may, at its discretion, at any
time during the grant period involved,
reallocate funds between the Early Head
Start program and the Head Start
Preschool program in order to address
fluctuations in client populations,
including pregnant women and children
from birth to compulsory school age.
The reallocation of such funds between
programs by an Indian Tribe or Tribes
during a year may not serve as a basis
for any reduction of the base grant for
either program in succeeding years.
(f) Migrant or Seasonal eligibility
requirements. A child is eligible for
Migrant or Seasonal Head Start, if the
family meets an eligibility criterion in
paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section;
and one family member is primarily
engaged in agricultural employment.
*
*
*
*
*
(i) * * *
(1) To verify eligibility based on
income, program staff must use tax
forms, pay stubs, or other proof of
income to determine the family income
for the relevant time period.
(i) The program must calculate total
gross income using applicable sources
of income.
(ii) A program may make an
adjustment to a family’s gross income
calculation for the purposes of
determining eligibility in order to
account for excessive housing expenses.
A program must use available bills,
bank statements, and other relevant
documentation provided by the family
to calculate total annual housing
expenses with appropriate multipliers
to:
(A) Determine if a family spends more
than 30 percent of their total gross
E:\FR\FM\20NOP2.SGM
20NOP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
income on housing expenses, as defined
in part 1305 of this subchapter, and
(B) If applicable, reduce the total gross
income by the amount spent in housing
expenses above the 30 percent threshold
to calculate the adjusted gross income
for determining income eligibility.
(iii) If the family cannot provide tax
forms, pay stubs, or other proof of
income for the relevant time period,
program staff may accept written
statements from employers, including
individuals who are self-employed, for
the relevant time period and use
information provided to calculate total
annual income with appropriate
multipliers.
(iv) If the family reports no income for
the relevant time period, a program may
accept the family’s signed declaration to
that effect, if program staff describes
efforts made to verify the family’s
income, and explains how the family’s
total income was calculated or seeks
information from third parties about the
family’s eligibility if the family gives
written consent. If a family gives
consent to contact third parties, program
staff must adhere to program safety and
privacy policies and procedures and
ensure the eligibility determination
record adheres to paragraph (k)(2) of
this section.
(v) If the family can demonstrate a
significant change in income for the
relevant time period, program staff may
consider current income circumstances.
*
*
*
*
*
(j) * * *
(3) If a child moves from an Early
Head Start program to a Head Start
Preschool program, program staff must
verify the family’s eligibility again.
(4) If a program operates both an Early
Head Start and a Head Start Preschool
program, and the parents wish to enroll
their child who has been enrolled in the
program’s Early Head Start, the program
must ensure, whenever possible, the
child receives Head Start Preschool
services until enrolled in school,
provided the child is eligible.
(5) If a program operates a Migrant
and Seasonal Head Start program,
children younger than age three
participating in the program remain
eligible until they turn three years old
consistent with paragraph (j)(2) of this
section.
*
*
*
*
*
(l) Program policies and procedures
on violating eligibility determination
regulations. A program must establish
written policies and procedures that
describe all actions taken against staff
who intentionally violate Federal and
program eligibility determination
regulations and who enroll pregnant
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:04 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
women and children that are not
eligible to receive Head Start services.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 10. Revise § 1302.13 to read as
follows:
§ 1302.13
Recruitment of children.
In order to reach those most in need
of services, a program must develop and
implement a recruitment process
designed to actively inform all families
with eligible children within the
recruitment area of the availability of
program services. A program must use
modern technologies to encourage and
assist families in applying for admission
to the program, and to reduce the
family’s administrative and paperwork
burden in the application and
enrollment process. A program must
include specific efforts to actively locate
and recruit children with disabilities
and other vulnerable children,
including homeless children and
children in foster care.
■ 11. Amend § 1302.14 by revising
paragraph (a)(3), adding paragraph
(a)(5), revising paragraph (b)(1), and
adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:
§ 1302.14
Selection process.
(a) * * *
(3) If a program operates in a service
area where Head Start Preschool eligible
children can enroll in high-quality
publicly funded pre-kindergarten for a
full school day, the program must
prioritize younger children as part of the
selection criteria in paragraph (a)(1) of
this section. If this priority would
disrupt partnerships with local
education agencies, then it is not
required. An American Indian and
Alaska Native or Migrant or Seasonal
Head Start program must consider
whether such prioritization is
appropriate in their community.
*
*
*
*
*
(5) A program may consider the
enrollment of children of staff members
as part of the selection criteria in
paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
(b) * * *
(1) A program must ensure at least 10
percent of its total actual enrollment is
filled by children eligible for services
under IDEA, unless the responsible HHS
official grants a waiver.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) Understanding barriers to
enrollment. A program is required to use
data from the selection process to
understand why children selected for
the program do not enroll or attend,
such as a lack of transportation being a
barrier to enrolling once they are
selected. A program must use this data
to inform ongoing program
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
80897
improvement efforts as described in
§ 1302.102(c) to promote enrolling the
children most in need of program
services.
■ 12. Amend § 1302.15 by revising
paragraph (b)(2) and adding paragraph
(g) to read as follows:
§ 1302.15
Enrollment.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(2) Under exceptional circumstances,
a program may maintain a child’s
enrollment in Head Start Preschool for
a third year, provided that family
income is verified again. A program may
maintain a child’s enrollment in Early
Head Start as described in
§ 1302.12(j)(2).
*
*
*
*
*
(g) User-friendly enrollment process.
A program must regularly examine their
enrollment processes and implement
any identified improvements to
streamline the enrollment experience
for families.
■ 13. Amend § 1302.16 by adding
paragraph (a)(2)(v) to read as follows:
§ 1302.16
Attendance.
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(v) Examine barriers to regular
attendance, such as access to safe and
reliable transportation, and where
possible, provide or facilitate
transportation for the child if needed;
*
*
*
*
*
■ 14. Amend § 1302.17 by revising
paragraphs (a)(2) through (4), (b)(2)
introductory text, and (b)(3) to read as
follows:
§ 1302.17
Suspension and expulsion.
(a) * * *
(2) A temporary suspension must be
used only as a last resort in
extraordinary circumstances where
there is a serious safety threat that has
not been reduced or eliminated by the
provision of interventions and supports
recommended by the mental health
consultant and the program needs time
to put additional appropriate services in
place.
(3) Before a program determines
whether a temporary suspension is
necessary, a program must engage with
a mental health consultant, the
multidisciplinary team responsible for
mental health, collaborate with the
parents, and utilize appropriate
community resources—such as behavior
coaches, psychologists, other
appropriate specialists, or other
resources—as needed, to determine no
other reasonable option is appropriate.
(4) If a temporary suspension is
deemed necessary, a program must help
E:\FR\FM\20NOP2.SGM
20NOP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
80898
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
the child return to full participation in
all program activities as quickly as
possible while ensuring child safety. A
program must explore all possible steps
and document all steps taken to address
the behavior(s) and supports needed to
facilitate the child’s safe reentry and
continued participation in the program.
Such steps must include, at a minimum:
(i) Continuing to engage with the
parents, mental health consultant, the
multidisciplinary team responsible for
mental health, and other appropriate
staff, and continuing to utilize
appropriate community resources;
(ii) Providing additional program
supports and services, including home
visits; and,
(iii) Determining whether a referral to
a local agency responsible for
implementing IDEA is appropriate, or if
the child has an individualized family
service plan (IFSP) or individualized
education program (IEP), consulting
with the responsible agency to ensure
the child receives the needed support
services.
(b) * * *
(2) When a child exhibits persistent
and serious challenging behaviors, a
program must explore all possible steps
and document all steps taken to address
such problems, and facilitate the child’s
safe participation in the program. Such
steps must include, at a minimum,
engaging the parents, mental health
consultant, and the multidisciplinary
team responsible for mental health;
considering the appropriateness of
providing appropriate services and
supports under section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 to ensure that
the child who satisfies the definition of
disability in 29 U.S.C. 705(9)(b) of the
Rehabilitation Act is not excluded from
the program on the basis of disability,
and consulting with the parents and the
child’s teacher, and:
*
*
*
*
*
(3) If, after a program has explored all
possible steps and documented all steps
taken as described in paragraph (b)(2) of
this section, a program, in consultation
with the parents, the child’s teacher, the
agency responsible for implementing
IDEA (if applicable), the mental health
consultant, and the multidisciplinary
team responsible for mental health
determines that the child’s continued
enrollment presents a continued serious
safety threat to the child or other
enrolled children and determines the
program is not the most appropriate
placement for the child, the program
must work with such entities to directly
facilitate the transition of the child to a
more appropriate placement that can
immediately enroll and provide services
to the child.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:04 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
Subpart B—Program Structure
15. Amend § 1302.20 by:
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (2)
and (c)(1) and (2);
■ b. Removing the word ‘‘grantees’’ and
adding in its place words ‘‘grant
recipients’’ in paragraph (c)(3)
introductory text;
■ c. Revising paragraphs (c)(3)(i) and
(iii);
■ d. Removing the word ‘‘grantees’’ and
adding in its place words ‘‘grant
recipients’’ in paragraph (c)(3)(vi); and
■ e. Revising paragraphs (c)(4) and (d).
The revisions read as follows:
■
■
§ 1302.20
Determining program structure.
(a) * * *
(1) A program must choose to operate
one or more of the following program
options: center-based, home-based,
family child care, or an approved locally
designed variation as described in
§ 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 Preschool program 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
Head Start Preschool slots to Early Head
Start slots as described in paragraph (c)
of this section, and ways to promote
continuity of care and services. A
program must work to identify alternate
sources to support full working day
services. If no additional funding is
available, program resources may be
used.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(1) Consistent with section
645(a)(5)15 of the Head Start Act, grant
recipients may request to convert Head
Start Preschool slots to Early Head Start
slots through the refunding application
process or as a separate grant
amendment.
(2) Any grant recipient proposing a
conversion of Head Start Preschool
services to Early Head Start services
must obtain policy council and
governing body approval and submit the
request to their regional office.
(3) * * *
(i) A grant application budget and a
budget narrative that clearly identifies
the funding amount for the Head Start
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Preschool and Early Head Start
programs before and after the proposed
conversion;
*
*
*
*
*
(iii) A revised program schedule that
describes the program option(s) and the
number of funded enrollment slots for
Head Start Preschool and Early Head
Start programs before and after the
proposed conversion;
*
*
*
*
*
(4) Consistent with section
645(d)(3)16 of the Act, any American
Indian and Alaska Native grant recipient
that operates both an Early Head Start
program and a Head Start Preschool
program may reallocate funds between
the programs at its discretion and at any
time during the grant period involved,
in order to address fluctuations in client
populations. An American Indian and
Alaska Native program that exercises
this discretion must notify the regional
office.
(d) Source of funding. A program may
consider hours of service that meet the
Head Start Program Performance
Standards, regardless of the source of
funding, as hours of planned class
operations for the purposes of meeting
the Head Start Preschool and Early Head
Start service duration requirements in
this subpart.
■ 16. Amend § 1302.21 by revising
paragraphs (b)(2), (c)(1)(i), (c)(2) and (3),
and (c)(4) introductory text to read as
follows:
§ 1302.21
Center-based option.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(2) A class that serves children under
36 months old must have two teachers
with no more than eight children, or
three teachers with no more than nine
children. Each teacher must be assigned
consistent, primary responsibility for no
more than four children to promote
continuity of care for individual
children. A program is encouraged to
establish a lower teacher to child ratio
for the youngest children they serve,
provided that it does not jeopardize
continuity of care for children. A
program must minimize teacher changes
throughout a child’s enrollment,
whenever possible, and consider mixed
age group classes to support continuity
of care.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) A program must provide 1,380
annual hours of planned class
operations over the course of at least
forty-six weeks per year for all enrolled
children.
*
*
*
*
*
E:\FR\FM\20NOP2.SGM
20NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
(2) Head Start Preschool—(i) Service
duration for at least 45 percent. A
program must provide 1,020 annual
hours of planned class operation over
the course of at least eight months per
year for at least 45 percent of its Head
Start Preschool center-based funded
enrollment.
(ii) Service duration for remaining
slots. A program must provide, at a
minimum, at least 160 days per year of
planned class operations if it operates
for five days per week, or at least 128
days per year if it operates four days per
week. Classes must operate for a
minimum of 3.5 hours per day.
(iii) Double session. Double session
variation must provide classes for four
days per week for a minimum of 128
days per year and 3.5 hours per day.
Each double session class staff member
must be provided adequate break time
during the course of the day. In
addition, teachers, assistants, and
volunteers must have appropriate time
to prepare for each session together, to
set up the classroom environment, and
to give individual attention to children
entering and leaving the center.
(iv) Special provision for alignment
with local education agency. A Head
Start Preschool program providing fewer
than 1,020 annual hours of planned
class operations or fewer than eight
months of service is considered to meet
the requirements described in paragraph
(c)(2)(i) of this section if its program
schedule aligns with the annual hours
required by its local education agency
for grade one and such alignment is
necessary to support partnerships for
service delivery.
(3) Exemption for Migrant or Seasonal
Head Start programs. A Migrant or
Seasonal program is not subject to the
requirements described in paragraph
(c)(1) or (2) of this section, but must
make every effort to provide as many
days and hours of service as possible to
each child and family.
(4) Calendar planning. A program
must:
*
*
*
*
*
■ 17. Amend § 1302.22 by revising
paragraphs (a) and (c)(2) introductory
text to read as follows:
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 1302.22
Home-based option.
(a) Setting. The home-based option
delivers the full range of services,
consistent with § 1302.20(b), through
visits with the child’s parents, primarily
in the child’s home and through group
socialization opportunities in a Head
Start classroom, community facility,
home, or on field trips. For Early Head
Start programs, the home-based option
may be used to deliver services to some
or all of a program’s enrolled children.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:04 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
For Head Start Preschool programs, the
home-based option may only be used to
deliver services to a portion of a
program’s enrolled children.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(2) Head Start Preschool. A Head Start
Preschool home-based program must:
*
*
*
*
*
■ 18. Amend § 1302.23 by revising
paragraphs (b)(2) through (4) to read as
follows:
§ 1302.23
Family child care option.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(2) Mixed age with preschoolers.
When there is one family child care
provider, with a mixed-age group of
children that includes children over 36
months of age, the maximum group size
is six children and no more than two of
the six may be under 24 months of age.
When there are two providers, the
maximum group size is twelve children
with no more than four of the twelve
children under 24 months of age.
(3) Infants and toddlers only. When
there is one family child care provider
with a group of children that are all
under 36 months of age, the maximum
group size is four children, and no more
than two of the four children may be
under 18 months of age.
(4) Maintaining ratios. A program
must maintain appropriate ratios during
all hours of program operation. A
program must ensure providers have
systems to ensure the safety of any child
not within view for any period. A
program must make substitute staff
available with the necessary training
and experience to ensure quality
services to children are not interrupted.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 19. Amend § 1302.24 by revising
paragraphs (c)(1), (3), and (5) and
removing paragraph (d).
The revisions read as follows:
§ 1302.24 Locally-designed program
option variations.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(1) The responsible HHS official may
waive one or more of the requirements
contained in §§ 1302.21(b), (c)(1)(i), and
(c)(2)(i); 1302.22(a) through (c); and
1302.23(b) and (c), but may not waive
ratios or group size for children under
24 months. Center-based locally
designed options must meet the
minimums described in section
640(k)(1) of the Act for center-based
programs.
*
*
*
*
*
(3) If the responsible HHS official
approves a waiver to allow a program to
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
80899
operate below the minimums described
in § 1302.21(c)(2)(i), a program must
meet the requirements described in
§ 1302.21(c)(2)(ii), or in the case of a
double session variation, a program
must meet the requirements described
in § 1302.21(c)(2)(iii).
*
*
*
*
*
(5) In order to receive a waiver of
service duration, a program must meet
the requirement in paragraph (c)(4) of
this section, provide supporting
evidence that it better meets the needs
of parents than the applicable service
duration minimums described in
§ 1302.21(c)(1) and (c)(2)(i),
§ 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.
■ 20. Amend § 1302.34 by adding
paragraph (b)(9) to read as follows:
§ 1302.34 Parent and family engagement in
education and child development services.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(9) The communication methods and
modalities utilized by the program are
the best available to engage with
prospective and enrolled families of all
abilities.
Subpart D—Health and Mental Health
Program Services
21. Revise the heading for subpart D
to read as set forth above.
■ 22. Amend § 1302.40 by revising
paragraph (b) to read as follows:
■
§ 1302.40
Purpose.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) A program must establish and
maintain a Health and Mental Health
Services Advisory Committee that
includes Head Start parents,
professionals, and other volunteers from
the community.
■ 23. Revise § 1302.41 to read as
follows:
§ 1302.41 Collaboration and
communication with parents.
(a) For all activities described in this
part, programs must collaborate with
parents as partners in the health, mental
health, and well-being of their children
in a linguistically and culturally
appropriate manner and communicate
with parents about their child’s health
and mental health needs and
development concerns in a timely and
effective manner.
(b) At a minimum, a program must:
(1) Obtain advance authorization from
the parent or other person with legal
authority for all health, mental health,
and developmental procedures
E:\FR\FM\20NOP2.SGM
20NOP2
80900
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
administered through the program or by
contract or agreement, and, maintain
written documentation if they refuse to
give authorization for health and mental
health services; and,
(2) Share with parents the policies for
health or mental health emergencies
that require rapid response on the part
of staff or immediate medical attention.
■ 24. Amend § 1302.42 by:
■ a. Revising paragraph (b)(1)(i) and
(b)(4); and
■ b. Removing the word ‘‘grantee’’ and
adding in its place the words ‘‘grant
recipient’’ in paragraph (e)(2).
The revisions read as follows:
§ 1302.42
Child health status and care.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) Obtain determinations from health
care and oral health care professionals
as to whether or not the child is up-todate on a schedule of age appropriate
preventive and primary medical, mental
health, and oral health care, based on:
the well-child visits and dental
periodicity schedules as prescribed by
the Early and Periodic Screening,
Diagnosis, and Treatment (EPSDT)
program of the Medicaid agency of the
State in which they operate,
immunization recommendations issued
by the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, and any additional
recommendations from the local Health
and Mental Health Services Advisory
Committee that are based on prevalent
community health problems;
*
*
*
*
*
(4) A program must identify each
child’s nutritional health needs, taking
into account available health
information, including the child’s
health records, relevant developmental
or mental health concerns, and family
and staff concerns, including special
dietary requirements, food allergies, and
community nutrition issues as
identified through the community
assessment or by the Health and Mental
Health Services Advisory Committee.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 25. Amend § 1302.44 by revising
paragraph (b) to read as follows:
§ 1302.44
Child nutrition.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Payment sources. A program must
use funds from USDA Food, Nutrition,
and Consumer Services child nutrition
programs as the primary source of
payment for meal services. Head Start
funds may be used to cover those
allowable costs not covered by the
USDA.
■ 26. Revise § 1302.45 to read as
follows:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:04 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
§ 1302.45 Supports for mental health and
well-being.
(a) Program-wide wellness supports.
To support a program-wide culture that
promotes mental health, social and
emotional well-being, and overall health
and safety, a program must have a
multidisciplinary team responsible for
mental health that:
(1) Coordinates supports for adult
mental health and well-being including
engaging in nurturing and responsive
relationships with families, engaging
families in home visiting services, and
promoting staff health and wellness, as
described in § 1302.93;
(2) Coordinates supports for positive
learning environments for all children;
supportive teacher practices; and
strategies for supporting children with
social, emotional, behavioral or mental
health concerns;
(3) Secures mental health consultation
services no less than once a month to
ensure a mental health consultant is
available to partner with staff and
families in a timely and effective
manner and examines the approach to
mental health consultation on an annual
basis to determine if it meets the needs
of the program;
(4) Ensures that all children receive
adequate screening and appropriate
follow up and the parent receives
referrals about how to access services
for potential social, emotional,
behavioral, or other mental health
concerns, as described in § 1302.33;
(5) Facilitates coordination and
collaboration between mental health
and other relevant program services,
including education, disability, family
engagement, and health services; and
(6) Builds community partnerships to
facilitate access to additional mental
health resources and services, as
needed.
(b) Mental health consultants. A
program must ensure that mental health
consultants provide consultation
services that build the capacity of adults
in an infant or young child’s life to
strengthen and support the mental
health and social and emotional
development of children, including
consultation with:
(1) The program to implement
strategies that promote a program-wide
culture of mental health, prevent mental
health challenges from developing, and
identify and support children with
mental health and social and emotional
concerns;
(2) Child and family services staff to
implement strategies that build
nurturing and responsive relationships
and create positive learning
environments that promote the mental
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
health and social and emotional
development of all children;
(3) Staff who have contact with
children to understand and
appropriately respond to prevalent child
mental health concerns, including
internalizing problems such as
appearing withdrawn; externalizing
problems such as behavioral concerns;
and how exposure to trauma and
substance use can influence risk;
(4) Families and staff to understand
mental health and access mental health
interventions or supports, if needed,
including in the event of a natural
disaster or crisis;
(5) The program to implement
policies to limit suspension and
prohibit expulsion as described in
§ 1302.17; and
(6) The program to support the wellbeing of children and families involved
in any significant child health, mental
health, or safety incident described in
§ 1302.102(d)(1)(ii).
■ 27. Amend § 1302.46 by revising
paragraphs (b)(1)(iii) and (iv), (b)(2)
introductory text, and (b)(2)(ii) and (iii),
and adding paragraph (b)(2)(iv) to read
as follows:
§ 1302.46 Family support services for
health, nutrition, and mental health.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) Learn about healthy pregnancy
and postpartum care, as appropriate,
including breastfeeding support and
treatment options for parental mental
health, including depression, anxiety,
and substance use concerns;
(iv) Discuss information related to
their child’s mental health with staff,
including typical and atypical behavior
and development, and how to
appropriately respond to their child and
promote their child’s social and
emotional development; and,
*
*
*
*
*
(2) A program must provide ongoing
support to assist parents’ navigation
through health and mental health
systems to meet the general health and
specifically identified needs of their
children and must assist parents:
*
*
*
*
*
(ii) In understanding the results of
diagnostic and treatment procedures as
well as plans for ongoing care;
(iii) In familiarizing their children
with services they will receive while
enrolled in the program and to enroll
and participate in a system of ongoing
family health care; and
(iv) In providing information about
how to access evidence-based mental
health services for young children and
E:\FR\FM\20NOP2.SGM
20NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
their families, including referrals if
appropriate.
■ 28. Amend § 1302.47 by revising
paragraphs (b)(1)(iii), (b)(5) introductory
text, and (b)(5)(i), (iii), and (v) to read as
follows:
§ 1302.47
Safety practices.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) Free from pollutants, hazards and
toxins that are accessible to children
and could endanger children’s safety
including lead consistent with
§ 1302.48;
*
*
*
*
*
(5) Safety practices. All staff,
consultants, contractors, and volunteers
follow appropriate practices to keep
children safe during all activities,
including, at a minimum:
(i) Reporting of suspected or known
child abuse and neglect, as defined by
the Federal Child Abuse Prevention and
Treatment Act (CAPTA) (42 U.S.C. 5101
note), including that staff comply with
applicable Federal, State, local, and
Tribal laws;
*
*
*
*
*
(iii) Appropriate supervision of
children at all times;
*
*
*
*
*
(v) All standards of conduct described
in § 1302.90(c)(ii); and,
*
*
*
*
*
■ 29. Add § 1302.48 to subpart D to read
as follows:
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 1302.48 Preventing and Addressing Lead
Exposure.
(a) Preventing and addressing lead
exposure through water. A program
must address lead in water from water
fixtures used for human consumption in
Head Start facilities constructed before
2014 and where lead service lines,
plumbing, or fixtures may still exist,
including, at a minimum:
(1) Sample and test water in such
fixtures for lead on an annual basis, or,
if approved by the governing body, a
proportion of water in such fixtures
each year to ensure they are tested at
least once every five years;
(2) Sample and test water in such
fixtures following remediation actions
to address detectable lead or following
a change to the water profile;
(3) All samples must be collected by
an individual adequately trained to
collect samples for lead testing;
(4) All samples must be analyzed by
a laboratory that is certified by
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
or the State, territory, or Tribe for testing
lead in drinking water;
(5) Restrict access to such fixtures
within 24 hours of determining the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:04 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
water has a lead sample result at or
above 5 parts per billion and provide
notice in a timely manner to parents of
children who may have consumed the
water;
(6) Take remediation actions and
restrict access until follow-up lead
sample results indicate the water lead
level is below 5 parts per billion;
(7) For lead sample results with
detectable lead below 5 parts per
billion, consider taking remediation
actions to lower the lead level as low as
practicable; and
(8) If point-of-use devices are used to
address lead in water, appropriately use
and maintain point-of-use devices that
reduce lead levels as tested and certified
by a third party according to National
Sanitation Foundation/American
National Standards Institute (NSF/
ANSI) Standards for lead reduction.
(b) Preventing and addressing lead
exposure through paint. A program
must address lead-based paint hazards
in paint, dust, and soil in Head Start
facilities constructed before 1978 and
where lead-based paint may still exist,
including, at a minimum:
(1) Inspect for lead-based paint and
assess for lead-based paint hazards (that,
in the case of dust-lead hazards, are at
or above the clearance levels) by a lead
risk assessor certified by the EPA or an
EPA-authorized State, territory, or Tribe;
(2) Immediately restrict access to any
identified lead-based paint hazards
(that, in the case of dust-lead hazards,
are at or above the clearance levels)
until abatement is completed;
(3) Abate any identified lead-based
paint hazards (that, in the case of dustlead hazards, are at or above the
clearance levels) by a lead abatement
contractor certified by the EPA or EPAauthorized State, territory, or Tribe; and
(4) Following conclusion of
abatement, reassess for lead-based paint
hazards by a certified risk assessor at
least once every 2 years unless two
reassessments conducted 2 years apart
identify no lead-based paint hazards
(that, in the case of dust-lead hazards,
are at or above the clearance levels) in
areas accessible to children.
(c) Notification of lead testing and
remediation. A program must provide
notification of results of any lead testing
and any planned or completed
remediation actions to parents and staff.
(d) Conflicting requirements. If
applicable State or local laws or
regulations have more stringent
requirements for lead testing or
remediation, a program should comply
with the more stringent requirements.
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
80901
Subpart E—Family and Community
Engagement Program Services
30. Amend § 1302.50 by revising
paragraph (a) to read as follows:
■
§ 1302.50
Family engagement.
(a) Purpose. A program must integrate
parent and family engagement strategies
into all systems and program services to
support family well-being and promote
children’s learning and development.
Programs are encouraged to develop
innovative two-generation approaches
that address prevalent needs of families
across their program that may leverage
community partnerships or other
funding sources. This includes
communicating with families in a
format that is most accessible.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 31. Amend § 1302.52 by revising
paragraphs (c)(2) and (3) and (d) and
adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:
§ 1302.52
Family partnership services.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(2) Help families achieve identified
individualized family engagement
outcomes; and
(3) Establish and implement a family
partnership agreement process that is
jointly developed and shared with
parents in which staff and families to
review individual progress, revise goals,
evaluate and track whether identified
needs and goals are met, and adjust
strategies on an ongoing basis, as
necessary.
(d) Approaches to family services. A
program must:
(1) Ensure the family services
assignment process takes into account
the varied interests, urgency, and
intensity of identified family needs and
goals.
(2) Ensure the planned number of
families assigned to work with
individual family services staff is no
greater than 40, unless a program can
demonstrate higher family assignments
provide high quality family and
community engagement services and
maintain reasonable staff workload as
described in paragraph (d)(3) of this
section.
(3) Ensure meaningful employee
engagement practices address family
services workload experiences, in
accordance with § 1302.101(a)(2).
(e) Existing plans and community
resources. In implementing this section,
a program must take into consideration
any existing plans for the family made
with other community agencies and
availability of other community
resources to address family needs,
strengths, and goals, in order to avoid
duplication of effort.
E:\FR\FM\20NOP2.SGM
20NOP2
80902
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
32. Amend § 1302.53 by revising
paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) to read as
follows:
■
§ 1302.53 Community partnerships and
coordination with other early childhood and
education programs.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(1) Memorandum of understanding.
To support coordination between Head
Start Preschool and publicly funded
preschool programs, a program must
enter into a memorandum of
understanding with the appropriate
local entity responsible for managing
publicly funded preschool programs in
the service area of the program, as
described in section 642(e)(5)22 of the
Act.
(2) Quality Rating and Improvement
Systems. A program, with the exception
of American Indian and Alaska Native
programs, should participate in its State
or local Quality Rating and
Improvement System (QRIS), to the
extent practicable, if a State or local
QRIS has a strategy to support Head
Start participation without requiring
programs to duplicate existing
documentation from Office of Head
Start oversight.
*
*
*
*
*
Subpart F—Additional Services for
Children With Disabilities
§ 1302.71 Transitions from Head Start
Preschool to kindergarten.
33. Amend § 1302.61 by revising
paragraphs (c)(1)(v) and (c)(2)(ii) to read
as follows:
*
§ 1302.61
§ 1302.72
■
Additional services for children.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(v) Services are provided in a child’s
regular Head Start classroom or family
child care home to the greatest extent
possible.
(2) * * *
(ii) For children with an IEP who are
transitioning out of Head Start
Preschool to kindergarten, collaborate
with the parents, and the local agency
responsible for implementing IDEA, to
ensure steps are undertaken in a timely
and appropriate manner to support the
child and family as they transition to a
new setting.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
(1) Takes into account the child’s
developmental level and health and
disability status, progress made by the
child and family while in Early Head
Start, current and changing family
circumstances and, the availability of
Head Start Preschool, other public 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 Preschool or another program as
soon as possible after the child’s third
birthday but permits the child to remain
in Early Head Start for a limited number
of additional months following the
child’s third birthday if necessary for an
appropriate transition.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) Early Head Start and Head Start
Preschool collaboration. Early Head
Start and Head Start Preschool programs
must work together to maximize
enrollment transitions from Early Head
Start to Head Start Preschool, consistent
with the eligibility provisions in subpart
A of this part, and promote successful
transitions through collaboration and
communication.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 35. Amend § 1302.71 by revising the
section heading to read as follows:
Subpart G—Transition Services
34. Amend § 1302.70 by revising
paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) and (d) to read
as follows:
■
§ 1302.70
Start.
*
Transitions from Early Head
*
*
(b) * * *
VerDate Sep<11>2014
*
*
*
*
36. Amend § 1302.72 by revising
paragraphs (a) and (c) to read as follows:
■
Transitions between programs.
(a) For families and children who
move out of the community in which
they are currently served, including
homeless families and foster children, a
program must undertake efforts to
support effective transitions to other
Head Start programs. If Head Start is not
available, the program should assist the
family to identify another early
childhood program that meets their
needs.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) A migrant or seasonal Head Start
program must undertake efforts to
support effective transitions to other
migrant or seasonal Head Start or, if
appropriate, Early Head Start or Head
Start Preschool programs for families
and children moving out of the
community in which they are currently
served.
Subpart H—Services to Enrolled
Pregnant Women
37. Amend § 1302.80 by revising
paragraph (d) and adding paragraphs (e)
and (f) to read as follows:
■
*
*
19:04 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00086
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
§ 1302.80
Enrolled pregnant women.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) A program must provide a
newborn visit with each mother and
baby to offer support and identify family
needs. A program must schedule the
newborn visit within two weeks after
the infant’s birth. At a minimum, the
visit must include a discussion of the
following: maternal mental and physical
health, infant health, and support for
basic needs.
(e) A program must track and record
services an enrolled pregnant woman
receives both from the program and
through referrals, to help identify
specific prenatal care services and
resources the enrolled pregnant woman
needs to support a healthy pregnancy.
(f) The program must provide services
that help reduce barriers to healthy
maternal and birthing outcomes for each
family, including services that address
disparities across racial and ethnic
groups, and use data on enrolled
pregnant women to inform program
services.
■ 38. Revise § 1302.81 to read as
follows:
§ 1302.81 Prenatal and postpartum
information, education, and services.
(a) A program must provide enrolled
pregnant women, mothers, fathers, and
partners or other family members the
prenatal and postpartum information,
education and services that address, as
appropriate, fetal development, the
importance of nutrition including
breastfeeding, the risks of alcohol,
drugs, and smoking and the benefits of
substance use treatment, labor and
delivery, postpartum recovery, and
infant care and safe sleep practices.
(b) A program must support pregnant
women, mothers, fathers, partners, or
other family members to access mental
health services, including referrals, as
appropriate, to address concerns
including perinatal depression, anxiety,
grief or loss, birth trauma, and substance
use.
(c) A program must also address
pregnant women’s needs for appropriate
supports for social and emotional wellbeing, nurturing and responsive
caregiving, and father, partner, or other
family member engagement during
pregnancy and early childhood.
■ 39. Amend § 1302.82 by revising
paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§ 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
E:\FR\FM\20NOP2.SGM
20NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
on factors that influence prenatal and
postpartum maternal and infant health.
If a program uses a curriculum in the
provision of services to pregnant
women, this should be a maternal
health curriculum, to support prenatal
and postpartum education needs.
*
*
*
*
*
Subpart I—Human Resources
Management
40. Amend § 1302.90 by revising
paragraphs (c)(1)(ii) through (iv) and
adding paragraphs (c)(1)(vi), (e), and (f)
to read as follows:
■
§ 1302.90
Personnel Policies.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) Ensure staff, consultants,
contractors, and volunteers do not
engage in behaviors that would be
reasonably suspected to negatively
impact the health, mental health, or
safety of children, including at a
minimum:
(A) Corporal punishment or
physically abusive behavior, defined as
intentional use of physical force that
results in, or has the potential to result
in, physical injury. Examples include,
but are not limited to, hitting, kicking,
shaking, biting, forcibly moving,
restraining, force feeding, or dragging.
(B) Sexually abusive behavior,
defined as any completed or attempted
sexual act, sexual contact, or
exploitation. Examples include, but are
not limited to, behaviors such as
inappropriate touching, inappropriate
filming, or exposing a child to other
sexual activities.
(C) Emotionally harmful or abusive
behavior, defined as behaviors that
harm a child’s self worth or emotional
well-being or behaviors that are
insensitive to a child’s developmental
needs. Examples include, but are not
limited to, using isolation as discipline,
using or exposing a child to public or
private humiliation, or name calling,
shaming, intimidating, or threatening a
child.
(D) Neglectful behavior, defined as the
failure to meet a child’s basic physical
and emotional needs including access to
food, education, medical care,
appropriate supervision by an adequate
caregiver, and safe physical and
emotional environments. Examples
include, but are not limited to,
withholding food as punishment or
refusing to change soiled diapers as
punishment.
(iii) Ensure staff, consultants,
contractors, and volunteers report
reasonably suspected or known
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:04 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
incidents of child abuse and neglect, as
defined by the Federal Child Abuse
Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA)
(42 U.S.C. 5101 note) and in compliance
with Federal, State, local, and Tribal
laws.
(iv) Ensure staff, consultants,
contractors, and volunteers respect and
promote the unique identity of each
individual and do not stereotype on any
basis, including gender, race, ethnicity,
culture, religion, disability, sexual
orientation, or family composition;
*
*
*
*
*
(vi) Ensure no child is left alone or
unsupervised.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) Wages—(1) Pay scale. (i) By
August 1, 2031, a program must
implement a salary scale, salary
schedule, wage ladder, or other similar
pay structure for program staff salaries
that incorporates the requirements in
paragraphs (e)(2), (3), and (4) of this
section, reflects salaries or wages for all
other staff in the program, promotes
salaries that are comparable to similar
services in relevant industries in their
geographic area, and considers, at a
minimum, responsibilities,
qualifications, and experience relevant
to the position, and schedule or hours
worked.
(ii) After August 1, 2031, a program
must review its pay structure at least
once every 5 years to assess whether it
continues to meet the expectations
described in paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this
section.
(iii) A program must ensure that staff
salaries are not in excess of level II of
the Executive Schedule, as required in
42 U.S.C. 9848(b)(1).
(2) Progress to pay parity for
education staff with elementary school
staff. (i) A program must make
measurable progress towards pay parity
for Head Start teachers with
kindergarten through third grade
teachers. By August 1, 2031, a program
must demonstrate it has made progress
to parity by ensuring that each Head
Start teacher receives an annual salary
that is at least comparable to the annual
salary paid to preschool teachers in
public school settings in the program’s
local school district, adjusted for
responsibilities, qualifications, and
experience. A program may provide
annual salaries comparable to a
neighboring school district if the
salaries are higher than a program’s
local school district.
(ii) A program must make measurable
progress towards pay parity for all other
Head Start education staff who work
directly with children as part of their
daily job responsibilities. By August 1,
PO 00000
Frm 00087
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
80903
2031, a program must demonstrate it has
made progress to parity by ensuring that
each staff member described in this
provision receives an annual salary that
is at least comparable to the salaries
described in paragraph (e)(2)(i) of this
section, adjusted for role,
responsibilities, qualifications, and
experience.
(iii) If there is not a sufficient number
of comparable preschool teachers in
school-based settings in the program’s
local or neighboring school district, a
program may use an alternative method
to implement the requirements in
paragraphs (e)(2)(i) and (ii) of this
section to determine appropriate
comparison salaries. The alternative
method must be approved by ACF.
(iv) To demonstrate measurable
progress towards pay parity as described
in paragraph (e)(2)(i) of this section, a
program must regularly track data on
how wages paid to their education staff
compare to wages paid to preschool
through third grade teachers in their
local or neighboring school district.
(3) Salary floor. By August 1, 2031, a
program must ensure, at a minimum,
the wage or salary structure established
or updated under paragraph (e)(1)(i) of
this section provides all staff with a
wage or salary that is generally
sufficient to cover basic needs such as
food, housing, utilities, medical costs,
transportation, and taxes, or would be
sufficient if the worker’s hourly rate
were paid according to a full-time, fullyear schedule (or over 2,080 hours per
year).
(4) Wage comparability for all ages
served. A program must ensure the wage
or salary structure established or
updated under paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this
section does not differ by age of
children served for similar program staff
positions with similar qualifications and
experience.
(f) Staff benefits. (1) For each full-time
staff member, defined as those working
30 or more hours per week during the
program year, a program must:
(i) Provide or facilitate access to highquality affordable health insurance;
(ii) Offer the accrual of paid sick leave
based on hours worked or days of sick
leave updated annually and the accrual
at a minimum must meet the standards
set by State or local laws, if applicable;
(iii) Offer job-protected periods of
paid family leave consistent with
eligibility for and protections in the
Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)
or, if applicable, the standards set by
State or local laws;
(iv) Offer the accrual of paid vacation
or personal time commensurate with
experience or tenure, if the program
E:\FR\FM\20NOP2.SGM
20NOP2
80904
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
operates longer than a typical school
year; and
(v) Offer access to short-term, free or
minimal cost behavioral health services
of approximately three to five outpatient
visits per year;
(2) For each part-time staff member, a
program must facilitate access to highquality, affordable health insurance.
(3) For each staff member, a program
must facilitate access to affordable child
care, including connections to child
care resource and referral agencies or
other childcare consumer education
organizations and, for staff who meet
eligibility guidelines, facilitate
enrollment in the child care subsidy
program.
(4) For each staff member, a program
must facilitate access to the Public
Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF)
program, or other applicable student
loan debt relief programs, including
timely certification of employment.
(5) At least once every 5 years, a
program must assess and determine if
their benefits package for full-time staff
is at least comparable to those provided
to elementary school staff in the
program’s local or neighboring school
district. Programs may offer additional
benefits to staff, including more
enhanced health benefits, retirement
savings plans, flexible savings accounts,
or life, disability, and long-term care
insurance.
■ 41. Amend § 1302.91 by revising
paragraphs (b), (e)(2) and (3), and
(e)(8)(ii) to read as follows:
§ 1302.91 Staff qualification and
competency requirements
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Head Start director. A program
must ensure a Head Start director hired
after November 7, 2016, has, at a
minimum, a baccalaureate degree and
experience in supervision of staff, fiscal
management, and administration.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) * * *
(2) Head Start Preschool center-based
teacher qualification requirements. (i)
The Secretary must ensure no less than
fifty percent of all Head Start Preschool
teachers, nation-wide, have a
baccalaureate degree in child
development, early childhood
education, or equivalent coursework.
(ii) As prescribed in section
648A(a)(3)(B) 27 of the Act, a program
must ensure all center-based teachers
have at least an associate’s or bachelor’s
degree in child development or early
childhood education, equivalent
coursework, or otherwise meet the
requirements of section 648A(a)(3)(B) of
the Act.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:04 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
(3) Head Start Preschool assistant
teacher qualification requirements. As
prescribed in section 648A(a)(2)(B)(ii) of
the Act, a program must ensure Head
Start Preschool assistant teachers, at a
minimum, have a CDA credential or a
State-awarded certificate that meets or
exceeds the requirements for a CDA
credential, are enrolled in a program
that will lead to an associate or
baccalaureate degree or, are enrolled in
a CDA credential program to be
completed within two years of the time
of hire.
*
*
*
*
*
(8) * * *
(ii) A program must ensure all mental
health consultants are licensed or under
the supervision of a licensed mental
health professional. A program must use
mental health consultants with
knowledge of and experience in serving
young children and their families.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 42. Amend § 1302.92 by revising
paragraph (b) to read as follows:
§ 1302.92 Training and professional
development.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) A program must establish and
implement a systematic approach to
staff training and professional
development designed to assist staff in
acquiring or increasing the knowledge
and skills needed to provide highquality, comprehensive services within
the scope of their job responsibilities,
and attached to academic credit as
appropriate, and integrated with
employee engagement practices in
accordance with § 1302.101(a)(2). At a
minimum, the system must include:
(1) Staff completing a minimum of 15
clock hours of professional development
per year. For teaching staff, such
professional development must meet the
requirements described in section
648A(a)(5) of the Act, and includes
creating individual professional
development plans as described in
section 648A(f) of the Act.
(2) Annual training on mandatory
reporting of suspected or known child
abuse and neglect, that complies with
applicable Federal, State, local, and
Tribal laws;
(3) Annual training on positive
strategies to understand and support
children’s social and emotional
development, including the
implementation of tools for preventing
and managing challenging behavior;
(4) Training for child and family
services staff on best practices for
implementing family engagement
strategies in a systemic way, as
described throughout this part;
PO 00000
Frm 00088
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(5) Training for child and family
services staff, including staff that work
on family services, health, and
disabilities, that builds their knowledge,
experience, and competencies to
improve child and family outcomes;
and,
(6) Research-based approaches to
professional development for education
staff, that are focused on effective
curricula implementation, knowledge of
the content in Head Start Early Learning
Outcomes Framework: Ages Birth to
Five, partnering with families,
supporting children with disabilities
and their families, providing effective
and nurturing adult-child interactions,
supporting dual language learners as
appropriate, addressing challenging
behaviors, preparing children and
families for transitions (as described in
subpart G of this part), and use of data
to individualize learning experiences to
improve outcomes for all children.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 43. Amend § 1302.93 by adding
paragraphs (c) through (e) to read as
follows:
§ 1302.93
Staff Health and Wellness.
*
*
*
*
*
(c)(1) A program must provide:
(i) For each staff member working a
shift lasting between four and six hours,
a minimum of one 15-minute break per
shift; and
(ii) For each staff member working a
shift lasting six hours or more, a
minimum of one 30-minute break per
shift.
(2) If applicable State laws or
regulations have more stringent
requirements for breaks, a program
should comply with the more stringent
requirements.
(3) During break times for classroom
staff described in paragraph (c)(1) of this
section, one teaching staff member may
be replaced by one staff member who
does not meet the teaching
qualifications required for the age,
provided that this staff member has the
necessary training and experience to
ensure safety of children and minimal
disruption to the quality of services.
(4) A program must design and
implement a systematic approach to
ensure each staff member that works
directly with children as part of their
regular job responsibilities can have
access to brief unscheduled wellness
breaks of about 5 minutes as needed
while ensuring child safety.
(d) A program must ensure staff have
access to adult size furniture in
classrooms.
(e) A program should cultivate a
program-wide culture of wellness that
empowers staff as professionals and
E:\FR\FM\20NOP2.SGM
20NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
supports staff to effectively accomplish
their job responsibilities in a highquality manner, in line with the
requirement at § 1302.101(a)(2).
■ 44. Amend § 1302.94 by revising
paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§ 1302.94
Volunteers.
(a) A program must ensure volunteers
have been screened for appropriate
communicable diseases in accordance
with State, Tribal or local laws. In the
absence of State, Tribal, or local law, the
Health and Mental Health Services
Advisory Committee must be consulted
regarding the need for such screenings.
*
*
*
*
*
Subpart J—Program Management and
Quality Improvement
45. Amend § 1302.101 by revising
paragraph (a)(2) and adding paragraph
(a)(5) to read as follows:
■
§ 1302.101
Management System.
(a) * * *
(2) Promotes clear and reasonable
roles and responsibilities for all staff
and provides regular and ongoing staff
supervision with meaningful and
effective employee engagement
practices.
*
*
*
*
*
(5) Ensures that all staff are trained to
implement reporting procedures in
§ 1302.102(d)(1)(ii).
*
*
*
*
*
■ 46. Amend § 1302.102 by revising the
section heading and paragraph (d)(1)(ii)
and adding paragraph (d)(1)(iii) to read
as follows:
§ 1302.102 Program Goals, Continuous
Improvement, and Reporting.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
*
19:04 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
§ 1302.103
■
[Removed]
47. Remove § 1302.103.
PART 1303—FINANCIAL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS
48. The authority for part 1303
continues to read as follows:
■
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) Reports, as appropriate, to the
responsible HHS official immediately or
no later than 3 business days following
the incident, related to:
(A) Any significant incident that
affects the health, mental health, or
safety of a child that occurs in a setting
where Head Start services are provided
and that involves:
(1) A staff member, contractor,
volunteer, or other adult that
participates in either a Head Start
program or a classroom at least partially
funded by Head Start, regardless of
whether the child receives Head Start
services; or
(2) A child that receives services fully
or partially funded by Head Start or a
child that participates in a classroom at
least partially funded by Head Start; or
(B) Circumstances affecting the
financial viability of the program;
VerDate Sep<11>2014
breaches of personally identifiable
information, or program involvement in
legal proceedings; any matter for which
notification or a report to State, Tribal,
or local authorities is required by
applicable law.
(iii) Reportable incidents under
paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this section
include at a minimum:
(A) Any mandated reports regarding
agency staff or volunteer compliance
with Federal, State, Tribal, or local laws
addressing child abuse and neglect or
laws governing sex offenders;
(B) Incidents that require classrooms
or centers to be closed, except for
circumstances such as natural disasters
that interfere with program operations;
(C) Legal proceedings by any party
that are directly related to program
operations; and,
(D) All conditions required to be
reported under § 1304.12 of this chapter,
including disqualification from the
Child and Adult Care Food Program
(CACFP) and license revocation.
(E) Any suspected or known
violations of Standards of Conduct
under § 1302.90(c)(1)(ii);
(F) Significant health or safety
incidents related to suspected or known
lack of supervision or lack of
preventative maintenance; and,
(G) Any unauthorized release of a
child.
*
*
*
*
*
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9801 et seq.
Subpart D—Delegation of Program
Operations
49. Revise § 1303.30 to read as
follows:
■
§ 1303.30 Grant recipient responsibility
and accountability.
A grant recipient is accountable for
the services its delegate agencies
provide. The grant recipient supports,
oversees and ensures delegate agencies
provide high-quality services to
children and families and meet all
applicable Head Start requirements. The
grant recipient can only terminate a
delegate agency if the grant recipient
shows cause why termination is
necessary and provides a process for
delegate agencies to appeal termination
decisions. The grant recipient retains
legal responsibility and authority and
bears financial accountability for the
PO 00000
Frm 00089
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
80905
program when services are provided by
delegate agencies.
Subpart E—Facilities
50. Amend § 1303.44 by revising
paragraph (a)(7) to read as follows:
■
§ 1303.44 Applications to purchase,
construct, and renovate facilities.
(a) * * *
(7) An estimate by a licensed
independent certified appraiser of the
facility’s cost value after proposed
purchase and associated repairs and
renovations, construction, or major
renovation is completed is required for
all facilities activities except for major
renovations to leased property;
*
*
*
*
*
■ 51. Amend § 1303.48 by revising the
section heading to read as follows:
§ 1303 Grant recipient limitations on
Federal interest.
*
*
*
*
*
Subpart F—Transportation
52. Amend § 1303.70 by revising
paragraph (c)(1) introductory text to
read as follows:
■
§ 1303.70
Purpose.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(1) A program that provides
transportation services must comply
with all provisions in this subpart. A
Head Start Preschool program may
request to waive a specific requirement
in this part, in writing, to the
responsible HHS official, as part of an
agency’s annual application for
financial assistance or amendment and
must submit any required
documentation the responsible HHS
official deems necessary to support the
waiver. The responsible HHS official is
not authorized to waive any
requirements with regard to children
enrolled in an Early Head Start program.
A program may request a waiver when:
*
*
*
*
*
■ 53. Amend § 1303.75 by revising
paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§ 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
E:\FR\FM\20NOP2.SGM
20NOP2
80906
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
option by the grant recipient. Whenever
possible, children with disabilities must
be transported in the same vehicles used
to transport other children enrolled in
the Head Start program.
*
*
*
*
*
PART 1303—[AMENDED]
54. Further amend part 1303 by:
a. Removing the word ‘‘grantee’’ and
adding the words ‘‘grant recipient’’ in
its place wherever it appears;
■ b. Removing the word ‘‘grantees’’ and
adding the words ‘‘grant recipients’’ in
its place wherever it appears; and
■ c. Removing the word ‘‘grantee’s’’ and
adding the words ‘‘grant recipient’s’’ in
its place wherever it appears.
■
■
PART 1304—FEDERAL
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES
55. The authority for part 1304
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9801 et seq.
Subpart A—Monitoring, Suspension,
Termination, Denial of Refunding,
Reduction in Funding, and Their
Appeals
§ 1304.5
[Amended]
56. Amend § 1304.5 by removing the
word ‘‘Grantee’s’’ and adding in its
place the words ‘‘Grant recipient’s’’ in
the paragraph (c) heading and removing
the word ‘‘grantees’’ and adding in its
place the words ‘‘grant recipients’’
paragraph (c)(1) and the paragraph (e)
heading.
■
§ 1304.6
[Amended]
57. Amend § 1304.6 by removing the
word ‘‘grantees’’ and adding in its place
the words ‘‘grant recipients’’ in the
paragraph (c) heading.
■
Subpart B—Designation Renewal
58. Revise § 1304.10 to read as
follows:
■
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 1304.10
Purpose and scope.
The purpose of this subpart is to set
forth policies and procedures for the
designation renewal of Head Start
programs. It is intended that these
programs be administered effectively
and responsibly; that applicants to
administer programs receive fair and
equitable consideration; and that the
legal rights of current Head Start grant
recipients be fully protected. The
Designation Renewal System is
established in this part to determine
whether Head Start agencies deliver
high-quality services to meet the
educational, health, nutritional, and
social needs of the children and families
they serve; meet the program and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:04 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
financial requirements and standards
described in section 641A(a)(1) of the
Head Start Act; and qualify to be
designated for funding for five years
without competing for such funding as
required under section 641(c) or
645A(b)(12) and (d) of the Head Start
Act. A competition to select a new Head
Start agency to replace a Head Start
agency that has been terminated
voluntarily or involuntarily is not part
of the Designation Renewal System
established in this part, and is subject
instead to the requirements of § 1304.20.
■ 59. Amend § 1304.11 by revising the
introductory text and paragraphs (d) and
(e) to read as follows:
§ 1304.11 Basis for determining whether a
Head Start agency will be subject to an
open competition.
A Head Start agency will be required
to compete for its next five years of
funding whenever the responsible HHS
official determines that one or more of
the following seven conditions existed
during the relevant time period under
§ 1304.15:
*
*
*
*
*
(d) An agency has had a revocation of
its license to operate a Head Start center
or program by a State or local licensing
agency during the relevant time period
under § 1304.15, and the revocation has
not been overturned or withdrawn
before a competition for funding for the
next five-year period is announced. A
pending challenge to the license
revocation or restoration of the license
after correction of the violation will not
affect application of this requirement
after the competition for funding for the
next five-year period has been
announced.
(e) An agency has been suspended
from the Head Start program by ACF
during the relevant time period covered
by the responsible HHS official’s review
under § 1304.15 and the suspension has
not been overturned or withdrawn. If
the agency did not have an opportunity
to show cause as to why the suspension
should not have been imposed or why
the suspension should have been lifted
if it had already been imposed under
this part, the agency will not be required
to compete based on this condition. If
an agency has received an opportunity
to show cause and the suspension
remains in place, the condition will be
implemented.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 60. Amend § 1304.12 by revising the
section heading to read as follows:
§ 1304.12 Grant recipient reporting
requirements concerning certain
conditions.
*
PO 00000
*
*
Frm 00090
*
Fmt 4701
*
Sfmt 4702
61. Revise § 1304.13 to read as
follows:
■
§ 1304.13 Requirements to be considered
for designation for a five-year period when
the existing grant recipient in a community
is not determined to be delivering a highquality 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
program. The application must address
the criteria for selection listed at section
641(d)(2)58 of the Act for Head Start.
Any agency that has had its Head Start
grant terminated for cause in the
preceding five years is excluded from
competing in such competition for the
next five years. A Head Start agency that
has had a denial of refunding, as
defined in 45 CFR part 1305, in the
preceding five years is also excluded
from competing.
■ 62. Amend § 1304.14 by revising
paragraphs (a) introductory text, (a)(2)
and (3), (b), and (c) to read as follows:
§ 1304.14 Tribal government consultation
under the Designation Renewal System for
when an Indian Head Start grant is being
considered for competition.
(a) In the case of an Indian Head Start
agency determined not to be delivering
a high-quality and comprehensive Head
Start program, the responsible HHS
official will engage in government-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
operated by the Indian Head Start
agency.
*
*
*
*
*
(2) Not more than six months after the
implementation of that plan, the
responsible HHS official will reevaluate
the performance of the Indian Head
Start agency.
(3) If the Indian Head Start agency is
still not delivering a high-quality and
comprehensive Head Start program, the
responsible HHS official will conduct
an open competition to select a grant
recipient to provide services for the
community currently being served by
the Indian Head Start agency.
(b) A non-Indian Head Start agency
will not be eligible to receive a grant to
carry out an Indian Head Start program,
unless there is no Indian Head Start
agency available for designation to carry
out an Indian Head Start program.
(c) A non-Indian Head Start agency
may receive a grant to carry out an
E:\FR\FM\20NOP2.SGM
20NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
Indian Head Start program only until
such time as an Indian Head Start
agency in such community becomes
available and is designated pursuant to
this part.
■ 63. Amend § 1304.15 by revising
paragraphs (a), (b), (c) introductory text,
and (c)(1) to read as follows:
§ 1304.15 Designation request, review and
notification process.
(a) A grant recipient must apply to be
considered for Designation Renewal. A
Head Start agency wishing to be
considered to have its designation as a
Head Start agency renewed for another
five-year period without competition
must request that status from ACF at
least 12 months before the end of their
five-year grant period or by such time as
required by the Secretary.
(b) ACF will review the relevant data
to determine if one or more of the
conditions under § 1304.11 were met by
the Head Start agency during the current
project period.
(c) ACF will give notice to grant
recipients on Designation Renewal
System status, except as provided in
§ 1304.14, at least 12 months before the
expiration date of a Head Start agency’s
current grant, stating:
(1) The Head Start agency will be
required to compete for funding for an
additional five-year period because ACF
finds that one or more conditions under
§ 1304.11 were met by the agency’s
program during the relevant time period
described in paragraph (b) of this
section, identifying the conditions ACF
found, and summarizing the basis for
the finding; or
*
*
*
*
*
Subpart C—Selection of Grant
Recipients through Competition
64. Revise the heading for subpart C
to read as set forth above.
■ 65. Amend § 1304.20 by revising
paragraph (a) to read as follows:
■
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 1304.20
Selection among applicants.
(a) In selecting an agency to be
designated to provide Head Start
Preschool, Early Head Start, Migrant or
Seasonal Head Start or Tribal Head Start
Preschool or Early Head Start services,
the responsible HHS official will
consider the applicable criteria at
section 641(d) of the Head Start Act and
any other criteria outlined in the
funding opportunity announcement.
*
*
*
*
*
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:04 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
Subpart D—Replacement of American
Indian and Alaska Native Grant
Recipients
66. Revise the heading for subpart D
to read as set forth above.
■
PART 1304—[AMENDED]
67. Further amend part 1304 by:
a. Removing the word ‘‘grantee’’ and
adding the words ‘‘grant recipient’’ in
its place wherever it appears; and
■ b. Removing the word ‘‘grantees’’ and
adding the words ‘‘grant recipients’’ in
its place wherever it appears; and
■
■
PART 1305—DEFINITIONS
68. The authority for part 1305
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9801 et seq.
69. Amend § 1305.2 by:
a. Adding in alphabetical order
definitions for ‘‘Abatement’’ and
‘‘Change to the water profile’’;
■ b. Revising the definition of
‘‘Continuity of care’’;
■ c. Removing the word ‘‘grantee’’ and
adding in its place the words ‘‘grant
recipient’’ in the definition of ‘‘Denial of
Refunding’’;
■ d. Adding in alphabetical order a
definition for ‘‘Early Head Start’’;
■ e. Removing the definition of ‘‘Early
Head Start agency’’;
■ f. Adding in alphabetical order a
definition for ‘‘Expulsion’’;
■ g. Revising the definitions of ‘‘Federal
interest’’, ‘‘Fixed route’’, and ‘‘Fullworking-day’’;
■ h. Removing the word ‘‘grantee’’ and
adding in its place the words ‘‘grant
recipient’’ in the definition of ‘‘Funded
enrollment’’;
■ i. Removing the definition of
‘‘Grantee’’;
■ j. Adding in alphabetical order
definitions for ‘‘Grant recipient’’ and
‘‘Head Start’’;
■ k. Revising the definition of ‘‘Head
Start agency’’;
■ l. Adding in alphabetical order
definitions for ‘‘Head Start Preschool’’
and ‘‘Housing expenses’’;
■ m. Revising the definitions of
‘‘Income’’,
■ n. Removing the word ‘‘grantee’’ and
adding in its place the words ‘‘grant
recipient’’ in the definition of ‘‘Legal
status’’;
■ o. Revising the definitions of ‘‘Major
renovation’’ and ‘‘Migrant family’’;
■ p. Removing the word ‘‘grantee’’ and
adding in its place the words ‘‘grant
recipient’’ in the definition of ‘‘Modular
unit’’;
■ q. Revising the definition of
‘‘Participant’’;
■
■
PO 00000
Frm 00091
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
80907
r. Adding in alphabetical order a
definition for ‘‘Poverty line’’;
■ s. Revising the definitions of
‘‘Program’’ and ‘‘Purchase’’;
■ t. Removing the word ‘‘grantee’’ and
adding in its place the words ‘‘grant
recipient’’ in the definition of ‘‘Service
area’’;
■ u. Adding in alphabetical order a
definition for ‘‘Suspension’’;
■ v. Removing the word ‘‘grantee’s’’ and
adding in its place the words ‘‘grant
recipient’s’’ in the introductory text and
paragraph (1) of the definition of
‘‘Termination of a grant or delegate
agency agreement’’ and removing the
word ‘‘grantee’’ and adding in its place
the words ‘‘grant recipient’’ in
introductory text of the definition of
‘‘Termination of a great or delegate
agency agreement’’;
■ w. Removing the definition of
‘‘Transition period’’;
■ x. Revising the definition of
‘‘Transportation services’’; and
■ y. Adding in alphabetical order a
definition for ‘‘Water fixtures used for
human consumption’’.
The additions and revisions read as
follows:
■
§ 1305.2
Terms.
Abatement means actions designed to
eliminate lead-based paint or lead-based
paint hazards. Abatement can include
the:
(1) Removal of lead-based paint and
dust-lead hazards, the enclosure or
encapsulation of lead-based paint, the
replacement of components or fixtures
painted with lead-based paint, and the
removal or permanent covering of soillead hazards; and
(2) Preparation, cleanup, disposal,
and post-abatement testing to determine
the effectiveness of such measures.
*
*
*
*
*
Change to the water profile means
change in source of water, water
plumbing, or water fixture.
*
*
*
*
*
Continuity of care means Head Start
services provided to children in a
manner that promotes primary
caregiving and minimizes the number of
transitions in teachers and teacher
assistants that children experience over
the course of the day, week, program
year, and to the extent possible, during
the course of their participation from
birth to age three in Early Head Start
and in Head Start Preschool.
*
*
*
*
*
Early Head Start means a program
that serves pregnant women and
children from birth to age three,
pursuant to section 645A(e) of the Head
Start Act. This includes Tribal and
migrant or seasonal programs.
E:\FR\FM\20NOP2.SGM
20NOP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
80908
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
Expulsion is the permanent removal
of a child from the learning setting or a
requirement that a child unenroll in a
program.
*
*
*
*
*
Federal interest is a property right
which secures the right of the Federal
awarding agency to recover the current
fair market value of its percentage of
participation in the cost of the facility
subject to part 1303, subpart E of this
chapter funding in the event the facility
is no longer used for Head Start
purposes by the grant recipient or upon
the disposition of the property. When a
grant recipient uses Head Start funds to
purchase, construct or make major
renovations to a facility, or make
mortgage payments, it creates a Federal
interest. The Federal interest includes
any portion of the cost of purchase,
construction, or major renovation
contributed by or for the entity, or a
related donor organization, to satisfy a
matching requirement.
*
*
*
*
*
Fixed route means the established
routes to be traveled on a regular basis
by vehicles that transport children to
and from Head Start program activities,
and which include specifically
designated stops where children board
or exit the vehicle.
*
*
*
*
*
Full-working-day means not less than
10 hours of Head Start services per day.
*
*
*
*
*
Grant recipient means the local public
or private non-profit agency or for-profit
agency which has been designated as a
Head Start agency under 42 U.S.C. 9836
and which has been granted financial
assistance by the responsible HHS
official to operate a Head Start program.
Head Start means any program
authorized under the Head Start Act.
Head Start agency means a local
public or private non-profit or for-profit
entity designated by ACF to operate a
Head Start Preschool program, an Early
Head Start program, or Migrant or
Seasonal Head Start program pursuant
to the Head Start Act.
*
*
*
*
*
Head Start Preschool means a
program that serves children aged three
to compulsory school age, pursuant to
section 641(b) and (d) of the Head Start
Act. This includes Tribal and migrant or
seasonal programs.
*
*
*
*
*
Housing expenses means the total
annual expenses spent by the family on
rent or mortgage payments,
homeowner’s or renter’s insurance,
utilities, interest, and taxes on the
home. Utilities include electricity, gas,
water, sewer, and trash.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:04 Nov 17, 2023
Jkt 262001
Income means gross income and only
includes wages, business income,
veteran’s benefits, Social Security
benefits, unemployment compensation,
alimony, pension or annuity payments,
gifts that exceed the threshold for
taxable income, and military income
(excluding special pay for a member
subject to hostile fire or imminent
danger under 37 U.S.C. 310 or any basic
allowance for housing under 37 U.S.C.
403 including housing acquired under
the alternative authority under 10 U.S.C.
169 or any related provision of law).
Gross income only includes sources of
income provided in this definition; it
does not include refundable tax credits
nor any forms of public assistance.
*
*
*
*
*
Major renovation means any
individual or collective group of
renovation activities related to the same
facility that has a cost equal to or
exceeding $250,000 in Head Start funds.
Renovation activities that are intended
to occur concurrently or consecutively,
or altogether address a specific part or
feature of a facility, are considered a
collective group of renovation activities.
Unless included in a purchase
application, minor renovations and
repairs are excluded from major
renovations.
Migrant family means, for purposes of
Head Start eligibility, a family with
children under the age of compulsory
school attendance who changed their
residence by moving from one
geographic location to another, either
intrastate or interstate, within the
preceding two years for the purpose of
engaging in agricultural work.
*
*
*
*
*
Participant means a pregnant woman
or child who is enrolled in and receives
services from a Head Start Preschool, an
Early Head Start, a Migrant or Seasonal
Head Start, or an American Indian and
Alaska Native Head Start program.
*
*
*
*
*
Poverty line is set by the poverty
guidelines updated periodically in the
Federal Register by the U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services under
the authority of 42 U.S.C. 9902(2).
Poverty guidelines for the contiguousstates-and-DC apply to Puerto Rico and
U.S. Territories.
Program means any funded Head
Start Preschool, Early Head Start,
Migrant or Seasonal Head Start, Tribal,
or other program authorized under the
Act and carried out by an agency, or
delegate agency, to provide ongoing
comprehensive child development
services.
*
*
*
*
*
PO 00000
Frm 00092
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
Purchase means to buy an existing
facility, including outright purchase,
down payment or through payments
made in satisfaction of a mortgage or
other loan agreement, whether
principal, interest or an allocated
portion principal and/or interest. The
use of grant funds to make a payment
under a finance lease agreement, as
defined in the cost principles, is a
purchase subject to these provisions.
Purchase also refers to an approved use
of Head Start funds to continue paying
the cost of purchasing facilities or
refinance an existing loan or mortgage
beginning in 1987.
*
*
*
*
*
Suspension is the temporary removal
of a child from the learning setting
including all reductions in the amount
of time a child may be in attendance of
the regular group setting, either by
requiring the child to cease attendance
for a particular period of time or
reducing the number of days or amount
of time that a child may attend.
Requiring a child to attend the program
away from the other children in the
regular group setting is included in this
definition. Requiring the parent or the
parent’s designee to pick up a child for
reasons other than illness or injury is
also included in this definition.
*
*
*
*
*
Transportation services means the
planned transporting of children to and
from sites where an agency provides
services funded under the Head Start
Act. Transportation services can involve
the pick-up and discharge of children at
regularly scheduled times and prearranged sites, including trips between
children’s homes and program settings.
The term includes services provided
directly by the Head Start grant
recipient or delegate agency and
services which such agencies arrange to
be provided by another organization or
an individual. Incidental trips, such as
transporting a sick child home before
the end of the day, or such as might be
required to transport small groups of
children to and from necessary services,
are not included under the term.
*
*
*
*
*
Water fixtures used for human
consumption means fixtures used for
drinking, cooking, hand washing, teeth
brushing, food preparation,
dishwashing, and maintaining oral
hygiene.
[FR Doc. 2023–25038 Filed 11–15–23; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4184–40–P
E:\FR\FM\20NOP2.SGM
20NOP2
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 222 (Monday, November 20, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 80818-80908]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-25038]
[[Page 80817]]
Vol. 88
Monday,
No. 222
November 20, 2023
Part II
Department of Health and Human Services
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Administration for Children and Families
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
45 CFR Parts 1301, 1302, 1303, et al.
Supporting the Head Start Workforce and Consistent Quality Programming;
Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 88 , No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 80818]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Administration for Children and Families
45 CFR Parts 1301, 1302, 1303, 1304, and 1305
RIN 0970-AD01
Supporting the Head Start Workforce and Consistent Quality
Programming
AGENCY: Office of Head Start (OHS), Administration for Children and
Families (ACF), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We propose to add new requirements to the Head Start Program
Performance Standards (HSPPS) to support and stabilize the Head Start
workforce, including requirements for wages and benefits, breaks for
staff, and enhanced supports for staff health and wellness. We also
propose to enhance several existing requirements and add new
requirements to promote consistent quality of services across Head
Start programs. This includes proposed enhancements to requirements for
mental health services to better integrate these services into every
aspect of programs as well as elevate the role of mental health
consultation to support the well-being of children, families, and
staff. Enhancements are also proposed in the areas of family service,
worker family assignments, identifying and meeting community needs,
ensuring child safety, services for pregnant women and people, and
alignment with State early childhood systems. Finally, we propose minor
clarifications to existing standards to promote better transparency and
clarity of understanding for grant recipients.
DATES: Consideration will be given to comments received on or before
January 19, 2024.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by [docket number and/or
RIN number] by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Mail: Office of Head Start, Attention: Director of Policy
and Planning, 330 C Street SW, 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20201.
Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name
and docket number or Regulatory Information Number (RIN) for this
rulemaking. All comments received will be posted without change to
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lindsey Hutchison, Office of Head
Start, Division of Planning, Oversight, and Policy, 202-205-8539,
[email protected]. Telecommunications Relay users may dial 711
first.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Statutory Authority To Issue NPRM
III. Section-by-Section Discussion of Proposed Changes
Definition of Head Start and Related Terms (Sec. 1305.2)
Workforce Supports: Staff Wages (Sec. 1302.90)
The Need for Wage Requirements
Progress to Pay Parity for Head Start Education Staff With
Elementary School Education Staff
Pay Scale for All Staff
Minimum Pay Requirement
Wage Comparability Across Head Start Preschool and Early Head
Start
Staff for Whom Wage Standards Apply
Workforce Supports: Staff Benefits (Sec. 1302.90)
Workforce Supports: Staff Wellness (Sec. 1302.93)
Workforce Supports: Employee Engagement (Sec. Sec. 1302.92,
1302.101)
Mental Health Services (Subpart D; Subpart H; Subpart I)
1302 Subpart A--Eligibility, Recruitment, Selection, Enrollment,
and Attendance
1302 Subpart D--Health Program Services
Sec. 1302.40 Purpose
Sec. 1302.41 Collaboration and Communication With Parents
Sec. 1302.42 Child Health Status and Care
Sec. 1302.45 Child Mental Health and Social and Emotional Well-
Being
Sec. 1302.46 Family Support Services for Health, Nutrition, and
Mental Health
1302 Subpart H--Services to Enrolled Pregnant Women and People
1302 Subpart I--Human Resources Management
Sec. 1302.91 Staff Qualification and Competency Requirements
Sec. 1302.93 Staff Health and Wellness
Modernizing Head Start's Engagement With Families (Sec. Sec.
1302.11; 1302.13; 1302.15; 1302.34; 1302.50)
Community Assessment (Sec. 1302.11)
Adjustment for Excessive Housing Costs for Eligibility
Determination (Sec. 1302.12)
Migrant and Seasonal Head Start Eligibility (Sec. 1302.12)
Transportation & Other Barriers to Enrollment and Attendance
(Sec. Sec. 1302.14; 1302.16)
Serving Children With Disabilities (Sec. 1302.14)
Ratios in Center-Based Early Head Start Programs (Sec. 1302.21)
Center-Based Service Duration for Early Head Start (Sec.
1302.21)
Center-Based Service Duration for Head Start Preschool
(Sec. Sec. 1302.21; 1302.24)
Ratios in Family Child Care Settings (Sec. 1302.23)
Safety Practices (Sec. 1302.47)
Preventing and Addressing Lead Exposure (Sec. 1302.48)
Lead in Water
Lead in Paint
Notification
Conflicting Requirements
Family Service Worker Family Assignments (Sec. 1302.52)
Participation in Quality Rating and Improvement Systems (Sec.
1302.53)
Services to Enrolled Pregnant Women and People (Sec. 1302.80;
Sec. 1302.82)
Standards of Conduct (Sec. 1302.90)
Staff Training To Support Child Safety (Sec. Sec. 1302.92;
1302.101)
Incident Reporting (Sec. 1302.102)
Facilities Valuation (Sec. 1303.44)
Definition of Income (Sec. 1305.2)
Definition of Federal Interest and Major Renovations (Sec.
1305.2)
Definition of the Poverty Line (Sec. 1305.2)
Effective Dates
Removal of Outdated Sections
Compliance With Sec. 641A(a)(2) of the Act
Severability
IV. Regulatory Process Matters
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Federalism Assessment Executive Order 13132
Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 1999
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
V. Regulatory Impact Analysis
Introduction and Summary
A. Introduction
B. Summary of Benefits, Costs, and Transfers
Preliminary Economic Analysis of Impacts
A. Analytic Approach
B. Baseline: Budget, Staffing, and Slots
Baseline Budget Scenario
Baseline Scenario for Staffing, Wages, and Enrollment
Connecting Baseline Uncertainty With Differing Estimates of
Regulatory Effects
C. Workforce Supports: Staff Wages and Staff Benefits
Wage-Parity Targets
Disaggregation of Wage-Parity Policy Implementation Costs
Impact of the Minimum Pay Requirement
Impact on Expenditures Through Wage Compression
Overall Impacts of Wage Parity on Expenditures, Holding Benefits
Constant
Expenditures Associated With Fringe Benefits
Disaggregation of Fringe Benefit Estimates
Discussion of Uncertainty
D. Workforce Supports: Staff Wellness--Staff Breaks
E. Family Service Worker Family Assignments
F. Mental Health Services
G. Preventing and Addressing Lead Exposure
Lead in Water
Lead-Based Paint
H. Administrative Costs
I. Timing of Impacts
J. Sensitivity Analysis--Potential Enrollment Reductions
K. Alternative Policy Scenario: Required Retirement
[[Page 80819]]
L. Non-Quantified Impacts of Certain Elements of the Proposed
Rule
Estimated Impact of Relevant Provisions on Slot Loss
Expected Impact of Preventing and Addressing Lead Exposure
(Sec. 1302.48)
Additional Impact of Workforce Supports: Staff Wages and
Benefits (Sec. 1302.90)
Estimated Impact of Mental Health Services (Sec. 1302 Subpart
D; Subpart H; Subpart I)
Estimated Impact of Modernizing Engagement With Families (Sec.
1302.11; Sec. 1302.13; Sec. 1302.15; Sec. 1302.34; Sec. 1302.50)
Estimated Impact of Community Assessments (Sec. 1302.11)
Estimated Impact of Adjustment for Excessive Shelter Costs for
Eligibility Determination (Sec. 1302.12)
Estimated Impact of Migrant and Seasonal Head Start Eligibility
(Sec. 1302.12)
Estimated Impact of Serving Children With Disabilities (Sec.
1302.14)
Expected Benefits of Ratios in Center-Based Early Head Start
Programs (Sec. 1302.21)
Expected Benefits of Center-Based Service Duration for Early
Head Start (Sec. 1302.21)
Expected Benefits of Family Service Worker Family Assignments
(Sec. 1302.52)
Expected Benefits of Participation in Quality Rating and
Improvement Systems (Sec. 1302.53)
Expected Benefits of Services to Enrolled Pregnant People (Sec.
1302.80; Sec. 1302.82)
Expected Benefits of Standards of Conduct (Sec. 1302.90)
Expected Benefits of Staff Training To Support Child Safety
(Sec. 1302.92; Sec. 1302.101)
Expected Benefits of Definition of Income (Sec. 1305.2)
Initial Small Entity Analysis
A. Description and Number of Affected Small Entities
B. Description of the Potential Impacts of the Rule on Small
Entities
C. Alternatives To Minimize the Burden on Small Entities
I. Background
The Federal Head Start program provides early education and other
comprehensive services to children birth to age 5 and during pregnancy
in center- and home-based settings across the country. Since its
inception in 1965, Head Start has been a leader in providing high-
quality services that support the development of children from low-
income families, helping them enter kindergarten more prepared to
succeed in school and in life. Evidence continues to support the
positive outcomes for children and families who participate in and
graduate from Head Start programs.\1\ The most essential component to
accomplishing Head Start's mission of providing high-quality early
childhood education and comprehensive services is the workforce of
approximately 260,000 staff \2\ that provide the services to children
and families each day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Deming, D. (2009). Early Childhood Intervention and Life-
Cycle Skill Development: Evidence from Head Start. American Economic
Journal: Applied Economics, 1:3, 111-134.; Lipscomb, S.T., Pratt,
M.E., Schmitt, S.A., Pears, K.C., and Kim, H.K. (2013). School
readiness is children living in non-parental care: Impacts of Head
Start. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 31 (1), 28-37.
\2\ Source: Head Start 2022 Program Information Report (PIR).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, due to a severe nationwide staffing shortage, Head Start
grant recipients across the country are struggling to retain and hire
qualified staff to fully enroll classrooms. Early educators provide a
critical foundation for children to learn and develop \3\ and
positively impact children's outcomes.\4\ Strong, stable relationships
between young children and educators are the key to promoting early
development. If programs cannot retain high-quality staff, these
relationships are disrupted and outcomes for children and families are
negatively impacted.\5\ Currently, Head Start programs across the
nation are experiencing a severe staff shortage with turnover at its
highest point in two decades.\6\ For Head Start classroom teachers, the
rate of turnover has more than doubled over the past decade.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Burchinal, M., Zaslow, M., & Tarullo, L. (eds.) (2016).
Quality thresholds, features, and dosage in early care and
education: Secondary data analyses of child outcomes. Monographs of
the Society for Research in Child Development. 81(2).
\4\ Choi, Y., Horm, D., Jeon, S. & Ryu, D. (2019). Do Stability
of Care and Teacher-Child Interaction Quality Predict Child Outcomes
in Early Head Start?, Early Education and Development, 30:3, 337-
356.
\5\ Hamre, B., Hatfield, B., Pianta, R., Jamil, F. (2013).
Evidence for General and Domain-Specific Elements of Teacher-Child
Interactions: Associations with Preschool Children's Development.
Child Development, 85:3; Grunewald, R., Nunn, R., Palmer, V. (2022).
Examining teacher turnover in early care and education. Federal
Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.
\6\ Source: Head Start 2022 PIR.
\7\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low wages and poor benefits--despite increased expectations and
requirements for staff--are a key driver of rapidly increasing staff
turnover among Head Start teachers and staff. Since 2010, the share of
Head Start Preschool teachers with a bachelor's degree increased
substantially, but inflation-adjusted salaries for these teachers
decreased by 2 percent.\8\ Research indicates that well compensated
early childhood teachers and staff have lower turnover rates and
provide higher quality services.\9\ For decades, the Head Start program
has been subsidized by low paid workers committed to the mission; and
the absence of clear Federal requirements for staff compensation has
allowed this practice to continue. Urgent regulatory action is needed
to stabilize the workforce and ensure the Head Start program can
continue to fulfill its mission to promote strong outcomes for children
and families. The background context and need for this regulatory
action is expanded on further in the following paragraphs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Source: Head Start 2010-2022 PIR.
\9\ Bassok, D., Doromal, J., Michie, M., & Wong, V. (2021). The
Effects of Financial Incentives on Teacher Turnover in Early
Childhood Settings: Experimental Evidence from Virginia.
EdPolicyWorks at the University of Virginia.; Whitebook, M., Howes,
C., & Phillips, D. (2014). Worthy Work, STILL Unlivable Wages: The
Early Childhood Workforce 25 Years after the National Child Care
Staffing Study. Center for the Study of Child Care Employment.
https://cscce.berkeley.edu/publications/report/worthy-work-still-unlivable-wages/.; Whitebook, M., Sakai, L., Gerber, E., & Howes, C.
(2001). Then & Now: Changes in Child Care Staffing, 1994-2000.
Washington, DC: Center for the Child Care Workforce and Institute of
Industrial Relations, University of California, Berkeley. https://cscce.berkeley.edu/publications/report/then-and-now-changes-in-child-care-saffing-1994-2000/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Through the Improving Head Start for School Readiness Act of 2007
(the 2007 Reauthorization), which amended the Head Start Act (the Act),
Congress required the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to
ensure children and families receive the highest quality Head Start
services possible. In line with this, Congress mandated HHS to revise
the Head Start Program Performance Standards (HSPPS). Through the 2007
Reauthorization, Congress also made a number of changes to increase
qualifications and other requirements for staff, particularly education
staff. This proposed rule responds to the mandate to revise and improve
the HSPPS in the Act and makes additional revisions to the HSPPS that
were finalized in 2016.
The HSPPS, first published in the 1970s, are the foundation on
which programs design and deliver high-quality, comprehensive services
to children and their families. The HSPPS set forth the requirements
local grant recipients must meet to support the cognitive, social,
emotional, and healthy development of children enrolled in the program.
They include requirements to provide education, health, mental health,
nutrition, and family and community engagement services, as well as
requirements for local program governance and Federal administration of
the program. In response to requirements in the 2007 Reauthorization,
HHS conducted a major revision of the performance standards, through a
final rule published in 2016. In line with statutory requirements, the
2016 overhaul of the
[[Page 80820]]
performance standards updated and enhanced program requirements to
reflect the latest science on child development, while also
streamlining requirements where possible, to promote stronger
transparency and support programs to deliver more efficient and
effective services.
While the 2016 revision to the HSPPS gave careful attention to the
type and quality of early education and comprehensive services to be
provided to children and their families, as well as requirements for
training, professional development, and qualifications for staff, other
supports for the Head Start workforce were not included. Indeed, the
2007 Reauthorization and the 2016 revision to the HSPPS resulted in
enhanced requirements and responsibilities for program staff, but
lacked specific requirements for staff pay, benefits, and other
supports for staff wellness necessary to sustain a workforce that could
implement those quality provisions. For instance, while qualifications
for Head Start preschool teachers have increased dramatically over the
past decade (52 percent nationwide had a bachelor's degree in 2010
compared to 71 percent in 2022), inflation-adjusted salary for these
teachers decreased by 2 percent during this timeframe, from $39,912 in
2010 to $39,096 in 2022.\10\ Given the increased expectations and
requirements for these staff positions without corresponding increases
in wages, it is unsurprising that turnover among classroom teachers as
well as other staff positions has increased markedly over the past
decade.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Source: Head Start 2022 PIR.
\11\ Source: Head Start 2010-2022 PIR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For decades, Head Start staff--particularly frontline staff whose
daily job responsibilities include working directly with children and
families--have received low, stagnant wages, poor benefits, and
inadequate supports for health and wellness. Research demonstrates that
low wages in the early care and education (ECE) sector are a critical
driver of staff turnover.\12\ Frontline Head Start staff do important
and difficult jobs to promote the development of children participating
in Head Start and provide individualized supports to families. A strong
relationship between a child and their early educator provides the
foundation for all learning and development in ECE settings.\13\
Stability and continuity in these relationships are important for high-
quality care and for supporting positive developmental outcomes for
children.\14\ Conversely, a higher rate of turnover among ECE staff is
associated with lower quality services and care, as well as poorer
developmental outcomes for children.\15\ For instance, research has
demonstrated that turnover among early childhood educators is linked to
worse cognitive and social developmental outcomes in children birth to
age 5.\16\ Given this, the unprecedented rate of turnover and staff
vacancies programs are currently experiencing is concerning and
threatens the stability of the national Head Start program and the
quality of services it provides, which are a critical resource for
hundreds of thousands of families annually.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Whitebook, M., Philipps, D., & Howes, C. (2014). Worthy
work, still unlivable wages: The early childhood workforce 25 years
after the national child care staffing study. Center for the Study
of Child Care Employment.
\13\ Lippard, C.L., La Paro, K.M., Rouse, H.L., Crosby, D.A.
(2018). A closer look at teacher-child relationships and classroom
emotional context in preschool. Child Youth Care Forum, 47, 1-21.;
Sabol, T.J. & Pianta, R.C. (2012). Recent Trends in Research on
Teacher-Child Relationships. Attachment and Human Development,
14(3), 213-231.
\14\ Pianta, R. & Stuhlman, M.W. (2019). Teacher-child
relationships and children's success in the first years of school.
School Psychology Review, 33(3), 444-458; Ros Pilarz, A. & Hill,
H.D. (2014). Unstable and multiple child care arrangements and young
children's behavior. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 29(4), 471-
483; Tran, H. & Winsler, A.W. (2011). Teacher and center stability
and school readiness among low-income, ethnically diverse children
in subsidized, center-based child care. Children and Youth Services
Review, 33(11), 2241-2252.
\15\ Hale-Jinks, C., Knopf, H., & Kemple, K. (2006). Tackling
teacher turnover in childcare: Understanding causes and
consequences, identifying solutions. Childhood Education, 82, 219-
226.
\16\ Hale-Jinks, Knopf, & Kemple (2006). Tackling teacher
turnover in childcare: Understanding causes and consequences,
identifying solutions. Childhood Education, 82, 219-226.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Head Start and ECE programs nationwide have faced increasing rates
of staff turnover, a situation that has been exacerbated drastically by
the COVID-19 pandemic. While high staff turnover rates are an issue for
the entire ECE sector in the United States, HHS has the authority and
opportunity to address the systemic problems driving high turnover in
Head Start, and this NPRM proposes policies to address these issues. In
2022, turnover across all staff positions was 19 percent, marking the
highest rate of turnover in Head Start in over two decades, and a
drastic jump from 13.5 percent in 2019 (prior to the COVID-19
pandemic). While turnover rates were exacerbated by the labor market
conditions during the pandemic, the workforce challenges in Head Start
remain intractable even after some other industries have regained pre-
pandemic employment levels. Because Head Start serves the children and
families most in need, it is critical the workforce is well-positioned
to be stable as communities recover from the pandemic and during and
after future emergencies. Thus, the changes in this proposed regulation
are necessary in both the long and short terms. The staffing crisis
faced by programs across the nation is an untenable situation for the
future of Head Start. This proposed regulation is urgently needed to
establish clearer requirements for programs to support and stabilize
their workforce, while also serving those children and families most in
need of Head Start services. The challenges faced by the workforce--and
the need for Federal guardrails in the form of additional regulations--
are described in additional detail in the subsequent section, Workforce
Supports: Staff Wages.
This NPRM will also propose new or enhanced standards to promote
more consistent implementation of quality services in other
programmatic areas. Enhancements and clarifications to existing
standards are proposed in the following areas: family service worker
caseloads; procedures for identifying and meeting community needs,
including consideration of transportation as a possible barrier to
children's attendance; ensuring child safety; services for pregnant
women and people; and better aligning with State early childhood
systems. We also propose enhancements to requirements for mental health
services to integrate mental health more fully into every aspect of
program services, as well as elevate the role of mental health
consultation to support the well-being of children, families, and
staff. Existing requirements in the performance standards in these
areas are broad and flexible and have contributed to wide variation in
the quality of the implementation of those standards. For instance,
some programs have many families (e.g., more than 100 \17\) assigned to
one family service worker, which reduces the quality of services
provided to each family. Many programs have also made decisions to cut
transportation services as a primarily budgetary decision, resulting in
families in need of services no longer being able to attend the
program. Within constrained budgets, programs must make difficult
choices about where to invest funds as they strive to provide high-
quality Head Start services to as many eligible children as possible.
Programs often make decisions aimed at
[[Page 80821]]
enrolling as many children and families as possible and sometimes
accomplish this by cutting back on critical areas of services. The
enhancements proposed in this NPRM will promote more consistent
implementation of program services across a variety of areas,
ultimately improving outcomes for enrolled children and their families.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Source: Head Start 2022 PIR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, since the inception of the 2016 revision to the
performance standards, the Administration for Children and Families
(ACF) received feedback about areas where standards have not been
implemented as intended in the field, or areas where standards are not
clear. Therefore, this proposed regulation will also enhance and
clarify standards across a variety of areas, codify certain essential
best practices, and/or streamline processes for programs implementing
the standards, with the goal of further improving the quality of
services.
Finally, the changes proposed to the HSPPS are necessary to
maintain the quality of the Head Start program and respond to the
current early childhood landscape which has changed dramatically since
the HSPPS were first published in the 1970s and even since the 2016
overhaul of the HSPPS. As discussed elsewhere, Head Start workforce
compensation has not kept pace with inflation or with rising wages in
other industries. Further, post-pandemic workforce recovery has been
slow and mental and behavioral health issues have risen among children
and adults. Head Start programs must adapt and evolve to continue
leading the sector in quality programing for children and families.
These factors together suggest that regulatory action is warranted and
necessary. As explained in detail in this section and throughout the
NPRM, stronger workforce supports are necessary to meet the purpose of
the Act of promoting school readiness for low-income children. See 42
U.S.C. 9831. The Act authorizes the Secretary to modify the program
performance standards as necessary, and while the proposals here retain
flexibility and discretion that Head Start programs are accustomed to,
it is evident by the lagging compensation and other workforce supports
that additional guardrails are necessary to maintain quality. Head
Start's standards have historically provided a benchmark for high-
quality early childhood programs. This NPRM affirms that higher wages
and benefits are a key driver of quality in early childhood.
Establishing the new or enhanced standards described below--
particularly for the workforce--will promote higher-quality services
for children in Head Start programs across the country and are
necessary to ensure there is a stable workforce to maintain consistent
operations. There will be a substantial cost associated with enacting
the proposed standards at current Head Start funded enrollment levels.
However, ACF asserts that the policy proposals in this NPRM are
necessary for the Head Start program to continue to operate effectively
and meet its mission. ACF understands that as a result of these
necessary reforms, one potential impact could be a reduction in Head
Start slots in some programs in order to ensure the quality of services
delivered. The NPRM proposals contain some ability to mitigate the
magnitude of slot loss by providing a longer implementation timeline
for the proposed wage requirements (see a further discussion on this in
the section on Workforce Supports: Wage Requirements). While slot loss
is a difficult trade-off, a number of programs are already reducing
slots because they are forced to close classrooms due to a severe
shortage of qualified staff. The current staffing shortage needs to be
addressed quickly, as it is imperative that programs be able to retain
qualified staff in order to provide high-quality services to children
and prepare them for success in elementary school and beyond.\18\
Failure to act would threaten the ability for Head Start to continue to
recruit and retain effective staff and thereby deliver high-quality
services. This action carefully balances the ability of programs to
maintain staffing with the goal to serve as many children as possible,
while helping stabilize the Head Start program long-term. Further, the
establishment of new or enhanced expectations in program quality
through the proposed standards described in this NPRM will provide a
better foundation for more consistent implementation of high-quality
services and provide an opportunity for future Congressional
investments in quality improvement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Barr, A., & Gibbs, C.R. (2002). Breaking the Cycle?
Intergenerational Effects of an Antipoverty Program in Early
Childhood. Journal of Political Economy, 130.; Bauer, L., &
Schanzenbach, D. (2016). The Long-Term Impact of the Head Start
Program. The Hamilton Project, The Brookings Institution.; Deming,
D. (2009). Early Childhood Intervention and Life-Cycle Skill
Development: Evidence from Head Start. American Economic Journal:
Applied Economics, 111-134. Montialoux, C. (2016). Revisiting the
impact of Head Start. IRLE: Institute for Research on Labor and
Employment. University of California: Berkeley; Phillips, D.,
Gormley, W., & Anderson, S. (2016). The Effects of Tulsa's CAP Head
Start Program on Middle-School Academic Outcomes and Progress.
Developmental Psychology 52(8), 1247-61.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Statutory Authority To Issue NPRM
We publish this NPRM under the authority granted to the Secretary
of Health and Human Services by sections 640(a)(5)(A)(i) and (B)(viii),
641A, 645, 645A, 648A, and 653 of the Act (42 U.S.C. 9835, 9836a, 9840,
9840a, 9843a, and 9848), as amended by the Improving Head Start for
School Readiness Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110-134). Under these sections,
the Secretary is required to establish performance standards and other
regulations for Head Start and Early Head Start programs. Specifically,
the Act requires the Secretary to ``. . . modify, as necessary, program
performance standards by regulation applicable to Head Start agencies
and programs . . .'' \19\ and explicitly directs the Secretary to
prescribe eligibility standards, establish staff qualification goals,
and assure the comparability of wages. This rule meets the statutory
requirements Congress put forth in its 2007 bipartisan reauthorization
of the Head Start and addresses Congress's mandate that called for the
Secretary to review and revise the performance standards. As discussed
throughout the preamble, the performance standards in this proposed
rule build upon field knowledge and experience to codify best practices
and ensure Head Start programs deliver high-quality education and
comprehensive services to the children and families they serve. The
Secretary has determined that the modifications to performance
standards contained in this regulation are appropriate and needed to
effectuate the goals of the performance standards and the purposes of
the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See section 641A(a)(1) and (2) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Section-by-Section Discussion of Proposed Changes
Definition of Head Start and Related Terms (Sec. 1305.2)
Section 1305.2 establishes definitions for key terms used
throughout the HSPPS. These include terms to define programs that
operate Head Start services, including Early Head Start Agency, Head
Start Agency, and Program. We begin by explaining proposed changes to
clarify these terms and definitions used to describe Head Start and
Early Head Start programs. Our proposed changes will also promote more
consistent use of these terms throughout the HSPPS and in sub-
regulatory policy guidance and training and technical assistance (TTA)
materials developed by ACF. The proposed revised terms and definitions
described in this section are also used throughout
[[Page 80822]]
the rest of the preamble to describe other proposed changes, where
applicable.
First, the term Head Start, which is not currently defined in Sec.
1305.2, is used inconsistently throughout the current HSPPS, sometimes
in reference to a program that serves children ages three to compulsory
school age and other times in reference to any type of program
authorized under the Act. Consequently, this inconsistency is also
present throughout sub-regulatory policy and TTA documents published by
ACF. In some cases, a footnote is used to denote that the term Head
Start refers to programs including Head Start, Early Head Start, and
Migrant or Seasonal Head Start (MSHS). In other cases, the phrase
``Head Start and Early Head Start'' is used to represent all types of
programs. This inconsistency may be challenging for those who are new
to Head Start and troublesome for the field in the general. ACF
recognizes the need for consistent and clear terminology in this area.
Therefore, we propose to use the term Head Start as an umbrella
term that represents all program types authorized under the Act. We
propose to add to Sec. 1305.2 a definition for Head Start that states
that Head Start refers to any program authorized under the Head Start
Act. Furthermore, we propose to add to Sec. 1305.2 a definition for
Head Start Preschool so that programs that provide services to children
from age three to compulsory school age will be referred to as Head
Start Preschool (HSP). In order to maintain consistency across
definitions of program types, we also propose adding a definition of
Early Head Start that refers to a program that serves pregnant women
and children from birth to age three.
We propose two other definitional changes to align with the revised
terms above. First, we propose to revise the current definition of
Program by striking ``a Head Start'' and adding ``any funded Head Start
Preschool;'' striking ``migrant, seasonal, or'' and replacing with
``Migrant or Seasonal Head Start;'' and striking the word ``program''
and adding ``or other program authorized'' after the comma.
Furthermore, we propose to revise the definition of Head Start
Agency to add the word ``Preschool'' after ``Head Start'' and replace
the words after ``program'' with ``, an Early Head Start program, or
Migrant or Seasonal Head Start program pursuant to the Head Start
Act.'' We further propose to update the usage of these terms as they
are used throughout the HSPPS.
We propose to remove the term Early Head Start Agency. We further
propose a nomenclature change of ``grantee'' to ``grant recipient''. We
do not propose any changes to other relevant terms including Agency,
Delegate Agency, Indian Head Start Agency, and Migrant or Seasonal Head
Start Program.
We believe that these revised definitions will provide more clear
and consistent terminology when referring to the various program types
authorized by the Act and to the entirety of Head Start. Distinguishing
Head Start Preschool from Head Start is intended to improve
comprehension for both experienced and novice readers of the HSPPS and
will codify the colloquial use of the term Head Start.
Note that ACF will not consider comments regarding changes to the
HSPPS that purely reflect the updated usage of these terms, such as
those throughout Part 1304 Subpart B--Designation Renewal.
Workforce Supports: Staff Wages (Sec. 1302.90)
Section 1302.90 outlines requirements for personnel policies,
including the establishment of personnel policies and procedures,
background check procedures, standards of conduct, and communication
with dual language learners. In this section, we propose the addition
of a new paragraph (e) that outlines four areas of proposed
requirements for wages for Head Start staff. First, we describe
requirements for programs to make progress to pay parity with
kindergarten to third grade teachers, for Head Start education staff
who work directly with children as part of their daily job
responsibilities. Head Start programs will demonstrate progress to
parity by ensuring that Head Start educators are paid at a rate that is
at least comparable to preschool teachers in public school settings.
Second, we describe requirements to establish or enhance a salary
scale, wage ladder, or other pay structure that applies to all staff in
the program and incorporates the requirements for pay for education
staff. Third, we describe requirements that all staff must receive a
salary that is sufficient to cover basic costs of living in their
geographic area, including those at the lowest end of the pay
structure. Lastly, we describe requirements to affirm and emphasize
that the requirements for progress to pay parity should also promote
comparability of wages across Head Start Preschool and Early Head Start
staff positions. Taken together, implementing this set of standards
will stabilize and strengthen Head Start programs across the country by
ensuring competitive wages that will promote recruitment and retention
of qualified staff and support delivery of high-quality education and
comprehensive services for children and families. These proposed
standards will also support more equitable, fair wages for a workforce
that is largely comprised of women and people of color.
In addition to the authority to modify all program performance
standards, the Head Start Act mandates that programs provide
compensation that is adequate to attract and retain qualified staff to
enhance program quality. See 42 U.S.C. 9836A(a) and 42 U.S.C.
9835(a)(5)(i). Section 653 of the Head Start Act, 42 U.S.C. 9848
directs the Secretary to encourage Head Start agencies to provide
compensation according to salary scales that are based on training and
experience. This section also directs the Secretary to take such
actions as are necessary to assure that compensation is not in excess
of the average rate of compensation paid in the area where the program
is carried out to a substantial number of persons providing
substantially comparable services as well as See 42 U.S.C. 9848.
Historically, the Office of Head Start has seen very few instances of
excessive compensation for staff, especially for education staff, as
evidenced in data from the Program Information Report (PIR). Nothing in
these proposed regulations is expected to result in the excess
compensation described by Congress in this section. In rare cases,
there may be some risk that positions of leadership are paid salaries
in excess of compensation paid to similar positions. This risk should
be addressed with a program's wage scale. However, this limit is not
intended to suppress wages, because, as discussed herein, underpaid
staff is a pervasive issue. This section makes it clear that staff
salaries should be comparable to compensation in other comparable
services, including consideration of salaries paid to elementary school
staff. The proposed requirements will help programs design their staff
compensation packages and salary scales while still allowing programs
some flexibility to determine what works best for their program.
The Need for Wage Requirements
The main goals of Head Start programs are to support the
development of children from low-income families and to promote
economic self-sufficiency for families through the delivery of high-
quality comprehensive services. Head Start's critical mission is
carried out every day by the staff working with children and families.
Strong, stable relationships between children and their early educators
provide the foundation for
[[Page 80823]]
children to learn and develop.\20\ Indeed, research indicates that
high-quality interactions between staff and children in ECE settings
relate to stronger developmental outcomes for children.\21\ Conversely,
high turnover among ECE staff is related to lower quality education and
care and poorer outcomes for enrolled children.\22\ But, as described
previously, Head Start programs nationwide are experiencing a severe
shortage of staff across a variety of positions, particularly for those
that provide direct services to children and families. The staffing
crisis is a result of a confluence of factors, including persistently
low, stagnant wages, particularly for frontline staff; a lack of
comprehensive benefits; and insufficient supports for staff health and
wellness, despite increased need for staff to be more qualified, more
competent, and bear more complex job responsibilities. Urgent action
and change are needed to stabilize the Head Start workforce to ensure
the future viability of Head Start programs nationwide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Lippard, C.L., La Paro, K.M., Rouse, H.L., Crosby, D.A.
(2018). A closer look at teacher-child relationships and classroom
emotional context in preschool. Child Youth Care Forum, 47, 1-21;
Sabol, T.J. & Pianta, R.C. (2012). Recent Trends in Research on
Teacher-Child Relationships. Attachment and Human Development,
14(3), 213-231.
\21\ Nguyen, T., Ansari, A., Pianta, R., Whittaker, J.V.,
Vitiello, V.E., & Ruzek, E. (2020). The classroom relational
environment and children's early development in preschool. Social
Development, 00, 1-21; Pearlman, M., Falenchuk, O., Fletcher, B.,
McMullen, E., Beyene, J., & Shah, P. (2016). A Systematic Review and
Meta-Analysis of a Measure of Staff/Child Interaction Quality (the
Classroom Assessment Scoring System) in Early Childhood Education
and Care Settings and Child Outcomes, PLOS ONE 11 (12).
\22\ Bassok, D., Markowitz, A.J., Bellows, L., Sadowski, K.
(2021). New Evidence on Teacher Turnover in Early Childhood.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 43(1), 172-180;
Phillips, D., Austin, L.J.E., & Whitebook, M. (2016). The Early Care
and Education Workforce. The Future of Children, 26(2), 139-158.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The qualifications, expectations, and responsibilities of Head
Start staff have significantly increased over the past decade, first
with the reauthorization of the Head Start Act in 2007 and then with
the revisions to the HSPPS finalized in 2016. This increase in
expectations and responsibilities is largely a reflection of advancing
science in child development, particularly research on birth to 5 as an
important period for brain development and as a critical foundation on
which all later development builds.\23\ Relatedly, our understanding of
what an early educator needs to know and do in order to effectively
promote child development during this period has also advanced. A
notable report from the National Academies for Science, Engineering,
and Medicine provided a framework for knowledge and competencies that
early educators need, grounded in the latest science on child
development.\24\ A subsequent report from the National Academies
highlighted the importance of a highly qualified ECE workforce that is
well compensated with appropriate professional development supports and
career opportunities, in order to provide high quality services to
children and families.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Institute of Medicine and National Research Council.
(2015). Transforming the Workforce for Children Birth Through Age 8:
A Unifying Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies
Press.; National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. (2000).
From Neurons to Neighborhoods: The Science of Early Childhood
Development. Committee on Integrating the Science of Early Childhood
Development. Jack P. Shonkoff and Deborah A. Phillips, eds. Board on
Children, Youth, and Families, Commission on Behavioral and Social
Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
\24\ Institute of Medicine and National Research Council.
(2015). Transforming the Workforce for Children Birth Through Age 8:
A Unifying Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
\25\ National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
(2018). Transforming the Financing of Early Care and Education.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, these increased expectations, qualifications, and
requirements have not been followed by increases in compensation. As a
result, average wages have remained low and stagnant for years,
particularly for staff who work directly with children and families as
their primary job responsibility. From 2010 to 2022, the share of Head
Start Preschool teachers with a bachelor's degree increased from 52
percent to 71 percent, but inflation-adjusted salaries for these
teachers decreased by 2 percent during this timeframe, with an average
teacher salary of just $39,096 in 2022 compared to $39,912 in 2010.\26\
By comparison, in 2022, the average salaries for a preschool teacher in
a school-based setting and a kindergarten teacher were $53,200 and
$65,120, respectively.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Source: Head Start 2010-2022 PIR.
\27\ U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Occupational Employment
and Wages. May 2022. 25-2012 Kindergarten Teachers, Except Special
Education. https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes252012.htm; U.S.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. Occupational Employment and Wages. May
2022. 25-2011 Preschool Teachers, Except Special Education. https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes252011.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a persistent issue not just for Head Start, but also for
the broader early childhood field. ECE as a field is comprised
primarily of women--including a large share of women of color--doing
work that has been historically uncompensated and led to today's
workforce being undervalued and underpaid.\28\ Additionally, ACF
administrative data indicates that just over 60 percent of Head Start
education staff (i.e., teachers, assistant teachers, home visitors, and
family child care providers) are people of color.\29\ It is critical to
maintain and strengthen the incredible diversity of our workforce while
we seek to fix the historic problem of a reliance on staff committed to
the mission of early care and education that has led to an underpaid
workforce today. This is especially important since Head Start programs
serve a large share of children of color and there are benefits when
program staff reflect the communities they serve.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Whitebook, M., Philipps, D., & Howes, C. (2014). Worthy
work, still unlivable wages: The early childhood workforce 25 years
after the national child care staffing study. Center for the Study
of Child Care Employment; U.S. Department of Labor (2022). Bearing
the cost: How overrepresentation in undervalued jobs disadvantaged
women during the pandemic. https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/WB/media/BearingTheCostReport.pdf.
\29\ Source: Head Start 2021 PIR.
\30\ Downer, J.T., Goble, P., Myers, S.S., & Pianta, R.C.
(2016). Teacher-child racial/ethnic match within pre-kindergarten
classrooms and children's early school adjustment. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 37, 26-38.; Markowitz, A., Bassok, D., &
Grissom, J.A. (2020). Teacher-child racial/ethnic match and parental
engagement with Head Start. American Educational Research Journal,
57(5), 2132-2174.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to low compensation, Head Start staff often report
insufficient supports for their health and wellness. Even prior to the
pandemic, many Head Start programs reported challenges with increasing
rates of staff stress and burnout, which is a common experience
throughout ECE programs. See the section in this NPRM on Workforce
Supports: Staff Wellness for a fuller discussion on the poor physical
and mental health experienced by Head Start and other ECE staff, as
well as proposed new standards for supports to address these issues.
Taken together, low wages and benefits for demanding work, and high
rates of stress and burnout, are causing qualified staff to leave for
higher paid positions with better benefits in public schools or to
leave the early childhood field entirely (e.g., retail, service, food
industries).\31\ The turnover rate for Head Start classroom teachers
doubled over the past decade, from 11 percent in 2010 to an alarming 22
percent in 2022.\32\ As a point of comparison, in 2019, turnover for
preschool teachers in school-based
[[Page 80824]]
settings was about 7.7 percent.\33\ This situation has also been
exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, during which staff continued to
do their utmost to support children and families despite high
uncertainty and widespread closure of many aspects of the economy
across the country. Across all Head Start staff positions, between 2019
and 2022 turnover jumped by an unprecedented 41 percent, from 13.5
percent to 19 percent.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ National Head Start Association (NHSA). (2023). An Update
on Head Start's Ongoing Workforce Crisis. Washington, DC: NHSA.
\32\ Source: Head Start 2022 PIR.
\33\ Grunewald, R., Nunn, R., Palmer, V. (2022). Examining
teacher turnover in early care and education. Federal Reserve Bank
of Minneapolis.
\34\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall, these turnover rates are sobering and have grim
implications for the viability of Head Start if they are not addressed.
Given these rates of turnover, it is unsurprising that many programs
are unable to reach full enrollment and/or are impeded from providing
high-quality services to enrolled children and families. Inadequate and
unstable staffing prevents programs from opening all classrooms,
conducting home visits, providing family services, or providing
transportation services. In April 2022, about two-thirds of Head Start
programs reported experiencing significant enrollment challenges and
half of those programs reported that staffing shortages contributed to
those challenges, which resulted in many classroom closures.\35\
Furthermore, in a 2022 survey of 900 Head Start programs staff
conducted by the National Head Start Association, 85 percent of
respondents indicated staff turnover was higher than in a typical
program year. Almost all respondents (90 percent) said staff shortages
forced their programs to close classrooms either permanently or
temporarily. Over half (57 percent) of respondents said compensation is
the number one reason staff are leaving Head Start programs.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Source: Head Start program monthly enrollment data reported
internally to OHS. Note that the percent of programs experiencing
staffing challenges is likely higher since it was not explicitly
requested that programs report this information.
\36\ National Head Start Association (NHSA). (2022). Confronting
Head Start's Workforce Crisis. Washington, DC: NHSA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a November 2022 survey conducted by ACF on a random sample of
Head Start grant recipients, the majority reported experiencing
shortages with teaching positions (85 percent), assistant teaching
positions (86 percent), bus drivers (70 percent), and home visitor
positions (60 percent).\37\ At least half of those recipients described
the staff shortage as very severe for teachers (59 percent), bus
drivers (53 percent), and assistant teachers (50 percent).\38\ These
shortages were forcing the closure of a large portion of classrooms for
the majority of respondents, with nearly half reporting difficulty
keeping up to a quarter of their classrooms open and another 16 percent
reporting difficult keeping up to half of their classrooms open.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ Source: OHS administered survey on background checks and
the workforce. Percentages exclude positions reported as not
applicable.
\38\ In the survey, recipients were instructed that ``high'' or
very severe indicates the staffing shortage is a severe problem for
that position. For example, there are several staff vacancies and/or
relatively high turnover, impacting enrollment to a great extent;
there are concerns that these issues cannot be resolved within the
next few months.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This problem is not unique to Head Start, as a recent study in
North Carolina found that the most common reason staff leave the early
childhood workforce in the State is to make more money.\39\ Indeed, a
large body of research indicates that low wages in the field of ECE are
a strong driver of turnover among staff. And some research indicates
that low wages are in fact the strongest determinant of staff turnover,
with the lowest paid early educators being twice as likely to leave
their jobs compared to the highest paid early educators.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ Child Care Services Association, 2020.
childcareservices.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/CCSA_2020_TchrTurnover_Brief_Final_Interactive-FINAL.pdf.
\40\ Caven, M., Khanani, N., Zhang, X., & Parker, C. E. (2021).
Center-and program-level factors associated with turnover in the
early childhood education workforce (REL 2021-069). U.S. Department
of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for
Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational
Laboratory Northeast & Islands.; Whitebook, M., Howes, C., &
Phillips, D. (2014). Worthy Work, STILL Unlivable Wages: The Early
Childhood Workforce 25 Years after the National Child Care Staffing
Study. Center for the Study of Child Care Employment. https://cscce.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/publications/ReportFINAL.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each staff position in a program is critical to the mission and
vision of Head Start, and to the delivery of high-quality services. As
summarized previously, strong, stable relationships between young
children and their teachers and caregivers provide a critical
foundation for children to learn and develop.\41\ If programs cannot
retain high-quality education staff, these relationships are disrupted
and outcomes for children and families are negatively impacted.\42\
Research indicates that stable early care and education and strong
teacher-child relationships positively influence children's
outcomes.\43\ In addition, family services staff in Head Start programs
play a critical role of engaging and supporting economic stability of
families (see the section on Family Service Worker Family Assignments
for a further discussion on the critical role of these staff). Further,
capable, consistent leadership and management staff are necessary to
support a high functioning work environment that is positive and
welcoming for both direct service staff and children and families. Bus
drivers, janitors, and cooks are needed to ensure other important
aspects of Head Start services are provided in a high-quality manner,
including safe transportation, clean environments, and nutritious meals
for children. Without a workforce at all levels that is stable, well-
compensated, and supported, Head Start is not able to fully meet its
mission of closing the achievement gap and preparing young children
from low-income families for entry into kindergarten. Head Start staff
work with children that need a range of developmental supports to
ensure their success and preparedness for school. In order to break the
cycle of poverty for children in Head Start, it is critical that the
key change agents in this process (the staff) are compensated
appropriately and supported in achieving their mission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ Burchinal, M., Zaslow, M., & Tarullo, L. (eds.) (2016).
Quality thresholds, features, and dosage in early care and
education: Secondary data analyses of child outcomes. Monographs of
the Society for Research in Child Development. 81(2).
\42\ Hamre, B., Hatfield, B., Pianta, R., Jamil, F. (2013).
Evidence for General and Domain-Specific Elements of Teacher-Child
Interactions: Associations with Preschool Children's Development.
Child Development, 85:3; Grunewald, R., Nunn, R., Palmer, V. (2022).
Examining teacher turnover in early care and education. Federal
Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.
\43\ Choi, Y., Horm, D., Jeon, S. & Ryu, D. (2019). Do Stability
of Care and Teacher-Child Interaction Quality Predict Child Outcomes
in Early Head Start?, Early Education and Development, 30:3, 337-
356.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To promote the retention of talented staff at all levels of the
program, fill vacancies in a sustainable manner, keep classrooms open,
provide the highest quality services, and ultimately promote strong
outcomes for enrolled children and their families, staff must receive
compensation (wages and benefits) that better reflects their experience
and qualification and the value and importance of their critical work,
as well as necessary staff wellness supports.\44\ Compensation must be
competitive with other local employers that draw qualified staff away
from
[[Page 80825]]
Head Start, including local school districts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ Institute of Medicine (IOM) and National Research Council
(NRC). 2015. Transforming the workforce for children birth through
age 8: A unifying foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies
Press.; Rhodes, H., & Huston, A. (2012). Building the Workforce Our
Youngest Children Deserve. Social Policy Report. Volume 26, Number
1. Society for Research in Child Development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is a clear need for better guardrails in the form of strong
Federal requirements in this area. While ACF strongly values local
flexibility and has historically allowed for substantial local
flexibility in many areas of service delivery, in other areas, the
HSPPS are quite prescriptive about what all programs must do. One area
in which flexibility is most prominent is in what ACF currently
requires for the workforce, including wages, benefits, and other
supports for health and wellness. For instance, currently, the HSPPS do
not require wage targets or include other compensation requirements for
Head Start programs, and national program data show that Head Start
grant recipients have historically prioritized serving more children
over increasing wages for qualified education staff to be comparable to
similar industries that compete for these staff, particularly
elementary schools. This is not because programs do not value their
staff or want to compensate them fairly.
Without additional appropriations, programs would have to serve
fewer children to achieve the necessary cost savings to fund increases
in staff compensation. Faced with this difficult decision to either
increase staff compensation or serve the same number or more children,
Head Start grant recipients have, in general, chosen to serve the same
or more children and have chosen to rely on a mission-committed
workforce--largely women of color--to bear the cost of this decision.
In the fall of 2022, ACF published an information memorandum (IM)
encouraging programs to consider restructuring their programs,
including reducing the number of children served if needed, in order to
permanently increase staff compensation. Since the release of this IM,
many programs have responded to this guidance and taken initial steps
to improve wages; however, despite this, compensation for Head Start
staff still falls far below that in the public education sector. It is
clear that regulatory action is needed in order to provide Head Start
staff with appropriate compensation and stabilize the program long-
term.
The proposed changes to workforce supports will provide clarity to
Head Start grant recipients that, in the absence of additional
appropriations, slot loss is an acceptable tradeoff in order to improve
staff compensation and other supports. Without required compensation
targets at the Federal level, severe inequities in the pay of these
workers will likely persist. This fact jeopardizes the ability of Head
Start programs to provide high-quality services and promote strong
outcomes for children and results in classrooms being closed due to
staffing shortages.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ Source: Head Start program monthly enrollment data reported
internally to OHS. Note that the percent of programs experiencing
staffing challenges is likely higher since it was not explicitly
requested that programs report this information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In other words, failure to address the current severe inequities in
pay would likely also have a negative impact on the number of children
served due to ongoing and worsening staffing shortages. The proposed
regulations in this area will promote consistent expectations in staff
pay and once implemented, will substantially increase the ability of
programs to recruit and retain qualified staff.
Even at the expense of serving more children in the absence of
additional appropriations, these changes are necessary for Head Start
programs to enable the children that are served to reach their full
potential and attain school readiness. A stable, well-qualified
workforce is fundamental to providing high-quality Head Start services
to children and families.
We recognize there will be costs associated with enacting the
proposed standards at current Head Start funded enrollment levels,
however, we note that the number of children currently served in Head
Start is well below the funded enrollment level, primarily due to
closed classrooms because programs cannot find qualified staff. While
programs may need to reduce their funded slots to better reflect their
enrollment levels, we expect that many programs will be able to
redirect portions of their budget to wage increases and other
requirements. As described in this section, we propose a 7-year ramp-up
for the full implementation of the new wage requirements. This will
allow ample time for programs to prepare for implementation. Due to the
long implementation timeline, reductions in the number of children
served would not be realized immediately or soon after the effective
date of a final rule and would only occur in future years in the
absence of additional funding. We understand funded slot loss is a
difficult trade-off to consider, but a number of programs are already
requesting and enacting slot reductions due to closed classrooms that
are a result of staffing challenges, and programs are often proposing
to reinvest these cost savings into better wage and other supports for
staff. The current staffing challenges and inequities that Head Start
is facing make it imperative to act now to establish these requirements
that are critical to set the Head Start program on the pathway to
stabilizing their workforce that can allow for continued high quality
operations of this program.
The following four sections go into more detail on the proposed
standards to establish this pathway which include requirements for: (1)
progress to pay parity for Head Start education staff with elementary
school education staff (Sec. 1302.90(e)(2); (2) pay scale for all
staff (Sec. 1302.90(e)(1)); (3) minimum pay standard Sec.
1302.90(e)(3); and (4) wage comparability across Head Start Preschool
and Early Head Start Sec. 1302.90(e)(4).
Progress To Pay Parity for Head Start Education Staff With Elementary
School Education Staff
We intentionally begin with a discussion of the proposed standards
in new paragraph Sec. 1302.90(e)(2), Progress to pay parity for
education staff with elementary school staff, as the rationale for
these standards sets the foundation for the rest of the proposed wage
standards. This set of proposed standards requires programs to make
progress towards achieving pay parity for Head Start education staff
with kindergarten through third grade teachers by providing these staff
with wages that are at least comparable to those paid to public school
preschool teachers. These proposed standards require programs to take
into account staff responsibilities, qualifications, and experience
when determining these wages. In the context of these standards, Head
Start education staff refers to those staff who work directly with
children as part of their daily job responsibilities, including lead
teachers, assistant teachers, home visitors and family child care
providers. There is a body of research evidence to indicate that
increasing compensation can help with retention of ECE teachers.
Studies of the broader ECE field indicate strategies to improve
compensation for ECE professionals can improve employment stability for
teachers and reduce turnover (and vice versa, with lower wages linked
to higher turnover).\46\ For
[[Page 80826]]
instance, a recent randomized controlled trial study in Virginia found
that financial incentives (i.e., bonuses) for early educators of up to
$1,500 reduced teacher turnover by 11 percentage points, with even
stronger impacts for educators with the lowest levels of
compensation.\47\ Other research demonstrates that programs that have
better compensated staff also have lower turnover and provide higher
quality services to children.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ Bassok, D., Doromal, J., Michie, M., & Wong, V. (2021). The
Effects of Financial Incentives on Teacher Turnover in Early
Childhood Settings: Experimental Evidence from Virginia.
EdPolicyWorks at the University of Virginia.; Caven, M., Khanani,
N., Zhang, X., & Parker, C.E. (2021). Center-and program-level
factors associated with turnover in the early childhood education
workforce (REL 2021-069). U.S. Department of Education, Institute of
Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and
Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Northeast &
Islands.
\47\ Bassok et al. (2021).
\48\ Whitebook, M., Howes, C., & Phillips, D. (2014). Worthy
Work, STILL Unlivable Wages: The Early Childhood Workforce 25 Years
after the National Child Care Staffing Study. Center for the Study
of Child Care Employment. https://cscce.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/publications/ReportFINAL.pdf.; Whitebook, M., Sakai, L.,
Gerber, E., & Howes, C. (2001). Then & Now: Changes in Child Care
Staffing, 1994-2000. Washington, DC: Center for the Child Care
Workforce and Institute of Industrial Relations, University of
California, Berkeley. https://cscce.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/publications/Then-and-Now.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several states, cities, and localities are implementing targeted
efforts to strengthen wages for early educators. For instance, San
Francisco is newly investing up to $60 million annually to
significantly raise wages for educators in eligible ECE programs in the
city. The investment will raise annual salaries by anywhere from $8,000
to $30,000 and by 2025, the city aims to ensure all early educators in
eligible programs are earning at least $28 per hour.\49\ Further,
through the formation of the Early Childhood Educator Equitable
Compensation Task Force, the District of Columbia recently developed a
pay scale for all early educators in DC that will promote pay parity
for early educators with elementary teachers, with gradations within
the pay scaled based on job role, credentials, and experience.\50\
Additionally, New Mexico created two programs to support the early
childhood workforce. In 2021, New Mexico created a $1,500 incentive
payment plan in recognition of pandemic recovery efforts.\51\ Later, in
2022, New Mexico began a new initiative where child care providers are
able to apply for funding to increase their staff wages $3 per hour for
all staff, and raise the wage floor to $15 per hour for new teachers
and $20 per hour for lead teachers.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ Retrieved from: https://sfdec.org/mayor-breed-announces-landmark-pay-raise-initiative-for-early-educators-in-city-funded-programs/.
\50\ Early Educator Equitable Compensation Task Force. (March
2022). Final Report of the Early Educator Equitable Compensation
Task Force. Washington, DC. Retrieved from: https://lims.dccouncil.gov/downloads/LIMS/49122/Introduction/RC24-0154-Introduction.pdf.
\51\ New Mexico Early Childhood Education and Care Department.
(2021). Child Care Workers in New Mexico Eligible for $1,500
Incentive Payments. https://www.nmececd.org/2021/11/01/child-care-workers-in-new-mexico-eligible-for-1500-incentive-payments/.
\52\ New Mexico Early Childhood Education and Care Department.
(2022) Gov. Lujan Grisham announces historic pay increase for early
childhood workforce. https://www.nmececd.org/2022/10/11/gov-lujan-grisham-announces-historic-pay-increase-for-early-childhood-workforce/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are four provisions to the proposed Sec. 1302.90(e)(2). We
begin with a proposed standard, Sec. 1302.90(e)(2)(i) that requires
programs to make progress towards pay parity for Head Start and Early
Head Start teachers with kindergarten through 3rd grade teachers by
providing wages that are at least comparable with preschool teachers in
the local public schools. The proposed standard requires a program to
make measurable progress towards pay parity for Head Start teachers
with kindergarten through third grade teachers. To demonstrate progress
to pay parity, by August 1, 2031, a program must ensure each Head Start
teacher receives an annual salary that is at least comparable to the
annual salary paid to preschool teachers in public school settings in
the program's local or neighboring school district, adjusted for
responsibilities, qualifications, and experience. A program may provide
annual salaries comparable to a neighboring school district if the
salaries are higher than a program's local school district. We
recognize there are many nuances to this proposed standard, and we
further explain our intent in the following paragraphs.
First, the standard states that a program must make measurable
progress towards pay parity for Head Start teachers with kindergarten
through 3rd grade teachers. Teachers in these elementary grades perform
similar duties and have similar responsibilities in supporting young
children's learning and development--in other words, they provide
similar services--as teachers in Head Start programs. It is widely
understood in the fields of child development and education that the
`early childhood' developmental stage encompasses birth through age
8.\53\ Indeed, a recent well-regarded report from the Institute of
Medicine and National Research Council provides a framework and
foundation for supporting the workforce that educates and works with
children from birth through age 8.\54\ The report emphasizes that this
developmental time period should be supported holistically by
supporting the diverse workforce that works with this age group across
sectors. Typically, children are 8 years old when they enter 3rd grade,
which aligns with our reference point in the proposed standard for
programs to make progress towards pay parity for Head Start teachers
with public school teachers through 3rd grade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ American Academy of Pediatrics. (2023). Early childhood.
https://www.aap.org/en/patient-care/early-childhood/; Hyson, M., &
Tomlinson, H.B. (2014). The early years matter: Education, care, and
the well-being of children, birth to 8. Washington, DC: National
Association for the Education of Young Children and Teachers College
Press.
\54\ Institute of Medicine (IOM) and National Research Council
(NRC). 2015. Transforming the workforce for children birth through
age 8: A unifying foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies
Press.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite the similar roles and responsibilities of Head Start
teachers and elementary teachers both working with children in early
childhood, these educators have stark differences in average pay. For
instance, in 2022 average pay was approximately: $39,096 for Head Start
Preschool teachers and $32,373 for Early Head Start teachers,\55\ as
compared to $53,200 for preschool teachers in school-based settings and
$65,120 for public school kindergarten teachers.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ Source: Head Start 2022 PIR.
\56\ U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Occupational Employment
and Wages. May 2022. 25-2012 Kindergarten Teachers, Except Special
Education. https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes252012.htm; U.S.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. Occupational Employment and Wages. May
2022. 25-2011 Preschool Teachers, Except Special Education. https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes252011.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This represents alarming pay gaps for Head Start Preschool teachers
and Early Head Start teachers compared to both kindergarten teachers
and school-based preschool teachers. Furthermore, as discussed
previously, many Head Start teachers are highly skilled and
credentialed; 71 percent of Head Start Preschool teachers and 23
percent of Early Head Start teachers have at least a bachelor's degree.
Further, 94 percent of Head Start Preschool teachers and 45 percent of
Early Head Start teachers have at least an associate degree.\57\ Head
Start programs often report that they compete with public schools to
retain teachers, particularly those with bachelor's degrees, as they
are well qualified to work in elementary school settings. In fact, Head
Start programs in multiple school districts across the country have
anecdotally reported to ACF that public schools are intentionally
recruiting their most qualified Head Start teachers. Therefore, the
first part of this standard sets the goal of making progress toward pay
parity for Head Start educators with elementary school educators by
[[Page 80827]]
narrowing the pay gap between these groups. The proposed standard also
requires ``measurable progress'' towards pay parity, which is discussed
further below in the context of proposed Sec. 1302.90(e)(2)(iv).
Finally, this language also aligns with section 653(a) of the Act,
which requires that program staff are not paid in excess of the average
rate of compensation in the area where the program is carried out to a
substantial number of persons providing comparable services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ Source: Head Start 2022 PIR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Next, assuming publication of a final rule in 2024, this standard
provides approximately a 7-year implementation window for programs to
meet this requirement by August 2031, aligning with the approximate
start of a new program year. We believe this 7-year window is necessary
to allow programs sufficient time to thoughtfully plan and prepare for
implementation of this standard, without impacting currently enrolled
students. We recognize it will require significant effort on the part
of programs to establish and revise their pay structures to align with
these proposed requirements (and a requirement to establish or update
an overall pay structure is discussed further in the next section). The
7-year implementation timeline also creates an opportunity for future
potential Congressional investment in Head Start.
However, we recognize that there are a range of possible options
regarding the effective dates for the proposed standards to improve
staff wages. We request public comment on our proposed effective date
for this standard for progress to pay parity for Head Start teachers.
Next, the proposed standard (Sec. 1302.90(e)(2)(i)) clarifies that
programs must demonstrate they are making progress to pay parity by
ensuring that the salary paid to Head Start Preschool and Early Head
Start teachers is at least comparable to the salary paid to preschool
teachers in public school settings. The goal of this phrasing is to
clarify that, in order to demonstrate sufficient progress on pay parity
for Head Start teachers with kindergarten through third grade teachers,
programs must ensure Head Start teachers receive wages that are, on
average, comparable with those paid to preschool teachers in elementary
and secondary schools, who are educating young children. This standard
serves as a progress marker towards ultimately achieving full pay
parity for Head Start teachers with kindergarten through third grade
teachers. As noted previously, preschool teachers in school-based
settings earn an average annual salary of $53,200,\58\ which is $14,000
more than the average salary of $39,096 for Head Start Preschool
teachers and nearly $21,000 more than the average salary of $32,373 for
Early Head Start teachers.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Occupational Employment
and Wages. May 2022. 25-2011 Preschool Teachers, Except Special
Education. https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes252011.htm.
\59\ Source: Head Start 2022 PIR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The target comparison of preschool teachers in public school
settings is intended to represent substantial progress towards parity
with K-third grade public school elementary teachers. Specifically, we
intend the benchmark of preschool teacher annual salaries in public
school settings to represent about 90% of the amount of kindergarten
teacher annual salaries, for those with comparable qualifications.\60\
Achieving wages for Head start teachers that are at least comparable to
salaries for preschool teachers in school-based settings will provide a
significant boost in wages for this well-qualified but underpaid
workforce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ This analysis uses BLS average annual salaries as wage
targets. However, since the BLS national average for kindergarten
teacher salaries ($65,120) includes all kindergarten teachers, of
which approximately half have a master's degree or higher, adjust
this annual salary to reflect the target salary for a teacher with a
bachelor's degree ($58,608) guided by salary differences observed in
National Center for Education Statistics data (https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/ntps/). The BLS reported annual salary for preschool teacher
in school settings ($53,200) is therefore approximately 90% of the
annual salary for kindergarten teachers with a bachelor's degree
($58,608).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Next, the proposed standard, Sec. 1302.90(e)(2)(i), states that
wages for Head Start teachers should be comparable to preschool
teachers in school-based settings in the program's local school
district. However, research indicates that teachers in public schools
that serve a high proportion of children living in poverty are paid
significantly lower on average compared to teachers in low-poverty
schools.\61\ To avoid unintentionally suppressing wage growth of Head
Start teachers by requiring a comparison to public school teachers in
only one school district, who may be underpaid, we include an
additional sentence in Sec. 1302.90(e)(2)(i) that allows a program to
provide annual salaries comparable to a neighboring school district if
the salaries are higher than a program's local school district. This
sentence intentionally allows a Head Start program the flexibility to
consider salaries of preschool teachers in public schools across
multiple school districts in their geographic area when determining
what benchmark to use for teacher salaries, if those school districts
offer higher salaries. We recognize some programs may be located in
geographic areas where there is not a sufficient number of preschool
teachers in public schools in their local or neighboring school
district to benchmark to, in terms of comparable wages. Below, we
discuss proposed Sec. 1302.90(e)(2)(iii) that describes what programs
should do in these instances, to develop an appropriate wage
comparison. We request comment on any barriers that Head Start programs
may face in identifying a comparable population of school-based
preschool teachers for the purposes of benchmarking wages and whether
the options described below for an alternative method to benchmark to
preschool wages are sufficient to overcome any potential challenges. We
also request comment on whether the benchmark of annual salaries paid
to public school preschool teachers is an accurate reflection of
approximately 90% of annual salaries paid to kindergarten teachers with
comparable qualifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ Garcia, E., & Weiss, E. (2019). Low relative pay and high
incidence of moonlighting play a role in the teacher shortage,
particularly in high-poverty schools. The third report in `The
Perfect Storm in the Teacher Labor Market' series. Washington, DC:
Economic Policy Institute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the proposed standard, Sec. 1302.90(e)(2)(i), requires a
program to consider responsibilities, qualifications, and experience of
the teachers when determining salaries. This aligns with
recommendations from ECE research experts, which suggest that wages for
the ECE workforce should be reflective of job role, experience, and
education.\62\ This portion of the proposed standard acknowledges that
responsibilities and expectations of a job position should be a key
factor in determining wages. In general, an individual in a given
position with a more advanced degree or credential should be
compensated more than an individual in the same position with a lower
degree or credential, all other factors being equal. However, degrees
or credentials are not the only important factor to consider when
determining salaries. Experience is also key, particularly in the field
of ECE where many teachers have years of experience, but may have never
attained a bachelor's degree, for instance.\63\ Further, research
indicates that degrees are not the only thing that matters for
[[Page 80828]]
determining teaching quality in ECE; experience and other supports such
as professional development, coaching, and training, are also
critically important for high quality teaching.\64\ Therefore, the
proposed standard elevates the importance of considering an
individual's experience when establishing wages, in addition to
qualifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ https://cscce.berkeley.edu/workforce-index-2020/state-policies-to-improve-early-childhood-educator-jobs/early-childhood-educator-workforce-policies/compensation-financial-relief/.
\63\ Kini, T. & Podolsky, A. (2016). Does Teaching Experience
Increase Teacher Effectiveness? A Review of the Research. Palo Alto:
Learning Policy Institute. Retrieved from: https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/does-teaching-experience-increase-teacher-effectiveness-review-research.
\64\ Kini, T. & Podolsky, A. (2016). Does Teaching Experience
Increase Teacher Effectiveness? A Review of the Research. Palo Alto:
Learning Policy Institute. Retrieved from: https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/does-teaching-experience-increase-teacher-effectiveness-review-research; Yoshikawa, H.,
Weiland, C., Brooks-Gunn, J., Burchinal, M., Espinosa, L., Gormley,
W.T., Ludwig, J., Magnuson, K., Phillips, D., & Zaslow, M. (October,
2013). Investing in our future: The evidence base on preschool.
Society for Research in Child Development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We recognize that qualifications and experience intersect in
complex ways when determining wages. For instance, we would expect that
a teacher with a bachelors who is new to the ECE field would likely
earn a higher wage than a teacher with an associate degree who is also
new to the field. However, we would expect that a teacher with an
associate degree and many years of experience in ECE may likely earn a
higher wage than a teacher with a bachelor's degree who is brand new to
the field. This is consistent with section 653 of the Act which
encourages programs to consider experience when determining salaries.
The phrasing of the proposed requirement provides flexibility to
programs to determine how they consider responsibilities,
qualifications and experience when determining salaries. Our goal here
is to provide programs with flexibility to determine wages that make
the most sense for their program structure, while also balancing
experience and qualifications.
Next, we turn to the second provision of Sec. 1302.90(e)(2). Here
we propose a new standard in Sec. 1302.90(e)(2)(ii) that provides a
deadline of August 1, 2031, for programs to make measurable progress
towards pay parity for all other education staff who work directly with
children as part of their daily job responsibilities. To demonstrate
this, a program must provide these staff an annual salary that is at
least comparable to salaries for Head Start teachers as described
above, but adjusted for role, responsibilities, qualifications, and
experience. This proposed standard is intended to apply to education
staff other than lead teachers whose primary job is to work in
classrooms or homes with children, including assistant teachers, home
visitors, and family child care providers. Once implemented, this
standard would significantly raise wages for these positions. We
request public comment on whether there are other education staff
positions besides these who work regularly with children to whom this
standard should apply.
To align with the prior standard on progress to pay parity that
applies to Head Start teachers, this standard will also go into effect
in August of 2031, approximately 7 years after publication of the final
rule. We request public comment on our proposed effective date for this
standard for progressing towards pay parity for Head Start education
staff.
The average salaries for these education staff are far below what
they could earn with other employers and do not reflect the
qualifications they hold or the important work they do. In 2022,
average salaries for these education staff were as follows: $25,570 for
assistant teachers; $38,510 for home visitors; and $40,902 for family
child care providers.\65\ Meanwhile, 52 percent of home visitors have a
bachelor's degree,\66\ and 88 percent of assistant teachers have at
least a Child Development Associate (CDA) or comparable credential.\67\
These education staff provide critical services in classroom- and home-
based settings in Head Start programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ Source: Head Start 2022 PIR.
\66\ Source: Head Start 2019 PIR; this was the last year of PIR
that collected data on the number of home visitors with a bachelor's
degree.
\67\ Source: Head Start 2022 PIR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similar to lead teachers, without qualified staff in these
positions, the quality and availability of classroom- and home-based
services are impacted, which in turn negatively impacts outcomes for
children. Home-based services in particular--through home visiting or
family child care--are provided to a large share of infants and
toddlers in Early Head Start. In addition, assistant teachers play
critical roles in Head Start Preschool classrooms to support children's
learning and development alongside lead teachers. As previously noted,
all classroom staff, regardless of position, build strong relationships
with children that are crucial to healthy child development and can be
damaging when disrupted. Retaining assistant teachers is as beneficial
to the program--and to the children enrolled--as retaining lead
teachers. Further, promoting stronger wages for assistant teachers can
help support career pathways so that they eventually may become lead
teachers or take on other positions in programs. Therefore, in the
context of these proposed standards, we expect that education staff
with less experience or qualifications will still receive significant
compensation increases, and that these increases will be reflective of
the important jobs they perform.
The phrasing of proposed standard Sec. 1302.90(e)(2)(ii) requires
that a program provide an annual salary to these other education staff
positions that is comparable to salaries described in the prior
provision in proposed paragraph (e)(2)(i), but is adjusted for role,
responsibilities, qualifications, and experience. As summarized
previously, the intention of this phrasing is to acknowledge that
education staff in different positions, with different qualifications,
and/or with different experience may receive different levels of
compensation, relative to lead teachers. However, it is our intention
that salaries for these other education positions with varying
qualifications and experience are not simply compared to and set at the
same level as salaries for other potentially lower paid staff in
school-based settings, such as teacher aides or paraprofessionals.
Rather, salaries for Head Start teachers established under proposed
Sec. 1302.90(e)(2)(i) should serve as an anchor for salaries for other
education staff captured by the standard proposed in (e)(2)(ii). This
is best described with a few concrete examples.
For instance, a home visitor and a lead teacher could reasonably be
considered to hold similar important responsibilities within the
context of the Head Start program; both play a primary role in
supporting the development of enrolled children. Therefore, if a home
visitor holds a bachelor's degree and similar experience as a lead
teacher with a bachelor's degree, the program should consider
compensating this home visitor at a similar level as a lead teacher.
However, if a home visitor holds an associate degree and a few years of
experience, the program could reasonably compensate the home visitor at
an amount below an experienced teacher with a bachelor's degree, with
an expectation of salary growth as the home visitor gains experience.
As another example, an assistant teacher and a lead teacher could be
reasonably considered to hold different levels of responsibilities
within the Head Start classroom. Therefore, a program could reasonably
choose to compensate an assistant teacher with an associate degree
below that for a lead teacher with an associate degree.
Taken together, we do expect that wages will vary for education
staff across the complex intersections of role, responsibilities,
qualifications, and experience. However, it is also our
[[Page 80829]]
intention that programs ensure wage scales are not drastically
different between education staff positions based solely on degrees or
credentials held, particularly for positions that have the same or
similar responsibilities in the program. Programs must also consider
experience when determining pay for education staff.
Next, we propose a new standard Sec. 1302.90(e)(2)(iii) that
provides an allowance for programs to use an alternative method for
determining the comparable preschool salaries in specific
circumstances. More specifically, if there is not a sufficient number
of comparable public school preschool teachers in the program's local
or neighboring school district, this proposed standard allows a program
to use an alternative method to implement the requirements in clause
(i) and (ii) of Sec. 1302.90(e)(2) to determine appropriate comparison
salaries. The alternative method must be approved by ACF. This standard
acknowledges that some programs are located in areas which do not have,
or have a small number of, preschool teachers in school-based settings
in local or neighboring school districts. In these cases, we recognize
that it may not be possible to obtain a reliable estimate of comparison
salaries. Programs are still required to make measurable progress
toward pay parity in such circumstances, but this standard allows for
an alternative approach to anchor comparison salaries. The proposed
standard would require programs to use an alternative method for
determining comparison salaries, and this method must be approved by
ACF. For instance, this could include using salaries from preschool
teachers in school-based settings in a geographically and/or
socioeconomically similar area. Or programs may consider increasing
salaries to a specified percentage of kindergarten to third grade
teacher salaries in the local school district. ACF may provide guidance
on pre-approved alternative methods to facilitate implementation of
this standard where applicable. We request comment on what type of
guidance or technical assistance Head Start programs need to develop an
alternative method in areas without school-based preschool teachers in
local school districts.
Finally, as referenced previously, ACF expects that programs will
make measurable progress towards pay parity for Head Start education
staff with kindergarten to third grade teachers. The fourth and final
provision of Sec. 1302.90(e)(2) proposes a new standard that requires
programs to examine their progress to pay parity by regularly tracking
data on how wages paid to their education staff compare to wages paid
to preschool through third grade teachers in their local or neighboring
school district. The intention of this standard is for programs to
regularly track and examine pay gaps between Head Start education staff
and teachers in comparable settings. The comparison to preschool
teachers serves as a way to track in alignment with the proposed
standards on progress to pay parity as described above. Programs should
capitalize on existing data sources to implement this requirement to
track wage data. Many, if not all, programs have internal data which
they can leverage to track wages paid to their education staff.
Additionally, to track wages for preschool through third grade teachers
in the local or neighboring school district, programs can leverage
publicly available information from these settings. Programs may
already have methods for obtaining this information as part of their
wage comparability surveys, or through existing partnerships with local
education agencies and local school-based preschool programs. Regular
tracking would ideally occur on an annual basis at minimum so that
programs are aware of their progress, or lack thereof, in closing pay
gaps and can make necessary adjustments.
Pay Scale for All Staff
Here we discuss the proposed changes to the new Sec.
1302.90(e)(1), Pay scale. There has been growing interest in the field
to implement wage ladders or pay scales that promote more competitive
wages for the ECE workforce. As summarized previously, the District of
Columbia (DC) recently developed a pay scale for all early educators in
DC that will promote pay parity for early educators with elementary
teachers, with gradations within the pay scaled based on job role,
credentials, and experience.\68\ Alabama and a handful of other states
have pushed forward to require pay parity for staff across all
preschool programs in the State with K-3 elementary staff, including
the same starting salary and salary schedule.\69\ A few cities, such as
New York City and San Antonio, have also pushed forward with policies
for pay parity for preschool staff with elementary staff.\70\ We
propose three provisions to Sec. 1302.90(e)(1) to describe
requirements for pay scales in Head Start programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ Early Educator Equitable Compensation Task Force. (March
2022). Final Report of the Early Educator Equitable Compensation
Task Force. Washington, DC. Retrieved from: https://lims.dccouncil.gov/downloads/LIMS/49122/Introduction/RC24-0154-Introduction.pdf.
\69\ https://cscce.berkeley.edu/workforce-index-2020/state-policies-to-improve-early-childhood-educator-jobs/early-childhood-educator-workforce-policies/compensation-financial-relief/.
\70\ CityHealth & NIEER (n.d.); McLean, C., Dichter, H., &
Whitebook, M. (2017). Strategies in Pursuit of Pre-K Teacher
Compensation Parity: Lessons From Seven States and Cities. Berkeley,
CA: Center for the Study of Child Care Employment, University of
California, Berkeley and New Brunswick, NJ: the National Institute
for Early Education Research. Retrieved from https://cscce.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/publications/Strategies-in-Pursuit-of-Pre-K.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the first provision, Sec. 1302.90(e)(1)(i), we propose a new
requirement that, by August 1, 2031, programs must implement a pay
scale, salary scale, wage ladder, or other pay structure that applies
to all staff in the program. This pay structure must incorporate the
requirements in paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) of Sec. 1302.90(e) and
promote salaries that are comparable to similar services in relevant
industries in their geographic area. The pay structure must consider,
at a minimum, responsibilities, qualifications, and experience relevant
to the position, and schedule or hours worked. The intention of this
standard is to ensure a program's pay structure promotes competitive
wages for all staff in the program, in addition to education staff. The
proposed Sec. 1302.90(e)(1)(i) contains many components; we explain
each here in further detail.
First, we intentionally structured this standard with the same
implementation timeline--August 1, 2031--as the proposed standards for
progress to pay parity for education staff, Sec. 1302.90(e)(2), that
were described previously. We recognize it is critical for program
planning and implementation purposes for these standards to go into
effect within the same timeframe. We request public comment on our
proposed effective date for this standard.
Next, we specify that a program must develop or update a pay
structure for program staff salaries. Since ACF believes the majority
of programs already have a pay structure of some kind in place for
employees, such as a pay scale, salary schedule, or wage ladder. In
cases where a program does not have a pay structure in place, a program
must establish one under this proposed requirement.
For the majority of programs that already have an established pay
structure, they must update it to reflect the requirements of the
proposed Sec. 1302.90(e)(1)(i). Next, we specify that the program's
pay structure must incorporate the requirements in newly proposed Sec.
1302.90(e)(2), (e)(3), and (e)(4), as well as wages for all other staff
[[Page 80830]]
in the program. As summarized previously, proposed Sec. 1302.90(e)(2)
outlines wage requirements for Head Start teachers and other education
staff. Newly proposed paragraphs (e)(3) and (e)(4) are discussed in
further detail in subsequent sections and encompass requirements for a
pay floor and for wage comparability across Head Start Preschool and
Early Head Start staff positions.
The proposed Sec. 1302.90(e)(1)(i) specifies that the program's
pay structure must promote salaries that are comparable to similar
services in relevant industries. This phrasing is the main thrust of
this proposed requirement. Overall, we intend for this standard to
improve wages for a variety of staff positions in the program, in
addition to improved wages for education staff specified in Sec.
1302.90(e)(2). As discussed previously, education staff are not the
only positions for which programs are struggling to recruit and retain
staff. Programs report difficulty filling other positions including
family services staff, bus drivers, janitors, cooks, mid-level
managers, and center directors. While not all these staff necessarily
leave Head Start due to low wages, many do. It is critical to retain
high-quality staff across these positions in order to maintain a high
functioning program.
Therefore, ACF expects programs will thoroughly consider wages of
comparable industries to assess whether and how wages for various
positions in their program should be improved. For instance, a family
services staff member who holds a bachelor's degree in social work or
another related field could be considered to provide comparable
services to a family outreach or engagement specialist in a public
school setting. If a health services staff member holds a nursing
degree, this staff member could be comparable to a nurse with a similar
degree providing similar services in other healthcare settings. In
addition, as programs consider how to restructure their pay scales to
provide significantly higher raises for education staff as described in
Sec. 1302.90(e)(2), we expect that wages for most other staff
positions will need to be lifted as well, to avoid the unintended
consequence of wage compression.
Finally, in establishing or updating their pay scale, proposed
Sec. 1302.90(e)(1)(i) requires that a program consider
responsibilities, qualifications, and experience relevant to the
position, as well as schedule or hours worked. We believe these factors
are important to consider when establishing or updating a pay scale,
for the same reasons as described previously for proposed Sec.
1302.90(e)(2). Here we specify that the responsibilities,
qualifications, and experience considered when establishing wages
should be relevant to the position. This specification is meant to
clarify that a program does not necessarily have to consider
qualifications that are irrelevant to a given position, when
determining wages. For instance, if a janitor holds a master's degree
and the program determines this position does not require a degree, the
program does not have to compensate that individual at a similar rate
as other staff members in the program who hold master's degrees that
are relevant to their job role and responsibilities.
Next, we turn to the second provision of Sec. 1302.90(e)(1). Here
we propose a new paragraph Sec. 1302.90(e)(1)(ii) that requires, after
August 1, 2031, programs to review their pay structure at least once
every 5 years to ensure it continues to provide competitive wages for
staff reflective of the requirements described previously, without
causing undue burden by requiring it more frequently. By requiring this
at least once every 5 years, it is our intention that grant recipients
can align this review of their pay structure with other planning and
strategic activities as part of their 5-year grant cycle, if desired.
We request public comment on our proposed effective date for this
standard.
In the third and final provision of Sec. 1302.90(e)(1), we propose
a new paragraph that requires programs to ensure that staff salaries do
not exceed the rate payable for level II of the Executive Schedule,
which aligns with 42 U.S.C. 9848(b)(1). This provision reminds programs
of the limitations on excessive compensation for the highest paid
positions and ensures that salaries at the highest end of the pay scale
are compliant with the limits described in the Act.
Finally, we recognize programs may need training and technical
assistance (TTA) support to revise their salary scale or pay structure.
Materials are available that describe key components and considerations
of a salary scale for ECE staff.\71\ Upon publication of a final rule,
ACF will also be prepared to offer TTA supports to grant recipients. We
invite public comment on what types of TTA supports programs will need
to successfully implement the standards described here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ See for instance this resource on salary/wage scales for
the ECE workforce: https://www.teachecnationalcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/CCSA_2021_Salary-Scale-White-Paper-FINAL.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum Pay Requirement
Here we discuss the proposed changes to the new Sec.
1302.90(e)(3), Salary floor. We propose a new standard in Sec.
1302.90(e)(3) that requires programs to establish a salary floor or
minimum pay that is sufficient to cover basic costs of living in the
geographic area. This standard is intended to ensure that all staff in
the program earn a wage sufficient to cover their basic living needs.
More specifically, the proposed standard requires that, by August 1,
2031, a program must ensure the pay scale established or updated under
Sec. 1302.90(e)(1)(i) provides all staff with a wage or salary that is
generally sufficient to cover basic needs such as food, housing,
utilities, medical costs, transportation, and taxes, or would be
sufficient if the worker's hourly rate were paid according to a full-
time, full-year schedule. It is our intention that this standard
targets those staff who currently receive the lowest wages in the
program; this requirement will raise the pay for these staff. This
could include aides, floaters, office staff, janitors, cooks, bus
monitors, or other positions. This proposed standard contains multiple
components each explained here in further detail.
First, the proposed Sec. 1302.90(e)(3) specifies the same
implementation timeline of August 1, 2031, as the other proposed wage
requirements described in this section. We believe this will make it
easier for programs to consider changes in wages holistically across
these new requirements and provides programs ample time to plan for
implementation. We request public comment on our proposed effective
date for this standard.
Next, the proposed standard specifies that the wage or salary
structure established or updated under Sec. 1302.90(e)(1)(i) must
provide all staff with a wage or salary that is generally sufficient to
cover basic needs. With this language, we intend for programs to
carefully consider costs of living in their local geographic area to
cover basic needs, and what an individual should truly be earning to
cover all of those costs. The language of the proposed standard further
provides examples of basic needs which a full-time staff member's
hourly wages or annual salary should be able to cover, no matter the
job they work for the program, including food, housing, utilities,
medical costs, transportation, and taxes. In most geographic areas of
the country, ACF expects that, at a minimum, a sufficient wage under
this provision would be equivalent to $15 per hour. We recognize that
in some communities or
[[Page 80831]]
geographic areas, this floor may not be sufficient and may need to be
adjusted to reflect higher costs of living. Further, programs would
still be required to pay higher salaries when required by other
sections of this NPRM.
Finally, the proposed Sec. 1302.90(e)(3) specifies that the
minimum pay or pay floor would be sufficient if the workers' hourly
rate were paid according to a full-time, full-year schedule (or over
2,080 hours per year). This phrasing of the proposed requirement is to
recognize that not all staff are full-time employees of the program,
and it allows the implementation of this standard for staff employed
part time. The proposed standard is intended to convey that programs
are not expected to pay wages to a part-time employee that, in total,
would cover all costs of living. Rather, this phrasing conveys that the
wage paid to a part-time employee would be sufficient to cover the
costs of living if that employee worked full time for the program. To
illustrate, consider an example of a program that has determined
$35,000 per year is the appropriate salary floor for their area. It is
not the expectation that all employees of that program earn at least
$35,000 per year, regardless of how many hours they work. Instead, the
program should calculate the hourly rate associated with their salary
floor, $35,000 in this example, according to a full-time, full year
schedule. A standard full-time employee works 2,080 hours per year
(i.e., 40 hours per week for 52 weeks per year), which in this example
corresponds to a minimum hourly rate of $16.83. As such, in our
example, all employees of the program must earn at least $16.83 per
hour.
We recognize that programs may need support or guidance to
determine what wages are necessary, at the minimum, to cover basic
costs of living for staff. Upon publication of a final rule, ACF will
provide grant recipients with TTA supports in this area. We also
acknowledge that there are several possible ways and existing resources
available to calculate and determine what wage is required to cover
basic costs of living. We offer a few examples here. It is of note that
these are examples only and should not be considered an endorsement by
ACF of these specific calculators or tools. First, there are multiple
nationally recognized tools or calculators to assist employers in
making this kind of determination. One such tool is the Living Wage
Calculator developed by experts at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology (MIT).\72\ Another is the Self-Sufficiency Standard
developed by experts at the Center for Women's Welfare of the
University of Washington.\73\ These types of publicly available
calculators take into account a variety of costs for basic needs and
how these costs vary by geographic area, to help determine an
appropriate hourly wage sufficient to cover these costs. Some
calculators provide estimates for different family sizes and
structures, but it is not the intent of the proposed standard to
require programs to pay a wage sufficient to cover basic needs for
staff that is adjusted by family size or family structure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ Glasmeier, A.K. Living Wage Calculator. 2020. Massachusetts
Institute of Technology. livingwage.mit.edu.
\73\ The Center for Women's Welfare. The Self-Sufficiency
Standard. University of Washington. https://selfsufficiencystandard.org/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternatively, programs who wish to calculate their own minimum pay
estimates could consider looking to other reliable data sources to
determine expected costs for different types of expenditures for their
geographic area, such as the following publicly available alternatives.
Examples of publicly available data include, but are not limited to:
Housing costs could be approximated using Fair Market Rent estimates
published annually by the U.S. Department for Housing and Urban
Development (HUD); \74\ Food costs can be estimated using the USDA's
food plan national average for adult food consumption; \75\ Health care
costs can be estimated using estimates from the Bureau of Labor
Statistics' (BLS) Consumer Expenditures Survey for average consumer
costs for health insurance, medical services, drugs, and medical
supplies; \76\ Transportation expenses can also be estimated using
estimates from BLS Consumer Expenditures Survey for average consumer
costs for cars and trucks, gas and oil, other vehicle expenses, and
public transportation; \77\ Expenses for taxes can be estimated by
calculating percentages based on required Federal and State taxes.
Finally, a program could consider if they want to incorporate estimates
for other important costs such as personal care products, apparel,
basic supplies, broadband, and telephone services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/fmr.html#2023.
\75\ https://www.fns.usda.gov/cnpp/usda-food-plans-cost-food-reports-monthly-reports.
\76\ https://www.bls.gov/cex/.
\77\ https://www.bls.gov/cex/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wage Comparability Across Head Start Preschool and Early Head Start
Finally, now we turn to the last of the proposed changes on wages,
new paragraph Sec. 1302.90(e)(4), Wage comparability for all ages
served. Here, we propose a new standard that promotes wage
comparability across Head Start Preschool and Early Head Start staff
positions by requiring that the pay structure established or updated
under Sec. 1302.90(e)(1)(i) does not differ by age of children served
for similar program staff positions with similar qualifications and
experience. Head Start Preschool and Early Head Start staff perform
similar important roles and responsibilities to support the development
of enrolled infants, toddlers, and preschoolers. In classroom settings,
Early Head Start teachers must have at least a CDA credential or
equivalent credential, with training or coursework in infant and
toddler development (Sec. 1302.91(e)(1)). Head Start Preschool
teachers must have at least an associate or bachelor's degree in child
development or early childhood education or otherwise meet the
requirements of section 648(a)(3)(B) of the Act (Sec.
1302.91(e)(2)(ii)). The Act also requires that at least 50 percent of
Head Start Preschool teachers nationwide have a bachelor's degree. We
would expect that these differences in qualifications would result in
different salaries or wages. However, a good share of Early Head Start
teachers also hold a bachelors or higher degree (23 percent in 2022).
Nonetheless, our administrative data from Head Start programs indicates
a stark difference in average salaries between Head Start Preschool and
Early Head Start teachers, even among those teachers with similar
qualifications.
In 2022, the average Early Head Start teacher with a bachelor's
degree earned an annual salary of $37,805, compared to $40,041 for the
average Head Start Preschool teacher with a bachelor's degree, a salary
gap of just over $2,000 per year.\78\ For teachers with advanced
degrees, the disparity is even greater; in 2022, these Head Start
Preschool teachers earned on average 20 percent more in annual salary
($51,162) compared to Early Head Start teachers ($42,761), a salary gap
of over $8,000.\79\ This is a substantial gap in average salary between
professionals holding the same qualifications and performing similar
roles in supporting the learning and development of Head Start
children. These disparities are common
[[Page 80832]]
in the field and lead to increased turnover.\80\ Anecdotally, ACF has
received reports that programs find it more difficult to hire Early
Head Start teachers than Head Start Preschool teachers. The proposed
Sec. 1302.90(e)(4) will help close the wage gap between Early Head
Start and Head Start Preschool teachers with similar degrees and
promote stronger retention of Early Head Start teachers, thereby
improving quality of services for enrolled infants and toddlers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\78\ Source: Head Start 2021 PIR.
\79\ Ibid.
\80\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Staff for Whom Wage Standards Apply
Taken together, the new standards for wage requirements proposed in
this NPRM include requirements for (1) progress to pay parity for Head
Start education staff with kindergarten through third grade elementary
teachers by providing wages comparable to preschool teachers in school-
based settings, adjusted for responsibilities, qualifications, and
experience ; (2) a pay scale that applies to all staff and promotes
competitive wages across positions; (3) a minimum pay floor sufficient
to cover basic costs of living; and (4) wage comparability across Head
Start and Early Head Start positions for staff with similar
qualifications and experience. We recognize that it must be clear for
programs to which staff these newly proposed standards apply. It is our
intention that these newly proposed standards improve wages for staff
in the program who are either employees or contractors and who provide
regular services for children and families in the program that are
integral to program quality or functioning.
First, we propose that these standards apply to staff who are
employees of the Head Start program, whose salary is paid at least in
part with Head Start funds, and whose regular job responsibilities
include activities or services to support enrolled children and
families. We invite public comment on this clarification of which staff
the wages standards apply to, including any potential unintended
consequences.
Next, we summarize our expectations for how the proposed wage
standards should apply to contracted staff. Contracted staff typically
includes individuals who are not Head Start employees, with whom the
program has contracted to provide an ongoing service (e.g.,
disabilities specialists and mental health professionals, bus drivers,
etc.). We recognize that many individuals who provide critical services
for Head Start programs do so through contracted services. We also
recognize that for Early Head Start--Child Care Partnership grant
recipients, many child care partners are funded through contracts or
other mechanisms with the grant recipients. In the context of the new
wage standards, we propose that, for contracted staff, language in the
contract must provide for wages comparable to what the recipient
organization would provide if they were the employer. Further, we
propose to require that programs strongly encourage contractors to use
the funding to increase salaries for their staff.
We invite public comment on this expectation for how the wage
standards apply to contractors or other partnership agreements,
including any potential unintended consequences.
Finally, we recognize that these proposed standards will have
different ramifications for implementation within certain
organizational structures or for certain types of agencies. For
example, grant recipients with employee bargaining agreements and those
in organizations with existing formal salary structures that extend
beyond just Head Start staff, such as in community action agencies, may
need to engage representatives of workers if they need to negotiate new
collective bargaining agreements that increase wages for Head Start
staff (or for specific groups of Head Start staff, such as teachers).
We also recognize that many Tribal grant recipients may have pay
structures already in place for Tribal employees that include staff
beyond Head Start. We encourage all programs, not solely those with
collective bargaining agreements, to engage Head Start staff as they
work to meet these new proposed standards, both for wages and other
proposed changes. ACF intends to provide TTA supports to understand
options and strategies for implementing wage increases within the
context of varied organizational structures and agency types.
ACF recognizes that the proposed wage requirements are complex, and
as discussed previously, may be experienced differently by different
communities. We seek public comment on how any of the proposed wage
requirements in this section may impact various communities. We
specifically request public comment from the special populations served
by Head Start, including American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) and
MSHS programs and communities. We also specifically request comment
from Head Start staff and their representatives, and other early
childhood program providers.
Workforce Supports: Staff Benefits (Sec. 1302.90)
Section 1302.90 outlines requirements for personnel policies,
including the establishment of personnel policies and procedures,
background check procedures, standards of conduct, and communication
with dual language learners. In alignment with the newly proposed
requirements in Sec. 1302.90(e) to improve wages for staff, we also
propose a new paragraph (f) in this section that outlines requirements
for grant recipients to provide benefits to staff. The proposed new
standards require grant recipients to provide or facilitate access to
health insurance for all staff; paid sick leave, and paid family leave
for full-time staff; provide short-term behavioral health services for
full-time staff for free or at minimal cost to them; and facilitate
access to Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) and child care
subsidies for eligible staff. We are also considering a requirement for
recipients to provide retirement benefits to all full-time staff and we
specifically request public comment on whether to add such a
requirement in a final rule. This request for comment on a possible
requirement for retirement benefits is discussed in further detail
below. In the context of these proposed requirements, we propose to
define ``full-time staff'' as those working 30 hours per week or more
while the program is in session. For programs operating longer than a
typical school year (e.g., year-round programs), we propose a
requirement that such programs develop a policy for vacation or
personal leave. Grant recipients are encouraged to consider and offer
other benefits that may support staff recruitment and retention.
First, we propose to add Sec. 1302.90(f)(1) as a lead in statement
to define full-time staff as it applies to several proposed benefit
requirements. Proposed (f)(1) defines full-time staff as those working
30 or more hours per week during the program year. Next, we propose to
add (f)(1)(i) which requires a program to provide or facilitate access
to high-quality, affordable health insurance. This proposed standard
would require grant recipients to either: (1) provide and contribute to
employer-sponsored health insurance coverage, or (2) educate, connect,
and facilitate the enrollment of employees in health insurance options
in the Healthcare.gov Marketplace (Marketplace), the appropriate State-
specific health insurance marketplace, or Medicaid, for full-time
staff. Employees are not obligated to accept employer-provided or
employer-facilitated health insurance, such as those receiving
[[Page 80833]]
insurance coverage through a spouse or another manner. Through input
from OHS regional office staff and members of the Head Start community,
we are aware that, while many Head Start staff are already offered
employer-sponsored health coverage, this coverage may still entail
considerable out-of-pocket costs for staff. Thus, if grant recipients
choose to offer employer-sponsored coverage, we encourage employers to
provide an insurance plan that offers coverage similar to that offered
by silver, gold, or platinum plans in the Marketplace.\81\ Definitions
of affordable coverage, minimum value,\82\ and minimum essential health
benefits \83\ are determined by the Affordable Care Act (ACA), and
large Head Start grant recipients are already subject to the employer
shared responsibility provisions in the ACA.\84\ Premium tax credits
\85\ subsidize the cost of health insurance coverage in the Marketplace
and are available to individuals in households with incomes up to 400
percent of the Federal Poverty Guidelines. We anticipate most Head
Start staff are currently eligible for these tax credits, and some may
be eligible for Medicaid depending on their family size, household
income, and the State in which they live. Because premium tax credit
amounts vary with household income and household compositional changes,
we also anticipate that as the wage requirements proposed in new
paragraph (e) of this section are implemented, this would affect
premium tax credit amounts or eligibility, as well as Medicaid
eligibility, for some staff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ See the healthcare.gov website for a description of
Marketplace plans and actuarial value: https://www.healthcare.gov/choose-a-plan/plans-categories/.
\82\ See the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) website for more
information on minimum value and affordability: https://www.irs.gov/affordable-care-act/employers/minimum-value-and-affordability.
\83\ See healthcare.gov for a list of essential health benefits:
https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/essential-health-benefits/.
\84\ See the IRS website for more information on the employer
shared responsibility provisions: https://www.irs.gov/affordable-care-act/employers/employer-shared-responsibility-provisions.
\85\ See the healthcare.gov website for a description of premium
tax credits and eligibility: https://www.healthcare.gov/lower-costs/save-on-monthly-premiums/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For part-time staff who work fewer than the 30 hour per week as
defined above, we propose to require programs to facilitate the
enrollment of these staff in health insurance options in the
Marketplace or through Medicaid for which they may be eligible.
Specifically, we propose to add new paragraph (f)(2) which requires a
program to facilitate access to high-quality, affordable health
insurance for each part-time staff member. That is, grant recipients
would not be required to offer nor precluded from offering employer-
sponsored health insurance to part-time staff, but the proposed
standard would require, at a minimum, that the grant recipient make
part-time staff aware of potential benefits through premium tax credits
for which they may be eligible and facilitate their connection to the
Marketplace or Medicaid.
Increasing Head Start staff access to and the quality of health
insurance benefits is key to attracting and retaining skilled staff and
to being competitive with other jobs. In March 2022, 73 percent of the
civilian workforce had access to employer-sponsored healthcare benefits
(88 percent of full-time workers and 23 percent of part-time workers),
with employers paying on average 80 percent of premiums for employee
coverage and 67 percent for family coverage.\86\ By comparison, in
2019, only 27 percent of ECE workers in center-based settings had
private health insurance through their own employer, while nearly all
K-12 educators had employer-sponsored coverage.\87\ Nearly 16 percent
of the ECE workforce lacked health insurance.\88\ As previously
described, we are also aware that, while many Head Start staff may be
offered employer-sponsored health coverage, it may not cover many
health expenses, may not cover family members and/or may entail
considerable out of pocket costs for staff. In order for Head Start
programs to compete with other sectors that could potentially employ
staff qualified for Head Start--including public schools--it is
critical that Head Start programs offer or connect staff to quality,
affordable health insurance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\86\ Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). (2022). Employee Benefits
in the United States, March 2022. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ebs2.pdf.
\87\ Rudich, J., Sugar, S., Chien, N., Peters, C., & Sommers, B.
(2021, November). Assessing uninsured rates in early care and
education workers. Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning
and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
https://www.aspe.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/557aff156a2eac8dd50b489172c7eac6/early-educators-uninsured-data-point.pdf?_ga=2.163634812.2117647616.1661871770-774747381.1611252684.
\88\ Rudich et al. (2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on our analysis of OHS administrative data from grant
recipients, we have determined that most recipients employ more than 50
workers and are therefore subject to the ACA's shared responsibility
for employers regarding health coverage, and many offer some level of
health insurance or other employee benefits.\89\ We anticipate some
implementation issues for small grant recipients with fewer than 50
employees who do not currently offer or administer employer-sponsored
benefits like health insurance. However, the proposed requirements as
written allow recipients to facilitate full-time staff members'
enrollment in health insurance options in the Marketplace, which helps
the logistical difficulties of negotiating employee benefits plans with
insurers, though we acknowledge that recipients may require technical
assistance to connect with Navigators or other resources. The American
Rescue Plan Act of 2021 and the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 \90\
increased the subsidies for purchasing private health insurance in the
Marketplace available to those meeting income and other requirements,
and grant recipients may choose to administer or contribute to
employees' flexible spending accounts (FSAs) to defray out-of-pocket
health care costs. When employees are covered by a health savings
account (HSA)-eligible high-deductible health plan, grant recipients
may choose to administer or contribute to employees' HSAs to defray
out-of-pocket health care costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\89\ See https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2014/02/12/2014-03082/shared-responsibility-for-employers-regarding-health-coverage.
\90\ See https://www.cms.gov/blog/inflation-reduction-act-tax-credits-improve-coverage-affordability-middle-income-americans#_ftnref6/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Next, we propose a new paragraph (f)(1)(ii) which requires that
programs offer paid sick leave to full-time staff, based on an accrual
system based on hours worked or by offering a number of days updated
annually. At a minimum, the accrual must meet the standards set by
State or local laws, if applicable. Paid leave due to illness or other
reasons is a typical employer-sponsored benefit in the U.S. workforce.
We do not propose a specific required number of days per year but seek
comments on whether the standard should specify a minimum number of
leave days or accrual rate.
Paid sick leave for workers allows for recovery from personal
illness or the time to care for ill family members, but employer-
provided paid sick leave is not universal and varies with worker wages.
In March 2022, 79 percent of civilian workers had access to paid sick
leave, 79 percent had paid holidays, and 77 percent had paid vacation
leave, but just 40 percent of the lowest 10 percent of earners had
access to paid sick leave compared to nearly all (96 percent) of
[[Page 80834]]
the top 10 percent of earners.\91\ Eighty-eight percent of full-time
civilian workers had access to paid sick leave compared to just about
half (51 percent) of part-time workers.\92\ Workers who lack paid sick
leave are more likely to go to work while ill and to forgo medical care
for themselves and their families,\93\ problems exacerbated by the
pandemic. Having access to sick leave is particularly important for a
workforce that directly cares for, teaches, and interacts with young
children in group settings in which the spread of communicable illness
is common.\94\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\91\ BLS. (2022). Table 6. Selected paid leave benefits: Access,
March 2022.
\92\ BLS. (2022). Table 6. Selected paid leave benefits: Access,
March 2022. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ebs2.pdf.
\93\ Schneider D. Paid sick leave in Washington State: Evidence
on employee outcomes, 2016-2018. Am J Public Health.
2020;110(4):499-504. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2019.305481; DeRigne LA,
Stoddard-Dare P, Quinn L. Workers without paid sick leave less
likely to take time off for illness or injury compared to those with
paid sick leave. Health Aff. 2016;35(3):520-527. doi:10.1377/
hlthaff.2015.0965. Schenider, D., Harknett, K., & Vivas-Portillo, E.
Olive Garden's expasion of paid sick leave during COVID-19 reduced
the share of employees workign while sick. Health Aff.
2021;40(8):1328-1336. https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/10.1377/hlthaff.2020.02320.
\94\ Bradley, R. H. (2003). Child care and common communicable
illnesses in children aged 37 to 54 months. Archives of Pediatric
and Adolescent Medicine, 157(2), 196-200. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12580692/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Next, we propose a new paragraph (f)(1)(iii) which requires that
programs offer job-protected periods of paid family leave to employees
consistent with eligibility for and protections in the Family and
Medical Leave Act (FMLA) of 1993 regardless of employer size. Or, if
applicable, the proposed standard clarifies that programs should comply
with requirements set by State or local laws for paid family leave.
Periods of leave that are longer than the few days per year typically
offered by paid sick leave may be needed during certain life events,
including a serious illness for a staff member or their family members,
or the birth of a child. A growing body of research shows that access
to paid family leave improves maternal and child health and family
economic well-being and increases father engagement and preventive care
receipt.\95\ We intend for this requirement to apply to all programs,
even those who are not covered by FMLA due to employer size (e.g.,
fewer than 50 employees). As such, we expect that the proposed paid
family leave policy would apply for full-time employees in all Head
Start programs, regardless of the number of employees in the program,
who have had at least 12 months of tenure with their employer. The
reason for the leave must be a qualifying reason under FMLA, regardless
of whether the employer is covered by FMLA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\95\ Rossin-Slater, M., & Uniat, L. (2019). Paid family leave
policies and Population Health. Health Affairs Brief. https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hpb20190301.484936/ Waldfogel, J.,
Doran, E., & Pac, J. (2019). Paid family and medical leave improves
the well-being of children and families. SRCD Child Evidence Brief.
https://www.srcd.org/research/paid-family-and-medical-leave-improves-well-being-children-and-families.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An estimated 29 percent of Head Start staff work in one of the 11
states and the District of Columbia that have enacted paid family leave
laws as of October 2022, though the requirements in these laws
vary.\96\ In March 2022, more than one-quarter (29%) of primary and
secondary, and special education teachers had access to paid family
leave benefits through their employers,\97\ with others having access
to State-sponsored public paid family leave programs.\98\ Employer-
provided paid family leave benefits are inequitably distributed in the
workforce, with 34 percent of civilian workers in management,
professional and related occupations having access, compared to 15
percent of those in service occupations.\99\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\96\ See: https://www.nationalpartnership.org/our-work/resources/economic-justice/paid-leave/state-paid-family-leave-laws.pdf.
\97\ BLS. (2022). National Compensation Survey: Employee
Benefits in the United States, March 2022. Table 7: Leave benefits
by occupational category, Civilian workers, March 2022. https://www.bls.gov/ebs/publications/september-2022-landing-page-employee-benefits-in-the-united-states-march-2022.htm.
\98\ As of October 2022, paid family leave laws were in place in
11 states and the District of Columbia. See: https://www.nationalpartnership.org/our-work/resources/economic-justice/paid-leave/state-paid-family-leave-laws.pdf.
\99\ BLS. (2022). National Compensation Survey: Employee
Benefits in the United States, March 2022. Table 7: Leave benefits
by occupational category, Civilian workers, March 2022. https://www.bls.gov/ebs/publications/september-2022-landing-page-employee-benefits-in-the-united-states-march-2022.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FMLA entitles eligible workers to periods of unpaid, job-protected
leave for up to 12 weeks per 12-month period for the birth, adoption,
or foster care placement of a new child within one year of birth,
adoption, or placement; to care for a spouse, child, or parent with a
serious health condition; a serious health condition that makes the
employee unable to perform the essential functions of his or her job;
or a qualifying exigency arising out of the fact that the employee's
spouse, son, daughter, or parent is a covered military member on
covered active duty. Up to 26 weeks of leave is available for an
employee to care for a covered servicemember with a serious injury or
illness if the eligible employee is the servicemember's spouse, son,
daughter, parent, or next of kin.\100\ To be eligible for FMLA, workers
must work for a covered employer at a location with 50 or more
employees within 75 miles; have worked 1,250 hours or more during the
12 months prior to the start of leave; and have worked for the employer
for 12 months or more before the start of leave.\101\ However, under
this proposed new requirement, all Head Start programs, regardless of
employer size, would be required to provide full-time staff that meet
the employee eligibility requirements (i.e., have worked 1,250 hours or
more during the 12 months prior to the start of leave; and have worked
for the employer for 12 months or more before the start of leave) with
partial or full wage replacement during qualifying periods of leave. We
request comments on whether the reasons for leave or eligibility
requirements, such as how long a staff member has been with an employer
or employer size, should be modified for this proposed standard, or if
aligning with FMLA is the best approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\100\ https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/fmla.
\101\ U.S. Department of Labor. FMLA Frequently Asked Questions.
https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/fmla/faq#3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Next, for programs whose program year lasts longer than a typical
school year, we propose in new paragraph (f)(1)(iv) to require such
programs offer full-time staff the accrual of paid vacation or personal
leave commensurate with experience or time working at the program. In
2022, 77 percent of civilian workers had paid vacation leave and 48
percent had paid leave designated as personal leave. That year, only 21
percent of primary and secondary teachers had paid vacation leave.\102\
But as noted by BLS,\103\ the majority of K-12 school districts
function on a school year schedule (37-38 weeks per year) with regular
breaks, as do many Head Start Preschool programs. However, most Early
Head Start programs and some Head Start Preschool programs operate
throughout the summer months as well, and these ``year-round'' program
staff are not benefitting from a summer break. We believe these staff
working on more of a year-round schedule should have the opportunity to
accrue paid vacation leave, but we do not propose a specific
[[Page 80835]]
required number of days per year or accrual rate. We request comment on
whether these requirements regarding paid vacation or personal leave
are important for attracting and retaining qualified staff. We seek
comments on whether the implementation of these requirements would lead
to unintended consequences or unpredictable expenses, particularly in
the case of paying out upon an employee leaving a program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\102\ BLS. (2022). National Compensation Survey: Employee
Benefits in the United States, March 2022. Table 7: Leave benefits
by occupational category, Civilian workers, March 2022. https://www.bls.gov/ebs/publications/september-2022-landing-page-employee-benefits-in-the-united-states-march-2022.htm.
\103\ BLS. (2022). Employee Benefits in the United States, March
2022. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ebs2.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Next, we propose to add new paragraph (f)(1)(v) which requires that
employers offer access to short-term behavioral health services for
full-time staff that entails minimal or no out-of-pocket costs for
staff. We propose that these services include access to approximately
three to five outpatient visits per year.\104\ The Paul Wellstone and
Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008
requires that group health plans and health insurance coverage ensure
that financial requirements and treatment limitations on mental health
and substance-use disorder services are no more restrictive than the
predominant financial requirements and treatment limitations applicable
to medical and surgical health services, and that there are no
financial requirements and treatment limitations applicable only with
respect to mental health and substance use disorder services. Mental
health and substance-use disorder services, including treatment such as
counseling and psychotherapy, are also one category of the essential
health benefits that health insurance issuers offering non-
grandfathered \105\ group or individual health insurance coverage
(including health insurance coverage offered in the Marketplace) must
cover without annual dollar caps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\104\ When offering access to the behavioral health services
that would be required under these proposed rules, an employer
should be aware that other provisions of law may apply to that
arrangement. In general, the provision of medical care, including
the provision of behavioral health services, could result in the
arrangement being considered a group health plan subject to the
relevant provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA) that applies to group health plans, unless the arrangement
qualifies as an excepted benefit. For an Employee Assistance Program
(EAP) to qualify as an excepted benefit, the EAP must meet the
requirements of 26 CFR 54.9831-1(c)(3)(vi); 29 CFR
2590.732(c)(3)(vi) and 45 CFR 146.145(b)(3)(vi), including that the
program may not provide significant benefits in the nature of
medical care and that no employee premiums or contributions or cost-
sharing can be required as a condition of participation in the EAP.
To the extent the arrangement that provides the behavioral health
visits required under these proposed rules does not meet the
requirements to qualify as an excepted benefit, the arrangement may
be considered a group health plan subject to the requirements of
Part 7 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).
\105\ Section 1251 of the Affordable Care Act provides that
grandfathered health plans are not subject to certain provisions of
the Code, ERISA, and the PHS Act, as added by the Affordable Care
Act, for as long as they maintain their status as grandfathered
health plans. See 26 CFR 54.9815-1251; 29 CFR 2590.715-1251 and 45
CFR 147.140. For a list of the market reform provisions applicable
to grandfathered health plans under title XXVII of the PHS Act that
the Affordable Care Act added or amended and that were incorporated
into the Code and ERISA, visit https://www.dol.gov/sites/default/files/ebsa/laws-and-regulations/laws/affordable-care-act/for-employers-andadvisers/grandfathered-health-plans-provisions-summary-chart.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even with health insurance, out-of-pocket expenses like high
deductibles or copays may serve as barriers for individuals facing
mental illness or symptoms for receiving care. In 2010, only 15 percent
of private industry workers had a high deductible plan, compared to 45
percent in 2018.\106\ In a 2020 nationally representative survey, among
those reporting perceived unmet mental health care needs in the prior
year, 46 percent reported that they could not afford the cost of
treatment, 19 percent reported that their health insurance did not pay
enough for mental health services, and 29 percent reported they did not
know where to go for services.\107\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\106\ BLS. (2023). High deductible health plans and health
savings accounts. https://www.bls.gov/ebs/factsheets/high-deductible-health-plans-and-health-savings-accounts.htm.
\107\ Council of Economic Advisors. (2022, May). Reducing the
economic burden of unmet mental health needs. The White House.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/written-materials/2022/05/31/reducing-the-economic-burden-of-unmet-mental-health-needs/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research suggests that Head Start staff face a constellation of
stressors, including financial stress and challenging behaviors in the
classroom, which are in turn associated with poorer staff physical and
psychological well-being, and may benefit from increased access to
mental health care services. Head Start teachers experience high rates
of health problems and depressive symptoms, with some studies finding
that nearly one-third have depressive symptoms.\108\ A 2013 study in
Pennsylvania found that Head Start teachers showed higher rates of poor
or fair health, depressive symptoms, unhealthy days, and having three
or more health conditions compared to women with similar
backgrounds.\109\ The challenges surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic
exacerbated stress and health problems among early childhood teachers.
A study of ECE professionals conducted in summer 2020 in New York City
found that 31 percent reported doctor-diagnosed anxiety and 23 percent
reported doctor-diagnosed depressive symptoms.\110\ Another study of
over 80,000 ECE professionals found that 47.5 percent screened positive
for depression and 66.5 percent reported moderate to high stress
levels, which was a higher prevalence of both depression and stress
than among US adults overall in 2020.\111\ Further, research on Head
Start programs has linked staff job stressors and poor mental health to
lower-quality teacher-child interactions and teachers' behavioral
management skills.\112\ In a sample of Head Start programs, teachers'
depressive symptoms were associated with fewer gains in children's math
skills across the year.\113\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\108\ Ibid.
\109\ Whitaker, R., Becker, B., Herman, A., & Gooze, R. (2013).
The physical and mental health of Head Start staff: The Pennsylvania
Head Start staff wellness survey, 2012. Preventing chronic disease,
10(1), 1-9.
\110\ Kwon, K.-Ah., Ford, T.G., Tsotsoros, J., Randall, K.,
Malek-Lasater, A., & Kim, S.G. (2021). Challenges in working
conditions and well-being of early childhood teachers by teaching
modality during the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health, 19, 4919.
\111\ Elharake, J.A., Shafiq, M., Cobanoglu, A., Malik, A.A.,
Klotz, M., Humphries, J.E., . . . & Gilliam, W.S. (2022). Prevalence
of Chronic Diseases, Depression, and Stress among US Child Care
Professionals during the COVID-19 Pandemic. medRxiv, 2022-03.
\112\ Li-Grining, C.L., Raver, C.C., Champion, K., Sardin, L.,
Metzger, M., & Jones, S.M. (2010). Understanding and improving
classroom emotional climate and behavior management in the ``real
world'': The role of Head Start teachers' psychosocial stressors.
Early Education and Development, 21(1), 65-94.; Roberts, A.,
LoCasale-Crouch, J., Hamre, B., & DeCoster, J. (2016). Exploring
Teachers' Depressive Symptoms, Interaction Quality, and Children's
Social-Emotional Development in Head Start. Early Education and
Development, 27(5), 642-654.; Whitaker, R.C., Dearth-Wesley, T., &
Gooze, R.A. (2015). Workplace stress and the quality of teacher-
children relationships in Head Start. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 30, 57-69.
\113\ Jeon, S., Jeon, L., Lang, S. & Newell, K. (2021). Teacher
depressive symptoms and child math achievement in Head Start: The
roles of family-teacher relationships and approaches to learning.
Child Development, 92(6), 2478-2495.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Access to free or low-cost short term mental health services is key
to promoting staff well-being and children's development. Programs may
use a variety of strategies to ensure staff facing mental health
conditions or symptoms have access to short-term, affordable mental
health treatment. Employers may do so through an employer-sponsored
group health plan that provides short-term, outpatient behavioral
health care at low out-of-pocket costs, or through an Employee
Assistance Program (EAP) that qualifies as an excepted benefit and can
refer and connect employees to mental health resources and providers.
While we propose to require programs to cover approximately three to
five outpatient visits, nothing in these rules prohibit a
[[Page 80836]]
program from providing additional visits.
Next, we propose to add new paragraph (f)(3) which requires
programs to connect staff members who are parents with affordable child
care resources and information--including connections to child care
resource and referral agencies if applicable--and to facilitate the
enrollment of staff members who may be eligible in the child care
subsidy program. The early childhood workforce, including Head Start
staff, are disproportionately women of color,\114\ many of whom rely on
child care for their own children. High-quality child care is expensive
and difficult to find,\115\ particularly for infants and toddlers, but
key to both promoting labor force participation and children's
development.\116\ Child Care Resource and Referral (CCR&R)
organizations and other child care consumer education organizations
serve as resource hubs to connect families to high-quality, affordable
child care through referrals and information on licensing, subsidies,
and how to access services for children with disabilities.\117\ Head
Start programs can ensure that staff members are aware of and connected
to local CCR&Rs or other consumer education organizations in their
communities. For each staff member who may be eligible for public child
care assistance, a program should educate and facilitate application to
and enrollment in the child care subsidy program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\114\ Coffey, M. (2022). Still underpaid and unequal: Early
childhood educators face low pay and a worsening wage gap. Center
for American Progress. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/still-underpaid-and-unequal/; Mayfield, W., & Cho, I. (2022). The
National Workforce Registry Alliance 2021 Workforce Dataset: Early
Childhood and School-age Workforce Trends, with a Focus on Racial/
Ethnic Equity. National Workforce Registry Alliance. https://www.registryalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/NWRA-2022-ECE-workforce-data-report-final.pdf ; Smith, L., McHenry, K., Morris, &
Chong, H. (2021). Characteristics of the child care workforce.
Bipartisan Policy Center. https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/characteristics-of-the-child-care-workforce/.
\115\ Child Care Aware. (2022). 2021 Child Care Affordability.
https://www.childcareaware.org/catalyzing-growth-using-data-to-change-child-care/#ChildCareAffordability.
\116\ Chaudry, A., Morrissey, T.W., Weiland, C., & Yoshikawa, Y.
(2021). Cradle to Kindergarten: A New plan to combat inequality, 2nd
Edition. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
\117\ https://www.childcareaware.org/about/child-care-resource-referral/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, we recognize that many Head Start staff members' own
children may be eligible for Head Start services. Being able to enroll
one's own child in an ECE program where that individual is also
employed could be an important benefit to support recruitment and
retention of staff. Therefore, we also propose to add a new paragraph
(5) to Sec. 1302.14(a) Selection criteria that clarifies programs can
choose to prioritize the enrollment of staff members' children through
selection criteria. Section 1302.14(a) includes requirements for
establishing selection criteria to weigh the prioritization of
selection of participants for the program. The proposed standard in new
paragraph (5) clarifies that programs can choose, as part of this
process, to prioritize staff members' children. Programs are reminded
that in order to be enrolled in a Head Start funded slot, such children
would still need to be age eligible and meet an eligibility category
described in Sec. 1302.12(c) or (d). We also note that as the wage
requirements proposed in this NPRM are implemented, this would likely
affect eligibility for some staff.
Next, we propose a new paragraph (4) in Sec. 1302.90(f) that
requires programs to facilitate access to Public Service Loan
Forgiveness (PSLF), or other applicable student loan debt relief
programs, for any Head Start staff who may have student loan debt. This
includes timely certification of employment for the staff member.
Evidence suggests that student loan debt is higher among the ECE
workforce than the overall population. When combined with relatively
low wages, this compounds economic hardship. According to a March 2022
survey of approximately 2,500 ECE providers, 19 percent reported they
had student debt, compared to 17 percent of the U.S. adult population
overall, and 17 percent reported they carried debt for others.\118\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\118\ RAPID Survey, Student Debt in the Early Childhood
Workforce, May 2022. Retrieved from: https://rapidsurveyproject.com/our-research/student-debt-in-the-early-childhood-workforce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The PSLF Program, administered by the U.S. Department of Education,
is intended to encourage individuals to enter and continue in full-time
public service employment by forgiving the remaining balance of their
Direct loans after they satisfy public service and loan payment
requirements. Many Head Start programs share information with staff
about the PSLF program as well as other State or local student debt
relief opportunities they may be eligible for as a staff recruitment
and retention strategy that can reduce financial stress among staff.
Individual borrowers who are eligible for PSLF must submit with their
PSLF application a certification of qualifying employment which
requires a signature from the employer. It is important that Head Start
programs offer timely certification of employment to facilitate debt
relief for Head Start staff. This proposed standard would require
programs to facilitate access to PSLF and other available student debt
relief by providing information about debt relief opportunities and
offering timely certification of employment.
Next, recognizing that there are other benefits that may enhance
programs' ability to compete for skilled staff, we propose to require
programs, at least once every 5 years, to assess and determine if their
benefits package is adequate for recruiting and retaining full-time
staff and competitive with benefits offered by local or neighboring
school districts. The proposed standard specifies that programs may
offer additional benefits to staff, including more enhanced health
benefits, retirement savings plans, flexible savings accounts, or life,
disability, and long-term care insurance. We propose to encourage
programs to offer additional benefits to all staff based on the needs
of their workforce. Additional benefits may include but are not limited
to retirement, dental or vision benefits; subsidized health insurance
for staff members' dependents; tax-exempt health, dependent care, or
flexible spending accounts; or other benefits to staff such as life,
long-term care, and disability insurance.
Finally, ACF is considering adding retirement savings plans to the
list of required benefits to be provided to full-time Head Start staff
and specifically seeks public comment on whether to add an additional
requirement for recipients to provide retirement savings benefits to
full-time staff. Research indicates that the majority of public school
teachers are offered some type of retirement or pension plan.\119\ And
a study of ECE professionals in one State found that 80 percent were
worried about their retirement savings.\120\ Providing retirement
benefits may provide another mechanism for Head Start programs to
recruit and retain staff. However, we also recognize that such a
requirement could lead to additional slot loss in Head Start absent
additional appropriations. We seek public comment on whether retirement
savings benefits, ranging from employer assistance in establishing
retirement accounts to more comprehensive benefits with employer
matching
[[Page 80837]]
contributions, consistent with what public schools offer, should be
required as an effective mechanism for staff recruitment and retention,
especially when weighed against potential slot loss. Overall, we
believe this set of employer-provided benefits is necessary to attract
and retain a skilled, qualified workforce in Head Start programs. In
general, as Head Start programs phase in wage increases and benefits,
they should hold harmless existing benefits such that employees receive
benefits that are at least as generous as their current benefits. ACF
requests comment about the degree to which grant recipients are
currently offering a set of high-quality benefits and the
administrative difficulty or expense creating these benefits would
entail. We also seek public comment on how any of the proposed benefit
requirements in this section may impact various communities. We
specifically request public comment from the special populations served
by Head Start, including AIAN and MSHS programs and communities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\119\ BLS. (2022). Employee benefits in the United States. Table
1. Retirement benefits: Access, participation, and take-up rates.
\120\ Sakai, L. (2014). ``Economic Insecurity and Early
Childhood Teaching.'' In Worthy Work, Still Unlivable Wages: The
Early Childhood Workforce 25 Years after the National Child Care
Staffing Study, edited by Marcy Whitebook, Deborah Phillips, and
Carollee Howes, 41-54. Berkeley, CA: Center for the Study of Child
Care Employment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Workforce Supports: Staff Wellness (Sec. 1302.93)
Section 1302.93 outlines program requirements for promoting staff
health and wellness, including that staff: have regular health
examinations; do not pose a risk of exposing others in the program to
communicable diseases; are provided access to mental health and
wellness information, including opportunities to learn about these
topics. However, these current standards lack critical requirements to
promote staff physical and mental wellness on the job, including
regular breaks during the workday and access to appropriate adult-size
furniture in classrooms. We believe the proposed requirements described
in this section, together with the proposed requirements described in
the Subpart I--Human Resources Management subsection of the Mental
Health Services section of this preamble, will provide much needed
supports to reduce staff stress and burnout; improve the quality of
interactions between teachers and children; and improve staff
recruitment and retention. Importantly, improving staff retention will
also contribute to a more positive, improved working environment for
all staff.
In this section we describe newly proposed requirements for grant
recipients to provide a minimal level of regular breaks for staff as
well as brief unscheduled `wellness breaks' for staff who work directly
in classrooms with children to support stress management, improve well-
being, reduce turnover, and improve staff retention and the quality of
services. We also propose a requirement for classroom staff to have
access to appropriate adult-sized furniture in classrooms to support
ergonomic health. These newly proposed provisions are consistent with
the proposed requirements in new paragraphs (e) and (f) of Sec.
1302.90 that support improved staff wages and benefits.
First, we propose to add a new paragraph (c) to Sec. 1302.93 which
outlines requirements for break times during work shifts. In new
paragraph (c)(1)(i) we specify that a program must provide, for each
staff member working a shift lasting between four and six hours, a
minimum of one 15-minute break per shift. In new paragraph (c)(1)(ii),
we specify that a program must provide, for each staff member working a
shift lasting six hours or more, a minimum of one 30-minute break per
shift. Newly proposed paragraph (c)(2) requires programs to comply with
State laws or regulations that are more stringent for staff breaks, if
applicable. The required breaks outlined in new paragraph (c)(1) are
minimums, and programs may choose to provide staff with longer or more
frequent breaks depending on the needs of staff, children, and their
programs.
For staff members who regularly work in classrooms with children,
the breaks for staff described in (c)(1) will be subject to required
staff-child ratios. However, in newly proposed paragraph (c)(3), we
specify that during break times for classroom staff, one teaching staff
member may be replaced by one staff member who does not meet the
teaching qualifications required for the age, as long as this staff
member has the necessary training and experience to ensure safety of
children and minimal disruption to the quality of services. ACF expects
that, for classroom staff, these regular breaks will be scheduled for
periods that are least disruptive for classroom instruction or
routines, such as during nap times, meals, or outside play periods and
will be covered by staff who have completed the appropriate background
checks.
In addition, we propose to add new paragraph (c)(4), which requires
a program to design and implement a systematic approach to ensure each
staff member that works directly with children as part of their regular
job responsibilities can have access to brief unscheduled wellness
breaks of about 5 minutes as needed while ensuring child safety. ACF
expects these unscheduled breaks to be brief, of approximately 5
minutes in length. The safety of children is of the utmost importance
to ACF, and we recognize this is a key priority for programs as well.
By designing an intentional, systematic approach for brief `wellness'
breaks, we think programs will be able to better support staff members
who feel temporarily overwhelmed or stressed by the challenges of the
position in the classroom or otherwise need a very brief break (e.g.,
to use the restroom or take an emergency phone call). It will allow
staff the opportunity to briefly step away from an overwhelming
situation, calm down as needed, and think through an appropriate
approach to handling the given situation. We believe this can help
prevent or reduce child incidents in classrooms. At the same time,
careful attention should be given at the program level to allow for
these brief wellness breaks while also promoting the safety of
children. It is expected that the number of unscheduled breaks could
vary daily, and it may be the case that on any given day individuals
may not need unscheduled breaks whereas on other days they could need
more. We request public comment on the length or ideal frequency of
these brief wellness breaks.
We also propose to add a new paragraph (d) to Sec. 1302.93 which
requires programs to ensure staff have access to adult size furniture
in classrooms. This could include, for instance, adult sized chairs or
desks depending on what the classroom layout allows. This change was
motivated by the data indicating that staff in Head Start programs
experience work-related ergonomic pain. For example, a survey of Head
Start teachers in Baltimore found that 80 percent reported
musculoskeletal pain as a result of their work.\121\ In an Oklahoma
sample of Head Start teachers, more than seven in ten (73 percent) Head
Start staff reported work-related ergonomic pain, including in routine
activities like diapering or stooping to pick up children.\122\
Additionally, nearly one-third reported neck pain (31 percent), one in
four reported shoulder pain (26 percent), and over half reported back
pain (56 percent).\123\ The proposed requirement for adult size
furniture will support the physical health of teachers and aligns with
ACF's goal of improving
[[Page 80838]]
and investing in staff health and wellness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\121\ The Happy Teacher Project. (2020). Strengthening Health,
Wellness, and Psychosocial Environments in Head Start: Technical
Report 2020. Johns Hopkins University and Oklahoma State University
\122\ Kwon, K., Ford, T., Randall, K., Castle, S. (2021). Head
Start Teacher Paradox: Working conditions, well-being, and classroom
quality. The Happy Teacher Project: Johns Hopkins University and
Oklahoma State University.
\123\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Together, regularly scheduled breaks, brief unscheduled wellness
breaks, and access to adult size furniture in classrooms will provide
staff with more of the support they need to provide high-quality
education and care to enrolled children. There are no Federal and few
State or local laws regarding employers' offering of staff breaks. The
work of ECE staff, including Head Start teachers, involves actively
educating, caring for, and supervising young children, jobs that
require the full attention of staff members and can be physically,
mentally, and emotionally demanding, particularly if done for long
shift periods. Prior research suggests that Head Start teachers have
low or inconsistent access to regular or unscheduled breaks at work.
For instance, in 2021, the Happy Teacher Project found that 62 percent
of Head Start teachers have no designated breaks, compared to 44
percent of the general ECE workforce.\124\ In another survey of Head
Start teachers in Maryland, 85 percent reported there was no designated
break time for staff (other than children's nap time) and 69 percent
reported there were no consistent bathroom breaks for staff; 55 percent
indicated that more daily breaks would improve overall well-being.\125\
In samples of ECE teachers, up to one-third have reported diseases such
as urinary tract infections and high blood pressure at higher rates
than in populations of similar sociodemographic composition.\126\ This
research suggests some Head Start staff may work full-day shifts
without adequate breaks to eat their own meals, attend to minor
personal tasks, or take care of their own mental and physical well-
being.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\124\ Kwon, K., Ford, T., Randall, K., Castle, S. (2021). Head
Start Teacher Paradox: Working conditions, well-being, and classroom
quality. The Happy Teacher Project: Johns Hopkins University and
Oklahoma State University.
\125\ The Happy Teacher Project. (2020). Strengthening Health,
Wellness, and Psychosocial Environments in Head Start: Technical
Report 2020. Johns Hopkins University and Oklahoma State University.
\126\ Kwon, K., et al., (2022). Neglected elements of a high-
quality early childhood workforce: Whole teacher well-being and
working conditions. Early Childhood Education Journal, 50, 157-168.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The lack of access to breaks at work may be part of a constellation
of workplace stressors faced by Head Start staff, which as described
previously, includes financial stress and the significant
responsibility entrusted to Head Start staff who are charged with
supporting the most vulnerable children and families who face a myriad
of challenges. Work climate and stressors are associated with teacher
psychological well-being,\127\ and in turn, contribute to staff
turnover.\128\ In the Baltimore survey, 43 percent of Head Start
teachers surveyed reported an intention to leave the job.\129\
Additionally, as stated earlier, Head Start staff turnover in 2022 was
the highest it has been in two decades. Staff turnover interrupts
adult-child relationships and is associated with poorer child outcomes
\130\ and increases the workloads and schedule changes for the teachers
who remain.\131\ Among staff who remain in their jobs, work
environments and physical and psychological well-being are associated
with teachers' relationships with children and children's
outcomes.\132\ In a study of ECE centers that included Head Start
programs, lead and assistant teachers' work stress was associated with
children's social and emotional outcomes, including anxiety-withdrawal
and social competence.\133\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\127\ Jeon, L., & Ardeleau, K. (2020). Work climate in early
care and education and teachers' stress: Indirect associations
through emotion regulation. Early Education & Development, 31(7),
1031-1051; Jeon, L., Buettner, C., & Grant, A. (2018). Early
childhood teachers' psychological well-being: Exploring potential
predictors of depression, stress, and emotional exhaustion. Early
Education & Development, 29(1), 53-69.
\128\ Grant, A., Jeon, L. & Buettner, C. (2019). Relating early
childhood teachers' working conditions and wellbeing in their
turnover intentions. Educational Psychology, 39(3), 294-312.
\129\ The Happy Teacher Project. (2020). Strengthening Health,
Wellness, and Psychosocial Environments in Head Start: Technical
Report 2020. Johns Hopkins University and Oklahoma State University.
\130\ Markowitz, A., & Bassok, D. (2018). Teacher turnover and
child development in Head Start. Paper presented at the Association
for Public Policy Analysis and Management Conference. U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services & U.S. Department of
Education. (2016).
\131\ Cassidy, D.J., Lower, J.K., Kintner-Duffy, V.L., Hegde,
A.V., & Shim, J. (2011). The day-to-day reality of teacher turnover
in preschool classrooms: An analysis of classroom context and
teacher, director, and parent perspectives. Journal of Research in
Childhood Education, 25(1), 1-23.
\132\ Jeon, L., Buettner, C., Grant, A., & Lang, S. (2019).
Early childhood teachers' stress and children's social, emotional,
and behavioral functioning. Journal of Applied Developmental
Psychology, 61, 21-32.; Jeon, S., Jeon, L., Lang, S. & Newell, K.
(2021). Teacher depressive symptoms and child math achievement in
Head Start: The roles of family-teacher relationships and approaches
to learning. Child Development, 92(6), 2478-2495.; The Happy Teacher
Project (2020).; Smith, S., & Lawrence, S. (2019). Early Care and
Education Teacher Well-Being: Associations with Children's
Experience, Outcomes, and Workplace Conditions (Issue March). https://www.nccp.org/publications/pdf/text_1224.pdf.
\133\ Jeon, L., Buettner, C., Grant, A., & Lang, S. (2019).
Early childhood teachers' stress and children's social, emotional,
and behavioral functioning. Journal of Applied Developmental
Psychology, 61, 21-32.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research suggests that early childhood teacher well-being was low
prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, and that the pandemic exacerbated the
workplace, financial, and other stressors among the ECE workforce,
contributing to reductions in emotional well-being, physical health,
and job commitment in the workforce.\134\ Further, research finds
evidence of racial differences, such as higher rates of stress for
Black teachers and higher rates of ergonomic pain for Latinx teachers
for those teaching in-person when compared to their White counterparts,
with implications for equity among a workforce that is
disproportionately women of color.\135\ The pandemic also exacerbated
the challenges in recruiting and retaining ECE staff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\134\ Hanno, E., Gardner, M., Jones, S., & Lesaux, N. (2022). An
ecological perspective on early educator well-being at the start of
the COVID-19 pandemic. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2022.02.002; Kwon, K., Ford, T., Tsotsoros,
J., Randall, K., Malek-Lasater, A., & Kim, S. (2022). Challenges in
working conditions and well-being of early childhood teachers by
teaching modality during the COVID-19 pandemic. International
Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19, 4919.;
Markowitz, A., & Bassok, D. (2022). Understanding the well-being of
early educators in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic: Lessons
from Louisiana. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2022.05.001; Souto-Manning, M., & Melvin, S.
(2022). Early childhood teachers of color in New York City:
Heightened stress, lower quality of life, declining health, and
compromised sleep amidst COVID-19. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 60, 34-48.
\135\ Kwon, K., Ford, T., Tsotsoros, J., Randall, K., Malek-
Lasater, A., & Kim, S. (2022). Challenges in working conditions and
well-being of early childhood teachers by teaching modality during
the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Environmental
Research and Public Health, 19, 4919.; Souto-Manning, M., & Melvin,
S. (2022). Early childhood teachers of color in New York City:
Heightened stress, lower quality of life, declining health, and
compromised sleep amidst COVID-19. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 60, 34-48.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each standard that ACF proposes in this section is responsive to
research, survey data, and Head Start administrative and internal data
which collectively demonstrate that more attention must be paid to
educator wellness and well-being. Evidence from the field shows that
early childhood educators' mental and physical health and well-being
are often neglected or overlooked. One survey administered during the
COVID-19 pandemic found that teachers ranked ``more daily breaks and
paid leave'' in the top five items needed to support their well-
being.\136\ Other research prior to the pandemic in a national sample
and one in Oklahoma
[[Page 80839]]
found that teachers rated breaks as fifth and second, respectively, as
needs for their workplaces.\137\ ACF's proposed requirements in this
section are intended to be responsive to these research findings and
support Head Start staff well-being by ensuring they have access to
regular, scheduled breaks, and to brief unscheduled breaks, which may
be useful stress management strategies in infrequent circumstances when
a teacher is feeling overwhelmed. Additionally, these proposed
standards will strengthen supports for Head Start early educators
during the on-going post-pandemic and long-term recovery of the
workforce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\136\ Kwon, K., Ford, T., Tsotsoros, J., Randall, K., Malek-
Lasater, A., & Kim, S. (2022). Challenges in working conditions and
well-being of early childhood teachers by teaching modality during
the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Environmental
Research and Public Health, 19, 4919.
\137\ Kwon, K., Ford, T., Randall, K., Castle, S. (2021). Head
Start Teacher Paradox: Working conditions, well-being, and classroom
quality. The Happy Teacher Project: Johns Hopkins University and
Oklahoma State University.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We seek public comment on how any of the proposed staff wellness
requirements in this section may impact various communities. We
specifically request public comment from the special populations served
by Head Start, including AIAN and MSHS programs and communities.
Workforce Supports: Employee Engagement (Sec. 1302.92, Sec. 1302.101)
Section 1302.101(a)(2) requires programs to implement a management
system that provides regular and ongoing staff supervision to support
individual professional development and continuous program quality
improvement. Disengaged staff are not as emotionally committed to or
proud of their work or organization, are less motivated, and are more
eager to leave.\138\ Disengagement negatively affects the well-being of
staff, the quality of their work, and the attitudes held toward
children.\139\ Meaningful and effective employee engagement practices
that promote clear roles and responsibilities are needed to improve the
well-being of the workforce by helping identify and address job-related
stress, burnout, and workload issues. These practices also empower the
workforce, build respect in the workplace, and improve staff retention
and overall job satisfaction. As such, we propose to revise this
requirement to discourage staff supervision approaches that are
primarily top-down by requiring programs to promote clear and
reasonable roles and responsibilities for all staff with meaningful and
effective employee engagement practices as part of their systematic
approach to staff supervision. The changes proposed in this section are
intended to be scaled to the size of the Head Start organization and
are not anticipated to incur a large cost.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\138\ Gallup, I. State of the global workplace report.
Gallup.com. https://www.gallup.com/workplace/349484/state-of-the-global-workplace-2022-report.aspx.
\139\ Jennings, P.A., & Greenberg, M.T. (2009). The Prosocial
Classroom: Teacher Social and Emotional Competence in Relation to
Student and Classroom Outcomes. Review of Educational Research,
79(1), 491-525. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308325693.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specifically, in Sec. 1302.101(a)(2) we propose to strike
``Provides regular and ongoing supervision to support individual staff
professional development and continuous program improvement'' and
replace it with ``Promotes clear and reasonable roles and
responsibilities for all staff and provides regular and ongoing staff
supervision with meaningful and effective employee engagement
practices.''
Meaningful and effective employee engagement practices will vary
among programs, but examples include discussions of explicit and
implicit expectations, recognition for high-quality work, open
communication between management and staff, conducting and responding
to workplace climate surveys, responding to feedback, working in
partnership with staff to identify and ameliorate any barriers to high-
quality job performance that may exist including workload issues,
formal and informal opportunities for discussions related to job
satisfaction and performance, and having employee engagement inform
professional development opportunities for staff. In general, these
practices should aim to understand the expectations imposed on staff,
identify and address barriers staff are experiencing in being able to
fulfill their roles and responsibilities (e.g., filling multiple roles,
job-related stressors impacting job performance, unclear roles and
responsibilities), and recognize high-quality work.
We also propose two revisions to Sec. 1302.92(b), which requires
programs to implement a systematic approach to staff training and
professional development, in order to integrate meaningful and
effective employee engagement practices and professional development.
First, in Sec. 1302.92(b) we propose to add the phrase ``and
integrated with employee engagement practices in accordance with Sec.
1302.101(a)(2).'' This revision builds on the proposed revision to
Sec. 1302.101(a)(2) and is intended to ensure programs implement an
approach to staff training and professional development that is
designed to be informed by input from staff, identified barriers to job
performance, and other employee engagement practices. Training and
professional development opportunities are more effective in
transferring to practice when staff are opting into the training and
receive support from their supervisor in the process.\140\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\140\ Salamon, J., Blume D., Orosz G., Nagy T. (2021). The
interplay between the level of voluntary participation and
supervisor support on trainee motivation and transfer. Human
Resource Development Quarterly Volume 32, Issue 4, pages 459-481.
https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21428.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, we propose a change to Sec. 1302.92(b)(1). Currently,
Sec. 1302.92(b)(1) requires that staff receive a minimum of 15 clock
hours of professional development per year. For teaching staff, this
professional development must meet the requirements described in
section 648A(a)(5) of the Act, which specifies that the professional
development must be high-quality, sustained, intensive, and classroom-
focused in order to have a lasting positive impact on classroom
instruction and teacher performance. The program must also regularly
evaluate the professional development for effectiveness. Section
648A(f) of the Act requires programs to create, in consultation with an
employee, a professional development plan for all full-time Head Start
employees who provide direct services to children and requires that
such plans are regularly evaluated for their impact on teacher and
staff effectiveness. The agency and staff shall implement the plan to
the extent feasible and practicable. Section 648A(f) of the Act has
been implemented in practice through technical assistance and
monitoring, but it has not been explicitly codified in the HSPPS. We
propose to add new language to Sec. 1302.92(b)(1) that codifies the
requirement in section 648A(f) of the Act for the creation of
individual professional development plans. This proposed change is
anticipated to be cost neutral and is not a policy change or a new or
modified requirement, since programs have always been held to this
statutory requirement in practice. Further, programs are currently able
to use their professional development and training and technical
assistance funds to help staff earn their credentials and degrees.
We believe this proposed change is an important clarification as
data from OHS monitoring findings show that programs are being cited
for lacking professional development plans for their education staff.
Indeed, analysis of internal data from fiscal year 2020-2022 reveals a
top cited monitoring finding in OHS oversight reviews of programs was
related to lack of appropriate
[[Page 80840]]
professional development plans for staff.\141\ Additionally, as
described previously, since the onset of the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic,
many Head Start programs have had turnover in leadership and have
suffered from on-going staffing shortages and vacancies in staff
positions. The proposed addition to Sec. 1302.92(b)(1) will remind new
program leaders of this important requirement for their program staff
to support the professional development of their workforce. It can also
help improve staff retention by leveraging an existing requirement
intended to support staff growth and professional development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\141\ Data from narrative responses from monitoring reviews from
fiscal years 2020-2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mental Health Services (Subpart D; Subpart H; Subpart I)
Currently, programmatic requirements related to mental health
appear in several areas of the standards, including Sec. 1302 Subpart
A, Subpart D, Subpart H, and Subpart I. In this NPRM, we propose
several changes to these sections of the HSPPS to enhance and clarify
the importance of mental health services for Head Start children,
families, and staff. Mental health and social-emotional well-being
during early childhood are foundational for family well-being and
children's healthy development and early learning and are associated
with positive long-term outcomes.\142\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\142\ https://www.acf.hhs.gov/ecd/policy-guidance/dear-colleague-social-emotional-development-and-mental-health.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We know that social-emotional difficulties impact up to 20 percent
of children under the age of 5, and that over half of mental health
disorders begin before age 14.\143\ We also know that children and
families experiencing poverty are more likely to encounter stressors
linked to mental health challenges as well as experience barriers to
accessing mental health services. Research findings specifically
indicate that children and families living in high-poverty
neighborhoods exhibit worse mental health outcomes compared to
individuals living in low-poverty neighborhoods.\144\ Therefore, a
focus on social determinants of health, or the conditions in which
individuals live, work and play, can lead to better mental health
outcomes and prevent future mental illness.\145\ Head Start programs
are well positioned to support children and families experiencing
poverty by strengthening the focus on mental health in the settings
where children spend most of their day and where families are provided
the services that they need to help their children succeed in school
and in life.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\143\ National Research Council and Institute of Medicine
Committee. Preventing mental, emotional, and behavioral disorders
among young people: progress and possibilities. Washington, DC:
National Academies Press; 2009.
Brauner, C.B., & Stephens, C.B. (2006). Estimating the
prevalence of early childhood serious emotional/behavioral
disorders: Challenges and recommendations. Public health reports,
121(3), 303-310.
\144\ Leventhal, T., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2003). Moving to
Opportunity: an Experimental Study of Neighborhood Effects on Mental
Health. American Journal of Public Health 93(9). 1576-1582. doi:
10.2105/ajph.93.9.1576.
\145\ https://www.nami.org/Blogs/NAMI-Blog/August-2020/Ways-We-Can-Address-the-Social-Determinants-of-Mental-Health.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to children, the impact of poor adult mental health has
also garnered national attention, including the importance of
addressing mental health for the ECE workforce.\146\ In 2021, 57.8
million adults (22.8 percent) were affected by mental illness and 46.3
million (16.5 percent) of people aged 12 and older had a substance use
disorder.\147\ We know that mental health of young children is
intertwined with the mental health of the adults that care for them. We
also know that early childhood experiences, like trusting relationships
with caregivers in a stable, nurturing environment, aid in the
development of skills that build resilience. Head Start is in a unique
position to provide these experiences and extend them to the home
environment. Fostering a child's relationship with adults in their life
and providing them with the best environment to grow requires an
intentional focus on both child and adult well-being. Head Start
strives to do both.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\146\ Otten, J.J., Bradford, V.A., Stover, B., Hill, H.D.,
Osborne, C., Getts, K., & Seixas, N. (2019). The culture of health
in early care and education: workers' wages, health, and job
characteristics. Health affairs, 38(5), 709-720.
\147\ Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.
(2022). Key substance use and mental health indicators in the United
States: Results from the 2021 National Survey on Drug Use and Health
(HHS Publication No. PEP22-07-01-005, NSDUH Series H-57). Center for
Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality, Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Services Administration. https://www.samhsa.gov/data/report/2021-nsduh-annual-national-report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes to the HSPPS related to mental health are needed to
leverage and build on Head Start's capacity to promote wellness and
prevent future mental health challenges for Head Start children,
families, and staff. The approach taken in this NPRM aligns with
efforts across HHS \148\ to (1) increase mental health integration,
coordination, and consultation in a range of settings outside
traditional mental health service spaces; (2) create healthy
environments that focus on promotion and prevention efforts across the
lifespan; and (3) connect people to the care they need via an approach
that engages high-risk populations in integrated mental health care
through targeted outreach tailored to their needs.\149\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\148\ Working to ensure that all young children and their
caregivers have access to high-quality resources that equitably
support social-emotional development and mental health. U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children
and Families, Early Childhood Development, 2022.
\149\ https://aspe.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/4e2fff45d3f5706d35326b320ed842b3/roadmap-behavioral-health-integration.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed changes described here cut across multiple areas of
the standards and serve to strengthen, clarify, and enhance existing
Head Start requirements to highlight a comprehensive and integrated
approach to elevate mental health across the entire Head Start program.
Head Start programs are a conduit to mental health services for those
most in need and are settings in which children spend a significant
amount of time. With an emphasis on a holistic approach to healthy
development, it stands to reason that the HSPPS should reflect the
importance of this service in an integrated fashion. The proposed
changes clarify what is meant by wellness promotion, affirm that mental
health is included in health services provided in Head Start,
strengthen language to integrate coordinating support for child and
adult mental health, incorporate strengths-based language by reducing
the focus on concerns or challenging behaviors related to mental health
and adding a focus on supports and development of children, strengthen
requirements to prevent and work towards eliminating all suspension and
expulsions in Head Start programs, clarify expectations and
responsibilities of the mental health consultant by aligning the
definition of infant and early childhood mental health consultation
with the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
(SAMHSA) and research in the field, and reduce barriers to obtaining
mental health consultation services by clarifying staff qualifications
and removing language that consent is needed by a parent as mental
health consultants do not provide treatment.\150\ Implementation of
these changes will involve both updates to existing practice
[[Page 80841]]
as well as new internal processes for programs. OHS will support
programs as they implement these enhanced requirements through the
robust Head Start training and technical assistance system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\150\ Mental health consultation is a prevention-based approach
that teams a mental health professional with early care and
education staff and families. This team works on ways to help
promote the social and emotional development of the young children
in their care.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1302 Subpart A--Eligibility, Recruitment, Selection, Enrollment, and
Attendance
Section 1302.17 describes Head Start's policies that severely limit
suspension and prohibit expulsion due to a child's behavior. Data with
nationally representative samples of State-funded prekindergarten
programs, including Head Start programs, have found that over 10
percent of preschool teachers expelled at least one preschooler in the
previous year, which was three times the rate for K-12 students.\151\
Suspension and expulsion practices have long-lasting negative impacts
for young children and their families, including on children's later
school attendance, academics, and family stress. Additionally, research
has well documented that disproportionalities exist in suspending or
expelling students who are young boys of color, children with
disabilities, and children who are dual language learners.\152\ For
example, in the 2017-2018 school year there were about 2800 preschool
suspensions, and African American boys received 43 percent of
suspensions despite making up 18 percent of preschool enrollment.\153\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\151\ Gilliam, W.S. (2005). Prekindergarteners left behind:
Expulsion rates in state prekindergarten systems. New York, NY:
Foundation for Child Development.
\152\ Horowitz, M. (2015). Early Childhood Suspension and
Expulsion. Center on Enhancing Early Learning Outcomes (CEELO).
Retrieved from: https://ceelo.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/ceelo_annotated_bib_expulsion_2015_08_final_web.pdf.
\153\ U.S Department of Education Office for Civil Rights
(2021). An overview of exclusionary discipline practices in public
schools for the 2017-18 school year. See https://ocrdata.ed.gov/assets/downloads/crdc-exclusionary-school-discipline.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACF has a focus on preventing use of suspension and expulsion in
programs, and ensuring that any use of these disciplinary practices
does not perpetuate disproportionalities across different groups of
children, and many of the proposed changes to regulations codify this
further. This NPRM retains the prohibition on expulsions and severe
limitations on use of suspension, clarifying that suspension is a
measure of last resort to allow the program time to put needed supports
and accommodations in place. Additionally, several of the mental health
related approaches proposed in this NPRM are targeted at building adult
capacity to understand and respond to challenging behaviors associated
with suspension/expulsion early and effectively, such as requiring
staff to be trained to understand behavior and implement positive
disciplinary strategies as well as effective implementation of mental
health consultation.\154\ The proposed changes to the suspension and
expulsion section of the standards are intended to further our efforts
to reduce the use of suspension and expulsion and clarify terminology
and expectations related to suspension and expulsion practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\154\ Perry, D.F., Holland, C., Darling-Kuria, N., & Nadiv, S.
(2011). Challenging behavior from child care: The role of mental
health consultation (32, pp. 4-11). Zero to Three.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, we propose to add broad definitions of suspension and
expulsion to Sec. 1305.2 to provide clarity on which disciplinary
practices are captured under these respective categories. The broader
definitions proposed here align with Caring for our Children standards,
which are developed in collaboration with experts and widely used in
ECE settings, and the Head Start Center for Inclusion.\155\ We propose
to define expulsion as the permanent removal of a child from the
learning setting or a requirement that a child unenroll in a program.
We propose to define suspension as the temporary removal of a child
from the learning setting including all reductions in the amount of
time a child may be in attendance of the regular group setting, either
by requiring the child to cease attendance for a particular period of
time or reducing the number of days or amount of time that a child may
attend. Requiring a child to attend the program away from the other
children in the regular group setting is included in this definition.
Requiring the parent or the parent's designee to pick up a child for
reasons other than illness or injury is also included in this
definition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\155\ https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/children-disabilities/article/head-start-center-inclusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The goal of suspension should always be for the child to return to
the least restrictive and most integrated educational environment
safely and expediently. We do not provide guidelines for the specific
length of time for suspensions because the appropriate time depends on
many factors, such as the immediacy and severity of the safety concern
and the complexity and availability of supports needed to facilitate
the child's return to full participation. Suspensions should not be
used indefinitely or repeatedly, and longer periods of suspension take
away opportunities for children to develop the social and emotional
skills that improve challenging behaviors in the long-term.\156\
Programs should use the temporary suspension period to actively
collaborate with families, mental health professionals, the
multidisciplinary team responsible for mental health and others to
develop a coordinated plan and timeline for supporting the identified
child and their family to return to full participation. Programs should
also engage with the child and family, mental health professionals,
multidisciplinary team responsible for mental health, and other
relevant staff, regularly during the temporary suspension period to
ensure that the child continues to be supported during this time, such
as through home visitation or community services, and to provide
regular check-ins on the program's progress in implementing the
collaborative plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\156\ McCabe, L.A & Frede, E.C. (2007). Challenging behaviors
and the role of preschool education. New Brunswick, NJ: National
Institute for Early Education Research. Available: nieer.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/16.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The existing suspension standards in Sec. 1302.17(a) already
include many of the components of the approach described above.
However, we propose to add language to clarify the expectations of the
steps that should be taken before a suspension can be determined to be
necessary, and that a program needs to thoroughly document plans
related to suspension similar to how they document plans related to
transferring a child to a setting that can better meet their needs. By
documenting suspension practices, we intend to be better positioned to
assess how and when disproportionalities in the use of suspensions may
be occurring across different groups of children. Specifically, we
propose to modify Sec. 1302.17(a)(2) to say that a suspension must be
used only as a resort where there is a serious safety threat that ``has
not been'' reduced instead of ``cannot be'' reduced or eliminated to
emphasize that the program should take active steps to attempt to
reduce or eliminate the concern and demonstrate that these have not
worked. Additionally, the current standard notes the provision of
``reasonable modifications'' which we propose to change to
``interventions and supports recommended by the mental health
consultant'' to again emphasize that prior to a suspension being
considered, it is expected that the program engages with the mental
health consultant to apply and assess whether supports and
interventions, such as use of visual aids or preferred seating, can
have an impact. Finally, we add an additional phrase that reflects the
[[Page 80842]]
intended purpose of a temporary suspension, ``and the program needs
time to put additional appropriate services in place.''
In addition to the mental health consultant, we have added in Sec.
1302.17(a)(3) that ``the multidisciplinary team responsible for mental
health'' must also be part of the discussion before a program
determines whether a temporary suspension is necessary. This new
addition of a multidisciplinary team is discussed further in proposed
changes to Sec. 1302.45 below.
If a temporary suspension is deemed necessary by the program, we
have added proposed language to 1302.17(a)(4) to clarify and strengthen
existing standards regarding what a program must do to bring the child
back to the program as expediently as possible. Specifically, we
propose to add a statement to of Sec. 1302.17(a)(4) that states a
program must explore all possible steps and document all steps taken to
address the behavior(s) and supports needed to facilitate the child's
safe reentry and continued participation in the program. In outlining
these steps, we propose to strengthen existing language in Sec.
1302.17(a)(4)(i) to (iii) to further clarify and enhance the actions a
program must take to reengage the child in program services. First, we
propose to revise Sec. 1302.17(a)(4)(i) by adding ``the
multidisciplinary team responsible for mental health, and other
appropriate staff'' to clarify that these are additional groups the
program must continue to engage to support the child. Next, we propose
to remove current Sec. 1302.17(a)(4)(ii), which requires a written
plan to document action and supports, as this is now incorporated into
new language proposed for Sec. 1302.17(a)(4), described previously.
Next, we propose to redesignate Sec. 1302.17(a)(4)(iii) as Sec.
1302.17(a)(4)(ii) and further enhance this requirement by adding
language that clarifies that home visits could be one of multiple
additional services for the child. The revised Sec. 1302.17(a)(4)(ii)
reads ``Providing additional program supports and services, including
home visits.'' Finally, we propose to redesignate Sec.
1302.17(a)(4)(iv) as Sec. 1302.17(a)(4)(iii) and enhance this standard
with additional language that requires coordination with a child's
individual family service plan (IFSP) or individual education plan
(IEP), if appropriate. In the rare instance the program is unable to
meet the needs of a child while they are in the learning setting, our
intent is that these changes will provide sufficient clarity on how to
return a child quickly to program services with the correct supports in
place.
Furthermore, while Head Start prohibits expulsion, as stated in
Sec. 1302.17(b), we do know there are instances where there is a more
appropriate placement for a child. In those instances, it is imperative
that the child is not unenrolled from the Head Start program without
having a more appropriate placement to attend that is prepared to
provide services immediately. Therefore, we propose to add additional
language to the end of Sec. 1302.17(b)(3) to clarify that a program
must work to directly facilitate the transition of the child to a more
appropriate placement ``that can immediately enroll and provide
services to the child.'' We also propose to add language to Sec.
1302.17(b)(2) and (b)(3) to require that the multidisciplinary team
responsible for mental health join in discussions of how to prevent an
expulsion from occurring, as well as new language to require engagement
of parents in Sec. 1302.17(b)(2). Taken together, we believe these
changes will ensure that the child is surrounded by the appropriate
care team that can make decisions in the best interest of the child. It
is particularly important that we incorporate parents early on as we
know that high expulsion rates are an indicator that we are not helping
parents and caregivers to support the positive social and emotional
development that is foundational for positive future outcomes.\157\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\157\ https://www.zerotothree.org/preventing-expulsion-from-preschool-and-child-care/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACF seeks public comment on whether the proposed definitions for
suspension and expulsion are appropriate, as well as on the process
proposed in order to support programs in determining whether a
temporary suspension is warranted.
1302 Subpart D--Health Program Services
There are many barriers to mental health care, including
stigmatization of mental health and concerns about availability of the
behavioral health workforce.\158\ By strengthening promotion and
prevention efforts throughout the standards, we are seeking to provide
a strong social-emotional foundation for children by being more
intentional about the integration of mental health supports across all
aspects of the Head Start program. We intend to reinforce that mental
health is integral to many other aspects of the Head Start system and
propose regulatory changes that utilize preventive approaches to mental
health in other comprehensive service areas, such as health and family
engagement. If programs have conversations about mental health early
and often, they can also identify children, families, and staff with
specific needs and intervene before more time and resource intensive
care becomes necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\158\ https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-23-105250.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart D outlines the program requirements to support the
provision of high-quality health, oral health, mental health, and
nutrition services. We propose to change the name of this section from
``Health Program Services'' to ``Health and Mental Health Program
Services'' to include mental health more explicitly in the standards,
affirm that mental health is a critical component of health, and to
facilitate ease of access to standards that closely relate to mental
health topics.
Sec. 1302.40 Purpose
This section describes the overarching purpose of health and mental
health program services in Head Start. In paragraph (b) we propose to
replace ``Health Services Advisory Committee'' with ``Health and Mental
Health Services Advisory Committee'' to include mental health more
explicitly in this requirement. The proposed change will clarify that
mental health should be represented in conversations about health needs
and services, including in the advisory committee. The proposed change
would carry throughout the proposed standards for consistency,
including in Sec. 1302.42(b)(1)(i), Sec. 1302.43(b)(4), and Sec.
1302.94(a).
Sec. 1302.41 Collaboration and Communication With Parents
Section 1302.41 requires Head Start programs to collaborate with
parents as partners in the health and well-being of their children and
communicate timely with parents about their children's health needs and
development concerns.
Throughout Sec. 1302.41, we propose to add ``mental health''
wherever health is mentioned to clarify that mental health is an
integral part of health. Incorporating mental health into conversations
about a child's development and health normalizes and destigmatizes
talking about mental health. These proposed regulatory changes are
intended to increase conversations about mental health strengths and
areas of concern early on with parents so that everyone has the
information and tools to support the child's mental health across
different settings, contributing to reducing barriers to accessing care
and increasing
[[Page 80843]]
the chance that future mental illness will be prevented.
Sec. 1302.42 Child Health Status and Care
Section 1302.42 describes the requirements of programs with respect
to a child's health status and care, including the timelines by which
programs must ensure a child has an ongoing source of continuous,
accessible health care; determine if a child is up to date on a
schedule of age-appropriate care; and obtain or perform evidence-based
vision and hearing screenings. We propose two changes to this section.
First, we know that many young children with mental health issues
do not have them identified by the time they enter elementary
school,\159\ and are therefore losing a critical opportunity to receive
early interventions and supports. The current regulations only specify
that programs should ensure that children are up to date with medical,
developmental, and oral health care schedules. Regular screening for
mental health concerns is also necessary to ensure children and
families with needs are identified early so that they can access
appropriate interventions. Therefore, in Sec. 1302.42 (b)(1)(i), we
propose to add ``mental health'' to align with the purpose and intent
of the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic and Treatment (EPSDT)
benefit that provides comprehensive and preventive health care
services, including mental health, for children who are enrolled in
Medicaid.\160\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\159\ Glascoe, F.P. (2005). Screening for developmental and
behavioral problems. Mental retardation and developmental
disabilities research reviews, 11(3), 173-179.
\160\ https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/benefits/early-and-periodic-screening-diagnostic-and-treatment/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, in Sec. 1302.42 (b)(4), we propose to add ``relevant
developmental or mental health concerns'' to clarify that when a
program is identifying a child's nutritional health needs, that
developmental and mental health concerns should also be considered.
This proposed addition is intended to capture best practices in the
field, which acknowledge that developmental and mental health factors
such as sensory aversions and feeding disorders play a role in
nutritional health.\161\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\161\ Zero to Three (2016). DC: 0-5: Diagnostic Classification
of mental health and developmental disorders of infancy and early
childhood. Washington, DC; American Psychiatric Association.
Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM-5)
American Psychiatric Pub; 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 1302.45 Child Mental Health and Social and Emotional Well-Being
This section outlines what programs must do to support a culture
that promotes children's mental health and outlines the scope of
responsibilities of mental health consultants. For reasons stated at
the outset of this section, Head Start has the capacity to reach people
who are at higher risk for experiencing stressors and barriers to care
and provide integrated preventive mental health supports into
comprehensive services provided for the child and family. We propose
numerous changes to Sec. 1302.45 to strengthen, clarify and enhance
existing Head Start mental health requirements, including intentionally
integrating more staff attuned to the mental health needs of children
and families by requiring a multidisciplinary team responsible for
mental health within the program. This multidisciplinary team is
intended to both destigmatize mental health and increase the capacity
and reach of the mental health consultant. Other proposed changes range
from important revisions to language to proposed changes to the
approach to service delivery. We describe each of these changes in
turn.
First, we propose to change the title of this section from ``Child
mental health and social and emotional well-being'' to ``Supports for
mental health and well-being.'' Research demonstrates that child well-
being is inextricably linked to adult well-being and in order to
address child mental health, we need to address the mental health of
caregivers as well, including both staff and parents.\162\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\162\ Wolicki SB, Bitsko RH, Cree RA, et al. Associations of
mental health among parents and other primary caregivers with child
health indicators: Analysis of caregivers, by sex--National Survey
of Children's Health, 2016-2018, Adversity and Resilience Science:
Journal of Research and Practice. Published online April 19, 2021.
Lowry C, Stegeman I, Rauch F, Jani A. Modifying the school
determinants of children's health. J R Soc Med. 2022;115(1):16-21.
doi:10.1177/01410768211051718. Jeon L, Buettner CK, Grant AA, Lang
SN. Early childhood teachers' stress and children's social,
emotional, and behavioral functioning. Journal of Applied
Developmental Psychology. 2019;61:21-32. doi: 10.1016/
j.appdev.2018.02.002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Next, we propose four changes in Sec. 1302.45(a). First, in the
overarching requirement, we propose to change ``Wellness promotion'' to
``Program-wide wellness supports'' to align with the new title of this
section and to clarify that programs should provide wellness supports
across the program. Second, we propose to remove ``children's'' in this
section to clarify that program-wide wellness supports are intended to
promote the wellness of both children and adults. Third, we also
propose to add ``safety'' in the description of a program-wide culture
because wellness is dependent on meeting basic needs, including safety,
and because it aligns with language in other standards which refer to
children's health and safety.\163\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\163\ SAMHSA (2016). Creating a Healthier Life: A Step-by-Step
Guide to Wellness. Publication ID: SMA16-4958. Available online at
https://store.samhsa.gov/product/Creating-a-Healthier-Life/SMA16-4958.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fourth, to clarify what programs must do to support a program-wide
culture that promotes mental health, social and emotional well-being,
and overall health and safety, we add new guidance to Sec. 1302.45(a)
that a program must ``have a multidisciplinary team responsible for
mental health.'' In addition to integrating more people into the
conversation to address mental health, the multidisciplinary team
responsible for mental health is also intended to develop and implement
mental health efforts and supports that are not related to
consultation, and to facilitate communication across service areas and
systems in Head Start. The formation of such a team also aligns with
recommendations by infant and early childhood consultation experts to
have a group that can provide strategic planning, guidance and
coordination related to mental health.\164\ By requiring a
multidisciplinary team focused on mental health, we also aim for mental
health supports and interventions, which have the potential to be more
sustainable in programs. Currently, if the program relies on a
consultant to provide all mental health related services, issues such
as the availability of the mental health workforce and turnover may
have a larger impact on the continuation of quality services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\164\ Green, B. & Allen, M.D. (2012). Developing and
Implementing a Program wide Vision for Effective Mental Health
Consultation. Center for Early Childhood Mental Health Consultation.
https://www.iecmhc.org/documents/CECMHC_AdministratorsToolkit.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Multidisciplinary means the involvement of two or more separate
disciplines or professions that actively work in tandem with parents to
provide supports for children and families.\165\ For example, a mental
health team may be comprised of a family service worker, teacher,
mental health manager, disability service coordinator, and health
specialist. This list is not intended to be exhaustive, and the intent
is for programs to have flexibility in determining the appropriate
[[Page 80844]]
composition of the multidisciplinary team. The rationale for this
change is that providing program-wide wellness supports cannot rely on
one individual such as a mental health consultant, and that many
individuals working in Head Start already have expertise that can
benefit program-wide wellness support efforts. Based on our experience
overseeing the implementation of the Head Start program across the
country, recipients that are most effective at supporting mental health
create a team comprised of multiple individuals that may work with
children, families, or staff in different capacities. We also want to
acknowledge that many Head Start programs already have this practice in
place in the form of case conferencing, which will facilitate the
implementation of this practice as described in the proposed
regulation. Furthermore, the establishment of a formal
multidisciplinary team focused on mental health will support programs
in the implementation of the other enhancements to mental health
services described in this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\165\ For a federally accepted definition of
`multidisciplinary,' see: https://sites.ed.gov/idea/regs/c/a/303.24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the changes to the overarching requirement in
paragraph (a), we also propose changes and additions to the provisions
for what activities are expected from the program-wide wellness
supports, for a total of six provisions. The first provision, new Sec.
1302.45(a)(1), describes that the multidisciplinary team responsible
for mental health ``coordinates supports for adult mental health and
well-being including engaging in nurturing and responsive relationships
with families, engaging families in home visiting services, and
promoting staff health and wellness, as described in Sec. 1302.93.''
We believe this language clarifies how a program most effectively
addresses adult mental health.
For the second provision, we propose to redesignate current Sec.
1302.45(a)(1) to become Sec. 1302.45(a)(2) with the revised language
describing that the multidisciplinary team's role is to ``coordinate''
as opposed to ``provide supports.'' We then propose language changes to
describe what supports the team is responsible for coordinating,
including supports for positive learning environments, supportive
teacher practices and strategies to support children's mental health
concerns. Specifically, we propose to remove ``effective classroom
management'' since this specific term is less aligned with a strengths-
based approach and can contribute to stigma related to a child's
behavior. Instead, we keep the broader strengths-based term of positive
learning environments, as classroom management is one part of creating
a positive learning environment, and the need to monitor and
effectively respond to child behavior applies across program options.
We also make clear that these positive learning environments are for
``all children''. Finally, we propose to replace ``challenging
behaviors'' with ``behavioral or mental health concerns'' to align with
mental health language in other sectors that are less stigmatizing and
more reflective of the concern programs are addressing within infant
and early childhood mental health.
We propose to remove the current Sec. 1302.45(a)(3), which states
that ``a program must obtain parental consent for mental health
consultation services at enrollment'' as this phrasing implies that
mental health consultants provide treatment when, in fact, they provide
consultation services, which do not require parental consent because
the child is not directly receiving the service. Further, consistent
with how programs communicate with parents about health and
developmental services, we propose to include mental health services
(which can include consultation services) in Sec. 1302.41(b)(1).
For the third provision, in new paragraph Sec. 1302.45(a)(3), we
propose to redesignate language from the current (a)(2) and further
revise the language by replacing ``schedule of sufficient and
consistent frequency'' with ``no less than once a month'' to specify,
at a minimum, how often mental health consultation services should be
provided in the program in order for partnerships with staff and
families to be timely and effective. Experts from SAMHSA's Center of
Excellence in Infant and Early Childhood Mental Health Consultation
recommend that mental health consultation services should be provided
at least every other week, though considerations such as the size of
the program and availability of services in the community can also
impact the suggested frequency of consultation.\166\ We recognize that
a biweekly frequency may not be feasible for all programs at this time,
particularly in the context of larger concerns about recruiting and
retaining an adequate mental health workforce.\167\ Therefore, we
propose a minimum monthly frequency for these services, which we
believe provides a regular enough schedule of services to allow for
opportunities to embed the consultant into the program and therefore
provide more effective services. ACF specifically requests comment on
this section regarding whether ``no less than once a month'' as a
minimum frequency is appropriate to meet the mental health consultation
needs of programs. We also add to new (a)(3) that the multidisciplinary
team responsible for mental health ``examines the approach to mental
health consultation on an annual basis to determine if it meets the
needs of the program'' in order to provide continuous quality
improvement to ensure that the systems set up in the program are
meeting the mental health needs of adults and children in the program.
Examples of ways programs may want to examine their approach could
include determining whether the program size and needs are being met by
the frequency of consultation services or whether the program needs to
change who is targeted to receive consultation services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\166\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Administration for Children and Families, Office of Head Start,
National Center on Parent, Family, and Community Engagement. (2019).
Infant and Early Childhood Mental Health Consultation: Engaging with
Families.
\167\ https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-23-105250.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the fourth provision, we propose an entirely new Sec.
1302.45(a)(4) that requires that the multidisciplinary team responsible
for mental health ``ensures that all children receive adequate
screening and appropriate follow up and the parent receives referrals
about how to access services for potential social, emotional,
behavioral, or other mental health concerns, as described in Sec.
1302.33.'' This language clarifies the responsibility of the program to
ensure screenings related to social and emotional milestones that
impact mental health are completed or obtained from an appropriate
provider. Additionally, the responsibility of the program is to ensure
appropriate follow up and referral for necessary supports or services
takes place, as warranted, which may be done in coordination with
health and other early childhood systems.
For the fifth provision, we propose an entirely new Sec.
1302.45(a)(5) where we propose to add that the multidisciplinary team
responsible for mental health must facilitate coordination and
collaboration between mental health and other relevant program
services, including education, disability, family engagement, and
health services. We believe this language clarifies and emphasizes that
mental health should be considered holistically along with physical
health and requires a program-wide approach that includes coordinating
across program services.
Finally, the sixth provision in Sec. 1302.45(a) is a redesignation
of an existing provision. We propose that the
[[Page 80845]]
current Sec. 1302.45(a)(4) be redesignated to new Sec. 1302.45(a)(6)
to accommodate the changes described in the previous paragraphs.
Next, we propose numerous changes to paragraph (b) of Sec. 1302.45
and its provisions. We recognize there is an ongoing need to strengthen
and build a more diverse behavioral health workforce. We also recognize
that mental health consultants with specific early childhood expertise
are particularly challenging for programs to identify and secure. To
address this barrier and facilitate the implementation of the proposed
enhancements to other mental health policies, the proposed regulation
changes in Sec. 1302.91(e)(8)(ii), discussed later in this section,
specifically allow programs to secure mental health consultation from
professionals who are in the process of obtaining licensure and are
under the supervision of a licensed mental health professional. We also
include proposed language that reflects the existing literature on
effective practices in infant and early childhood consultation.
Together, the proposed changes in Sec. 1302.45(b) are intended to
align the standards with best practices in infant and early childhood
mental health consultation.\168\ Most notably, the changes are intended
to require that programs focus consultation services on promotion and
prevention efforts by broadening and building programmatic and adult
capacity to support the mental health of the children for whom they
care. We also add language in this section that clarifies expectations
and responsibilities of the mental health consultant by aligning with
the definition of the consultation model that appears in research as
well as in other Federal entities such as the Substance Abuse and
Mental Health Services Administration. We include general types of
consultation services that can be leveraged within programs in the six
provisions that follow. However, effective consultation occurs when
there is ongoing collaboration between consultant and consultee and
consideration of individualized strengths and needs.\169\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\168\ Duran, F. et al. (2009). What Works?: A Study of Effective
Early Childhood Mental Health Consultation Programs. Washington, DC:
Georgetown University Center for Child and Human Development.;
Kaufmann, R. et al. (2012). Creating Practice-Based Principles for
Effective Early Childhood Mental Health Consultation Services.
Washington, DC: Georgetown University Center for Child and Human
Development.
\169\ Kaufmann, R., Perry, D., Irvine, M., Duran, F., Hepburn,
K., & Bruno, A. (2012. Creating Practice-Based Principles for
Effective Early Childhood Mental Health Consultation Services.
Center for Child and Human Development, Georgetown University.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the first provision, Sec. 1302.45(b)(1), we add to the existing
language to clarify a central type of mental health consultation with
the program is focused on promotion and prevention of mental health
concerns, in addition to identifying and supporting existing mental
health concerns.
For the second provision, Sec. 1302.45(b)(2), we propose several
changes that clarify that mental health consultants can consult with
any staff who work with children and families, which may include
teachers, family child care providers, or home visitors, and describe
the general goals of this type of consultation. This change aligns with
our approach of ensuring that every adult who works with children can
benefit from understanding and receiving supports related to mental
health. First, we propose to replace ``teachers, including family child
care providers'' with ``child and family services staff'' to clarify
that mental health consultation can occur with any staff member who
works with children and families. For example, some programs may
determine with their consultant that they would like to increase
consultation targeted at engaging home visitors, given that program's
specific needs. We also propose to remove the phrase ``improve
classroom management and supportive teacher practices'' to align with
the clarification that mental health consultation is not solely focused
on specific classroom or teaching practices. Next, we propose to
replace ``through strategies that include using classroom observations
and consultations to address teacher and individual child needs and
creating physical and cultural environments'' with ``implement
strategies that build nurturing and responsive relationships and create
positive learning environments.'' We believe this language more clearly
aligns with the intended role of a mental health consultant to help
child and family staff implement strategies that will build strong
relationships and positive learning environments, which should not be
limited only to conducting observations. We also note that building
positive learning environments may still include activities such as
classroom management, supportive teacher practices, and creating
positive physical and cultural environments. Our intention is to
encourage flexibility and to acknowledge that there are many ways to
build relationships and learning environments. Finally, we also propose
to replace the phrase ``functioning'' with ``development of all
children'' to specify that when working with infants and toddlers as
well as preschoolers, the focus is on social and emotional development
and creating environments and relationships that have the capacity to
help young children grow in these foundational skills.
In the third provision, Sec. 1302.45(b)(3), we propose to replace
``other staff, including home visitors'' with ``staff who have contact
with children'' to clarify that the mental health consultants can
provide consultation to any staff that have contact with children as
needed, including, for example, transportation staff or food services
staff. Our rationale for this change is to elevate that any staff who
have contact with children play an important role in promoting young
children's mental health and wellness. We also propose to remove ``to
meet children's mental health and social and emotional needs through
strategies that include observation and consultation'' as mental health
consultation is not a strategy of consultation. Instead, we propose to
add the elements outlined in the current Sec. 1302.45(b)(4) to Sec.
1302.45(b)(3), including the existing phrase ``prevalent child mental
health concerns; internalizing problems such as appearing withdrawn and
externalizing problems such as challenging behaviors'', which we
propose to further revise. We propose to clarify what is meant by
``addressing'' prevalent child mental health concerns in the current
Sec. 1302.45(b)(4) by adding to Sec. 1302.45(b)(3) ``to understand
and appropriately respond to.'' Finally, we propose to revise and
expand what is meant by prevalent child mental health concerns by
revising that phrase to ``prevalent child mental health concerns,
including internalizing problems such as appearing withdrawn,
externalizing problems such as behavioral concerns; and how exposure to
trauma and substance use can influence risk''.
In a new fourth provision, Sec. 1302.45(b)(4), we use language
from the current Sec. 1302.45(b)(5) and propose to replace ``parents''
with ``families'' to expand with whom the consultant can provide
consultation within a child's family unit. We also propose to add the
phrase ``or supports'' to clarify that mental health consultation is
not limited to accessing interventions. Furthermore, we propose to add
``including in the event of a natural disaster or crisis'' to clarify
that mental health consultants are vital in emergency, preparedness,
response and recovery.
Finally, the last provisions of 1302.45(b) are intended to
highlight two
[[Page 80846]]
situations in which involving a mental health consultant is crucial.
Expulsion and suspension, as reviewed previously, can have long-lasting
impacts on stress and mental health of children and families and
therefore Head Start has prohibited or severely limited these
disciplinary practices. The proposed changes require the program to
engage the mental health consultant so that supports and accommodations
are in place to ensure children's safe and full participation in the
program. Specifically, in the fifth provision, Sec. 1302.45(b)(5), we
propose to use language from the current Sec. 1302.45(b)(6) and add
``the program'' to clarify that implementation of policies to limit
suspension and prohibit expulsion would occur in consultation with the
program.
Similarly, we recognize that child safety incidents can negatively
impact the mental health of children and their families, as well as
their relationships with the program. Therefore, we propose to add a
sixth provision, Sec. 1302.45(b)(6), which requires a program to
support the well-being of children and families involved in any
significant child health, mental health, or safety incident described
in Sec. 1302.102(d)(1)(ii). As health and safety are a part of well-
being, it falls within the role of a mental health consultant to ensure
that the program, affected staff, child, and/or family members are
connected to appropriate supports if an incident impacting a child's
health and safety occurs.
Sec. 1302.46 Family Support Services for Health, Nutrition, and Mental
Health
Section 1302.46 requires programs to collaborate with families to
promote children's health and well-being and describes what that
collaboration must include. We propose several changes to this section.
These proposed changes are intended to integrate the preventive
approach to mental health into family support services by using more
strengths-based language, providing opportunities to engage families in
discussions about mental health even when there is not an identified
problem, and ensuring the mental health of parents is also a function
of family support services. First, in paragraph Sec.
1302.46(b)(1)(iii), we propose to replace ``substance abuse problems''
with ``substance use concerns'' to use language that is person-centered
and destigmatizing. We also propose to remove ``perinatal'' before
``depression'' and add ``anxiety'' to provide a more comprehensive
description of what is meant by common parent mental health concerns.
Second, in Sec. 1302.46(b)(1)(iv), we propose to remove ``identify
issues related to child mental health and social and emotional well-
being, including observations and any concerns about their child's
mental health'' and replace it with ``information related to their
child's mental health with staff, including.'' We believe that this
language clarifies a strengths-based approach to mental health where
parents are not expected to identify issues with child mental health
and that the focus of collaboration with parents is to help them
respond appropriately to their individual child.
Third, in Sec. 1302.46(b)(2), we propose to add ``and mental
health systems'' to clarify that a program must support parents'
navigation of mental health systems in addition to the health system.
The purpose of this change is to acknowledge that navigation of health
and mental health systems may be complex for families served by Head
Start. The intent is to clarify our expectation that Head Start
programs assist families in navigating these systems, which will
ultimately benefit the family beyond their time in Head Start. Finally,
we also propose a new Sec. 1302.46(b)(2)(iv) that reads ``in providing
information about how to access evidence-based mental health services
for young children and their families, including referrals if
appropriate'' to clarify what is meant by helping parents navigate the
mental health system.
1302 Subpart H--Services to Enrolled Pregnant Women and People
Section 1302.81 describes the prenatal and postpartum information,
education, and services programs must provide enrolled pregnant women
and people, fathers, and partners or other relevant family members.
Perinatal mental health conditions are experienced in up to 20 percent
of pregnancies and can have significant impacts on children and
families.\170\ There is increasing recognition that depression is not
the only mental health condition that can be exacerbated by or emerge
during the perinatal period, and that mental health concerns can impact
family members who are not pregnant.\171\ Therefore, we propose changes
in Sec. 1302.81 that are intended to broaden the scope of awareness of
the mental health information and education that may be helpful to
provide to expectant families. Additionally, our proposed changes more
explicitly recognize ties between social support and mental health and
call for programs to ensure that social support is part of prenatal and
post-natal services for enrolled families.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\170\ Howard, L.M., & Khalifeh, H. (2020). Perinatal mental
health: a review of progress and challenges. World Psychiatry,
19(3), 313-327.
\171\ Rao, W.W., Zhu, X.M., Zong, Q.Q., Zhang, Q., Hall, B.J.,
Ungvari, G.S., & Xiang, Y.T. (2020). Prevalence of prenatal and
postpartum depression in fathers: A comprehensive meta-analysis of
observational surveys. Journal of affective disorders, 263, 491-499.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2019.10.030.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
More specifically, we propose four changes to Sec. 1302.81(a) to
highlight potential services related to mental health and to promote
language that is more inclusive of family members and social supports.
First, we propose to remove the word ``relevant'' that currently
precedes ``family members.'' This change is intended to be inclusive of
different family compositions, clarify that any family member
identified by the enrolled pregnant woman or person may be eligible to
receive such information, and make clear that a program does not have
to determine whether a family member is relevant. Second, we propose to
revise the phrase ``benefits of breastfeeding'' to ``including
breastfeeding'' and relocate it to earlier in the standard to clarify
that this is a component of ``the importance of nutrition.'' The
purpose of this change is to clarify that breastfeeding, in addition to
other forms of healthy infant feeding, is one aspect of nutrition when
programs are providing prenatal and postpartum information. We also
propose in Sec. 1302.81(a) to move ``parental depression'' from the
list of information, education, and services to a newly created
paragraph Sec. 1302.81(b) focused on mental health, which is discussed
in the following paragraph. We also propose to add ``and the benefits
of substance use treatment'' to the list of topics. Finally, we propose
to add ``mothers'' to the list of family members a program must provide
information to, to be inclusive of women who have already given birth.
We further propose to redesignate the current Sec. 1302.81(b) to
Sec. 1302.81(c) and insert a new Sec. 1302.81(b). The proposed new
Sec. 1302.81(b) requires programs to support pregnant women, mothers,
fathers, partners, or other family members to access mental health
services, including referrals, as appropriate, to address concerns
including perinatal depression, anxiety, grief or loss, birth trauma,
and substance use. This language captures common mental health concerns
that can arise during the perinatal period.\172\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\172\ Maternal Mental Health Leadership Alliance. (July 2020).
Maternal Mental Health Overview. Fact Sheet available on online at:
www.mmhla.org/fact-sheets Maternal Mental Health Leadership
Alliance. (June 2021). Dads and Depression. Fact Sheet available on
online at: www.mmhla.org/fact-sheets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 80847]]
Finally, in redesignated Sec. 1302.81(c), we propose to add
``pregnant women's'' after ``A program must also address'' to clarify
whose needs are being addressed. We also propose to add ``social''
before emotional well-being to provide consistency with other language
throughout the HSPPS. Finally, we propose to add ``partner, or other
family member'' to clarify that programs must address the potential
benefits of building supports and engagement with other family members
in addition to fathers.
1302 Subpart I--Human Resources Management
Sec. 1302.91 Staff Qualification and Competency Requirements
Section 1302.91 establishes the staff qualifications and
competencies for all staff, consultants, and contractors engaged in the
delivery of program services. We propose two changes in Sec.
1302.91(e)(8)(ii) that pertain to mental health consultants and align
with our goals of reducing barriers to securing consultants while
maintaining effective consultation services. First, we propose to
remove ``certified'' and replace it with ``under the supervision of a
licensed'' to align with qualifications of mental health consultation
in the field. Second, we propose to remove ``if available in the
community.'' We believe that clarifying that mental health consultants
can include individuals who are working under the supervision of
another licensed individual will open avenues to a larger pool of
mental health consultants to choose from and provide opportunities to
build the mental health workforce in the ECE field. We also know that
in recent years, access to telehealth services has expanded and overall
use of telehealth modality for services has become more prevalent.\173\
Even if a consultant cannot be on site, teleconsultation services can
be utilized to work with adults in the program. Finally, striking the
``if available'' language is intended to emphasize that mental health
consultation is vital to providing high quality comprehensive services
in Head Start programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\173\ Chu, R.C., Peters, C., De Lew, N., and Sommers, B.D. State
Medicaid Telehealth Policies Before and During the COVID-19 Public
Health Emergency (Issue Brief No. HP-2021-17). Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, July 2021. https://aspe.hhs.gov/reports/state-medicaid-telehealth-policies. Karimi, M., Lee, E.C., Couture,
S.J., Gonzales, A.B., Grigorescu, V., Smith, S.R., De Lew, N., and
Sommers, B.D. National Trends in Telehealth Use in 2021: Disparities
in Utilization and Audio vs. Video Services. (Research Report No.
HP-2022-04). Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and
Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. February
2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 1302.93 Staff Health and Wellness
As described in the earlier section, Workforce Supports: Staff
Wellness, Sec. 1302.93 outlines requirements of programs in the area
of staff health and wellness with Sec. 1302.93(b) speaking
specifically to mental health and wellness information for staff. We
propose to expand on these requirements to align with the goals
described in the earlier sections Workforce Supports: Staff Wellness
and Workforce Supports: Employee Engagement. These changes are intended
to further amplify the importance of an intentional focus on staff
wellness to improve staff well-being, reduce burnout, and improve
retention, as well as to promote high-quality services for children and
families.
Specifically, we propose to add a new Sec. 1302.93(e) that states
that a program should cultivate a program-wide culture of wellness that
empowers staff as professionals and supports staff to effectively
accomplish their job responsibilities in a high-quality manner, in line
with the requirement at Sec. 1302.101(a)(2). We believe this language
clarifies that program-wide wellness supports extend to staff and that
these supports include addressing program management such as
implementing positive employee engagement practices, opportunities for
training and professional development and ongoing supervisory
support.\174\ Indeed, a recent report from the U.S. Surgeon General
highlights the importance of employers focusing intentionally on the
mental health and well-being of their employees. The report establishes
a framework for workers' mental health with a focus on five essential
areas including, creating connection and community in the workplace;
protecting workers from physical and mental harm; providing intentional
supports for work-life balance including paid leave; providing
opportunities for growth and career advancement; and making employees
feel valued in their roles in the workplace.\175\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\174\ https://www.cdc.gov/workplacehealthpromotion/planning/leadership.html; https://aspe.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/private/pdf/76661/rpt_wellness.pdf.
\175\ U.S. Surgeon General. (2022). The U.S. Surgeon General's
Framework for Workplace Mental Health & Well-Being. U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Taken together, ACF believes the proposed changes discussed in the
Mental Health Services section will greatly improve services for
children, families, and staff. We seek public comment on how any of the
proposed mental health requirements in this section may impact various
communities. We specifically request public comment from the special
populations served by Head Start, including AIAN and MSHS programs and
communities.
Modernizing Head Start's Engagement With Families (Sec. 1302.11; Sec.
1302.13; Sec. 1302.15; Sec. 1302.34; Sec. 1302.50)
In Head Start's nearly 60-year history, programs have cultivated
trust with the public. However, ACF acknowledges there are areas that
could benefit from time-saving improvements and much-needed
efficiencies. Below, we outline several areas in the HSPPS where we
would like to draw specific attention to and elevate the need for
programs to dedicate time, attention, and resources to making
improvements in the efficiency of delivering services.
Section 1302.11 describes the requirements programs must follow
when completing their community needs assessment. ACF believes this is
an area where we should require programs to identify the best and most
efficient ways of communicating with families who are both currently
enrolled and prospective families who might be eligible. Specifically,
we propose a new (v) under Sec. 1302.11(b)(1) that requires programs
to identify communication methods and modalities that best engage with
prospective and enrolled families of all abilities. This ensures that
programs will use the community needs assessment as a method to
determine the optimal communication modalities (be it digital through
text messaging software, improved websites, automated phone calls or
phone lines that provide program updates, etc.) that families prefer.
Second, Sec. 1302.13 outlines the requirements for recruiting
children to a Head Start program. We propose to include specific
language regarding the usage of modern technologies in the program's
recruitment strategies, and we propose to include a specific phrase on
reducing family burden during the enrollment process. We envision
programs utilizing information they gather from current families to
learn about ways they can reduce unnecessary paperwork during the
enrollment process. We propose to require that Head Start programs
examine their current enrollment processes and determine ways to
streamline and improve their strategies. Specifically, we propose to
edit Sec. 1302.13 to clarify that programs must use modern
[[Page 80848]]
technologies to encourage and assist families in applying for admission
to the program, and to streamline the application and enrollment
process, while ensuring families without access to technology have
equitable access to the program.
Section 1302.15 contains requirements related to enrolling new
families into the Head Start program. We propose the addition of a new
paragraph (g) that requires a user-friendly enrollment process.
Programs must regularly examine their enrollment processes and
implement any identified improvements to streamline the enrollment
experience for families. This new provision would require programs to
establish new procedures, or update current procedures, that are
streamlined and efficient and keep the end-user in mind. This provision
would also require programs to regularly update these procedures to
keep up with latest innovative practices.
Section 1302.34 describes parent and family engagement in education
services. We propose to add a new subparagraph (9) to Sec. 1302.34(b)
that clarifies that communication methods and modalities used by the
program should be the best available for engaging families of all
abilities, including currently enrolled families as well as prospective
families. These changes would ensure that programs are consulting and
engaging with current parents and families to be involved in the
methods the program uses to communicate with both prospective families
and enrolled families of all abilities. Parents and families may have
suggestions for how to improve communication channels, methods or
modalities, or for potential innovations. Head Start's customers are
the children and families it serves. Including their voices in the
creation of processes and communication streams is imperative to making
improvements to efficiencies.
The final section that we propose updates to is Sec. 1302.50,
Family engagement. We propose to modify the purpose statement in Sec.
1302.50(a) by adding a sentence at the end that states, ``This includes
communicating with families in a format that is most accessible.'' This
section of the HSPPS requires programs to serve both the child and
their family in innovative two-generation approaches. Our proposed
addition would require programs to also address communication methods
and determine the most efficient and accessible format that families
prefer and that may be necessary to address the needs of family members
who have limited English proficiency or who are individuals with
disabilities.
We expect that many Head Start programs are already engaging in
several of these strategies to improve their communication methods and
reach families using the modalities and methods that are easiest for
them, though some programs may need to make bigger changes to meet this
proposed standard. However, overall, we anticipate minimal costs
associated with this new requirement. Importantly, ACF would like to
ensure that all programs are implementing these strategies equitably
and universally. ACF recognizes that what works for one community may
not work for another, so programs are tasked with the challenge of
meeting the unique needs of the communities they serve. ACF seeks
public comment on how the proposed requirements in this section may
differentially impact different communities. We specifically request
public comment from the special populations served by Head Start,
including AIAN and MSHS programs and communities. Additionally, ACF
requests comments on what new and innovative approaches or
methodologies programs might use to fulfill this requirement, as well
as potential costs associated with new approaches.
Community Assessment (Sec. 1302.11)
Section 1302.11(b) requires Head Start programs to conduct a
community assessment to design a program that meets community needs and
builds on strengths and resources. The current requirement describes a
broad and comprehensive assessment of community needs, strengths, and
resources and specifies the minimum data Head Start programs must use
in this process. The community assessment must be done at least once
during a 5-year grant period with an annual update of significant
changes.
We recognize that many Head Start programs utilize the community
assessment to inform the design of the program to a great extent.
However, Head Start programs and others from the field have raised
concerns with the requirements as currently written. First, the
standards do not clearly articulate the purpose of the community
assessment or the purpose and scope of the annual update. The
requirement lists the data a program must collect and analyze without
identifying the overarching goals of the endeavor. Second, there is
concern that in some cases, programs approach the community assessment
as an unnecessarily detailed community assessment with overly complex
analytical methodologies. Third, some community members express concern
about the cost of the requirement. These concerns are related; the cost
can be particularly great, for example, if a program deploys time-
consuming surveys using complex analytical techniques. Additionally,
some programs use program funds to hire demographers and analysts to
conduct community assessments, which is not a concern in itself.
However, the costs of this work could balloon if the scope of project
is too exhaustive and complex and does not efficiently leverage
existing available data. These concerns combined can cause costly
barriers to some programs being able to use their community assessment
data effectively to guide programmatic decisions as intended. Changes
are proposed to this section to promote clarity on the intent of the
community assessment, align with best practices, incorporate feedback
from programs, and increase the effectiveness in how the community
assessment is used to inform key aspects of program design and
approach.
In this section, we propose new language to be specific on the
intended outcomes of the community assessment and requiring programs to
be strategic in what data is collected and how it will be used to
achieve those intended outcomes. This better reflects best practices to
collect meaningful data and use it with purpose. We also propose new
language to ensure programs assess readily available data on their
community that provides usable information on the community for the
grant recipient to design a program that meets the needs in the
community. Altogether, these revisions direct programs to more
effectively focus resources allocated to their community assessment on
areas that matter most for program design, enrolling and serving the
most in need in the community, what services are provided, and how or
by whom families are served including which community strengths and
resources are leveraged in service delivery.
Specifically, we propose to split current Sec. 1302.11(b)(1) into
two paragraphs in order to expand on the purpose of the community
assessment before detailing the data that programs are required to
collect and utilize. Section 1302.11(b)(1) has been revised to
articulate the goals of the community assessment and is designed to
clarify the purpose and intended outcomes of the community assessment.
We propose to add a new (i) to (iv) which describe in more detail the
objectives of community assessment which include: identifying who
programs will serve and their
[[Page 80849]]
associated risk factors; how they will serve them in a manner that
reflects their needs and diversity, while promoting equity, inclusion,
and accessibility in service delivery; informing eligibility,
recruitment, selection, enrollment and attendance (ERSEA) processes to
prioritize the enrollment of those most in need of services; and
identify strengths and resources in the community a program can
leverage in service delivery.
We propose to revise paragraph (b)(2) so that it contains mostly
existing standards redesignated from current paragraph (b)(1) and
continues to focus on what data a program is required to collect, but
with a few revisions. We propose to revise (b)(2)(i) to be the stem of
the requirement to collect relevant data on eligible children and
expectant mothers. Additionally, we revise this clause to no longer
specifically require counts of eligible children and expectant mothers
including counts by their geographic location, race, ethnicity, and
languages spoken for enumerated items that follow. This has been moved
to a new item as described in the following paragraph. Upon moving it,
it has been broadened in the stem to ``relevant demographic and other
data about'' eligible children and expectant mothers. This change
allows programs to make strategic decisions on what relevant
demographic and other data to collect on eligible populations to meet
the intended outcomes of their community assessment. Also, it
challenges programs to consider what demographic and relevant data to
collect beyond counts of eligible populations by geographic location,
race, ethnicity, and languages spoken.
We propose to add ``Children living in poverty'' as the first
enumerated item to follow the revised clause in paragraph (b)(2) to
promote clarity. Programs were already required to include data on
children living in poverty in their community assessments since these
children are considered ``eligible infants, toddlers, and preschool age
children,'' but adding it to the list makes this more explicit. We
propose to redesignate A, B and C from previous paragraph (b)(1) to
follow the newly added item (A) in paragraph (b)(2). A new (E) is added
to revised paragraph (b)(2) which includes the language from the
current introductory clause in (b)(1)(i) which reads ``Geographic
location, race, ethnicity and languages they speak.'' This specific
language is pulled out to become (b)(2)(i)(E) to continue to highlight
the importance of understanding these elements related to the diversity
of populations most in need of services, which in turn can help promote
equity, inclusion, and accessibility in service delivery as noted in
the proposed new (b)(1)(ii).
We do not propose any changes to the rest of the required list of
factors programs must consider in redesignated Sec. 1302.11(b)(2)(ii)-
(vi). The only revisions to the list are the addition of the phrases
``such as transportation needs'' in Sec. 1302.11(b)(ii) as an economic
factor impacting well-being and ``especially transportation resources''
in Sec. 1302.11(b)(2)(v) to require programs to consider what
resources are available in the community to address the needs of
eligible children and families. The rationale for proposing to include
transportation explicitly in the requirements for relevant data in the
community assessment is because transportation remains a significant
barrier for many of the hardest to serve families and impedes Head
Start's mission. Access or lack of access to transportation plays a
role in determining which families enroll in and attend Head Start
programs. ACF wants to ensure transportation needs and resources are
part of the data that informs a program's design and service delivery.
A more extensive discussion of transportation is included in the
Transportation and Other Barriers to Enrollment and Attendance section
of this preamble.
We propose to add a new paragraph (b)(3), which requires programs
to have a strategic approach to determine what data to collect prior to
conducting the community assessment and how to use the data acquired
after conducting the community assessment in order to achieve the
intended outcomes outlined in the newly proposed (b)(1). This proposed
requirement helps address the concern that some programs use overly
exhaustive approaches or using unnecessarily complex analytical
techniques to assess their communities. This requirement intends to
align with best practices and promote overall effectiveness of the
community assessment to drive programmatic decision making.
We also propose adding a new paragraph (b)(4) to require programs
to identify certain data that would be unreasonably burdensome and
costly to collect and consider using publicly or locally available data
as a proxy instead. This proposed requirement addresses the cost and
complexity some programs report in accessing certain data. For example,
a program may determine it is unreasonable to collect data on the exact
counts of children under the age of 6 experiencing homelessness due to
the general difficulties and costliness in collecting accurate counts
of populations experiencing homelessness.\176\ Although these counts
may be helpful, the proposed requirement encourages this program to
consider other available data that can be used as a proxy to meet the
intended outcomes of the community assessment including how to
prioritize the enrollment of populations experiencing homelessness in
their community, in what areas of their community are they located, and
what community strengths and resources can be leveraged to promote the
delivery of program services to these populations. It is feasible to
meet these intended outcomes without exact counts of children under the
age of 6 experiencing homelessness using other available data such as
location of homeless shelters, enrollment rates of children
experiencing homelessness in schools, and through discussions with
local community-based organizations that provide services to
populations experiencing homelessness. Furthermore, programs may be
able to leverage existing data collected in community health
assessments conducted by local health departments \177\ and non-profit
hospitals \178\ to support their own community assessments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\176\ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK218229/
#:~:text=Counting%20the%20homeless%20population%20is,of%20homelessnes
s%20for%20many%20individuals.
\177\ https://www.naccho.org/programs/public-health-infrastructure/performance-improvement/community-health-assessment;
https://phaboard.org/accreditation-recognition/reaccreditation/.
\178\ https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/community-health-needs-assessment-for-charitable-hospital-organizations-section-501r3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We propose to redesignate paragraph (b)(2) to become (b)(5) and
revise it to describe the purpose and goals of the annual review and
update of the community assessment. There is a concern that the current
annual update standard effectively requires a comprehensive update each
year of the community assessment. The proposed requirement in
redesignated and revised (b)(5) allows the program to determine where
updates are needed based on areas where significant shifts in their
community may have occurred that may impact their program design and
service delivery, while also establishing that the annual update must
consider how it can inform and support other relevant management and
program improvement efforts as required in Sec. 1302 Subpart J. These
revisions to the annual update are intended to ensure programs are
strategic in their approach to the annual
[[Page 80850]]
update, which in turn can promote the effectiveness and usefulness of
the update. Finally, we propose to redesignate paragraph (b)(3) to
become (b)(6) without revisions to the regulatory text.
Conducting the community assessment is a complex process and we
want to understand whether these proposed revisions to Sec. 1302.11(b)
will help address underlying challenges with the community assessment
and whether they may cause any unintended consequences. Therefore, we
are seeking public comment on the current development, utilization, and
challenges of the community assessment as well as perceived impact of
the changes proposed in this NPRM. ACF also seeks public comment on how
the proposed requirements in this section may differentially impact
different communities. We specifically request public comment from the
special populations served by Head Start, including AIAN and MSHS
programs and communities. We appreciate input that is specific and
actionable. We also request public comment on whether any of the
proposed revisions to the community assessment described in this NPRM
will reduce program operational costs related to the community
assessment.
Adjustment for Excessive Housing Costs for Eligibility Determination
(Sec. 1302.12)
Head Start is intended to promote the school readiness of children
living in low-income households.\179\ However, many programs have
expressed concern that Head Start eligibility criteria does not account
for high cost of living in some areas across the country. Many families
earn just above poverty wages, but more than 30 percent of their income
goes to housing costs. In 2015, the Congressional Budget Office
estimated that about 14 million households are eligible for housing
assistance since they paid more than 30 percent of their income on
housing, with some households paying more than 50 percent of their
income on rent.\180\ Children whose families earn near-poverty level
wages and who live in areas with a high-cost of living have fewer
family resources remaining after paying for shelter costs, compared to
families in lower-cost of living areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\179\ See the Head Start Act: https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/HS_Act_2007.pdf.
\180\ Congressional Budget Office. (2015, September). Federal
Housing Assistance for Low-income Households. https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/114th-congress-2015-2016/reports/50782-lowincomehousing-onecolumn.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
High housing cost burdens have increased for low- and moderate-
income renting households since the 1960s.\181\ Affordable housing
costs have long been defined as costs that total 30 percent or less of
a family's total gross income. The 30 percent threshold is an income
standard that has been incorporated into laws for Federal housing
assistance programs since the early 1980s. It has been a norm for
defining housing affordability and is used by the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) as a rent limit in the HOME
Investment Partnerships Program for low-income rental units.\182\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\181\ https://www.huduser.gov/portal/pdredge/pdr-edge-featd-article-081417.html.
\182\ Measuring Housing Affordability: Assessing the 30 Percent
of Income Standard. https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/Harvard_JCHS_Herbert_Hermann_McCue_measuring_housing_affordability.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other means-tested programs that aim to serve those experiencing
poverty, like SNAP, use an income adjustment to account for excessive
housing costs.\183\ Adjusting income for housing expenses is an
effective way to provide additional flexibility for families who are
making above or near poverty wages, but face high housing costs, and
would be eligible for Head Start if those disproportionally high
housing costs were taken into account when determining eligibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\183\ Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. (2023, January). A
Quick Guide to SNAP Eligibility and Benefits. https://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/11-18-08fa.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, we propose to revise Sec. 1302.12(i)(1) by adding a new
(i) and (ii) to allow a program to adjust a family's income to account
for excessive housing costs, when determining eligibility. We propose
to redesignate current Sec. 1302.12(i)(1)(i) as clause (iii) and
subsequent clauses are renumbered accordingly. Additionally, we propose
to add a definition of ``housing expenses'' to Sec. 1305.2.
Specifically, Sec. 1302.12(i)(1)(i) is a new stem to introduce the
calculation of income and it states, ``The program must calculate total
gross income using applicable sources of income.'' In a subsequent
section of this NPRM, we described proposed clarifications to the
definition of ``income'' in Sec. 1305.2. Proposed new clause, Sec.
1302.12(i)(1)(ii) introduces the adjustment for housing expenses and
states that a program may make an adjustment to a family's gross income
calculation for the purposes of determining eligibility in order to
account for excessive housing expenses. A program must use available
bills, bank statements, and other relevant documentation provided by
the family to calculate total annual housing expenses with appropriate
multipliers. There are two additional subclauses (A) and (B) that
describe how programs should adjust income to account for housing
expenses. Specifically, (A) states that programs should determine if a
family spends more than 30 percent of their total gross income on
housing expenses, and (B) states that, if applicable, programs may
reduce the total gross income by the amount spent in housing expenses
above the 30 percent threshold to calculate the adjusted gross income
for determining income eligibility.
In addition, a new term for housing expenses in Sec. 1305.2 is
proposed which means the total annual applicable expenses spent by the
family on rent or mortgage payments, homeowner's or renter's insurance,
utilities, interest, and taxes on the home. Utilities includes
electricity, gas, water, sewer, and trash.
To illustrate how income deductions would be calculated under these
new proposed regulations, we describe the following example. If a
family's annual gross income is $10,000 and they spend $5,000 on
housing, their housing cost is 50 percent of their total gross income.
Therefore, the percent of the family's income spent on housing is 20
percent higher than the 30 percent threshold, and the family's total
gross income can be adjusted down by an amount equal to 20 percent of
annual gross income. This results in a $2,000 reduction. Therefore,
instead of a total gross income of $10,000 that the program must
consider for eligibility purposes, this family's total gross income
would be $8,000 after application of proposed Sec. 1302.12(i)(1)(ii).
ACF recognizes that programs do not need to calculate housing expenses
for all families since many will still qualify for Head Start services
based on income alone, or due to some other qualifying factor,
including participation in SNAP or TANF. Therefore, the proposed
regulatory language in (i)(1)(ii) indicates that a program ``may'' use
available documents to calculate housing expenses.
We propose to add the definition of ``housing expenses'' to provide
clarity about what can be considered in the calculation of total
housing costs including what utility costs can be taken into account.
In considering what utilities to include in the definition, ACF used
HUD regulatory guidance for utility allowances as a resource.\184\ The
[[Page 80851]]
HUD definition of utility allowances includes electricity, natural gas,
propane, fuel oil, wood or coal, and water and sewage service, as well
as garbage collection. Programs can use bills and expenses from one
month to calculate the average expenses that a family has throughout
the year. Further, programs should only be using bills for which
families have paid for out of pocket. For example, housing vouchers,
rental assistance, support from the Low Income Energy Assistance
Program (LIHEAP), or other types of financial assistance should not be
included in calculations of housing expenses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\184\ Utility Allowances. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development. https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/
public_indian_housing/programs/ph/phecc/
allowances#:~:text=The%20utilities%20for%20which%20allowances,as%20we
ll%20as%20garbage%20collection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Programs should continue using their current methods of verifying
eligibility based on tax forms, pay stubs, or other proof of income.
These proposed regulatory changes would allow programs to also use
bills, lease agreements, mortgage statements, and other documentation
that shows housing and utility expenses.
By including this income deduction calculation in eligibility
determination for Head Start, ACF expects many programs to utilize this
deduction calculation for families seeking eligibility. However,
programs must adhere to their recruitment and selection criteria to
ensure they prioritize enrollment for those who may benefit most from
Head Start services. Specifically, all Head Start programs must
continue to use their selection criteria to prioritize the enrollment
of the families most in need of services as required in 45 CFR 1302.13.
The sole purpose of this proposed rule is to allow programs to consider
income deductions for the purposes of determining Head Start
eligibility.
ACF would like to invite comment on including a limit to the total
amount in housing costs that can be deducted from a family's income.
ACF is not concerned with high income families being enrolled in Head
Start since families still must be income-eligible after accounting for
high housing costs, and programs should continue prioritizing highest
need families based on their selection criteria. However, we invite
comments on whether there should be a dollar limit or percentage limit
to how much is allowed to be deducted from income to account for
housing costs. ACF seeks public comment on how the proposed
requirements in this section may differentially impact different
communities. We specifically request public comment from the special
populations served by Head Start, including AIAN and MSHS programs and
communities.
Migrant and Seasonal Head Start Eligibility (Sec. 1302.12)
Section 1302.12(f) describes the eligibility requirements for
enrollment in MSHS programs. Currently, to be eligible for MSHS, a
family must demonstrate that their income comes primarily from
agricultural labor which has been interpreted and implemented to mean a
family's income must be more than 50 percent from agricultural work.
This presents an additional challenge to MSHS programs in finding
eligible families. It has become increasingly less common for
agricultural work to be the primary source of an entire family's income
as agricultural work has become less available or stable due to
unpredicted weather events and due to higher pay in other industries.
These changes impacting the agriculture industry have resulted in
barriers to enrolling farmworker families in need of program services.
To address this barrier, we propose to add language to Sec.
1302.12(f) to add the policy that ``one family member is primarily
engaged in agricultural employment'' rather than ``family's income
comes primarily from agricultural work.'' A family must still meet an
eligibility criterion for Head Start services under 45 CFR 1302.12(c)
(i.e., living at or below the 100 percent poverty guideline,
experiencing homelessness, receiving public assistance, or in foster
care). However, due to challenges migrant families face in relocating
often to seek agricultural work, MSHS programs must prioritize migrant
families for selection as required in Sec. 1302.14(a)(2).
Additionally, Sec. 1302.12(j) outlines the requirements related to
the period of time a child remains eligible for Head Start and when
program staff must verify the family's eligibility again before
continuing services. In paragraph (2), specifically, the HSPPS notes
that children who are enrolled in a program receiving funds under the
authority of section 645A of the Act, which refers to the Early Head
Start program, remain eligible while they participate in the program.
The current standards do not specify eligibility duration related
to the unique programs operated by MSHS. Current practice is that MSHS
programs verify eligibility every two years. However, MSHS programs
serve children from birth to school age and nearly half of MSHS
enrollment consists of children under the age of three. Furthermore,
many MSHS programs also receive Early Head Start funding.
The existing requirement creates an inequity because infants and
toddlers served in Early Head Start programs can receive services for
the duration of the program, meaning until they turn three and age out
of the program, whereas the MSHS family is no longer considered
eligible for the program after two years. Therefore, the young children
of agricultural workers are not provided the same potential duration of
services as infants and toddlers served by Early Head Start.
To address this inequity and extend the same opportunity to MSHS
infants and toddlers that is available to infants and toddlers served
through an Early Head Start grant, we propose to add a paragraph to
address eligibility duration for infants and toddlers participating in
MSHS programs. Specifically, we propose to add a new paragraph (5) to
existing Sec. 1302.12(j). The new language clarifies that MSHS
programs can serve infants and toddlers for 3 years, consistent with
the requirement in Sec. 1302.12(j)(2) that children participating in
Early Head Start are eligible for the duration of the program. We
believe this new language will correct this inequity and promote
continuity for families served by MSHS and reduce paperwork for
families and programs.
Transportation & Other Barriers to Enrollment and Attendance (Sec.
1302.14; Sec. 1302.16)
Sections 1302.14 and 1302.16 address the requirements for the
selection process and attendance, two key components of ERSEA. Section
1302.14 outlines the current requirements for programs' selection of
eligible children. It currently specifies that programs must annually
develop selection criteria, based on community needs identified in the
community needs assessment, for how they will prioritize the selection
of eligible children. It also requires that a program ensure at least
10 percent of its total funded enrollment is filled by children
eligible for services under IDEA unless a wavier is granted throughout
the program year once the assessments are completed. Finally, it
requires that programs maintain a waitlist. Section 1302.16 outlines
the requirements of programs in the area of attendance. It articulates
what programs must do to support regular attendance, to manage
systematic program attendance issues, and to support attendance for
children who are homeless.
Through the course of implementing these provisions and discussions
with constituents, ACF believes strongly that these requirements do not
adequately reflect the importance of acknowledging barriers to
enrollment and attendance,
[[Page 80852]]
which is a critical part of selecting children for participation and
ensuring they can attend regularly. There are many barriers that may
impede enrollment or attendance in Head Start programs even after a
child is selected. These barriers include, but are not limited to,
transportation access, affordability and reliability challenges,
particularly for individuals with disabilities; demands of family life
(e.g., balancing work and school schedules, housing instability, caring
for sick or disabled relatives); or hours and schedules that are not
flexible enough to meet a family's needs (e.g., additional child care
needed to enable attendance at programs that do not operate for a full
work day).
We expand here on the example of transportation because of concerns
that transportation to local programs remains a significant barrier for
many of the hardest to serve families and impedes Head Start's mission.
The decision to cut or reduce transportation services is often part of
a difficult budget decision-making process to free up funds for other
rising program costs. For instance, in an analysis of Head Start
Preschool and Early Head Start grants across the county, the average
cost of a bus is about $90,000, or roughly $2,500 per seat. This cost
excludes the cost of bus drivers and ongoing bus maintenance. As a
result, Head Start programs nationally provide transportation to only
20 percent of enrolled children, more than 100,000 fewer children as
compared to a decade ago.\185\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\185\ Source: Head Start 2010-2020 PIR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, about 70
percent of low-income families with children ages 5 to 14 take a school
bus to school.\186\ The Consumer Expenditure Survey (CE), administered
by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), found that households spent an
average of $9,826 on transportation in 2020--the second largest
household expenditure category after housing. And low-income households
spend a much higher proportion of their income on transportation
expenses than non-low-income households. In 2021, the average household
with an income equal to or below $24,127 spent nearly a third of their
income, 26.9 percent, on transportation. To compare, households with an
income equal to or above $129,534 spent an average of 10.4 percent on
transportation.\187\ Having better clarity on this particular barrier
and providing more targeted transportation assistance, if possible,
allows these households to use their limited funds for other essential
expenses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\186\ Ibid. Note: Uniform data on the population of children
under five taking a bus or other ECE transportation services is not
collected by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics.
\187\ U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of
Transportation Statistics, Transportation Economic Trends, available
at www.bts.gov/product/transportation-economic-trends.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research has shown that transportation is linked to economic
mobility and documented links between poor public transit access and
higher rates of unemployment.\188\ Additionally, accessing public
transportation can be challenging and less reliable for low-income
communities, the same communities in which many eligible families are
located and are most in need of reliable public transportation.\189\ We
propose new language in Sec. 1302.14 and Sec. 1302.16 to require
programs to consider barriers to enrollment and attendance. In Sec.
1302.14 Selection, we propose to add a new paragraph (d) to require
programs to use data from the selection process to understand why
children selected for the program do not enroll or attend. We
specifically name transportation in the proposed language as one such
barrier. We propose to amend paragraph Sec. 1302.16 Attendance by
adding Sec. 1302.16(a)(2)(v) to require programs to examine barriers
to regular attendance. Given the centrality of transportation as a
barrier to reaching children and families, we again name access to
transportation in the proposed language, and require programs to, if
possible, provide or facilitate transportation if needed. Note that we
also explicitly include transportation in Sec. 1302.11 on the
community assessment to ensure that transportation needs and resources
are part of the community wide strategic planning and needs assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\188\ Chetty, R., Hendren, N., Kline, P., & Saez, E. (2014).
Where is the land of opportunity? The geography of intergenerational
mobility in the United States. The Quarterly Journal of Economics,
129(4), 1553-1623.; Kaufman, S., Moss, M.L., Tyndall, J., &
Hernandez, J. (2014). Mobility, economic opportunity and New York
City neighborhoods. NYU Wagner Research Paper, (2598566).
\189\ Stern, A., Stacy, C., Blagg, K., Su, Y., Noble, E.,
Rainer, M., & Ezike, R. (2020). Access to Opportunity through
Equitable Transportation. Available at: https://www.urban.org/research/publication/access-opportunity-through-equitable-transportation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The objective of the proposed changes to these requirements is to
ensure programs are using their data to understand the factors that
impede Head Start enrollment and participation in their service area,
and ultimately, equip programs with more data to inform continuous
improvement of service delivery as described in Sec. 1302.102(c). We
propose to specifically require programs to consider transportation as
a barrier to enrollment and attendance because of its significance in
determining which children can enroll and participate in Head Start. In
tandem with proposed revisions in Sec. 1302.11(b) and Sec.
1302.16(a)(2), strengthening our HSPPS to increase transportation
services to more children will help to provide more educational
opportunity while also addressing these inequities. We believe these
proposed changes will promote the thoughtful use of the community
assessment, selection process, and attendance process to inform
responsive program design, and ultimately, ensure children who would
benefit most from Head Start services are identified, enrolled, and
supported in attendance. With the additional data required in these
sections, Head Start programs can better meet their current families'
needs and help to make services more accessible to future families. ACF
seeks public comment on how the proposed requirements in this section
may differentially impact different communities. We specifically
request public comment from the special populations served by Head
Start, including AIAN and MSHS programs and communities.
Serving Children With Disabilities (Sec. 1302.14)
Section 1302.14 outlines the requirements for selecting eligible
children for participation in the Head Start program. Paragraph (b) of
this section requires a program to ensure at least 10 percent of its
total funded enrollment is filled by children eligible for services
under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) unless the
responsible HHS official grants a waiver.
Though Sec. 1302.14(b) reads ``funded enrollment,'' section
640(d)(1) in the Act states the percentage of children with
disabilities (eligible under IDEA) is based on ``the number of children
actually enrolled,'' rather than the funded enrollment. ACF has
received feedback from various interested groups that this error has
caused confusion among programs because the Act and the HSPPS state
different requirements.
To address this inconsistency, we propose to change ``funded'' to
``actual'' in 1304(b)(1) so the HSPPS are consistent with the Act. This
change will clarify the requirement and address the confusion caused by
the discrepancy.
We encourage all Head Start programs to recruit and enroll as many
children who are eligible for IDEA services as possible. The 10 percent
requirement is
[[Page 80853]]
meant to be a floor rather than a ceiling for serving children who
would benefit from the program. ACF strongly encourages Head Start
programs to maximize services to children with disabilities who will
benefit from the program's strong focus on inclusive early childhood
settings. Early intervention and access to available services through
Head Start provides children with disabilities with supports that can
positively impact their education and well-being over the long term.
Through partnerships with State and local education agencies, Head
Start plays an important role in identifying children with disabilities
or developmental delays and referring families to services and follow-
up care.
Head Start programs are required to design and implement a
coordinated approach that ensures the full and effective participation
of all children with disabilities and their families (45 CFR
1302.101(b)(3)). The long-standing collaboration between ACF and the
U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs
(OSEP) seeks to ensure young children with disabilities are served in
high-quality early childhood programs, including Head Start programs.
This requires ongoing partnerships between the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Part C early intervention and Part B,
section 619 preschool special education programs and Head Start
programs.
During the return to in-person services in 2022, OHS and OSEP
issued a joint letter \190\ to reiterate important policies and
practices related to providing services to young children with
disabilities. The joint letter (1) reminds programs of requirements
under Part B of the IDEA to provide special education and related
services to eligible preschool-aged children with disabilities, (2)
promotes collaboration at the State and local program level to meet
requirements, and (3) provides resources to assist Head Start and other
providers in creating effective memoranda of understanding for
coordinating the implementation of high-quality programs for all
children.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\190\ Letter can be found at this link: https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/local-early-childhood-partnerships/press-release/encouraging-idea-collaboration-between-state-agencies-local-agencies-head-start-programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ratios in Center-Based Early Head Start Programs (Sec. 1302.21)
This section establishes requirements for staff-child ratios and
group sizes for center-based Head Start Preschool, Early Head Start,
and Migrant or Seasonal Head Start classes. The current standards at
Sec. 1302.21(b)(1) require staff-child ratios and group size maximums
to be determined by the age of the majority of children in a class. The
age of majority of the children is generally determined at the start of
the year but may be adjusted during the program year if needed. Where
State or local licensing requirements are more stringent, then staff-
child ratios and group size specifications must meet the stricter
requirements.
Further, Sec. 1302.21(b)(2) requires that classrooms that serve
children under 36 months old must have two teachers with no more than
eight children, or three teachers with no more than nine children. The
current standards in paragraph (b)(2) also emphasize that each teacher
serving children under 36 months must be assigned consistent, primary
responsibility for no more than four children to promote continuity of
care for individual children. A program must also minimize teacher
changes throughout a child's enrollment and consider mixed age group
classes to support continuity of care.
However, we propose to add a new standard that encourages programs
to use a lower teacher-child ratio of no more than three children to
every teacher for classrooms where the majority of children are infants
under 12 months. Specifically, we propose to add the following new
sentence after the second sentence in Sec. 1302.21(b)(2), that states
that programs are encouraged to establish a lower teacher to child
ratio for the youngest children they serve, provided that it does not
jeopardize continuity of care for children. As the premier ECE provider
in the United States, Head Start sets an example for early childhood
programs nationwide. Head Start programs are known for providing high-
quality early childhood services. Furthermore, a warm, responsive
relationship between an infant and caregiver is a crucial foundation
for infants to learn and develop. A lower teacher-child ratio can
support the establishment of this strong, secure relationship and allow
for more individualized attention between the infant and teacher. A
lower ratio of one teacher to three infants also aligns with the
National Resource Center for Health and Safety in Child Care and Early
Education recommendations for center-based programs with classrooms
where the majority of children are under 12 months old.\191\ Further,
research indicates that, generally, lower teacher-child ratios in ECE
classrooms relate to higher classroom quality and stronger child
outcomes.\192\ This proposed revision takes into consideration research
findings and recommendations and encourages programs to consider
reducing teacher-child ratios for their youngest classrooms, to provide
the highest quality care and learning opportunities for infants
enrolled in Head Start.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\191\ American Academy of Pediatrics, American Public Health
Association, & National Resource Center for Health and Safety in
Child Care and Early Education. (2020). Caring for Our Children
(CFOC) online standards database. National Resource Center for
Health and Safety in Child Care and Early Education. https://nrckids.org/CFOC.
\192\ Bowne, J.B., Magnuson, K.A., Schindler, H.S., Duncan,
G.J., & Yoshikawa, H. (2017). A Meta-Analysis of Class Sizes and
Ratios in Early Childhood Education Programs: Are Thresholds of
Quality Associated With Greater Impacts on Cognitive, Achievement,
and Socioemotional Outcomes? Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 39(3), 407-428. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373716689489;
Xue, Y., Atkins-Burnett, S., Vogel, C., and Cannon, J. (2022).
Teacher-Child Relationship Quality and Beyond: Unpacking Quality in
Early Head Start Classrooms in 2018. OPRE Report 2022-122.
Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation,
Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We further clarify that this proposed change is an encouragement
for programs and should not be interpreted as a new ratio requirement
for classrooms very young children. We recognize that a lower teacher-
child ratio will likely be challenging for some programs to implement
during the current staffing shortage. We further emphasize that the
requirements in Sec. 1302.21(b)(2) on promoting continuity of care by
minimizing teacher changes throughout a child's enrollment in Head
Start, and doing so through mixed age classrooms, is still of top
priority. ACF understands that implementing different ratio
requirements for different age groups in Early Head Start can be
challenging and antithetical to continuity of care (e.g., if children
need to switch classrooms after their first birthday). This can be
challenging when programs are also trying to ensure that teacher-child
relationships are stable across a child's early years in a program. ACF
intentionally prioritizes continuity of care especially for younger
children and programs should continue to create policies that support
strong teacher-child relationships. ACF invites public comment on
possible costs associated with lowering ratios for the youngest
children served, for programs that may choose to do so.
We would also like to understand the potential implications of
lowering ratio requirements for the youngest classrooms, particularly
for children 12 months old or younger. According to 2020 State
licensing standards, there are three states that have a ratio of one
[[Page 80854]]
teacher to three children for infants 12 months old or younger.\193\
ACF is interested in applying this reduced teacher-child ratio
requirement for classrooms where the majority of children are 12 months
old or younger. We invite public comment on such a possible change, as
well as possible costs associated with such a change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\193\ https://childcareta.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/public/center_licensing_trends_brief_2020_final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Center-Based Service Duration for Early Head Start (Sec. 1302.21)
Section 1302.21(c)(1)(i) requires Early Head Start center-based
programs to provide 1,380 annual hours of planned class operations for
all enrolled children. It has been a long-standing expectation of ACF
that EHS programs provide continuous services, which we have
interpreted as full-day, full-year services. Therefore, while not
explicitly stated, the intent of the Early Head Start 1,380 hours
requirement for center-based service duration is for programs to
provide full-day, full-year services. Research on full-day and full-
year programs suggests children in poverty benefit from longer exposure
to high-quality early learning programs than what is provided by part-
day and/or part-year programs.\194\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\194\ Yoshikawa, H., Weiland, C., Brooks-Gunn, J., Burchinal,
M.R., Espinosa, L.M., Gormley, W.T., Ludwig, J., Magnuson, K.A.,
Phillips, D., & Zaslow, M.J. (2013). Investing in Our Future: The
Evidence Base on Preschool Education. Policy Brief. Foundation for
Child Development.; Wasik, B.A., & Snell, E.K. (2019). Synthesis of
preschool dosage: How quantity, quality, and content impact child
outcomes. In A.J. Reynolds & J.A. Temple (Eds.), Sustaining early
childhood learning gains: Program, school, and family influences
(pp. 31-51). Cambridge University Press.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, the standard does not explicitly require a minimum number
of weeks per year over which the 1,380 hours should be provided.
Therefore, we propose to add a phrase to Sec. 1302.21(c)(1)(i) to
clarify that the 1,380 hours of planned class operations for children
in EHS should occur across a minimum of 46 weeks per year. Based on our
experiences implementing the current requirement, we believe most
programs are already operating year-round; however, a small number of
programs may be operating less than a full year and we would like to
promote full-year services for infants and toddlers in EHS. However, we
are also aware that specifying the requirement as at least 46 weeks per
year may have unintended consequences, such as programs moving to part-
day services or reducing their weeks per year to 46 to align with a new
requirement. Therefore, we request comment on these possible unintended
consequences as well as on other ways we can ensure EHS services are
full-day and full-year as intended, while still providing flexibility
to programs in developing their program schedules. ACF also seeks
public comment on how the proposed requirements in this section may
differentially impact different communities. We specifically request
public comment from the special populations served by Head Start,
including AIAN and MSHS programs and communities. Finally, we also
invite comment on how such a change would impact service delivery and
any challenges that may be associated with meeting a revised standard,
including the implementation timeframe.
Center-Based Service Duration for Head Start Preschool (Sec. 1302.21;
Sec. 1302.24)
Section 1302.21 establishes the program structure standards that
are required to operate Head Start Preschool, Early Head Start,
American Indian and Alaska Native, and Migrant or Seasonal Head Start
center-based program options. This includes standards for ratios and
group size, service duration, and licensing and square footage. In this
section, we propose seven technical corrections to existing provisions
in Sec. 1302.21(c)(1) through (6) to remove outdated text and improve
readability of these standards. We do not propose any change in policy
to these existing standards.
First, in Sec. 1302.21, we propose to revise paragraph (c)(1)(i)
by removing the phrase ``By August 1, 2018.'' That date has already
passed and does not add any substance to that paragraph.
Second, we propose to revise paragraph (c)(2)(i) by adding the
phrase ``Service Duration for at Least 45 Percent'' as a subheading. We
remove the phrase ``Until a program is operating all of its Head Start
center-based funded enrollment at the standard described in paragraph
(c)(2)(iv) or (c)(2)(v)'' and replace it with ``A program must provide
1,020 annual hours of planned class operation over the course of at
least eight months per year for at least 45 percent of its Head Start
Preschool center-based funded enrollment,'' which reflects the current
requirement. We also propose to amend paragraph (c)(2)(i) by removing
the language that details the minimum number of hours per day and days
per year a program must operate for any child (``a program must
provide, at a minimum, at least 160 days per year of planned class
operations if it operates for five days per week, or at least 128 days
per year if it operates four days per week. Classes must operate for a
minimum of 3.5 hours per day'') and moving that language into a new
paragraph (ii). We also propose to add the phrase ``Service Duration
for Remaining Slots'' as a subheading to the new paragraph (ii).
Third, we propose to redesignate existing paragraph (c)(2)(ii) as
paragraph (c)(2)(iii) and revise the redesignated paragraph (c)(2)(iii)
by adding the phrase ``Double session'' as a subheading. In
redesignated paragraph (c)(2)(iii) we also propose to remove the
language ``Until a program is operating all of its Head Start center-
based funded enrollment at the standard described in paragraph
(c)(2)(iv) or (c)(2)(v) of this section, if a program operates'' and
instead begin that paragraph with ``Double session variation must,'' to
improve readability. In addition, we propose to remove the term
``aides'' from the third sentence of redesignated paragraph (c)(2)(iii)
and replace that term with ``assistants.'' We propose the term
``assistant'' as this term more accurately reflects this staff role in
Head Start Preschool classrooms and aligns with other requirements for
preschool classrooms to have at least a teacher and teacher assistant
in each classroom.
Fourth, we propose to remove existing paragraphs (c)(2)(iii) and
(iv), which describe the two-part phase in for the outdated 100-percent
service duration requirement. The 100-percent service duration
requirement \195\ was effectively eliminated when the Secretary lowered
the Head Start center-based service duration requirement from 100
percent to 45 percent in a Federal Register notice, 85 FR 5332.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\195\ This requirement would have required all Head Start
programs to provide at least 1,020 annual hours of service for all
(100 percent) of their center-based preschool slots.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fifth, we propose to redesignate existing paragraph (c)(2)(v) as
new paragraph (iv). We propose to revise the redesignated paragraph
(iv) by adding ``Special Provision for Alignment with Local Education
Agency'' as a subheading to make this section easier for the public to
read. We also propose to update cross-references to existing paragraphs
by replacing the phrase ``paragraphs (c)(2)(iii) and (iv)'' with
``paragraph (c)(2)(i)'' to align with the proposed revisions described
previously.
Sixth, we propose to eliminate paragraph (c)(3) since the
provisions in this paragraph are outdated; the Secretary already
exercised authority to lower the Head Start center-based service
duration requirements and the dates have passed.\196\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\196\ https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/01/30/2020-00635/secretarial-determination-to-lower-head-start-center-based-service-duration-requirements; https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/01/19/2018-00897/secretarial-determination-to-lower-head-start-center-based-service-duration-requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 80855]]
Lastly, we propose to remove paragraph (c)(4) because the November
7, 2016, date mentioned in that standard has passed and the standard is
no longer applicable. We propose to redesignate existing paragraph
(c)(5) ``Exemption for Migrant or Seasonal Head Start programs'' as the
new paragraph (3) and redesignate existing paragraph (6) ``Calendar
planning'' as the new paragraph (4).
Section 1302.24 describes locally designed program option
variations, including waiver requirements. We propose to make updates
in this section to align with the proposed updates for center-based
service duration in Sec. 1302.21. Specifically, in paragraph (c)(1) we
propose to remove the reference to ``(c)(2)(iii) and (iv)'' and replace
it with ``(c)(2)(i).'' In paragraph (c)(3) we propose to remove the
reference to ``(c)(2)(iii) or (iv)'' and update it with ``(c)(2)(i).''
In paragraph (c)(3) we also propose to remove the reference to
``(c)(2)(i)'' and update it with ``(c)(2)(ii).'' Finally, at the end of
the sentence in paragraph (c)(3), we propose to remove the reference to
``(c)(2)(ii)'' and update it with ``(c)(2)(iii).'' In paragraph (c)(5)
we propose to remove the reference to ``(c)(2)(iii) and (iv)'' and
replace it with ``(c)(2)(i).'' Finally, we propose to remove paragraph
(d) ``Transition from previously approved program options'' because the
November 7, 2016, date mentioned in that standard has passed and the
standard is no longer applicable.
Ratios in Family Child Care Settings (Sec. 1302.23)
Family child care is an important component of a robust state mixed
delivery early care and education system that supports flexibility and
choice for parents. Families may prefer a home-based option for various
reasons, including meeting their cultural or scheduling needs, offering
a smaller family like setting, or enabling younger and older siblings
to be served in the same location. For families who opt for a home-
based program for their children, Head Start services provided within a
family child care option can help to ensure services are high-quality
and include supports such as professional development and technical
assistance to home-based providers. Section 1302.23(b) lays out the
provider to child ratio and group size requirements for programs that
operate a family child care option with enrolled Head Start children.
Paragraph (b) requires a grant recipient that operates this option to
maintain a group size of no more than six children in mixed age
groupings with no more than two of those children under age 24 months
with one family child care provider. And a provider may have no more
than four children in a grouping of children under age 36 months with
no more than two of those children under age 18 months.
We believe that these standards for the family child care option
demonstrate a commitment to quality; however, we recognize that the
wording of the existing standards has led to confusion among grant
recipients, particularly in understanding the difference between the
standards for groupings that include older children and those that
serve only infants and toddlers. It was our intent during the initial
drafting of the standards that an acceptable grouping of infants and
toddlers should be smaller than a mixed age grouping of children that
includes preschool or older children. However, we received feedback
from the field that the current standards are unclear.
Based on this input, we propose to make clarifying revisions to the
current standard. Specifically, Sec. 1302.23(b)(2) as written
establishes the maximum group size of six children with no more than
two children under the age of 24 months of age with one provider but
does not reference the age makeup allowances for the rest of the group.
The language at Sec. 1302.23(b)(3) references an acceptable ratio and
group size of one provider with up to four children younger than age 36
months with no more than two of the four children under 18 months of
age. Taken together the two standards Sec. 1302.23(b)(2) and (3) are
not sufficiently distinct. Therefore, we propose to amend Sec.
1302.23(b)(2) to clarify that the maximum group size with one provider
and six children, with no more than two under 24 months of age, refers
to a mixed age grouping that includes preschool children (e.g.,
children over the age of 36 months). Specifically, we propose to add
the header ``Mixed Age with Preschoolers'' to paragraph Sec.
1302.23(b)(2) and add the following language to the first sentence
after the phrase ``family child care provider'': ``with a mixed-age
group of children that includes children over 36 months of age.''
Similarly, we propose to clarify Sec. 1302.23(b)(3) by adding the
header ``Infants and Toddlers Only'', and deleting ``One family child
care provider may care for up to four children younger than 36 months
of age with a maximum group size of four children'' and replacing it
with ``When there is one family child care provider with a group of
children that are all under 36 months of age, the maximum group size is
four children.''
ACF believes these fixes will not alter the substance of the
regulation but will provide much needed clarity to Head Start programs
with a family child care option while acknowledging the importance of
maintaining ratios and group sizes that facilitate high-quality
interactions and support children's safety and development.
In making these clarifying revisions, we noted that the standards
in Sec. 1302.23(b)(2) allow for an increased group size when both a
family child care provider and an assistant provider are present.
However, the role of ``family child care assistant provider'' is not
defined and is not addressed in the staff qualifications and competency
requirements outlined in Sec. 1302.91(e)(5) for child and family
services staff.
We believe that all adults who provide direct services to children
regardless of setting should have appropriate, training, knowledge, and
experience that will enable them to support children's development
through effective teaching practices and nurturing adult-child
interactions. As a model for high quality early childhood supports and
services, Head Start programs must ensure that providers have the
necessary skills to ensure quality programming that will lead to
positive outcomes for children and families. Therefore, we propose to
amend the second sentence of Sec. 1302.23(b)(2) by removing the phrase
``When there is a provider and an assistant provider'' and replacing it
with the phrase ``When there are two providers.'' We believe this
change will help ensure that large mixed-age groups (of up to twelve
children) in family child care settings are supported by qualified
family child care providers. In addition, for consistency and clarity,
we propose to strike the phrase ``and assistant providers'' from the
final sentence of Sec. 1302.23(b)(4) to emphasize that programs must
ensure any staff who may have primary responsibility for children have
the necessary training and experience to ensure quality services are
not interrupted.
We invite comment on the potential impact of removing these two
references to ``assistant provider'' in the family child care option
and the requirement that all family child care providers meet the
qualification requirements. We seek comment specifically from family
child care programs that currently employ assistant providers. ACF also
seeks public comment from the special populations served by Head Start,
[[Page 80856]]
including AIAN and MSHS programs and communities.
Safety Practices (Sec. 1302.47)
Section 1302.47 establishes expectations for Head Start programs to
ensure basic health and safety measures are taken for the protection of
all children. Here, we propose changes to Sec. 1302.47(b), which
requires programs to implement a system of management, training, and
oversight to ensure safe practices in a list of areas in order to
ensure child safety. In the years of implementing these requirements
since the 2016 revision of the HSPPS, grant recipients and other
interested parties have raised questions about these requirements and
to whom they apply. Given how critical child safety is in Head Start
programs, it is imperative that we are as clear as possible and that
our requirements reflect current best practices and terminology. In
this section, we propose to clarify expected safety practices related
to child health, mental health, and safety incidents. More
specifically, the proposed requirements specify that any adult working
in Head Start is responsible for safety practices and more precisely
define safety practices by including the existing minimum Federal
standard for abuse and neglect, clarifying that children should be
supervised at all times, and drawing attention to the relevant
paragraphs of the Standards of Conduct.
We propose to remove from Sec. 1302.47(b)(5) the phrase ``staff
and consultants'' and replace it with ``staff, consultants,
contractors, and volunteers.'' This revision is intended to clarify
that Head Start contractors and volunteers, in addition to staff and
consultants, should be aware of and are expected to follow safety
practices. The proposed change will clarify that all individuals
working in Head Start must be aware of and responsible for child safety
practices.
Section 1302.47(b)(5)(i) describes the safety practice of reporting
suspected or known child abuse and neglect. We propose to add the
phrase ``as defined by the Federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment
Act (CAPTA) (42 U.S.C. 5101 note).'' The proposed change will clarify
the definition of child abuse and neglect that is aligned with existing
Federal statute, CAPTA, which states that ``the term `child abuse and
neglect' means, at a minimum, any recent act or failure to act on the
part of a parent or caretaker, which results in death, serious physical
or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation (including sexual abuse
as determined under section 111), or an act or failure to act which
presents an imminent risk of serious harm.'' The Federal definition is
a minimum standard and programs must also comply with State, local, and
Tribal laws, which may have additional stipulations related to defining
child abuse and neglect and other requirements for mandated reporting.
If there are discrepancies between Federal and State, local, and Tribal
laws, programs should comply with the more stringent regulation.
In Sec. 1302.47(b)(5)(iii), appropriate supervision of children is
described as a safety practice. We propose to remove the phrase
``indoor and outdoor.'' This proposed change clarifies that appropriate
supervision of children is expected at all times and aligns with Caring
for Our Children guidelines.\197\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\197\ Caring for our Children. (2022). Chapter 2.2 Supervision
and Discipline. National Resource Center for Health and Safety in
Child Care and Early Education, Department of Health and Human
Services. Available online at https://nrckids.org/cfoc/database/2.2.0.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Next, in Sec. 1302.47(b)(5)(v), the standards of conduct in Sec.
1302.90(c) are referenced as a safety practice. We propose to add the
designation ``(ii)'' to the citation to clarify that Sec.
1302.47(b)(5)(v) references the specific standards of conduct that are
related to staff behavior that could be reasonably suspected to
negatively impact children, which are described in Sec.
1302.90(c)(ii). This addition would also reduce redundancies since
supervision and reporting of suspected or known child abuse and neglect
are listed as stand-alone safety practices as well as embedded in
subparagraphs of the broader standards of conduct. Further discussion
of child safety, which is of the utmost importance to Head Start
programs, can be found in the sections of this preamble titled
Standards of Conduct and Staff Training to Support Child Safety.
Lastly, we propose to add a clause to the end of Sec.
1302.47(b)(1)(ii), ``including lead consistent with Sec. 1302.48'', to
align with the changes discussed in the following section of this
preamble.
ACF seeks public comment on how the proposed requirements in this
section may differentially impact different communities. We
specifically request public comment from the special populations served
by Head Start, including AIAN and MSHS programs and communities.
Preventing and Addressing Lead Exposure (Sec. 1302.48)
In this section, we propose new requirements on preventing and
addressing lead exposure through water and lead-based paint in Head
Start facilities. Protecting children from exposure to lead is
important to promote lifelong good health, as there is no safe level of
lead, especially for the ages of children Head Start serves. Even low
levels of lead in blood have been shown to affect learning, ability to
pay attention, and academic achievement.\198\ These requirements
together will help prevent and address lead exposure for children in
settings used to provide Head Start program services by ensuring
programs test for and remediate lead hazards on a regular basis.
Specifically, we propose to add a new section Sec. 1302.48 to Subpart
D Health and Mental Health Program Services that includes four
paragraphs: paragraph (a) contains proposed requirements to prevent and
address lead exposure through water, paragraph (b) contains proposed
requirements to prevent and address lead exposure through paint,
paragraph (c) contains proposed requirements to ensure public
notification of test results and remediation actions as an outcome of
paragraphs (a) and (b), and paragraph (d) contains a requirement that,
should applicable State or local laws or regulations have more
stringent requirements for lead testing or remediation, programs should
comply with the more stringent requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\198\ See https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/prevention/health-
effects.htm#:~:text=Lead%20exposure%20occurs%20when%20a,Slowed%20grow
th%20and%20development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead in Water
Paragraph (a) of Sec. 1302.48 introduces new proposed requirements
to address lead in water from water fixtures used for human consumption
(see proposed definition for water fixtures used for human consumption
in Sec. 1305.2). These include requirements on sampling and testing
for lead in water from such fixtures, the frequency of testing,
detectable lead level that requires remediation action, and
requirements on point-of-use (POU) devices for reducing lead levels.
This regulation is supportive of ongoing efforts across the Federal
Government that is addressing lead in water in early care and education
settings.\199\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\199\ Dear Colleague Letter on Funding to Test for and Address
Lead in Water in Early Care and Education Settings. (2023). https://www.acf.hhs.gov/ecd/policy-guidance/dear-colleague-letter-funding-test-and-address-lead-water-early-care-and.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As specified in paragraph (a), these requirements only apply to
Head Start facilities constructed before 2014 and where lead service
lines, plumbing, or fixtures may still exist. The year 2014 is selected
as it aligns with the effective
[[Page 80857]]
date of the Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act which established
that any pipe, pipe fitting, plumbing fitting, and fixture installed,
manufactured, or imported for new construction is lead-free at a
weighted lead content average of less than or equal to 0.25 percent
\200\ We also recognize some older facilities have all lead service
lines, plumbing, and fixtures removed and replaced, and we do not
intend to impose unnecessary burden on testing for lead in water for
programs operating in such facilities. If a program operates in a
facility constructed prior to 2014 and can demonstrate that all of
these lead-based facility features no longer exist, then requirements
in paragraph (a) do not apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\200\ See https://www.epa.gov/sdwa/use-lead-free-pipes-fittings-fixtures-solder-and-flux-drinking-water.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We propose in paragraph (a)(1) that programs sample and test water
for lead from such fixtures on an annual basis. This requirement is to
ensure programs test for lead in water to catch and address lead
contamination on a regular schedule. A sample test is a snapshot of the
lead level taken at the time it was collected. Lead levels at a fixture
or within a building have been shown to vary over time. Factors that
contribute to this variability include water chemistry, hydraulics,
lead plumbing sources, and water consumption patterns.\201\ Regularly
scheduled testing and routine maintenance are essential to reducing
lead in drinking water.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\201\ Triantafyllidou S, Burkhardt J, Tully J, et al.
Variability and sampling of lead (Pb) in drinking water: Assessing
potential human exposure depends on the sampling protocol. Environ
Int. 2021;146:106259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2020.106259.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual monitoring of lead levels in water can provide information
to the program on potential changes in the lead levels, the ongoing
effectiveness of remediation or treatment efforts, and detection of
lead levels that need to be addressed. We recognize that how frequently
programs should test is dependent on a variety of factors including the
age of the facility and plumbing, characteristics of plumbing
infrastructure, water quality, prior lead testing and results, and
remediation efforts implemented.\202\ To provide flexibility to test
less frequently when reasonable, we propose that a program may choose
to only test water from a proportion of fixtures each year with
governing body approval. If a program decides to use this flexibility,
they must still ensure that all water fixtures used for human
consumption are tested at least once every 5 years. For example, a
program will meet this requirement if they decide to test one-fifth and
a different set of their water fixtures each year since this would
result in all water fixtures being tested within a 5-year timeframe.
This flexibility is proposed to allow programs to weigh the variety of
factors discussed earlier when determining the frequency of testing,
while still ensuring all water fixtures are tested within at least a 5-
year window.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\202\ See https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/prevention/sources/water.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We propose in paragraph (a)(2) that programs sample and test water
fixtures used for human consumption following remediation actions to
address detectable lead or following a change to the water profile (see
proposed definition for change in water profile in Sec. 1305.2). This
proposed requirement adds an additional layer of protection to the
requirements in the prior clause on frequency of testing to ensure
testing occurs on water fixtures following an event that has a high
likelihood of impacting the lead level in water used for human
consumption. Additionally, testing following remediation actions to
address detectable lead supports programs in meeting the other proposed
requirements in paragraphs (a)(5) through (7).
We propose in paragraph (a)(3) that all samples must be collected
by an individual who is adequately trained to collect samples for lead
testing. We recognize that most programs will need to train an
individual to collect samples. Programs should leverage available
trainings and technical assistance, including resources developed by
the EPA 3Ts for Reducing Lead in Drinking Water in Schools and Child
Care Facilities--A Training, Testing and Taking Action Approach (3Ts)
program, to ensure the individual is adequately trained to collect
samples. A trained individual should understand how to conduct a 2-step
sampling procedure (i.e., a first draw sample and flush sample), ensure
water remained stationary in the plumbing system of the facility for at
least 8 but no more than 18 hours \203\ prior to collecting the sample
when appropriate, ensure samples are collected at correct volumes, and
how to have the sample delivered to a laboratory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\203\ U.S. EPA 3Ts Program--Lead Sample Collection field Guide
for Schools and Child Care Facilities; EPA 816-F-22-009, July 2022
at https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-07/US%20EPA%203Ts%20Lead%20Sample%20Collection%20Field%20Guide%20For%20Schools%20and%20Child%20Care%20Facilities_508.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We propose in paragraph (a)(4) that all samples are analyzed for
lead by a laboratory that is certified by EPA or the State, territory,
or Tribe for testing lead in drinking water. The resource, ``Contact
Information for Certification Programs and Certified Laboratories for
Drinking Water'' is readily available for programs to find EPA
certified laboratories by State: https://www.epa.gov/dwlabcert/contact-information-certification-programs-and-certified-laboratories-drinking-water. This requirement ensures the entity conducting the lead level
test is following EPA Federal standards on testing to promote
consistent and high-quality results.
We propose in clause paragraphs (a)(5) and (6) that, together,
programs are required to restrict access to water fixtures used for
human consumption within 24 hours of determining the water has a lead
sample result at or above 5 parts per billion, provide notice in a
timely manner to parents of children who may have consumed the water,
and access to these water fixtures is not allowed for human consumption
until lead sample results indicate the water fixture is below 5 parts
per billion following remediation actions. Ways to restrict access can
include closing the water supply valve to the fixture or placing a sign
that the water cannot be consumed. The 24-hour timeframe for
restricting access was selected to provide a reasonable timeframe for
the program to take action to restrict access and prevent any exposure
to the identified source of lead. The 5 parts per billion level
requiring remediation action was selected for several reasons,
including that it aligns with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
lead level limit \204\ in bottled water and the NSF/ANSI 53
certification for POU devices.\205\ While not explicitly stated in the
regulatory text, OHS encourages programs to notify parents of children
who may have consumed water within 24 hours if feasible, and not later
than 10 business days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\204\ See https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/bottled-water-everywhere-keeping-it-safe.
\205\ See https://www.nsf.org/news/drinking-water-treatment-units-stricter-requirements-lead-reduction-cert.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We understand that there is no safe lead level for children and
therefore we propose in paragraph (a)(7) a requirement that programs
still consider taking remediation actions to address water fixtures
used for human consumption with detectable lead below 5 parts per
billion with the goal to lower the lead level as low as practicable.
This proposed requirement promotes a shared health goal of no
detectable lead in water, while recognizing that there
[[Page 80858]]
may be challenges achieving such a goal.
As part of these proposed requirements, programs have the
flexibility in determining which remediation steps to take when
addressing elevated lead levels in water, including the use of POU
\206\ devices on water fixtures, replacement of plumbing materials
including pipes and fixtures, or a combination of these and other
approaches. Programs can determine which remediation actions \207\ to
take based on various factors including the options and resources
available to them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\206\ U.S. EPA Consumer Tool for Identifying POU Drinking Water
Filters Certified to Reduce Lead at https://www.epa.gov/water-research/consumer-tool-identifying-pou-drinking-water-filters-certified-reduce-lead.
\207\ For details specific to remediation, go to EPA 3Ts
guidance at https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/3ts-reducing-lead-drinking-water#mod6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We propose in paragraph (a)(8) that when programs decide to use POU
devices to address lead in water, that programs must appropriately use
and maintain POU devices that reduce lead levels as tested and
certified by a third party according to NSF/ANSI Standards for lead
reduction. Programs should follow manufacturer instructions to
appropriately maintain POU devices, which would include replacing
filters in a timely manner and ensuring replacement filters also comply
with NSF/ANSI standards. Currently, NSF/ANSI Standard 53 for Drinking
Water Treatment Units is the nationally recognized standard for
evaluating and certifying POU devices for the reduction of lead in
drinking water.\208\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\208\ See https://www.nsf.org/consumer-resources/articles/standards-water-treatment-systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA implements safe drinking water in partnership with states,
Tribes, and water system operators. EPA regulates public water systems
(PWSs) in accordance with the Safe Drinking Water Act. EPA's Lead and
Copper Rule establishes requirements for PWSs to address lead in
drinking water. Most Head Start facilities are served by PWSs. Even
when water entering a facility meets all Federal and State public
health standards for lead, internal building plumbing and fixtures may
contribute to sources of lead in drinking water, particularly those
installed prior to the EPA 1986 Lead Ban.\209\ Another significant
source of lead localized to the Head Start building can occur through
the main service line if it is a lead service line. This is why it is
important that programs test for and remediate detectable lead in water
within Head Start facilities. We recognize that a few programs may be
using privately owned water systems. If this privately owned water
system has at least 15 service connections or serves at least 25 people
per day for 60 days of the year, it is considered a public water system
and would be regulated by EPA.\210\ If the facility does not meet this
definition, then the system is not regulated by EPA. The owners of
these systems are responsible for the safety of their water, and it is
important Head Start programs in these rare circumstances take steps to
understand the overall quality of their water and to also remediate
exceedances of the 5 parts per billion lead level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\209\ Use of Lead Free Pipes, Fittings, Fixtures, Solder, and
Flux for Drinking Water--Final ``Lead Free'' Rule at https://www.epa.gov/sdwa/use-lead-free-pipes-fittings-fixtures-solder-and-flux-drinking-water.
\210\ See https://www.epa.gov/dwreginfo/information-about-public-water-systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In implementing these requirements, ACF encourages programs to
refer to the EPA voluntary program: 3Ts available at https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/3ts-reducing-lead-drinking-water. The purpose of this program is to assist states, schools, and
child care facilities with implementing their own testing and
remediation programs, developing a plan, conducting outreach, and
taking action to address elevated levels of lead. Further, programs may
be able to utilize funding available from the Bipartisan Infrastructure
Act to cover some of the costs associated with lead testing and
remediation.
Lead in Paint
Paragraph (b) introduces new requirements on preventing and
addressing lead exposure in paint, with its associated exposures from
lead in dust and lead in soil, in facilities constructed before 1978
and in facilities where lead-based paint may exist, including
appropriate abatement actions, and the frequency of re-assessing lead-
based paint hazards following abatement.
We propose to limit requirements associated with paragraph (b) to
programs operating in facilities constructed prior to 1978 and where
lead-based paint may still exist. The year 1978 is when the Federal
Government banned the consumer use of lead-based paint, and this
requirement targets the risk associated with facilities constructed
prior to this date.\211\ However, we recognize that there are
facilities constructed prior to 1978 where lead paint has been
completely removed (e.g., through major renovation or studs-out
remodel), or that were constructed without lead paint. If a program
operates in a facility constructed prior to 1978 and is able to
demonstrate that lead-based paint no longer exists, then requirements
in paragraph (b) do not apply. We propose in paragraph (b)(1) that
programs work with a risk assessor who is certified by either the EPA
or by a State, territory, or Tribe with an EPA-authorized lead-based
paint certification program to inspect for lead-based paint and assess
for lead-based paint hazards. Of rooms in Head Start facilities
undergoing an evaluation, we assume approximately 43.8% would be
identified as potentially having a lead-based paint hazard requiring
abatement.\212\ We understand this value may be an overestimate since
it is based on a study covering pre-1978 child care centers, and we
request public comment on whether there is a better assumption that can
be applied regarding the percent of rooms in Head Start facilities that
may require abatement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\211\ See https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/prevention/sources/paint.htm.
\212\ https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/HH/documents/AHHS_II_Lead_Findings_Report_Final_29oct21.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We propose in paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) that programs immediately
restrict access to identified lead hazards until abatement actions are
completed by a lead abatement contractor certified by the EPA or State,
territory, or Tribal agency (see proposed definition for abatement in
section 1305.2). These provisions aim to minimize risk of lead exposure
for children, while maintaining flexibility for programs to determine
appropriate lead abatement strategies that best meet local program
needs and available resources, in consultation with certified lead
abatement experts and contractors.
Lead is naturally present in soil, but we recognize that deposits
from leaded gasoline, exterior lead-based paint, and industrial sources
may contribute to concerning levels of lead in the soil surrounding a
program, especially in urban areas with historic use of leaded paint or
leaded gasoline, and in rural areas where there was heavy pesticide use
for agriculture.\213\ Lead does not biodegrade over time and remains in
soil for a long time.\214\ Although there are no proposed requirements
to explicitly address lead in soil, the requirements in this paragraph
may
[[Page 80859]]
result in hazardous levels of lead in soil to be identified and
addressed through inspections of lead-paint hazards and associated
abatement efforts. Additionally, we encourage programs to consider the
risk of lead in their soil, and take any steps needed to ensure any
bare soil where children play is non-toxic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\213\ See https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-10/documents/lead-in-soil-aug2020.pdf.
\214\ Urban-Soil Pedogenesis Drives Contrasting Legacies of Lead
from Paint and Gasoline in City Soil,'' Anna M. Wade, Daniel D.
Richter, Christopher B. Craft, Nancy Y. Bao, Paul R. Heine, Mary C.
Osteen and Kevin G. Tan; May 21, 2021, Environmental Science &
Technology. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c00546.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We propose in paragraph (b)(4) that following the conclusion of any
abatement actions, those facilities that have lead-based paint or lead-
based paint hazards as determined by the initial inspection and risk
assessment, would have a certified risk assessor reassess for lead-
based paint hazards at least once every 2 years unless two
reassessments conducted two years apart identify no lead-based paint
hazards, indicating the quality of the ongoing lead-based paint
maintenance of the facility. Two years is selected as it aligns with
the Lead Safe Housing Rule recommendation for reevaluation of HUD-
assisted properties (24 CFR 35.1355(b)(4)). Further, allowing a program
to no longer reassess every 2 years when two reassessments conducted 2
years apart identify no lead-based paint hazards is intended to remove
unnecessary burden of reassessments when the risk of lead-based paint
hazards to re-emerge is low. However, programs are encouraged to
visually monitor for potential deterioration of lead abatement measures
on an ongoing basis, including looking for any peeling or chipping
paint. We request comment on whether we should require regular visual
inspections.
We request comment on whether the dust-lead hazards should be
specified or referenced to EPA established clearance levels and whether
the reassessment process proposed following abatements of lead-based
paint hazards should be modified such that a reassessment is required
if the EPA promulgates more stringent abatement requirements that take
effect following the two reassessments envisioned by this proposal's
regulatory text.
Notification
In paragraph (c), we propose requirements that programs provide
notification of lead testing results and remediation actions to
parents, caregivers, and staff to promote transparency and raise
awareness. Additionally, notification of results and actions to
parents, caregivers, and program staff can help build community trust
and engagement and demonstrate a commitment to children's health and
safety. While the proposed provision does not provide a specific
timeframe for notification, EPA's 3T's program encourages beginning
communication \215\ before testing begins and ongoing throughout the
testing process. We encourage programs to consider leveraging existing
methods of communication already established throughout the program
year. For example, if there is suspicion that a child may have been
exposed to lead, programs should encourage parents to talk to their
child's healthcare provider about completing the appropriate blood lead
tests. We also encourage programs to consider a notification schedule
and approach that is appropriate for their community. Notifications
must be translated and interpreted for families with limited English
proficiency, in alignment with Sec. 1302.90(d)(1) and consistent with
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Programs also must provide
effective communication to individuals with disabilities about lead
testing results and remediation actions, consistent with the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\215\ US EPA 3Ts communication templates can be found at https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/3ts-reducing-lead-drinking-water#mod1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Requirements
As with many areas of the HSPPS, there may be situations in which
the HSPPS differ somewhat from State or local laws or regulations. In
those cases, it is standard practice that programs adhere to the more
stringent requirement. In paragraph (d) we propose a requirement that
specifically states that programs should comply with the more stringent
requirement, should State or local laws or regulations differ from the
requirements described in paragraphs (a) through (c). We note that we
interpret this standard to apply to each specific aspect of these
requirements. For example, if a State requires licensed programs to
have a more stringent action level when lead is identified in water but
a less stringent standard for testing frequency, a program should use
the more stringent action level required by the State and the more
stringent testing frequency required by the proposed standard in HSPPS.
We welcome all public comments on the proposed requirements to
prevent and address lead exposure through water and paint (including
associated dust and soil exposures). We are specifically interested in
public comment on the issues programs have experienced with previously
addressing harmful lead exposure in water or paint, whether the
proposed flexibilities are helpful or if additional flexibility is
needed, and the action level requiring remediation for lead in water,
as well as any areas that are particularly unclear.
We did not propose any requirements to specifically target lead in
soil, since we believe this will be captured through proposed
requirements on lead-paint inspections and through programs determining
when it is necessary to test lead in their soil (e.g., programs testing
bare soil accessible for children to play in since they are in an urban
area near older buildings that currently or previously contained lead
paint). We were concerned that lead in soil testing and remediation
requirements would cause too much undue burden and by not including
them, we aim to ensure programs have flexibility in their approaches to
determining and addressing lead in soil hazards.
Finally, ACF seeks public comment on how the proposed requirements
in this section may differentially impact different communities. We
specifically request public comment from the special populations served
by Head Start, including AIAN and MSHS programs and communities.
Family Service Worker Family Assignments (Sec. 1302.52)
Since its inception in 1965, Head Start has been a leader in anti-
poverty, two generation early childhood programming focused on school
readiness, family well-being, and family and community engagement.
Section 1302.52 outlines the requirements for family partnership
services, the foundational and central process by which staff engage
with each family of enrolled children. This section describes the
required components of the family partnership process: the intake and
family assessment procedures to identify family strengths and needs
related to family engagement outcomes; what must occur as part of
individualizing family partnership services; and the need to consider
existing plans and community resources to support families in order to
ensure that families can take full advantage of services for which they
are eligible and promote coordination across service providers. This
section also describes what is needed to individualize family
partnership services and how staff must collaborate with families to
identify needs, interests, and individualized family goals. Head Start
staff who partner with families play a critical role in helping
families achieve their goals and aspirations for themselves and for
their children.
Family well-being is one of the greatest predictors of school
[[Page 80860]]
readiness.\216\ Many families of all backgrounds in the U.S. face
various challenges, such as unemployment, poverty, high housing costs,
food insecurity, community violence, limited education, and poor
health. Each of these alone can cause family stress and negatively
impact family well-being. When combined, these negative effects on
family well-being and child outcomes can be even greater.\217\ The Head
Start workforce that supports families provides many of the
comprehensive services that reflect Head Start's focus not only on the
health and development of young children, but the well-being and
leadership of their families.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\216\ Chazan-Cohen, R., Raikes, H., Brooks-Gunn, J., Ayoub, C.,
Pan, B.A., Kisker, E.E., . . . Fuligni, A.S. (2009). Low-income
children's school readiness: Parent contributions over the first
five years. Early Education & Development, 20(6), 958-977. Duncan
G.J. & Magnuson, K.A., (2005). Can family socioeconomic resources
account for racial and ethnic test score gaps? The Future of
Children, 15(1). Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/1602661
Fantuzzo, J., Leboeuf, W., Brumley, B., & Perlman, S. (2013). A
population-based inquiry of homeless episode characteristics and
early educational well-being. Children and Youth Services Review,
35(6), 966-972. Mistry, R.S., Benner, A.D., Biesanz, J.C., Clark,
S.L., & Howes, C. (2010). Family and social risk, and parental
investments during the early childhood years as predictors of low-
income children's school readiness outcomes. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 25(4), 432-449. Ryu, J.H., & Bartfeld, J.S.
(2012). Household food insecurity during childhood and subsequent
health status: The Early Childhood Longitudinal Study--Kindergarten
Cohort. American Journal of Public Health, 102(11), e50-e55.
\217\ Brooks-Gunn, J., Duncan, G.J., & Maritato, N. (1999). Poor
families, poor outcomes: The well-being of children and youth. In
G.J. Duncan & J. BrooksGunn (Eds.), Consequences of growing up poor
(pp. 1-17). New York: Russell Sage Foundation; Vernon-Feagans, L., &
Cox, M. (2012). I. Poverty, rurality, parenting, and risk: An
introduction. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child
Development, 78(5), 1-23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When Head Start staff that provide family services have high family
assignments, which are sometimes referred to as caseloads, they may
feel overwhelmed and experience burnout, which in turn negatively
impacts the quality of family services. Data from Head Start's
technical assistance trainings shows that high family assignments and
being asked to take on additional responsibilities beyond the job
description are often accompanied by expressions of job frustration and
dissatisfaction among staff who work directly with families. Further,
OHS regional offices have reported that when cost savings are needed,
programs will first look to personnel budgets by decreasing family
service positions. This can lead to larger family assignments for
remaining staff and less stability in staffing for family support
services in Head Start, which may decrease the quality of services.
Many family services staff with higher family assignments share with
OHS that they have too many family assignments to meaningfully and
consistently address supports for family wellbeing, parenting, and
family engagement around children's early learning and education.
Though there is not much literature on the family engagement specialist
caseload experience, research on home visiting demonstrates that
stressors in caseload management relate to diminished engagement with
participants that could negatively impact the participant
experience.\218\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\218\ Alitz, P., Geary, S., Birriel, P., Sayi, T., Ramakrishnan,
R., Balogun, O., . . . Marshall, J. (2018). Work-Related Stressors
Among Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting (MIECHV)
Home Visitors: A Qualitative Study. Maternal and Child Health
Journal, 22, 62-69.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research from related fields shows that high family assignments
compromise workers' ability to provide effective services to families.
High family assignments also exacerbate already high levels of staff
burnout and turnover.\219\ Further, program leaders describe family
assignments as a major challenge. In a 2019 National TTA study of Head
Start programs, Family and Community Services Managers, who oversee
family services staff, cited their top two program challenges as (1)
workload/family assignments being too large for staff and (2) families
faced so many challenges that staff were not able to support families
as well as they would like.\220\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\219\ Boston Children's Hospital. (2012). Family connections.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for
Children and Families, Office of Head Start. Retrieved from https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/introduction-to-family-connections.pdf; Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2016,
July). Caseload and workload management. Retrieved from https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubPDFs/case_work_management.pdf; Howes, C.,
Phillips, D.A., & Whitebook, M. (1992). Thresholds of Quality:
Implications for the Social Development of Children in Center-Based
Child Care. Child Development, 63(2), 449-460.; Social Work Policy
Institute. (2010, January). High caseloads: How do they impact
delivery of health and human services? Retrieved from https://www.socialworkpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/r2p-cw-caseload-swpi-1-10.pdf.
\220\ Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services. (2022). Survey of Head Start Grantees
on Training and Technical Assistance. [Unpublished data analyses].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACF has sought various ways to support the family services
workforce. For example, ACF established the National Center on Parent,
Family and Community Engagement (NC PFCE) in 2010. The NC PFCE
developed research-based resources, including a set of family services
competencies which articulate best practices in family assignment
limits. NC PFCE also conducted hundreds of trainings to assist Head
Start programs with implementing these best practices. Additionally, to
improve workloads for staff working directly with families, in the 2016
revisions to the HSPPS, ACF added Sec. 1302.52(c)(4) ``Assign staff
and resources based on the urgency and intensity of identified family
needs and goals.'' Despite these efforts, we have seen little change to
family assignment ratios across time, as evidenced by our own Head
Start Program Information Report (PIR) data.
According to the PIR for program year 2021, 50 percent of programs
had one staff partnering with 40 or more families. Of those programs,
21 percent had family assignments of one staff to 40-50 families; 16
percent had family assignments of one staff to 50-60 families; seven
percent had family assignments of one staff to 60-75 families; and six
percent of programs had family assignments of one staff to 75-200+
families. Based on these data, there is a wide range of family
assignments across our programs, therefore we feel it is necessary to
establish a standardized family assignment requirement.
Section 648A(c)(2) of the Act provides ACF with the authority to
review and if necessary, revise, requirements related to family
assignments, as suggested by best practice, to improve the quality and
effectiveness of staff providing services to families. We believe the
research in this field coupled with our own PIR data and feedback we
received from programs indicates a strong need for clearer standards
for management of family assignments. We propose an additional
provision in Sec. 1302.52 Family Partnership Services, (d) Approaches
to Family Services.
We propose to add this section to address the long-standing problem
of overly high family assignments for many family services staff. We
recommend this change to promote consistent, reasonable family
assignments for staff who work directly with families in the family
partnership process. We believe this change will improve the quality of
support that family support services provide and improve their own
well-being as well.
For these reasons, we propose to insert a new section (d)
Approaches to family services to 1302.52 Family Partnerships. In
(d)(1), we propose minor edits for alignment with the new section and
to emphasize the family-centered nature of the process by including
language that specifies both family interests and family needs. Next,
[[Page 80861]]
we propose a new (d)(2) that requires programs to ensure the planned
number of families assigned to work with individual family services
staff is no greater than 40, unless a program can demonstrate higher
family assignments provide high quality family and community engagement
services and maintain reasonable staff workload as described in (d)(3).
There are no research-based assignment ratios to adopt from other
fields that are aligned enough in job description with this unique
early childhood workforce. Therefore, we propose a maximum of 40
families per family services staff member, considering the large
variation in families' interests, needs, goals and the variation of
families' engagement with their programs.
We include an implementation date of two years from an estimated
date of a final rule because we recognize the degree of change required
by programs will vary depending on programs' current family assignment
systems and procedures. This proposal could mean substantial change for
some programs and little to no change for others. In fact, 2021 PIR
data reveals that approximately 50 percent of programs have staff
family assignments that are 40 families or less. It should be noted
that the proposed maximum is intended for programs with higher than 40
assignments per staff to lower their family assignment ratios. The
proposed maximum is not meant to bring programs with lower assignment
numbers up to 40. Programs who have already established best practices
at lower staff: family ratios are encouraged to continue these
responsive family services.
In addition to the proposed family assignment maximum, we propose
to include language in a new (d)(3) to allow for program designs that
best meet the needs of the program and community, based on community
and family assessment data. We include this language recognizing that
programs may need the flexibility to design family and community
engagement services in ways that are preventative and responsive to
emerging family and community needs.
Finally, we also propose a requirement for effective and meaningful
employee engagement practices that include opportunities for staff to
discuss and address workload-related issues. We propose this language
to promote such practices to address the negative impact of family
services workload factors, such as the stress of unofficial job duties
and lack of clear job expectations can have on staff wellness, job
satisfaction, and providing high-quality services.
ACF seeks input from the public on the benefits and challenges of
implementing a family assignment cap of 40 families per family service
worker, using a phased in approach over a period of 3 years from the
publication date of a final rule. To better understand programs'
specific experiences, ACF is also seeking programs' feedback on the
benefits and challenges of implementing family assignments between 30
and 40 per individual staff and the same for implementing family
assignments between 40 and 50 per individual staff. Finally, ACF also
seeks public comment on how the proposed requirements in this section
may differentially impact different communities. We specifically
request public comment from the special populations served by Head
Start, including AIAN and MSHS programs and communities.
Participation in Quality Rating and Improvement Systems (Sec. 1302.53)
Section 1302.53 establishes the requirements for Head Start
programs to participate in State quality rating and improvement systems
(QRIS). With the exception of American Indian and Alaska Native
programs, each Head Start program must currently participate in its
State QRIS if three conditions are met--its State or local QRIS accepts
Head Start monitoring data to document quality indicators included in
the State's tiered system; participation would not impact a program's
ability to comply with the HSPPS; and the program has not provided ACF
with a compelling reason not to comply with this requirement.
A QRIS is a systemic approach to assess, improve, and communicate
the level of quality in early and school-age care and education
programs within a State or locality. These accountability systems unify
standards, evaluate and report quality to the public, and provide
supports and incentives for improvement.\221\ These systems award
quality ratings to programs that meet a set of criteria as defined by
the QRIS. Criteria Head Start programs must meet to enter the QRIS and
maintain participation vary greatly by State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\221\ Bipartisan Policy Center. (2018). Creating an integrated
efficient early care and education system to support children and
families: A state-by-state analysis. https://bipartisanpolicy.org/report/ece-administration-state-by-state/; Warner-Richter M. (2016,
February 9). Promoting quality improvement in early care and
education. Child Trends. https://www.childtrends.org/promoting-quality-improvement-in-early-care-and-education; Tout, K., Friese,
S., Starr, R. & Hirilall, A. (2018). Understanding and Measuring
Program Engagement in Quality Rating and Improvement Systems. OPRE
Research Brief #2018-84. Washington, DC: Office of Planning,
Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families,
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
QRIS can be an important mechanism for coordinating and aligning
various programs into a broader statewide system of early care and
education. Participation by Head Start and other programs into a QRIS
can provide continuity, alignment of standards and a common means by
which families can understand and make decisions among which program
options are best for their family. As states continue to move in the
direction of more streamlined, coordinated early care and education
systems that are easier for families to navigate, Head Start
participation in QRIS can serve to ensure that Head Start programs are
part of these statewide coordination efforts and that eligible families
consider Head Start alongside other options in the QRIS.
Currently, 41 states have statewide QRIS (Florida has three local
QRIS). Of these 41 states with statewide QRIS, 27 states require at
least some types of programs (generally licensed programs and programs
receiving child care subsidy funds) to participate in the system. In 15
States, Head Start programs are required by the State to participate in
the QRIS, either as a function of licensing or receiving subsidy funds,
or through reciprocity agreements or alternate pathways that bring Head
Start programs into the system automatically.\222\ Fourteen states have
fully voluntary systems in which programs are not required to
participate regardless of licensure status or receipt of child care
subsidies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\222\ Build Initiative & Child Trends. (2021). A Catalog and
Comparison of Quality Improvement Systems [Data System]. Retrieved
from https://qualitycompendium.org/ on September 29, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
State QRIS are structured very differently across states, and
participation may be required for all types or some types of programs
or may be voluntary for all programs. In states with voluntary QRIS,
participation rates average 40 percent for licensed center-based
programs. While at least some Head Start programs participate in QRIS
even within voluntary systems, states may require a broad range of
documentation for entry into the QRIS, as well as additional
assessments, monitoring visits, or reviews. These requirements, along
with periodic revisions to aspects of a State's QRIS \223\ may impact a
Head Start program's ability to participate in the system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\223\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We recognize the importance of quality improvements and encourage
Head Start programs to continue their
[[Page 80862]]
participation in these important quality improvement efforts. Many Head
Start grant recipients receive funds from Head Start as well as other
early childhood funding streams. Participating in QRIS and other State
and local quality initiatives can help drive quality across a program.
At the same time, ACF wants to ensure that QRIS requirements are not
duplicative of Head Start requirements, thus requiring a program to
undergo the same process multiple times. Nor does ACF want Head Start
programs to draw resources away from other early childhood programs
that do not have access to resources provided through ACF and are in
greater need of support from State and local resources that support
quality. Based on findings from an analysis of current State QRIS
systems and their evolutions, and input from ACF regional staff and
Head Start Collaboration Offices who support coordination among Head
Start programs and State systems, we propose to revise the language at
Sec. 1302.53(b)(2) to clarify that Head Start programs should
participate in QRIS to the extent practicable if the State system has
strategies in place to support their participation. These proposed
changes recognize that QRIS systems differ significantly across states
and continue to evolve rapidly. Substantive changes to QRIS may require
additional burden on programs in the form of revised processes and
potentially additional or different documentation, as well as possible
duplication of monitoring and assessment processes. These proposed
changes are intended to allow Head Start programs to focus their
resources on activities that are most likely to support quality
services for children and families. For programs in states where the
QRIS does not have strategies in place to support Head Start
participation, does not accept existing documentation for
participation, or that would in any way impact a program's ability to
comply with the HSPPS, staff effort and program resources may be better
directed at other activities. However, ACF notes that Head Start
programs currently participating in their State QRIS are encouraged to
continue to do so.
We propose further to eliminate the three conditions for
participation in the State QRIS as written in the current standards at
Sec. 1302.53(b)(2)(i)-(iii), as we believe these conditions
unnecessarily require the Head Start grant recipient to document
individual circumstances that support or impede participation in the
system. By eliminating these specific conditions and substituting
language that emphasizes the State strategies for Head Start
participation in general, we believe Head Start grant recipients, along
with Head Start Collaboration Offices and OHS regional staff, can
collectively encourage the evolution of State systems like QRIS to
better receive Head Start programs.
In paragraph (b)(2), we propose to replace ``must'' with ``should''
in the overarching requirement. We propose to add ``to the extent
practicable, if a State or local QRIS has a strategy to support Head
Start participation without requiring programs to duplicate existing
documentation from Office of Head Start oversight.'' We believe this
change will clarify for programs that there is an expectation from ACF
that they participate in the QRIS if the system has a strategy that
will support Head Start participation. Strategies may include
reciprocal agreements or alternate pathways, as well as mandatory
requirements for Head Start programs to participate. Some Head Start
programs may be required to participate if they receive other funds or
are licensed as a child care program. The change further emphasizes
that ACF does not expect programs to duplicate documentation efforts
that are required for Head Start oversight purposes in order to
participate in the QRIS. We also propose to delete paragraphs (b)(2)(i)
through (iii) in this section in their entirety which delineate the
current conditions for QRIS participation.
The current standards include the State's acceptance of Head Start
monitoring data, which continues to be a barrier to participation in
some states. We believe that eliminating these criteria will lessen the
documentation required on individual circumstances for participating or
not participating in a QRIS, but rather would help programs examine
their State's QRIS as a State system and better understand Head Start's
overall role in that broader system. ACF still strongly supports the
central requirement that programs should participate in a QRIS to the
extent practicable as this standard provides programs with an important
lever for participating in a State's high-quality mixed delivery ECE
system and in accessing State quality improvement efforts where
participation pathways and strategies exist. Participation in the QRIS
also serves as an important mechanism in some states to assist families
in recognizing quality program options that can include Head Start
programs. Head Start programs must maintain a high level of quality,
and it is important that parents understand the services offered in
Head Start.
Services to Enrolled Pregnant Women and People (Sec. 1302.80; Sec.
1302.82)
Section 1302.80 describes the services programs must provide to
enrolled pregnant women and people. It requires programs to: assess
whether enrolled pregnant women and people have access to an ongoing
source of health care and health insurance, and if not, to facilitate
their access to such care and insurance; facilitate access to
comprehensive services; and schedule a visit with each newborn and
their mother or birthing parent within two weeks after the newborn's
birth, to identify family needs and offer support (referred to as the
``newborn visit'').
Women and people receiving Head Start services face social
determinants of health that may impact their prenatal and postpartum
outcomes. Early postpartum intervention is key to preventing and
addressing maternal health-related challenges.\224\ Postpartum support
and intervention can identify and address issues such as postpartum
depression, intimate partner violence, and physical health issues that
occur during pregnancy. The period after childbirth is critical to
assess the child care, health, and mental health needs of mothers and
families. In fact, over half of maternal deaths occur between 1 week
and 1 year after birth, most of which are preventable.\225\ Early Head
Start programs are critical in addressing the maternal mortality crisis
and other maternal-health related challenges as they are positioned to
provide postpartum support by ensuring the required newborn visit
provides intentional opportunities for collaboration, intervention, and
support.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\224\ Firoz, T., McCaw-Binns, A., Filippi, V., Magee, L.A.,
Costa, M.L., Cecatti, J.G., Barreix, M., Adanu, R., Chou, D., & Say,
L. (2018), A framework for healthcare interventions to address
maternal morbidity. Int J Gynecol Obstet, 141: 61-68. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.12469.
\225\ Trost SL, Beauregard J, Njie F, et al. Pregnancy-Related
Deaths: Data from Maternal Mortality Review Committees in 36 US
States, 2017-2019. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, US Department of Health and Human Services; 2022.;
Petersen EE, Davis NL, Goodman D, et al. Vital Signs: Pregnancy-
Related Deaths, United States, 2011-2015, and Strategies for
Prevention, 13 States, 2013-2017. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep
2019;68:423-429. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6818e1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paragraph (d) in this section focuses on the required newborn
visit. We propose to revise paragraph (d) by adding a new sentence to
the end of the paragraph that requires the newborn visit to include a
discussion of postpartum mental and physical health, infant health, and
support for basic needs. We believe this language will clarify for
programs what areas--at a
[[Page 80863]]
minimum--should be included as part of the newborn visit. This
requirement is intended to reflect the minimum requirements for the
newborn visit. Programs may choose to include other areas of assessment
or support based on the needs of both parent and newborn. The proposed
requirement is intended to clarify requirements and provide consistency
in topics covered during the newborn visit.
Section 645A(a) of the Act authorizes funding for Early Head Start
programs to provide services that encompass the full range of the
family's needs, from pregnancy through a child's third birthday, to
promote the child's development and move the parents toward self-
sufficiency. Early Head Start programs are not required to enroll
expectant families, but many choose to do so. If an Early Head Start
program chooses to enroll pregnant women and people, they must identify
the total number of pregnant women and people they anticipate serving
each program year in the grant application, provide high-quality
prenatal and postnatal education, and help them access comprehensive
prenatal services.
However, currently, Early Head Start programs are not explicitly
required in regulation to track and record interactions with pregnant
women and people. Moreover, programs are not currently required to
detail and record the services they provide enrolled pregnant women and
people as well as the services received from community partners or
providers. Although programs are not required to do so, generally,
programs do track and record this information. However, there is
significant variation in format and level of detail across programs,
which often makes it difficult to verify actual enrollment numbers and
challenging for OHS to understand the services provided to pregnant
women and people.
Early Head Start programs with identified slots to serve pregnant
women and people are responsible for creating a system of care that
supports the well-being of mothers, parents, and newborns. This
includes tracking and documenting services a pregnant woman or person
receives, including those received via referrals to community partners,
to the extent practical, in order to identify how to best be responsive
to the needs of the enrolled pregnant woman and people. Information
captured about individual services provided to pregnant women and
people is essential because it can be used to validate the use of
Federal funds to serve pregnant women and people and to inform ongoing
conversations program staff have with a pregnant woman or person about
their needs before and after the baby is born.\226\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\226\ See ACF-IM-HS-22-02, Documenting Services to Enrolled
Pregnant Women, https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/policy/im/acf-im-hs-22-02.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As such, we also propose to amend Sec. 1302.80 by adding a new
paragraph (e). The goal of new paragraph (e) is to enhance program
accountability by requiring programs to track and record information on
service delivery for enrolled pregnant women and people. We believe
this proposed standard will enhance program accountability by requiring
programs to verify the number of pregnant women and people they serve
along with details on the services received.
Head Start PIR data from FY 2022 \227\ reveals that most pregnant
parents that enroll in Early Head Start services do so during their
second and third trimesters. Early prenatal care is key for optimal
outcomes for pregnant women and newborns.\228\ We believe all Head
Start programs are in unique positions to support pregnant women and
people, including staff working in programs, by identifying,
understanding, and addressing barriers to healthy pregnancies. This
begins by understanding the impact systemic racism has on the maternal
health outcomes of women of color,\229\--particularly African American
or Black and AIAN women--as many women of color and their children are
served in Head Start programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\227\ Source: Head Start 2022 PIR.
\228\ Novoa, C. (2020). Ensuring Healthy Births Through Prenatal
Support Innovations From Three Models. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/ensuring-healthy-births-prenatal-support/.
\229\ Bornstein, E., Eliner, Y., Chervenak, F. A., &
Gr[uuml]nebaum, A. (2020). Racial Disparity in Pregnancy Risks and
Complications in the US: Temporal Changes during 2007-2018. Journal
of clinical medicine, 9(5), 1414.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the Office of Minority Health and Health Equity,
pregnancy-related death impacts Black women at higher rates than White
women.\230\ Data from 2021 shows that the maternal mortality rate for
non-Hispanic Black women was over twice the rate for non-Hispanic White
women.\231\ There are also disparities in maternal mortality for Native
Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander (NHOPI) and AIAN populations.\232\
Inadequate access to quality health care, systemic racism, and
disparities in social determinants of health may contribute to
disparities in healthy pregnancy and birth outcomes for many pregnant
women and people from racial and ethnic minority groups.\233\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\230\ Office of Minority Health & Health Equity (OMHHE). April
2022. https://www.cdc.gov/healthequity/features/maternal-mortality/.
\231\ Hoyert DL. Maternal mortality rates in the United States,
2021. NCHS Health E-Stats. 2023. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.15620/cdc:1246.
\232\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers of
Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease
Prevention and Health Promotion, Division of Reproductive Health.
Pregnancy Mortality Surveillance System: Trends in pregnancy-related
mortality ratio by race/ethnicity: 2017-2019. https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/maternal-mortality/pregnancy-mortality-surveillance-system.htm.
\233\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newborn babies are also impacted by systemic racism. Infant
mortality data show that African American or Black, NHOPI, and AIAN
babies are dying at higher rates in the U.S. than other racial or
ethnic groups.\234\ Head Start programs are positioned to address
racial gaps in maternal mortality, morbidity, and infant deaths by
customizing services for the pregnant women and people they serve based
on the needs of their community.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\234\ Ely DM, Driscoll AK. Infant mortality in the United
States, 2019: Data from the period linked birth/infant death file.
National Vital Statistics Reports; vol 70 no 14. Hyattsville, MD:
National Center for Health Statistics. 2021. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.15620/cdc:111053.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To help programs better understand and address barriers a pregnant
woman or person may have to a healthy pregnancy and childbirth, we
further propose to amend Sec. 1302.80 by adding a new paragraph (f).
The new paragraph requires programs to identify and reduce barriers to
healthy pregnancy outcomes for enrolled pregnant women and people based
on the information and data collected on this population. The goal is
also to help reduce racial inequities in maternal and infant morbidity
\235\ and mortality. This proposed paragraph states, ``The program must
provide services that help reduce barriers to healthy maternal and
birthing outcomes for each family, including services that address
disparities across racial and ethnic groups, and use data on enrolled
pregnant women to inform program services.'' We believe this new
paragraph will ensure programs customize prenatal and postnatal
services to help improve outcomes and contribute to the reduction of
racial inequities in maternal and infant morbidity and mortality.
Programs should use data and information collected from referrals and
general case management to inform and individualize services.
Documentation of services should include a summary of
[[Page 80864]]
interactions with the pregnant woman or person through case notes,
strengths and needs assessment, referrals and the results of the
referrals to community partners, and information from the family
partnership agreement and any relevant community partnership
agreements. The program should examine this information and data for
any barriers that prevent pregnant women and people from having healthy
pregnancies and birth outcomes. Plans may include approaches developed
with the Health Services Advisory Committee and community partners to
help address or reduce identified barriers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\235\ Maternal morbidity describes any short- or long-term
health problems that result from being pregnant and giving birth.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (June
2021). https://www.nichd.nih.gov/health/topics/maternal-morbidity-mortality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Next, we discuss proposed revisions to Sec. 1302.82. In general,
this section highlights that, as with all other families, enrolled
pregnant women and people should receive the family partnership
services described in Sec. 1302.52 Family partnership services.
However, Sec. 1302.82 clarifies that these services should be
explicitly directed toward their prenatal and postpartum care needs.
This section also describes requirements to support the enrollment of
the newborn into a program as appropriate.
Programs are not currently required to use a curriculum in the
provision of services to pregnant women and people, nor are there any
requirements for the type of curriculum if one is used. However, if a
curriculum is used, it should be responsive to the needs of the
population served. As such, programs opting to use a maternal health
curriculum should consider the needs of the pregnant women and people
in their program. If used, the curriculum should provide information
that increases the knowledge of pregnant women or people and their
support system. Those who attend maternal health courses with their
partners are more likely to attend postpartum visits and had higher
positive maternal health behaviors.\236\ It is imperative that any
selected curriculum be responsive to the cultures and context of the
communities served.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\236\ Britta C. Mullany, S Becker, MJ Hindin, The impact of
including husbands in antenatal health education services on
maternal health practices in urban Nepal: results from a randomized
controlled trial, Health Education Research, 22(2), April 2007,
Pages 166-176.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, we propose to revise paragraph (a) in Sec. 1302.82 by
adding language to clarify that if a program chooses to use a
curriculum with pregnant women and people, they should select a
curriculum that focuses on maternal and child health. We believe this
will improve maternal and child outcomes by helping to reduce
prematurity and low birth weight, as well as support increased
initiation and continuation of breastfeeding and other healthy infant
feeding.
ACF seeks public comment on how the proposed requirements in this
section may differentially impact different communities. We
specifically request public comment from the special populations served
by Head Start, including AIAN and MSHS programs and communities.
Standards of Conduct (Sec. 1302.90)
Section 1302.90(c) establishes the standards of conduct for all
staff, consultants, contractors, and volunteers, which are part of a
program's personnel policies. Given how critical child safety is in
Head Start programs, we propose revisions to these requirements to
ensure we are as clear as possible and that our requirements reflect
current best practices and more precise terminology.
The proposed revisions to this section would align definitions
related to child maltreatment with other Federal resources. We propose
this alignment to facilitate understanding of staff responsibilities
related to child health, mental health, and safety incidents.
Additionally, the proposed revisions would underscore typical
responsibilities of mandated reporters \237\ of child abuse and
neglect, which applies to all Head Start staff. These responsibilities
include reporting when an individual ``suspects or has reason to
believe that a child has been abused or neglected,'' or when a reporter
has knowledge of or observes ``conditions that would reasonably result
in harm to the child.'' \238\ The proposed changes further clarify that
reports must include suspected or known incidents perpetrated by Head
Start staff before they have been verified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\237\ ``Mandated'' reporter or reporting refers to statutory
requirements related to mandatory reporting of suspected instances
of child abuse and neglect by individuals as applicable under State
law and in accordance with the Federal Child Abuse Prevention and
Treatment Act (CAPTA), 42 U.S.C. 5106a(b)(2)(B)(i).
\238\ Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2019). Mandatory
reporters of child abuse and neglect. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Children's Bureau.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, we propose to redefine and reorganize provisions related to
the prohibition of child maltreatment or endangerment in Sec.
1302.90(c)(1)(ii). First, in Sec. 1302.90(c)(1)(ii) we propose to
remove the phrase ``do not maltreat or endanger the health or safety of
children, including at a minimum, that staff must not'' and replace it
with ``do not engage in behaviors that would be reasonably suspected to
negatively impact the health, mental health, or safety of children,
including at a minimum.'' We believe the proposed revisions set a
higher yet reasonable standard for staff conduct to include prohibition
of behaviors that have the potential to negatively impact children. We
believe removing the word ``maltreat'' from this paragraph and instead
providing clearer definitions and examples of maltreatment in the
subsection that follows will provide greater clarification about
expectations. The inclusion of children's mental health as a potential
area of impact is proposed to underscore that a behavior does not have
to cause physical harm to a child to be of notable concern for a
child's well-being. This understanding is consistent with research and
guidance in the field of child maltreatment.\239\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\239\ Leeb R.T., Paulozzi L., Melanson C., Simon T., Arias I.
(2008). Child Maltreatment Surveillance: Uniform Definitions for
Public Health and Recommended Data Elements, Version 1.0. Atlanta
(GA): Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center
for Injury Prevention and Control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
More specifically, under Sec. 1302.90(c)(1)(ii), we propose to
remove paragraphs (A) through (I) in their entirety and to replace
these with paragraphs (A) through (D), each of which specifies a
category of potential child abuse or neglect including a definition and
specific examples. First in new paragraph (A) we define corporal
punishment or physically abusive behavior as the intentional use of
physical force that results in, or has the potential to result in,
physical injury. Examples in the definition include, but are not
limited to, hitting, kicking, shaking, biting, forcibly moving,
restraining, force feeding, or dragging a child. Next in new paragraph
(B) we define sexually abusive behavior as any completed or attempted
sexual act, sexual contact, or exploitation. Examples in the definition
include, but are not limited to, behaviors such as inappropriate
touching, inappropriate filming, or exposing a child to other sexual
activities. Next in new paragraph (C) we define emotionally harmful or
abusive behavior as behaviors that harm a child's self-worth or
emotional well-being or behaviors that are insensitive to the child's
developmental needs. Examples in the definition include, but are not
limited to, using isolation as discipline, exposing a child to public
or private humiliation, or name calling, shaming, intimidating, or
threatening a child. Finally, in new paragraph (D) we define neglectful
behavior as the failure to meet a child's basic physical and emotional
needs including access to food, education, medical care, appropriate
supervision by an adequate caregiver, and safe physical and
[[Page 80865]]
emotional environments. Examples in the definition include, but are not
limited to, withholding food as punishment or refusing to change soiled
diapers as punishment. These proposed categories, definitions, and
examples of potential child maltreatment are adapted from the CDC
resources, Child Maltreatment Surveillance: Uniform Definitions for
Public Health and Recommended Data Elements \240\ and an online Fast
Facts review of child abuse and neglect prevention.\241\ The CDC
resources were established through extensive consultation with experts
to recommend consistent terminology related to potential child
maltreatment. By providing definitions, we intend to clarify that
adults in Head Start programs may not engage in any behavior that may
have potential to negatively impact children. The examples are intended
to provide more concrete information for clarification but are not an
exhaustive list. The proposed paragraphs (A) through (D) retain some
examples from the current standards that have been of particular
concern to early child care settings according to internal data.
Namely, we retained behaviors related to corporal punishment, public or
private humiliation, and feeding and toileting practices as punishment
in the examples. Forcibly moving and restraining are included as
examples because they are also harmful to children's well-being.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\240\ Leeb RT, Paulozzi L, Melanson C, Simon T, Arias I. Child
Maltreatment Surveillance: Uniform Definitions for Public Health and
Recommended Data Elements, Version 1.0. Atlanta (GA): Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury
Prevention and Control; 2008.
\241\ Fortson B, Klevens J, Merrick M, Gilbert L, Alexander S.
(2016). Preventing Child Abuse and Neglect: A Technical Package for
Policy, Norm, and Programmatic Activities. Atlanta, GA: National
Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention. Available online at https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/childabuseandneglect/fastfact.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, under Sec. 1302.90(c)(1), we propose to add a new
paragraph (c)(1)(iii) that clarifies the requirement to ensure staff,
consultants, contractors, and volunteers report reasonably suspected or
known incidents of child abuse and neglect, as defined by the Federal
Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) (42 U.S.C. 5101 note)
\242\ and in compliance with Federal, State, local, and Tribal laws. We
believe that including this provision in the standards of conduct will
bring attention to existing requirements that all staff are mandated
reporters of suspected incidents of child abuse and neglect, even in
the absence of definitive proof and even in instances in which the
reporting staff member did not directly engage in or witness the
alleged behavior. The Federal definition in CAPTA provides a minimum
standard that ``the term `child abuse and neglect' means, at a minimum,
any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker,
which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual
abuse or exploitation (including sexual abuse as determined under
section 111), or an act or failure to act which presents an imminent
risk of serious harm.'' Programs must also comply with State, local,
and Tribal laws, which may have additional stipulations related to
defining child abuse and neglect and other requirements for mandated
reporting. If there are differences between Federal and State, local,
and Tribal laws, programs should comply with the more stringent
regulation. As a result of this proposed new paragraph (iii), we
propose to redesignate in Sec. 1302.90(c)(1) current paragraphs in
(iii), (iv), and (v) as paragraphs (iv), (v), and (vi), respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\242\ 42 U.S.C. 5106g. Available online at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2017-title42/html/USCODE-2017-title42-chap67.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In redesignated Sec. 1302.90(c)(1)(iv), formerly Sec.
1302.90(c)(1)(iii), we propose to remove the phrase ``child and
family'' and replace it with ``each individual.'' This proposed change
to ensure staff are included is aligned with efforts to promote well-
being and safety across Head Start and increase the supportive and
responsive relationships among staff.
Finally, the requirement in Standards of Conduct for staff at
redesignated paragraph Sec. 1302.90(c)(1)(vi), formerly Sec.
1302.90(c)(1)(v), underscores that children cannot be left alone or
unsupervised by staff, consultants, contractors, or volunteers under
their care. However, as it is currently written, the language can be
erroneously interpreted to mean that a child may be left solely under
the supervision of volunteers. ACF has been clear that this is not
allowed, and Sec. 1302.94(b) states that ``a program must ensure
children are never left alone with volunteers.'' For this reason, we
propose to update the provision at Sec. 1302.90(c)(1)(vi).
Specifically, we propose to remove the phrase ``by staff,
consultants, contractors, or volunteers while under their care'' in
paragraph (v). The stem of Sec. 1302.90 (c)(1) reads ``a program must
ensure all staff, consultants, contractors, and volunteers abide by the
program's standards of conduct that:'' and effectively captures the
applicable subjects of the requirement without allowing for alternative
inaccurate interpretations of the requirement. This update to the
language is not a policy change but rather clarifies the long-standing
requirement to prevent any misinterpretation and to bring it into full
alignment with requirement Sec. 1302.94(b).
ACF seeks public comment on how the proposed requirements in this
section may differentially impact different communities. We
specifically request public comment from the special populations served
by Head Start, including AIAN and MSHS programs and communities.
Staff Training To Support Child Safety (Sec. 1302.92; Sec. 1302.101)
As described in the earlier section on Workforce Supports: Employee
Engagement, Sec. 1302.92 establishes requirements for staff training
and professional development. Specifically, Sec. 1302.92(b) requires
programs to establish and implement systematic approaches to training
and professional development in key areas. We know Head Start programs
are experiencing a workforce shortage and the continued effects of the
pandemic, both of which place significant stress on staff.\243\ We also
know that higher caregiver stress and lower quality caregiver-child
relationships can be risk factors for child abuse and neglect, and that
prevention of child abuse and neglect often relies on strategies to
reduce caregiver stress, increase caregiver supports, and foster higher
quality caregiver-child relationships.\244\ Ongoing training to build
and apply staff knowledge of child development and positive guidance or
other developmentally appropriate behavior strategies are critical
components of reducing caregiver stress and associated risks in ECE
settings.\245\ Given the potential harm that any single incident may
pose to children, families, and staff, we believe that providing ample
[[Page 80866]]
opportunities to learn and practice safety skills is essential to
preventing incidents. This emphasis is of utmost importance to the Head
Start population since younger children are more likely to be victims
of child abuse and neglect.\246\ In this section, we propose revisions
and an addition to emphasize training and professional development
related to child safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\243\ Elharake JA, Shafiq M, Cobanoglu A, Malik AA, Klotz M,
Humphries JE, et al. Prevalence of Chronic Diseases, Depression, and
Stress Among US Childcare Professionals During the COVID-19
Pandemic. Prev Chronic Dis 2022;19:220132. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5888/pcd19.220132. NAEYC, ``NAEYC Pandemic Surveys,'' February
2022. https://www.naeyc.org/pandemic-surveys.
\244\ Fortson, B.L., Klevens, J., Merrick, M.T., Gilbert, L.K.,
& Alexander, S.P. (2016). Preventing child abuse and neglect: A
technical package for policy, norm, and programmatic activities.
Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control,
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Daly & Dowd (1992),
Characteristics of effective, harm free environments for children in
out of home care, Child Welfare, 71(6):487-96.
\245\ Koralek, D. (1992). Caregivers of young children:
Preventing and responding to child maltreatment. U.S. National
Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, Department of Health and Human
Services. Available online at https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/142411NCJRS.pdf.
\246\ U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Administration
for Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth and
Families, Children's Bureau. (2022). Child Maltreatment 2020.
Available from https://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb/data-research/child-maltreatment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Sec. 1302.92(b)(2), we propose to add a requirement that
mandated reporter training is conducted on an annual basis. We believe
that more frequent training will support staff in recognizing potential
child abuse and neglect and understanding their legal responsibility as
a mandated reporter. Many states do not require mandated reporter
trainings \247\ but all Head Start staff are mandated reporters
regardless of whether they work directly with children and, as
previously noted, young children are a particularly vulnerable
population. We believe this proposed policy change will create more
equitable opportunities for staff to understand and discuss their
ethical and legal responsibilities. The greater frequency of training
would also allow programs to offer staff advanced training
opportunities on areas of local importance or greater complexity, such
as culturally responsive practices in reporting, issues related to
disproportionate reporting, and information about at-risk populations,
as well as emphasize the importance of child safety in Head Start. We
also add language to clarify expectations with more precise language in
this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\247\ Lee, J. & Weigensberg, E. (2022). ``How Do Laws and
Policies for Reporting Child Abuse and Neglect Vary Across States?''
OPRE Report #2022-165. Washington, D.C.: Office of Planning,
Research, and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families,
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently, training and professional development related to using
positive strategies to support children is only required for education
staff, per Sec. 1302.92(b)(5). Yet, all staff are required to use
positive strategies to support children according to existing standards
of conduct, per Sec. 1302.90(c)(1)(i), and ongoing training and
professional development is an effective strategy for preventing child
maltreatment.\248\ As such, under this section, we propose to add a new
paragraph as Sec. 1302.92(b)(3) which will require annual training on
positive strategies to understand and support children's social and
emotional development, including the implementation of tools for
preventing and managing challenging behavior. We also believe enhancing
use of positive strategies among all staff will have the added benefit
of increasing opportunities for peer support as appropriate. We are
prescribing general areas of focus but allowing for programs to select
approaches so that programs may fulfill this requirement in ways that
are responsive to their community needs and cultural practices. As a
result of this proposed addition, we further propose to redesignate
current paragraphs (3), (4), and (5) of Sec. 1302.92(b) to (4), (5),
and (6), respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\248\ National Center for Community-Based Child Abuse Prevention
(CBCAP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also propose a revision to Sec. 1302.101 which establishes
management responsibilities governed by a system that enables the
delivery of the high-quality services. ACF is aware that there has been
inconsistent implementation of required reporting procedures.\249\ In
order to promote consistent implementation of paragraph (a)(5), we
propose to add a new clause to Sec. 1302.101(a)(5) to require a system
that ensures that all staff are trained to implement reporting
procedures in Sec. 1302.102 (d)(1)(ii). By requiring that programs
provide training on reporting procedures, we anticipate that staff will
have greater familiarity with and understanding of institutional
reporting procedures. Additionally, with an implementation system in
place, ACF may more easily provide guidance on what steps should be
taken to ensure that staff report incidents appropriately.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\249\ OIG Final Report: ACF Should Improve Oversight of Head
Start To Better Protect Children's Safety, OEI-BL-19-00560.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incident Reporting (Sec. 1302.102)
Section 1302.102 outlines the requirements that programs establish
program goals and a process for monitoring program performance,
including how programs use data and report out to the governing body
and policy council. Paragraph (d) of Sec. 1302.102 establishes
required reports that programs must submit for monitoring and oversight
purposes, and Sec. 1302.102(d)(1)(ii) specifically addresses required
incident reports.
In the years of implementing these provisions since the 2016
revision of the HSPPS, it is evident that child incidents are not
always reported to the OHS Regional Office or are not reported in a
timely manner. The importance of reporting child incidents to OHS
cannot be overstated. We propose several changes to Sec.
1302.102(d)(1)(ii) to make clear and strengthen the reporting
requirements associated with child health and safety incidents.
Section 1302.102(d)(1)(ii) introduces general requirements related
to when and to whom incident reports should be submitted and specifies
types of situations that require incident reports. We make two changes
to Sec. 1302.102(d)(1)(ii). First, we propose to remove the phrase
``as soon as practicable'' and replace it with ``no later than 3
business days following the incident'' to clarify the timeline by which
programs are expected to make reports. The timeline of three business
days more closely aligns our institutional reporting practices with
child welfare reporting practices, which often require reports to be
filed within 48 hours of learning of a suspected incident. Shortening
the timeline will allow for earlier processing and monitoring of
reports, and for more expedient access to technical assistance or other
supports for programs when needed.
Our second proposed change is to add two new paragraphs to Sec.
1302.102(d)(1)(ii) to clarify reportable incidents. First, the new
Sec. 1302.102(d)(1)(ii)(A) describes one type of reportable incident
as any significant incident that affects the health, mental health, or
safety of a child that occurs in a setting where Head Start services
are provided and that involve either a Head Start adult or Head Start
child, as further defined below. This change clarifies that mental
health incidents are included in significant incidents and that only
those incidents that occur in settings where Head Start services are
provided, such as a Head Start program, playground, or transportation
utilized by a Head Start program, are reportable to OHS. This
definition is intentionally broad and intended to capture any setting
for which Head Start funding is used. The following two new sub-
paragraphs clarify who must be involved in the incident in order for it
to be reportable to OHS. Reportable incidents include those that
involve either (I) a staff member, contractor, volunteer, or other
adult that participates in either a Head Start program or a classroom
at least partially funded by Head Start, regardless of whether the
child receives Head Start services; or (II) a child that receives
services fully or partially funded by Head Start or a child that
participates in a classroom at least partially funded by Head Start.
The proposed change is intended to expand incidents that are
reportable to Head Start to include more individuals
[[Page 80867]]
than the current standard. However, incidents that do not meet both of
these conditions: (1) a child incident that occurs in a setting where
Head Start services are provided and (2) that involves a person
described by either Sec. 1302.102(d)(1)(ii)(A)(I) or Sec.
1302.102(d)(1)(ii)(A)(II), would be beyond the scope of what is
reportable to OHS. We note that these incidents may still be reportable
to other agencies, such as child care licensing agencies.
We retain the language in the current standard describing another
type of reportable incident in the new Sec. 1302.102(d)(1)(ii)(B),
which pertains to circumstances affecting the financial viability of
the program; breaches of personally identifiable information, or
program involvement in legal proceedings; or any matter for which
notification or a report to State, Tribal, or local authorities is
required by applicable law.
Additional proposed language also requires programs to report other
health, mental health, or safety incidents of concern to Head Start
that are not explicitly named in the sections that follow. The
following subsections of redesignated Sec. 1302.102(d)(1)(iii)
describe minimum expectations for situations that require an incident
report to be submitted. We propose several changes to further clarify
and strengthen incident reporting requirements. We note that some of
the changes describe situations that are currently expected to require
incident reports. However, our goal in including them explicitly in the
list of minimally reportable incidents is to make this expectation
clear and facilitate navigation and understanding of the OHS reporting
requirements.
First, we propose to add ``mandated'' to Sec.
1302.102(d)(1)(iii)(A) to provide clarification that any incidents
involving mandated reporter responsibilities should be reported to Head
Start as well as the appropriate State, local, or Tribal authority,
independent of the status of investigation or outcome of such reports.
Second, in Sec. 1302.102(d)(1)(iii)(B) we propose to remove ``for
any reason'' and replace it with ``except for circumstances such as
natural disasters that interfere with program operations.'' This
revision is intended to account for circumstances where it may be
unsafe or unreasonable to expect a program to report center closings
within the proposed revised timeline in Sec. 1302.102(d)(1)(ii)
especially if communication channels are not operable.
Next, we propose to add three new paragraphs (E), (F), and (G) to
Sec. 1302.102(d)(1)(iii) to better describe the types of incidents
that should be reported to OHS. First, we propose a requirement that
programs report any suspected or known violations of Standards of
Conduct under Sec. 1302.90(c)(ii). The standards of conduct, described
in the earlier section, Standards of Conduct, outline behaviors that
staff must not engage in that would be reasonably suspected to
negatively impact the health, mental health, and safety of children.
Therefore, the addition of Sec. 1302.102(d)(1)(iii)(E) is intended to
clarify that programs must submit incident reports for any violations
of Head Start standards of conduct in Sec. 1302.90(c)(ii), even if
those violations do not require a mandated report under State, Tribal,
or local law.
The second addition to incidents that should be reported to OHS is
significant health or safety incidents related to suspected or known
lack of supervision or lack of preventative maintenance in Sec.
1302.102(d)(1)(iii)(F). This addition is intended to clarify that
programs must submit reports for significant incidents that may be
associated with reasonably suspected or known lack of appropriate
supervision or failure to carry out reasonably expected maintenance,
such as maintenance of playground equipment. We acknowledge that some
incidents involving injuries to children may be unintentional and
unavoidable. Therefore, we wish to provide clarity about which health
and safety incidents should be reported to OHS. We consider significant
incidents in these cases to be those that result in serious injury or
harm to a child, specifically incidents that require hospitalization or
emergency room care, such as a broken bone; severe sprain; chipped or
cracked teeth; head trauma; deep cuts; contusions or lacerations; or
animal bites. In addition, we would like to clarify that lack of
supervision while in the care of program staff includes leaving a child
unsupervised anywhere on the grounds of a Head Start facility, such as
in a classroom, bathroom, or on a playground, as well as outside the
facility, such as in a parking lot, on a nearby street, on a bus, or
during another program-approved transportation or excursion. Including
these types of incidents in what is reportable to Head Start allows us
to expedite access to technical assistance or other supports, as
needed, to address systemic issues that impact children's health and
safety.
The third addition of Sec. 1302.102(d)(1)(iii)(G) describes any
unauthorized release of a child as a reportable incident and is
intended to ensure that programs submit reports for incidents involving
the unauthorized release of children. Unauthorized release occurs when
a child is released from a Head Start facility, bus, or other approved
program transportation to a person without the permission or
authorization of a parent or legal guardian and whose identity had not
been verified by photo identification. This addition codifies
expectations outlined in ACF-IM-HS-22-07 and aligns with Caring for Our
Children standards.\250\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\250\ Caring for our Children. (2022). Chapter 9.2: Policies.
National Resource Center for Health and Safety in Child Care and
Early Education, Department of Health and Human Services. Available
online at https://nrckids.org/CFOC/Database/9.2.4.8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, we propose to revise the title for Sec. 1302.102
``Achieving Program Goals'' to read ``Program Goals, Continuous
Improvement, and Reporting,'' to clarify the contents of this section
and further improve ease of navigation.
ACF seeks public comment on how the proposed requirements in this
section may differentially impact different communities. We
specifically request public comment from the special populations served
by Head Start, including AIAN and MSHS programs and communities.
Facilities Valuation (Sec. 1303.44)
Section 1303.44(a)(7) establishes that if a grant recipient is
preliminarily eligible under Sec. 1303.42 to apply for funds to
purchase, construct, or renovate a facility, the recipient must submit
to the responsible HHS official, among other requirements, an estimate
by a licensed independent certified appraiser of the facility's fair
market value.
Fair market value can take many forms; this depends on the purpose
or intended use of the valuation. Appraisers generally rely on three
methods of establishing real estate value, which complies with the
Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) and local
guidelines: sales approach, cost approach, and income approach. Sales
approach compares the sales price of comparable facilities, and it
accounts for the price at sale of the facility. Cost approach evaluates
the cost to reproduce or replace an equivalent facility, and it
accounts for the acquisition cost of the land, construction expense,
and depreciation of the property. Income approach estimates the value
based on income potential of an equivalent facility.
[[Page 80868]]
Applications under this section include applications for
constructions, purchase, and significant renovation to facilities.
Based on a review of applications to purchase, construct, or renovate
facilities, the cost approach to valuation is most relevant.
The sales approach can be problematic since many facility projects
show large discrepancies in sales valuation and total project cost,
particularly as real property sales prices depend heavily on the
locality of the property. Sales valuation does not account for the
large cost needed to ready the property for its intended use.
Sales approach can be relevant for certain proposed facility
projects, but when relevant, it is already covered by other required
activities under Sec. 1303. Specifically, recipients are required to
compare the cost associated with the proposed action to other available
alternatives in the service area, pursuant to Sec. 1303.45.
Requirements under Sec. 1303.45 discover the actual purchase cost of
comparable alternate facilities in the service area and therefore the
sales approach valuation remains less relevant to require in paragraph
(7) of Sec. 1303.44(a).
Head Start facilities are woven into the fabric of communities they
serve as highly valued, safe spaces for children and families. This is
especially important as Head Start programs are often located in low-
income communities and geographic areas with a high concentration of
poverty. Programs are often also located in communities with more
people of color as people of color are more likely than their white
counterparts to live in low-income neighborhoods. For instance, in
2020, about 14 percent of people of color lived in high-poverty
neighborhoods, compared to about 4 percent of White people.\251\ Head
Start programs are known to invigorate their communities including the
development of strong partnerships with many local community-based
organizations.\252\ As such, it is essential that Head Start programs
receive accurate valuation of facility project costs to ensure
responsible acquisition of facilities continues in communities in need.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\251\ National Equity Analysis. (2020). Neighborhood poverty:
All neighborhoods should be communities of opportunity. Retrieved
from: https://nationalequityatlas.org/indicators/Neighborhood_poverty.
\252\ Phillips, D. A. & Cabrera, N. J. (eds.) (1996). Beyond the
Blueprint: Direction for Research on Head Start's Families.
Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For these reasons, we propose to eliminate from Sec. 1303.44(a)(7)
the term ``fair market'' and replace it with the term ``cost'' because
the cost valuation is most relevant in determining fair cost of a
facility acquisition action under this section. This will assist the
awarding agency in making determinations on proposed project costs and
fair market costs.
We welcome any additional public comments on the 45 CFR 1303
process and associated requirements. We specifically request public
comment from the special populations served by Head Start, including
AIAN and MSHS programs and communities.
Definition of Income (Sec. 1305.2)
The current HSPPS definition lists several types of income sources
that could be included in the calculation of gross income and
references additional sources that can be found in a lengthy document
from the Census Bureau. The current definition has caused confusion
regarding what should be included in income calculations. We propose to
revise the definition of income to make it up to date, clear, and less
burdensome to implement. The proposed language provides a clear and
finite list of what is considered income. It also provides
clarification on what is not considered income as it relates to
military income and refundable tax credits and public assistance. These
changes are to ensure programs can more easily identify an applicants'
income. This will also promote consistent interpretation on what to
include in calculating income across programs.
Specifically, we proposed to strike the current definition:
``Income means gross cash income and includes earned income, military
income (including pay and allowances, except those described in section
645(a)(3)(B) of the Act), veteran's benefits, Social Security benefits,
unemployment compensation, and public assistance benefits. Additional
examples of gross cash income are listed in the definition of
``income,'' which appears in U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current
Population Reports, Series P-60-185 (available at https://www2.census.gov/prod2/popscan/p60-185.pdf).
We propose to replace the definition and define income as gross
income that only includes wages, business income, veteran's benefits,
Social Security benefits, unemployment compensation, alimony, pension
or annuity payments, gifts that exceed the threshold for taxable
income, and military income (excluding special pay for a member subject
to hostile fire or imminent danger under 37 U.S.C. 310 or any basic
allowance for housing under 37 U.S.C. 403 including housing acquired
under the alternative authority under 10 U.S.C. 169 or any related
provision of law). The revised definition is clear that gross income
only includes sources of income provided in the definition; it does not
include refundable tax credits nor any forms of public assistance.
As mentioned previously, the current HSPPS definition includes a
link to a 250+ page Census Bureau document from 1992. We believe the
definition and reference to the document are outdated and complicated
for programs to utilize. We propose to remove the current reference to
this dated Census report and replace the definition with a finite
number of income sources and remove the reference to the Census Bureau
report. The proposed revision includes many sources of income from the
definition in the Census Bureau document currently cited.
The proposed language removes the term ``cash'' from ``gross cash
income'' in recognition that most income is not provided in the form of
cash. The word ``only'' is proposed before ``includes'' to clearly
define a finite list of sources considered income for Head Start
purposes. Further the proposal replaces the term ``earned income'' with
more specific terms ``wages,'' and ``business income.'' Business income
includes income obtained from rental properties, as defined by the
Internal Revenue Service.\253\ We also do not propose to include
``dividends'' or ``capital gains'' to avoid unnecessary burden in
requesting this information from families since we believe it unlikely
Head Start applicants would have such sources of income that would make
them ineligible for Head Start, and these terms may be difficult to
understand and cause confusion to families during the eligibility
determination process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\253\ See: https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc407.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We remove ``public assistance'' from the definition because if a
family is receiving SNAP, TANF, or SSI, then they are already eligible
for Head Start. Removing this source of income reduces the
administrative burden of calculating income from such sources. The
current referenced Census Bureau document includes ``regular
contributions from others not living in the household,'' which we do
not include in the proposal. We interpret this to mean money received
periodically to assist the family in meeting basic needs. We do not
believe one-time or periodic gifts should be counted as income for Head
Start eligibility purposes, especially since it may not be relied upon
as a regular source of income. We have determined that these payments
should be considered gifts and therefore not
[[Page 80869]]
taxable until they reach the IRS threshold for gifts which is $17,000
for 2023 and updated on an annual basis. Therefore, we propose to
include ``gifts that exceed the threshold for taxable income'' as a
source of income.
To facilitate the implementation of the exclusions from military
pay specified by the Head Start Act, we detail the exclusions from
military pay as designated in the statute rather than referencing it.
We propose this to allow programs and families to determine what counts
as income through the definition in the regulations.
We clarify that gross income only includes sources of income
provided in the definition, and does not include refundable tax credits
nor any forms of public assistance, to be explicit that this is a
finite list of sources of income and call out two common other sources
of income that might be inadvertently considered to be added. Although
the finite list does not include refundable tax credits, we are
concerned that programs may include it as part of the ``wages''
category. We believe this makes it clear that the tax credits commonly
received by Head Start applicants such as the Earned Income Tax Credit
and the Child Tax Credit are not included as part of calculated income.
Furthermore, the finite list of sources of income intentionally
precludes any other emergency or temporary forms of income or
assistance from being included in calculations of income for
eligibility purposes, such as the enhanced unemployment insurance that
was available during the COVID-19 pandemic.
All the revisions proposed together simplify the definition of
income and clarify how it will be implemented consistently across
programs when determining income eligibility for Head Start. We seek
public comment on this definition so that we ensure this is the most
accurate and streamlined definition. We also specifically request
public comment from the special populations served by Head Start,
including AIAN and MSHS programs and communities.
Definition of Federal Interest and Major Renovations (Sec. 1305.2)
ACF has received questions that suggest our definitions of Major
Renovation and Federal Interest are too imprecise and consequently lead
to Head Start grant recipients misinterpreting and inconsistently
applying the definitions when filing an official Notice of Federal
Interest (NOFI). In this section, we propose technical fixes and
additional clarifying language to address common questions. The
proposed changes do not substantively change the meaning of the
definitions, but rather clarify issues that have arisen since the
implementation of the 2016 revisions to the HSPPS. ACF believes these
minor revisions encourage recipients to maintain safe and updated
facilities.
First, we propose changes to the definition of Major Renovation. We
propose to address a typo in the definition--the term, ``collection
renovation''--and in amending this minor error, we offer some
additional text to improve understanding. Furthermore, we add
additional text to clarify that separate renovation activities only
equate to a major renovation if (1) they have a cost equal to or
exceeding $250,000, (2) the renovation activities are intended to occur
concurrently or consecutively, or altogether address a specific part or
feature of a facility, and (3) per Sec. 1303.44, certification from a
licensed, independent architect or engineer indicates that the
repair(s) adds significant value to the real property to be repaired or
extends its useful life. If these three conditions are met, the group
of renovations should be understood as a Major Renovation.
We understand that grant recipients have been misinterpreting the
definition of Major Renovation to include multiple renovation
activities on the same facility that have a cost equal to or exceeding
$250,000. To help clarify, ACF is providing the following common
examples:
A recipient completes a minor renovation to install a new
roof at $150,000. The next year, the recipient replaced all the windows
at a cost of $50,000. The year after that, the recipient re-surfaced
the parking lot for $75,000. While this was always the case, under this
clarified definition, it is clearer that the unrelated renovation
project activities in this example do not equate to a Major Renovation.
A recipient replaces the roof of one of their facilities
for $200,000. Two years later, the recipient replaces the same
facility's HVAC units for additional $200,000. These renovation
activities are not considered a collective group of facility renovation
activities because the project activities are not intended to occur
concurrently or consecutively, or altogether address a specific part or
feature of a facility, and thus, they are not considered a Major
Renovation.
In 1 year, a recipient repairs the roofs of two different
centers totaling $300,000, each for $150,000. Since these are separate
centers, they are not related to the same facility and therefore, the
collective renovation activities are not considered a Major Renovation.
A recipient replaces part of their roof at one of their
facilities for $200,000. Two years later, the recipient replaces
another part of the same roof for $200,000. In this instance, whether
the roof repairs are considered a Major Renovation depends. While these
collective renovation activities address a specific part or feature of
a facility, and are greater than the $250,000 threshold, the
expenditure may not add significant value to the real property. In
advance of commencing the proposed roof repairs, the recipient must
submit a certification from a licensed, independent architect or
engineer indicating whether the expenditure identified as repairs adds
significant value to the real property to be repaired or extends its
useful life. If the required certification is not provided, the
activity will be classified as a Major Renovation and compliance with
part 1303, subpart E of the HSPPS is required.
In 1 year, a recipient repairs the roof, replaces the HVAC
system, repaints walls, and renovates a bathroom, totaling $350,000.
These collective renovation activities are greater than the $250,000
threshold and are occurring concurrently or consecutively to address a
specific part or feature of a facility, so they are likely related.
However, the expenditure may or may not add significant value to the
real property so whether the repairs are considered a Major Renovation
depends. In advance of commencing the renovations, the recipient must
submit a certification from a licensed, independent architect or
engineer indicating whether the expenditure adds significant value to
the real property to be repaired or extends its useful life. If the
required certification is not provided, the activity will be classified
as a Major Renovation and compliance with part 1303, subpart E is
required.
We propose technical fixes to the definition of Federal Interest to
address confusion with respect to the type of facility activities that
result in Federal interest and what satisfies the non-Federal matching
requirement. Specifically, the proposed additional language, in tandem
with the proposed definition for Major Renovation, clarifies the
distinction between repairs and minor renovations versus purchase,
construction and major renovations under Sec. 1303, the latter of
which do result in a Federal interest. This proposed definition also
clarifies that the non-Federal match, which is separate from the base
grant non-Federal match, is only intended to include the
[[Page 80870]]
non-Federal match associated with the facility activity funded under
subpart E. In sum, these changes are not substantive changes to the
definition itself but rather provide clarification on how Federal
interest works.
Together, these proposed specified conditions to the definition of
Major Renovation, and clarification proposed to the definition of
Federal Interest, ultimately seek to ensure recipients understand when
a group of renovations would require filing of a NOFI.
Definition of the Poverty Line (Sec. 1305.2)
In this section, we propose to add to Sec. 1305.2 a definition for
the term Poverty line that is currently used in Sec. 1302.12 paragraph
(c) and (d) on income eligibility to clarify and codify existing
practice. This is only intended to codify the working definition for
poverty line, including the existing practice that the HHS poverty
guidelines set for the contiguous-states-and-DC also apply to Puerto
Rico and U.S. Territories. The HHS poverty guidelines are used to
determine income eligibility in Head Start and align with requirements
in the Head Start Act set by Congress. The requirements in the Head
Start Act are set by statute and cannot be changed through regulation.
Therefore, we cannot consider public comments regarding changes to the
poverty line.
Effective Dates
The current Head Start Program Performance Standards remain in
effect until this NPRM becomes final. We propose for all changes in
this NPRM to become effective 60 days after it is published as a final
rule in the Federal Register, unless otherwise noted in this section.
For section 1302.48(a), (b), and (c), while the effective date is upon
publication of final rule, programs will not be monitored on the new
regulatory requirements until 1 year after publication of the final
rule to give programs additional time to adjust to the new regulatory
requirements.
Programs may require more time to implement several proposed
sections in this NPRM. Therefore, we propose a 1-year delay in
implementation deadline for the proposed revisions to the following
sections: Sec. 1302.11(b); 1302.14(d); 1302.16(a)(2)(v); the changes
made to remove ``assistant provider'' in 1302.23(b); 1302.45(a);
1302.82(a); and 1302.93(d).
The following sections also have longer implementation timelines,
outlined below:
Sec. 1302.52(d)(2): 3 years after publication of final
rule;
Sec. 1302.80(e) Enrolled pregnant women: 120 days after
publication of final rule;
Sec. 1302.80(f) Enrolled pregnant women: 180 days after
publication of final rule;
Sec. 1302.90(e)(1), (e)(2)(i) and (ii), (e)(3) and
(e)(4): Staff wages: Effective August 1, 2031;
Sec. 1302.90(f) Staff benefits: 2 years after publication
of final rule;
Sec. 1302.93(c) Staff Health and Wellness: 3 years after
publication of final rule.
We request public comment on all of these proposed effective dates,
including whether this is sufficient time for programs to implement the
proposed changes and any possible unintended consequences.
Removal of Outdated Sections
The current HSPPS contain regulatory language associated with the
last overhaul of the standards, published through a final rule in 2016.
We propose to remove two sections of the standards that refer to the
implementation timeline of those changes, which has since passed and
therefore these sections are no longer relevant. The first section to
be removed is Sec. 1302.103 Implementation of program performance
standards. The second is the term Transition Period, which is defined
under Sec. 1305.2. These changes do not represent substantive policy
changes.
Compliance With Sec. 641A(a)(2) of the Act
We sought extensive input to develop this NPRM. We collaborated and
consulted with many policy and programmatic expert staff in OHS, ACF's
Office of Child Care, and ACF's Office of Early Childhood Development.
Several staff, particularly in OHS, are former Head Start program
directors, family service workers, teachers, home visitors, etc. and
have extensive on the ground knowledge of Head Start program
operations. We also consulted extensively with OHS regional staff who
directly oversee and support Head Start grants and program operations
as their primary job responsibility. We held multiple listening and
input sessions with these regional office staff to identify the most
challenging aspects of Head Start policy and programmatic requirements
for grant recipients. We also sought their feedback on proposed
policies we were considering for the NPRM. We intentionally consulted
with OHS staff that oversee Migrant and Seasonal Head Start and Tribal
Head Start programs, to learn about specific challenges and
considerations for these programs. Similarly, we met with members of
the OHS Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility Commission to
discuss possible equity implications of the proposed changes. We
consulted with experts in early childhood development including staff
in ACF's Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation. These staff hold
research expertise in a wide range of early childhood issues relevant
to Head Start. Additionally, we reviewed many research reports on a
variety of topics, including NAS reports on the workforce. Taken
together, our consultation with all of these groups and sources allowed
provided us with relevant data points and advice on how to promote
quality across all Head Start settings.
Furthermore, over the past several years since the last revision of
the HSPPS (finalized in 2016), OHS has held many webinars for grant
recipients on a variety of policy and programmatic topics, including
the workforce, eligibility, mental health, child health and safety, and
more. OHS has also given multiple presentations on key policy and
program issues at Head Start relevant conferences, including those
organized by the National Head Start Association. During these webinars
and conference presentations, grant recipient participants often ask
questions and provide input regarding challenges with implementing
various aspects of program requirements, including for different types
of child and family populations and in different types of geographic
settings. This allows OHS the opportunity to gain critical on-the-
ground understanding of areas where the standards are confusing and
could be made clearer, particularly since the 2016 revisions. We also
regularly hear from Tribal leaders at OHS's annual Tribal
consultations. In addition, in consultation with our OHS training and
technical assistance experts, we considered the types of technical
assistance requested by and provided to Head Start agencies and
programs. We also reviewed findings from monitoring reports to glean
more insights into where grant recipients struggle the most with
implementing requirements. We also recently fielded a survey of grant
recipients (November 2022) which provided real time information on
workforce challenges programs are experiencing. Lastly, ACF asserts
that the revisions to the HSPPS proposed in this NPRM will not result
in the elimination of or any reduction in quality, scope, or types of
health, educational, parental involvement, nutritional, social, or
other services
[[Page 80871]]
required to be provided under the standards that were in effect when
the Head Start Act was last reauthorized in 2007.
Severability
To the extent that any portion of the requirements arising from the
rule once it becomes final is declared invalid by a court, HHS intends
for all other parts of the final rule that are capable of operating in
the absence of the specific portion that has been invalidated to remain
in effect.
IV. Regulatory Process Matters
We have examined the impacts of the proposed rule under Executive
Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, Executive Order 13132, the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), and the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). Executive Orders 12866 and
13563 direct us to assess all benefits, costs, and transfers of
available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to
select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including
potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity).
Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive
Order 14094, defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as an action
that is likely to result in a rule: (1) Having an annual effect on the
economy of $200 million or more, or adversely affecting in a material
way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition,
jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local,
territorial, or Tribal governments or communities; (2) creating a
serious inconsistency or otherwise interfering with an action taken or
planned by another agency; (3) materially altering the budgetary
impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the
rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raising legal or
policy issues for which centralized review would meaningfully further
the President's priorities or the principles set forth in Executive
Order 12866, as specifically authorized in a timely manner by the
Administrator of OIRA in each case. This proposed rule is a significant
rule and the Regulatory Impact Analysis for this proposed rule
identifies economic impacts that exceed the threshold for significance
under Section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) requires us to
analyze regulatory options that would minimize any significant impact
of a rule on small entities. Because the proposed rule, if finalized,
would result in increased expenditures by Head Start programs that
exceed HHS's default threshold, we have initially determined that the
proposed rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, section
202(a)) requires us to prepare a written statement, which includes
estimates of anticipated impacts, before proposing ``any rule that
includes any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by
State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for
inflation) in any one year.'' The current threshold after adjustment
for inflation is $177 million, using the most current (2022) Implicit
Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic Product. This proposed rule would
likely result in expenditures that meet or exceed this amount.
Federalism Assessment Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132 requires Federal agencies to consult with
State and local government officials if they develop regulatory
policies with federalism implications. Federalism is rooted in the
belief that issues that are not national in scope or significance are
most appropriately addressed by the level of government close to the
people. This proposed rule will not have substantial direct impact on
the States, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with section 6
of Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this action does not
have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a
federalism summary impact statement.
Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act of 1999 requires Federal agencies to determine whether a policy or
regulation may negatively affect family well-being. If the agency
determines a policy or regulation negatively affects family well-being,
then the agency must prepare an impact assessment addressing seven
criteria specified in the law. ACF believes it is not necessary to
prepare a family policymaking assessment, see Public Law 105-277,
because the action it takes in this proposed rule will not have any
impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.,
minimizes government-imposed burden on the public. In keeping with the
notion that government information is a valuable asset, it also is
intended to improve the practical utility, quality, and clarity of
information collected, maintained, and disclosed.
The PRA requires that agencies obtain OMB approval, which includes
issuing an OMB number and expiration date, before requesting most types
of information from the public. Regulations at 5 CFR part 1320
implemented the provisions of the PRA and Sec. 1320.3 of this part
defines a ``collection of information,'' ``information,'' and
``burden.'' PRA defines ``information'' as any statement or estimate of
fact or opinion, regardless of form or format, whether numerical,
graphic, or narrative form, and whether oral or maintained on paper,
electronic, or other media (5 CFR 1320.3(h)). This includes requests
for information to be sent to the government, such as forms, written
reports and surveys, recordkeeping requirements, and third-party or
public disclosures (5 CFR 1320.3(c)). ``Burden'' means the total time,
effort, or financial resources expended by persons to collect,
maintain, or disclose information.
This NPRM establishes new recordkeeping requirements under the PRA.
Under this NPRM, Head Start grant recipients will be required to keep
and maintain records related to salary wage scales and staff benefits,
improvements to community assessment, documentation related to lead
exposure, among several other requirements. In addition, changes to
policies proposed in the NPRM may result in changes to existing
information collections approved under the PRA, including the
information collection for the existing program performance standards,
the Program Information Report (PIR), applicable collections in the
Head Start Enterprise Systems (HSES), and other information
collections. ACF invites public comments concerning changes to existing
or new information collections that may be necessary as a result of
this NPRM, including on practical utility and burden.
The HSPPS are covered already by an existing OMB control number
0970-0148. This OMB control number already
[[Page 80872]]
covers burden associated with updating personnel policies and
documenting eligibility. The below table outlines the burden of
complying with the proposed standards in this NPRM. These estimated
burden hours represent the additional burden to be added to this
existing information collection. We estimate the burden at the
appropriate level depending on the given information collection,
specified in the table below (program, family, or enrollee level). In
2022, there were 3,000 Head Start programs across the country.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20NO23.000
V. Regulatory Impact Analysis
Introduction and Summary
A. Introduction
We have examined the impacts of the proposed rule under Executive
Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, Executive Order 14094, the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), and the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). Executive Orders 12866 and
13563 direct us to assess all benefits, costs, and transfers of
available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to
select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including
potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). This analysis identifies
economic impacts that exceed the threshold for significance under
Section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order
14094.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires us to analyze regulatory
options that would minimize any significant impact of a rule on small
entities. Because the proposed rule, if finalized, would result in
increased expenditures by Head Start programs that exceed HHS's default
threshold, we have initially determined that the proposed rule will
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
No unfunded mandates would be imposed by this proposed rule. The
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (section 202(a)) requires us to
prepare a written statement, which includes estimates of anticipated
impacts, before proposing ``any rule that includes any Federal mandate
that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of
$100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one
year.'' The current threshold after adjustment for inflation is $177
million, using the most current (2022) Implicit Price Deflator for the
Gross Domestic Product. This proposed rule would not likely result in
unfunded expenditures that meet or exceed this amount.
B. Summary of Benefits, Costs, and Transfers
The most likely impacts of the proposed provisions depend, in large
part, on funds available to Head Start programs; for example, the
proposals to increase remuneration per teacher would have bigger
aggregate effects to the extent that Head Start entities employ more
teachers. Historically, Congress has funded Head Start at levels that
exceed inflation. During the ten-year period between 2010 and 2020,
Head Start appropriations grew by 25 percent, after accounting for
inflation.\254\ Some of the past increase in appropriations was in
response to new initiatives in Head Start, such as the creation of
Early Head Start-Child Care Partnerships and other quality initiatives.
It is possible that this trend continues and Head Start appropriations
will increase in response to the quality improvements under the
proposed rule. In such a case, the regulation's effects
[[Page 80873]]
manifest themselves as expenditures by taxpayers.\255\ By contrast, if
a comparison of the hypothetical futures with and without the rule is
not characterized by a difference in Head Start appropriations or by
such a difference that is not prompted by this proposal, then rule-
induced spending would instead be shifted within Head Start.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\254\ If future Head Start appropriations designated for
expansion grow at similar rates --for reasons that are independent
of this proposal--then estimates reflecting growth at or below the
rate of inflation (such as what appears in this regulatory impact
analysis) would have a tendency toward understating effects.
\255\ Some of the expenditures would, from a society-wide
perspective, be categorized as costs and others would be transfers
to Head Start entities and participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One form that such shifting could take relates to enrollment, so it
is important to distinguish between the various benchmarks for
enrollment that were used for this analysis. Head Start programs
receive funding for a specific number of slots (funded enrollment).
Historically there has been little difference between funded enrollment
and actual enrollment,\256\ which represents the number of children who
are actually enrolled in the Head Start programs. However, in recent
years, Head Start programs have experienced significant and persistent
under-enrollment where the number of children actually served is far
less than the number of funded slots, due in large part to widespread
staffing shortages. As Head Start programs work to improve their actual
enrollment levels, many are also requesting reductions in their funded
enrollment. Head Start programs are trying to right-size their funded
enrollment to match their community needs, staffing realities, and
fiscal constraints. It is difficult, if not impossible, to predict the
net impacts of these ongoing efforts in years to come.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\256\ Here we use the term actual enrollment to represent the
average number of children enrolled in Head Start programs while
programs were in session throughout the year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As such, assessing whether the rule's effects would manifest
themselves as enrollment reductions is especially challenging. In
theory Head Start programs could attempt to stretch their existing
budgets to provide the same number of funded enrollment slots while
also complying with the new requirements by choosing to not spend
funding on optional activities. However, OHS believes that programs
have long stretched their funding as far as is possible and are
unlikely to have many optional activities available to drop.\257\
Moreover, the difference between funded and actual enrollment also
generates uncertainty regarding the magnitude of regulatory effects;
for example, if Head Start entities use excess funding for teacher
bonuses, the estimates, below, of rule-induced effects on teacher
remuneration would have some tendency toward overstatement (even as the
form of the remuneration is changing from bonuses to salaries, fringe
benefits or changes in working conditions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\257\ Even if this were the case, OHS asserts that this is
unlikely to meaningfully impact the quality of services provided to
children, as the necessary components of high-quality services are
required under the Head Start Program Performance Standards, and
could not be dropped from program offerings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OHS has taken the approach of estimating all effects based on the
projected FY2023 funded enrollment of 755,074, which is the highest
enrollment level, funded or actual, possible absent additional
appropriations specifically designated for expansion.
Using the current funded enrollment as a starting point, this
analysis shows that the costs associated with the NPRM, when fully
phased in after 7 years as currently proposed, can be mostly paid for
by reducing enrollment levels to the FY2023 actual enrollment, leading
to a funded enrollment level decline from 755,074 to 644,374.
As compared to the current enrollment level of about 650,000, this
represents about a 1 percent reduction from the current number of
children served. In other words, implementation of these proposed
regulatory changes would be a de minimis impact on actual enrollment.
With additional appropriations--in excess of cost of living adjustments
to keep pace with inflation--Head Start could avoid reducing funded
enrollment below current actual enrollment. This analysis includes
estimates of the necessary appropriations needed under the proposed
policy to serve 650,000 children, which reflects the estimated FY2023
actual enrollment. Sometimes the narrative description of this (same)
analysis will be framed as estimating the increases in expenditures
that would enable full implementation of this proposed rule without
reducing funded enrollment below projected FY2023 funded enrollment
levels.
The largest elements of the proposed rule relate to staff wages and
benefits for the Head Start workforce. To fully implement the staff
wage provisions, including the wage-parity targets, minimum pay
requirement, and impacts associated with wage compression, expenditures
on wages \258\ would need to increase by about $1.0 billion (reported
in nominal dollars) in 2030 and then maintained annually through a
cost-of-living adjustment. In that same year, the expenditures on staff
benefits, which include the policy to increase fringe benefits, would
require about an additional $932 million, with further increases in
line with wage growth. Also, in 2030, we identify the annual
expenditures to fully implement the following provisions: staff breaks
about $118 million; family service worker family assignments, $210
million; and mental health supports, $152 million. We also quantify
expenditures associated with preventing and addressing lead exposure
and expenditures associated with program administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\258\ The additional benefits expenditures associated with
increased wages under the wage policy at the baseline fringe rate of
24% are included in the estimated benefits expenditures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In total, we estimate that full implementation would require an
increase in expenditures of about $2.4 billion in 2030 assuming no
reductions in the current funded enrollment level of 755,074, with
further increases that are consistent with impacts tied to wage growth.
Over a 10-year time horizon, which covers for the timeline that the
proposed policies would take effect, we estimate annualized
expenditures of $1.6 billion under a 3% discount rate or $1.5 billion
under a 7% discount rate. In addition to calculating the expenditures
necessary to fully implement the proposed rule, this analysis also
considers a scenario of no additional funding above baseline funding
levels (i.e., funding increasing over time, to account for inflation
but not in response to this regulatory proposal). Under this scenario,
we estimate that Head Start programs would need to reduce the total
number of funded slots available by about 15% compared to projected
FY2023 funded enrollment, or 1% from estimated FY2023 actual enrollment
in 2030, to fully implement the proposed rule. Table 1 reports the
summary of expenditures of the proposed rule, reported in constant 2023
dollars and nominal dollars.
[[Page 80874]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20NO23.001
We request comment on our estimates of benefits, costs, and
transfers of this proposed rule. OHS specifically requests comment on
how spending patterns when under enrolled may be different if funded
enrollment were reduced and the possible impact on programs if spending
were redirected towards the policies in this proposed rule.
Preliminary Economic Analysis of Impacts
A. Analytic Approach
In conducting this analysis, we began by identifying the most
consequential impacts that would likely occur under the proposed rule,
if finalized. We identify expenditures associated with increases in
staff wages and staff benefits for the Head Start workforce as the
largest potential impact and devote significant attention to those
effects. We also identify and monetize expenditures associated with
staff breaks, expenditures associated with hiring additional family
service workers, expenditures associated with the increased workload
required to provide mental health supports, expenditures associated
with preventing and addressing lead exposure, and expenditures
associated with administrative implementation costs. We qualitatively
discuss other impacts of the proposed rule.
For the purposes of this analysis, we assume that the proposed
rule, if it is finalized, will be published and begin to take effect
before the 2024-2025 program year. To simplify the narrative, we
describe effects occurring in that program year as occurring in `2024.'
We adopt a time horizon of analysis of ten years, covering the period
2024 through 2033.
This analysis adopts a baseline forecast that assumes Federal
appropriations grow at a constant rate of inflation in fiscal years
2026 through 2033, with slower growth during fiscal years 2024 and
2025.
All analyses provided here were completed using national level
estimations. In our main analysis, we estimate the increases in Federal
appropriations needed to fulfill the goals of the proposed rule while
also maintaining the size of the Head Start workforce consistent with
the projected FY2023 funded enrollment level of 755,074 slots. We also
present a sensitivity analysis that explores how the rule's effects
would manifest themselves if there are no increases in Federal
appropriations above baseline (or such increases occur but not in
response to this regulatory proposal and/or the increased
appropriations could not be used to support the policies in the
proposed rule). For this scenario, we report the likely reductions in
funded enrollment, and associated reductions in the size of the Head
Start workforce, under the proposed rule. We also report the likely
reductions in funded enrollment compared to the estimated FY2023 actual
enrollment under the proposed rule.
In general, we have rounded total cost estimates but have not
rounded itemized cost estimates for transparency and reproducibility of
the estimation process. These unrounded itemized cost estimates should
not be interpreted as representing a particular degree of precision.
B. Baseline: Budget, Staffing, and Slots
Baseline Budget Scenario
We measure the impacts of the rule against a common budget baseline
forecast that assumes Federal appropriations grow at a constant rate of
inflation in fiscal years 2026 through 2033, with slower growth during
fiscal years 2024 and 2025. We adopt 2.3% for the rate of inflation for
each year in the time horizon, matching an economic assumption in the
President's Budget for Fiscal Year 2024.\259\ Across all years, we
assume that the cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) for Head Start staff-
the portion of Head Start that goes towards operations awards, will
match the 2.3% rate of inflation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\259\ Office of Management and Budget. ``Analytical
Perspectives, Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2024.''
Table 2-1 Economic Assumptions. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/spec_fy2024.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In FY2023, Head Start appropriations totaled $11,996,820,000.\260\
About 97% of these appropriations, $11.6 billion, will go towards
operations awards; and from these operations awards, about 75% \261\
will go towards personnel costs, or about $8.7 billion. Compared to
FY2023, we assume that FY2024
[[Page 80875]]
appropriations will increase to account for inflation for operations
awards, but will not increase for other spending categories. Compared
to FY2024, we assume that FY2025 appropriations will again increase to
account for inflation for operations awards, with a 1% increase for
other spending categories. Thus, we anticipate that total
appropriations will increase by 2.22% in FY2024, 2.26% in FY2025, and
2.3% in all future years. Table B1 reports the appropriations and
funding breakdowns in nominal dollars over the time horizon of our
analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\260\ H.R. 2617--Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023. https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/olab/fy-2024-congressional-justification.pdf.
\261\ Budget data submitted to the Office of Head Start for
FY2022, which is the most recent data available at the time this
analysis was prepared, showed that about 74% of operations awards
were allocated to personnel costs. In this analysis, we assume a
majority share of the savings from the projected reduction in funded
enrollment from FY2022 to FY2023 will go towards personnel costs,
and will therefore increase the overall share of operations awards
allocated to personnel costs to about 75%.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20NO23.002
Baseline Scenario for Staffing, Wages, and Enrollment
This analysis adopts one scenario covering projections of staffing,
wages, and enrollment at Head Start programs. This baseline scenario
assumes long-run staffing, wages, and enrollment that are consistent
with those projected for FY 2023, based on patterns observed in FY2022.
This analysis assumes that all programs are fully enrolled, and
that actual enrollment is consistent with funded enrollment. Therefore,
the analysis does not distinguish between funded slots that are
actually filled with enrolled families and funded slots that are
vacant. These assumptions introduce uncertainty into the analysis,
creating some tendency toward overestimation of effects (a tendency
that would partially be mitigated by a number of decisions, for example
if Head Start entities use excess funds, in the baseline, for teacher
bonuses).\262\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\262\ For completeness, we also note that Head Start funding
increases at greater than the rate of inflation (for reasons
independent of this regulation being proposed) would lead to effects
being underestimated in this analysis, if that funding is designated
for expansion. For exploration not of overall magnitude of effects
but instead related to the form they take, please see the
sensitivity analysis below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We again note that this estimation does not account for the under-
enrollment that Head Start programs are currently facing. In 2023, Head
Start programs are projected to be funded to serve 755,074 children;
however, OHS estimates only about 650,000 children and families are
actually being served. Many Head Start programs are requesting
reductions to their funded enrollment, even while they continue to work
to improve their enrollment. As this situation is unprecedented, it is
nearly impossible to predict both funded and actual enrollment levels
in future years.
As such, OHS first estimates costs by using the FY2023 funded
enrollment of 755,074 which represents the funding needed to implement
the proposed rule and maintain current funded enrollment, or the
maximum appropriations needed to fully implement the proposed rule.
Using the cost per slot determined by this estimate, we also describe
the necessary appropriations needed to maintain funded slots to serve
650,000 children, which reflects the FY2023 actual enrollment.
Relatedly, we also provide estimates of the reduction in the total
number of funded slots in a scenario where no additional funding is
provided (or funding increases occur but not in response to this
proposal), compared to both projected FY2023 funded enrollment and to
estimated FY2023 actual enrollment.
Our baseline scenario is informed by staffing levels, credentials,
wage rates, and enrollment figures from Program Information Report
(PIR) data covering 2022,\263\ with a few adjustments. The PIR contains
program-level counts of teachers, assistant teachers, home visitors,
and family child care providers, each disaggregated by type of
credential. For teachers and assistant teachers, we observe the
following credential categories: advanced degree, baccalaureate degree
(BA), associate degree (AA), Child Development Associate (CDA)
credential, and no credential. For home visitors and family child care
providers, we observe whether staff holds a credential, but not the
type of credential. We make the following adjustments to the raw 2022
PIR data:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\263\ https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/data-ongoing-monitoring/article/program-information-report-pir.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) We adjust the counts of each role-credential combination to
account for a small share of staff without any credential information,
which is less than 0.3% of total staff. For simplicity, we assume that
the credentials of staff without this information are distributed in
proportion with the observed credentials of other staff in the same
role.
(2) We augment the 2022 PIR data with 2019 PIR data, which
contained information on the specific credential
[[Page 80876]]
type for home visitors and family child care providers. We assume that,
conditional on reporting any credential in 2022, the credentials of
staff with each credential type are distributed in proportion with
observed credentials of other credentialed staff in the same role in
2019.
With these adjustments, we report 36,517 Head Start teachers,
32,286 Early Head Start teachers, 38,316 Head Start assistant teachers,
6,676 home visitors, and 2,046 family child care providers. Table B2
reports these counts by credential type.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20NO23.003
In 2022, Head Start programs were funded to serve 833,075 slots and
reported 115,841 education staff. At the time this analysis was
prepared, ACF did not have comparable information from the PIR for
2023, which is ongoing; however, we anticipate significant changes to
staffing levels, wage rates, and slots compared to those observed in
2022 for reasons described above. We anticipate enrollment reductions,
including through requests from programs proposing to reduce their
funded enrollment to maintain quality of program services.\264\ We
currently project 755,074 funded slots, or a 9% reduction in funded
enrollment in 2023 compared to 2022, and adopt a corresponding
reduction in education staff by the same percentage. Compared to a
scenario of no reduction in slots or education staff, we anticipate
that this will lead to increases in total compensation for education
staff. Again, this does not reflect the difference between funded
enrollment and actual enrollment of families in the program. OHS
anticipates that funded enrollment will continue to decline; however,
for the reasons described above, we model projections based on funded
enrollment in 2023 at 755,074 for the purposes of this analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\264\ https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/policy/im/acf-im-hs-22-09.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20NO23.004
[[Page 80877]]
Connecting Baseline Uncertainty With Differing Estimates of Regulatory
Effects
Head Start programs must be in a position to serve their full
funded enrollment at all times, regardless of their actual enrollment
levels. When programs are under-enrolled, they must continue their
operations in a way that is sufficient to serve their funded
enrollment. As Head Start funds are allocated to a variety of fixed
cost categories (like facilities, personnel, supplies, and
transportation), only some of these costs are saved when a funded slot
is empty. If a slot is empty, a program must still pay for a facility
with classrooms, along with utilities and maintenance. Programs must
also attempt to hire (or, spend the associated funds recruiting) staff,
and have transportation that can accommodate the slot. Where there is a
difference between actual and funded enrollment, the majority of the
difference in allocated funding is used in this manner, thus doing
little to improve the Head Start experience for remaining students.
Therefore, to the extent that under-enrolled Head Start programs
will, over the analytic time horizon of this regulatory impact
assessment, be approved to reduce their funded enrollment without those
slots being shifted to other Head Start entities, the estimates that
use actual enrollment as a key input or comparison--for example, the
rightmost columns of Tables J1 and K5--are informative and meaningful.
By contrast, if reductions of funded enrollment at entities that are
under-enrolled in the baseline were accompanied (also in the baseline)
by shifting of those slots to other Head Start entities, the estimates
that use funded enrollment as a key comparison are more informative.
Similarly, if under-enrollment were to ease in the future (perhaps to
due further stabilization in the labor market as the biggest
disruptions of the COVID-19 pandemic recede into the past), the latter
set of estimates should receive the analytic focus.
C. Workforce Supports: Staff Wages and Staff Benefits
The proposed rule outlines four areas of proposed requirements for
wages for Head Start staff: (1) that education staff working directly
with children as part of their daily job responsibilities must receive
a salary comparable to preschool teachers in public school settings in
the program's local school district, adjusted for qualifications,
experience, and job responsibilities; (2) to establish or enhance a
salary scale, wage ladder, or other pay structure that applies to all
staff in the program and takes into account job responsibilities, hours
worked, and qualifications and experience relevant to the position; (3)
that all staff must receive a salary that is sufficient to cover basic
costs of living in their geographic area, including those at the lowest
end of the pay structure; and (4) to affirm and emphasize that the
requirements for pay parity should also promote comparability of wages
across Head Start Preschool and Early Head Start staff positions.
The proposed rule also outlines requirements for grant recipients
to provide benefits to staff, discussing health insurance, paid sick
leave, paid vacation or personal leave, paid family leave, access to
short-term free or low-cost mental health services, and other
considerations. We also describe an alternative policy scenario in
which retirement benefits are also included in the proposed benefit
requirements, see Section K below.
In this section, we describe baseline wages for Head Start
education staff and their corresponding wage-parity targets. We also
describe baseline staff benefits and the enhanced-benefit policy.
Wage-Parity Targets
The proposed rule would result in Head Start staff receiving an
annual salary commensurate with preschool teachers in local public
school settings, adjusted for qualifications, experience, and job
responsibilities. The target comparison of preschool teachers in public
school settings is intended to represent substantial progress towards
parity with public school elementary teachers. Specifically, we intend
the benchmark of preschool teacher annual salaries in public school
settings to represent about 90% of kindergarten teacher annual
salaries, for those with comparable qualifications.\265\ While wage
rates would be determined locally, we present estimates of the likely
impact measured at the national level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\265\ This analysis uses BLS average annual salaries as wage
targets. However, since the BLS national average for kindergarten
teacher salaries ($65,120) includes all kindergarten teachers, of
which approximately half have a master's degree or higher, adjust
this annual salary to reflect the target salary for a teacher with a
bachelor's degree ($58,608) guided by salary differences observed in
National Center for Education Statistics data (https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/ntps/). The BLS reported annual salary for preschool teacher
in school settings ($53,200) is therefore approximately 90% of the
annual salary for kindergarten teachers with a bachelor's degree
($58,608).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the purposes of this analysis, we adopt an estimate of the
target salary in 2022 of $53,200, which corresponds to the mean annual
wage for preschool teachers in elementary and school-based settings as
reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for occupation code 25-2011,
Preschool Teachers, Except Special Education for 2022.\266\ This
estimate is intended to be consistent with the requirement that annual
salaries be ``comparable to preschool teachers in public school
settings.'' We assume that a typical Preschool teacher works 1,680
hours per year, so this annual salary corresponded to a $31.67 hourly
wage in 2022, or a $32.95 hourly wage in 2023 under an assumption that
Preschool teacher salaries will grow approximately in relation to
inflation.\267\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\266\ U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Occupational Employment
and Wages. May 2022. 25-2011 Preschool Teachers, Except Special
Education. https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes252011.htm.
\267\ Multiplied by a ratio of May 2023 (304.127) to May 2022
(292.296) CPI. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. CPI for all Urban
Consumers (CPI-U), Not Seasonally Adjusted, https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CUUR0000SA0. Accessed June 19, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We adopt this estimate as the hourly wage target for teachers, home
visitors, and family child care providers with a BA, which serves as
the base wage rate for other credentials. For staff in these roles with
an advanced degree (i.e., master's degree or higher), we adopt an
hourly wage target 10% above the base wage rate; for AA degrees, 20%
below the base wage rate; for CDA, 30% below the base wage rate; and
for no credential, 40% below the base wage rate. For assistant
teachers, who often have fewer responsibilities than lead teachers, we
adopt hourly wage targets that are about 17% less than other roles. For
example, the wage rate target for assistant teachers with a BA is
$27.35 per hour. Table C1 reports the hourly wage targets for each
staff role by credential under the proposed rule and the baseline
scenario.
We note that the assumption that a typical Preschool teacher works
1,680 hours per year differs with the source of the annual wage data
comparison. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) assumes a ``year-
round, full-time hours figure of 2,080 hours'' which is consistent with
a 40-hour work week for all 52 weeks of the year. The proposed policy
requires comparable annual salaries, however hourly estimates are
provided and used here for the purposes of calculating the estimated
impacts of the proposed policies. We have therefore chosen to calculate
the hourly target wage using 1,680 hours, which is our estimate of the
number of paid hours worked by preschool education staff. We request
comment on the best approach to handle the discrepancy in assumptions
about the number of hours worked. In particular, we request
[[Page 80878]]
comment on the best estimate for the annual hours worked by Head Start
education staff, as well as by preschool teachers in public school
settings. We further request comment on the degree to which paid hours
worked aligns with actual hours worked, as education staff in both Head
Start and preschools in public school settings may perform additional
work tasks outside official work hours.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20NO23.005
To estimate the likely impact of the wage-parity policy on
expenditures, we calculate the expenditures under the baseline
scenario, then calculate the expenditures needed to fund the wage
increases. Table C2 reports these impacts under the baseline scenario.
Note that these are reported in constant 2023 dollars.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20NO23.006
Disaggregation of Wage-Parity Policy Implementation Costs
While estimates in this analysis are performed at the national
level, the cost of implementing the wage policies will likely not be
borne equally by each program. Programmatic data suggests Head Start
programs vary in their current compensation practices and therefore
will likely have varying costs associated with implementing the wage
parity policy. Head Start data shows that wages and enrollment are not
distributed evenly across various program types. Furthermore, some
programs across the country are experiencing a workforce shortage and
are in varying stages of implementing changes to address issues related
to lack of qualified and available staff to fill classrooms and
associated under-enrollment.
Data from 2019 PIR shows that programs located in school systems
pay classroom teachers at the highest rate, on average. Grant
recipients in school districts also have more programs that are fully
enrolled compared to other agencies. Meanwhile, grant recipients that
are Community Action Agencies are, on average, the lowest paying agency
type and pay more than $10,000 less annually to classroom teachers, on
average, compared to school systems.
Finally, ACF published sub-regulatory guidance to encourage Head
Start programs to increase staff and teacher wages. Some Head Start
programs have responded to this guidance by requesting to reduce their
funded enrollment in order to increase staff wages, but those programs
are in varying stages of implementing these changes.
Given this information, we expect that the cost of implementing
these proposed policies will vary depending on a variety of factors,
such as agency type. For instance, programs in school systems that
already compensate at a higher level, will likely incur lower costs
when implementing the wage policies in this proposal compared to
programs in Community Action Agencies that, on average, tend to provide
lower compensation. The costs of implementing these proposed policies
will likely further vary based on the local wage targets used for each
program, the distribution of qualifications for existing staff, and the
degree to which each program has already made efforts to improve
compensation.
[[Page 80879]]
The national estimates provided in this analysis cannot necessarily
be applied at the individual program level. For instance, the hourly
wage targets described in the previous section (Table C2) represent
national averages and targets for individual programs will vary based
on salaries for preschool teachers in their community. Program-level
wage targets will vary based on factors such as local compensation
rates and cost of living. Depending on the existing compensation
structure in each program, some programs will have to increase their
hourly wages substantially, and others may only need to make small
increases. Program-level costs for implementing this policy are
expected to be impacted by a variety of factors such as local pay
compensation rates, education/credential levels of program staff, and
the degree to which programs have already attempted to increase wages.
HHS acknowledges that a limitation of using national level
estimates is that these program-level nuances are not specifically
illustrated in the analysis. However, using national averages to
estimate costs at the national level accounts, in some ways but not
others, for program-level variation.
Impact of the Minimum Pay Requirement
The proposed rule would require that all staff receive, at minimum,
a salary that is sufficient to cover basic costs of living in their
geographic area, including those at the lowest end of the pay
structure. We anticipate that Head Start programs in low-income areas
would spend additional resources to fulfill the basic cost-of-living
requirement. We assume that the incremental impact of this provision is
approximately $116 million per year, which accounts for $88 million
through hourly wage increases, and $28 million in corresponding
increases in non-wage benefits. This estimate is consistent with about
15% of all Head Start staff, about 35,000 staff members in the
baseline, each working an average of 30 hours per week for 42 weeks,
receiving an additional $2.00 \268\ per hour in wages to meet the goal
of establishing a minimum hourly wage of $15.00, or a total average
increase in hourly compensation of $2.63.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\268\ In the absence of data from Head Start programs that
reports the wages paid to the lowest paid staff, this estimate
assumes that all of the 35,000 staff earned minimum wage in their
State in 2022, which is consistent with an average hourly wage of
$10.68. The estimate of average minimum wage was calculated using
the minimum wage for each State (https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/mw-consolidated) and the number of Head Start staff in each State
according to administrative data from the Office of Head Start in
2022. For those staff where minimum wage data were not available due
to lack of data for the U.S. Territory or data entry error, the
Federal minimum wage of $7.25 was used. In the baseline analysis, we
assume that all staff receive a pay increase, to $13.00 per hour,
due to the projected reductions in funded enrollment from FY2022 to
FY2023, and the associated reduction in staff and increased share of
personnel funds. These staff would therefore need an additional
$2.00 per hour to meet the $15 per hour minimum pay policy goal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact on Expenditures Through Wage Compression
In addition to the direct impacts on teachers, assistant teachers,
home visitors, and family child care providers, we anticipate that the
proposed rule would result in increased compensation for family service
workers as well as other non-education staff positions to address wage
compression and wage equity issues that would arise. For example,
proposed wage increases to lead teachers may far exceed what a
similarly credentialed family service worker makes in a program and
those programs would need to plan for compensation increases for such
staff to avoid a significant wage gap between those positions. As
another example, with rising wages for education staff, other staff in
supervisory or mid-management roles would likely receive wage increases
as well (e.g., coaches, education managers, etc.). To account for this
impact, we assume that the total impacts on expenditures associated
with wages would be 10% higher than the sum of the impacts associated
with wage targets and the minimum pay requirement. We seek comment on
whether 10% is an appropriate adjustment to estimate expenses that
programs will incur to avoid wage compression.
Overall Impacts of Wage Parity on Expenditures, Holding Benefits
Constant
Next, we report the total expenditures, including the impacts of
the wage targets, minimum pay requirement, and impacts associated with
wage compression. Table C3 reports the net impacts on expenditures,
holding benefits constant. The ``wage targets'' row is equal to the
totals of the ``expenditure increase'' rows contained in Tables C1 and
C2. When pay parity is fully implemented, the wages policies would
result in about $875 million in additional annual expenditures on
wages.\269\ Note that these estimates are reported in constant 2023
dollars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\269\ The additional annual expenditures on fringe associated
with the wage policies (i.e., the fringe associated with the
increased wages in the wage policies at the baseline fringe rate of
24%), are included in the estimates reported in Table C6 in the
benefits section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20NO23.007
The estimates in Table C3 reflect the expenditures needed to fully
implement pay parity, which would occur in 2030 under the NPRM, if
finalized. Table C4 reports the expenditures by year under the
implementation schedule, reported in constant 2023 dollars and also
nominal dollars.
[[Page 80880]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20NO23.008
Expenditures Associated With Fringe Benefits
As discussed above, based on an analysis of current Head Start
programs, about 24% of total personnel costs go towards fringe
benefits, rather than wage compensation. Table B1 reports personnel
costs of about $8.7 billion in 2023. Of this figure, 76% goes to wage
compensation, or about $6.6 billion, and 24% goes to fringe benefits,
or about $2.1 billion. We assume that this ratio will remain constant
over time, absent the staff benefits provisions of the proposed rule.
The proposed rule outlines requirements for grant recipients to
provide benefits to staff, discussing health insurance, paid sick
leave, vacation or personal leave, paid family leave, short term mental
health services, and other considerations. In our alternative policy
scenario, discussed further in Section K, grant recipients would also
be required to provide retirement benefits to staff. For the purposes
of this analysis, we assume that these enhancements would increase the
share of total personnel costs that go towards fringe benefits from 24%
to 27.8%, or to 32.5% in the alternative policy scenario, holding wages
compensation constant. Absent all other provisions in the NPRM,
adopting the benefits policy at baseline wages would increase fringe
benefits in constant 2023 dollars from $2.1 billion to about $2.5
billion, and total compensation from about $8.7 billion to $9.2
billion, for an increase of about $458 million.\270\ In nominal
dollars, these impacts would increase with the Head Start COLA, or 2.3%
per year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\270\ Under the Required Retirement Scenario and absent all
other provisions in the NPRM, adopting the benefits policy at
baseline wages would increase fringe benefits in constant 2023
dollars from $2.1 billion to about $3.2 billion, and total
compensation from about $8.7 billion to $9.8 billion, for an
increase of about $1.1 billion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table C5 reports the impacts of the benefit policy over time,
accounting for the yearly impact of the wage policies reported in Table
C4, reported in constant and nominal dollars. These tables report the
changes to benefits, some of which are driven by wage increases of the
wage policies.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20NO23.009
[[Page 80881]]
Disaggregation of Fringe Benefit Estimates
To estimate the cost associated with each category of benefits in
the proposed rule, we refer to the distribution of benefits provided to
teachers,\271\ who have an overall fringe rate of 32.5% according to
data on employer costs for employee compensation released by BLS in
December 2022.\272\ There are more categories of benefits provided to
teachers described by the BLS than will be required under the proposed
rule, specifically retirement benefits are provided to teachers in the
BLS data. In order to estimate the expenditures on the major benefits
categories that will be required under the proposed rule, we first
estimate the cost of Head Start teachers receiving the same fringe rate
and major benefits categories (32.5%: health insurance, retirement, and
paid leave). We then calculate the associated reduction in fringe
associated with removing the retirement benefit in order to estimate
the cost of the benefits policy under the proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\271\ This occupational group was chosen because the total
fringe rate aligns with internal estimates of the total fringe rate
that would be associated with the proposed benefit policies. The
occupational group includes postsecondary teachers; primary,
secondary, and special education teachers; and other teachers and
instructors.
\272\ https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_03172023.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We tentatively apply the same distribution of fringe associated
with each fringe category to the estimated expenditure on benefits for
Head Start using the same overall fringe rate of 32.5%, which
represents an increase of 8.5% from the current fringe rate. We then
calculate the increased expenditure needed for each of the major
benefits categories: health insurance, retirement, and paid leave,
compared to existing expenditures in each category for Head Start
programs.\273\ This approach estimates that of the total projected cost
associated with increasing the fringe rate from 24.0% to 32.5%, 16.6%
will be accounted for by increased spending on health insurance.
Increased spending on retirement will account for 54.7% of the total
projected cost, and increased spending on paid leave will account for
28.7% of the total projected cost. Thus, of the total increase of 8.5%
in fringe, we anticipate about 1.4% of this increase will go towards
health insurance, 4.7% of this increase will go towards retirement
benefits, and 2.4% will go towards paid leave.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\273\ Estimates based on average fringe for each category of
benefits calculated from a sample of Head Start program budgets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As retirement benefits are only proposed to be required under the
alternative policy scenario, we reduce the estimated increase on fringe
by the increase associated with retirement benefits, 4.7%, for a target
fringe rate of 27.8% under the benefits policy in the proposed rule.
Under the proposed rule, increased spending on health insurance will
account for 37% of the total cost of the benefits policy, and increased
spending on paid leave will account for the remaining 63% of the total
cost of the benefits policy.
Table C6 reports an expenditure breakdown for each major category
of benefits that would be impacted by the proposed rule.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20NO23.010
We identify several significant caveats to this analysis. First,
because many existing Head Start grant recipients provide health
insurance, the growth in costs for expanded health insurance may be
smaller than projected. We do expect that there will be improvements in
the quality of health plans and what employees are covered, and
increases in the provision of life and disability insurance, which may
increase overall insurance costs for some grant recipients, but it is
likely not to increase linearly with wage increases. Further, some
grant recipients may choose to encourage staff to enroll in plans
available in the Marketplace because the quality and expenses of health
insurance in the Marketplace may be better than what they can obtain as
an employer, and therefore the proportion of fringe spent on insurance
for those grant recipients would decrease. Second, legally required
fringe components such as Social Security taxes and retirement and
savings fringe are not necessarily comparable between the reference
group of teachers included in the BLS data and Head Start staff. Many
elementary teachers are State
[[Page 80882]]
employees and not all State employees are covered by Social Security
because they are covered by State pension plans; as a result, legally
required fringe may be lower and retirement fringe higher for teachers
relative to a comparable benefits package for Head Start staff.
Discussion of Uncertainty
We have attempted to provide our best estimates of the potential
effects of the staff wages and staff benefit provisions. We acknowledge
several significant and unresolved sources of uncertainty. First, we
note that these estimates use a single baseline, which is a limitation
of this analysis. We have provided estimates using a single baseline
that assumes a stable funded enrollment level consistent with projected
FY2023 funded enrollment of 755,074. If funded enrollment were to
increase, which would require Congressional investment designated for
expansion (and such increase occurs for reasons separate from this
regulatory proposal), the impacts of this proposed rule would be
underestimated. If funded enrollment were to decrease, particularly if
it were to decrease below the level of our current actual enrollment of
650,000, then the impacts of this proposed rule would be overestimated.
Furthermore, if other baseline assumptions were to vary, such as the
child-to-staff ratio or the share of appropriations allocated to
personnel costs, that would also impact the estimated effects. However,
absent guiding data for the timing and magnitude of these possible
variations, OHS presents estimates using the single, data-informed
baseline.
Second, we followed a partial equilibrium modeling approach,
focusing the primary scope of our analysis on the impacts to Head
Start. General equilibrium modeling could potentially explore the
impacts of the proposed rule on wages beyond Head Start staff. These
effects could be informative for the estimates on expenditures, since
wage increases experienced by Head Start staff could result in wage
increases to other occupations that draw from a similar supply of
workers, such as Kindergarten teachers. It is possible to anticipate a
gradual feedback effect between Head Start staff and occupations that
provide reference wages under the wage-parity policy. If this is the
case, this would tend to indicate that our expenditure estimates are
underestimated.
Third, the analysis assumes that average compensation for Head
Start staff (in the baseline scenario) and preschool teachers in public
school settings (in the baseline scenario and under the NPRM) increases
with inflation, or equivalently, that their average compensation
remains constant in real terms, over the time horizon of this analysis.
If compensation for preschool teachers in public school settings grows
more slowly over time than compensation for Head Start staff, this
would tend to indicate that our expenditure estimates are
overestimated. Alternatively, if compensation for preschool teachers in
public school settings grows faster than compensation for Head Start
staff, this would tend to indicate that our expenditure estimates are
underestimated.
In regard to the inherent uncertainty over the availability of
funding to fully implement this proposed rule, if finalized, Section J
presents a sensitivity analysis on that significant source of
uncertainty.
D. Workforce Supports: Staff Wellness--Staff Breaks
The proposed rule outlines requirements for programs to provide
break times during work shifts. Specifically, for each staff member
working a shift lasting between four and six hours, programs would be
required to provide a minimum of one 15-minute break per shift; and for
each staff member working a shift lasting six hours or more, programs
would be required to provide a minimum of one 30-minute break per
shift.
The scope of this element of the proposed rule covers approximately
104,995 education staff, the estimate of education staff that is
proportionally decreased to reflect the reduced enrollment in 2023
compared to 2022. We assume that 13% of education staff typically work
shifts lasting between four and six hours, and that 87% of education
staff typically work shifts lasting 6 hours or more. Thus, across all
staff, the proposed rule would require an average break time of about
28 minutes per shift.\274\ We assume 180 average shifts per year for
each education staff, for a total of 5,049 minutes of break time per
year per staff.\275\ For 104,995 total education staff, the proposed
rule would require a minimum of about 8.8 million hours of break time
per year.\276\ We do not have detailed information from Head Start
programs on their current policies for staff breaks. For the purposes
of this analysis, we adopt the following assumptions:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\274\ 13% * 15 + 87% * 30 = 28.05.
\275\ 2,805 * 180 = 5,049.
\276\ 5,049 * 104,995/60 = 8,835,310.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Under the baseline scenario of no regulatory action, 20% of
Head Start programs offer break time for education staff.
(2) Under the proposed rule, 50% of Head Start programs would shift
the workloads of existing Head Start staff to provide coverage during
the additional breaks.
(3) Under the proposed rule, Head Start programs who do not already
provide breaks and cannot shift workloads of existing staff would
provide coverage during the additional breaks by hiring `floaters.'
(4) On average, Head Start programs would pay the `floaters' hourly
wages in line with assistant teachers with no credential.
In line with assumptions 1 and 2, we adjust the 8.8 million hours
estimate downwards by 70% and estimate that the proposed rule would
result in about 2.7 million hours of additional breaks for educational
staff. Using the wage target for assistant teachers of $16.41 per hour
under the wage-parity target, this policy would result in additional
expenditures of about $57 million per year, or $60 million when also
accounting for the benefits policy.\277\ This policy would take effect
in 2027, and the total expenditures would increase in line with the
wages under the wage-parity policy. Table D1 reports the expenditures
needed to fund this policy, in constant and nominal dollars. Table D2
reports the additional value-of-time costs by year for those programs
who provide breaks by shifting existing workloads, in constant and
nominal dollars. Both Table D1 and Table D2 reflect the policy cost
using the benefits fringe rate in the proposed benefits policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\277\ Under the Required Retirement Scenario, the Breaks policy
would cost $64 million in Constant 2023 dollars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 80883]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20NO23.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20NO23.012
E. Family Service Worker Family Assignments
The proposed rule would ensure the planned number of families
assigned to work with individual family services staff is no greater
than 40, unless a program can demonstrate higher family assignments
provide high quality family and community engagement services and
maintain reasonable staff workload. 2019 PIR data reveals that
approximately 50 percent of programs have staff family assignments that
are 40 families or less. Across all programs with ratios of families
per family services staff that exceed 40, we estimate that Head Start
programs would need to hire an additional 3,231 family service workers
to meet this requirement at the funded enrollment level projected for
FY2023, compared to the baseline scenario. This estimate includes an
assumption that 10% of programs will exceed a caseload of 40,\278\ as
is allowable under the proposed policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\278\ For the purposes of this estimation we assume that all of
the programs that exceed the threshold have an average caseload of
60.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We adopt an estimate of $40,000 in wage compensation per year per
family service worker, which results in a $52,631 total compensation in
the baseline scenario or $55,401 total compensation under the benefit
policy.\279\ For 3,231 workers, this would result in additional
expenditures across Head Start programs of $179,002,770. This policy
would begin to take effect in 2027. Table E1 reports the expenditures
needed to fund this policy, in constant and nominal dollars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\279\ Under the Required Retirement Scenario total compensation
for each additional family service worker would be $59,259 in
constant 2023 dollars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 80884]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20NO23.013
F. Mental Health Services
The proposed rule would enhance requirements for mental health
supports to integrate mental health more fully into every aspect of
program services as well as elevate the role of mental health
consultation to support the wellbeing of children, families, and staff.
We anticipate that this element of the proposed rule would result in
additional work for a variety of program staff, which we estimate will
add up to together to be roughly equivalent to one full-time employee
(FTE) per Head Start agency. We estimate 1,564 agencies needing the
additional FTE to comply with the proposed policy.
We adopt an estimate of $60,000 in wage compensation per year per
FTE which represents an average of the various salaries of the staff
members who we assume will complete the additional work. In addition to
wage compensation, we assume that fringe benefits will be associated
with the additional FTE, or about $18,947 under the baseline
assumptions for benefits, or $23,102 under the benefit policy. In
total, under the proposed rule, we estimate that each additional FTE
would require $78,947 in total compensation in years prior to the
effective date of the benefits policy, and $83,102 in total
compensation in all future years. For 1,564 FTEs, this would result in
additional expenditures across Head Start programs of
$129,972,299.\280\ We assume that these impacts would begin
immediately. Table F1 reports the expenditures needed to fund this
policy, in constant and nominal dollars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\280\ Under the Required Retirement Scenario, the fringe
associated with each additional FTE is estimated to be $28,889 for a
total compensation of $88,889. The total policy cost for the mental
health policy under the Robust Benefit Scenario is $139 million.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20NO23.014
[[Page 80885]]
G. Preventing and Addressing Lead Exposure
The proposed rule includes new requirements on preventing and
addressing lead exposure through water and lead-based paint in Head
Start facilities. This analysis presents estimates of the costs
associated with testing and remediating water fixtures, and costs
associated with evaluating and reducing the hazards from lead paint in
classrooms and common areas at Head Start facilities.
Lead in Water
To assess the likely magnitude of the costs associated with the
lead in water requirement, we first adopt estimates of 19,400 service
locations, with an average of 7.5 water fixtures per service location,
for 145,500 total fixtures. We assume that half of these fixtures would
be tested annually, and half of these fixtures would be tested once
every 5 years. Thus, in a given year, about 60% of the total fixtures,
or 87,300 fixtures, would be tested per year. We adopt an estimate of
$100 per fixture tested, for an annual cost associated with testing of
$8,730,000. In addition to these testing costs, we assume that 25% of
fixtures, or 35,375 fixtures, will require ongoing remediation using
point-of-use devices. We identify filter replacements as largest cost
associated with remediation, and adopt an estimate of $30 per filter,
with filters replaced quarterly, or a cost per fixture of $120 per
year. Across 35,375 fixtures requiring ongoing remediation, we
calculate an annual cost of $4,365,000 for remediation. In total, we
estimate $13,095,000 per year in annual costs associated with testing
and remediating water fixtures. Some of this cost can be covered by
Federal funding under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (as enacted by
the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act); many states are already
using this funding.
Lead-Based Paint
To assess the likely magnitude of the costs associated with the
lead-based paint requirement, we first adopt estimates of 25,409 total
rooms across Head Start facilities, consisting of 19,500 classrooms and
5,909 common areas. We assume that about 46% Head Start facilities were
constructed prior to 1978 and would require a lead-hazard evaluation
under the proposed rule. Thus, about 11,688 rooms would require
evaluation. We adopt an estimate of $700 per room for the evaluations,
which would consist of a lead-based paint inspection and risk
assessment. Across all rooms requiring evaluation, we estimate an
initial total cost associated with evaluations of about $8.2 million.
Of rooms undergoing an evaluation, we assume that 43.8% of rooms
would be identified as potentially having a lead-based paint hazard
requiring abatement.281 282 Thus, after the first round of
assessments covering 11,688 rooms, we estimate that 5,125 rooms would
require abatement. We assume that half of the rooms requiring abatement
would require interior paint repair, with a per-room cost of $710; that
half of the rooms would require friction/impact work, with a per-room
cost of $280; and assume that that all rooms undergoing abatement would
incur costs associated with unit cleanup of $430 per room and costs
associated with clearance of $170 per room. In total, we estimate an
average cost of abatement of $1,095 per room. Across all 5,125 rooms
requiring abatement following the first round of assessments, this
would be about $5.6 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\281\ https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/HH/documents/AHHS_II_Lead_Findings_Report_Final_29oct21.pdf.
\282\ We note that the First National Environmental Health
Survey of Child Care Centers published by HUD in 2003, found that
child care centers were significantly less likely to have lead-based
hazards than residences. As such, cost of the proposed rule may be
overestimated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed rule outlines a process for subsequent assessments for
rooms requiring abatement. These reassessments occur at least once
every 2 years unless two reassessments conducted two years apart
identify no lead-based paint hazards. To model assessments in future
years, we assume that 21.9% of all rooms that are reassessed will
require abatement, which is half the rate of abatement compared to
initial assessments. Thus, for the 5,125 rooms that required abatement,
we estimate that 1,124 would require additional abatement. The other
4,001 rooms would still require a second reassessment. Table G1 reports
the number of assessments and abatements by year, the costs of those
assessments and abatements, and the yearly costs of the lead-based
paint policy.
BILLING CODE 4184-40-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20NO23.015
[[Page 80886]]
Table G2 reports the yearly costs associated with the lead in water
policy, the lead-based paint policy, and the total cost associated with
the two lead policies in constant and nominal dollars.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20NO23.016
BILLING CODE 4184-40-C
H. Administrative Costs
Several of the provisions of the NPRM would likely entail
additional administrative costs beyond those that we have otherwise
quantified in this analysis. For example, we anticipate that programs
would expend resources to develop program-specific policies while
preparing to implement the workforce wage and benefits provisions. To
account for these impacts, we adopt an assumption that each Head Start
program would spend a total of 600 hours per program, spread across
directors, education managers, disability managers, health managers,
and other management staff to develop program-specific policies. To
value the time spent on these activities, we adopt a fully loaded
hourly wage of $60 per hour, reflecting a mix of wages across several
roles. We assume that this impact would primarily occur in the first
year of the time horizon of our analysis, before most of the impacts
associated with wage and benefits policies take effect, and thus we do
not adjust these upwards to account for other provisions of the
proposed rule. For each program, we value this impact at $36,000.\283\
Across 3,000 programs, we estimate the total impact as $108 million,
all occurring in 2024.\284\ We request comment on whether 600 hours is
a reasonable assumption for each program to review, understand, and
plan for implementation for these proposed changes to the standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\283\ $36,000 = 600 hours * $60/hour.
\284\ $108,000,000 = $36,000/program * 3,000 programs. Head
Start funding is only used for a portion of the salaries of these
management positions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Timing of Impacts
The proposed rule includes an implementation timeline for several
of the provisions, described above. Table I1 summarizes the impacts on
expenditures assuming a funded enrollment level consistent with the
projected FY2023 funded enrollment, consistent with this implementation
timeline, reporting yearly estimates, and present value and annualized
values corresponding to 3% and 7% discount rates, with all monetary
estimates reported in millions of constant 2023 dollars. Table I2
reports the same impacts except in nominal dollars.
BILLING CODE 4184-40-P
[[Page 80887]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20NO23.017
BILLING CODE 4184-40-C
All estimates reported above are impacts compared to our baseline
budget scenario described reported in Table B1. Further, we calculate
the cost per child, in 2030, when the rule is fully implemented, using
2023 funded enrollment levels to be $21,797 (nominal dollars). As
discussed previously, we recognize that projected FY2023 funded
enrollment greatly exceeds estimated FY2023 actual enrollment. If
programs were to fully implement the proposed policies and maintain
funded enrollment at least consistent with FY2023 actual enrollment
(i.e., 650,000), they would not need additional appropriations beyond
the baseline budget scenario until 2030, when they would need an
additional $118 million. In 2031, programs would again need an
additional $118 million, $122 million in 2032, and additional $124
million in 2033 above the baseline budget scenario funding levels to
fully implement the proposed policies and maintain a funded enrollment
level consistent with estimated FY2023 actual enrollment.
J. Sensitivity Analysis--Potential Enrollment Reductions
In the previous analysis, we framed results as the Federal
appropriations increase needed to fully fund these requirements and
maintain current funded enrollment of 755,074.
However, in the interest of transparency, we perform a sensitivity
analysis to evaluate the impacts of the proposed rule under a scenario
of no additional funding above the baseline budget scenario in Table B1
(or increased appropriations that cannot be used to support this
regulatory proposal and/or are not increased in response to it). Under
this scenario, Head Start programs would likely comply with the
proposed rule by reducing the size of their funded enrollment, which
would also result in a reduced workforce at Head Start programs.
To calculate the number of slots at Head Start programs under this
last scenario, we multiply the total number of slots under the full-
funding scenario by the share of funding available compared to full
funding. For example, we estimate that $15.2 billion would be necessary
to fully implement the proposed rule in 2033 and maintain funded
enrollment consistent with the estimated FY2023 actual enrollment of
650,000. Under our baseline budget scenario, $15.0 billion would be
available, which is about 99% of the funding needed. Thus, we estimate
644,374 slots would be available, which is 99% of enrollment at the
estimated FY2023 actual enrollment level, or a % change in slots of -
1%.
Table J1 reports the change in total slots \285\ over time that
would be necessary to implement the proposed rule compared to both
projected FY2023 funded enrollment and estimated FY2023 actual
enrollment, absent an increase in Federal appropriations. We estimate
that programs can approach full implementation of the policies in the
proposed rule without additional appropriations by aligning their
funded enrollment levels with their actual enrollment. Only a small
reduction in slots from estimated FY2023 actual enrollment, 1%, would
be needed to reach full implementation of the policies in the proposed
rule. Specifically, programs would need to reduce funded enrollment
from the projected FY2023 funded enrollment of 755,074 by 15%, to a
funded enrollment of 644,605 in 2030, which reflects a 1% reduction
from estimated FY2023 actual enrollment of 650,000.\286\ All monetary
estimates are reported in nominal dollars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\285\ For this analysis, we assume that staffing reductions
occur at the same rate as slot reductions.
\286\ We note that reductions in funded enrollment in response
to the proposed rule will require some shifting of transfer of funds
from existing expenditures, such as those to support funded slots
that are currently empty or spending to recruit and train staff in a
high turnover environment. Please see our request for comment on
this point in Section B and the discussion under the heading
``Connecting Baseline Uncertainty with Differing Estimates of
Regulatory Effects.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 80888]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20NO23.019
K. Alternative Policy Scenario: Required Retirement
The proposed rule outlines requirements for grant recipients to
provide benefits to staff, discussing health insurance, paid leave,
access to short-term free or low-cost mental health services, and other
considerations. The proposed rule requests comment on whether grant
recipients should also be required to provide retirement savings plans
as part of their benefits.
In this section, we describe the alternative policy scenario, the
Required Retirement Scenario, in which the proposed benefits policy
includes a requirement that grant recipients also provide retirement
benefits to staff. We analyze this scenario to identify the most
consequential impacts that would likely occur under the Required
Retirement Scenario, should it be included in a finalized rule.
We base this analysis on the same methodology described in Section
C: Disaggregation of Fringe Benefit Estimates. Based on the data on
employer costs for employee compensation released by the U.S. Bureau of
Labor Statistics in December 2022, teachers have an overall fringe rate
of 32.5%, which is inclusive of health insurance, paid leave,
retirement, and other benefits. As such, we assume an overall fringe
rate of 32.5% under the Required Retirement Scenario, which is
inclusive of fringe associated with all three major benefits policies
included in the policy: health insurance, paid leave, and retirement.
The disaggregation of these costs is described in Section C:
Disaggregation of Fringe Benefit Estimates.
Table K1 reports the impacts of the robust benefit policy over
time, accounting for the yearly impact of the wage policies reported in
Table C5, reported in constant and nominal dollars. These tables report
the changes to benefits, some of which are driven by wage increases of
the wage policies. Table K2 reports a breakdown of increased
expenditure for each major category of benefits that would be impacted
by the proposed rule under the Required Retirement Scenario.
BILLING CODE 4184-40-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20NO23.020
[[Page 80889]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20NO23.021
The inclusion of retirement benefits under the Required Retirement
Scenario impacts the cost estimates for other policies that required
increased expenditures on compensation, such as the family service
worker and mental health policies. Table K3 summarizes the impacts on
expenditures for the Required Retirement Scenario, consistent with the
implementation timelines described in the proposed rule, reporting
yearly estimates and present value and annualized values corresponding
to 3% and 7% discount rates, all with monetary estimates reported in
millions of constant 2023 dollars. Table K4 reports the same impacts
for the Required Retirement Scenario in nominal dollars.
[[Page 80890]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20NO23.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20NO23.023
BILLING CODE 4184-40-C
All estimates reported above are impacts compared to our baseline
budget scenario reported in Table B1. Further, we calculate the cost
per child, in 2030, when the rule is fully implemented, using 2023
funded enrollment levels to be $22,958 (nominal dollars). As discussed
previously we recognize that projected FY2023 funded enrollment greatly
exceeds estimated FY2023 actual enrollment. If programs were to fully
implement the proposed policies and maintain funded enrollment at least
consistent with FY2023 actual enrollment (i.e., 650,000), they would
not need additional appropriations beyond the baseline budget scenario
until 2027, when they would need an additional $80 million. In future
years (all in nominal dollars), programs would need $336 million in
2028, $595 million in 2029, $872 million in 2030, $890 million in 2031,
$912 million in 2032,
[[Page 80891]]
and $932 million in 2033 above the baseline budget funding scenario to
implement the proposed policies and maintain a funded enrollment level
consistent with estimated FY2023 actual enrollment.
We also replicate the sensitivity analysis described in Section J.
In this analysis, we assume an alternative funding scenario in which no
additional funding above the baseline budget scenario in Table B1 is
available to enact the proposed rule under the Required Retirement
Scenario (or increases in appropriations over time that cannot be used
to support the proposed rule, if finalized, and/or are not increased in
response to it). In this scenario, Head Start programs would likely
comply with the proposed rule by reducing the size of their funded
enrollment, which would also result in a reduced workforce at Head
Start programs. We apply the same methodology used in Section J to this
analysis. Table K5 reports the change in total slots that would be
necessary to implement the proposed rule under the Required Retirement
Scenario, absent a responsive increase in Federal appropriations.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20NO23.024
L. Non-Quantified Impacts of Certain Elements of the Proposed Rule
In addition to the effects that are quantified elsewhere in this
analysis, we have identified a select number of provisions that would
have impacts that are not quantified or monetized.
Estimated Impact of Relevant Provisions on Slot Loss
Sections C through G of this RIA monetize the provisions of this
proposed rule that we anticipate would have the largest potential
impact. Some of the provisions described in this section may also
result in costs that have not been monetized. As quantified above, one
potential impact of enacting the proposed standards at current funding
levels is a reduction in Head Start slots in some programs. A reduction
in Head Start slots would reduce access to high-quality early childhood
education for some children ages birth to 5 from low-income families.
However, this impact is difficult to qualify because a substantial
number of current Head Start slots remain unfilled currently, due to
staffing shortage and other constraining factors. A loss of funded
slots that are unfilled would not impact children who are currently
enrolled.
The children who would be impacted by this loss of access would not
receive high-quality services from Head Start and would not experience
the positive outcomes for children and families who participate in the
Head Start program. Some children who lose access to Head Start may
receive early childhood education through State or local preschool
programs, which are offered in many areas of the country. Another
potential impact is that some children who would otherwise have been
served by Head Start may receive early care and education in programs
or settings that lack the quality to adequately support their learning
and development, though we note that, as described in the NPRM
preamble, absent the quality improvements under the proposed rule, Head
Start quality is likely to deteriorate over time. Loss of access to
Head Start may also reduce opportunity for parents and caregivers to
participate in the workforce.
Expected Impact of Preventing and Addressing Lead Exposure (Sec.
1302.48)
This NPRM has new requirements for programs to test the lead levels
in their facilities and if applicable, remediate exposure risks. Below
we summarize findings from a few select research studies. Decades of
research have shown that high lead levels are harmful for children's
development.\287\ Research also shows, however, that lead remediation
has long-term benefits to children's health and economic benefits to
society as they mature into adolescence and beyond. For instance, a
[[Page 80892]]
2002 CDC study found that reduced lead exposure in the United States
since 1976 has resulted in a $110 billion to $319 billion economic
benefit due to higher IQs and worker productivity.\288\ Research has
also found that the lead and copper rule investment from the EPA has
led to an estimated benefit ratio of 35:1 meaning that that for every
$1 invested, the economic return would be about $35.\289\ Furthermore,
a research study that conducted a cost-benefit analysis on every dollar
invested in lead paint control has been estimated to be a $17 to $221
return.\290\ This research suggests there may be a societal benefit
that lead remediation regulations can make. While we cannot estimate
the quantitative cost savings that this provision will have, we note
that testing on its own does not make anyone healthier; the cause-and-
effect chain between testing and health outcomes includes activities
that have costs. We welcome public comment on these costs and on this
analysis more generally, including interpretation of and extrapolation
from the studies referenced above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\287\ Finkelstein, Y., Markowitz, M. E., & Rosen, J. F. (1998).
Low-level lead-induced neurotoxicity in children: an update on
central nervous system effects. Brain research reviews, 27, 168-176.
\288\ Grosse, S. D., Matte, T. D., Schwartz, J., & Jackson, R.
J. (2002). Economic gains resulting from the reduction in children's
exposure to lead in the United States. Environmental health
perspectives, 110(6), 563-569. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.02110563.
\289\ Levin, R., & Schwartz, J. (2023). A better cost:benefit
analysis yields better and fairer results: EPA's lead and copper
rule revision. Environmental Research, 229, 115738. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2023.115738.
\290\ Gould, E. (2009). Childhood Lead Poisoning: Conservative
Estimates of the Social and Economic Benefits of Lead Hazard
Control. Environmental Health Perspectives, 117(7). https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.0800408.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional Impact of Workforce Supports: Staff Wages and Benefits
(Sec. 1302.90)
In addition to the effects (costs) quantified in this RIA, these
provisions may also result in potential cost savings to governments at
various jurisdictional levels (which are mostly transfers, when
categorized from a society-wide perspective) due to benefit reductions
for ECE workers. Specifically, an increase in wages and benefits for
ECE workers may result in a reduction in the number of households
receiving a range of safety net benefits, including LIHEAP, housing
assistance, Medicaid/CHIP, SNAP, SSI, TANF, and WIC. Additionally,
increases in staff wages will likely have an outsized impact on
improving educational quality of Head Start programming. When teachers
are fairly compensated their stress likely decreases, and dedication
and commitment to their work likely improves. This will improve the
quality of services delivered in programs. While descriptive and non-
causal, research illustrates that low wages are a primary driver of
high turnover in early childhood educator positions.\291\ Research has
also demonstrated that improved wages are correlated with higher
quality programs.\292\ These research findings are not causal, and, to
the best of our knowledge, no cost-benefit analysis has been conducted
related to the impact of increased wages in the early childhood sector.
Therefore, our conclusions here are tentative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\291\ Caven, M., Khanani, N., Zhang, X., & Parker, C.E. (2021).
Center-and program-level factors associated with turnover in the
early childhood education workforce (REL 2021-069). U.S. Department
of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for
Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational
Laboratory Northeast & Islands.; Whitebook, M., Howes, C., &
Phillips, D. (2014). Worthy Work, STILL Unlivable Wages: The Early
Childhood Workforce 25 Years after the National Child Care Staffing
Study. Center for the Study of Child Care Employment. https://cscce.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/publications/ReportFINAL.pdf.
\292\ Isaccs, J., Adelstein, S., Kuehn, D. (2018). Early
Childhood Educator Compensation in the Washington Region. Urban
Institute. https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/97676/early_childhood_educator_compensation_final_2.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By improving wages, teachers may choose to stay in the profession
longer and may spend more time building the skills necessary to support
high-quality early childhood programming and high-quality teacher-child
interactions. Furthermore, improvements in staff retention overall due
to improved wages and benefits likely promotes more stable staffing
across the program and provides continuity of services for enrolled
children and may also reduce stress and workload for other staff in the
program due to fewer staff vacancies.
It is also likely that there will be potential cost savings from
the effects of this proposed rule mitigating the high expenses
associated with high turnover. When Head Start programs experience
staffing shortages, they will often ask existing staff to work
additional hours to compensate for the lack of adequate coverage. In
some cases, substitute or temporary staff will be hired and sometimes
this comes at an increased cost. Presumably, after the implementation
of this proposed policy, these excess costs (experienced as
remunerations increases for the aggregate collection of Head Start
teachers) will be reduced because the workforce will be more stable and
programs will experience improved retention.
Estimated Impact of Mental Health Services (Sec. 1302 Subpart D;
Subpart H; Subpart I)
In addition to the effects (costs) quantified in Section E of this
RIA, there are numerous additional benefits to enhancing provisions
related to mental health supports. Advancing science in child
development demonstrates that birth to age five is an important period
for brain development and is a critical foundation on which all later
development builds. Mental health and social-emotional well-being
during this period are foundational for family well-being, children's
healthy development, and early learning and are associated with
positive long-term outcomes. Early childhood experiences, like trusting
relationships with caregivers in a stable, nurturing environment, aid
in the development of skills that build resilience. The enhancements to
the requirements for mental health supports would promote higher-
quality services for children in Head Start programs across the country
and would support child, family, and staff well-being.
Specifically, enhancements to Sec. 1302 Subpart D enhances health
program services to explicitly include mental health. These regulatory
changes also reflect a preventative approach to mental health across
comprehensive service areas, such as health and family engagement. The
addition of mental health screening would support programs in having
conversations about mental health early and often. Screening would
facilitate the identification of children, families, and staff with
specific needs and allow for intervention before more time and resource
intensive care becomes necessary. Mental health screening may result in
nominal costs to programs that elect to purchase specific screening
tools. Sec. 1302.45(a) also adds a requirement that a program have a
multidisciplinary team responsible for mental health. We believe this
team would be comprised of existing staff positions so would have an
associated opportunity cost not reflected in budgets.
Estimated Impact of Modernizing Engagement With Families (Sec.
1302.11; Sec. 1302.13; Sec. 1302.15; Sec. 1302.34; Sec. 1302.50)
These provisions enhance existing requirements that programs must
follow when completing their community needs assessments. Programs
would be required to identify communication methods to best engage with
prospective and enrolled families, and to use modern technologies to
streamline
[[Page 80893]]
information gathering and improve communications. There is significant
benefit to families in giving them a voice in the way that programs
choose to communicate. Using communication modalities and methods that
are easiest to families would enhance engagement with Head Start and
increase program accessibility. Programs would also be required to
implement improvements to streamline the enrollment experience for
families. There may be nominal costs for programs to make these
determinations and implement new technologies. Streamlining the
enrollment experience for families would create more user-friendly and
efficient processes, reduce burden and build trust with families, and
support Head Start in more equitably and effectively delivering
services.
Estimated Impact of Community Assessments (Sec. 1302.11)
The changes to these provisions address concerns that Head Start
programs and others in the field have raised about the burdens of the
community needs assessment. These provisions would promote clarity on
the intent of the community assessment, align with best practices, and
increase the effectiveness in how the community assessment is used to
inform key aspects of program design and approach. Requiring a
strategic approach to determine what data to collect prior to
conducting the community needs assessment and how to use the needs
assessment to achieve intended outcomes would promote overall
effectiveness of the community assessment to drive programmatic
decision making. They may also facilitate reductions in cost of time-
consuming or complex assessment and analytical techniques and reduce
barriers to programs being able to use their community assessment data
to effectively guide programmatic decisions. Programs would also be
allowed to use publicly or local available data as a proxy, which would
reduce duplication of efforts and further lessen burden, and may
facilitate coordination with other community programs.
Other new requirements related to the collection of specific
elements in the community needs assessment, such as geographic
location, race, ethnicity, and languages, would facilitate Head Start's
ability to understand the diversity of populations most in need of
services, which in turn would help promote equity, inclusion, and
accessibility in service delivery. Factors related to transportation
needs and resources in communities reflects that transportation remains
a significant barrier for many of the hardest to serve families and
impedes Head Start's mission. Ensuring transportation needs and
resources are part of the data that informs a program's design and
service delivery would enable Head Start to more effectively meet the
needs of families and improve access to Head Start services.
Estimated Impact of Adjustment for Excessive Shelter Costs for
Eligibility Determination (Sec. 1302.12)
This provision would allow a program to adjust a family's income to
account for excessive shelter costs. This provision reflects a transfer
of benefits from one potentially eligible family to another, however
consistent with Section 1302.14 and 1302.13 in the HSPPS which is
unchanged in this current proposal, programs will continue to establish
selection criteria that prioritizes selection of participants based on
need. There may be nominal implementation costs as Head Start programs
implement these new income calculations. Children whose families have
few resources because they earn near-poverty level wages and live in
areas with a high-cost of living would newly be eligible for Head
Start. This would enable Head Start to continue to prioritize the
enrollment of families most in need of services. This provision also
increases alignment with other means-tested Federal programs (e.g.,
SNAP, see relevant section in Preamble for details) that use an income
adjustment to account for excessive shelter costs.
Estimated Impact of Migrant and Seasonal Head Start Eligibility (Sec.
1302.12)
The modifications to eligibility requirements in this provision
would benefit MSHS programs and families by reducing barriers to
enrolling farmworker families in need of program services. The
provisions related to eligibility duration would address an existing
inequity between infants and toddlers served in Early Head Start
programs and those served in MSHS programs. The existing requirement
creates an inequity because infants and toddlers served in Early Head
Start programs can receive services for the duration of the program,
meaning until they turn three and age out of the program, whereas the
MSHS family is no longer considered eligible for the program after two
years. Therefore, the young children of agricultural workers are not
provided the same potential duration of services as infants and
toddlers served by Early Head Start. This change would also promote
continuity for families served by MSHS and reduce paperwork for
families and programs.
Estimated Impact of Serving Children With Disabilities (Sec. 1302.14)
These provisions clarify language to address an inconsistency
between the HSPPS and the Act. This provision reflects a transfer of
benefits from one potentially eligible family to another. A non-
quantifiable benefit of this provision would be addressing confusion
caused by the discrepancy. Further clarification that the requirement
to fill ten percent of slots with children with disabilities under IDEA
is a floor and not a ceiling would support Head Start in maximizing
services to children with disabilities who would benefit from the
program's strong focus on inclusive early childhood settings.
Expected Benefits of Ratios in Center-Based Early Head Start Programs
(Sec. 1302.21)
This provision encourages programs to consider reducing teacher-
child ratios for their youngest classrooms, to provide the highest
quality care and learning opportunities for infants enrolled in Head
Start. This provision has numerous non-quantifiable benefits for
children and families served by Head Start. A warm, responsive
relationship between an infant and caregiver is a crucial foundation
for infants to learn and develop. A lower teacher-child ratio would
support the establishment of this strong, secure relationship and allow
for more individualized attention between the infant and teacher. A
lower ratio of one teacher to three infants also aligns with the
National Resource Center for Health and Safety in Child Care and Early
Education recommendations for center-based programs with classrooms
where the majority of children are under 12 months old. Further,
research indicates that, generally, lower teacher-child ratios in ECE
classrooms relate to higher classroom quality and stronger child
outcomes. As the premier ECE provider in the United States, Head Start
sets an example for early childhood programs nationwide, and this
provision would further support high-quality early childhood services
across the country.
Expected Benefits of Center-Based Service Duration for Early Head Start
(Sec. 1302.21)
This provision clarifies that the 1,380 hours of planned class
operations for children in EHS should occur across a minimum of 46
weeks per year. We believe most programs are already
[[Page 80894]]
operating year-round; however, a small number of programs may be
operating less than a full year and we would like to promote full-year
services for infants and toddlers in EHS. These programs may incur
costs associated with transitioning to full-year services. However,
there are substantial non-quantifiable benefits to young children's
development. Research on full-day and full-year programs suggests
children in poverty benefit from longer exposure to high-quality early
learning programs than what is provided by part-day and/or part-year
programs.
Expected Benefits of Family Service Worker Family Assignments (Sec.
1302.52)
This provision seeks to ensure that an individual family services
staff is assigned to work with no greater than 40 families. Based on
internal data, 42 percent of programs have caseloads that exceed 40
families. We estimate that a total of 3,231 new family services staff
would need to be hired to meet this new requirement at a total cost of
$170,052,632. There are numerous non-quantifiable benefits to lower
family services staff caseloads. This provision would address staff
well-being, reduce burnout, and lower expressions of job frustration
and dissatisfaction. For staff well-being, large caseloads are
associated with staff burnout and turnover, feeling overwhelmed, and
expression of job frustration and dissatisfaction. This provision would
improve the quality of family services and improve staff well-being and
reflects best practice in the field.
Expected Benefits of Participation in Quality Rating and Improvement
Systems (Sec. 1302.53)
This provision encourages Head Start programs to participate in
State QRIS to the extent practicable if the State system has strategies
in place to support their participation. We assume that programs newly
participating in QRIS would incur additional costs and burden from
substantive changes in the form of revised processes and potentially
additional or different documentation, as well as possible duplication
of monitoring and assessment processes. Non-quantifiable benefits of
participation in QRIS include continued quality improvement efforts,
providing a common metric through which families can understand and
make decisions about program options, and aligning standards across a
statewide early care and education system.
Expected Benefits of Services to Enrolled Pregnant People (Sec.
1302.80; Sec. 1302.82)
This provision enhances services to enrolled pregnant people by
requiring the newborn visit to include a discussion of maternal mental
and physical health, infant health, and support for basic needs; and
requiring programs to track and record information on service delivery
for enrolled pregnant women. We assume programs may incur nominal costs
associated with enhancements to record-keeping. Non-quantifiable
benefits of these provisions would be assessing the child care, health,
and mental health needs of mothers in the critical period after child
birth, which would enable Head Start to provide support to mothers and
identify opportunities for collaboration and intervention. Improved
tracking and recording of services to enrolled pregnant women would
also support OHS in understanding the services provided and identifying
how to best be responsive to the needs of enrolled pregnant people.
These records would also be used to validate the use of Federal funds
to serve pregnant people and to inform ongoing conversations program
staff have with the pregnant people about her needs before and after
the baby is born.
Expected Benefits of Standards of Conduct (Sec. 1302.90)
These provisions revise current requirements to ensure we are as
clear as possible and that our requirements reflect current best
practices and more precise terminology around standards of conduct.
These changes would result in aligned definitions with other Federal
resources and clarifications to existing requirements. Non-quantifiable
benefits of these enhancements include critical supports to child
safety by supporting staff in recognizing potential child abuse and
neglect and understanding their legal responsibility as a mandated
reporter, which would improve child safety and program response to
violations of standards of conduct.
Expected Benefits of Staff Training to Support Child Safety (Sec.
1302.92; Sec. 1302.101)
These provisions enhance requirements and frequency of staff
training and professional development. We assume there would be nominal
costs associated with more frequent training. Non-quantifiable benefits
of an increased frequency of training would be to allow programs to
offer staff advanced training opportunities on areas of local
importance or greater complexity, such as culturally responsive
practices in reporting, issues related to disproportionate reporting,
and information about at-risk populations, as well as emphasize the
importance of child safety in Head Start. This proposed policy change
would also create more equitable opportunities for staff to understand
and discuss their ethical and legal responsibilities. Annual training
on positive strategies to understand and support children's social and
emotional development would also enhance the use of positive strategies
and have the added benefit of increasing opportunities for peer support
as appropriate.
Expected Benefits of Definition of Income (Sec. 1305.2)
This provision would revise the definition of income by providing a
clear and finite list of what is considered income and what is not
considered income. Non-quantifiable benefits of this provision include
making the policy less burdensome and complicated for programs to
implement, ensuring programs can more easily identify an applicants'
income, and promote consistent interpretation on what to include in
calculating income across programs.
Initial Small Entity Analysis
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires Agencies to analyze
regulatory options that would minimize any significant impact of a rule
on small entities. This analysis, as well as other sections in this
document and the Preamble of the proposed rule, serves as the Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, as required under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act.
A. Description and Number of Affected Small Entities
The SBA maintains a Table of Small Business Size Standards Matched
to North American Industry Classification System Codes (NAICS).\293\ We
replicate the SBA's description of this table:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\293\ U.S. Small Business Administration (2023). ``Table of Size
Standards.'' March 17, 2023 https://www.sba.gov/document/support--table-size-standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table lists small business size standards matched to
industries described in the North American Industry Classification
System (NAICS), as modified by the Office of Management and Budget,
effective January 1, 2022.
The size standards are for the most part expressed in either
millions of dollars (those preceded by ``$'') or number of employees
(those without the
[[Page 80895]]
``$''). A size standard is the largest that a concern can be and still
qualify as a small business for Federal Government programs. For the
most part, size standards are the average annual receipts or the
average employment of a firm. How to calculate average annual receipts
and average employment of a firm can be found in 13 CFR 121.104 and 13
CFR 121.106, respectively.
This proposed rule will impact small entities in NAICS category
624410, Child Care Services, which has a size standard of $9.5 million
dollars. We assume that most Head Start programs, if not all, are below
this threshold and are considered small entities.
B. Description of the Potential Impacts of the Rule on Small Entities
In the main analysis, we estimate that about $2.576 billion in
additional funding would be necessary to fully implement the proposed
rule in 2033, which is about a 17% increase above baseline funding
levels. Most of the funding needed is proportional to the size of the
Head Start program or agency, so we do not separately assess the
potential impacts of the rule on small entities of different sizes. The
Department considers a rule to have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities if it has at least a 3% impact on
revenue on at least 5% of small entities. Since the proposed rule would
likely result in increased expenditures of about 17%, we find that the
proposed rule would likely have a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
C. Alternatives To Minimize the Burden on Small Entities
ACF considered many policy alternatives to the proposed rule, some
of which are quantified in this analysis. Tables I1 through I4
summarize the impacts on expenditures under the wage-parity policy,
reporting yearly estimates, and present value and annualized values
corresponding to 3% and 7% discount rates. This table presents separate
analyses of the following policies: staff wages, staff benefits, staff
breaks, family service worker family assignments, mental health
supports, and preventing and addressing lead exposure. This document
also considers the impacts of expenditures associated with the minimum
pay requirement, and itemized impacts of the lead in water and lead-
based paint policies. These tables and additional analyses in the
narrative of this document enabled ACF to appropriately consider a
range of feasible policy alternatives. This analysis also considers
excluding the following elements of the proposed rule: provisions
related to benefits, provisions related to staff breaks, provisions
related to family service workers, provisions related to mental health
support, and provisions related to lead hazards.
List of Subjects
45 CFR Part 1301
Early education, Grant programs, Head Start, Program governance,
Social programs
45 CFR Part 1302
Compensation, Early education, Grant programs, Head Start, Mental
health, Quality improvement, Social programs, Workforce.
45 CFR Part 1303
Early education, Financial management, Grant programs, Head Start,
Social programs.
45 CFR Part 1304
Accountability, Early education, Grant programs, Head Start,
Monitoring, Social programs.
45 CFR Part 1305
Definitions, Early education, Grant programs, Head Start, Social
programs.
Dated: November 8, 2023.
Xavier Becerra,
Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.
For reasons stated in the preamble, we propose to amend 45 CFR
parts 1301, 1302, 1303, 1304, and 1305 as follows.
PART 1301--PROGRAM GOVERNANCE
0
1. The authority citation for part 1301 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9801 et seq.
0
2. Revise Sec. 1301.1 to read as follows:
Sec. 1301.1 Purpose
An agency, as defined in part 1305 of this chapter, must establish
and maintain a formal structure for program governance that includes a
governing body, a policy council at the agency level and policy
committee at the delegate level, and a parent committee. Governing
bodies have a legal and fiscal responsibility to administer and oversee
the agency's Head Start programs. Policy councils are responsible for
the direction of the agency's Head Start programs.
0
3. Amend Sec. 1301.3 by revising paragraph (a) and removing the word
``grantee'' and adding in its place the words ``grant recipient'' in
paragraph (b)(2).
The revision reads as follows:
Sec. 1301.3 Policy council and policy committee.
(a) Establishing policy councils and policy committees. Each agency
must establish and maintain a policy council responsible for the
direction of the Head Start program at the agency level, and a policy
committee at the delegate level. If an agency delegates operational
responsibility for the entire Head Start program to one delegate
agency, the policy council and policy committee may be the same body.
* * * * *
0
4. Amend Sec. 1301.4 by revising paragraph (b)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 1301.4 Parent committees.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) Within the guidelines established by the governing body, policy
council or policy committee, participate in the recruitment and
screening of Head Start employees.
PART 1302--PROGRAM OPERATIONS
0
5. The authority for part 1302 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9801 et seq.
0
6. Revise Sec. 1302.1 to read as follows:
Sec. 1302.1 Overview
This part implements these statutory requirements in sections 641A,
645, 645A, and 648A of the Act by describing all of the program
performance standards that are required to operate Head Start
Preschool, Early Head Start, American Indian and Alaska Native and
Migrant or Seasonal Head Start programs. The part covers the full range
of operations from enrolling eligible children and providing program
services to those children and their families, to managing programs to
ensure staff are qualified and supported to effectively provide
services. This part also focuses on using data through ongoing program
improvement to ensure high-quality service. As required in the Act,
these provisions do not narrow the scope or quality of services covered
in previous regulations. Instead, these regulations raise the quality
standard to reflect science and best practices, and streamline and
simplify requirements so programs can better understand what is
required for quality services.
Subpart A--Eligibility, Recruitment, Selection, Enrollment, and
Attendance
Sec. 1302.10 [Amended]
0
7. Amend Sec. 1302.10 in the first sentence by removing the word
[[Page 80896]]
``grantee'' and adding in its place the words ``grant recipient''.
0
8. Amend Sec. 1302.11 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 1302.11 Determining community strengths, needs, and resources.
* * * * *
(b) Community wide strategic planning and needs assessment
(community assessment). (1) A program must conduct a community
assessment at least once over the five-year grant period to:
(i) Identify populations most in need of services including
relevant family or child risk factors;
(ii) Inform the program's design and service delivery to reflect
needs and diversity of the community, and to promote equity, inclusion,
and accessibility;
(iii) Inform the enrollment, recruitment, and selection process to
prioritize the enrollment of those populations with relevant risk
factors identified under paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section;
(iv) Identify strengths and resources in the community that can be
leveraged for service delivery, coordination, and partnership efforts
including in the delivery of education, health, nutrition, and
referrals to social services to eligible children and families;
(v) Identify the communication methods and modalities available to
the program that best engage with prospective and enrolled families of
all abilities.
(2) In conducting the community assessment, a program must collect
and utilize data that describes community strengths, needs, and
resources and include, at a minimum:
(i) Relevant demographic and other data about eligible children and
expectant mothers, including:
(A) Children living in poverty;
(B) Children experiencing homelessness in collaboration with, to
the extent possible, McKinney-Vento Local Education Agency Liaisons (42
U.S.C. 11432 (6)(A));
(C) Children in foster care;
(D) Children with disabilities, including types of disabilities and
relevant services and resources provided to these children by community
agencies; and
(E) Geographic location, race, ethnicity, and languages they speak.
(ii) The education, health, nutrition and social service needs of
eligible children and their families, including prevalent social or
economic factors, such as transportation needs, that impact their well-
being;
(iii) Typical work, school, and training schedules of parents with
eligible children;
(iv) Other child development, child care centers, and family child
care programs that serve eligible children, including home visiting,
publicly funded State and local preschools, and the approximate number
of eligible children served;
(v) Resources that are available in the community to address the
needs of eligible children and their families, especially
transportation resources; and,
(vi) Strengths of the community.
(3) Programs should have a strategic approach:
(i) To determine what data to acquire to reach goals in paragraph
(b)(1) of this section prior to conducting the community assessment and
(ii) For how to use the data acquired to reach goals in paragraph
(b)(1) of this section after conducting the community assessment
(4) When determining what data to acquire under paragraph (b)(2) of
this section, if the burden or cost to acquire certain data is
unreasonable, programs should identify other publicly or locally
available data that could be used as a proxy.
(5) A program must annually review and, where needed as determined
by the program, update the community assessment to identify any
significant shifts in community demographics, needs, and resources that
may impact program design and service delivery. Programs must consider
how the annual update can inform and support management approaches for
continuous quality improvement, program goals, ongoing oversight, and
results from their self-assessment as required in subpart J of this
part (Sec. Sec. 1302.101 through 1302.103).
(6) A program must consider whether the characteristics of the
community allow it to include children from diverse economic
backgrounds that would be supported by other funding sources, including
private pay, in addition to the program's eligible funded enrollment. A
program must not enroll children from diverse economic backgrounds if
it would result in a program serving less than its eligible funded
enrollment.
0
9. Amend Sec. 1302.12 by revising paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2)
introductory text, (b)(2)(i), (e)(1)(ii), (e)(4), (f), (i)(1), and
(j)(3) and (4), adding paragraph (j)(5), and revising paragraph (l) to
read as follows:
Sec. 1302.12 Determining, verifying, and documenting eligibility.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) For Early Head Start, except when the child is transitioning to
Head Start Preschool, a child must be an infant or a toddler younger
than three years old.
(2) For Head Start Preschool, a child must:
(i) Be at least three years old or, turn three years old by the
date used to determine eligibility for public school in the community
in which the Head Start Preschool program is located; and,
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) The Tribe has resources within its grant, without using
additional funds from HHS intended to expand Head Start services, to
enroll pregnant women or children whose family incomes exceed low-
income guidelines or who are not otherwise eligible; and,
* * * * *
(4) An Indian Tribe or Tribes that operates both an Early Head
Start program and a Head Start Preschool program may, at its
discretion, at any time during the grant period involved, reallocate
funds between the Early Head Start program and the Head Start Preschool
program in order to address fluctuations in client populations,
including pregnant women and children from birth to compulsory school
age. The reallocation of such funds between programs by an Indian Tribe
or Tribes during a year may not serve as a basis for any reduction of
the base grant for either program in succeeding years.
(f) Migrant or Seasonal eligibility requirements. A child is
eligible for Migrant or Seasonal Head Start, if the family meets an
eligibility criterion in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section; and
one family member is primarily engaged in agricultural employment.
* * * * *
(i) * * *
(1) To verify eligibility based on income, program staff must use
tax forms, pay stubs, or other proof of income to determine the family
income for the relevant time period.
(i) The program must calculate total gross income using applicable
sources of income.
(ii) A program may make an adjustment to a family's gross income
calculation for the purposes of determining eligibility in order to
account for excessive housing expenses. A program must use available
bills, bank statements, and other relevant documentation provided by
the family to calculate total annual housing expenses with appropriate
multipliers to:
(A) Determine if a family spends more than 30 percent of their
total gross
[[Page 80897]]
income on housing expenses, as defined in part 1305 of this subchapter,
and
(B) If applicable, reduce the total gross income by the amount
spent in housing expenses above the 30 percent threshold to calculate
the adjusted gross income for determining income eligibility.
(iii) If the family cannot provide tax forms, pay stubs, or other
proof of income for the relevant time period, program staff may accept
written statements from employers, including individuals who are self-
employed, for the relevant time period and use information provided to
calculate total annual income with appropriate multipliers.
(iv) If the family reports no income for the relevant time period,
a program may accept the family's signed declaration to that effect, if
program staff describes efforts made to verify the family's income, and
explains how the family's total income was calculated or seeks
information from third parties about the family's eligibility if the
family gives written consent. If a family gives consent to contact
third parties, program staff must adhere to program safety and privacy
policies and procedures and ensure the eligibility determination record
adheres to paragraph (k)(2) of this section.
(v) If the family can demonstrate a significant change in income
for the relevant time period, program staff may consider current income
circumstances.
* * * * *
(j) * * *
(3) If a child moves from an Early Head Start program to a Head
Start Preschool program, program staff must verify the family's
eligibility again.
(4) If a program operates both an Early Head Start and a Head Start
Preschool program, and the parents wish to enroll their child who has
been enrolled in the program's Early Head Start, the program must
ensure, whenever possible, the child receives Head Start Preschool
services until enrolled in school, provided the child is eligible.
(5) If a program operates a Migrant and Seasonal Head Start
program, children younger than age three participating in the program
remain eligible until they turn three years old consistent with
paragraph (j)(2) of this section.
* * * * *
(l) Program policies and procedures on violating eligibility
determination regulations. A program must establish written policies
and procedures that describe all actions taken against staff who
intentionally violate Federal and program eligibility determination
regulations and who enroll pregnant women and children that are not
eligible to receive Head Start services.
* * * * *
0
10. Revise Sec. 1302.13 to read as follows:
Sec. 1302.13 Recruitment of children.
In order to reach those most in need of services, a program must
develop and implement a recruitment process designed to actively inform
all families with eligible children within the recruitment area of the
availability of program services. A program must use modern
technologies to encourage and assist families in applying for admission
to the program, and to reduce the family's administrative and paperwork
burden in the application and enrollment process. A program must
include specific efforts to actively locate and recruit children with
disabilities and other vulnerable children, including homeless children
and children in foster care.
0
11. Amend Sec. 1302.14 by revising paragraph (a)(3), adding paragraph
(a)(5), revising paragraph (b)(1), and adding paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1302.14 Selection process.
(a) * * *
(3) If a program operates in a service area where Head Start
Preschool eligible children can enroll in high-quality publicly funded
pre-kindergarten for a full school day, the program must prioritize
younger children as part of the selection criteria in paragraph (a)(1)
of this section. If this priority would disrupt partnerships with local
education agencies, then it is not required. An American Indian and
Alaska Native or Migrant or Seasonal Head Start program must consider
whether such prioritization is appropriate in their community.
* * * * *
(5) A program may consider the enrollment of children of staff
members as part of the selection criteria in paragraph (a)(1) of this
section.
(b) * * *
(1) A program must ensure at least 10 percent of its total actual
enrollment is filled by children eligible for services under IDEA,
unless the responsible HHS official grants a waiver.
* * * * *
(d) Understanding barriers to enrollment. A program is required to
use data from the selection process to understand why children selected
for the program do not enroll or attend, such as a lack of
transportation being a barrier to enrolling once they are selected. A
program must use this data to inform ongoing program improvement
efforts as described in Sec. 1302.102(c) to promote enrolling the
children most in need of program services.
0
12. Amend Sec. 1302.15 by revising paragraph (b)(2) and adding
paragraph (g) to read as follows:
Sec. 1302.15 Enrollment.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) Under exceptional circumstances, a program may maintain a
child's enrollment in Head Start Preschool for a third year, provided
that family income is verified again. A program may maintain a child's
enrollment in Early Head Start as described in Sec. 1302.12(j)(2).
* * * * *
(g) User-friendly enrollment process. A program must regularly
examine their enrollment processes and implement any identified
improvements to streamline the enrollment experience for families.
0
13. Amend Sec. 1302.16 by adding paragraph (a)(2)(v) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1302.16 Attendance.
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(v) Examine barriers to regular attendance, such as access to safe
and reliable transportation, and where possible, provide or facilitate
transportation for the child if needed;
* * * * *
0
14. Amend Sec. 1302.17 by revising paragraphs (a)(2) through (4),
(b)(2) introductory text, and (b)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 1302.17 Suspension and expulsion.
(a) * * *
(2) A temporary suspension must be used only as a last resort in
extraordinary circumstances where there is a serious safety threat that
has not been reduced or eliminated by the provision of interventions
and supports recommended by the mental health consultant and the
program needs time to put additional appropriate services in place.
(3) Before a program determines whether a temporary suspension is
necessary, a program must engage with a mental health consultant, the
multidisciplinary team responsible for mental health, collaborate with
the parents, and utilize appropriate community resources--such as
behavior coaches, psychologists, other appropriate specialists, or
other resources--as needed, to determine no other reasonable option is
appropriate.
(4) If a temporary suspension is deemed necessary, a program must
help
[[Page 80898]]
the child return to full participation in all program activities as
quickly as possible while ensuring child safety. A program must explore
all possible steps and document all steps taken to address the
behavior(s) and supports needed to facilitate the child's safe reentry
and continued participation in the program. Such steps must include, at
a minimum:
(i) Continuing to engage with the parents, mental health
consultant, the multidisciplinary team responsible for mental health,
and other appropriate staff, and continuing to utilize appropriate
community resources;
(ii) Providing additional program supports and services, including
home visits; and,
(iii) Determining whether a referral to a local agency responsible
for implementing IDEA is appropriate, or if the child has an
individualized family service plan (IFSP) or individualized education
program (IEP), consulting with the responsible agency to ensure the
child receives the needed support services.
(b) * * *
(2) When a child exhibits persistent and serious challenging
behaviors, a program must explore all possible steps and document all
steps taken to address such problems, and facilitate the child's safe
participation in the program. Such steps must include, at a minimum,
engaging the parents, mental health consultant, and the
multidisciplinary team responsible for mental health; considering the
appropriateness of providing appropriate services and supports under
section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 to ensure that the child
who satisfies the definition of disability in 29 U.S.C. 705(9)(b) of
the Rehabilitation Act is not excluded from the program on the basis of
disability, and consulting with the parents and the child's teacher,
and:
* * * * *
(3) If, after a program has explored all possible steps and
documented all steps taken as described in paragraph (b)(2) of this
section, a program, in consultation with the parents, the child's
teacher, the agency responsible for implementing IDEA (if applicable),
the mental health consultant, and the multidisciplinary team
responsible for mental health determines that the child's continued
enrollment presents a continued serious safety threat to the child or
other enrolled children and determines the program is not the most
appropriate placement for the child, the program must work with such
entities to directly facilitate the transition of the child to a more
appropriate placement that can immediately enroll and provide services
to the child.
Subpart B--Program Structure
0
15. Amend Sec. 1302.20 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) and (c)(1) and (2);
0
b. Removing the word ``grantees'' and adding in its place words ``grant
recipients'' in paragraph (c)(3) introductory text;
0
c. Revising paragraphs (c)(3)(i) and (iii);
0
d. Removing the word ``grantees'' and adding in its place words ``grant
recipients'' in paragraph (c)(3)(vi); and
0
e. Revising paragraphs (c)(4) and (d).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 1302.20 Determining program structure.
(a) * * *
(1) A program must choose to operate one or more of the following
program options: center-based, home-based, family child care, or an
approved locally designed variation as described in Sec. 1302.24. The
program option(s) chosen must meet the needs of children and families
based on the community assessment described in Sec. 1302.11(b). A Head
Start Preschool program may not provide only the option described in
Sec. 1302.22(a) and (c)(2).
(2) To choose a program option and develop a program calendar, a
program must consider in conjunction with the annual review of the
community assessment described in Sec. 1302.11(b)(2), whether it would
better meet child and family needs through conversion of existing slots
to full school day or full working day slots, extending the program
year, conversion of existing Head Start Preschool slots to Early Head
Start slots as described in paragraph (c) of this section, and ways to
promote continuity of care and services. A program must work to
identify alternate sources to support full working day services. If no
additional funding is available, program resources may be used.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) Consistent with section 645(a)(5)15 of the Head Start Act,
grant recipients may request to convert Head Start Preschool slots to
Early Head Start slots through the refunding application process or as
a separate grant amendment.
(2) Any grant recipient proposing a conversion of Head Start
Preschool services to Early Head Start services must obtain policy
council and governing body approval and submit the request to their
regional office.
(3) * * *
(i) A grant application budget and a budget narrative that clearly
identifies the funding amount for the Head Start Preschool and Early
Head Start programs before and after the proposed conversion;
* * * * *
(iii) A revised program schedule that describes the program
option(s) and the number of funded enrollment slots for Head Start
Preschool and Early Head Start programs before and after the proposed
conversion;
* * * * *
(4) Consistent with section 645(d)(3)16 of the Act, any American
Indian and Alaska Native grant recipient that operates both an Early
Head Start program and a Head Start Preschool program may reallocate
funds between the programs at its discretion and at any time during the
grant period involved, in order to address fluctuations in client
populations. An American Indian and Alaska Native program that
exercises this discretion must notify the regional office.
(d) Source of funding. A program may consider hours of service that
meet the Head Start Program Performance Standards, regardless of the
source of funding, as hours of planned class operations for the
purposes of meeting the Head Start Preschool and Early Head Start
service duration requirements in this subpart.
0
16. Amend Sec. 1302.21 by revising paragraphs (b)(2), (c)(1)(i),
(c)(2) and (3), and (c)(4) introductory text to read as follows:
Sec. 1302.21 Center-based option.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) A class that serves children under 36 months old must have two
teachers with no more than eight children, or three teachers with no
more than nine children. Each teacher must be assigned consistent,
primary responsibility for no more than four children to promote
continuity of care for individual children. A program is encouraged to
establish a lower teacher to child ratio for the youngest children they
serve, provided that it does not jeopardize continuity of care for
children. A program must minimize teacher changes throughout a child's
enrollment, whenever possible, and consider mixed age group classes to
support continuity of care.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) A program must provide 1,380 annual hours of planned class
operations over the course of at least forty-six weeks per year for all
enrolled children.
* * * * *
[[Page 80899]]
(2) Head Start Preschool--(i) Service duration for at least 45
percent. A program must provide 1,020 annual hours of planned class
operation over the course of at least eight months per year for at
least 45 percent of its Head Start Preschool center-based funded
enrollment.
(ii) Service duration for remaining slots. A program must provide,
at a minimum, at least 160 days per year of planned class operations if
it operates for five days per week, or at least 128 days per year if it
operates four days per week. Classes must operate for a minimum of 3.5
hours per day.
(iii) Double session. Double session variation must provide classes
for four days per week for a minimum of 128 days per year and 3.5 hours
per day. Each double session class staff member must be provided
adequate break time during the course of the day. In addition,
teachers, assistants, and volunteers must have appropriate time to
prepare for each session together, to set up the classroom environment,
and to give individual attention to children entering and leaving the
center.
(iv) Special provision for alignment with local education agency. A
Head Start Preschool program providing fewer than 1,020 annual hours of
planned class operations or fewer than eight months of service is
considered to meet the requirements described in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of
this section if its program schedule aligns with the annual hours
required by its local education agency for grade one and such alignment
is necessary to support partnerships for service delivery.
(3) Exemption for Migrant or Seasonal Head Start programs. A
Migrant or Seasonal program is not subject to the requirements
described in paragraph (c)(1) or (2) of this section, but must make
every effort to provide as many days and hours of service as possible
to each child and family.
(4) Calendar planning. A program must:
* * * * *
0
17. Amend Sec. 1302.22 by revising paragraphs (a) and (c)(2)
introductory text to read as follows:
Sec. 1302.22 Home-based option.
(a) Setting. The home-based option delivers the full range of
services, consistent with Sec. 1302.20(b), through visits with the
child's parents, primarily in the child's home and through group
socialization opportunities in a Head Start classroom, community
facility, home, or on field trips. For Early Head Start programs, the
home-based option may be used to deliver services to some or all of a
program's enrolled children. For Head Start Preschool programs, the
home-based option may only be used to deliver services to a portion of
a program's enrolled children.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) Head Start Preschool. A Head Start Preschool home-based program
must:
* * * * *
0
18. Amend Sec. 1302.23 by revising paragraphs (b)(2) through (4) to
read as follows:
Sec. 1302.23 Family child care option.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) Mixed age with preschoolers. When there is one family child
care provider, with a mixed-age group of children that includes
children over 36 months of age, the maximum group size is six children
and no more than two of the six may be under 24 months of age. When
there are two providers, the maximum group size is twelve children with
no more than four of the twelve children under 24 months of age.
(3) Infants and toddlers only. When there is one family child care
provider with a group of children that are all under 36 months of age,
the maximum group size is four children, and no more than two of the
four children may be under 18 months of age.
(4) Maintaining ratios. A program must maintain appropriate ratios
during all hours of program operation. A program must ensure providers
have systems to ensure the safety of any child not within view for any
period. A program must make substitute staff available with the
necessary training and experience to ensure quality services to
children are not interrupted.
* * * * *
0
19. Amend Sec. 1302.24 by revising paragraphs (c)(1), (3), and (5) and
removing paragraph (d).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 1302.24 Locally-designed program option variations.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) The responsible HHS official may waive one or more of the
requirements contained in Sec. Sec. 1302.21(b), (c)(1)(i), and
(c)(2)(i); 1302.22(a) through (c); and 1302.23(b) and (c), but may not
waive ratios or group size for children under 24 months. Center-based
locally designed options must meet the minimums described in section
640(k)(1) of the Act for center-based programs.
* * * * *
(3) If the responsible HHS official approves a waiver to allow a
program to operate below the minimums described in Sec.
1302.21(c)(2)(i), a program must meet the requirements described in
Sec. 1302.21(c)(2)(ii), or in the case of a double session variation,
a program must meet the requirements described in Sec.
1302.21(c)(2)(iii).
* * * * *
(5) In order to receive a waiver of service duration, a program
must meet the requirement in paragraph (c)(4) of this section, provide
supporting evidence that it better meets the needs of parents than the
applicable service duration minimums described in Sec. 1302.21(c)(1)
and (c)(2)(i), Sec. 1302.22(c), or Sec. 1302.23(c), and assess the
effectiveness of the variation in supporting appropriate development
and progress in children's early learning outcomes.
0
20. Amend Sec. 1302.34 by adding paragraph (b)(9) to read as follows:
Sec. 1302.34 Parent and family engagement in education and child
development services.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(9) The communication methods and modalities utilized by the
program are the best available to engage with prospective and enrolled
families of all abilities.
Subpart D--Health and Mental Health Program Services
0
21. Revise the heading for subpart D to read as set forth above.
0
22. Amend Sec. 1302.40 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 1302.40 Purpose.
* * * * *
(b) A program must establish and maintain a Health and Mental
Health Services Advisory Committee that includes Head Start parents,
professionals, and other volunteers from the community.
0
23. Revise Sec. 1302.41 to read as follows:
Sec. 1302.41 Collaboration and communication with parents.
(a) For all activities described in this part, programs must
collaborate with parents as partners in the health, mental health, and
well-being of their children in a linguistically and culturally
appropriate manner and communicate with parents about their child's
health and mental health needs and development concerns in a timely and
effective manner.
(b) At a minimum, a program must:
(1) Obtain advance authorization from the parent or other person
with legal authority for all health, mental health, and developmental
procedures
[[Page 80900]]
administered through the program or by contract or agreement, and,
maintain written documentation if they refuse to give authorization for
health and mental health services; and,
(2) Share with parents the policies for health or mental health
emergencies that require rapid response on the part of staff or
immediate medical attention.
0
24. Amend Sec. 1302.42 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (b)(1)(i) and (b)(4); and
0
b. Removing the word ``grantee'' and adding in its place the words
``grant recipient'' in paragraph (e)(2).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 1302.42 Child health status and care.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) Obtain determinations from health care and oral health care
professionals as to whether or not the child is up-to-date on a
schedule of age appropriate preventive and primary medical, mental
health, and oral health care, based on: the well-child visits and
dental periodicity schedules as prescribed by the Early and Periodic
Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment (EPSDT) program of the Medicaid
agency of the State in which they operate, immunization recommendations
issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and any
additional recommendations from the local Health and Mental Health
Services Advisory Committee that are based on prevalent community
health problems;
* * * * *
(4) A program must identify each child's nutritional health needs,
taking into account available health information, including the child's
health records, relevant developmental or mental health concerns, and
family and staff concerns, including special dietary requirements, food
allergies, and community nutrition issues as identified through the
community assessment or by the Health and Mental Health Services
Advisory Committee.
* * * * *
0
25. Amend Sec. 1302.44 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 1302.44 Child nutrition.
* * * * *
(b) Payment sources. A program must use funds from USDA Food,
Nutrition, and Consumer Services child nutrition programs as the
primary source of payment for meal services. Head Start funds may be
used to cover those allowable costs not covered by the USDA.
0
26. Revise Sec. 1302.45 to read as follows:
Sec. 1302.45 Supports for mental health and well-being.
(a) Program-wide wellness supports. To support a program-wide
culture that promotes mental health, social and emotional well-being,
and overall health and safety, a program must have a multidisciplinary
team responsible for mental health that:
(1) Coordinates supports for adult mental health and well-being
including engaging in nurturing and responsive relationships with
families, engaging families in home visiting services, and promoting
staff health and wellness, as described in Sec. 1302.93;
(2) Coordinates supports for positive learning environments for all
children; supportive teacher practices; and strategies for supporting
children with social, emotional, behavioral or mental health concerns;
(3) Secures mental health consultation services no less than once a
month to ensure a mental health consultant is available to partner with
staff and families in a timely and effective manner and examines the
approach to mental health consultation on an annual basis to determine
if it meets the needs of the program;
(4) Ensures that all children receive adequate screening and
appropriate follow up and the parent receives referrals about how to
access services for potential social, emotional, behavioral, or other
mental health concerns, as described in Sec. 1302.33;
(5) Facilitates coordination and collaboration between mental
health and other relevant program services, including education,
disability, family engagement, and health services; and
(6) Builds community partnerships to facilitate access to
additional mental health resources and services, as needed.
(b) Mental health consultants. A program must ensure that mental
health consultants provide consultation services that build the
capacity of adults in an infant or young child's life to strengthen and
support the mental health and social and emotional development of
children, including consultation with:
(1) The program to implement strategies that promote a program-wide
culture of mental health, prevent mental health challenges from
developing, and identify and support children with mental health and
social and emotional concerns;
(2) Child and family services staff to implement strategies that
build nurturing and responsive relationships and create positive
learning environments that promote the mental health and social and
emotional development of all children;
(3) Staff who have contact with children to understand and
appropriately respond to prevalent child mental health concerns,
including internalizing problems such as appearing withdrawn;
externalizing problems such as behavioral concerns; and how exposure to
trauma and substance use can influence risk;
(4) Families and staff to understand mental health and access
mental health interventions or supports, if needed, including in the
event of a natural disaster or crisis;
(5) The program to implement policies to limit suspension and
prohibit expulsion as described in Sec. 1302.17; and
(6) The program to support the well-being of children and families
involved in any significant child health, mental health, or safety
incident described in Sec. 1302.102(d)(1)(ii).
0
27. Amend Sec. 1302.46 by revising paragraphs (b)(1)(iii) and (iv),
(b)(2) introductory text, and (b)(2)(ii) and (iii), and adding
paragraph (b)(2)(iv) to read as follows:
Sec. 1302.46 Family support services for health, nutrition, and
mental health.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) Learn about healthy pregnancy and postpartum care, as
appropriate, including breastfeeding support and treatment options for
parental mental health, including depression, anxiety, and substance
use concerns;
(iv) Discuss information related to their child's mental health
with staff, including typical and atypical behavior and development,
and how to appropriately respond to their child and promote their
child's social and emotional development; and,
* * * * *
(2) A program must provide ongoing support to assist parents'
navigation through health and mental health systems to meet the general
health and specifically identified needs of their children and must
assist parents:
* * * * *
(ii) In understanding the results of diagnostic and treatment
procedures as well as plans for ongoing care;
(iii) In familiarizing their children with services they will
receive while enrolled in the program and to enroll and participate in
a system of ongoing family health care; and
(iv) In providing information about how to access evidence-based
mental health services for young children and
[[Page 80901]]
their families, including referrals if appropriate.
0
28. Amend Sec. 1302.47 by revising paragraphs (b)(1)(iii), (b)(5)
introductory text, and (b)(5)(i), (iii), and (v) to read as follows:
Sec. 1302.47 Safety practices.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) Free from pollutants, hazards and toxins that are accessible
to children and could endanger children's safety including lead
consistent with Sec. 1302.48;
* * * * *
(5) Safety practices. All staff, consultants, contractors, and
volunteers follow appropriate practices to keep children safe during
all activities, including, at a minimum:
(i) Reporting of suspected or known child abuse and neglect, as
defined by the Federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA)
(42 U.S.C. 5101 note), including that staff comply with applicable
Federal, State, local, and Tribal laws;
* * * * *
(iii) Appropriate supervision of children at all times;
* * * * *
(v) All standards of conduct described in Sec. 1302.90(c)(ii);
and,
* * * * *
0
29. Add Sec. 1302.48 to subpart D to read as follows:
Sec. 1302.48 Preventing and Addressing Lead Exposure.
(a) Preventing and addressing lead exposure through water. A
program must address lead in water from water fixtures used for human
consumption in Head Start facilities constructed before 2014 and where
lead service lines, plumbing, or fixtures may still exist, including,
at a minimum:
(1) Sample and test water in such fixtures for lead on an annual
basis, or, if approved by the governing body, a proportion of water in
such fixtures each year to ensure they are tested at least once every
five years;
(2) Sample and test water in such fixtures following remediation
actions to address detectable lead or following a change to the water
profile;
(3) All samples must be collected by an individual adequately
trained to collect samples for lead testing;
(4) All samples must be analyzed by a laboratory that is certified
by Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or the State, territory, or
Tribe for testing lead in drinking water;
(5) Restrict access to such fixtures within 24 hours of determining
the water has a lead sample result at or above 5 parts per billion and
provide notice in a timely manner to parents of children who may have
consumed the water;
(6) Take remediation actions and restrict access until follow-up
lead sample results indicate the water lead level is below 5 parts per
billion;
(7) For lead sample results with detectable lead below 5 parts per
billion, consider taking remediation actions to lower the lead level as
low as practicable; and
(8) If point-of-use devices are used to address lead in water,
appropriately use and maintain point-of-use devices that reduce lead
levels as tested and certified by a third party according to National
Sanitation Foundation/American National Standards Institute (NSF/ANSI)
Standards for lead reduction.
(b) Preventing and addressing lead exposure through paint. A
program must address lead-based paint hazards in paint, dust, and soil
in Head Start facilities constructed before 1978 and where lead-based
paint may still exist, including, at a minimum:
(1) Inspect for lead-based paint and assess for lead-based paint
hazards (that, in the case of dust-lead hazards, are at or above the
clearance levels) by a lead risk assessor certified by the EPA or an
EPA-authorized State, territory, or Tribe;
(2) Immediately restrict access to any identified lead-based paint
hazards (that, in the case of dust-lead hazards, are at or above the
clearance levels) until abatement is completed;
(3) Abate any identified lead-based paint hazards (that, in the
case of dust-lead hazards, are at or above the clearance levels) by a
lead abatement contractor certified by the EPA or EPA-authorized State,
territory, or Tribe; and
(4) Following conclusion of abatement, reassess for lead-based
paint hazards by a certified risk assessor at least once every 2 years
unless two reassessments conducted 2 years apart identify no lead-based
paint hazards (that, in the case of dust-lead hazards, are at or above
the clearance levels) in areas accessible to children.
(c) Notification of lead testing and remediation. A program must
provide notification of results of any lead testing and any planned or
completed remediation actions to parents and staff.
(d) Conflicting requirements. If applicable State or local laws or
regulations have more stringent requirements for lead testing or
remediation, a program should comply with the more stringent
requirements.
Subpart E--Family and Community Engagement Program Services
0
30. Amend Sec. 1302.50 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 1302.50 Family engagement.
(a) Purpose. A program must integrate parent and family engagement
strategies into all systems and program services to support family
well-being and promote children's learning and development. Programs
are encouraged to develop innovative two-generation approaches that
address prevalent needs of families across their program that may
leverage community partnerships or other funding sources. This includes
communicating with families in a format that is most accessible.
* * * * *
0
31. Amend Sec. 1302.52 by revising paragraphs (c)(2) and (3) and (d)
and adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 1302.52 Family partnership services.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) Help families achieve identified individualized family
engagement outcomes; and
(3) Establish and implement a family partnership agreement process
that is jointly developed and shared with parents in which staff and
families to review individual progress, revise goals, evaluate and
track whether identified needs and goals are met, and adjust strategies
on an ongoing basis, as necessary.
(d) Approaches to family services. A program must:
(1) Ensure the family services assignment process takes into
account the varied interests, urgency, and intensity of identified
family needs and goals.
(2) Ensure the planned number of families assigned to work with
individual family services staff is no greater than 40, unless a
program can demonstrate higher family assignments provide high quality
family and community engagement services and maintain reasonable staff
workload as described in paragraph (d)(3) of this section.
(3) Ensure meaningful employee engagement practices address family
services workload experiences, in accordance with Sec. 1302.101(a)(2).
(e) Existing plans and community resources. In implementing this
section, a program must take into consideration any existing plans for
the family made with other community agencies and availability of other
community resources to address family needs, strengths, and goals, in
order to avoid duplication of effort.
[[Page 80902]]
0
32. Amend Sec. 1302.53 by revising paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) to read
as follows:
Sec. 1302.53 Community partnerships and coordination with other early
childhood and education programs.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) Memorandum of understanding. To support coordination between
Head Start Preschool and publicly funded preschool programs, a program
must enter into a memorandum of understanding with the appropriate
local entity responsible for managing publicly funded preschool
programs in the service area of the program, as described in section
642(e)(5)22 of the Act.
(2) Quality Rating and Improvement Systems. A program, with the
exception of American Indian and Alaska Native programs, should
participate in its State or local Quality Rating and Improvement System
(QRIS), to the extent practicable, if a State or local QRIS has a
strategy to support Head Start participation without requiring programs
to duplicate existing documentation from Office of Head Start
oversight.
* * * * *
Subpart F--Additional Services for Children With Disabilities
0
33. Amend Sec. 1302.61 by revising paragraphs (c)(1)(v) and (c)(2)(ii)
to read as follows:
Sec. 1302.61 Additional services for children.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(v) Services are provided in a child's regular Head Start classroom
or family child care home to the greatest extent possible.
(2) * * *
(ii) For children with an IEP who are transitioning out of Head
Start Preschool to kindergarten, collaborate with the parents, and the
local agency responsible for implementing IDEA, to ensure steps are
undertaken in a timely and appropriate manner to support the child and
family as they transition to a new setting.
Subpart G--Transition Services
0
34. Amend Sec. 1302.70 by revising paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) and (d)
to read as follows:
Sec. 1302.70 Transitions from Early Head Start.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) Takes into account the child's developmental level and health
and disability status, progress made by the child and family while in
Early Head Start, current and changing family circumstances and, the
availability of Head Start Preschool, other public pre-kindergarten,
and other early education and child development services in the
community that will meet the needs of the child and family; and
(2) Transitions the child into Head Start Preschool or another
program as soon as possible after the child's third birthday but
permits the child to remain in Early Head Start for a limited number of
additional months following the child's third birthday if necessary for
an appropriate transition.
* * * * *
(d) Early Head Start and Head Start Preschool collaboration. Early
Head Start and Head Start Preschool programs must work together to
maximize enrollment transitions from Early Head Start to Head Start
Preschool, consistent with the eligibility provisions in subpart A of
this part, and promote successful transitions through collaboration and
communication.
* * * * *
0
35. Amend Sec. 1302.71 by revising the section heading to read as
follows:
Sec. 1302.71 Transitions from Head Start Preschool to kindergarten.
* * * * *
0
36. Amend Sec. 1302.72 by revising paragraphs (a) and (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1302.72 Transitions between programs.
(a) For families and children who move out of the community in
which they are currently served, including homeless families and foster
children, a program must undertake efforts to support effective
transitions to other Head Start programs. If Head Start is not
available, the program should assist the family to identify another
early childhood program that meets their needs.
* * * * *
(c) A migrant or seasonal Head Start program must undertake efforts
to support effective transitions to other migrant or seasonal Head
Start or, if appropriate, Early Head Start or Head Start Preschool
programs for families and children moving out of the community in which
they are currently served.
Subpart H--Services to Enrolled Pregnant Women
0
37. Amend Sec. 1302.80 by revising paragraph (d) and adding paragraphs
(e) and (f) to read as follows:
Sec. 1302.80 Enrolled pregnant women.
* * * * *
(d) A program must provide a newborn visit with each mother and
baby to offer support and identify family needs. A program must
schedule the newborn visit within two weeks after the infant's birth.
At a minimum, the visit must include a discussion of the following:
maternal mental and physical health, infant health, and support for
basic needs.
(e) A program must track and record services an enrolled pregnant
woman receives both from the program and through referrals, to help
identify specific prenatal care services and resources the enrolled
pregnant woman needs to support a healthy pregnancy.
(f) The program must provide services that help reduce barriers to
healthy maternal and birthing outcomes for each family, including
services that address disparities across racial and ethnic groups, and
use data on enrolled pregnant women to inform program services.
0
38. Revise Sec. 1302.81 to read as follows:
Sec. 1302.81 Prenatal and postpartum information, education, and
services.
(a) A program must provide enrolled pregnant women, mothers,
fathers, and partners or other family members the prenatal and
postpartum information, education and services that address, as
appropriate, fetal development, the importance of nutrition including
breastfeeding, the risks of alcohol, drugs, and smoking and the
benefits of substance use treatment, labor and delivery, postpartum
recovery, and infant care and safe sleep practices.
(b) A program must support pregnant women, mothers, fathers,
partners, or other family members to access mental health services,
including referrals, as appropriate, to address concerns including
perinatal depression, anxiety, grief or loss, birth trauma, and
substance use.
(c) A program must also address pregnant women's needs for
appropriate supports for social and emotional well-being, nurturing and
responsive caregiving, and father, partner, or other family member
engagement during pregnancy and early childhood.
0
39. Amend Sec. 1302.82 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 1302.82 Family partnership services for enrolled pregnant women.
(a) A program must engage enrolled pregnant women and other
relevant family members, such as fathers, in the family partnership
services as described in Sec. 1302.52 and include a specific focus
[[Page 80903]]
on factors that influence prenatal and postpartum maternal and infant
health. If a program uses a curriculum in the provision of services to
pregnant women, this should be a maternal health curriculum, to support
prenatal and postpartum education needs.
* * * * *
Subpart I--Human Resources Management
0
40. Amend Sec. 1302.90 by revising paragraphs (c)(1)(ii) through (iv)
and adding paragraphs (c)(1)(vi), (e), and (f) to read as follows:
Sec. 1302.90 Personnel Policies.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) Ensure staff, consultants, contractors, and volunteers do not
engage in behaviors that would be reasonably suspected to negatively
impact the health, mental health, or safety of children, including at a
minimum:
(A) Corporal punishment or physically abusive behavior, defined as
intentional use of physical force that results in, or has the potential
to result in, physical injury. Examples include, but are not limited
to, hitting, kicking, shaking, biting, forcibly moving, restraining,
force feeding, or dragging.
(B) Sexually abusive behavior, defined as any completed or
attempted sexual act, sexual contact, or exploitation. Examples
include, but are not limited to, behaviors such as inappropriate
touching, inappropriate filming, or exposing a child to other sexual
activities.
(C) Emotionally harmful or abusive behavior, defined as behaviors
that harm a child's self worth or emotional well-being or behaviors
that are insensitive to a child's developmental needs. Examples
include, but are not limited to, using isolation as discipline, using
or exposing a child to public or private humiliation, or name calling,
shaming, intimidating, or threatening a child.
(D) Neglectful behavior, defined as the failure to meet a child's
basic physical and emotional needs including access to food, education,
medical care, appropriate supervision by an adequate caregiver, and
safe physical and emotional environments. Examples include, but are not
limited to, withholding food as punishment or refusing to change soiled
diapers as punishment.
(iii) Ensure staff, consultants, contractors, and volunteers report
reasonably suspected or known incidents of child abuse and neglect, as
defined by the Federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA)
(42 U.S.C. 5101 note) and in compliance with Federal, State, local, and
Tribal laws.
(iv) Ensure staff, consultants, contractors, and volunteers respect
and promote the unique identity of each individual and do not
stereotype on any basis, including gender, race, ethnicity, culture,
religion, disability, sexual orientation, or family composition;
* * * * *
(vi) Ensure no child is left alone or unsupervised.
* * * * *
(e) Wages--(1) Pay scale. (i) By August 1, 2031, a program must
implement a salary scale, salary schedule, wage ladder, or other
similar pay structure for program staff salaries that incorporates the
requirements in paragraphs (e)(2), (3), and (4) of this section,
reflects salaries or wages for all other staff in the program, promotes
salaries that are comparable to similar services in relevant industries
in their geographic area, and considers, at a minimum,
responsibilities, qualifications, and experience relevant to the
position, and schedule or hours worked.
(ii) After August 1, 2031, a program must review its pay structure
at least once every 5 years to assess whether it continues to meet the
expectations described in paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this section.
(iii) A program must ensure that staff salaries are not in excess
of level II of the Executive Schedule, as required in 42 U.S.C.
9848(b)(1).
(2) Progress to pay parity for education staff with elementary
school staff. (i) A program must make measurable progress towards pay
parity for Head Start teachers with kindergarten through third grade
teachers. By August 1, 2031, a program must demonstrate it has made
progress to parity by ensuring that each Head Start teacher receives an
annual salary that is at least comparable to the annual salary paid to
preschool teachers in public school settings in the program's local
school district, adjusted for responsibilities, qualifications, and
experience. A program may provide annual salaries comparable to a
neighboring school district if the salaries are higher than a program's
local school district.
(ii) A program must make measurable progress towards pay parity for
all other Head Start education staff who work directly with children as
part of their daily job responsibilities. By August 1, 2031, a program
must demonstrate it has made progress to parity by ensuring that each
staff member described in this provision receives an annual salary that
is at least comparable to the salaries described in paragraph (e)(2)(i)
of this section, adjusted for role, responsibilities, qualifications,
and experience.
(iii) If there is not a sufficient number of comparable preschool
teachers in school-based settings in the program's local or neighboring
school district, a program may use an alternative method to implement
the requirements in paragraphs (e)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section to
determine appropriate comparison salaries. The alternative method must
be approved by ACF.
(iv) To demonstrate measurable progress towards pay parity as
described in paragraph (e)(2)(i) of this section, a program must
regularly track data on how wages paid to their education staff compare
to wages paid to preschool through third grade teachers in their local
or neighboring school district.
(3) Salary floor. By August 1, 2031, a program must ensure, at a
minimum, the wage or salary structure established or updated under
paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this section provides all staff with a wage or
salary that is generally sufficient to cover basic needs such as food,
housing, utilities, medical costs, transportation, and taxes, or would
be sufficient if the worker's hourly rate were paid according to a
full-time, full-year schedule (or over 2,080 hours per year).
(4) Wage comparability for all ages served. A program must ensure
the wage or salary structure established or updated under paragraph
(e)(1)(i) of this section does not differ by age of children served for
similar program staff positions with similar qualifications and
experience.
(f) Staff benefits. (1) For each full-time staff member, defined as
those working 30 or more hours per week during the program year, a
program must:
(i) Provide or facilitate access to high-quality affordable health
insurance;
(ii) Offer the accrual of paid sick leave based on hours worked or
days of sick leave updated annually and the accrual at a minimum must
meet the standards set by State or local laws, if applicable;
(iii) Offer job-protected periods of paid family leave consistent
with eligibility for and protections in the Family and Medical Leave
Act (FMLA) or, if applicable, the standards set by State or local laws;
(iv) Offer the accrual of paid vacation or personal time
commensurate with experience or tenure, if the program
[[Page 80904]]
operates longer than a typical school year; and
(v) Offer access to short-term, free or minimal cost behavioral
health services of approximately three to five outpatient visits per
year;
(2) For each part-time staff member, a program must facilitate
access to high-quality, affordable health insurance.
(3) For each staff member, a program must facilitate access to
affordable child care, including connections to child care resource and
referral agencies or other childcare consumer education organizations
and, for staff who meet eligibility guidelines, facilitate enrollment
in the child care subsidy program.
(4) For each staff member, a program must facilitate access to the
Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program, or other applicable
student loan debt relief programs, including timely certification of
employment.
(5) At least once every 5 years, a program must assess and
determine if their benefits package for full-time staff is at least
comparable to those provided to elementary school staff in the
program's local or neighboring school district. Programs may offer
additional benefits to staff, including more enhanced health benefits,
retirement savings plans, flexible savings accounts, or life,
disability, and long-term care insurance.
0
41. Amend Sec. 1302.91 by revising paragraphs (b), (e)(2) and (3), and
(e)(8)(ii) to read as follows:
Sec. 1302.91 Staff qualification and competency requirements
* * * * *
(b) Head Start director. A program must ensure a Head Start
director hired after November 7, 2016, has, at a minimum, a
baccalaureate degree and experience in supervision of staff, fiscal
management, and administration.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(2) Head Start Preschool center-based teacher qualification
requirements. (i) The Secretary must ensure no less than fifty percent
of all Head Start Preschool teachers, nation-wide, have a baccalaureate
degree in child development, early childhood education, or equivalent
coursework.
(ii) As prescribed in section 648A(a)(3)(B) \27\ of the Act, a
program must ensure all center-based teachers have at least an
associate's or bachelor's degree in child development or early
childhood education, equivalent coursework, or otherwise meet the
requirements of section 648A(a)(3)(B) of the Act.
(3) Head Start Preschool assistant teacher qualification
requirements. As prescribed in section 648A(a)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act, a
program must ensure Head Start Preschool assistant teachers, at a
minimum, have a CDA credential or a State-awarded certificate that
meets or exceeds the requirements for a CDA credential, are enrolled in
a program that will lead to an associate or baccalaureate degree or,
are enrolled in a CDA credential program to be completed within two
years of the time of hire.
* * * * *
(8) * * *
(ii) A program must ensure all mental health consultants are
licensed or under the supervision of a licensed mental health
professional. A program must use mental health consultants with
knowledge of and experience in serving young children and their
families.
* * * * *
0
42. Amend Sec. 1302.92 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 1302.92 Training and professional development.
* * * * *
(b) A program must establish and implement a systematic approach to
staff training and professional development designed to assist staff in
acquiring or increasing the knowledge and skills needed to provide
high-quality, comprehensive services within the scope of their job
responsibilities, and attached to academic credit as appropriate, and
integrated with employee engagement practices in accordance with Sec.
1302.101(a)(2). At a minimum, the system must include:
(1) Staff completing a minimum of 15 clock hours of professional
development per year. For teaching staff, such professional development
must meet the requirements described in section 648A(a)(5) of the Act,
and includes creating individual professional development plans as
described in section 648A(f) of the Act.
(2) Annual training on mandatory reporting of suspected or known
child abuse and neglect, that complies with applicable Federal, State,
local, and Tribal laws;
(3) Annual training on positive strategies to understand and
support children's social and emotional development, including the
implementation of tools for preventing and managing challenging
behavior;
(4) Training for child and family services staff on best practices
for implementing family engagement strategies in a systemic way, as
described throughout this part;
(5) Training for child and family services staff, including staff
that work on family services, health, and disabilities, that builds
their knowledge, experience, and competencies to improve child and
family outcomes; and,
(6) Research-based approaches to professional development for
education staff, that are focused on effective curricula
implementation, knowledge of the content in Head Start Early Learning
Outcomes Framework: Ages Birth to Five, partnering with families,
supporting children with disabilities and their families, providing
effective and nurturing adult-child interactions, supporting dual
language learners as appropriate, addressing challenging behaviors,
preparing children and families for transitions (as described in
subpart G of this part), and use of data to individualize learning
experiences to improve outcomes for all children.
* * * * *
0
43. Amend Sec. 1302.93 by adding paragraphs (c) through (e) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1302.93 Staff Health and Wellness.
* * * * *
(c)(1) A program must provide:
(i) For each staff member working a shift lasting between four and
six hours, a minimum of one 15-minute break per shift; and
(ii) For each staff member working a shift lasting six hours or
more, a minimum of one 30-minute break per shift.
(2) If applicable State laws or regulations have more stringent
requirements for breaks, a program should comply with the more
stringent requirements.
(3) During break times for classroom staff described in paragraph
(c)(1) of this section, one teaching staff member may be replaced by
one staff member who does not meet the teaching qualifications required
for the age, provided that this staff member has the necessary training
and experience to ensure safety of children and minimal disruption to
the quality of services.
(4) A program must design and implement a systematic approach to
ensure each staff member that works directly with children as part of
their regular job responsibilities can have access to brief unscheduled
wellness breaks of about 5 minutes as needed while ensuring child
safety.
(d) A program must ensure staff have access to adult size furniture
in classrooms.
(e) A program should cultivate a program-wide culture of wellness
that empowers staff as professionals and
[[Page 80905]]
supports staff to effectively accomplish their job responsibilities in
a high-quality manner, in line with the requirement at Sec.
1302.101(a)(2).
0
44. Amend Sec. 1302.94 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 1302.94 Volunteers.
(a) A program must ensure volunteers have been screened for
appropriate communicable diseases in accordance with State, Tribal or
local laws. In the absence of State, Tribal, or local law, the Health
and Mental Health Services Advisory Committee must be consulted
regarding the need for such screenings.
* * * * *
Subpart J--Program Management and Quality Improvement
0
45. Amend Sec. 1302.101 by revising paragraph (a)(2) and adding
paragraph (a)(5) to read as follows:
Sec. 1302.101 Management System.
(a) * * *
(2) Promotes clear and reasonable roles and responsibilities for
all staff and provides regular and ongoing staff supervision with
meaningful and effective employee engagement practices.
* * * * *
(5) Ensures that all staff are trained to implement reporting
procedures in Sec. 1302.102(d)(1)(ii).
* * * * *
0
46. Amend Sec. 1302.102 by revising the section heading and paragraph
(d)(1)(ii) and adding paragraph (d)(1)(iii) to read as follows:
Sec. 1302.102 Program Goals, Continuous Improvement, and Reporting.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) Reports, as appropriate, to the responsible HHS official
immediately or no later than 3 business days following the incident,
related to:
(A) Any significant incident that affects the health, mental
health, or safety of a child that occurs in a setting where Head Start
services are provided and that involves:
(1) A staff member, contractor, volunteer, or other adult that
participates in either a Head Start program or a classroom at least
partially funded by Head Start, regardless of whether the child
receives Head Start services; or
(2) A child that receives services fully or partially funded by
Head Start or a child that participates in a classroom at least
partially funded by Head Start; or
(B) Circumstances affecting the financial viability of the program;
breaches of personally identifiable information, or program involvement
in legal proceedings; any matter for which notification or a report to
State, Tribal, or local authorities is required by applicable law.
(iii) Reportable incidents under paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this
section include at a minimum:
(A) Any mandated reports regarding agency staff or volunteer
compliance with Federal, State, Tribal, or local laws addressing child
abuse and neglect or laws governing sex offenders;
(B) Incidents that require classrooms or centers to be closed,
except for circumstances such as natural disasters that interfere with
program operations;
(C) Legal proceedings by any party that are directly related to
program operations; and,
(D) All conditions required to be reported under Sec. 1304.12 of
this chapter, including disqualification from the Child and Adult Care
Food Program (CACFP) and license revocation.
(E) Any suspected or known violations of Standards of Conduct under
Sec. 1302.90(c)(1)(ii);
(F) Significant health or safety incidents related to suspected or
known lack of supervision or lack of preventative maintenance; and,
(G) Any unauthorized release of a child.
* * * * *
Sec. 1302.103 [Removed]
0
47. Remove Sec. 1302.103.
PART 1303--FINANCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS
0
48. The authority for part 1303 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9801 et seq.
Subpart D--Delegation of Program Operations
0
49. Revise Sec. 1303.30 to read as follows:
Sec. 1303.30 Grant recipient responsibility and accountability.
A grant recipient is accountable for the services its delegate
agencies provide. The grant recipient supports, oversees and ensures
delegate agencies provide high-quality services to children and
families and meet all applicable Head Start requirements. The grant
recipient can only terminate a delegate agency if the grant recipient
shows cause why termination is necessary and provides a process for
delegate agencies to appeal termination decisions. The grant recipient
retains legal responsibility and authority and bears financial
accountability for the program when services are provided by delegate
agencies.
Subpart E--Facilities
0
50. Amend Sec. 1303.44 by revising paragraph (a)(7) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1303.44 Applications to purchase, construct, and renovate
facilities.
(a) * * *
(7) An estimate by a licensed independent certified appraiser of
the facility's cost value after proposed purchase and associated
repairs and renovations, construction, or major renovation is completed
is required for all facilities activities except for major renovations
to leased property;
* * * * *
0
51. Amend Sec. 1303.48 by revising the section heading to read as
follows:
Sec. 1303 Grant recipient limitations on Federal interest.
* * * * *
Subpart F--Transportation
0
52. Amend Sec. 1303.70 by revising paragraph (c)(1) introductory text
to read as follows:
Sec. 1303.70 Purpose.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) A program that provides transportation services must comply
with all provisions in this subpart. A Head Start Preschool program may
request to waive a specific requirement in this part, in writing, to
the responsible HHS official, as part of an agency's annual application
for financial assistance or amendment and must submit any required
documentation the responsible HHS official deems necessary to support
the waiver. The responsible HHS official is not authorized to waive any
requirements with regard to children enrolled in an Early Head Start
program. A program may request a waiver when:
* * * * *
0
53. Amend Sec. 1303.75 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 1303.75 Children with disabilities.
(a) A program must ensure there are school buses or allowable
alternate vehicles adapted or designed for transportation of children
with disabilities available as necessary to transport such children
enrolled in the program. This requirement does not apply to the
transportation of children receiving home-based services unless school
buses or allowable alternate vehicles are used to transport the other
children served under the home-based
[[Page 80906]]
option by the grant recipient. Whenever possible, children with
disabilities must be transported in the same vehicles used to transport
other children enrolled in the Head Start program.
* * * * *
PART 1303--[AMENDED]
0
54. Further amend part 1303 by:
0
a. Removing the word ``grantee'' and adding the words ``grant
recipient'' in its place wherever it appears;
0
b. Removing the word ``grantees'' and adding the words ``grant
recipients'' in its place wherever it appears; and
0
c. Removing the word ``grantee's'' and adding the words ``grant
recipient's'' in its place wherever it appears.
PART 1304--FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES
0
55. The authority for part 1304 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9801 et seq.
Subpart A--Monitoring, Suspension, Termination, Denial of
Refunding, Reduction in Funding, and Their Appeals
Sec. 1304.5 [Amended]
0
56. Amend Sec. 1304.5 by removing the word ``Grantee's'' and adding in
its place the words ``Grant recipient's'' in the paragraph (c) heading
and removing the word ``grantees'' and adding in its place the words
``grant recipients'' paragraph (c)(1) and the paragraph (e) heading.
Sec. 1304.6 [Amended]
0
57. Amend Sec. 1304.6 by removing the word ``grantees'' and adding in
its place the words ``grant recipients'' in the paragraph (c) heading.
Subpart B--Designation Renewal
0
58. Revise Sec. 1304.10 to read as follows:
Sec. 1304.10 Purpose and scope.
The purpose of this subpart is to set forth policies and procedures
for the designation renewal of Head Start programs. It is intended that
these programs be administered effectively and responsibly; that
applicants to administer programs receive fair and equitable
consideration; and that the legal rights of current Head Start grant
recipients be fully protected. The Designation Renewal System is
established in this part to determine whether Head Start agencies
deliver high-quality services to meet the educational, health,
nutritional, and social needs of the children and families they serve;
meet the program and financial requirements and standards described in
section 641A(a)(1) of the Head Start Act; and qualify to be designated
for funding for five years without competing for such funding as
required under section 641(c) or 645A(b)(12) and (d) of the Head Start
Act. A competition to select a new Head Start agency to replace a Head
Start agency that has been terminated voluntarily or involuntarily is
not part of the Designation Renewal System established in this part,
and is subject instead to the requirements of Sec. 1304.20.
0
59. Amend Sec. 1304.11 by revising the introductory text and
paragraphs (d) and (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 1304.11 Basis for determining whether a Head Start agency will
be subject to an open competition.
A Head Start agency will be required to compete for its next five
years of funding whenever the responsible HHS official determines that
one or more of the following seven conditions existed during the
relevant time period under Sec. 1304.15:
* * * * *
(d) An agency has had a revocation of its license to operate a Head
Start center or program by a State or local licensing agency during the
relevant time period under Sec. 1304.15, and the revocation has not
been overturned or withdrawn before a competition for funding for the
next five-year period is announced. A pending challenge to the license
revocation or restoration of the license after correction of the
violation will not affect application of this requirement after the
competition for funding for the next five-year period has been
announced.
(e) An agency has been suspended from the Head Start program by ACF
during the relevant time period covered by the responsible HHS
official's review under Sec. 1304.15 and the suspension has not been
overturned or withdrawn. If the agency did not have an opportunity to
show cause as to why the suspension should not have been imposed or why
the suspension should have been lifted if it had already been imposed
under this part, the agency will not be required to compete based on
this condition. If an agency has received an opportunity to show cause
and the suspension remains in place, the condition will be implemented.
* * * * *
0
60. Amend Sec. 1304.12 by revising the section heading to read as
follows:
Sec. 1304.12 Grant recipient reporting requirements concerning
certain conditions.
* * * * *
0
61. Revise Sec. 1304.13 to read as follows:
Sec. 1304.13 Requirements to be considered for designation for a
five-year period when the existing grant recipient in a community is
not determined to be delivering a high-quality and comprehensive Head
Start program and is not automatically renewed.
In order to compete for the opportunity to be awarded a five-year
grant, an agency must submit an application to the responsible HHS
official that demonstrates that it is the most qualified entity to
deliver a high-quality and comprehensive Head Start program. The
application must address the criteria for selection listed at section
641(d)(2)58 of the Act for Head Start. Any agency that has had its Head
Start grant terminated for cause in the preceding five years is
excluded from competing in such competition for the next five years. A
Head Start agency that has had a denial of refunding, as defined in 45
CFR part 1305, in the preceding five years is also excluded from
competing.
0
62. Amend Sec. 1304.14 by revising paragraphs (a) introductory text,
(a)(2) and (3), (b), and (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 1304.14 Tribal government consultation under the Designation
Renewal System for when an Indian Head Start grant is being considered
for competition.
(a) In the case of an Indian Head Start agency determined not to be
delivering a high-quality and comprehensive Head Start program, the
responsible HHS official will engage in government-to-government
consultation with the appropriate Tribal government or governments for
the purpose of establishing a plan to improve the quality of the Head
Start program operated by the Indian Head Start agency.
* * * * *
(2) Not more than six months after the implementation of that plan,
the responsible HHS official will reevaluate the performance of the
Indian Head Start agency.
(3) If the Indian Head Start agency is still not delivering a high-
quality and comprehensive Head Start program, the responsible HHS
official will conduct an open competition to select a grant recipient
to provide services for the community currently being served by the
Indian Head Start agency.
(b) A non-Indian Head Start agency will not be eligible to receive
a grant to carry out an Indian Head Start program, unless there is no
Indian Head Start agency available for designation to carry out an
Indian Head Start program.
(c) A non-Indian Head Start agency may receive a grant to carry out
an
[[Page 80907]]
Indian Head Start program only until such time as an Indian Head Start
agency in such community becomes available and is designated pursuant
to this part.
0
63. Amend Sec. 1304.15 by revising paragraphs (a), (b), (c)
introductory text, and (c)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 1304.15 Designation request, review and notification process.
(a) A grant recipient must apply to be considered for Designation
Renewal. A Head Start agency wishing to be considered to have its
designation as a Head Start agency renewed for another five-year period
without competition must request that status from ACF at least 12
months before the end of their five-year grant period or by such time
as required by the Secretary.
(b) ACF will review the relevant data to determine if one or more
of the conditions under Sec. 1304.11 were met by the Head Start agency
during the current project period.
(c) ACF will give notice to grant recipients on Designation Renewal
System status, except as provided in Sec. 1304.14, at least 12 months
before the expiration date of a Head Start agency's current grant,
stating:
(1) The Head Start agency will be required to compete for funding
for an additional five-year period because ACF finds that one or more
conditions under Sec. 1304.11 were met by the agency's program during
the relevant time period described in paragraph (b) of this section,
identifying the conditions ACF found, and summarizing the basis for the
finding; or
* * * * *
Subpart C--Selection of Grant Recipients through Competition
0
64. Revise the heading for subpart C to read as set forth above.
0
65. Amend Sec. 1304.20 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 1304.20 Selection among applicants.
(a) In selecting an agency to be designated to provide Head Start
Preschool, Early Head Start, Migrant or Seasonal Head Start or Tribal
Head Start Preschool or Early Head Start services, the responsible HHS
official will consider the applicable criteria at section 641(d) of the
Head Start Act and any other criteria outlined in the funding
opportunity announcement.
* * * * *
Subpart D--Replacement of American Indian and Alaska Native Grant
Recipients
0
66. Revise the heading for subpart D to read as set forth above.
PART 1304--[AMENDED]
0
67. Further amend part 1304 by:
0
a. Removing the word ``grantee'' and adding the words ``grant
recipient'' in its place wherever it appears; and
0
b. Removing the word ``grantees'' and adding the words ``grant
recipients'' in its place wherever it appears; and
PART 1305--DEFINITIONS
0
68. The authority for part 1305 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9801 et seq.
0
69. Amend Sec. 1305.2 by:
0
a. Adding in alphabetical order definitions for ``Abatement'' and
``Change to the water profile'';
0
b. Revising the definition of ``Continuity of care'';
0
c. Removing the word ``grantee'' and adding in its place the words
``grant recipient'' in the definition of ``Denial of Refunding'';
0
d. Adding in alphabetical order a definition for ``Early Head Start'';
0
e. Removing the definition of ``Early Head Start agency'';
0
f. Adding in alphabetical order a definition for ``Expulsion'';
0
g. Revising the definitions of ``Federal interest'', ``Fixed route'',
and ``Full-working-day'';
0
h. Removing the word ``grantee'' and adding in its place the words
``grant recipient'' in the definition of ``Funded enrollment'';
0
i. Removing the definition of ``Grantee'';
0
j. Adding in alphabetical order definitions for ``Grant recipient'' and
``Head Start'';
0
k. Revising the definition of ``Head Start agency'';
0
l. Adding in alphabetical order definitions for ``Head Start
Preschool'' and ``Housing expenses'';
0
m. Revising the definitions of ``Income'',
0
n. Removing the word ``grantee'' and adding in its place the words
``grant recipient'' in the definition of ``Legal status'';
0
o. Revising the definitions of ``Major renovation'' and ``Migrant
family'';
0
p. Removing the word ``grantee'' and adding in its place the words
``grant recipient'' in the definition of ``Modular unit'';
0
q. Revising the definition of ``Participant'';
0
r. Adding in alphabetical order a definition for ``Poverty line'';
0
s. Revising the definitions of ``Program'' and ``Purchase'';
0
t. Removing the word ``grantee'' and adding in its place the words
``grant recipient'' in the definition of ``Service area'';
0
u. Adding in alphabetical order a definition for ``Suspension'';
0
v. Removing the word ``grantee's'' and adding in its place the words
``grant recipient's'' in the introductory text and paragraph (1) of the
definition of ``Termination of a grant or delegate agency agreement''
and removing the word ``grantee'' and adding in its place the words
``grant recipient'' in introductory text of the definition of
``Termination of a great or delegate agency agreement'';
0
w. Removing the definition of ``Transition period'';
0
x. Revising the definition of ``Transportation services''; and
0
y. Adding in alphabetical order a definition for ``Water fixtures used
for human consumption''.
The additions and revisions read as follows:
Sec. 1305.2 Terms.
Abatement means actions designed to eliminate lead-based paint or
lead-based paint hazards. Abatement can include the:
(1) Removal of lead-based paint and dust-lead hazards, the
enclosure or encapsulation of lead-based paint, the replacement of
components or fixtures painted with lead-based paint, and the removal
or permanent covering of soil-lead hazards; and
(2) Preparation, cleanup, disposal, and post-abatement testing to
determine the effectiveness of such measures.
* * * * *
Change to the water profile means change in source of water, water
plumbing, or water fixture.
* * * * *
Continuity of care means Head Start services provided to children
in a manner that promotes primary caregiving and minimizes the number
of transitions in teachers and teacher assistants that children
experience over the course of the day, week, program year, and to the
extent possible, during the course of their participation from birth to
age three in Early Head Start and in Head Start Preschool.
* * * * *
Early Head Start means a program that serves pregnant women and
children from birth to age three, pursuant to section 645A(e) of the
Head Start Act. This includes Tribal and migrant or seasonal programs.
[[Page 80908]]
Expulsion is the permanent removal of a child from the learning
setting or a requirement that a child unenroll in a program.
* * * * *
Federal interest is a property right which secures the right of the
Federal awarding agency to recover the current fair market value of its
percentage of participation in the cost of the facility subject to part
1303, subpart E of this chapter funding in the event the facility is no
longer used for Head Start purposes by the grant recipient or upon the
disposition of the property. When a grant recipient uses Head Start
funds to purchase, construct or make major renovations to a facility,
or make mortgage payments, it creates a Federal interest. The Federal
interest includes any portion of the cost of purchase, construction, or
major renovation contributed by or for the entity, or a related donor
organization, to satisfy a matching requirement.
* * * * *
Fixed route means the established routes to be traveled on a
regular basis by vehicles that transport children to and from Head
Start program activities, and which include specifically designated
stops where children board or exit the vehicle.
* * * * *
Full-working-day means not less than 10 hours of Head Start
services per day.
* * * * *
Grant recipient means the local public or private non-profit agency
or for-profit agency which has been designated as a Head Start agency
under 42 U.S.C. 9836 and which has been granted financial assistance by
the responsible HHS official to operate a Head Start program.
Head Start means any program authorized under the Head Start Act.
Head Start agency means a local public or private non-profit or
for-profit entity designated by ACF to operate a Head Start Preschool
program, an Early Head Start program, or Migrant or Seasonal Head Start
program pursuant to the Head Start Act.
* * * * *
Head Start Preschool means a program that serves children aged
three to compulsory school age, pursuant to section 641(b) and (d) of
the Head Start Act. This includes Tribal and migrant or seasonal
programs.
* * * * *
Housing expenses means the total annual expenses spent by the
family on rent or mortgage payments, homeowner's or renter's insurance,
utilities, interest, and taxes on the home. Utilities include
electricity, gas, water, sewer, and trash.
Income means gross income and only includes wages, business income,
veteran's benefits, Social Security benefits, unemployment
compensation, alimony, pension or annuity payments, gifts that exceed
the threshold for taxable income, and military income (excluding
special pay for a member subject to hostile fire or imminent danger
under 37 U.S.C. 310 or any basic allowance for housing under 37 U.S.C.
403 including housing acquired under the alternative authority under 10
U.S.C. 169 or any related provision of law). Gross income only includes
sources of income provided in this definition; it does not include
refundable tax credits nor any forms of public assistance.
* * * * *
Major renovation means any individual or collective group of
renovation activities related to the same facility that has a cost
equal to or exceeding $250,000 in Head Start funds. Renovation
activities that are intended to occur concurrently or consecutively, or
altogether address a specific part or feature of a facility, are
considered a collective group of renovation activities. Unless included
in a purchase application, minor renovations and repairs are excluded
from major renovations.
Migrant family means, for purposes of Head Start eligibility, a
family with children under the age of compulsory school attendance who
changed their residence by moving from one geographic location to
another, either intrastate or interstate, within the preceding two
years for the purpose of engaging in agricultural work.
* * * * *
Participant means a pregnant woman or child who is enrolled in and
receives services from a Head Start Preschool, an Early Head Start, a
Migrant or Seasonal Head Start, or an American Indian and Alaska Native
Head Start program.
* * * * *
Poverty line is set by the poverty guidelines updated periodically
in the Federal Register by the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services under the authority of 42 U.S.C. 9902(2). Poverty guidelines
for the contiguous-states-and-DC apply to Puerto Rico and U.S.
Territories.
Program means any funded Head Start Preschool, Early Head Start,
Migrant or Seasonal Head Start, Tribal, or other program authorized
under the Act and carried out by an agency, or delegate agency, to
provide ongoing comprehensive child development services.
* * * * *
Purchase means to buy an existing facility, including outright
purchase, down payment or through payments made in satisfaction of a
mortgage or other loan agreement, whether principal, interest or an
allocated portion principal and/or interest. The use of grant funds to
make a payment under a finance lease agreement, as defined in the cost
principles, is a purchase subject to these provisions. Purchase also
refers to an approved use of Head Start funds to continue paying the
cost of purchasing facilities or refinance an existing loan or mortgage
beginning in 1987.
* * * * *
Suspension is the temporary removal of a child from the learning
setting including all reductions in the amount of time a child may be
in attendance of the regular group setting, either by requiring the
child to cease attendance for a particular period of time or reducing
the number of days or amount of time that a child may attend. Requiring
a child to attend the program away from the other children in the
regular group setting is included in this definition. Requiring the
parent or the parent's designee to pick up a child for reasons other
than illness or injury is also included in this definition.
* * * * *
Transportation services means the planned transporting of children
to and from sites where an agency provides services funded under the
Head Start Act. Transportation services can involve the pick-up and
discharge of children at regularly scheduled times and pre-arranged
sites, including trips between children's homes and program settings.
The term includes services provided directly by the Head Start grant
recipient or delegate agency and services which such agencies arrange
to be provided by another organization or an individual. Incidental
trips, such as transporting a sick child home before the end of the
day, or such as might be required to transport small groups of children
to and from necessary services, are not included under the term.
* * * * *
Water fixtures used for human consumption means fixtures used for
drinking, cooking, hand washing, teeth brushing, food preparation,
dishwashing, and maintaining oral hygiene.
[FR Doc. 2023-25038 Filed 11-15-23; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4184-40-P
