Supporting the Head Start Workforce and Consistent Quality Programming, 67720-67819 [2024-18279]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 162 (Wednesday, August 21, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 67720-67819]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-18279]



[[Page 67719]]

Vol. 89

Wednesday,

No. 162

August 21, 2024

Part II





Department of Health and Human Services





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





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





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

Federal Register / Vol. 89 , No. 162 / Wednesday, August 21, 2024 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 67720]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

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

RIN 0970-AD01


Supporting the Head Start Workforce and Consistent Quality 
Programming

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule makes regulatory changes to the Head Start 
Program Performance Standards (HSPPS) to support and stabilize the Head 
Start workforce and improve the quality of services Head Start programs 
provide to children and families. These changes include requirements 
for wages and benefits, breaks for staff, and enhanced support for 
staff health and wellness. The changes also include enhancements to 
mental health services to better integrate mental health into every 
aspect of program service delivery. Enhancements are also included in 
the areas of family service worker family assignments, identifying and 
meeting community needs, ensuring child safety, services for pregnant 
women and other pregnant people, and alignment with State early 
childhood systems. Finally, the changes include minor clarifications to 
promote better transparency and clarity of understanding for grant 
recipients.

DATES: 
    Effective date: August 21, 2024.
    Compliance date: The compliance date for many of the requirements 
in this final rule is October 21, 2024, or 60 days after this final 
rule is published in the Federal Register. However, there is a subset 
of requirements where we expect programs may need more time to 
implement the regulatory changes. In these cases, we specify an 
alternate timeline for compliance. See further discussion of these 
dates in the section entitled Effective and Compliance Dates.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jessica Bialecki, Office of Head 
Start, 202-240-3901 or [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Statutory Authority
II. Background
III. Effective Summary
    Effective and Compliance Dates
    Severability
IV. Development of Regulation
V. General Comments and Cross-Cutting Issues
VI. Section-by-Section Discussion of Comments and Regulatory 
Provisions
    Definition of Head Start and Related Terms (Sec.  1305.2)
    Workforce Supports: Staff Wages (Sec.  1302.90)
    Workforce Supports: Staff Benefits (Sec.  1302.90)
    Workforce Supports: Training and Professional Development Plans 
(Sec.  1302.91)
    Workforce Supports: Staff Wellness (Sec.  1302.93)
    Workforce Supports: Employee Engagement (Sec. Sec.  1302.92, 
1302.101)
    Workforce Supports: Staff Wellness (Sec.  1302.93)
    Mental Health Services (Subparts D, H, and I)
    Child Health and Safety (Sec. Sec.  1302.47; 1302.90; 1302.92; 
1302.101; 1302.102)
    Modernizing Head Start's Engagement With Families (Sec. Sec.  
1302.11; 1302.13; 1302.15; 1302.34; 1302.50)
    Community Assessments (Sec.  1302.11)
    Adjustment for Excessive Housing Costs for Eligibility 
Determination (Sec.  1302.12)
    Tribal Eligibility and Selection Process (Sec. Sec.  1302.12; 
1302.14)
    Migrant and Seasonal Eligibility and Selection Process 
(Sec. Sec.  1302.12, 1302.14) Transportation & Other Barriers to 
Enrollment and Attendance (Sec. Sec.  1302.14; 1302.16)
    Serving Children With Disabilities (Sec.  1302.14)
    Suspension and Expulsion (Sec. Sec.  1302.17; 1305.2)
    Ratios in Center-Based Early Head Start Programs (Sec.  1302.21)
    Center-Based Service Duration for Early Head Start (Sec.  
1302.21)
    Center-Based Service Duration for Head Start Preschool 
(Sec. Sec.  1302.21; 1302.24) Ratios in Family Child Care Settings 
(Sec.  1302.23)
    Preventing and Addressing Lead Exposure (Sec.  1302.47)
    Family Partnership Family Assignments (Sec.  1302.52)
    Participation in Quality Rating and Improvement Systems (Sec.  
1302.53)
    Services to Enrolled Pregnant Women (Sec. Sec.  1302.80; 
1302.82)
    Facilities (Sec. Sec.  1303.42; 1303.43; 1303.44; 1303.45)
    Definition of Income (Sec.  1305.2)
    Definition of Major Renovations, Federal Interest, and Purchases 
(Sec.  1305.2)
    Definition of Poverty Line (Sec.  1305.2)
    Removal of Outdated Sections
    Compliance With Section 641(a)(2) of the Act
VII. Regulatory Process Matters
VIII. Regulatory Impact Analysis

I. Statutory Authority

    This final rule is being issued under the authority granted to the 
Secretary of Health and Human Services by sections 640(a)(5)(A)(i) and 
(B)(viii), 641A, 644(c), 645, 645A, 648A, and 653 of the Head Start Act 
(the Act) (42 U.S.C. 9835, 9836a, 9839(c), 9840, 9840a, 9843a, and 
9848), as amended by the Improving Head Start for School Readiness Act 
of 2007 (Pub. L. 110-134). Under these sections, the Secretary is 
required to establish performance standards and other regulations for 
Head Start and Early Head Start programs. Specifically, the Act 
requires the Secretary to ``. . . modify, as necessary, program 
performance standards by regulation applicable to Head Start agencies 
and programs . . .'' \1\ and explicitly directs the Secretary to 
prescribe eligibility standards, establish staff qualification goals, 
and assure the comparability of wages. This rule meets the statutory 
requirements Congress put forth in its 2007 bipartisan reauthorization 
of the Head Start Act and addresses Congress's mandate that called for 
the Secretary to review and revise the performance standards. The 
Secretary has determined that the modifications to performance 
standards contained in this final rule are appropriate and needed to 
effectuate the goals of the performance standards and the purposes of 
the Act. The requirements outlined in this final rule shall not be 
construed to supersede or preempt the requirement for Head Start 
agencies to comply with other laws, including title VII of the Civil 
Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Pay Act of 1963, the Age Discrimination 
in Employment Act of 1967, the Americans with Disabilities Act, as 
amended, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008, the 
Pregnant Workers Fairness Act of 2022, the Fair Labor Standards Act, 
and any other applicable Federal, state, or local labor standards laws 
when implementing workforce performance standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

II. Background

    The Federal Head Start program provides early education and other 
comprehensive services to well over half a million children prenatal to 
age five in center- and home-based settings across the country. Since 
its inception in 1965, Head Start has been a leader in providing high-
quality services that support the development of children from low-
income families, helping them enter kindergarten more prepared to 
succeed in school and in life. Evidence continues to support the 
positive outcomes for children and families who participate in and 
graduate from Head Start programs.\2\ The most essential

[[Page 67721]]

component to accomplishing Head Start's mission of providing high-
quality early childhood education and comprehensive services is the 
workforce of approximately 248,000 staff \3\ who provide the services 
to children and families each day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Early educators provide a critical foundation for children to learn 
and develop \4\ and positively impact children's outcomes.\5\ Strong, 
stable relationships between young children and educators are the key 
to promoting early development. If programs cannot retain high-quality 
staff, these relationships are disrupted and outcomes for children and 
families are negatively impacted.\6\ Currently, Head Start programs 
across the nation are experiencing a severe staff shortage with 
turnover at its highest point in two decades.\7\ This severely impacts 
the ability of programs to fully enroll classrooms and provide 
consistent high-quality services to children and families. Low wages 
and poor benefits--despite increased expectations and requirements for 
staff--are a key driver of rapidly increasing staff turnover among Head 
Start teachers and staff. Research indicates that well compensated 
early childhood teachers and staff have lower turnover rates and 
provide higher quality services.\8\ Conversely, a higher rate of 
turnover among early care and education (ECE) staff is associated with 
lower quality services and care, as well as poorer developmental 
outcomes for children.\9\ For instance, research has demonstrated that 
turnover among early care and education professionals is linked to 
worse cognitive and social developmental outcomes for children birth to 
age 5.\10\ For decades, the Head Start program has been subsidized by 
low paid workers committed to the mission; now is the time to enact 
clear Federal requirements for staff compensation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Burchinal, M., Zaslow, M., & Tarullo, L. (eds.) (2016). 
Quality thresholds, features, and dosage in early care and 
education: Secondary data analyses of child outcomes. Monographs of 
the Society for Research in Child Development. 81(2).
    \5\ Choi, Y., Horm, D., Jeon, S. & Ryu, D. (2019). Do Stability 
of Care and Teacher-Child Interaction Quality Predict Child Outcomes 
in Early Head Start?, Early Education and Development, 30:3, 337-
356.
    \6\ Hamre, B., Hatfield, B., Pianta, R., Jamil, F. (2013). 
Evidence for General and Domain-Specific Elements of Teacher-Child 
Interactions: Associations with Preschool Children's Development. 
Child Development, 85:3; Grunewald, R., Nunn, R., Palmer, V. (2022). 
Examining teacher turnover in early care and education. Federal 
Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.
    \7\ Source: Head Start 2022 PIR.
    \8\ Bassok, D., Doromal, J., Michie, M., & Wong, V. (2021). The 
Effects of Financial Incentives on Teacher Turnover in Early 
Childhood Settings: Experimental Evidence from Virginia. 
EdPolicyWorks at the University of Virginia.; Whitebook, M., Howes, 
C., & Phillips, D. (2014). Worthy Work, STILL Unlivable Wages: The 
Early Childhood Workforce 25 Years after the National Child Care 
Staffing Study. Center for the Study of Child Care Employment. 
https://cscce.berkeley.edu/publications/report/worthy-work-still-unlivable-wages/.; Whitebook, M., Sakai, L., Gerber, E., & Howes, C. 
(2001). Then & Now: Changes in Child Care Staffing, 1994-2000. 
Washington, DC: Center for the Child Care Workforce and Institute of 
Industrial Relations, University of California, Berkeley. https://cscce.berkeley.edu/publications/report/then-and-now-changes-in-child-care-staffing-1994-2000/.
    \9\ Hale-Jinks, C., Knopf, H., & Kemple, K. (2006). Tackling 
teacher turnover in childcare: Understanding causes and 
consequences, identifying solutions. Childhood Education, 82, 219-
226.
    \10\ Hale-Jinks, Knopf, & Kemple (2006). Tackling teacher 
turnover in childcare: Understanding causes and consequences, 
identifying solutions. Childhood Education, 82, 219-226.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Through the Improving Head Start for School Readiness Act of 2007 
(the 2007 Reauthorization), which amended the Head Start Act (the Act), 
Congress required the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to 
ensure children and families receive the highest quality Head Start 
services possible. In line with this, Congress instituted a number of 
changes to increase qualifications and other requirements for Head 
Start staff, particularly education staff, and mandated HHS to revise 
the Head Start Program Performance Standards (HSPPS). The HSPPS, first 
published in the 1970s, are the foundation on which programs design and 
deliver high-quality, comprehensive services to children and their 
families. The HSPPS set forth the requirements local grant recipients 
must meet to support the cognitive, social, emotional, and healthy 
development of children enrolled in the program. They include 
requirements to provide education, health, mental health, nutrition, 
and family and community engagement services, as well as requirements 
for local program governance and Federal administration of the program. 
In response to requirements in the 2007 Reauthorization, HHS conducted 
a major revision of the performance standards through a final rule 
published in 2016. The 2016 overhaul of the HSPPS updated and enhanced 
program standards to reflect the latest science on child development, 
while also streamlining requirements where possible, to promote 
stronger transparency and support programs to deliver more efficient 
and effective services.
    Although the 2016 revision to the HSPPS gave careful attention to 
the type and quality of early education and comprehensive services to 
be provided to children and their families, as well as requirements for 
training, professional development, and qualifications for staff, other 
supports for the Head Start workforce were not included. The 2007 
Reauthorization and the 2016 revision to the HSPPS resulted in enhanced 
requirements and responsibilities for program staff, but lacked 
specific requirements for staff pay, benefits, and other supports for 
staff wellness necessary to sustain a workforce that could implement 
those quality provisions. For instance, while qualifications for Head 
Start preschool teachers have increased dramatically over the past 
decade (52 percent nationwide had a bachelor's degree in 2010 compared 
to 68 percent in 2023), inflation-adjusted salary for these teachers 
increased by less than 1 percent during this same timeframe, from 
$41,389 in 2010 to $41,691 in 2023.\11\ Given the increased 
expectations and requirements for these staff positions without any 
significant increases in wages, it is unsurprising that turnover among 
Head Start classroom teachers, as well as other staff positions, has 
increased markedly over the past decade, a situation that was 
exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.\12\ In 2023, turnover across all 
staff positions was 17 percent, a large jump from 13.5 percent in 2019 
(prior to the pandemic), although marginally improved from an a high of 
19 percent in 2022. Turnover for teachers (across both preschool and 
infant and toddler teachers) was even higher in 2023, at 19 
percent.\13\ Indeed, the workforce challenges in Head Start have 
remained intractable even after some other industries have regained 
pre-pandemic employment levels. The unprecedented rate of turnover and 
staff vacancies programs are experiencing threaten the stability and 
future of the national Head Start program and the quality of services 
it provides, which are a critical resource for hundreds of thousands of 
families annually. Because Head Start serves the children and families 
most in need, it is critical the workforce is well-positioned to be 
stable as communities recover from the pandemic and during and after 
future emergencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Source: Head Start 2023 PIR.
    \12\ Source: Head Start 2010-2023 PIR.
    \13\ Source: Head Start 2023 PIR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While high staff turnover rates are an issue for the entire ECE 
sector in the

[[Page 67722]]

United States, HHS has the authority and opportunity to address the 
systemic problems driving high turnover in Head Start, and stronger 
workforce supports are necessary to meet the purpose of the Act of 
promoting school readiness for low-income children (42 U.S.C. 9831). 
The Act authorizes the Secretary to modify the program performance 
standards as necessary, and, while the changes through this final rule 
retain the level of flexibility and discretion that Head Start programs 
are accustomed to, it is evident by the lagging compensation and other 
workforce supports that additional guardrails are necessary to maintain 
quality. Head Start's standards have historically provided a nationwide 
benchmark for high-quality early childhood programs. This final rule 
affirms that higher wages and benefits are a key driver of quality in 
early childhood.
    In addition to post-pandemic workforce challenges related to 
compensation and turnover, mental and behavioral health issues have 
risen among children and adults over the last decade. Head Start 
programs must adapt and evolve to continue leading the sector in 
quality programing for children and families. The final rule enhances 
requirements for mental health services to integrate mental health more 
fully into every aspect of program services, as well as elevate the 
role of mental health consultation. Infant and early childhood mental 
health consultation services are provided by licensed or licensed-
eligible mental health professionals with specialized knowledge in 
child development, such as social workers or psychologists, who build 
the capacity of adults to support the mental health and social and 
emotional development of children. Prior to this final rule, 
requirements in the performance standards in these areas were broad and 
contributed to wide variation in the quality of the implementation of 
those standards.
    This final rule also promotes improvements in the quality of 
program service delivery. The enhancements in this final rule will 
promote more consistent implementation of program services across a 
variety of areas, ultimately improving outcomes for enrolled children 
and their families. For instance, the rule improves services to 
families by limiting the number of families to which an individual 
family service worker can be assigned. Additionally, since the 
inception of the 2016 revision to the HSPPS, ACF received feedback 
about areas where standards have not been implemented as intended in 
the field, or areas where standards are not clear. This final rule 
enhances and clarifies the performance standards across a variety of 
areas, codifies certain essential best practices, and streamlines 
processes for programs implementing the standards, with the goal of 
further improving the quality of Head Start services.
    The changes to the HSPPS promulgated through this final rule are 
necessary to maintain the quality of the Head Start program and respond 
to the current early childhood landscape, which has changed 
dramatically since the HSPPS were first published in the 1970s and even 
since the 2016 overhaul of the HSPPS. Establishing the new or enhanced 
standards described in this final rule--particularly for the 
workforce--will promote higher-quality services for children in Head 
Start programs across the country and are necessary to ensure there is 
a stable workforce to maintain consistent operations.
    The Head Start program is facing unprecedented levels of programs 
that are not fully enrolled. ACF is aware of many programs that have 
waiting lists but cannot open classrooms because they cannot hire 
teachers at current wage and benefit levels. Thus, many Head Start 
programs face the conundrum of having vacant slots, but no staff to 
serve additional children. Short staffing places additional stress on 
current staff, exacerbating burnout and turnover.
    This rule offers a path forward by requiring more competitive wages 
and benefits to attract and retain staff and align actual and funded 
enrollment levels. For many programs, costs can be partially or mostly 
offset through reductions in funded slots that are currently vacant. In 
addition, while there are costs associated with the rule, ACF notes 
that there are also costs associated with high staff turnover and 
vacant slots.
    Moreover, the policy changes in this final rule are necessary for 
the Head Start program to continue to operate effectively and meet its 
mission and remain the gold standard of early care and education 
services for young children, particularly for those furthest from 
opportunity. As noted above, many programs have unfilled slots, 
providing an opportunity to restructure the budget to support fewer 
slots in some programs to ensure higher quality of services delivered, 
including higher wages and benefits for staff without reducing the 
number of children actually enrolled in the program. In addition to the 
goal of stabilizing the Head Start workforce that will help minimize 
empty classrooms, the policies in the final rule seek to mitigate slot 
loss by providing a longer implementation timeline for wage and benefit 
requirements (see a further discussion on this in the sections on 
Workforce Supports), allowing for both program planning as well as 
future congressional investments in quality improvement. The final rule 
also includes different wage and benefit requirements for small Head 
Start agencies (those with 200 or fewer funded slots). Absent 
additional funding, smaller agencies may have a more challenging time 
increasing wages and benefits without disproportionately impacting the 
number of funded slots in their agencies. Finally, in the event that 
appropriation increases for Head Start are below 1.3% on average for a 
period of four years, the rule also includes a flexibility for the 
Secretary to establish a limited waiver process for most of the rule's 
wage requirements, for programs determined to be meeting quality 
benchmarks and that would otherwise have to reduce enrolled Head Start 
slots to implement these requirements.
    Overall, for the reasons summarized above, the current staffing 
shortage needs to be addressed urgently, and regulatory action is 
warranted and necessary. Failure to put in place a glidepath to higher 
wages and benefits would further threaten the ability of Head Start to 
continue to recruit and retain effective staff and thereby deliver 
high-quality services. This action carefully balances the ability of 
programs to maintain staffing with the goal of serving as many children 
as possible, while helping to stabilize the Head Start program over the 
long-term. Further, the establishment of new or enhanced expectations 
in program quality through the changes described in this final rule 
provides a better foundation for more consistent implementation of 
high-quality services.

III. Executive Summary

    This final rule amends the HSPPS to: (1) support and stabilize the 
Head Start workforce through new requirements for staff wages, 
benefits, and wellness supports; (2) strengthen mental health services 
for children, families, and staff by integrating mental health into all 
aspects of program service delivery; and (3) improve the quality of 
services provided to children and families across a variety of other 
service areas. The rule also makes some technical and other changes to 
the HSPPS for improved clarity. The final rule makes changes from the 
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), published on November 20, 2023 
(88 FR 80818), based on public comment. These changes are designed

[[Page 67723]]

to increase flexibility for Head Start programs in achieving the goals 
and intended outcomes of the final rule. Key changes from the policies 
in the NPRM to the final rule include modifications to the wage and 
benefit requirements for small Head Start agencies with a funded 
enrollment level that is at or below 200 slots; an option for the 
Secretary to establish a process in 2028 for a limited waiver authority 
for the final rule's wage requirements, to mitigate slot loss in 
programs determined to be meeting quality benchmarks, in the absence of 
a four year annual average increase in Head Start appropriations of at 
least 1.3 percent; a four year (rather than a two year) timeline for 
phasing in benefit requirements; removal of the requirement to provide 
paid family and medical leave beyond the existing requirements in the 
Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA); additional flexibility to 
implement monthly mental health supports; more flexibility in how 
programs prevent exposure of children to lead in water and paint of 
Head Start facilities; and maintaining the prior policy of allowing up 
to seven days for programs to report child safety incidents to the 
Office of Head Start (as opposed to three days as proposed in the 
NPRM), as well as further clarification that only serious incidents 
that should be reported to OHS, including definitions and examples.

Improving Wages, Benefits, and Wellness Supports for the Head Start 
Workforce

    This final rule makes changes to the HSPPS to support and stabilize 
the Head Start workforce through new requirements for staff wages, 
benefits, and wellness supports. First, the final rule adds a set of 
new requirements for wages to promote competitive salaries for Head 
Start staff. Specifically, by August 1, 2031, programs must implement a 
set of four interrelated standards for staff wages. First, programs 
must establish or update a salary scale or pay structure that promotes 
competitive wages for all staff positions and takes into account 
responsibilities, qualifications, experience, and schedule or hours 
worked. Programs must review this pay structure at least once every 5 
years. Second, programs must ensure annual salaries for Head Start 
educators are at least comparable to those of preschool teachers in 
public school settings, adjusted for responsibilities, qualifications, 
experience, and schedule or hours worked. To support implementation of 
this requirement, the final rule adds an alternative option to ensure 
their education staff salaries are comparable to at least 90 percent of 
public kindergarten teacher salaries (adjusted for responsibilities, 
qualifications, experience, and schedule or hours worked), in 
communities where public preschool does not exist or where data on 
public preschool teacher salaries is hard to access. This alternative 
benchmark for teacher salaries is described further below in the more 
detailed discussion of the wage requirements. Overall, this standard 
for education staff salaries will ensure that programs make measurable 
progress towards pay parity with public school kindergarten through 
third grade teachers in local elementary schools, and programs must 
track data on progress towards pay parity over time. Third, programs 
must ensure all Head Start staff receive pay that is at least 
sufficient to cover basic costs of living in their geographic area. 
Finally, programs must ensure wages are comparable across Head Start 
Preschool and Early Head Start programs for staff serving in similar 
positions with similar qualifications and experience.
    The final rule includes an option for the Secretary to establish in 
2028 a limited waiver process for most of the rule's wage requirements, 
for eligible programs, if the prior four years of appropriation 
increases for Head Start are less than an annual average of 1.3 
percent. If the Secretary decides to invoke a waiver due to low 
appropriations, the waiver would only be available to eligible grant 
recipients that demonstrate that they meet four conditions: (1) the 
program would have to reduce enrolled Head Start slots to implement 
these requirements; (2) the program is meeting quality benchmarks 
including protecting health and safety and demonstrated improvements in 
staff wages during the preceding four years, to the greatest extent 
practicable; (3) the program held the Head Start grant for the service 
area prior to August 21, 2024 (the effective date of this rule); and 
(4) the program agrees to make continued progress on wages for Head 
Start staff over time, to the greatest extent practicable. These 
eligibility criteria are discussed in more detail below in the section 
by section discussion of comments and regulatory provisions. Next, this 
final rule adds a set of requirements for staff benefits. The 
compliance date for these requirements is August 1, 2028, which is two 
years later than the timeline initially proposed in the NPRM. For full-
time staff--defined as those working 30 hours or more per week while 
the program is in session--Head Start programs must: provide or 
facilitate access to high-quality affordable health care coverage; 
offer paid personal leave; and offer access to short-term, free or 
minimal cost behavioral health services. The final rule includes 
changes from the NPRM including requiring paid personal leave more 
generally, rather than separate paid personal and paid sick time; 
aligning with existing FMLA requirements rather than adding new 
requirements for Head Start programs for paid family and medical leave; 
and removing specific requirements for the number of behavioral health 
sessions, while still requiring that programs provide access to 
behavioral health services for staff.
    For part-time staff, programs must facilitate access to high-
quality, affordable health care coverage. For any staff member who may 
be eligible, programs must facilitate access to affordable child care 
and to the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program or other 
applicable student loan debt relief programs. Finally, at least once 
every 5 years, and to the extent practicable, programs must determine 
if their benefits packages are at least comparable to those provided to 
elementary school staff. Programs are enouraged to offer additional 
benefits if feasible.
    In recognition of the particular challenges potentially faced by 
small Head Start agencies (defined as those with 200 or fewer funded 
slots) in implementing the policies for wages and benefits, this final 
rule includes different requirements for these agencies in response to 
comments on the NPRM. Specifically, small Head Start agencies are 
required to make improvements in wages and benefits for staff over time 
to reduce disparities between wages and benefits in Head Start 
educators and preschool teachers in public schools. Further, the 
statutory requirement that agencies maintain full enrollment (as part 
of the Full Enrollment Initiative) will continue to apply to these 
agencies. Small agencies are also required to establish or update a 
salary scale or pay structure that promotes competitive wages for all 
staff and takes into account responsibilities, qualifications, 
experience, and schedule or hours worked. While small agencies have 
flexibility to phase in wage and benefit increases according to their 
budgets, ACF strongly encourages these programs to invest in higher 
compensation by restructuring their budgets, targeting the annual cost-
of-living adjustment (COLA) to compensation, and seeking other 
available funding sources that can be used to enhance compensation.
    ACF will monitor progress and work with grant recipients to reduce

[[Page 67724]]

disparities between wages and benefits offered in small and larger Head 
Start agencies, to reduce disparities in pay in small programs and 
avoid the unintended consequence of staff leaving small agencies to 
work in programs that offer higher compensation. Further, it is ACF's 
expectation that all Head Start programs will work to steadily improve 
staff compensation over time, and prior to the compliance dates for the 
full set of wages and benefits requirements in this final rule.
    Lastly, this final rule adds a few requirements to support the 
wellness of the Head Start workforce. First, programs must cultivate a 
program-wide culture of wellness that empowers staff as professionals 
and supports them to effectively accomplish daily job responsibilities 
in a high-quality manner. Second, by August 1, 2027, programs must 
provide each staff member with regular breaks during their work shifts 
that are of adequate length based on hours worked. The final rule 
provides more flexibility than the NPRM for how programs implement 
break schedules, removing the requirement for unscheduled five-minute 
breaks as well as the specificity for length of breaks, as proposed in 
the NPRM. The final rule also removes the requirement proposed in the 
NPRM for adult sized furniture in classrooms.
    Taken together, ACF strongly believes these new standards will 
support and stabilize the Head Start workforce over the long term. Head 
Start must be able to effectively recruit and retain high-quality staff 
in order to keep classrooms open and continue to provide the quality 
services for which Head Start is known.

Strengthening Mental Health Services for Children, Families, and Staff

    The final rule makes changes to integrate and elevate mental health 
across the entire Head Start program and incorporates changes from the 
NPRM based on comments specifically concerned about the lack of mental 
health professionals available to some Head Start programs. The final 
rule, like the NPRM, includes important revisions to incorporate 
strengths-based mental health language throughout the standards and to 
clarify that mental health supports should promote staff and family 
well-being, in addition to child well-being. In addition, this final 
rule strengthens, clarifies, and enhances specific program standards 
for mental health. The final rule requires that programs use a 
multidisciplinary approach, rather than a multi-disciplinary team as 
proposed in the NPRM, to support a program-wide culture that promotes 
mental health, social and emotional well-being, and overall health and 
safety for children and adults. This change better reflects the intent 
of centering mental health in all aspects of program services as an 
integral part of Head Start. A multidisciplinary approach will support 
programs to better promote program-wide wellness by leveraging 
knowledge and skills across disciplines in the program, rather than 
taking a siloed approach. The final rule also clarifies the role, 
qualifications, and responsibilities of mental health consultants and 
the services they provide to build the capacity of adults to support 
the mental health and social and emotional development of children. The 
final rule revises the expectations for mental health consultants to be 
available at least once a month. The final rule includes additional 
flexibility to support implementation of the frequency of mental health 
services. Specifically, the final rule includes a new provision that 
allows other licensed mental health professionals or behavioral health 
support specialists to work in coordination and consultation with the 
mental health consultant to provide mental health supports on at least 
a monthly basis. This change maintains the requirement for every 
program to have a mental health consultant and ongoing mental health 
supports integrated regularly into programs while also recognizing the 
reality of the mental health workforce shortage. Together these changes 
in the final rule are designed to enhance mental health support for 
everyone involved in Head Start programs.

Improving the Quality of Head Start Services

    Finally, this rule includes numerous other changes to improve the 
quality of services that are a hallmark of Head Start programs. First, 
this rule, as proposed in the NPRM, establishes a maximum family 
assignment ratio of 40:1, with some exceptions, to address the long-
standing problem of excessive family assignments for many staff who 
work with families. This change is consistent with section 648A(c)(2) 
of the Act, which provides ACF with the authority to review and, if 
necessary, revise requirements related to family assignments, as 
suggested by best practice, to improve the quality and effectiveness of 
staff providing services to families. We believe this change will 
improve staff well-being and the quality of services families receive.
    Next, this rule strengthens the ability of programs to meet 
community needs. First, we emphasize that the community assessment 
process is an intentional process for Head Start programs to understand 
the community they serve, design their services accordingly, and 
strategically review and update their community assessment. We clarify 
that the comprehensive community assessment is only required once in 
the five-year grant period, with an annual review to determine if 
changes in the community may impact services and necessitate an update 
to the community assessment. Second, we require programs to use their 
community assessment to identify the population of eligible children 
and families as well as potential barriers to enrollment and 
attendance, including access to transportation for the highest need 
families. Programs are encouraged to address identified barriers where 
possible, such as by providing or facilitating transportation services. 
Finally, we allow programs to make an adjustment to a family's gross 
income calculation for the purposes of determining eligibility in order 
to account for excessive housing costs. Adjusting income for housing 
expenses is an effective way to provide additional flexibility for 
families who are making above or near poverty wages, but face high 
housing costs, and would be eligible for Head Start services if those 
housing costs were considered when determining eligibility.
    In addition, this final rule strengthens a variety of health and 
safety provisions to ensure children remain safe in Head Start programs 
with some changes to the policies as proposed in the NPRM in response 
to concerns raised by commenters. The rule enhances requirements for 
programs to prevent and address lead exposure in the water and paint of 
facilities that serve Head Start children but provides more flexibility 
for programs compared to the NPRM proposals to determine how they 
approach prevention of exposure to lead. Specifically, we require 
programs to ensure Head Start children are not exposed to lead in the 
water or paint of facilities through regular testing, inspection, and, 
as needed, remediation or abatement actions. Instead of prescribing 
specific lead prevention and abatement procedures as proposed in the 
NPRM, the final rule requires programs have a plan in place to mitigate 
exposure to lead.
    Additionally, we clarify several requirements related to submitting 
incident reports to ACF to ensure accurate and necessary information is 
reported in a timely manner. The NPRM proposed a three-day timeframe 
for reporting child safety incidents to OHS. However, the final rule 
codifies the

[[Page 67725]]

prior policy that programs must submit incident reports immediately but 
no later than seven calendar days following an incident. The final rule 
also clarifies which incidents affecting the health and safety of 
children require a report to ACF, in terms of involved participants, 
settings, and types of incidents. Based on comments received in 
response to the NRPM, the final rule clarifies that only serious 
incidents that involve child maltreatment or endangerment should be 
reported to OHS and provides definitions and examples of what rises to 
this level. For example, we clarify that those Standards of Conduct 
pertaining to child maltreatment or endangerment of children must be 
reported. The final rule also includes several modifications to align 
ACF descriptions of child maltreatment with Federal guidance and laws 
related to mandated reporting of child abuse and neglect. Finally, the 
final rule strengthens several requirements intended to prevent child 
health and safety incidents, such as annual trainings on mandated 
reporting of child abuse and neglect and on positive strategies to 
support social and emotional development.

Effective and Compliance Dates

    Effective date: This final rule is effective August 21, 2024.
    Compliance date: The compliance date for all requirements in this 
final rule is October 21, 2024, or 60 days after this final rule is 
published in the Federal Register, unless otherwise noted in this 
section. For Sec.  1302.47(b)(10), while the effective date is upon 
publication of the final rule, programs will not be monitored on the 
new regulatory requirements until 1 year after publication of the final 
rule to give programs additional time to adjust to the new regulatory 
requirements.
    Programs may require more time to implement several sections in 
this final rule. Therefore, we maintain the timeline as proposed in the 
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), and programs have until August 1, 
2025, or approximately 1 year after publication of the final rule, to 
comply with the following sections: Sec. Sec.  1302.11(b); 1302.14(d); 
and 1302.16(a)(2)(v); the changes made to remove ``assistant provider'' 
in Sec. Sec.  1302.23(b); 1302.45(a); and 1302.82(a).
    The following sections also have longer implementation timelines, 
as outlined below:
     Section 1302.52(d)(2), Family Service Worker Ratios: 
August 1, 2027, or approximately 3 years after publication of the final 
rule;
     Section 1302.80(e), Enrolled pregnant women: December 19, 
2024, or 120 days after publication of the final rule;
     Section 1302.80(f), Enrolled pregnant women: February 18, 
2025, or 180 days after publication of final rule;
     Section 1302.90(e), Staff wages: August 1, 2031, or 
approximately 7 years after publication of the final rule;
     Section 1302.90(f), Staff benefits: August 1, 2028, or 
approximately 4 years after publication of the final rule; and
     Section 1302.93(c), Staff Health and Wellness: August 1, 
2027, or approximately 3 years after publication of the final rule.

Severability

    This is a comprehensive rule containing many subparts that address 
many distinct aspects of the Head Start program. To the extent any 
subpart or portion of a subpart is declared invalid by a court, ACF 
intends for all other subparts to remain in effect. For example, ACF 
expects that if a court were to invalidate subpart D of part 1302 (or 
any of subpart D's discrete provisions) relating to Health Program 
Services, changes to the Head Start Program Performance Standards in 
all other subparts--such as subpart E (Family and Community Engagement 
Program Services), subpart F (Additional Services for Children with 
Disabilities), subpart G (Transition Services), etc.--may continue to 
operate and should remain operative independently of the invalidated 
subpart.
    Additionally, each subpart also contains many distinct provisions, 
many of which may also operate independently of one another; thus, the 
invalidation of one particular provision within a particular subpart 
would not necessarily have implications for other aspects of that 
subpart. For example, within subpart D, the requirement pertaining to 
preventing and addressing lead exposure at Sec.  1302.47 would not be 
impacted by the invalidation of the requirements related to mental 
health consultation at Sec.  1302.45 or the provision of family support 
services for health, nutrition, and mental health at Sec.  1302.46. ACF 
intends that if one or more provisions within a subpart are 
invalidated, that all other provisions of that subpart (and all other 
subparts of the rule) remain in effect.

IV. Development of Regulation

    Since the 2007 Reauthorization of Head Start and the last major 
update to the HSPPS in 2016, ACF has listened to and learned from Head 
Start programs, families, and community members; assessed the evolving 
ECE landscape; examined the successes and challenges in the 
reauthorized Act's implementation; and tracked the impact and 
implications of the COVID-19 public health emergency on Head Start 
programs. The policies in this final rule are informed by these lessons 
and are designed to improve on the work of the past and build a 
stronger Head Start program that more effectively supports the 
development of children from low-income families, helping them enter 
kindergarten more prepared to succeed in school and in life.
    ACF published an NPRM in the Federal Register on November 20, 2023 
(88 FR 80818), proposing revisions to the HSPPS regulations. We 
provided a 60-day comment period during which interested parties could 
submit comments in writing or electronically. During the public comment 
period, OHS engaged with the Head Start community through a series of 
round table discussions with Head Start program leadership in multiple 
locations around the country and virtually to encourage discussion on 
the NPRM and generate interest in submitting public comments.
    ACF received 1,300 public comments, of which 1,133 were unique 
comments, on the proposed rule (public comments on the proposed rule 
are available for review on www.regulations.gov), including comments 
from numerous Head Start programs; national, regional, and state Head 
Start associations, including those representing Tribal and Migrant and 
Seasonal Head Start programs; groups representing community action 
agencies; labor unions; early childhood researchers and research 
organizations; individual Head Start staff and families; other notable 
national organizations focused on early childhood education; individual 
members of the public; and members of the U.S. Congress. Public 
comments informed the development of content for this final rule. In 
sections below, we describe the changes we made to provisions in this 
final rule, in response to the public comments. To support the analysis 
of public comments, ACF used a large language model, a type of 
artificial intelligence, as a tool to tag public comments by topic, 
sentiment, and intent, alongside topic-based summaries. The output of 
the model was further analyzed and refined by content experts based on 
further review of public comments.
    The changes outlined in this final rule affect the many local Head 
Start grant recipients that operate Head Start programs for children 
and families. ACF has and will continue to provide

[[Page 67726]]

technical assistance throughout the implementation of this final rule.

V. General Comments and Cross-Cutting Issues

    This final rule includes changes in key areas in the HSPPS. ACF 
received comments on all the significant proposed changes in the NPRM, 
and we revised various proposals in this final rule in response to 
these comments. Many comments responded to broader themes that cut 
across policy proposals, including concerns around the loss of 
enrollment slots associated with implementing the proposed provisions 
absent additional Federal funds, the differential impacts of proposals 
from the NPRM on small and rural programs, the administrative burden of 
implementing what some commenters described as overly prescriptive 
requirements, and issues specific to Tribal programs. Other commenters 
expressed strong support for the requirements proposed in the NPRM and 
encouraged ACF to strengthen requirements in the final rule. We believe 
it is clearer for us to respond to these cross-cutting comments if we 
group them by theme. We also discuss specific comments on each proposed 
policy area in the section-by-section analysis later in this final 
rule.

Impact on Enrollment Slots Absent Additional Federal Funds

    Commenters were generally supportive of the intent behind the 
proposed changes to improve staff compensation, benefits, and supports 
for wellness, as well as to enhance mental health services and child 
safety within Head Start programs. Overall, the majority of the 1,133 
unique public comments reflected an appreciation for the goals and 
intentions of the NPRM proposals. However, many commenters expressed 
concern that while increasing staff wages and benefits is a positive 
step towards equity and sustainability within the Head Start workforce, 
these changes would lead to a reduction in the number of children and 
families Head Start programs can serve and would lessen Head Start's 
impact on communities in need if Congress does not appropriate 
sufficient additional funding. Some commenters expressed support for a 
more nuanced approach that considers the unique circumstances of 
programs and communities, rather than a one-size-fits-all mandate. 
Others requested a reevaluation of the funding formula and a phased-in 
approach to compensation increases that is directly tied to the 
availability of Federal funding. In summary, the commenters who 
expressed concerns on this issue conveyed a request for additional 
funding to support the wage and benefit increases for Head Start staff 
proposed in the NPRM. Without additional funding, this group of 
commenters expressed concern that programs will need to make difficult 
decisions that result in fewer children and families receiving Head 
Start services in future years.
    ACF acknowledges commenters' concerns about the costs associated 
with these changes and the possible reduction in slots absent 
additional appropriations from Congress, and we have given these 
comments extensive consideration. In response to comments, the final 
rule includes flexibility for the Secretary to establish a limited 
waiver process for most of the rule's wage requirements, for programs 
determined to be meeting quality benchmarks and that would otherwise 
have to reduce enrolled Head Start slots to implement these 
requirements. The Secretary must establish this waiver process between 
January 1, 2028, and December 31, 2028, and only if increases in 
Federal appropriations for the Head Start program remain below 1.3 
percent, on average, in the four fiscal years preceding the waiver 
establishment. If the waiver process is established, the responsible 
HHS official will determine whether individual programs are eligible 
for the waiver, based on the criteria described in other parts of this 
rule. With the inclusion of this limited waiver authority, we believe 
the final rule strikes an appropriate balance between the urgent need 
for improved compensation for Head Start staff and the potential 
impacts of these regulatory changes on the number of children served, 
absent additional congressional investment.
    We maintain that we are at a critical moment for Head Start, and we 
must recognize the real costs of providing high-quality early education 
services to the most vulnerable children and families in our country, 
including competitive compensation for program staff. Right now, many 
Head Start programs have empty slots because of workforce shortages. 
While workforce shortages have become acute in recent years, turnover 
among Head Start classroom teachers has grown steadily over the last 
decade. We know programs across the country have waiting lists but 
closed classrooms because they do not have qualified staff. At the same 
time, we have not seen meaningful increases in compensation that allow 
programs to recruit and retain and appropriately compensate qualified 
educators, leading to unprecedented rates of turnover and staff 
vacancies. We believe we need to take purposeful action to stabilize 
and support the valuable Head Start workforce in the face of this 
crisis, and to ensure that children and families continue to receive 
Head Start services at the level of quality defined in the Head Start 
Act for years to come. That said, we acknowledge commenters' concerns 
that meeting these requirements could have a differential impact on 
some Head Start programs that may need to reduce enrolled slots, absent 
congressional investment. We believe adding this limited waiver 
authority will help alleviate this concern.
    Even with limited waiver authority, ACF fully recognizes that these 
changes, without additional funding, may require programs to make 
tradeoffs that include restructuring budgets to reduce the number of 
funded slots--essentially focusing on how to strengthen services for 
currently enrolled children. We know that many Head Start programs do 
not want to reduce funded slots, even if they are currently vacant, 
especially given the number of eligible children and families who would 
potentially benefit from Head Start services. However, without 
additional congressional investment, these steps are necessary to 
stabilize and sustain the Head Start program for the long term. In 
addition to including the limited waiver discussed above, we have also 
intentionally provided a delayed implementation timeline for the most 
significant policy changes in this final rule, both to give programs 
time to plan and to create an opportunity for future congressional 
investments in quality improvement. We also note that, historically, 
Congress has steadily increased Head Start appropriations, particularly 
in response to efforts to improve quality. We also note that, even in 
the absence of additional funding beyond what is needed to keep pace 
with inflation, the regulatory impact analysis of this rule estimates 
that Head Start would continue to serve roughly the same number of 
children actually enrolled today.

Concern That Wage and Benefit Requirements Need To Be Strengthened

    As mentioned above, the vast majority of commenters expressed 
support for the goals and intention of the wage and benefit 
requirements proposed in the NPRM. In addition, several commenters--
including labor unions, professional membership organizations, and Head 
Start staff--suggested that ACF issue a final rule to strengthen wage 
and benefit requirements and create additional mechanisms for 
accountability. These commenters

[[Page 67727]]

stressed the importance of Head Start staff and their contributions to 
enrolled children and families as well as their communities. They 
stressed the need for policies to reflect the value of Head Start staff 
and ensure that flexibility for programs does not undermine the intent 
of the wage and benefit provisions. For example, commenters suggested 
that ACF require Head Start programs to benchmark early educators' 
salaries to the total value of the compensation package in a public 
school, inclusive of salaries and benefits and account for the number 
of hours worked, which some commenters indicated could be higher in 
Head Start. They requested a requirement for Head Start programs to 
publish their salary scale to create additional accountability, as well 
as specific enforcement mechanisms by the Office of Head Start. 
Commenters also suggested a shorter timeline to implement wage and 
benefit requirements given the urgency of the workforce shortage. 
Commenters urged more stringent requirements for Head Start programs as 
they develop their wage and salary scale, including prohibiting or 
limiting wages from being adjusted downward if a staff member does not 
have a degree, licensure, or credential and requiring programs to 
benchmark to either preschool teachers in public schools or 
kindergarten to third grade teachers in public schools, whichever is 
higher. Finally, several comments urged ACF to expand the benefits 
proposed in the NPRM, including requiring retirement benefits with an 
employer contribution and expanding benefits to part-time staff.
    ACF acknowledges the input from these commenters. After careful 
review, we believe that we have struck an appropriate balance by 
requiring a wage and salary scale with minimum requirements to 
benchmark to preschool teachers in public schools or at least 90 
percent of kindergarten teacher salaries, adjusting for experience, 
qualifications, and responsibilities. Given the variation in preschool 
services around the country, including differences in the availability, 
auspices, and funding structure in state and local preschool programs, 
ACF believes this flexibility is needed to account for the differential 
experiences of local Head Start agencies and the availability of 
comparable preschool teachers in local public schools. We appreciate 
that Head Start teachers may work longer hours than teachers in local 
elementary schools, especially those working in Early Head Start 
programs that often operate year-round and for an extended day. We have 
incorporated this feedback to clarify that wages and salaries should 
reflect hours worked, including time spent for lesson planning, family 
engagement, administrative paperwork, and other activities outside of 
hours when children are present. As described in Sec.  1302.90(f)(5), 
we encourage programs to offer additional benefits not specified in the 
rule to their staff, including enhanced health benefits, retirement 
savings plans, flexible savings accounts, or life, disability, and 
long-term care insurance to remain competitive with other employers in 
their area.
    Throughout the implementation process, OHS will provide technical 
assistance to support programs in developing a wage and salary scale 
that appropriately considers qualifications, credentials, and 
experience. OHS will update its monitoring protocol to include wages 
and benefits as well as other provisions of the rule.

Differential Impacts on Small and Rural Head Start Programs

    Many commenters expressed concerns that implementing the policies 
in the NPRM without additional Federal funding would require reducing 
the number of children served or require programs to close, with an 
acute impact on small and rural programs. They contended that these 
closures would then exacerbate the existing challenges in early 
childhood education access in rural and small communities. Commenters 
highlighted the importance of integrating mental health supports into 
everyday programming to prevent staff burnout and to address children's 
behavioral issues but noted the shortage of mental health professionals 
that particularly impacts rural areas. Some commenters identified other 
proposals in the NPRM that could be challenging to implement in rural 
areas, including locating certified assessors for lead testing and 
adopting modern technology to facilitate family engagement. In general, 
many commenters expressed support for consideration of the unique 
circumstances of small and rural Head Start programs to ensure that the 
changes do not inadvertently reduce access to essential services for 
children and families in these communities.
    We recognize the specific challenges of small and rural Head Start 
programs, and we also recognize small programs are particularly 
important in rural communities where Head Start may be one of the few 
licensed center-based early childhood options available for children 
and families. We have made changes in the final rule to provide some 
accommodations for small agencies, consistent with section 644(c) of 
the Act, which allows the Secretary, where appropriate, to establish 
special or simplified requirements for smaller agencies or agencies 
operating in rural areas. We discuss these changes more fully later in 
this final rule, but, in brief, the final rule includes different wages 
and benefits requirements for small Head Start agencies, defined as 
those with 200 or fewer funded slots, that provides additional 
flexibility to implement higher wages and benefits for staff. The 
policy for small agencies acknowledges that implementation of the wages 
and benefits policies required of larger agencies could be difficult in 
an agency that does not benefit from the economies of scale available 
to larger agencies.
    More specifically, small agencies are exempt from the requirement 
to provide wages that are at least comparable to preschool teachers in 
public schools, setting a wage floor that covers basic living expenses, 
and wage parity between Head Start and Early Head Start educators. 
Instead, small programs must show measurable progress over time toward 
these outcomes. Small agencies are also required to develop or update a 
pay scale that promotes competitive wages for all staff. While making 
these accommodations to address potential differential impacts, ACF 
remains committed to supporting and stabilizing the workforce in all 
Head Start programs and thus is still requiring small agencies to make 
measurable improvements in staff wages and benefits over time to reduce 
disparities between Head Start educators and preschool teachers in 
public schools. ACF will provide technical assistance to small agencies 
as needed to support implementation of improvement in staff 
compensation over time.
    We made revisions across several other policy areas that address or 
mitigate concerns raised about possible differential impacts of the 
proposed changes in the NPRM, including, for example, mental health and 
staff benefits. In revising expectations around mental health 
consultation services, the final rule specifies that if a mental health 
consultant cannot be available to a program at least once a month, a 
program must supplement the work of a mental health consultant with 
other licensed mental health professionals or behavioral health support 
specialists certified and trained in their profession. This revision 
broadens the pool of available practitioners to provide programs with 
mental health supports in recognition of the challenge of securing 
mental health consultation in many parts of the country, and 
particularly in rural areas. We have also

[[Page 67728]]

made changes to staff benefits, including the removal of the paid 
family leave policy and making the remaining paid leave policy more 
flexible for all programs.

Concerns Related to Administrative Burden From Overly Prescriptive 
Requirements

    Many commenters expressed concerns with increased administrative 
burden associated with proposals in the NPRM. Specifically, some 
commenters noted the administrative complexity of implementing pay 
parity across multiple jurisdictions; lead testing, monitoring, and 
remediation; and adjusting income for excessive housing costs, among 
others. In reporting concerns with the administrative burden associated 
with the proposed policies in the NPRM, some commenters described the 
proposals as overly prescriptive and reminiscent of the HSPPS prior to 
the revisions through the final rule published in 2016. Commenters 
suggested that ACF should provide training and technical assistance 
(TTA), flexibility, and clear guidance to support programs in 
implementing the changes.
    We have made numerous changes in the final rule that are responsive 
to commenters' concerns about increased administrative burden, while at 
the same time retaining the critical requirements that reflect the 
standards all programs need to meet to achieve high-quality early 
childhood programming. Regarding commenters' assertions about the 
prescriptive nature of the NPRM proposals, ACF believes that all the 
proposed requirements in the NPRM were aligned to the overarching goals 
of the regulatory changes, including supporting the workforce, 
enhancing program mental health services, and improving overall program 
service quality. However, we also recognize that it is important to 
balance Federal requirements for Head Start with local program 
flexibility to implement those requirements in a way that best meets 
individual community needs. Our changes in this final rule strike this 
appropriate balance.
    We highlight three examples of relevant changes here but discuss 
these and other changes in detail in section V. First, we revised the 
requirements for programs to prevent and address lead exposure in the 
water and paint of facilities that serve Head Start children. In the 
final rule, we include a new simpler, more streamlined standard that 
requires programs to ensure Head Start children are not exposed to lead 
in the water or paint of facilities through regular testing, 
inspection, and, as needed, remediation or abatement actions.
    Second, in response to public comments, we have removed the NPRM 
proposals for adult size furniture in classrooms and for brief 
unscheduled breaks for staff. We believe these are important aspects of 
promoting the well-being of classroom staff. However, we understand 
that it is more prudent for programs to determine how to implement such 
approaches in their own programs.
    Third, this final rule retains the requirement from the previous 
program standards related to child health and safety that only those 
Standards of Conduct pertaining to the maltreatment or endangerment of 
children by staff, consultants, contractors, and volunteers require an 
incident report. Based on the comments, ACF agrees that some of the 
proposed changes in the NPRM to the Standards of Conduct could 
undermine child safety by creating confusion and over-reporting of less 
serious incidents. With these changes, we think the final rule is 
clearer and focuses incident reporting on more serious incidents, 
thereby allowing Head Start resources at the Federal and program level 
to focus on protecting children's safety and reducing administrative 
burden.

Tribal Programs

    ACF received many comments focused specifically on how the NPRM 
would affect Tribal programs, and these comments highlighted concerns 
both with the rulemaking process and with specific proposed policies. 
First, commenters reported concerns about the lack of meaningful Tribal 
consultation prior to the release of the NPRM. Responses shared concern 
that Tribal leaders were not at the table during the decision-making 
process and that the timing of the NPRM release was problematic, as it 
coincided with significant cultural and leadership transitions for many 
Tribes. These commenters requested that ACF honor Tribal sovereignty, 
engage in meaningful Tribal consultation, and consider the unique needs 
and cultural practices of Tribal communities in the rulemaking process.
    Second, while many commenters supported the goals of the NPRM, they 
expressed concerns that the lack of additional funding to implement the 
proposed changes could lead to reduced enrollment slots, staff 
shortages, and program closures, particularly affecting Tribal 
programs. Some commenters suggested that the costlier proposed changes 
should be noted as best practices until appropriate funding and 
consultation opportunities are made available. Many of the commenters 
from Tribal communities expressed concern about the prescriptive nature 
of some of the proposed standards, which could conflict with Tribal 
employment infrastructure and philosophies. For example, some expressed 
concerns that increases in wages and benefits for Head Start staff 
would affect wages and benefits across the Tribal government and usurp 
the Tribes' sovereign right to set its own conditions of employment. 
Several comments highlighted other unique challenges faced by Tribal 
communities, such as the need for flexibility in meeting program hour 
requirements due to cultural and traditional events, and the importance 
of culturally relevant curricula and assessments. Some commenters 
requested local autonomy in determining health benefits and other 
employee benefits. Several comments reported concerns that the proposed 
changes, such as those that address incident reporting, would add 
additional administrative burden on overworked staff, noting that 
Tribes already have internal incident reporting practices in place. 
Finally, many commenters from Tribal communities called for categorical 
Head Start eligibility for American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) 
children, similar to other categorical eligibility allowances, such as 
those for children experiencing homelessness and families receiving 
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits. These 
commenters emphasized the importance of ensuring AIAN children in their 
communities receive comprehensive and culturally relevant services 
though Tribal Head Start programs.
    We appreciate the important feedback received from AIAN communities 
through ongoing Tribal consultations and the public comment process. 
ACF conducts an average of five Tribal consultations each year for 
those Tribes operating Head Start programs. The consultations are held 
in geographic areas across the country: Southwest, Northwest, Midwest 
(Northern and Southern), and Eastern. The consultations are often held 
in conjunction with other Tribal meetings or conferences, to ensure 
opportunities for most of the 150 Tribes served through Head Start to 
be able to attend and voice their concerns and issues. The Tribal 
consultation held on December 5, 2023, in Costa Mesa, California, 
provided an opportunity for Tribes in attendance to share reactions and 
input specifically about the NPRM, which was released on November 20, 
2023, and

[[Page 67729]]

was a main focus of discussion during that Tribal consultation. ACF 
acknowledges that a set of commenters expressed the view that the 
existing Tribal consultation process has fallen short of their 
expectations. ACF is committed to improving the nation-to-nation 
relationship with Tribes and will continue to seek ways to enhance 
engagement, including formal consultations and listening sessions or 
meetings.
    Through the NPRM and public comment process for this rule, we also 
received comments from many Tribal communities and stakeholders, 
including from the National Indian Head Start Directors Association, 
which directly informed the development of this final rule. We 
highlight three examples here. First, as noted previously and discussed 
in more detail in subsequent sections, the final rule includes an 
exemption from the rule's wages and benefits requirements for small 
agencies, defined as those with 200 or fewer funded slots for the 
reasons discussed above. At the time of the development of this final 
rule, ACF estimates that 78 percent of Tribal Head Start agencies meet 
the definition of a small agency; therefore, we anticipate that this 
small agency exemption will be particularly impactful for programs in 
Tribal communities.
    Second, the final rule makes changes to program requirements 
related to mental health consultation that will have an important 
impact on Tribal programs. In revising expectations around mental 
health consultation services, the final rule specifies that a mental 
health consultant should be available to a program at a frequency of at 
least once a month; however, if services by a mental health consultant 
are not available at that frequency, other licensed mental health 
professionals or behavioral health support specialists certified and 
trained in their profession, including traditional practitioners 
recognized by their Tribal governments, must be used in coordination 
and consultation with the mental health consultant. This change in the 
final rule recognizes both the concerns about the availability of 
mental health professionals broadly, and specifically in rural areas, 
as well as the traditional practices that are an integral part of many 
AIAN communities' approach to wellness.
    Third, the final rule does not maintain the NPRM proposal for Early 
Head Start (EHS) duration, which proposed to require that the 1,380 
hours of planned class operations for children in EHS center-based 
programs occur across a minimum of 46 weeks per year. We know this is 
significant for Tribal programs as they expressed in public comments 
that the ability to be flexible about how to meet the 1,380 hours 
requirement through the calendar year has supported traditional Tribal 
practices and important local and cultural events. Although it is a 
long-standing expectation of ACF that EHS programs provide continuous, 
year-round services for enrolled children, ACF is committed to 
prioritizing flexibility for local programs to determine the program 
schedule that best meets their community needs, while still achieving 
the required 1,380 annual hours of services for children.
    On a final note, ACF revises language in the final rule to conform 
to language in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024 (Pub. L. 118-
47), which includes a provision that allows Tribes to consider all 
children in a Tribal Head Start program's service area to be eligible 
for services regardless of income. The provision emphasizes that Tribes 
have the discretion to determine and use selection criteria to enroll 
those children who would benefit from the program, including children 
and families for which a child, a family member, or a member of the 
same household, is a member of an Indian Tribe. This change is 
consistent with Administration priorities as outlined in the fiscal 
year (FY) 2025 President's Budget to Congress, and is responsive to a 
key priority for Tribal leaders.

VI. Section-by-Section Discussion of Comments and Regulatory Provisions

    We received comments about changes we proposed to specific subparts 
of the regulation. Below, we identify each subpart, summarize the 
comments, and respond to them accordingly.

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

    Section 1305.2 establishes definitions for key terms used 
throughout the HSPPS. These include terms to define programs that 
operate Head Start services, including Early Head Start Agency, Head 
Start Agency, and Program. We add to Sec.  1305.2 a definition for Head 
Start that states that Head Start refers to any program authorized 
under the Head Start Act. Similarly, we add to Sec.  1305.2 a 
definition for Head Start Preschool so that programs that provide 
services to children from age three to compulsory school age will be 
referred to as Head Start Preschool (HSP) and a definition of Early 
Head Start that refers to a program that serves pregnant women and 
children from birth to age three. The term Head Start was not 
previously defined in the HSPPS nor was it used consistently throughout 
the standards. Consequently, this inconsistency was also present 
throughout sub-regulatory policy and TTA documents published by ACF. 
This inconsistency may be challenging for those who are new to Head 
Start and troublesome for the field in general.
    We also revise two other definitions to align with the revised 
terms above. First, we revise the the definition of Program by striking 
``a Head Start'' and adding ``any funded Head Start Preschool;'' 
striking ``migrant, seasonal, or'' and replacing with ``Migrant or 
Seasonal Head Start;'' and striking the word ``program'' and adding 
``or other program authorized'' after the comma.
    Furthermore, we revise the definition of Head Start Agency to add 
the word ``Preschool'' after ``Head Start'' and replace the words after 
``program'' with ``, an Early Head Start program, or Migrant or 
Seasonal Head Start program pursuant to the Head Start Act.'' We also 
update the usage of these terms as they are used throughout the HSPPS 
to align with these above changes. Finally, we remove the term Early 
Head Start Agency as well as implement a nomenclature change of 
``grantee'' to ``grant recipient''.
    ACF acknowledges the necessity of maintaining consistent and 
transparent terminology within this area and is confident that these 
terminology updates will effectively address those needs.
    Comment: ACF received very few comments overall regarding the 
``Definition of Head Start and Related Terms.'' Of the comments 
received, the majority were in support of the new terminology, citing 
increased clarity and consistency. However, a few commenters were 
concerned about the potential confusion caused by the term Head Start 
Preschool, especially in light of widespread expansion of other 
preschool programs. A few also worried that the use of the term 
Preschool undermines the unique dual-generation approach to 
comprehensive services that is characteristic of Head Start programs.
    Response: ACF maintains the changes proposed in the NPRM related to 
the definition of Head Start and related terms. The public agreed with 
ACF that the use of Head Start as an umbrella term to represent all 
program types authorized under the Act, as well as related changes, 
promote more consistent or clear use of the terms. Specifically, the 
differentiation between Head Start Preschool and the overall Head Start 
program aims to improve comprehension for both experienced

[[Page 67730]]

and novice readers of the HSPPS and codifies the colloquial use of the 
term Head Start. ACF acknowledges the concerns raised by the commenters 
regarding the potential overlap in naming with other Preschool programs 
but does not believe the changes diminish the distinctive approach and 
comprehensive services provided by Head Start programs.

Workforce Supports: Staff Wages (Sec.  1302.90)

    The prior version of the HSPPS did not contain any requirements for 
salaries or wages for Head Start staff. In this final rule, we add a 
new paragraph (e) to Sec.  1302.90 that lays out requirements for staff 
wages to support and stabilize the Head Start workforce. These 
requirements will ensure that programs make measurable progress towards 
pay parity with kindergarten to third grade teachers for Head Start 
educators, as well as improve wages for all other Head Start staff. The 
final rule includes most of the provisions proposed in the NPRM but 
includes some refinements as well as two notable changes in recognition 
of some of the particular challenges noted by commenters. First, the 
final rule provides a more flexible approach for small agencies with 
200 or fewer funded slots that exempts them from most of the rule's 
wage (and benefit) requirements that apply to larger agencies. Second, 
the final rule includes a flexibility for the Secretary to establish a 
waiver process for most of the wage requirements, in the absence of 
average annual increases in appropriations of at least 1.3 percent for 
Head Start in the preceding four years. Programs will be eligible for 
the waiver if they are determined to be meeting quality benchmarks and 
would otherwise have to reduce enrolled slots. We discuss both of these 
changes in more detail later in this section.
    Specifically, in this final rule we require that, by August 1, 
2031, programs with greater than 200 funded slots must: (1) establish 
or update a salary scale or pay structure that promotes competitive 
wages for all staff positions and takes into account responsibilities, 
qualifications, experience, and schedule or hours worked (Sec.  
1302.90(e)(1)); (2) ensure annual salaries for Head Start educators 
match those of preschool teachers in public school settings, or at 
least 90 percent of public school kindergarten teacher salaries, 
adjusted for responsibilities, qualifications, experience, and schedule 
or hours worked (Sec.  1302.90(e)(2)); (3) ensure all Head Start staff 
receive pay that is at least sufficient to cover basic costs of living 
in their geographic area (Sec.  1302.90(e)(3)); and (4) ensure wages 
are comparable across Head Start Preschool and Early Head Start 
programs for staff serving in similar positions with similar 
qualifications and experience (Sec.  1302.90(e)(4)).
    These new wage provisions aim not only to enhance the recruitment 
and retention of qualified staff through competitive compensation but 
to improve quality for children and families served in the program by 
reducing turnover and increasing access to effective teaching and 
learning practices. These policies go into effect August 1, 2031, 
approximately seven years after publication of the final rule. We 
believe this longer implementation window allows programs sufficient 
time to plan for the needed wage increases and to make improvements in 
staff wages over time and to implement wage changes in a manner that 
minimizes disruptions to enrolled children by incrementally phasing in 
wage increases while adjusting program budgets and funded enrollment. 
It also provides opportunities for additional appropriations from 
Congress or for the Secretary to establish a limited waiver for certain 
programs if Head Start appropriations are very low in the four fiscal 
years preceding 2028.
    In response to public comments, the final rule provides some 
additional flexibilities beyond the policies proposed in the NPRM to 
support successful implementation and mitigate potential unintended 
consequences. First, as described previously, we provide an exemption 
for small Head Start agencies, defined as those with 200 or fewer 
funded Head Start slots, from the majority of the new wage policies 
(Sec.  1302.90(e)(5)) and instead require a more flexible approach to 
increasing wages. As noted previously, section 644(c) of the Act allows 
the Secretary, where appropriate, to establish special or simplified 
requirements for smaller agencies, which provides the basis and 
authority for a different approach to small agencies. Small agencies 
are still required to establish or update a salary scale or pay 
structure that promotes competitive wages for all staff positions. 
Small agencies must also make measurable improvements in staff wages 
over time, including reducing disparities in wages between Head Start 
education staff and public school preschool teachers. This approach is 
discussed in further detail below.
    Second, to provide programs more flexibility in determining 
comparison salaries in public schools for Head Start education staff 
salaries, we add a clarification that programs can choose to benchmark 
education staff salaries to at least 90 percent of kindergarten teacher 
salaries, as an alternative to preschool teacher salaries (Sec.  
1302.90(e)(2)(iv)). Third, we clarify that education staff salaries can 
be adjusted for schedule or hours worked, in addition to adjusting for 
responsibilities, qualifications, and experience (Sec.  
1302.90(e)(2)(i) and (ii)). Finally, we clarify that our intent is for 
the pay parity standards for education staff to apply to staff who are 
employees as well as those whose salaries are funded by Head Start 
through a contract (Sec.  1302.90(e)(2)(iii)).
    Third, as noted previously, we include a flexibility for the 
Secretary to establish in 2028 a limited waiver of most of the final 
rule's wage requirements, in the absence of an average annual increase 
of at least 1.3 percent in Head Start appropriations in the preceding 
four years for eligible programs. Programs would be eligible for the 
waiver if they: demonstrate they would have to reduce enrolled slots; 
demonstrate improvements in wages over the four years preceding the 
waiver, to the greatest extent practicable; have not been designated 
for competition under the Designation Renewal System (DRS) after the 
effective date of this rule; and do not have significant child health, 
safety, or quality concerns as determined by the responsible HHS 
official. Any programs granted this waiver are still required to make 
improvements in wages for Head Start staff over time, to the greatest 
extent practicable; and to establish or update a salary scale or pay 
structure that promotes competitive wages for all staff and takes into 
account staff responsibilities, qualifications, experience, and 
schedule or hours worked. This waiver is discussed in further detail 
below.
    The majority of comments submitted on the NPRM provided input on 
the proposed wage policies, with comments addressing the wage policies 
numbering approximately 850. The comments included a nuanced spectrum 
of viewpoints, reflecting both strong endorsement of the proposed wage 
policies and pointed concerns about the practical aspects of 
implementing the policies and the potential impact on services for 
children and families.
    Many Head Start educators, as well as labor unions, 
enthusiastically welcomed the new requirements and expressed positive 
support for proposed wage improvements, advocating for enhancements 
such as indexing wages to inflation and advocating for the policies to 
be implemented and effective on a faster timeline. Many provided

[[Page 67731]]

personal testimony about the low wages and working conditions they 
endure, including stories of educators who are laid off and collect 
unemployment every summer, and who rely on public benefits or work 
additional jobs to provide for their families, as well as stories of 
qualified and skilled educators who leave Head Start to pursue better 
wages, benefits, and financial stability. Most educators highlighted 
the urgent need for increased compensation, applauding ACF for making 
an important step forward to address longstanding workforce challenges. 
This enthusiasm underscored the importance of workforce compensation on 
educators' personal and professional lives, and on programs' ability to 
retain and recruit qualified staff.
    Conversely, many Head Start program leaders as well as national and 
local organizations representing Head Start programs, while supportive 
of the intentions behind the wage increases, voiced apprehension 
primarily centered around the financial implications of such policies. 
They raised concerns regarding the availability of funds, the 
practicality of the proposed timeline, and the potential repercussions 
on service delivery. Commenters expressed fears that these 
repercussions could include reductions in slots or the number of 
children and families served as well as potential program closures. 
Another common theme was the financial strain that the proposed wage 
provisions could place specifically on small, rural, and Tribal 
programs. Suggestions for mitigating these challenges included phased 
implementations, more substantial Federal funding, and the development 
of clear, achievable benchmarks for progress towards wage parity and 
improvements. There was a consensus in the comments on the need for ACF 
to offer comprehensive support, guidance, and flexibility to enable 
programs to adapt to and meet the new wage requirements effectively.
    ACF strongly believes that Head Start program staff are the 
cornerstone of the Head Start mission to provide high-quality early 
education and comprehensive services to children and families who need 
them. Improving wages for Head Start staff is a critical mechanism to 
enable staff recruitment and retention and program quality in Head 
Start. Therefore, in this final rule, we maintain the proposed wage 
provisions, with the additional flexibilities discussed above. We 
discuss the comments and our rationale for any changes to the 
regulatory text below.
Cross-Cutting Comments and Themes on Staff Wages
    Comment: Many comments expressed concern about the increased 
operational costs that would result from the proposed wage adjustments 
and the uncertainty about accompanying Federal funding increases. Many 
commenters expressed that without additional funding, programs with 
limited funding would face difficult choices, and would need to reduce 
the number of slots or children and families served, and in some cases 
would need to close programs, thereby reducing access to Head Start 
services for children and families. In light of these financial 
concerns, some commenters proposed innovative financial strategies to 
mitigate the impact of wage increases on program operations. 
Specifically, they suggested that Head Start programs could leverage 
multiple funding streams and braid funds from Federal, state, local, 
and private sources as a potential solution to support wage 
improvements. The comments suggested that this approach would not only 
address the immediate financial challenges posed by the proposed wage 
adjustments but also contribute to the long-term sustainability of 
programs.
    Commenters also raised concerns that the cost implications of the 
proposed wage policies in the NPRM would be particularly acute for 
small, community-based programs that already operate with tight budgets 
and could be at risk for program closure when wage requirements go into 
effect. Some commenters who strongly supported wage increases clarified 
that this is only if sufficient funding is provided to avoid a 
reduction in services for children and families, noting the important 
role Head Start plays in providing access to quality early care and 
education. Some comments proposed tying wage policies to appropriations 
increases and including flexibility for the Secretary of HHS to remove 
or reduce the wage requirements if funding is not sufficient. Other 
commenters proposed allowing incremental increases over time, 
demonstrating progress without reaching parity requirements. Some 
commenters expressed concerns about making additional enrollment 
reductions following reductions that programs made by choice in 
previous years to increase staff compensation.
    Response: ACF acknowledges the complexities surrounding the 
proposed wage adjustments within the Head Start program, particularly 
related to the availability of funding and the potential impact on 
program slots. It is essential to recognize, however, that the chronic 
issue of unfilled staff positions and the inability of programs to 
operate at full capacity stem from the challenges in recruiting and 
retaining qualified staff, primarily due to noncompetitive wages. This 
situation inadvertently results in many Head Start slots going 
unfilled, thereby already limiting the program's reach to children and 
families who could benefit from its services.
    We agree with commenters that it is important to balance any 
quality improvements with the capacity of Head Start to reach children 
and families in need of services. In response to comments, the final 
rule includes an option for the Secretary to establish a limited waiver 
from most of the rule's wage requirements for eligible programs if 
Federal appropriations for Head Start are less than an average annual 
increase of 1.3 percent over the proceeding four years. In order to be 
eligible for the waiver, programs must meet quality benchmarks and 
demonstrate they would need to reduce enrolled slots in order to 
implement the wage requirements. The criteria for this waiver are 
discussed in more detail in the following paragraphs.
    First, if the Secretary decides to establish this waiver process, 
the program must demonstrate that it would otherwise have to reduce 
enrolled Head Start slots to implement the wage requirements. A Head 
Start slot is considered vacant when a child leaves the program (either 
because the family removes the child or the child ages out) and the 
Head Start program does not enroll another child within 30 days 
(exclusive of summer months if the program is closed). (Separate from 
this possible waiver process, programs are expected to reduce their 
funded enrollment to eliminate vacant slots, as needed, to meet the 
requirements of the final rule.)
    Second, if the Secretary establishes a waiver, Head Start agencies 
must meet quality benchmarks to demonstrate that they are protecting 
child safety and improving staff wages over time. This approach ensures 
that flexibility does not undermine child health and safety or quality, 
for programs that struggle to implement the wage requirements in the 
absence of additional appropriations. Head Start agencies are not 
eligible for a waiver if they were designated for competition under the 
DRS after the effective date of this rule. Further, programs are 
ineligible if they have significant child health, safety, or quality 
concerns, as determined by the responsible HHS official. The latter 
criterion is intended to encompass serious incidents of child 
maltreatment or a pattern of child safety incidents that

[[Page 67732]]

may have happened too recently to trigger competition in the DRS. In 
addition, to meet this criterion, the responsible HHS official must not 
have significant concerns about program quality that seriously impact 
the delivery of education and child development program services 
required in part 1302, subpart C, of the HSPPS. Programs must also 
demonstrate improvements in staff wages during the four years preceding 
the start of the waiver to the greatest extent practicable.
    Third, a Head Start agency can only be granted a waiver if they 
held the grant for the service area prior to August 21, 2024 (the 
effective date of this rule). New grant recipients should apply for 
Head Start funding with a proposed budget to meet the wage requirements 
and other provisions of the final rule.
    Fourth, any programs granted this waiver are to continue to make 
improvements in wages for Head Start staff over time, to the greatest 
extent practicable. These programs are also required to establish or 
update a salary scale or pay structure that promotes competitive wages 
for all staff and takes into account staff responsibilities, 
qualifications, experience, and schedule or hours worked.
    Waivers are granted for the duration of the program's five-year 
grant period. Waiver eligibility will be reassessed for each successive 
grant period and may be renewed if appropriation increases are below 
1.3 percent for the preceding four years and the grant recipient 
continues to meet the criteria described above.
    ACF also recognizes the challenges that some Head Start agencies--
particularly small agencies--may face in implementing new policies for 
wage requirements absent additional appropriations. In this final rule, 
we also provide an exemption from most of the rule's wage requirements 
for small Head Start agencies. This exemption is discussed in further 
detail below, along with wage requirements for small programs that 
offer more flexibility in how small agencies go about increasing wages 
over time. The rationale behind the wage requirements is rooted in a 
strategic effort to address longstanding challenges that have led to 
poverty level wages for many Head Start staff, which have in turn led 
to severe staff shortages and closed Head Start classrooms. By 
supporting the workforce through improved compensation, ACF aims to 
enhance the ability of Head Start programs to attract and retain the 
qualified staff necessary for delivering high-quality programming. This 
is a critical step toward ensuring that the Head Start mission of 
supporting the development of children from low-income families through 
comprehensive services can be fully realized. It is also central to the 
mission of Head Start, which includes disrupting intergenerational 
poverty in communities, to ensure that our Federal program investments 
do not perpetuate poverty level wages that force staff to rely on 
public benefits themselves. Ultimately, increasing wages for staff will 
increase Head Start's ability to serve more children over time, as it 
will put the program on a more sustainable path. ACF agrees with 
commenters who highlighted the potential of leveraging multiple funding 
streams and braiding funds as a strategy to support the implementation 
of wage improvements and program stability. Further, ACF supports 
programs exploring and utilizing a variety of funding sources, 
including Federal, state, local, and private funds, which can provide a 
more robust financial foundation for programs to address wage 
adjustments without compromising service delivery. Layering funds is an 
acceptable and encouraged practice that can enhance quality in early 
childhood programs. This approach aligns with ACF's commitment to 
innovative and sustainable solutions that support the financial health 
of Head Start programs while advancing our goal of equitable 
compensation for all staff. We encourage programs to explore these 
options as part of their strategic planning for implementing the new 
wage requirements, while also recognizing that states and localities 
vary significantly in the availability of non-Federal early childhood 
investments.
Differential Impacts on Different Program Types
    Comment: Many comments highlighted the differential impact of the 
proposed wage changes on small programs, noting that small Head Start 
entities will face unique challenges implementing wage improvements, 
due to their size. Commenters noted that slot reductions are not a 
viable option for smaller programs because the volume of slots that 
would need to be reduced to facilitate compliance with the wage 
policies in the absence of additional funding would impact financial 
viability of such programs and potentially lead to program closures. 
Some commenters raised concerns in particular around small programs 
that are fully enrolled and fully staffed. Other commenters stressed 
that small programs that are also rural may be the only high-quality 
early education option in a community. Commenters urged ACF to consider 
special provisions or flexibilities for small programs.
    Response: ACF understands the unique challenges faced by small 
agencies that operate on thin margins and need to maintain a sufficient 
number of funded Head Start slots to ensure their agencies are viable 
in terms of economies of scale. Section 644(c) of the Head Start Act 
also acknowledges that some requirements may need to differ for small 
agencies and allows the Secretary, where appropriate, to establish 
special or simplified requirements for smaller agencies. Therefore, as 
described previously, the final rule includes an exemption from most of 
the rule's wages and benefits requirements for small Head Start 
agencies, defined as those with 200 or fewer funded slots, and creates 
a simplified requirement for small agencies with more flexibility. As 
of December 2023, small Head Start agencies with 200 or fewer funded 
slots represented 35 percent of all Head Start agencies and eight 
percent of all Head Start funded slots nationally.
    The approach that Head Start agencies take to implement the wage 
requirements will depend on a number of specific variables including 
current wages and the gap between wages in Head Start and preschool 
teachers in local public schools, current enrollment levels and the 
number of vacant slots, and the size and flexibility of their budget 
especially in relation to fixed costs. Most Head Start programs 
currently have vacant slots, meaning that their funded enrollment 
exceeds the number of children who are actually enrolled in their 
program. However, the number of slots impacted by lower enrollment and 
the budgetary impact varies significantly by the size of the program. 
Most costs in Head Start are not tied to the individual child or 
family, but rather to the staff, space, supplies, and equipment needed 
to operate each classroom. For example, consider a small program with 
150 funded slots and a larger program with 1,000 funded slots. Assume 
that both programs are at 90 percent enrollment, meaning that 90 
percent of the slots are currently occupied by an enrolled child and 10 
percent are vacant. The small program has 15 empty slots and the large 
program has 100 empty slots. In Head Start, there are generally 17-20 
children in a preschool classroom. The large program can reduce the 
number of classrooms in the program by five and reallocate the budget 
to increases in staff wages in other classrooms, without significantly 
impacting actual enrollment. The small program is not able to reduce 
the number of classrooms without potentially impacting slots that

[[Page 67733]]

are currently occupied by enrolled children.
    Moreover, small programs are limited by the fact that fixed costs 
represent a higher proportion of their budget. There are many fixed or 
relatively fixed costs involved in running a Head Start program that 
exist regardless of agency size or number of classrooms. These include, 
but may not be limited to: building space, utilities, insurance, 
marketing, outreach to and enrollment of families, custodial services, 
curriculum, administrative staff, and staff needed to implement 
required Head Start comprehensive services (e.g., family service 
workers, mental health professionals, health services staff, 
disabilities services staff, etc.). These fixed costs, in general, 
represent a lower proportion of overall costs in larger Head Start 
agencies because they can be shared across more classrooms, whereas 
they represent a larger proportion of overall costs in small agencies. 
Small Head Start agencies also suffer from a lack of economies of scale 
in relation to their purchasing and negotiating power, resulting in 
higher rates for everything from cleaning supplies to health insurance. 
If a smaller agency reduces or streamlines classrooms in order to 
reallocate funding towards compensation, the agency will still bear 
many--if not all--of their fixed costs, and would be spreading those 
fixed costs across fewer classrooms.
    Leading cost modelers have documented that operating an ECE program 
that serves fewer than 100 children is very difficult and may not 
always be financially viable.\14\ This threshold arguably may be higher 
for the Head Start context, since Head Start includes more 
comprehensive services than a typical child care program. OHS has 
provided related guidance in past funding opportunities for EHS and 
Early Head Start--Child Care Partnership (EHS-Child Care Partnership) 
expansion, encouraging applicants to consider proposing to operate no 
fewer than 72 EHS slots to ensure they will have the economies of scale 
necessary to sustain program operations and meet all Head Start program 
requirements.\15\ In this final rule, the small agency exemption 
applies to those agencies with 200 or fewer funded slots. In the 
absence of additional appropriations from Congress in the near future, 
a program with 200 or fewer funded slots would likely need to reduce or 
streamline the number classrooms and could quickly fall below the 
research-based recommendation for the minimum number of funded slots to 
sustainably operate an ECE program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Mitchell, A. 2010. Lessons from Cost Modeling: The Link 
Between ECE Business Management and Program Quality. https://www.earlychildhood finance.org/finance/cost-modeling; Stoney and 
Blank, 2011. Delivering Quality: Strengthening the Business Side of 
Early Care and Education. https://childcareta.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/delivering_quality_strengthening_the_business_side_of_ece.pdf.
    \15\ For example, see: https://glenpricegroup.com/sites/ehsccpresearch/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2014/06/Funding-Opportunity-Announcement-EHS-CCP-2014.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, of the agencies with fewer than 50 employees, the 
majority (87 percent) of them also have 200 or fewer funded slots and 
will therefore be included in the small agency flexibility.\16\ Several 
other existing Federal laws provide flexibilities and exemptions to 
small businesses, including for those with 50 or fewer employees (e.g., 
employer mandate of the Affordable Care Act (ACA); FMLA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Head Start 2023 PIR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This exemption reflects ACF's understanding that small programs 
play a critical role in their communities, particularly in rural and 
Tribal communities where a large proportion of Head Start agencies 
would qualify for the small agency exemption. This exemption also 
applies to Head Start interim service providers that provide services 
to children and families temporarily in place of a Head Start agency 
that would have qualified for the small agency exemption (Sec.  
1302.90(e)(6)). In such instances, the interim service provider is 
temporarily providing Head Start services for a particular service 
area, in place of a grant recipient that either relinquished or lost 
their Head Start grant. Therefore, these interim providers are still 
operating within the same economies of scale constraints as the small 
agency that previously served that particular service area. Further, 
when a new permanent service provider is awarded the grant for that 
service area, that future provider will also likely be a small agency 
operating under the same financial constraints.
    Though Head Start agencies with 200 or fewer funded slots are 
exempt from most of the wage requirements, they must still have a pay 
scale or structure that promotes competitive wages for staff; must make 
measurable progress over time to increase wages and reduce the gap 
between wages offered to Head Start educators and preschool teachers in 
public schools (or 90% of kindergarten teacher salaries in public 
schools); and must increase wages over time for the lowest paid staff 
to cover basic living expenses.
    In addition, the workforce in small Head Start agencies remains 
impacted by the current ECE workforce challenges happening nationwide, 
and the potential impact on services for children and families in the 
face of ongoing staff shortages may continue without investment in 
staff compensation. This is why, as part of the exemption policy, ACF 
requires small agencies to continue to improve staff wages (and 
benefits) over time. This flexibility is designed to promote 
significant wage improvements without unduly compromising service 
capacity for small agencies. This approach also provides a clear 
mechanism and expectation for small agencies to increase wages and 
benefits when Congress provides additional funds through annual 
appropriations targeted to COLA increases or quality improvement. It 
underscores ACF's intention to implement the wage adjustments in a 
manner that is both equitable and pragmatic, ensuring that the benefits 
of improved compensation extend to all Head Start staff and families 
while acknowledging the operational realities of smaller Head Start 
agencies.
    We also note that the wage and benefit requirements in the final 
rule are intended to address concerns related to child health and 
safety and quality as well. OHS will continue to provide technical 
assistance and monitor all programs, including small programs, to 
support child health and safety and adherence to quality standards. 
Specific changes related to protecting child safety and supporting 
mental health are further discussed below and apply to all programs 
regardless of size.
    Comment: Many commenters noted that it would be particularly 
challenging for rural programs to implement the wage policies, as they 
have more limited access to alternative funding sources to support wage 
improvements, face more severe economic barriers, experience more 
challenges finding qualified staff and service providers, and for some 
communities, may be the only early care and education option serving a 
large geographic area. Therefore, meaning a reduction in slots or 
program closure could have an outsized impact on the community and its 
economy. Many requested consideration of the unique circumstances of 
rural Head Start programs to ensure that the changes do not 
inadvertently reduce access to essential services for children and 
families in these communities.
    Response: ACF acknowledges the critical role that Head Start plays 
in rural communities, at times offering the only high-quality early 
care and education option in a community. We understand commenters' 
concern about possible reductions in services in rural

[[Page 67734]]

areas, particularly in small rural communities. Based on ACF's analysis 
of the geographic distribution of Head Start agencies at the time of 
the development of this final rule, ACF has determined that the 
exemption of the wage and benefits policies offered for small agencies 
will apply to over half of rural Head Start agencies. According to 
ACF's analysis, approximately 56% of entirely rural Head Start 
agencies--meaning those where 100% of their slots operate in a rural 
area--are also small agencies (200 or fewer funded slots).
    Many comments referred to challenges for rural programs and largely 
focused on the challenges recruiting and retaining qualified staff and 
service providers in remote or rural locations. ACF makes adjustments 
to requirements on mental health services and protecting children from 
lead in response to these comments, but notes qualifications for 
teachers are statutory and not adjusted in the final rule. The new 
requirements for staff wages and benefits established through this 
final rule will improve the ability of Head Start programs--including 
rural programs--to recruit and retain qualified staff. These 
requirements are critical to ensure Head Start programs can be 
competitive employers in their communities and retain the qualified 
staff necessary to provide high quality services to children and 
families. As needed, ACF will provide TTA to rural programs to support 
in their efforts to implement the wage and benefit requirements. As 
described above, the size of a Head Start agency and the resulting 
economies of scale and budget flexibility primarily impacts a program's 
approach to the new wage and benefit requirements.
    If necessary, absent additional funding, larger Head Start agencies 
located in rural areas can restructure their programs and reduce the 
number of classrooms to invest in improved compensation for staff, 
while remaining financially viable programs. However, in the case of 
smaller rural programs, the closure of even one or two classrooms could 
constitute such a large share of the program and the fixed costs 
required that the program may no longer be economically viable. The 
flexibility afforded to small agencies in this final rule will help to 
mitigate potential negative impacts on rural programs, particularly in 
small rural communities where Head Start may be the only high-quality 
early education opportunity available to low-income families.
    Comment: Many Tribal Head Start program leaders and other 
commenters from Tribal communities expressed strong support of the 
policy aims stated in the NPRM for improved wages to address staff 
retention and program stability. However, these commenters also 
expressed concerns that Tribal Head Start programs would face 
significant challenges implementing the proposed wage requirements due 
to the unique operational contexts of Tribal governments. Commenters 
from Tribal communities shared concern that the lack of additional 
funding to implement the proposed changes could lead to reduced 
enrollment slots, staff shortages, and program closures in their Head 
Start programs. Some voiced concerns about the administrative burden 
that Tribal Head Start programs would experience to implement the NPRM 
policies, and argued that the new requirements were overly prescriptive 
and did not respect Tribal sovereignty and self-determination, 
including Tribal employment infrastructure and philosophies.
    Response: We acknowledge the concerns raised by Tribal Head Start 
program leaders and other commenters representing Tribal communities. 
The exemption for small Head Start agencies described previously will 
allow flexibility for Tribal Head Start agencies that operate with 200 
or fewer funded slots regarding whether they meet all of the wage 
policy requirements in this final rule. At the time of the development 
of this final rule, ACF estimates that approximately 116 Tribal Head 
Start agencies will benefit from this flexibility, which represents 
approximately 78 percent of all Tribal Head Start agencies.
    Like the commenters, ACF believes that all Head Start educators 
deserve competitive wages and benefits that reflect the importance of 
their work, and that all staff should earn a livable wage, and this 
includes the Head Start workforce in Tribal communities. OHS will work 
with Tribal grant recipients to understand their challenges and provide 
technical assistance and support to develop appropriate wage scales for 
the Head Start program in light of existing Tribal wage scales.
    Comment: Representatives of Migrant and Seasonal Head Start (MSHS) 
programs also expressed concerns about the impact of implementing wage 
policies on MSHS programs without additional funding, particularly 
given the seasonal nature of their program schedules. Some commenters 
noted that they had already reduced enrollment in order to increase 
wages and that to further increase, they would have to decrease 
enrollment to a level that would deem them inoperable.
    Response: ACF is committed to supporting the operation and 
sustainability of MSHS agencies, as well as ensuring compensation that 
will support the recruitment and retention of qualified staff. MSHS 
agencies play a particularly important role in delivering early 
childhood services in the communities they serve, and improving staff 
wages will support quality and stability of programs. However, we 
recognize there are unique challenges for MSHS agencies given their 
program structures and schedules. ACF will provide additional support 
and TA to MSHS agencies on how to implement the wage policies in this 
rule while continuing to provide critical services in their 
communities.
Timing/Phase-In of Wage Policies
    Comment: Some comments shared concerns about the sustainability of 
increased compensation, especially given the uncertainty of continuous 
Federal funding in future years. Comments urged ACF to allow for 
flexibility and phased approaches to implementation that consider 
future economic conditions and changes in the early childhood education 
landscape. For example, some commenters suggested that programs should 
be assessed and monitored for progress towards pay parity, such as 
demonstrating a reduction in pay gaps over time, rather than requiring 
programs to achieve comparable salaries with preschool teachers in 
public schools. Comments that addressed the proposed timeline for 
implementing the new wage standards ranged from some asserting that the 
seven-year period is too lengthy and could delay necessary improvements 
to staff compensation, to many others requesting additional time to 
ensure that comprehensive wage adjustments could be made holistically 
across new requirements. Many expressed concerns that the timeline 
might still be too aggressive for programs to feasibly meet without 
causing financial strain or necessitating reductions in services. Some 
requested the authority for the Secretary to reduce requirements if 
additional appropriations from Congress were not provided to fund the 
wage improvements.
    Response: Balancing input from commenters, ACF maintains that the 
seven-year implementation timeline for the wage policies allows 
programs sufficient time to plan for phased increases while considering 
the urgency of improving staff compensation. This timeline offers a 
phased approach that will enable programs to plan strategically, adapt 
to changing

[[Page 67735]]

economic conditions, and ensure that wage increases are sustainable 
over time, including through possible additional funding increases 
through future congressional appropriations. This may give programs 
additional time to seek funding from local, state, or private sources 
as well as layer funding as previously discussed. It acknowledges the 
significant variations in local economic conditions, the complexities 
of wage adjustment processes, and the necessity for Head Start programs 
to engage in thoughtful, strategic planning. ACF will provide technical 
assistance and guidance to programs to support implementation of these 
policies. This may include sharing best practices, developing useful 
tools and resources, and offering support to address specific 
challenges as needed.
Administrative Burden/Technical Implementation Challenges
    Comment: A considerable number of comments focused on the potential 
administrative burden associated with developing, implementing, and 
maintaining the programmatic policies necessary to implement the wage 
requirements. Commenters raised concerns with conducting wage 
comparability studies, managing increased complexity in payroll 
systems, and adhering to new standards while also adhering to other 
obligations such as collective bargaining agreements and state-specific 
employment laws. Comments suggested that additional administrative 
requirements could detract from program resources and focus, 
potentially impacting service delivery. ACF also heard from at least 
one large labor union that indicated that the presence of a collective 
bargaining unit should not pose a barrier to implementing new 
requirements because the employer and workers representing the 
collective bargaining unit can work together to meet all requirements 
in Head Start and applicable local or state requirements, as well as 
any other employees in the collective bargaining unit. Questions and 
concerns were raised about the specifics of how pay scales should be 
constructed, the technical resources needed to comply with new 
requirements, and the potential for increased complexity in program 
administration. Commenters expressed strong concerns with the lengthy 
timeline associated with getting approval for a change in scope 
application, which directly impacts a program's ability to restructure 
programs in a timely fashion to raise compensation. Commenters sought 
clarity and guidance from ACF on these issues and many requested 
support from ACF to develop, maintain, and implement pay scales or 
suggested that this work should be done at a systems level, rather than 
by individual programs.
    Response: Understanding the technical support needed to develop and 
implement equitable pay scales, ACF maintains in the final rule a 
seven-year implementation timeline to implement the wage requirements. 
The seven-year implementation timeline not only provides programs with 
sufficient time to thoughtfully plan and prepare for wage adjustments 
but also allows for the necessary negotiation with unions representing 
Head Start staff, for any adjustments that may be needed to contracts, 
and for possible additional funding to be obtained or appropriated to 
support implementation. This timeline is crucial for ensuring that wage 
improvements are implemented smoothly. ACF will provide Head Start 
programs with the necessary tools and resources to effectively manage 
the administrative demands of implementing structured pay scales and to 
ensure an equitable compensation system for all staff members. For 
instance, ACF recently published the ``Early Care and Education 
Workforce Salary Scale Playbook: Implementation Guide,'' \17\ a 
comprehensive resource designed to guide early childhood leaders, 
including Head Start programs, through the complexities of salary scale 
development. Finally, ACF is committed to supporting programs' efforts 
to restructure by working with them to process change in scope 
applications in a timely fashion. ACF recognizes that the timeline for 
processing change in scope applications has been delayed in the past 
and is taking steps to improve response times.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See: https://childcareta.acf.hhs.gov/early-care-and-education-workforce-salary-scale-playbook-implementation-guide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Some comments reflected the need to address wage 
disparities and equity within the Head Start workforce, emphasizing 
equity across race, setting, and age groups served. There was a strong 
call for ACF to provide technical assistance and support for conducting 
wage gap analyses and developing plans to address identified 
disparities. Some commenters recommended including equity weights to 
ensure that adjustments for qualifications do not unintentionally 
exacerbate pay disparities for early educators that are Black, 
Indigenous, and/or members of other historically marginalized groups, 
who research has documented are less likely to have accessible pathways 
to credential and degree attainment. Some commenters also emphasized a 
need for a coordinated approach to compensation across all ECE settings 
to ensure a stable, qualified workforce regardless of program type and 
expressed concern that increasing compensation for the Head Start 
workforce without making similar adjustments for child care providers 
could lead to further inequities in the field.
    Response: ACF appreciates these comments about the importance of 
addressing wage disparities among different groups and across the ECE 
sector. Indeed, research indicates that women of color in the ECE 
workforce are paid less on average than White women, and women of color 
are also more likely to hold assistant positions as opposed to lead 
teaching positions.\18\ As programs are revising and updating pay 
scales to implement the new wage standards, ACF encourages programs to 
intentionally examine possible disparities in pay by race and 
ethnicity. ACF strongly agrees that Head Start programs should not 
perpetuate disparities in pay across racial and ethnic groups. Further, 
the new wage standard included in the final rule at Sec.  1302.90(e)(4) 
requires programs to ensure there are not disparities in pay for Head 
Start staff based on the age of children served, for those with similar 
qualifications and experience. While ACF recognizes the concern that 
increasing wages for Head Start staff may lead to further pay 
disparities for other parts of the ECE sector including child care, we 
strongly believe that the wages of Head Start staff cannot continue to 
be suppressed. Head Start has long been a leader in the field of ECE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Austin, L.J.E., Edwards, B., Ch[aacute]vez, R., & 
Whitebook, M. (2019). Racial wage gaps in early education 
employment. Center for the Study of Child Care Employment, 
University of California. https://cscce.berkeley.edu/racial-wage-gaps-in-early-education-employment/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pay Scale
    Comment: Some comments expressed concerns over the logistics of 
policy execution, including potential challenges with the collection of 
comparable compensation data such as obtaining up-to-date local school 
district salary information, as well as concerns about the frequency of 
the five-year review of pay structures. Commenters emphasized the need 
for additional time for comprehensive wage adjustments post-
implementation, alongside concerns regarding wage standard 
operationalization for varied staff roles funded by Head Start. 
Comments

[[Page 67736]]

demonstrated some confusion around the ability to adjust pay based on 
qualifications, schedule or hours worked, and other factors. Many 
comments called for ACF to provide a robust framework of support, 
including technical assistance and training, to navigate the 
complexities of revising pay structures. Many comments emphasized the 
need for a strategic approach that includes careful consideration of 
the unique challenges faced by special populations, as well as input 
from the broader early childhood program provider community, to ensure 
that the wage requirements are responsive to their diverse needs. For 
example, some commenters recommended making positive wage adjustments 
within salary scales for educators who bring language or cultural 
skills to the job, as a part of their overall adjustments for 
qualifications. Some commenters requested that ACF provide tools, that 
technical assistance partners develop pay scales for programs, or that 
state or local governments would be better positioned to develop pay 
scales rather than requiring each individual program to design, 
develop, and implement their own.
    Response: ACF acknowledges the concerns highlighted regarding the 
logistical challenges and administrative burden associated with 
implementing the new wage standards, particularly the collection of 
comparable compensation data and the periodic review of pay structures. 
ACF encourages programs to leverage and utilize their existing 
partnerships with local publicly funded preschool and kindergarten 
programs, including the memorandum of understanding (MOU) required in 
Sec.  1302.53(b)(1), to identify and gather data on comparable 
preschool and kindergarten teacher salaries. While it is important for 
individual programs to tailor their pay scales for their program and 
community context, ACF believes that technical assistance and support 
can provide useful guidance and tools from which programs can develop 
and implement pay scales over time. The final rule retains a seven-year 
implementation window to allow time for programs to plan and develop 
the technical capacity to develop and implement pay scales. ACF also 
aims to provide TTA to programs on these issues to support the 
development of revised pay scales. The final rule also maintains 
policies that allow for wages to be adjusted based on responsibilities, 
qualifications, and experience relevant to the position, and clarifies 
that adjustments can be made to account for schedules or hours worked. 
This language provides these minimum adjustments, meaning that programs 
may include additional equity adjustments or incentives to ensure that 
the pay scale structure is equitable and supports the development of a 
Head Start workforce that is well-equipped to meet the needs of 
children and families. For example, a Head Start program may choose to 
provide a higher wage or salary to a staff member who speaks a language 
shared by a child or children in the program or a Native language, a 
teacher who has a background in working with children with 
disabilities, or other skills or training that improve quality and 
responsiveness in Head Start programs.
Progress To Pay Parity for Education Staff With Elementary School Staff
    Comment: Most commenters shared a strong support for increased 
compensation for Head Start teachers, and many reflected support for 
making progress towards pay parity and equity with kindergarten to 
third grade public school teachers. Many commenters recognized the 
critical role that Head Start staff play and the complexity of the work 
and skills required of Head Start teachers to provide high-quality 
early education. Most comments asserted that equitable compensation is 
overdue, especially considering the increasing qualifications 
(including degree requirements) and multifaceted job responsibilities 
that have evolved since the 2007 reauthorization of the Head Start Act. 
However, many commenters raised concerns about the practicality of 
achieving salaries comparable to public school preschool teachers 
without additional Federal funding, and about the tradeoffs between 
investments in compensation for teachers and other investments in 
program quality and the number of children and families served.
    Some comments expressed confusion regarding the methodology for 
adjusting salaries based on qualifications and other factors. The 
direct comparison between Head Start and public school salaries raised 
questions about the feasibility and fairness of achieving pay parity, 
given the differences in staff qualifications across these settings. 
These comments indicated that some interpreted the proposed standard as 
mandating a direct match to public school preschool teacher salaries 
without adjustments; commenters questioned the flexibility of the 
proposed wage parity policy to allow programs to adjust staff salaries 
from comparable salaries to account for differences in qualifications, 
experience, and other relevant factors, while striving for parity. Some 
commenters discussed the wide salary gaps between Head Start staff and 
public preschool teachers in their local school districts and raised 
questions about whether and how to assess comparable salaries and 
requested more guidance on how to make adjustments. Other comments 
raised concerns about reaching and maintaining salaries comparable with 
public preschool teacher salaries when school districts and other 
employers tend to more predictably increase their salaries each year, 
with those adjustments potentially surpassing the cost-of-living 
adjustments that Head Start receives. Commenters feared that this could 
leave Head Start programs chasing a ``moving target'' which could lead 
to programs continually reducing services to meet salary improvements 
over time.
    Response: ACF agrees with the sentiment that Head Start staff 
should receive equitable compensation based on their skills and 
qualifications and the critical role they play in early education. The 
final rule maintains a strong set of wage policies that aim to enhance 
wage structures to ensure competitive compensation for Head Start 
staff. The final rule does not require any Head Start program to 
achieve full pay parity with kindergarten to third grade teachers. 
Rather, the final rule requires agencies with more than 200 funded 
slots to benchmark to either (1) the salaries of preschool teachers in 
local public schools or (2) 90% of salaries in local public schools for 
kindergarten teachers. In response to concerns about feasibility and 
the comparison with public school staff, ACF emphasizes that Head Start 
programs' efforts to increase educator pay to be comparable to public 
school preschool teachers can and should consider differences in 
qualifications, roles, experience, and other factors. For example, 
suppose a majority of the preschool teachers in a program's local 
school district hold a master's degree, whereas the majority of Head 
Start teachers hold a bachelor's degree. The expectation in this 
scenario is that the program would consider what public preschool 
teachers are paid as a starting point and then create a salary scale 
that considers education level, among other factors. In this case, 
salaries for Head Start teachers with a bachelor's degree would be 
lower than a preschool teacher's salary with a master's degree 
(provided that they have comparable hours, experience, and job 
responsibilities).
    As another example, ACF does not expect that an Early Head Start 
(EHS)

[[Page 67737]]

teacher with a Child Development Associate (CDA) would receive the same 
salary as a public preschool teacher with a bachelor's degree that 
works the same number of hours; rather, ACF expects that the salary for 
the EHS teacher would be adjusted down from the target of the public 
preschool teacher salary, to account for the difference in 
qualifications. However, ACF does expect that these adjustments should 
still result in wage increases for most education staff. Moreover, if 
an EHS teacher works more hours than a preschool teacher in public 
schools, ACF expects that wages would be increased accordingly to 
account for the longer hours.
    In response to comments, we modify the wage policies in the final 
rule at Sec.  1302.90(e)(2)(i) and (ii) to further clarify that 
salaries can be adjusted for schedule or hours worked in addition to 
responsibilities, qualifications, and experience. This includes both 
time in the classroom or program as well as time spent on lesson 
planning, family engagement, administrative paperwork, and other tasks 
that are necessary to fulfill job requirements. For many Head Start 
educators, this includes time in the evening or on weekends to prepare 
classroom activities, conduct home visits, or complete training. For 
example, if a preschool teacher at the local public school works a 
full-day, full-school year schedule, and a Head Start teacher with 
similar qualifications, experience, and job responsibilities works a 
part-day, full-school year schedule, the expectation is that the Head 
Start teacher's salary would be adjusted down to account for this 
difference in schedule/hours worked after taking into account time for 
planning and other activities related to the teacher's job 
responsibilities. On the other hand, if a Head Start teacher with a 
bachelor's degree and five years of experience works a part-day, year-
round schedule, whereas the local school preschool teacher with the 
same qualifications and experience works a part-day and school-year 
schedule, the expectation is that the Head Start teacher's salary would 
be adjusted up to account for the longer year schedule that they work.
    ACF also recognizes that not all jurisdictions have preschool 
teachers in public schools because public preschool is not offered in 
all states and school districts. In addition, information on salaries 
for elementary school teachers is often more publicly accessible, 
depending on the auspices of the preschool program. Therefore, we add a 
new wage-related standard to the final rule to allow Head Start 
programs to use an alternate method to determine appropriate comparison 
salaries for pay parity that is equivalent to at least 90 percent of 
the annual salary paid to kindergarten teachers in the program's local 
school district, adjusted for role, responsibilities, qualifications, 
experience, and schedule or hours worked (Sec.  1302.90(e)(2)(iv)). ACF 
anticipates that Head Start programs will use this flexibility when 
they do not have comparable wage data for preschool teachers in public 
schools, either because such teachers do not exist in their geographic 
area, or such information cannot be ascertained. This flexibility 
should not be used to reduce wages for Head Start staff if preschool 
teachers are on the same salary scale as elementary school teachers.
    For example, suppose a Head Start program is in a community that 
does not have state or locally funded preschool in their public 
schools. This program identifies average kindergarten teacher salaries 
in the local school district at $70,000, and thereby creates a target 
benchmark for pay parity at $63,000, which represents 90 percent of 
that average kindergarten teacher salary. The Head Start program then 
creates a salary scale that adjusts further as needed based on 
differences in roles, responsibilities, qualifications, experience, and 
schedule or hours worked. If the Head Start program year or hours 
worked are shorter than the kindergarten school year or hours, Head 
Start educator salaries could be adjusted down to account for this. If 
the opposite is true, such that the Head Start program year runs 
through the summer, and is therefore longer than the kindergarten 
school year, Head Start educator salaries could be adjusted up to 
account for this longer year.
    Finally, ACF acknowledges concerns raised by commenters that public 
school teacher salaries may continue to increase over time in some 
states and communities, making efforts to reach parity more challenging 
for Head Start programs in those contexts. However, this does not 
appear to be substantiated by national data. As demonstrated in the 
Fiscal Year 2025 President's Budget request, ACF requested the funding 
needed for a full cost of living adjustment to support Head Start 
programs in keeping pace with inflation. Further, ACF strongly believes 
that Head Start programs must continue to keep pace with public school 
preschool teacher salaries in order to retain qualified educators in 
Head Start programs that can provide the high-quality early education 
services for which Head Start programs are known.
    ACF will provide further TTA to assist programs in implementing 
these standards, including examples and strategies for programs to 
assess parity and develop pay scale structures.
    Comment: Some comments called for clearer definitions of what 
constitutes ``pay parity'' and how it should be measured, especially in 
diverse operational contexts like multi-district programs or programs 
spanning different states with varying preschool and kindergarten 
through 12th grade public school salary levels and contexts. Commenters 
raised concerns about operationalizing the concept of parity with local 
school districts when considering the variability in teacher 
qualifications between preschool, kindergarten through 12th grade, and 
Head Start; the structure of preschool and kindergarten through 12th 
grade education systems; and differing funding mechanisms that support 
teacher compensation in each of these contexts. Many commenters raised 
concerns about defining ``neighboring school districts'' for large Head 
Start programs whose service area spans many school districts, 
suggesting that a separate salary schedule for each site would be 
impractical.
    Response: ACF understands and agrees with the complexities involved 
in assessing and moving to pay parity with public school educators. 
Because of this complexity and the varied context in which Head Start 
programs operate, the final rule maintains the flexibility that was 
initially proposed in how pay parity is assessed and operationalized. 
In addition, we modify the final rule to provide additional flexibility 
in how a program identifies comparable salaries for the pay parity 
benchmark. The final rule policy allows programs to use public school 
preschool teacher salaries as their benchmark for parity, or to use an 
alternative method that represents at least 90 percent of public school 
kindergarten teacher salaries. We maintained the phrasing of the pay 
parity requirement which allows flexibility for programs to determine 
to which of their local public schools to benchmark salaries. Programs 
operating in multiple locations are not expected to develop multiple 
pay scales; however, programs can choose to do so if they serve 
different geographic regions with different costs of living, in which 
case it may be most practical for such programs to differentiate wages 
for these different areas.
    ACF believes that maintaining the initially proposed flexibility 
and providing some additional flexibility in the final rule around how 
to assess and move to pay parity is responsive to

[[Page 67738]]

comments about the varied contexts in which programs operate. ACF 
believes that detailed technical guidance and support for programs in 
how to define and operationalize pay parity is best done through 
guidance and TTA, which ACF will provide following publication of the 
final rule.
Salary Floor
    Comment: Most comments expressed strong support for establishing a 
minimum pay requirement for all Head Start staff, recognizing the need 
to ensure that every employee receives a living wage that reflects 
their contribution to early childhood education. However, commenters 
raised concerns about how the minimum pay requirement would be 
determined and adjusted over time to reflect the cost-of-living 
increases and changes in the economic landscape, as well as the 
potential for this requirement to exacerbate wage disparities among 
regions with different costs of living. Commenters sought detailed 
guidance from ACF on establishing fair and equitable minimum pay 
standards that align with regional economic variations. Commenters 
suggested that ACF provide clear guidelines for determining an 
appropriate minimum wage, taking into account regional cost-of-living 
adjustments, and ensure that additional funding is available to support 
this requirement without compromising service delivery or increasing 
the administrative burden on Head Start programs.
    Response: We maintain this provision in the final rule, which 
recognizes that cost of living varies across the country and still aims 
to ensure that all staff members are paid sufficiently to cover basic 
needs. Small agencies (those serving 200 or fewer funded slots) are 
exempt from this requirement; however, these agencies must still 
demonstrate progress in improving wages for the lowest paid staff over 
time.
    ACF agrees with concerns raised by commenters about the importance 
of carefully considering how to promote minimum pay in a way that 
balances potential cost impacts and does not deepen disparities in cost 
of living. There are multiple publicly available tools that can support 
Head Start programs in calculating cost of living. It is of note that 
these are examples only and should not be considered an endorsement by 
ACF of these specific calculators or tools. One such tool is the Living 
Wage Calculator developed by experts at the Massachusetts Institute of 
Technology (MIT).\19\ Another is the Self-Sufficiency Standard 
developed by experts at the Center for Women's Welfare of the 
University of Washington.\20\ An additional example is the Family 
Budget Calculator developed by the Economic Policy Institute.\21\ These 
types of publicly available calculators take into account a variety of 
costs for basic needs and how these costs vary by geographic area, to 
help determine an appropriate hourly wage sufficient to cover these 
costs. Following publication of the final rule, ACF will offer TTA to 
support programs with implementation of this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Glasmeier, A.K. Living Wage Calculator. 2020. Massachusetts 
Institute of Technology. livingwage.mit.edu.
    \20\ The Center for Women's Welfare. The Self-Sufficiency 
Standard. University of Washington. https://selfsufficiencystandard.org/.
    \21\ Economic Policy Institute. Family Budget Calculator. 
https://www.epi.org/resources/budget/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wage Comparability for All Ages Served
    Comment: Many comments expressed a great sense of urgency to 
address the disparities in wages, particularly for staff serving 
infants and toddlers, who historically receive lower compensation than 
those serving preschoolers.
    Response: ACF recognizes the importance of addressing wage 
disparities across all staff roles within Head Start programs, with a 
particular focus on those serving infants and toddlers, who 
historically have received lower compensation. In response to public 
comments highlighting the urgency of this issue, ACF maintains in the 
final rule our policy and commitment to ensuring wage improvements and 
comparability across all educational staff roles, regardless of the age 
group they serve, such that wages would not differ by age of children 
served for similar program staff positions with similar qualifications 
and experience. Specifically, the final rule mandates that agencies 
with more than 200 slots must have a wage or salary structure that does 
not differ by the age of children served for similar program staff 
positions with similar qualifications and experience, ensuring that 
disparities in wages, particularly for staff serving infants and 
toddlers, are addressed comprehensively.
Staff for Whom Wage Standards Apply
    Comment: Comments expressed both support and concern over the 
application of wage standards to all staff roles within the Head Start 
program. The NPRM's intention to extend wage improvements to encompass 
all educational staff roles--including assistant teachers, home 
visitors, and family child care providers--was widely endorsed. 
However, some comments urged for an even more inclusive consideration 
of staff roles that involve regular engagement with children, 
suggesting for example, that the pay parity requirements should apply 
to all staff roles who contribute to the Head Start mission, not just 
teaching staff, to recognize and compensate the diverse contributions 
of all program personnel. Some comments specifically called out a need 
to include more substantial wage improvements for family service 
workers, administrators, and support staff who play critical roles but 
often face lower compensation.
    Response: ACF affirms the NPRM's intention to ensure wage 
improvements for all educational staff roles, including assistant 
teachers, home visitors, and family child care providers, while also 
recognizing the critical contributions of other staff in the program. 
While the requirements for pay parity maintain a focus on educational 
staff, the final rule also requires that programs develop or update a 
pay scale that applies to all staff positions. The intent of this pay 
scale standard is to promote competitive wages for all positions and 
ensure that all staff have sufficient wages to cover basic needs. Head 
Start agencies can increase wages for other non-education roles at 
their discretion and may choose to benchmark to similar positions in 
their community to ensure that Head Start provides competitive pay and 
to mitigate the effects of wage compression that would otherwise occur 
if salaries for education staff are raised but not those for other 
positions.
    Comment: Some commenters raised questions about whether the NPRM's 
wage requirements apply to staff of child care partner agencies as well 
as contracted staff who are not employees of the Head Start program. 
Some comments also raised concerns about applying the wage standards to 
staff paid in part with Head Start funds, highlighting the potential 
impact on a broad array of staff roles and the need for clarity on the 
implementation of wage standards for contracted staff, those involved 
in EHS-Child Care Partnerships, staff of child care partner agencies, 
and contracted staff not directly employed by Head Start programs.
    Response: To address the questions and lack of clarity raised 
through public comments about extending wage standards to all staff, 
including those at partnership sites or contracted staff, we revise the 
final rule to clarify our expectations for how the wage standards 
should apply to contracted staff.

[[Page 67739]]

Specifically, the pay parity requirements described in Sec.  
1302.90(e)(2)(i) apply to all teachers and education staff funded by 
Head Start, including both grant recipient employees and those whose 
salaries are funded by Head Start through a contract. This may include, 
for example, education staff in EHS-Child Care Partnership sites, as 
well as any education staff who are contracted directly.

Workforce Supports: Staff Benefits (Sec.  1302.90)

    The prior HSPPS did not include any requirements for programs to 
provide benefits to their staff. In this final rule, we add in Sec.  
1302.90(f) new requirements that apply to Head Start agencies with more 
than 200 funded slots for staff benefits to support and stabilize the 
Head Start workforce, including: the provision of or facilitated access 
to health care coverage for all staff; paid leave for full-time staff; 
access to free or low-cost, short-term behavioral health services for 
full-time staff; facilitated access to PSLF and child care subsidies 
for staff who may be eligible; and an option for programs to prioritize 
enrollment in Head Start for the eligible children of staff. Programs 
are also required in Sec.  1302.90(f)(5) to assess and determine at 
least once every five years if their benefits package for full-time 
staff is at least comparable to those provided to elementary school 
staff in the program's local or neighboring school district, to the 
extent practical. All requirements in Sec.  1302.90(f) will take effect 
August 1, 2028, approximately four years after publication of the final 
rule.
    Similar to the staff wage requirements, this final rule includes in 
Sec.  1302.90(f)(6) an exemption from the rule's benefits policies for 
small Head Start agencies, defined as those agencies with 200 or fewer 
funded Head Start slots. This exemption also applies to Head Start 
interim service providers that provide services to children and 
families temporarily in place of a Head Start agency that would have 
qualified for the small agency exemption (Sec.  1302.90(f)(7)). These 
small Head Start agencies are still required to demonstrate measurable 
improvements in staff benefits over time.
    The benefits requirements included in the final rule represent a 
change in some of the policies as proposed in the NPRM. Specifically, 
the final rule removes the proposed requirement for paid family leave 
(though programs are reminded they must still comply with requirements 
under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), if applicable to their 
organization). The final rule also provides more flexibility for the 
provision of paid sick, vacation, and personal leave.
    The public comments on the benefits for staff proposed in the NPRM 
revealed a mix of support, concern, and suggestions for improvement. 
The vast majority of commenters supported the intent behind the 
proposed staff benefits. However, many commenters called for additional 
funding, flexibility, and clarity to ensure the requirements are 
feasible and do not negatively impact children and families. Other 
commenters called for stronger requirements for benefits, such as 
requiring Head Start programs to benchmark to benefits offered in 
public schools or the Federal Government.
    The final rule balances the desire for more flexibility for Head 
Start programs, costs to support the workforce, and implementation 
costs. ACF strongly believes in the importance of benefits for staff as 
a mechanism to greatly improve staff recruitment and retention across 
Head Start programs, and in turn, program quality. Therefore, in this 
final rule, the requirements for staff benefits provide more 
flexibility to programs than the NPRM proposals, but still recognize 
the importance of benefits as part of a competitive compensation 
package that supports an overall high-quality workforce.
Cross-Cutting Comments and Themes on Staff Benefits
    Comment: ACF received over 500 comments on the staff benefits 
policies proposed in the NPRM. We received comments indicating general 
support regarding the need for better wages, benefits, and wellness 
support for Head Start staff, recognizing that such measures are 
crucial for staff retention, recruitment, and overall program quality. 
Many commenters expressed that the proposed changes could significantly 
improve the working conditions for Head Start employees and improve 
staff recruitment and retention. Several commenters noted and 
appreciated the existing benefits provided by their agencies, including 
health insurance, mental health support, and leave, while others 
expressed their desire for better benefits. Many, including multiple 
organizations that represent Head Start workers, encouraged ACF to 
expand upon the benefits requirements included in the NRPM, such as 
retirement benefits and paid leave. Some also called for benefits to be 
required for part-time staff. There were suggestions to engage all Head 
Start staff and partners in a transparent, equitable process to work 
toward meeting the revised wage and benefit standards.
    Response: We agree that the provision of staff benefits is crucial 
for attracting and retaining qualified staff, and for promoting staff 
well-being and program quality. In the final rule, we retain from the 
NPRM the majority of requirements for benefits for full-time staff, 
though with flexibility, including paid leave, access to behavioral 
health support, and the provision of or facilitated access to health 
care coverage. In the NPRM, we requested public comment on whether we 
should require programs to offer retirement benefits to full time 
staff. In the final rule, we do not add a requirement for retirement 
benefits. However, ACF encourages programs to provide retirement 
benefits to staff if feasible, such as offering 401(k) or similar 
mechanisms with or without employer contributions. As discussed below, 
we maintain requirements from the NPRM for facilitating access for 
eligible staff to PSLF and child care subsidies, and for part-time 
staff, to health care coverage. We encourage programs to develop staff 
benefit packages in consultation with staff, unions, and other 
partners, as appropriate.
    Comment: Many comments called for flexibility in implementing the 
changes to accommodate the diverse nature of Head Start programs and 
the communities they serve. Specifically, there were concerns about the 
prescriptive nature of the proposed benefits. Some indicated that the 
proposed requirements were too detailed and did not account for the 
unique needs of different programs, their communities, or the existing 
benefits that programs may already offer. Some voiced concerns about 
equitable implementation, union agreements, or non-Head Start employees 
across different programs within the same agency. Others called 
attention to additional staff wellness considerations, such as flexible 
work arrangements, paperwork burden, work satisfaction, or challenging 
behaviors in the classroom. Some comments suggested that the benefits 
not be mandated but encouraged and communicated through guidance. A few 
comments suggested that programs should provide competitive benefits 
packages appropriate for their community or region, noting this could 
be determined by community assessment data. There was a recommendation 
to shorten the implementation period due to the need for the Head Start 
workforce to earn adequate wages and benefits more immediately. There 
was some

[[Page 67740]]

misunderstanding that programs would be required to extend health 
insurance benefits to part-time workers.
    Response: The final rule includes several changes to the policies 
as proposed in the NPRM to make the staff benefits requirements more 
flexible and allow programs to create benefit packages that meet the 
varying needs of their workforce.
    First, we recognize that, while these benefits are important for 
recruiting and retaining staff, some programs will have to re-negotiate 
union contracts or agreements with contractors, while others may need 
more time to research and implement changes. To enable this, and as 
summarized previously, we have extended the timeline for the effective 
date of the benefits requirements from approximately two years after 
final rule publication (as proposed in the NPRM) to approximately four 
years after final rule publication. The effective date for these 
provisions is now August 1, 2028. We believe this change carefully 
balances the concerns unions have raised that timely implementation is 
important for retaining and attracting staff with the concerns from 
programs that these changes will take time to implement, as well as 
acknowledging the cost considerations of shorting the implementation 
timeline.
    Second, the final rule in Sec.  1302.90(f)(1)(ii) requires programs 
to provide paid leave to all full-time staff. But the final rule does 
not differentiate between sick, vacation, or personal leave or require 
specific accrual rates, allowing programs to pool types of leave or to 
offer different systems of determining leave. In the final rule, we 
also fully remove the NPRM proposal for paid family leave, though we 
strongly encourage programs who are already offering paid family leave 
to continue to do so and encourage programs that do not to offer those 
benefits if feasible. Many Head Start agencies are already required to 
follow the FMLA, which provides job protections for most employees 
during extended illness, caregiving, or following the birth or adoption 
of a child. Many states and municipalities also have paid leave laws 
and programs that apply to Head Start agencies.
    Third, in Sec.  1302.90(f)(1)(iii) of the final rule, we retain the 
requirement to provide full-time staff with short-term free or low-cost 
behavioral health services, but we remove the specificity of ``three to 
five'' visits as proposed in the NPRM. We agree with comments that such 
a level of specificity is not needed in regulation. This change allows 
programs to determine the best way to structure behavioral health 
supports for their staff.
    Fourth, it was not our intent to imply that programs must provide 
employer-sponsored health care coverage to part-time workers. Programs 
are required in Sec.  1302.90(f)(2) to facilitate access for these 
employees to health care coverage options for which they may be 
eligible in the Marketplace or Medicaid.
    Fifth, in the NPRM, we sought comment on a potential requirement 
for retirement benefits. The final rule does not require programs to 
provide staff with retirement benefits. However, ACF also recognizes 
that retirement savings are an important benefit for staff and are 
often provided to public school employees. Therefore, ACF strongly 
encourages programs to create and offer retirement mechanisms if 
feasible, such as 401(k) accounts.
    Finally, we maintain other benefits requirements from the NPRM, 
including provided or facilitated access to health care coverage for 
full-time staff in Sec.  1302.90(f)(1)(i), and facilitated access to 
child care subsidies and PSLF for any eligible staff in Sec.  
1302.90(f)(3) and (4), respectively.
    Together, these improvements in staff benefits in the final rule 
will improve staff well-being and work satisfaction, reduce staff 
turnover, and improve program quality, while offering programs 
reasonable flexibility around implementation.
    Comment: Many commenters were concerned about the potential 
financial burden the proposed staff benefits requirements could impose 
on programs, particularly in small or community-based organizations, 
without additional Federal funding. Commenters feared that without 
increased funding, programs may have to reduce enrollment or lay off 
staff, which could lead to fewer children being served or program 
closures. Others noted the difficulty in maintaining full enrollment 
despite rigorous recruitment efforts due to enrollment competition for 
four-year-old children with other early childhood programs and losing 
staff to other careers. There were suggestions to phase in requirements 
in tandem with increased funding, to add secretarial discretion to not 
enforce the rule if sufficient dollars are not allocated, and to 
institute processes for waivers and flexibility particularly for 
certain programs. Many commenters suggested that ACF make these 
provisions effective only upon funding from Congress.
    Response: As discussed in other areas of this rule, ACF appreciates 
and recognizes concerns from commenters about the cost of implementing 
the staff benefits requirements in the absence of additional 
congressional funding. We made some changes from the NPRM to address 
these concerns, including the longer timeline until these requirements 
go into effect, the removal of paid family leave requirements beyond 
those in FMLA, and the reduction in the prescriptiveness of other 
benefit requirements (as described previously). However, ACF has 
determined that the benefits requirements included in this final rule 
are necessary for Head Start programs to retain staff and continue to 
effectively meet their mission to provide high-quality services to 
children and prepare them for success in elementary school and beyond. 
As previously described, wage and benefit improvements are necessary so 
that Head Start can recruit and retain effective staff and thereby 
deliver high-quality services.
    Comment: Some commenters raised the issue of equitable access to 
benefits for smaller programs. Some suggested that small programs 
cannot access the large insurance plans that could provide benefits 
comparable to what public schools provide. Commenters also raised 
concerns about potential differential impacts on Tribal programs when 
implementing the benefits standards.
    Response: ACF recognizes the specific challenges faced by small 
programs and made several changes in the final rule to accommodate 
small programs or extend flexibility to all programs in a manner that 
will address concerns raised by small programs. First, as described 
above, the final rule extends the implementation timeline for the staff 
benefits requirements from two to four years to allow more time for 
planning and implementation for all programs. Second, as described 
previously, the final rule includes an exemption from the rule's wages 
and benefits requirements for small agencies, defined as those with 200 
or fewer funded slots. This exemption recognizes that small agencies 
need additional flexibility to address wages and benefits in a 
sustainable way given lack of economies of scale. As previously stated 
above, research demonstrates that operating an early childhood program 
that serves fewer than 100 children may not always be financially 
viable.\22\ OHS has

[[Page 67741]]

established 200 slots so that, in the absence of additional 
appropriations from Congress, these agencies do not need to streamline 
the number of classrooms below this recommended threshold. This 
approach roughly aligns with other policies that exempt employers with 
fewer than 50 employees, as the vast majority of agencies with fewer 
than 50 Head Start employees have fewer than 200 funded slots.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Mitchell, A. 2010. Lessons from Cost Modeling: The Link 
Between ECE Business Management and Program Quality. https://www.earlychildhoodfinance.org/finance/cost-modeling; Stoney and 
Blank, 2011. Delivering Quality: Strengthening the Business Side of 
Early Care and Education. https://childcareta.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/delivering_quality_strengthening_the_business_side_of_ece.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This exemption reflects ACF's understanding that small programs 
play a critical role in their communities, particularly in rural 
communities where Head Start may be one of the few center-based early 
childhood options available for children and families. However, ACF 
remains concerned about the workforce in small Head Start agencies and 
the resulting impact on services for children and families in the face 
of ongoing staff shortages. For this reason, the exemption requires 
that small agencies still improve benefits for staff over time and make 
progress towards achieving the benefits requirements that apply to 
larger Head Start agencies. ACF believes this is critically important 
so that small agencies can sustain high-quality services over time. 
This exemption balances the need for better compensation for staff with 
the recognition that our smallest agencies may be very challenged to 
execute these policies in the absence of additional funding, given 
economies of scale. The exemption also applies to Head Start interim 
service providers that provide services to children and families 
temporarily in place of a Head Start agency that would have qualified 
for the small agency exemption (Sec.  1302.90(f)(7)). As with wages, 
ACF will work with small agencies to identify opportunities to make 
progress on access to benefits, especially to avoid staff leaving small 
programs for larger programs.
    We also acknowledge the concerns raised by Tribal Head Start 
program leaders and other commenters representing Tribal communities. 
ACF believes that all Head Start educators deserve competitive benefits 
that reflect the importance of their work, and this includes the Head 
Start workforce in Tribal communities. The exemption for small Head 
Start agencies described previously will allow flexibility for Tribal 
Head Start agencies that operate with 200 or fewer funded slots 
regarding whether they meet all the staff benefits policy requirements 
in this final rule. However, as with other small agencies, small Tribal 
Head Start agencies are still required to make improvements in staff 
benefits over time. As previously noted, at the time of the development 
of this final rule, ACF estimates that approximately 116 Tribal Head 
Start agencies will benefit from this flexibility, which represents 
approximately 78 percent of all Tribal Head Start agencies.
    ACF recognizes that Tribes may offer different benefit structures 
and has thus worded the benefit requirements to account for differences 
in benefit structures. For example, the final rule requires ``health 
care coverage'' which might include health insurance or access to 
health care through a Tribally operated clinic. ACF will work with 
Tribes to offer support and technical assistance to implement these 
provisions in a way that honors Tribes' approaches to benefits for 
employees.
    Comment: A few comments noted that Head Start's family child care 
partners will have difficulty implementing requirements due to their 
small size and that this may serve as a disincentive for the family 
child care option. A few comments noted the importance of timely, 
predictable payments for Head Start's child care partners, particularly 
family child care, needed to meet the compensation requirements.
    Response: Nothing in this rule should be interpreted as a 
disincentive for the family child care option, and we agree that 
timely, predictable payments are necessary for Head Start's child care 
partners.
    Comment: A few comments suggested additional benefits for 
consideration, such as training or other types of leave. There was a 
suggestion for the creation of concrete, measurable midpoint benchmarks 
toward implementing the revised standards. A few comments suggested 
that Head Start programs be required to participate in state early 
childhood workforce registries, and that registries could be used as a 
data source for wages and benefits, including for creating salary 
scales. A few comments suggested that benefits be extended to part-time 
staff, potentially through a proportional allocation based on number of 
hours worked.
    Response: We appreciate the need for improved staff benefits, and 
the final rule includes requirements for several benefits that will 
improve staff well-being, recruitment, and retention. While we do not 
include additional requirements suggested by commenters in this rule, 
as noted in Sec.  1302.90(f)(5), programs may offer additional benefits 
not specified in the rule to their staff, including enhanced health 
benefits, retirement savings plans, flexible savings accounts, or life, 
disability, and long-term care insurance.
    Comment: Commenters suggested that the requirements in the final 
rule should align with existing Federal standards and laws, like the 
FMLA, the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the ACA, and the Bureau of 
Labor Statistics' (BLS) definition of full-time work, as well as state 
and local labor laws, to avoid creating additional administrative 
burdens. Some comments voiced concern about the definition of full-time 
employees and suggest following existing Federal standards or allowing 
for local autonomy in defining full-time. Other commenters supported 
the definition of full-time as 30 hours, recognizing the need to align 
the definition with the typical school year calendar.
    Response: The final rule retains the definition of ``full-time 
staff'' as those working 30 hours per week or more while the program is 
in session. This definition is based on an existing Federal law. 
Specifically, for the purposes of the ACA's Employer Shared 
Responsibility Provision, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) specifies 
that: ``a full-time employee is, for a calendar month, an employee 
employed on average at least 30 hours of service per week, or 130 hours 
of service per month.'' \23\ This definition of full-time staff allows 
Head Start staff who work with children in school-day programs (e.g., 
approximately six hours a day) to be considered full-time. Head Start 
programs should also account for time spent when children are not 
present, which might include time for lesson planning, family 
engagement, and paperwork.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See the IRS website for more details: Employer Shared 
Responsibility Provisions [verbar] Internal Revenue Service 
(irs.gov).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: A few commenters expressed concern that Head Start grant 
recipients may limit workers' rights to organize or exercise voice 
through collective bargaining and urged ACF to use oversight and 
enforce union neutrality. ACF also heard from a few national labor 
unions indicating support for the proposed benefit requirements and 
comments indicating that labor unions could partner in implementing 
required changes through the collective bargaining agreement 
negotiation process.
    Response: ACF reiterates that Head Start funds cannot be used to 
assist, promote, or deter union organizing per 42 U.S.C. 9839(e), and 
nothing in the final rule is intended to limit workers' rights to 
organize or exercise voice through collective bargaining. Head

[[Page 67742]]

Start agencies with and without collective bargaining units are 
encouraged to engage staff in implementing wage and benefit provisions 
in this final rule. ACF encourages any individual, including Head Start 
staff and union leaders, who experiences or becomes aware of violations 
of Head Start's neutrality clause to report such violations by 
contacting the Office of Head Start or HHS Office of the Inspector 
General (OIG) complaint hotline.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Reports may be made to the Office of Head Start either 
online at https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/contact-us or by calling 
866-763-6481. Reports may be made to OIG online at https://oig.hhs.gov/fraud/report-fraud/ or by calling 1-800-447-8477.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Some comments suggested taking employer-sponsored health 
insurance and other employee benefits into account when calculating 
total staff compensation and evaluating progress toward pay parity to 
avoid an unintended consequence of decreasing existing benefits in 
order to increase wages. A few comments raised the issue that some Head 
Start staff are laid off by their agency and receive unemployment 
benefits during the summers as factors in compensation. Other 
commenters suggested that Head Start should benchmark to the total 
value of the compensation package in public schools, inclusive of 
salaries and benefits.
    Response: We decline to include employer-sponsored health care 
coverage and other employee benefits as part of Head Start staff 
salaries for the purposes of understanding progress toward pay parity 
as described in Sec.  1302.90(e)(2) of this final rule. Research 
indicates that Head Start staff earn lower wages and have fewer 
benefits than staff at public elementary schools.\25\ The intent of the 
benefits policies in the final rule is to markedly improve benefits for 
the Head Start workforce and ensure Head Start programs can be 
competitive employers in their local communities. Average hourly wages 
and fringe rates for public school teachers are higher than those at 
Head Start programs. For instance, in September 2023, benefits 
accounted for 35.6 percent of total compensation for elementary and 
secondary teachers.\26\ The benefits we require for full-time staff in 
this final rule--health care coverage and paid leave--are basic 
benefits widely available in the labor force and key to ensuring staff 
well-being and program quality in Head Start. We encourage programs 
that have been offering other types of employee benefits to continue to 
do so and encourage others to expand their benefits offerings if 
feasible. Programs can take into account all benefits they provide to 
full-time staff when they assess and determine if their benefits 
package is at least comparable to those provided to elementary school 
staff in the program's local or neighboring school district, to the 
extent practicable, as required at least once every five years by Sec.  
1302.90(f)(5) of this rule. When implementing the benefits requirements 
in this final rule, ACF declines to include consideration of 
unemployment benefits for staff laid off during the summer months. ACF 
discourages Head Start agencies from laying off staff in the summer 
months, as this introduces financial uncertainty to staff and can 
exacerbate challenges with retaining staff and worsen turnover as a 
result.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Comparison-of-Personnel-Systems-K12-and-Early-
Childhood-Teachers.pdf (berkeley.edu).
    \26\ See elementary and secondary schools in Table 3: Employer 
Costs for Employee Compensation for state and local government 
workers by occupational and industry group. ecec.pdf (bls.gov).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments on Individual Staff Benefits
    Comment: Many commenters expressed that the proposed changes to 
health benefits could significantly improve the working conditions for 
Head Start employees and improve staff recruitment and retention. 
Several comments noted and appreciated the existing health insurance 
benefits provided by their agencies, while others expressed a desire 
for better benefits.
    Response: As noted previously, this final rule retains the health 
care coverage benefits proposed in the NPRM and requires a program to 
provide or facilitate access to high-quality, affordable health care 
coverage for all staff. Specifically, for all full-time staff (defined 
as those working 30 or more hours per week when the program is in 
session), programs are required to either (1) provide and contribute to 
employer-sponsored health care coverage, or (2) educate, connect, and 
facilitate the enrollment of employees in health insurance options in 
the Healthcare.gov Marketplace (Marketplace), the appropriate State-
specific health insurance Marketplace, or Medicaid. Employees are not 
obligated to accept employer-provided or employer-facilitated health 
care coverage, such as those receiving insurance coverage through a 
partner or another manner. If programs are required to offer employer-
sponsored coverage under the ACA or elect to do so anyway, we encourage 
coverage similar to that offered by silver, gold, or platinum plans in 
the Marketplace. The requirements for health care coverage allow 
programs to facilitate full-time staff members' enrollment in health 
insurance options in the Marketplace, which helps with the logistical 
difficulties of negotiating employee benefits plans with insurers, and 
we recognize that programs may require technical assistance to connect 
with Navigators or other resources.
    For part-time staff who work fewer than 30 hours per week, the 
final rule requires programs to facilitate the enrollment of these 
staff in health care coverage options in the Marketplace or through 
Medicaid for which they may be eligible. Programs are not required to 
offer nor precluded from offering employer-sponsored health care 
coverage to part-time staff, but the final rule requires, at a minimum, 
that programs make part-time staff aware of potential benefits through 
premium tax credits for which they may be eligible and facilitate their 
connection to the Marketplace or Medicaid.
    Comment: Some comments raised concerns regarding the administrative 
burden of or the need to clarify benefits requirements, such as 
facilitating access to health insurance for part-time employees, 
particularly for small employers, and to define ``facilitate access.'' 
Some comments voiced concern about the administrative burden of 
providing employees with information about the health insurance 
Marketplace and other resources and contended that it is the employees' 
responsibility to learn about and enroll in those opportunities. Other 
comments noted that the requirement to inform staff of their health 
insurance options through the Marketplace is likely not a major change 
in practice and is already required for new employees through the FLSA.
    Response: We acknowledge that under the ACA, employers to which the 
FLSA applies are already required to provide a notice to employees 
about the health insurance Marketplaces in the states in which they 
operate. This final rule seeks to set a higher standard for Head Start 
programs to ``facilitate access'' to health coverage, which they can do 
in a variety of ways: by distributing information or hosting 
information sessions about Marketplace options, including handouts and 
the Marketplace website; providing internet or computer access to 
employees so they can learn more or enroll; and connecting staff to 
Navigators or benefits specialists at Head Start programs or elsewhere 
to help staff enroll. Programs already have extensive experience 
connecting the families they serve to other programs for which they may 
be eligible and, therefore, are uniquely suited to help connect staff 
with health care coverage options for which they may be eligible.
    Comment: Commenters shared several thoughts in response to the 
request for

[[Page 67743]]

comment on requiring retirement benefits for staff. Some commenters 
noted they already provide benefits to staff, including some on par 
with local public schools or state employees, and would have to adjust 
or change plans to fit any new requirements. Many commenters said that 
programs should have the flexibility to tailor benefits to their 
specific circumstances and to be inclusive of multiple types of 
retirement plans, including individual retirement accounts and 
pensions. They suggested that mandates or minimum required employer 
contributions to retirement could be burdensome and that a one-size-
fits-all approach may not be appropriate. Some comments called for 
requirements for programs to provide a matching 401(k) plan or similar 
retirement options, with education on retirement planning. A few 
comments supported a minimum employer contribution to staff retirement 
benefits. A few commenters suggested that retirement benefits should be 
available for all staff. A few discussed the positive implications for 
gender, racial, and ethnic equity in expanding benefits.
    Response: The final rule does not require that programs offer a 
retirement savings benefit for staff. While we agree with commenters 
that noted the importance of retirement benefits, we also recognize the 
additional substantial cost this could have for employers. However, ACF 
strongly encourages programs to offer retirement benefits to staff, if 
feasible, to improve staff recruitment and retention.
    Comment: There was some misunderstanding that Head Start retirement 
benefits would be required to align with those of public school 
systems. Some comments suggested that the government provide Head Start 
employees with the same health care and retirement benefits that most 
government employees receive, that their benefits be on par with public 
schools, that benefits not require employee contributions, and/or that 
the government should facilitate a collective into which small programs 
could buy.
    Response: The final rule does not require that Head Start health 
care coverage benefits be on par or aligned with those of the public 
school system or offered to most government employees. As described 
previously, the final rule does not include or add any requirements for 
retirement benefits for staff.
    Comment: Commenters expressed a variety of thoughts on the paid 
leave policies as proposed in the NPRM. Many commenters identified that 
they already provide sick and vacation leave to staff through existing 
paid time off policies. Many commenters expressed concern that 
separating sick leave and vacation leave, as proposed in the NPRM, 
would increase administrative burden and be less desirable for staff. 
Some commenters requested the option to rollover accrued time off 
rather than provide leave commensurate with experience or tenure and 
raised concerns about the ability to pay out accrued time off at the 
end of employment. Commenters also noted the importance of providing 
benefits to part-time staff and suggested a pro-rata approach based on 
hours worked.
    Response: We agree with commenters regarding the need for 
flexibility around paid leave policies, and therefore, the final rule 
requires programs to offer paid leave without distinguishing between 
sick and vacation leave. To increase flexibility and local autonomy, we 
also do not specify how paid leave should be accrued. Although we 
encourage programs to provide sick and vacation leave to part-time 
staff, we decline to require this in the final rule. As described 
further in other areas, we also do not maintain the requirement for 
paid family leave in the final rule.
    Comment: Many commenters emphasized the need for clear and 
consistent guidance on minimum standards for paid leave to avoid 
inequitable implementation. Some commenters requested that ACF provide 
a minimum requirement that aligns with existing policies in states that 
provide sick leave, while others requested alignment with private 
industry leave policies.
    Response: We appreciate the desire from some commenters to have 
clear and consistent guidance on minimum leave standards. To increase 
flexibility and local autonomy, we decline to require minimum standards 
for paid leave in the final rule.
    Comment: Many commenters raised concerns that the paid family leave 
requirements as proposed in the NPRM exceeded the intent of the Federal 
FMLA standards or may not align with existing state or Tribal policies. 
For example, the NPRM proposed that paid family leave apply to agencies 
with fewer than 50 employees, which commenters noted is not consistent 
with FMLA. Some commenters expressed confusion about whether the policy 
as proposed in the NPRM would require full wage replacement, which 
commenters were concerned could lead to potential misuse of 
intermittent family and medical leave. A majority of comments that 
discussed this issue recommended that ACF align its policy with Federal 
FMLA requirements. Some commenters expressed support for enhancing paid 
family and medical leave beyond existing Federal laws (e.g., apply to 
grant recipients of all sizes) due to historically inequitable access 
to leave for workers who do not qualify for FMLA. Many commenters 
expressed worry that the proposed policy would be expensive to 
implement, leading to financial strain for programs.
    Response: ACF has removed the requirement for paid family leave in 
the final rule. While some commenters expressed support for enhancing 
access to paid family leave, we appreciate the concerns from many 
commenters that the policy as proposed in the NPRM would exceed the 
intent of Federal FMLA requirements by requiring all Head Start 
programs, regardless of employer size, to provide partial or full wage 
replacement during qualified periods of leave. However, for staff who 
are eligible for and utilize periods of family leave under FMLA, ACF 
still strongly encourages programs to provide partial or full wage 
replacement for such employees. The majority of the Head Start 
workforce are women who have often taken on the bulk of caregiving 
responsibilities for their own families. Ensuring some consistency in 
wages for employees during the birth or adoption of a child or to care 
for themselves or family members with health conditions is an important 
tool for staff retention.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Fact Sheet #28F: Reasons that Workers May Take Leave under 
the Family and Medical Leave Act [verbar] U.S. Department of Labor 
(dol.gov).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Many commenters supported the intent of the proposed 
requirement to provide short-term behavioral health services for staff 
and emphasized the need for such supports, recognizing the high-stress 
nature of the work and the recent increase in children's behavioral 
issues in classrooms. A few commenters expressed concern about the 
challenges of accessing mental health services, with long wait times 
for appointments, especially in rural areas.
    Response: We agree with commenters that access to free or low-cost 
short-term behavioral health services for staff is important for 
promoting staff well-being and child development. We recognize the 
challenge of accessing mental health services, especially in rural 
areas. In the final rule, we retain the behavioral health requirement 
for staff, but with additional flexibility, as discussed further in 
other areas. We encourage programs to use a variety of strategies to 
connect staff to mental health resources and providers.
    Comment: Many commenters expressed concern about the prescriptive 
nature of the behavioral

[[Page 67744]]

health services requirement for staff as proposed in the NPRM, which 
specified three to five outpatient visits per year. Commenters argued 
for local autonomy in decision-making, suggesting that the specific 
needs of staff and programs vary and that a one-size-fits-all approach 
may not be appropriate. They also pointed out that there is no 
equivalent requirement for other health concerns for staff, such as 
physical therapy or diabetes care management.
    Response: To support flexibility and local autonomy in decision-
making, in the final rule ACF removes the specific requirement to 
provide approximately three to five outpatient visits per year. While 
the final rule still requires programs to offer access to behavioral 
health services to staff, the policy as revised provides more 
flexibility to programs to determine the best way to provide such 
access to behavioral health services. However, we encourage programs to 
provide a minimum of three to five outpatient behavioral health visits 
per year if they choose.
    Comment: Some commenters requested clarification about what mental 
health services and benefit plans would meet the requirement to provide 
short-term behavioral health services for staff, while others suggested 
this requirement could be met through an Employee Assistance Program 
(EAP), existing comprehensive health plans and coverage that include 
behavioral health services, or by developing partnerships with 
community behavioral health agencies. A few commenters raised specific 
concerns about the cost of the mental health benefit requirement, 
noting that additional funding would be needed if programs are required 
to purchase health insurance that includes coverage for behavioral 
health services with low out-of-pocket costs.
    Response: ACF clarifies that programs may use a variety of 
strategies to ensure staff have access to short-term, free or low-cost 
behavioral health services, some of which may result in no additional 
cost to employers who are providing or facilitating access to high-
quality, affordable health care coverage. For instance, employers may 
meet this standard through existing employer-sponsored group health 
plans or through an EAP that qualifies as an excepted health 
benefit.28 29 In a 2020 nationally representative survey, 
among those reporting perceived unmet mental health care needs in the 
prior year, 19 percent reported that their health insurance did not pay 
enough for mental health services.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ When offering access to the behavioral health services 
required under this final rule, an employer should be aware that 
other provisions of law may apply to that arrangement. In general, 
the provision of medical care, including the provision of behavioral 
health services, could result in the arrangement being considered a 
group health plan subject to the relevant provisions of the Employee 
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) that applies to group health 
plans, unless the arrangement qualifies as an excepted benefit. For 
an Employee Assistance Program (EAP) to qualify as an excepted 
benefit, the EAP must meet the requirements of 26 CFR 54.9831-
1(c)(3)(vi), 29 CFR 2590.732(c)(3)(vi), and 45 CFR 
146.145(b)(3)(vi), including that the program may not provide 
significant benefits in the nature of medical care, the benefits 
provided may not be coordinated with benefits under another group 
health plan, and that no employee premiums or contributions or cost 
sharing can be required as a condition of participation in the EAP. 
To the extent the arrangement that provides the behavioral health 
visits required under this final rule does not meet the requirements 
to qualify as an excepted benefit, the arrangement may be considered 
a group health plan subject to the requirements of part 7 of ERISA. 
For example, the Paul Wellstrone and Pete Domenici Mental Health 
Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008, which added ERISA section 
712, requires that group health plans and health insurance coverage 
ensure that financial requirements and treatment limitations on 
mental health and substance-use disorder services are no more 
restrictive than the predominant financial requirements and 
treatment limitations applicable to medical and surgical health 
services, and that there are no financial requirements and treatment 
limitations applicable only with respect to mental health and 
substance use disorder services. 26 CFR 54.9812-1; 29 CFR 2590.712; 
and 45 CFR 146.36.
    \29\ Section 1251 of the Affordable Care Act provides that 
grandfathered health plans are not subject to certain provisions of 
the Internal Revenue Code (Code), ERISA, and the Public Health 
Service (PHS) Act, as added by the Affordable Care Act, for as long 
as they maintain their status as grandfathered health plans. See 26 
CFR 54.9815-1251, 29 CFR 2590.715-1251, and 45 CFR 147.140. For a 
list of the market reform provisions applicable to grandfathered 
health plans under title XXVII of the PHS Act that the Affordable 
Care Act added or amended and that were incorporated into the Code 
and ERISA, visit https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/EBSA/laws-and-regulations/laws/affordable-care-act/for-employers-and-advisers/grandfathered-health-plans-provisions-summary-chart.pdf.
    \30\ Council of Economic Advisors (2022, May). Reducing the 
economic burden of unmet mental health needs. The White House. 
https://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/written-materials/2022/05/31/reducing-the-economic-burden-of-unmet-mental-health-needs/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Regarding the proposed requirement for programs to 
facilitate access to and enrollment in affordable child care, some 
comments noted the importance of child care for their staff and 
community and supported increased access to child care resources. A few 
suggested providing child care options to staff such as onsite child 
care or partnering with a local child care center may be a better way 
to support the workforce while meeting the needs of the community. 
Several commenters requested clarification and guidance regarding the 
definitions of ``facilitate access to'' and ``facilitate enrollment 
in'' child care.
    Response: The early childhood workforce, including Head Start 
staff, are disproportionately women,\31\ many of whom need child care 
for their own children in order to work, but high-quality, affordable 
child care is difficult to find.\32\ The final rule retains the 
proposed policy and requires that programs connect staff to local child 
care information sources, including distributing information about 
child care resource and referral agencies. Among staff who may be 
eligible for child care subsidies, the final rule contains revised 
language requiring programs to ``facilitate access'' rather than 
``facilitate enrollment'' in the child care subsidy program and is now 
consistent with the requirements regarding facilitating staff access to 
PSLF. Facilitating access to child care may involve referring staff to 
State and local agencies that administer child care subsidy programs, 
providing computer or internet access and support to apply for child 
care subsidies, providing printed resources about child care subsidies, 
providing timely income and employment documentation, and assisting 
staff in completing the application as needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Coffey, M. (2022). Still underpaid and unequal: Early 
childhood educators face low pay and a worsening wage gap. Center 
for American Progress. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/still-underpaid-and-unequal/; Mayfield, W., & Cho, I. (2022). The 
National Workforce Registry Alliance 2021 Workforce Dataset: Early 
Childhood and School-age Workforce Trends, with a Focus on Racial/
Ethnic Equity. National Workforce Registry Alliance. https://www.registryalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/NWRA-2022-ECE-workforce-data-report-final.pdf; Smith, L., McHenry, K., Morris, & 
Chong, H. (2021). Characteristics of the child care workforce. 
Bipartisan Policy Center. https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/characteristics-of-the-child-care-workforce/.
    \32\ Child Care Aware (2022). 2021 Child Care Affordability. 
https://www.childcareaware.org/catalyzing-growth-using-data-to-change-child-care/#ChildCareAffordability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Regarding the proposal in the NPRM that programs can 
choose to prioritize the enrollment of staff members' children, many 
comments supported the prioritized enrollment for the children of 
eligible staff. Some commenters were concerned about the implications 
of prioritizing such children for enrollment over serving those most 
at-risk in their community. A few comments urged that the children of 
Head Start staff be categorically eligible to attract and retain staff. 
A few comments suggested that the language of the policy could be 
broadened to include ``children for whom staff is the primary 
caretaker'' to be inclusive of grandparents who are primary caregivers 
or those providing kinship or guardianship care.

[[Page 67745]]

    Response: We retain this provision in the final rule. As described 
above, many in the ECE workforce rely on child care to work and their 
families may benefit from Head Start's services. The final rule 
provides an option for programs to prioritize the enrollment of staff 
members' children through selection criteria. This is not a requirement 
of programs, and Head Start agencies may choose whether to include 
prioritization of staff members in their selection criteria. In 
addition, staff members' children must meet one or more eligibility 
categories described in Sec.  1302.12(c) or (d). Because of the wage 
increases required through this final rule, ACF acknowledges that it is 
likely that fewer staff members' children will be eligible for Head 
Start over time. Programs are reminded that through their selection 
criteria, they must still prioritize those most in need of Head Start 
services. We acknowledge the suggestion to allow for categorical 
eligibility for the children of Head Start staff; however, as 
eligibility categories are largely determined by Head Start statute, we 
do not incorporate this suggestion in the final rule.
    Comment: Commenters supported the policy proposed in the NPRM that 
would facilitate greater ease of access to PSLF for Head Start staff, 
including a suggestion for Head Start to work with the Department of 
Education or automatically enroll Head Start staff in PSLF. Some 
expressed concern about the administrative burden of facilitating 
access to PSLF, and several commenters requested clarification and 
guidance about what is meant by ``facilitate access,'' with a few 
suggesting replacing this with a requirement to share information. A 
few comments noted that workers at for-profit agencies do not qualify 
for PSLF, and there was confusion that this would prohibit Head Start 
from partnering with for-profit child care partners. A few comments 
suggested that this provision would be more appropriate in guidance 
instead of in regulation.
    Response: The final rule retains the requirement that programs 
facilitate access to the PSLF program. A 2022 study found that 19 
percent of the ECE workforce reported they had student debt, compared 
to 17 percent of the U.S. adult population overall, and 17 percent 
reported they carried debt for others.\33\ Maintaining the ``facilitate 
access'' language is important to ensure that programs both share 
information and provide support and timely certification for enrollment 
in PSLF. Activities considered ``facilitating access'' include, but are 
not limited to, providing information to and hosting information 
sessions for staff, providing internet or computer access to employees 
during dedicated time away from their normal job duties so they can 
learn more or enroll, and connecting staff to benefits specialists at 
Head Start programs or elsewhere to help staff enroll. We recognize not 
all Head Start staff will be eligible for PSLF, given that some may not 
have eligible employment if the Head Start program or child care 
partner site does not meet the employer requirements because they are 
for-profit entities. However, of those that do, the timely 
certification of employment is necessary for staff who are applying.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ RAPID Survey, Student Debt in the Early Childhood 
Workforce, May 2022. Retrieved from: https://rapidsurveyproject.com/our-research/student-debt-in-the-early-childhood-workforce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ACF appreciates the comments encouraging coordination with the 
Department of Education on PSLF and will continue to explore ways the 
Federal Government can work across agencies to make it easier for early 
educators to apply for PSLF.

Workforce Supports: Training and Professional Development Plans (Sec.  
1302.91)

    In this standard, we describe the minimum requirements for annual 
professional development, and we codify the requirements of the 2007 
Head Start Act for teaching staff within the HSPPS. The NPRM further 
codified the requirements of section 648A(f) of the Head Start Act. 
Section 648A(f) of the Act requires programs to develop, with input 
from the employee, individual professional development plans for every 
full-time staff providing direct services to children. These plans 
serve as a mechanism for programs to help ensure their staff have the 
skills, knowledge, and competencies to effectively perform their roles 
and deliver high-quality program services.
    While the requirement is stated in the Act, it has not been 
previously codified in the HSPPS, and data from OHS monitoring findings 
show that programs are being cited for lacking professional development 
plans for their education staff. From fiscal year 2020-2022, a top 
cited finding for programs in education was related to professional 
development plans.\34\ Revising language in Sec.  1302.92(b)(1) to 
include individual professional development plans aligns the HSPPS with 
the Act and reminds programs of the requirement. It also emphasizes the 
importance of leveraging staff's input to identify their professional 
needs and drive their career growth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Data from narrative responses from monitoring reviews from 
fiscal years 2020-2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Many commenters expressed support for the revision. One 
commenter noted this revision will streamline information and make it 
easier for programs to reference and adhere to all regulations and 
mandates. Another commenter noted that when individual professional 
development plans are done well, they can improve staff retention and 
job satisfaction. Further, professional learning opportunities designed 
and delivered in a way that elevate educator expertise and autonomy can 
increase children's learning and development.
    Response: ACF agrees with commenters and retains the language 
proposed in the NPRM to include individual professional development 
plans.
    Comment: While section 648A(f) of the Act requires programs to co-
create a professional development plan with each full-time employee who 
provides direct services to children, a few commenters noted the 
importance of such plans for all Head Start positions. A few commenters 
also noted the importance of individual staff input (including staff in 
family child care settings) in developing goals and identifying next 
steps within their individual professional development plans. Such 
input makes plans meaningful to their role and tasks and allows staff 
to build upon the valuable skills they already possess. Another 
commenter recommended programs leverage existing infrastructure, such 
as professional development offerings and tools within early childhood 
professional registries.
    Response: ACF encourages programs to implement individual 
professional development plans with all staff. We agree that these 
plans can be effective tools to support professional and career 
development for everyone. We also acknowledge that staff's input on 
their plans is an important step to individualize professional 
development approaches. The goal is for staff to build on existing 
strengths and implement effective practices to deliver quality program 
services. Individuals and programs can also consider future career 
opportunities as they develop plans. ACF encourages programs to 
leverage existing infrastructure and services to support their delivery 
of impactful professional development.
    While ACF acknowledges commenters' recommendations, we do not 
revise the provision to address these comments. We feel programs can 
access technical assistance and resources on the Early Childhood 
Learning and

[[Page 67746]]

Knowledge Center (ECLKC) to enhance their professional development 
planning processes. Additionally, we note that programs can elect to go 
beyond the minimum requirement of a professional development plan for 
each full-time employee who provides direct services to children and 
support such a plan for all Head Start staff positions.
    Comment: One commenter offered additional revisions to the NPRM 
language. The commenter suggested that ACF revise Sec.  1302.92(b) to 
encourage programs to consider various strategies that elevate the 
early educator profession and pair these with holistic improvements to 
professional development opportunities. Additionally, the commenter 
advised that professional development opportunities build on the 
linguistic and cultural strengths of educators. The commenter also 
proposed adding language to Sec.  1302.92(b)(3) that expands training 
for child and family services staff on best practices for implementing 
family engagement strategies to include a focus on a holistic approach 
to child development, inclusive of mental health and social and 
emotional development.
    Response: While ACF encourages programs to consider strategies that 
build on staff's strengths and offer professional development 
opportunities to help staff meet the unique needs of their enrolled 
children and families, we do not revise this provision to address this 
comment. We think these provisions are sufficient in directing programs 
to provide a systemic approach to staff training and professional 
development that supports staff in acquiring or increasing the 
knowledge and skills needed to provide high-quality, comprehensive 
services. By codifying the statutory requirement for individualized 
professional development plans in regulation, we reinforce the 
importance of tailoring professional development experiences to each 
staff members' unique cultural, linguistic, and educational 
backgrounds.
    Comment: A few commenters noted that professional development plans 
are a helpful mechanism to support and track staff's attainment of 
their educational requirements, and they are particularly needed when 
recruiting qualified staff continues to be challenging. One commenter 
requested that programs be able to provisionally hire staff who do not 
meet the educational requirements without needing to submit individual 
waivers when assistant teachers have two-year plans to attain the CDA 
credential and when teachers have a five-year plan to get their degree.
    Response: ACF agrees that professional development plans can be a 
vehicle to track timely progress and attainment of educational 
credentials and qualifications. However, since the qualification 
requirements of Head Start educators are prescribed in legislation, we 
do not revise this provision to address this comment.

Workforce Supports: Staff Wellness (Sec.  1302.93)

    Section 1302.93 outlines program requirements for promoting staff 
health and wellness, including ensuring that staff have regular health 
examinations; do not pose a risk of exposing others in the program to 
communicable diseases; and are provided access to mental health and 
wellness information. This final rule adds requirements to Sec.  
1302.93 for programs to provide regular breaks for staff and cultivate 
a program-wide culture of wellness for staff. In response to public 
comments, this final rule does not include the proposed requirements in 
the NPRM for unscheduled breaks and adult-sized furniture in 
classrooms, as described further below. The changes in this section of 
the rule are intended to further amplify the crosscutting efforts 
across multiple areas in the HSPPS to improve staff recruitment and 
retention through an intentional focus on staff wellness. ACF believes 
these changes will help reduce burnout and staff turnover, as well as 
promote high-quality services for children and families.
Staff Breaks
    The previous standards in Sec.  1302.93 lacked critical 
requirements to promote staff wellness on the job. This final rule adds 
a new paragraph (c) to Sec.  1302.93 which outlines requirements for 
break times during work shifts. In new paragraph (c)(1), we specify 
that, for each staff member, a program must provide regular breaks of 
adequate length and frequency based on hours worked, including (but not 
limited to) time for meal breaks as appropriate. New paragraph (c)(2) 
requires programs to comply with Federal, State, or local laws or 
regulations that are more stringent for staff breaks, if applicable.
    For staff members who regularly work in classrooms with children, 
the breaks for staff described in paragraph (c)(1) are subject to 
required staff-child ratios. However, in new paragraph (c)(3), we 
specify that during break times for classroom staff, one teaching staff 
member may be replaced by one staff member who does not meet the 
teaching qualifications required for the age, so long as this staff 
member has the necessary training and experience to ensure the safety 
of children and minimal disruption to the quality of services. ACF 
expects that, for classroom staff, these regular breaks will be 
scheduled for periods that are least disruptive for classroom 
instruction or routines, such as during nap times, meals, or outside 
play periods, and will be covered by staff who have completed and 
passed the appropriate background checks.
    This final rule does not include paragraph (c)(4) that was included 
in the NPRM, which proposed unscheduled wellness breaks for staff. As 
described below in the public comment analysis, ACF believes that early 
childhood staff need restroom breaks and an opportunity to step away 
during stressful situations. Such breaks are important to staff health 
and child safety. However, ACF will defer to Head Start agencies to 
determine how to implement breaks.
    We respond to the comments we received on staff breaks in response 
to the NPRM in this section-by-section discussion below.
    Comment: We received several public comments on our proposals 
regarding required staff breaks. They reflected a mix of support and 
concern. Of those that commented on this issue, many agreed that breaks 
for staff are beneficial for mental health and can improve the quality 
of services provided to children. They recognized the importance of 
supporting staff well-being to reduce burnout and turnover, and some 
said their agencies already provide such breaks, scheduled and 
unscheduled.
    Response: We strongly agree with the importance of staff breaks for 
supporting overall staff wellness. In alignment with the overarching 
goal of this final rule, to promote higher-quality services for 
children in Head Start programs and better support the mental and 
physical well-being of staff, children, and families, ACF adds to Sec.  
1302.93 a new paragraph (c), including paragraphs (c)(1) through (3), 
which outlines requirements for break times during work shifts, but 
with some modifications to the policy as proposed in the NPRM. This 
standard for regular staff breaks is discussed further below.
    Comment: Regarding the proposed scheduled breaks policy, the 
majority of comments were supportive of the requirement, noting some 
programs already provide breaks for staff when possible. However, 
commenters found the proposed language for scheduled breaks to be too 
prescriptive because of the specific time requirements proposed in the 
standard. Commenters highlighted potential contradictions

[[Page 67747]]

with State requirements as well. A few commenters also expressed 
concern that the new requirements for breaks were unfunded, which could 
lead to a reduction in slots to accommodate the additional staffing 
costs.
    Response: ACF believes in the critical importance of regular breaks 
for staff to promote physical health and wellness, and in turn promote 
higher quality interactions and services for children and families. 
However, ACF understands that programs have unique structures and 
programmatic considerations that might dictate how breaks are 
implemented, and therefore, in this final rule, we retain the 
requirement for scheduled breaks but with some modifications to provide 
more flexibility for programs. Specifically, the staff breaks standard 
added in Sec.  1302.93(c)(1) requires that each staff member receive 
regular breaks of adequate length and frequency based on hours worked, 
including, but not limited to, time for meal breaks as appropriate. 
With these revisions to the staff breaks policy, ACF believes the 
requirement now better supports programs' autonomy to execute a break 
schedule that is most effective for each program's staff and overall 
organizational health while maintaining child safety and ratios. ACF 
expects that breaks for staff will be provided away from their regular 
job duties including being away from the classroom for those staff. The 
phrasing ``of adequate length and frequency'' in the new standard is 
meant to imply that staff who work longer shifts may need longer or 
more frequent breaks. For instance, ACF expects that staff who work 
longer shifts will be provided a regular break that is of adequate 
length to allow for a meal and regular restroom breaks.
    As discussed in other sections, ACF recognizes that the 
implementation of some of the policies in the final rule will come with 
associated costs and may require adjustments in funded enrollment if 
additional congressional appropriations are not available. This final 
rule also delays the effective date for the staff breaks requirement to 
August 2027, approximately three years after the publication of the 
final rule. This will allow programs more time to plan for and 
implement this new policy.
    Comment: Regarding the proposed unscheduled wellness breaks, there 
were significant concerns about their practicality and feasibility of 
implementation. Commenters expressed worry about maintaining child-to-
staff ratios, violating licensing requirements, the financial and 
logistical burden of hiring additional staff to cover breaks, and the 
potential for abuse of the unscheduled break policy.
    Response: The safety of children is of the utmost importance to 
ACF, and we recognize this is a key priority for programs as well. As 
such, ACF agrees with the public concerns regarding the need for 
programs to have flexibility in how they structure brief, unscheduled 
breaks for staff safely, particularly for small and rural programs and 
those that are geographically dispersed. While the proposed requirement 
was intended to reduce potential child incidents by allowing an 
overwhelmed classroom staff member an opportunity to briefly step away 
from a situation, ACF acknowledges that some programs need flexibility 
in terms of how they implement, particularly those whose licensing 
requirements would not allow for such unscheduled breaks without 
another staff member immediately available to step into the room. We 
agree that programs will need to determine how to implement breaks in a 
way that does not pose a safety risk for smaller and understaffed 
programs. As such, the proposed requirement for brief unscheduled 
breaks for staff is not included in this final rule, and instead we 
include a more flexible policy that requires breaks of appropriate 
length and frequency.
    However, being an early educator, including in Head Start, involves 
actively educating, caring for, and supervising young children. These 
jobs require the full attention of staff members and can be physically, 
mentally, and emotionally demanding, particularly if done for long 
shift periods. It is critically important that programs allow staff to 
step away for restroom breaks and support overwhelmed staff that may 
need a moment away from the classroom. Unscheduled breaks allow staff 
the opportunity to briefly step away from an overwhelming situation, 
think through an appropriate approach to handling the given situation, 
and may ultimately help prevent or reduce child safety incidents in 
classrooms. Lack of access to breaks at work may be part of a 
constellation of workplace stressors faced by Head Start staff 
including the significant responsibility entrusted to Head Start staff 
who are charged with supporting the children and families who are 
furthest from opportunity. Work climate and stressors are associated 
with teacher psychological well-being,\35\ and in turn, contribute to 
staff turnover.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ Jeon, L., & Ardeleau, K. (2020). Work climate in early care 
and education and teachers' stress: Indirect associations through 
emotion regulation. Early Education & Development, 31(7), 1031-1051; 
Jeon, L., Buettner, C., & Grant, A. (2018). Early childhood 
teachers' psychological well-being: Exploring potential predictors 
of depression, stress, and emotional exhaustion. Early Education & 
Development, 29 (1), 53-69.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, it is also critically important for classroom staff to 
have access to unscheduled bathroom breaks as needed, to promote 
physical wellness. Research indicates that ECE teachers have higher 
rates of urinary tract infections relative to the general population of 
women, a troubling finding.\36\ This is thought to be due to staff not 
feeling as though they can regularly access the bathroom as needed. 
Therefore, ACF remains convinced of the benefits of offering staff 
unscheduled breaks as needed and urges programs to develop staffing 
systems that incorporate such an approach as feasible, while ensuring 
child safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Kwon, K., et al. (2022). Neglected elements of a high-
quality early childhood workforce: Whole teacher well-being and 
working conditions. Early Childhood Education Journal, 50, 157-168.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Some commenters found the language around unscheduled 
breaks to be too prescriptive and felt that programs should have the 
autonomy to support their employees' health and wellness in ways that 
are practical for their specific circumstances. A few commenters noted 
the rigidness of the proposed requirements could lead to a culture of 
micromanagement, eroding morale and undermining the judgment and 
expertise of staff.
    Response: As noted above, ACF concurs with public sentiment that 
programs need flexibility in structuring staff breaks, so this is not 
included as a requirement in this final rule.
Adult-Sized Furniture
    Based on the feedback received from the public on the NPRM, ACF is 
not retaining the proposed new paragraph (d) in Sec.  1302.93, which 
would have required programs to ensure staff have access to adult-size 
furniture in classrooms. The requirement was not well-supported by the 
public for a variety of reasons. ACF ultimately agrees that the 
presence of the adult-sized furniture in a classroom is better left to 
the discretion of individual programs. However, ACF remains committed 
to the benefits of access to adult-sized furniture, particularly 
chairs, for classroom staff and encourages programs to implement 
changes to better support the physical health of teachers. ACF's 
support for access to adult-sized furniture is motivated by the data 
indicating that staff in Head Start programs experience

[[Page 67748]]

elevated levels of work-related ergonomic pain. For example, a survey 
of Head Start teachers in Baltimore found that 80 percent reported 
musculoskeletal pain as a result of their work.\37\ In an Oklahoma 
sample of Head Start teachers, more than seven in ten (73 percent) Head 
Start staff reported work-related ergonomic pain, including in routine 
activities like diapering or stooping to pick up children.\38\ Programs 
should continue to align with ACF's goal of improving and investing in 
staff health and wellness including strengthening support for Head 
Start early educators' physical well-being whenever possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ The Happy Teacher Project (2020). Strengthening Health, 
Wellness, and Psychosocial Environments in Head Start: Technical 
Report 2020. Johns Hopkins University and Oklahoma State University.
    \38\ Kwon, K., Ford, T., Randall, K., Castle, S. (2021). Head 
Start Teacher Paradox: Working conditions, well-being, and classroom 
quality. The Happy Teacher Project: Johns Hopkins University and 
Oklahoma State University.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We respond to the comments we received on adult-sized furniture in 
classrooms in response to the NPRM in this section-by-section 
discussion below.
    Comment: The majority of the public comments regarding staff access 
to adult-size furniture in classrooms were not supportive of the 
requirement. Commenters were generally apprehensive about the 
requirement for adult-sized furniture in classrooms, citing safety 
concerns for children, reduced usable space, and potential conflicts 
with both state licensing standards and the Early Childhood Environment 
Rating Scale (ECERS). Most of the comments on this issue also reflected 
a desire for less prescriptive rules that focus on a desired outcome 
and allow for more locally designed approaches to achieve those 
outcomes.
    Response: Due to the overwhelming negative feedback ACF received on 
adult-sized furniture in classrooms for staff, we do not retain it as a 
requirement in this final rule. ACF finds commenters' concerns 
regarding a potential conflict with state licensing standards and ECERS 
to be compelling. However, as noted previously, ACF remains committed 
to supporting the health and well-being of Head Start program staff. 
ACF encourages programs to ensure classroom staff at minimum have 
adult-size chairs in classrooms and a dedicated space with adult-size 
furniture for breaks and meals as needed. This can help promote 
ergonomic health and minimize physical pain for staff associated with 
consistently sitting on child-sized chairs or the floor.
    Comment: Of the supportive comments received, many supported the 
idea of adult-sized chairs for adult comfort but argued against adult-
sized desks, which commenters believed were not suitable for EHS 
classrooms due to space constraints and safety issues. Additionally, 
some commenters stated that adult-sized furniture could create barriers 
and negatively impact teacher-child interactions. Some commenters 
agreed with the benefits of access to adult-sized furniture but 
suggested instead focusing on creating a dedicated workspace for staff 
outside of the classroom.
    Response: As discussed previously, ACF does not retain this 
requirement in the final rule.
Culture of Wellness for Staff
    This final rule adds a new paragraph (d) to Sec.  1302.93 that 
states that a program should cultivate a program-wide culture of 
wellness that empowers staff as professionals and supports them to 
effectively accomplish their job responsibilities in a high-quality 
manner, in line with the requirement at Sec.  1302.101(a)(2). This 
language clarifies that program-wide wellness supports extend to staff 
and that these supports include addressing program management such as 
implementing positive employee engagement practices, opportunities for 
training and professional development, and ongoing supervisory 
support.\39\ As noted in changes made to Sec.  1302.101(a)(2), 
meaningful and effective employee engagement practices that promote 
clear roles and responsibilities are needed to improve the well-being 
of the workforce. Additionally, knowing that the mental health of young 
children is intertwined with the mental health of the adults who care 
for them, it is critical to foster a supportive environment for staff 
well-being, reduce burnout, and improve retention in order to promote 
the highest quality of services for children and families.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ https://www.cdc.gov/workplacehealthpromotion/planning/leadership.html; https://aspe.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/private/pdf/76661/rpt_wellness.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Of the few comments received on the new requirement for 
programs to cultivate a program-wide culture of wellness, most were 
supportive, citing the importance of fostering a healthy work 
environment, preventing burnout, and the unintended negative impact on 
the children and families served. About half of the commenters were 
also concerned with the subjective nature of the requirement and how 
ACF would be able to monitor it.
    Response: ACF maintains the proposed requirement, with the general 
support of the public, requiring programs to foster a program-wide 
culture of wellness. Staff who are not as emotionally committed to or 
proud of their work or organization, are less motivated and are more 
eager to leave, which can in turn negatively affect the quality of 
their work and the attitudes held toward children.\40\ ACF believes in 
the intent of this requirement and the positive impact on programs, 
staff wellness, and the children and families served, as a result. 
After publication of the final rule, ACF will determine how best to 
monitor programs on this requirement in a way that is fair and 
equitable across programs. As needed, ACF will also provide TA to 
programs on how to meet this requirement, including examples of best 
practices from other programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ Kleine, A.-K., Rudolph, C.W., & Zacher, H. (2019). Thriving 
at work: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(9-
10), 973-999.; Walumbwa, F.O., Hartnell, C.A., & Oke, A. (2010). 
Servant leadership, procedural justice climate, service climate, 
employee attitudes, and organizational citizenship behavior: A 
cross-level investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 517-
529.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Section 1302.101(a)(2) requires programs to implement a management 
system that promotes clear and reasonable roles and responsibilities 
for all staff and provides regular and ongoing staff supervision with 
meaningful and effective employee engagement practices. The language in 
the final rule is intended to discourage staff supervision approaches 
that are primarily top-down and is grounded in an understanding that 
staff engagement is critical to both employee well-being and program 
quality. The final rule also reflects provisions in the Head Start Act 
that emphasize the importance of employee development and active 
engagement.
    Meaningful and effective employee engagement practices will vary 
among programs, but examples include discussions of explicit and 
implicit expectations; recognition for high-quality work; open 
communication between management, staff, and their representatives; 
conducting and responding to workplace climate surveys; responding to 
feedback; working in partnership with staff to identify and ameliorate 
any barriers to high-quality job performance that may exist including 
workload issues; formal

[[Page 67749]]

and informal opportunities for discussions related to job satisfaction 
and performance; and having employee engagement inform professional 
development opportunities for staff. In general, these practices should 
aim to understand the expectations imposed on staff, identify and 
address barriers staff are experiencing in being able to fulfill their 
roles and responsibilities (e.g., filling multiple roles, job-related 
stressors impacting job performance, unclear roles and 
responsibilities), and recognize high-quality work.
    The final rule also retains a revision from the NPRM in Sec.  
1302.92(b), which requires programs to implement a systematic approach 
to staff training and professional development. We add to this section 
the phrase ``and integrated with employee engagement practices in 
accordance with Sec.  1302.101(a)(2).'' This revision builds on the 
revised language in Sec.  1302.101(a)(2) and is intended to ensure 
programs implement an approach to staff training and professional 
development that is informed by input from staff, identifies barriers 
to job performance, and includes other employee engagement practices.
    Comment: ACF received few comments overall on provisions related to 
employee engagement. Of those who commented, there was general 
consensus on the necessity of well-defined roles and responsibilities 
for Head Start staff. Commenters advocated for management systems that 
recognize the diverse duties of staff and support the complexity of 
these roles. There was a call for professional development plans that 
are flexible, crafted with input from staff, and tailored to meet the 
specific needs of each program.
    Response: ACF agrees with commenters and retains the revised 
language from the NPRM.
    Comment: A few commenters advocated for integrating mental health 
and anti-bias approaches into the employee engagement provisions.
    Response: ACF agrees with commenters on the importance of 
integrating mental health throughout Head Start programs. This final 
rule includes multiple provisions in Sec.  1302.45 establishing what 
programs must do to support a culture that promotes mental health, 
including revised requirements in Sec.  1302.45(a) to include 
coordination and collaboration between mental health and other relevant 
program services. Since we do not specify any other content areas 
(e.g., physical health) for inclusion in the employee engagement 
provisions in Sec.  1302.92(b) or Sec.  1302.101(a)(2), we do not make 
further revisions to these sections from the NPRM language. ACF has and 
will continue to provide TTA on supporting mental health and promoting 
inclusive environments in Head Start programs.
    Comment: A few comments highlighted a preference for leadership 
development strategies that empower rather than prescribe, with a call 
for ACF to offer guidance instead of stringent requirements. These 
commenters emphasized the importance of program autonomy in staffing 
and professional development decisions. A few comments raised concerns 
about a potential increase in regulatory burdens with these provisions.
    Response: ACF values commenters' input on leadership development 
strategies and recognizes the need for strategies that are adaptable to 
local contexts. The final rule reflects this by providing a framework 
that supports the development of management systems at the program 
level, allowing for the leadership of each program to guide the 
creation and implementation of employee engagement practices. The rule 
aims to balance the need for clear Federal guidance with flexibility 
for programs to address their specific challenges and dynamics.
    In response to concerns about regulatory burden, ACF has been 
intentional about ensuring that the final rule provisions on employee 
engagement do not impose undue constraints on programs. Rather, they 
support autonomy in developing and executing strategies that are most 
effective for each program's staff and organizational health. The 
changes described in these sections are intended to be scaled to the 
size of the Head Start organization and are not anticipated to incur a 
large cost.

Mental Health Services (Subparts D, H, and I)

    The final rule makes updates to mental health services for 
children, families, and staff and more fully integrates mental health 
in all aspects of Head Start services while focusing on a preventive 
and strengths-based approach. Collectively, the final rule provisions 
promote a Head Start program that recognizes mental health as a part of 
child development and integrates a promotion and prevention approach 
that includes addressing the mental health needs of children and the 
adults that care for them in an ongoing and collaborative way. Mental 
health services have always been an important part of the Head Start 
model, and this rule affirms the importance of mental health by 
explicitly referencing it in the heading of subpart D and the renamed 
Health and Mental Health Services Advisory Committee (HMHSAC). In 
addition, the final rule includes clarifying language to reinforce that 
mental health should be integrated into all aspects of the Head Start 
program, including developmental screenings, family support services, 
family engagement, and nutrition.
    The final rule includes significant changes from previous standards 
on mental health to address mental health services as an important 
component of Head Start and respond to increasing mental health 
concerns among children, families, and staff in the program. Many of 
these changes were proposed in the NPRM, with some additional changes 
made in the final rule in response to public comments. Specifically, 
the final rule removes the requirement for a multidisciplinary mental 
health team in the NPRM and replaces it with a requirement for a 
multidisciplinary approach to emphasize that programs should determine 
how best to coordinate and ensure program-wide mental health supports 
and services with the appropriate staff, which is discussed more in 
depth below. The new requirements for the multidisciplinary approach to 
support mental health across the program largely reflect those proposed 
in the NPRM and include: (1) coordinating supports for adults, 
including families and staff; (2) new strengths-based language related 
to mental health services for children that focus on preventive 
strategies; (3) annual assessment of mental health consultation 
services to address any needed changes in service delivery; (4) monthly 
mental health consultation services with an option to augment with 
other licensed mental health professionals or behavior health support 
specialists, as needed; (5) screening for social and emotional 
development and follow-up with parents; (6) coordination across mental 
health and other service providers in the program; and (7) leveraging 
community partnerships to provide mental health services, including 
through the HMHSAC.
    The final rule also retains the description of the role of a mental 
health consultant, whose role is to build the capacity of adults to 
support the mental health and social and emotional development of 
children. Research has demonstrated that mental health consultation has 
positive impacts on young children's social and emotional skills and 
reductions in behaviors that are challenging to adults.\41\ While the

[[Page 67750]]

NPRM required monthly mental health consultation, the final rule 
provides additional flexibility in meeting the monthly mental health 
consultation requirement such that, if mental health consultation is 
not available on a monthly basis, Head Start programs must use other 
licensed mental health professionals or behavior health support 
specialists to ensure the provision of mental health supports on at 
least a monthly basis. If this flexibility is exercised, the other 
licensed mental health professionals or behavioral health support 
specialists must coordinate and consult with the program's mental 
health consultant. This change is responsive to comments received on 
the NPRM about the lack of mental health consultants available to Head 
Start programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ Center of Excellence for Infant and Early Childhood Mental 
Health Consultation (2023). Status of the Evidence for Infant and 
Early Childhood Mental Health Consultation (IECMHC). https://www.iecmhc.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/CoE-Evidence-Synthesis.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Part 1302, Subpart D--Health and Mental Health Program Services
    Subpart D outlines the program requirements to support the 
provision of high-quality health, oral health, mental health, and 
nutrition services. The final rule modifies the name of this section to 
include mental health more explicitly.
Section 1302.40 Purpose
    Section 1302.40 describes the overarching purpose of health and 
mental health program services in Head Start. Paragraph (b) describes 
the previous requirement to establish and maintain a Health Services 
Advisory Committee, an advisory group usually composed of local health 
providers who represent a wide variety of local social services 
agencies. The final rule changes the title of this advisory committee 
to Health and Mental Health Services Advisory Committee (HMHSAC) to 
include mental health more explicitly and to emphasize the importance 
of including professionals with mental health expertise on the 
committee. While ACF strongly recommends including professionals with 
mental health experience or expertise (including professionals with 
background or experience in substance use disorders) on the HMHSAC, the 
composition of the committee should be designed based on community need 
and remains at the discretion of the local program. The final rule 
modifies other requirements referencing the committee to update the 
language in Sec. Sec.  1302.42(b)(1)(i), 1302.43(b)(4), and 1302.94(a).
    Comment: We received some comments on this section, and they 
generally focused on two themes. First, those who commented on this 
section noted confusion about how the role of the HMHSAC differs from 
that of the multidisciplinary team proposed in the NPRM under Sec.  
1302.45(a). Second, those who commented requested clarification on 
whether the change from the Health Services Advisory Committee to the 
Health and Mental Health Services Advisory Committee is a name change 
only or if the responsibilities of the committee will also change.
    Response: ACF accepts the feedback from commenters expressing 
concern and confusion about the multidisciplinary team and does not 
retain that proposed requirement in the final rule. Instead, the final 
rule requires programs to use a multidisciplinary approach to mental 
health and wellness supports, and programs are encouraged to take a 
team-based approach to meet this requirement. The final rule changes 
the title of the advisory committee to elevate the importance of 
including mental health providers as programs often do not realize that 
the committee can include mental health expertise in addition to other 
health expertise. The rule does not change the overarching 
responsibilities of the committee, but it does state that one function 
of the HMHSAC is to support the program in building community 
partnerships in Sec.  1302.45(a)(7).
Section 1302.41 Collaboration and Communication With Parents
    Section 1302.41 requires Head Start programs to collaborate with 
parents as partners in the health and well-being of their children and 
to communicate in a timely manner with parents about their children's 
health needs and development concerns.
    The final rule includes mental health more explicitly throughout 
this section. Specifically, the final rule requires that programs 
collaborate with parents as partners in the health, mental health, and 
well-being of their children and communicate with parents about their 
children's health and mental health needs, including at a minimum, 
obtaining advance authorization for mental health procedures 
administered and sharing policies for mental health emergencies.
    Comment: Those who commented on Sec.  1302.41 were supportive of 
the inclusion of mental health in advanced authorization.
    Response: We agree with commenters and maintain the NPRM proposal 
to further integrate mental health with other health-related services 
by including authorization from parents for mental health supports as 
part of the initial consent process.
Section 1302.42 Child Health Status and Care
    Section 1302.42 describes the requirements for programs with 
respect to a child's health status and care, including the timelines by 
which programs must ensure a child has an ongoing source of continuous, 
accessible health care; determine if a child is up to date on a 
schedule of age-appropriate care; and obtain or perform evidence-based 
vision and hearing screenings.
    The final rule includes mental health more explicitly to align with 
the purpose and intent of the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic 
and Treatment (EPSDT) benefit. Specifically, the final rule requires 
that determinations obtained about a child's schedule of age-
appropriate preventive and primary care includes mental health care. 
The final rule also requires that when a program is identifying a 
child's nutritional health needs, that developmental and mental health 
concerns should also be considered.
    Comment: Some commenters requested additional clarification on how 
to ensure a child is up-to-date on mental health care and expressed 
concern about program burden to directly facilitate provision of these 
screenings if health care providers do not routinely perform mental 
health screening.
    Response: We retain this requirement in the final rule. Programs 
can ensure a child is up-to-date on mental health care by obtaining 
determinations from any social, emotional, or behavior screening as 
prescribed by the EPSDT program of the Medicaid agency of that state in 
which they operate. ACF believes that screening for mental health 
concerns is an important way to ensure children and families with needs 
are identified early and can access appropriate interventions. ACF has 
TTA available to assist programs with screening and assessment 
efforts.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/child-screening-assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 1302.45 Supports for Mental Health and Well-Being
    Section 1302.45 establishes the requirements for what programs must 
do to support a culture that promotes mental health and outlines the 
responsibilities of mental health consultants. In the previous 
standards, programmatic requirements related to mental health appeared 
in several areas. This final rule strengthens, clarifies, and

[[Page 67751]]

enhances these requirements to provide a comprehensive and integrated 
approach that elevates mental health across the entire program.
    The final rule changes the heading of Sec.  1302.45 and Sec.  
1302.45(a) to better reflect that the intent of the additional 
requirements is to help programs support not only the mental health of 
children and their families, but also the adults who care for them 
across the program.
    In addition to changes in the titles of these sections, the final 
rule makes significant changes from previous standards to Sec.  
1302.45(a) and (b). Together, the changes to this section from the NPRM 
take a prevention-focused and strengths-based approach to mental 
health, promote the integration of mental health and wellness supports 
for Head Start children, families, and staff, and strengthen best 
practices in mental health consultation.
    In Sec.  1302.45(a), the final rule requires that programs use a 
multidisciplinary approach to support a program-wide culture that 
promotes mental health, social and emotional well-being, and overall 
health and safety. Using a multidisciplinary approach in Head Start 
programs means leveraging knowledge and skills across disciplines, 
instead of maintaining a siloed approach to mental health. The 
multidisciplinary approach allows programs to coordinate across Head 
Start services to ensure greater consistency among staff members and 
better address the mental health needs of children and families, 
including those who may have multiple staff members providing services. 
For example, a multidisciplinary approach would facilitate an 
eligibility, recruitment, selection, enrollment, and attendance (ERSEA) 
coordinator and family services provider to communicate about how 
mental health concerns may impact a family's attendance, and to 
collaboratively identify a variety of supports, such as helping the 
family access treatment or parent groups, identifying transportation, 
or facilitating communication with the teacher. Under Sec.  1302.45(a), 
we include revised language to describe what activities are expected 
from the program-wide wellness supports, for a total of seven 
provisions.
    In the first provision, we require coordination of supports for 
adult mental health and well-being, including for families and program 
staff. Requiring programs to engage with families in nurturing and 
responsive relationships and home visiting services ensures that 
programs take a preventive and holistic approach to mental health. For 
example, programs can facilitate communication across service areas to 
ensure that the family is supported in a variety of ways that may 
impact their mental health and wellness, such as assistance with 
housing, food insecurity, or issues related to substance use. Parents 
with substance use disorder (SUD) may experience barriers to care and 
Head Start programs can work across service areas to help families 
navigate and overcome these barriers, including by providing 
information on substance use issues or disorders to staff or parents 
and providing referrals, as appropriate, for screening and/or 
treatment. This assistance is crucial as drug overdose deaths among 
pregnant and postpartum women and people alone increased by 81 percent 
between 2017 and 2020.
    This first provision also includes promoting staff health and 
wellness as outlined in Sec.  1302.93. Staff who are happier, 
healthier, and less stressed are able to engage in higher quality 
interactions with children. Over the last several years, staff in Head 
Start programs have experienced heightened stress, burnout, exhaustion, 
and increased depressive symptoms comparable to other early childhood 
educators and providers across the board. For example, research has 
demonstrated that women who work in Head Start have poorer physical and 
mental health compared to other U.S. women who have similar 
sociodemographic characteristics.\43\ A recent survey of the early 
childhood workforce found that 66 percent of ECE staff surveyed 
experienced moderate to high levels of stress.\44\ Research indicates 
that Head Start staff who experience frequent stress or symptoms of 
depression are more likely to perceive children in their care in a less 
positive light. This could, in turn, relate to lower quality 
interactions and care.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ Whitaker et al. (2012). The Physical and Mental Health of 
Head Start Staff: The Pennsylvania Head Start Staff Wellness Survey. 
Prev Chronic Dis, Vol 13.
    \44\ Elharake JA, Shafiq M, Cobanoglu A, Malik AA, Klotz M, 
Humphries JE, et al. (2022). Prevalence of Chronic Diseases, 
Depression, and Stress Among US Childcare Professionals During the 
COVID-19 Pandemic. Prev Chronic Dis, Vol 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the second provision, we revise the previous requirement related 
to coordinating supports for children's mental health and well-being in 
the learning environment to align with a strength-based and inclusive 
approach. The previous requirement focused on supporting children in 
classrooms, which could be interpreted to exclude other program options 
or settings. The previous requirement also focused on managing 
challenging behaviors, which can contribute to stigma and places an 
emphasis on responding to--rather than preventing--concerns. The new 
requirement in this final rule includes all Head Start program options, 
and highlights strengths-based language that reinforces the importance 
of strategies that support the development of all children.
    The remaining provisions in this section provide requirements and 
clarifications to address the increased need for mental health supports 
and services for children in Head Start programs. Social-emotional 
difficulties impact up to 20 percent of children under the age of five, 
and over half of mental health disorders begin before age 14.\45\ 
Additionally, children and families experiencing poverty are more 
likely to encounter stressors linked to mental health challenges as 
well as experience barriers to accessing mental health services. Recent 
events, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, have only increased the need for 
mental health supports for young children and their families, as 
research has documented increases in stress-related disorders in young 
children and programs have reported more difficulties managing 
children's behaviors in early learning settings.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ National Research Council and Institute of Medicine 
Committee. Preventing mental, emotional, and behavioral disorders 
among young people: progress and possibilities. Washington, DC: 
National Academies Press; 2009. Brauner, C. B., & Stephens, C. B. 
(2006). Estimating the prevalence of early childhood serious 
emotional/behavioral disorders: Challenges an recommendations. 
Public health reports, 121(3), 303-310. Leventhal, T., & Brooks-
Gunn, J. (2003). Moving to Opportunity: an Experimental Study of 
Neighborhood Effects on Mental Health. American Journal of Public 
Health 93(9). 1576-1582. doi: 10.2105/ajph.93.9.1576.
    \46\ West, K.D., Ali, M.M., Schreier, A., & Plourde, E. Child 
and Adolescent Mental Health During COVID-19: Considerations for 
Schools and Early Childhood Providers (Issue Brief). Washington, DC: 
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, U.S. 
Department of Health and Human Services. September 22, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although there is an increased need, access to mental health 
services, including treatment, is severely limited by a shortage of 
behavioral health providers in the community. As a result, Head Start 
programs need to enhance integration of mental health supports within 
the program by leveraging community partnerships, as well as utilizing 
behavioral health support specialists, TTA resources specifically 
available to Head Start programs, and creative solutions such as 
telehealth. While Head Start has a long history of requiring access to 
mental health consultation services, the new provisions enhance the 
quality of

[[Page 67752]]

consultation services in programs by providing clarity on best 
practices. Additionally, requiring programs to coordinate other 
program-wide strategies to prevent or intervene early on children's 
mental health concerns reduces the need to refer to community 
providers, who are limited in availability.
    The third program-wide wellness support provision maintains the 
previous expectation for a program to secure mental health consultation 
services and adds a new requirement that these services be ongoing and 
the approach to mental health consultation be re-examined annually to 
determine if the approach is meeting the needs of the program. This new 
requirement reflects an understanding that the mental health needs of 
children and adults in the program, available mental health supports in 
the community, or other factors may change over time, creating a need 
for continuous quality improvement.
    Fourth, we require that mental health consultation be available to 
the program at a frequency of at least once a month, with the caveat 
that if the mental health consultant is not available at that 
frequency, other licensed mental health professionals or behavioral 
health support specialists certified and trained in their profession 
must be used in coordination and consultation with the mental health 
consultant to provide mental health supports on at least a monthly 
basis. This monthly frequency requirement is intended to set a minimum 
expectation of mental health consultation services in the program to 
meet the needs of staff and families in a timely and effective manner.
    Fifth, we require that the program's multidisciplinary approach 
include ensuring children receive adequate screening related to social 
and emotional milestones that impact mental health and appropriate 
follow-up in partnership with parents, referencing Sec.  1302.33. 
Including screening provisions in a program's multidisciplinary 
approach further ensures effective integration and coordination of key 
mental health supports across program service areas, such as supports 
for children who are waiting for an evaluation or those with identified 
disabilities.
    Sixth, we add another new provision emphasizing the need for 
multidisciplinary coordination and collaboration between mental health 
and other relevant program services. Given the increase in children's 
mental health needs described above, it is especially important to 
equip Head Start staff across program service areas with opportunities 
to coordinate and collaborate to address mental health. This 
requirement further underscores that mental health should be integrated 
across program services, including education, disability, family 
engagement, and health services, and provides examples of the most 
relevant service areas to be included in an effective multidisciplinary 
approach. This integration is particularly important as early childhood 
mental health cannot be effectively addressed with a siloed approach. 
Mental health in young children includes skills such as a child's 
capacity to express and regulate emotions, form trusting relationships 
with adults, explore, and learn. These skills are cultivated in 
interactions with caregivers in a child's life, including parents and 
Head Start staff across program services. Furthermore, these skills 
impact other areas of development and are foundational for family well-
being, children's learning and overall healthy development, and 
children's long-term success.
    Finally, we require that programs leverage the role of the HMHSAC 
to meet the existing requirement to build community partnerships that 
facilitate access to mental health resources and services.
    As was proposed in the NPRM, the final rule removes the requirement 
for parental consent for mental health consultation. The previous 
requirement for parental consent was unwarranted since mental health 
consultants are providing supports to Head Start staff and other adults 
in a child's life and do not provide treatment to children, and it 
proved to be a barrier to providing mental health consultation. 
Additionally, this was an unnecessary administrative burden on programs 
and families since it was duplicative of other requirements for 
obtaining advance authorization for mental health procedures and 
sharing policies for mental health emergencies, as proposed in the NPRM 
and included in Sec.  1302.41 of the final rule. Programs must still 
retain parental consent for any mental health services provided 
directly to children in the form of therapy by an appropriate licensed 
mental health professional, which would be outside the typical purview 
of a mental health consultant.
    This final rule also makes several revisions to Sec.  1302.45(b) to 
clarify the role and responsibilities of the mental health consultant 
and promote best practice recommendations for mental health 
consultation in Head Start settings. First, we align our description of 
mental health consultation with the Substance Abuse and Mental Health 
Services Administration (SAMHSA)-funded Center of Excellence for Infant 
and Early Childhood Mental Health Consultation, a leader in the 
advancement and impact of mental health consultation, as well as 
research and best practice in the field. The final rule description 
clarifies that mental health consultation services build the capacity 
of adults to support the mental health and social and emotional 
development of children. Second, the final rule explains that the 
mental health consultant can consult with a range of adults in a 
child's life, including program staff to implement strategies that 
promote children's mental health and prevent and respond to children's 
mental health concerns; families to support adult or child mental 
health such as in the event of a crisis or natural disaster; or program 
leadership to support specific program policies, such as those related 
to suspension or mental health needs following a significant safety 
incident. The purpose of clarifying and broadening the responsibilities 
of the mental health consultant is not to create a checklist the mental 
health consultant must complete. Rather, the goal is to describe the 
variety of ways that mental health consultation services can be used 
based on program needs. Programs can determine which of these options 
best meet their needs and reassess those needs through the annual 
review.
    We received many public comments on the proposed changes in the 
area of supports for mental health and well-being. Of those who 
commented on these issues, many reflected a strong desire for enhanced 
mental health support for everyone involved in Head Start programs, 
consistent with the intent of the changes. Many commenters noted the 
increased rates of stress and burnout among staff coupled with a rise 
in challenging behaviors and developmental delays among children. 
Although commenters supported the broader goals, many commenters also 
expressed concerns about implementing the proposed requirements in the 
NPRM and requested consideration for the unique challenges faced by 
different communities to ensure that mental health is adequately 
supported by and integrated into Head Start programming. We discuss 
these public comments as well as our response and revisions in more 
detail below.
    Comment: Many commenters expressed a need for greater clarity and 
specificity about the role of the multidisciplinary team within the 
program. Some commenters expressed concern that programs would need to

[[Page 67753]]

hire additional staff to meet this requirement. Other commenters 
requested that ACF give programs flexibility to determine how to meet 
this requirement based on program and community needs, including 
allowing programs to determine where they assign the responsibilities 
of the multidisciplinary team. Some commenters specifically noted 
confusion about how the role of the multidisciplinary team differs from 
that of the HMHSAC.
    Response: The final rule removes the proposed NPRM language 
requiring that programs have a multidisciplinary team. Instead, 
programs are required to use a multidisciplinary approach to mental 
health and wellness supports and are encouraged to take a team-based 
approach to meet this requirement. The intent of the NPRM was to be 
clear that mental health and wellness supports should be integrated 
program-wide, to convey the scope of these services, and to identify 
specific areas where mental health should be included. With this 
revision in the final rule, we are emphasizing the multidisciplinary 
approach to integrating mental health throughout Head Start program 
services and allowing programs to determine how best to meet that 
requirement. A program's multidisciplinary approach should certainly 
include building community partnerships, and the HMHSAC is one way a 
program can achieve this.
    Comment: Many of the commenters who submitted comments on this 
topic expressed concerns about the availability of mental health 
professionals broadly and specifically in rural areas. These commenters 
noted the long waitlists for mental health professionals as a barrier 
to hiring mental health consultants who could provide consultation 
services to the program on a schedule of at least monthly. Some 
commenters offered specific suggestions for changing this requirement, 
including waivers, exemptions, or additional flexibilities if programs 
could demonstrate a shortage of licensed professionals with experience 
in early childhood education in their area. Other suggestions included 
expanding the consultant qualifications further and implementing mental 
health consultation, including frequency, based on programs' own data 
and community needs. Some comments requested more clarification on the 
requirement related to mental health consultation, including whether 
the schedule applies at the classroom, program, or agency level.
    Response: We revise the requirement related to mental health 
consultation in the final rule. While we retain a monthly frequency for 
mental health consultation, we expand programs' ability to provide 
mental health supports on at least a monthly basis, in part, with other 
licensed mental health professionals or behavioral health support 
specialists who are credentialed and trained in their field, such as 
community health workers, behavior specialists, and traditional 
practitioners, who are especially important in Tribal communities. Head 
Start programs are still required to have a mental health consultant; 
programs cannot entirely replace a mental health consultant with these 
other providers. Rather, programs can have these other providers that 
work in collaboration and consultation with mental health consultants 
to meet the ``at least once a month'' frequency requirement for 
providing mental health services, which is a requirement that applies 
at the program level.
    ACF believes this approach is responsive to public comments. It 
balances the objective of integrating more mental health support for 
programs while acknowledging the challenges of the mental health 
workforce shortage. It allows programs to leverage other providers of 
mental health supports they can already access in their program and 
community. It also retains the critical role of the mental health 
consultant and their expanded role in not just addressing behaviors in 
the classroom but working with all adults in a child's life, including 
families and other staff outside the classroom, and coordinating with 
any other licensed mental health professionals or behavioral health 
support specialists who may be supplementing their work. Finally, it 
incorporates culturally responsive mental health approaches by allowing 
programs to leverage traditional practitioners identified by their 
Tribal governments to offer traditional knowledge and practices.
    Comment: Many commenters further elaborated on their concerns about 
the availability of mental health professionals, and particularly 
individuals trained to work with children, and offered suggestions to 
address the supply of providers. Specifically, they recommended that 
ACF support different provider qualifications and allow telehealth 
consultation.
    Response: We think the revisions we made in response to public 
comments will support programs in implementing these requirements. 
Allowing a broader set of individuals to supplement the work of the 
mental health consultant balances the need for more mental health 
support in Head Start programs with the reality that mental health 
consultants may not be able to support programs at the frequency 
proposed in the NPRM. Additionally, we retain the NPRM proposal in 
Sec.  1302.91(e)(8)(ii) that allows programs to secure mental health 
consultation from professionals who are providing services under the 
supervision of a licensed mental health professional, rather than 
needing to be already licensed themselves, such as trainees who may be 
in the process of obtaining licensure. Lastly, as we noted in the 
preamble to the NPRM, even if a consultant cannot be on site, 
teleconsultation services can be used to work with adults in the 
program.
    Comment: While commenters agreed with the premise that mental 
health should be integrated throughout the program and that mental 
health supports should not be left to the mental health consultant 
alone, there was concern that the proposed changes were significant in 
scope and the level of expertise, time, and cost required to carry out 
these proposed requirements would be daunting for some programs and 
would take significant time to implement.
    Response: We think the revisions we made in the final rule in 
response to public comments will support programs in implementing these 
requirements while maintaining our commitment to the overall goal of 
integrating and elevating mental health and wellness supports across 
the program. As noted, we specifically remove the proposed NPRM 
language requiring a multidisciplinary team and revise the requirement 
related to mental health consultation to allow programs to use other 
licensed mental health professionals or behavioral health support 
specialists to supplement the work of the mental health consultant in 
the event the mental health consultant is not available at least once 
per month.
    Comment: Some commenters stated that mental health services should 
be culturally sensitive and inclusive, taking into consideration the 
diverse backgrounds of the children and families served by Head Start 
programs.
    Response: ACF agrees that mental health services should be 
culturally sensitive and inclusive, particularly given the diversity of 
the children and families participating in Head Start programs. The 
revision to the mental health consultation standard to allow other 
licensed mental health professionals or behavioral health support 
specialists to support programs if the mental health consultant cannot 
provide services on at least a monthly basis is responsive to these 
comments

[[Page 67754]]

because it allows programs to look to other professionals who can 
augment the delivery of culturally sensitive and inclusive mental 
health services. For example, Tribal or other Native communities could 
incorporate traditional practices as mental health supports if the 
mental health consultant is not available at least once per month.
Section 1302.46 Family Support Services for Health, Nutrition, and 
Mental Health
    Section 1302.46 requires programs to collaborate with families to 
promote children's health and well-being and describes what that 
collaboration must include. The final rule modifies requirements 
throughout this section to incorporate a preventive approach to mental 
health into family support services by using more strengths-based 
language in paragraph (b)(1)(iii), and by providing opportunities to 
engage families in discussions about mental health even when there is 
not an identified problem in paragraph (b)(1)(iv).
    The final rule adds a new requirement in paragraph (b)(2) that 
programs must provide ongoing support to assist parents' navigation 
through mental health systems, including providing information about 
how to access mental health services for young children and their 
families.
    Comments: We did not receive many comments on this section. Those 
who commented expressed concern that the reference to ``evidence-
based'' mental health services created additional confusion and program 
burden to determine if a mental health service is evidence-based.
    Response: ACF removes the reference to ``evidence-based'' services 
in Sec.  1302.46(b)(2)(iv) in the final rule. ACF strongly encourages 
programs to work with their HMHSAC or others with relevant expertise to 
ensure parents receive mental health information and referrals that are 
developmentally and culturally appropriate, and evidence-informed and 
rooted in science. However, we do not want to unnecessarily delay 
access to mental health supports by requiring programs to determine if 
services are evidence-based. Further, we want programs to identify 
services and providers that are culturally and linguistically 
responsive to the communities they serve. We acknowledge that not all 
interventions have been evaluated with the diverse populations that 
Head Start programs serve. Whenever possible, ACF strongly encourages 
the use of evidence-based services with adaptations to make services 
appropriate for specific communities.
Part 1302, Subpart H--Services to Enrolled Pregnant Women
Section 1302.81 Prenatal and Postnatal Information, Education, and 
Services
    Section 1302.81 establishes the requirements for the prenatal and 
postpartum information, education, and services programs must provide 
enrolled pregnant women and other pregnant people, fathers, and 
partners or other relevant family members. Regarding mental health, the 
final rule retains provisions proposed in the NPRM and broadens the 
scope of the mental health information and education that may be 
helpful to provide to expectant families and ensures that social 
support is part of prenatal and postnatal services for enrolled 
families.
    Comment: Many commenters expressed support for the proposed changes 
that aim to enhance social support and mental health for expectant 
families. Some commenters indicated that they have already incorporated 
these practices into their programs while others noted the need for 
additional support and resources to meet these requirements, including 
funding for staff training and curriculum development. A few commenters 
suggested the provision of additional information, including culturally 
relevant information.
    Response: We retain the NPRM proposal in the final rule. ACF will 
support programs that need additional support in meeting these 
requirements through TTA.
Part 1302, Subpart I--Human Resources Management
Section 1302.91 Staff Qualification and Competency Requirements
    Section 1302.91 establishes the staff qualifications and 
competencies for all staff, consultants, and contractors engaged in the 
delivery of program services. The final rule clarifies the required 
qualifications for infant and early childhood mental health consultants 
to make clear that mental health consultants can include individuals 
who are working under the supervision of another licensed individual, 
as initially proposed in the NPRM. This aligns with best practice in 
the field, expands the pool of available mental health consultants, and 
provides opportunities to build the mental health workforce in the 
early care and education field.
    Comment: Of the commenters who commented on this proposed change, 
some expressed support for the change to include individuals working 
under the supervision of another licensed individual. A few comments 
recommended retaining the term ``certified'' from the previous 
standards' requirement.
    Response: We retain the proposed NPRM language, which removes 
``certified'' and replaces it with ``under the supervision of a 
licensed'' individual, in the final rule. Broadening the pool of mental 
health consultants in this way is supportive of ACF's goal to reduce 
barriers to securing consultants while ensuring those individuals are 
receiving supervision and support from a licensed individual to 
facilitate the provision of high-quality services.

Child Health and Safety (Sec. Sec.  1302.47; 1302.90; 1302.92; 
1302.101; 1302.102)

    The final rule makes improvements to protect child health and 
safety through several strategies, including broadening who needs to 
adhere to child health and safety to cover contractors and volunteers 
in addition to staff; clarifying that children should be supervised at 
all times; requiring annual training on positive social and emotional 
support and mandated reporter training; and codifying the timeline for 
reporting health and safety incidents to OHS. The final rule also 
streamlines and updates the Standards of Conduct and the categories of 
child maltreatment to align with the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention (CDC). Taken together, these changes promote a culture of 
safety for children and adults through both preventative measures and 
addressing any serious incidents that do arise.
    The final rule makes several changes from the NPRM to focus on 
serious child health and safety incidents while avoiding administrative 
burdens that could distract from efforts to address child safety. 
First, the final rule requires incidents to be reported to OHS as soon 
as possible, but within seven calendar days; this seven-day timeline is 
the current policy and a change from the NPRM, which proposed three 
days. The final rule also includes three clarifications in response to 
concerns raised in public comment that the reporting criteria were 
overly broad and would result in reporting small incidents or events to 
OHS. First, the final rule clarifies that programs should report child 
maltreatment as well as serious injury, harm, or endangerment resulting 
from lack of preventative maintenance or lack of supervision. Second, 
the final rule revises the Standards of Conduct to focus on 
maltreatment and endangering health and safety. Third, the final rule 
clarifies

[[Page 67755]]

that reporting closures to OHS does not include reporting scheduled 
breaks, holidays, or temporary closures for inclement weather.
Section 1302.47 Safety Practices
    Section 1302.47 establishes expectations for Head Start programs to 
ensure basic health and safety measures are taken for the protection of 
all children. As proposed in the NPRM, the final rule includes an 
additional requirement and several clarifications to strengthen safety 
practices that protect children in Head Start settings, including by 
broadening who must follow safety practices, better aligning practices 
with Federal child abuse and prevention law, being clearer that 
children must be supervised at all times, and clarifying the connection 
between safety practices and the Standards of Conduct.
    Specifically, the final rule adds a requirement in Sec.  
1302.47(b)(5) that contractors and volunteers follow safety 
requirements, just as staff and consultants were already required to 
do. This change is intended to clarify that Head Start contractors and 
volunteers, in addition to staff and consultants, should be aware of 
and are expected to follow safety practices. ACF believes this is 
essential since contractors and volunteers need to understand how to 
safely interact with children in their roles, as well as their 
responsibilities if they witness unsafe practices in Head Start 
programs. For contractors, this requirement only applies to (1) 
contractors, or individuals on a contract, whose activities involve 
contact with and/or direct services to children and families, and (2) 
any contractor who could have unsupervised access to children and 
families.
    Next, the final rule provides a definition of child abuse and 
neglect that is aligned with existing Federal statute, the Federal 
Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) (42 U.S.C. 5101 
note).\47\ CAPTA, originally enacted in 1974, establishes national 
definitions regarding child abuse and neglect. The definition included 
in this final rule provides clarity and sets a consistent minimum 
standard for Head Start programs to follow. Programs must also comply 
with state, local, and Tribal laws, which may have additional 
stipulations related to defining child abuse and neglect and other 
requirements for mandated reporting. If there are discrepancies between 
Federal and state, local, and Tribal laws, programs should comply with 
the more stringent regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ 42 U.S.C. 5106g. Available online at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2017-title42/html/USCODE-2017-title42-chap67.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final rule clearly states that children must be appropriately 
supervised at all times in Sec.  1302.47(b)(5)(iii). This change 
removes language in the previous standards that described settings in 
which children must be supervised. Requiring that children are 
appropriately supervised at all times provides Head Start programs with 
a clear directive that children must never be left unsupervised and 
addresses one of the clearest health and safety threats for children.
    Finally, the final rule clarifies that safety practices include the 
provision in the Standards of Conduct requiring staff, consultants, 
volunteers, and contractors to not maltreat or endanger children in 
Sec.  1302.90(c)(1)(ii). This language in the final rule reduces 
redundancies from the previous requirement, which duplicated references 
to supervision and reporting of child abuse and neglect as safety 
practices.
    Comment: Some commenters expressed concern that requiring 
volunteers to follow safety practices could deter community 
participation and parent engagement, as well as create liability 
issues. They suggested that volunteers should not be included in the 
pool of mandated reporters, especially since they are never left alone 
with children and are always supervised by trained staff. Other 
commenters expressed that it is important to include volunteers as 
mandated reporters.
    Response: We retain the NPRM proposal that volunteers are required 
to follow safety practices in the Final Rule. ACF is committed to 
protecting children in Head Start from child abuse and neglect and 
disagrees with the contention that volunteers should not be mandated 
reporters, even if they should never be left alone or unsupervised with 
children. Even under supervision, a volunteer should have a basic 
understanding of safety practices. In the case of mandated reporting of 
child abuse and neglect, which appeared to be the primary concern 
identified in comments, 52 percent of states already require volunteers 
to report child maltreatment.\48\ Volunteers may directly witness or 
receive disclosures about child abuse and neglect in their roles and 
should have basic knowledge about what to do with this information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ Lee, J. & Weigensberg, E. (2022). ``How Do Laws and 
Policies for Reporting Child Abuse and Neglect Vary Across States?'' 
OPRE Report #2022-165. Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research, 
and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. 
Department of Health and Human Services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Some commenters raised questions about specific 
circumstances under which a person would be a mandated reporter, such 
as contractors with no direct contact with children or who are not 
regularly at the program. Other commenters expressed that it is 
important to include contractors as mandated reporters.
    Response: We retain the NPRM proposal that contractors are required 
to follow safety practices in the Final Rule. ACF agrees with 
commenters that there are specific types of contractors, such as 
facilities contractors working during non-operational hours or 
contractors performing emergency repairs, to whom these requirements 
are not applicable. For contractors, similar to the requirement for 
background checks in Sec.  1302.90(b) and ACF's guidance in Program 
Instruction, ACF-PI-HS-16-05, Background Checks--Extension of 
Compliance Date and Questions, ACF only considers this requirement as 
applicable to (1) contractors, or individuals on a contract, whose 
activities involve contact with and/or direct services to children and 
families, and (2) anyone who could have unsupervised access to children 
and families.
    Comment: Many commenters suggested that ACF provide clear guidance 
on when an individual is obligated to serve as a mandated reporter. 
Some commenters requested that ACF address how consultants, 
contractors, and volunteers would be trained to fulfill their 
responsibilities as mandatory reporters.
    Response: ACF previously issued Information Memorandum, ACF-IM-HS-
15-04, Mandatory Reporting of Child Abuse and Neglect, and will 
consider providing additional guidance on the topic of mandated 
reporting of child abuse and neglect as needed.\49\ Programs may refer 
to Sec.  1302.47(b)(4) for an overview of Head Start requirements for 
safety training, including for staff with and without regular child 
contact. The final rule leaves flexibility for how programs approach 
training on mandatory reporting because it does not require programs to 
train contractors, consultants, or volunteers in this area. However, 
since these individuals are required to report suspected or known child 
abuse and neglect, we encourage programs to offer them information and 
training about mandated reporting. Numerous resources with essential

[[Page 67756]]

information related to mandatory reporting of child abuse and neglect 
are freely available, such as through Child Welfare Information 
Gateway, Department of Defense Child Development Virtual Laboratory 
School, OHS ECLKC, and Caring for Our Children.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\Early Childhood Knowledge and Learning Center (2015). 
Mandated Reporting of Child Abuse and Neglect. U.S. Department of 
Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, 
Office of Head Start. Available at https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/policy/im/acf-im-hs-15-04.
    \50\ Child Welfare Information Gateway (2023). Mandatory 
reporting of child abuse and neglect. U.S. Department of Health and 
Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Children's 
Bureau. https://www.childwelfare.gov/resources/mandatory-reporting-child-abuse-and-neglect/; The Department of Defense Child 
Development Virtual Lab School (2023). Protecting Children from Harm 
in Your Program. Developed by the Ohio State University for U.S. 
Department of Defense, Office of Family Policy/Children and Youth 
and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Nation Institute of Food & 
Agriculture. Available at https://www.virtuallabschool.org/preschool/child-abuse-identification-and-reporting/lesson-6; Early 
Childhood Knowledge and Learning Center (last updated 2024). Child 
Abuse and Neglect. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 
Administration for Children and Families, Office of Head Start. 
Available at https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/practicas-de-seguridad/articulo/child-abuse-neglect; Early Childhood Knowledge and Learning 
Center (last updated 2022). 10 Actions to Create a Culture of 
Safety. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration 
for Children and Families, Office of Head Start. Available at 
https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/publication/10-actions-create-culture-safety; National Resource Center for Health and Safety in Child Care 
and Early Education (last updated 2018). Caring for Our Children: 
Recognizing and Reporting Suspected Child Abuse, Neglect, and 
Exploitation. U.S. Department of Health and human Services, 
Administration for Children and Families. https://nrckids.org/CFOC/Database/3.4.4.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 1302.90 Personnel Policies
    Section 1302.90(c)(1) establishes the standards of conduct for all 
staff, consultants, contractors, and volunteers, which are part of a 
program's personnel policies. Given how critical child safety is in 
Head Start programs, the final rule ensures ACF is as clear as possible 
with requirements that reflect current best practices and guidance. The 
final rule makes several changes to the previous standards for clarity 
and alignment with other Federal resources and laws.
    First, the final rule modifies requirements under Sec.  
1302.90(c)(1)(ii) to align with categories and definitions of child 
maltreatment adapted from CDC child maltreatment resources, which were 
established through extensive consultation with experts to recommend 
consistent terminology related to potential child maltreatment.\51\ The 
previous requirement included corporal punishment and physical and 
emotional abuse, but did not include sexual abuse or neglect, which are 
also types of child maltreatment that are prohibited in Head Start 
settings. The final rule provides definitions to facilitate clear and 
equitable understandings of the types or categories of child 
maltreatment. The categories are (A) corporal punishment or physically 
abusive behavior defined as the intentional use of physical force that 
results in, or has the potential to result in, physical injury, (B) 
sexually abusive behavior defined as any completed or attempted sexual 
act, sexual contact, or exploitation, (C) emotionally harmful or 
abusive behavior defined as behaviors that harm a child's self-worth or 
emotional well-being, and (D) neglectful behavior defined as the 
failure to meet a child's basic physical and emotional needs including 
access to food, education, medical care, appropriate supervision by an 
adequate caregiver, and safe physical and emotional environments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ Leeb RT, Paulozzi L, Melanson C, Simon T, Arias I. Child 
Maltreatment Surveillance: Uniform Definitions for Public Health and 
Recommended Data Elements, Version 1.0. Atlanta (GA): Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury 
Prevention and Control; 2008.; Fortson B, Klevens J, Merrick M, 
Gilbert L, Alexander S. (2016). Preventing Child Abuse and Neglect: 
A Technical Package for Policy, Norm, and Programmatic Activities. 
Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Available online at 
https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/childabuseandneglect/fastfact.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the final rule provides examples of each category of 
child maltreatment and endangerment, which were informed by CDC 
guidance and research. The previous standards provided a list of what 
would be considered child maltreatment or endangerment of the health 
and safety of a child. This list included both broad categories of 
child maltreatment (such as physical abuse of a child), and specific 
behaviors that were redundant (such as binding or tying a child to 
restrict movement). The final rule provides a clearer understanding of 
what is meant by child maltreatment and endangerment by outlining broad 
categories of maltreatment with corresponding definitions and examples. 
ACF provides examples to offer concrete guideposts to Head Start 
programs, but these examples are not an exhaustive list.
    Second, the final rule adds a requirement in Sec.  
1302.90(c)(1)(iii) to ensure staff, consultants, contractors, and 
volunteers report suspected or known child abuse and neglect, as 
defined by CAPTA and in compliance with Federal, state, local, and 
Tribal laws. Consistent with the requirement in Sec.  1302.47(b)(5), 
this requirement only applies to those contractors, or individuals on a 
contract (1) whose activities involve contact with and/or direct 
services to children and families, and (2) who could have unsupervised 
access to children and families.
    The final rule requires staff, consultants, contractors, and 
volunteers to respect and promote the unique identity of each 
individual involved in the Head Start program in Sec.  
1302.90(c)(1)(iv). The previous requirement only pertained to children 
and families' unique identities. The final rule is aligned with efforts 
to promote well-being for everyone in the program and communicate the 
need to ensure supportive and responsive relationships among staff as 
part of promoting safety.
    Finally, the final rule clarifies that children cannot be left 
alone or unsupervised in Sec.  1302.90(c)(1)(vi). This change removes 
language in the previous requirement which could be erroneously 
interpreted to mean that children could be left solely under the 
supervision of volunteers. This final rule clarification is consistent 
with ACF's policy in Sec.  1302.94(b) that children should never be 
left alone with volunteers.
    Overall, the comments on this topic reflected a commitment to child 
safety and well-being, as well as a recognition of the challenges faced 
by Head Start programs in navigating reporting requirements related to 
staff conduct and ensuring a supportive environment for both children 
and staff. We discuss specific comments below.
    Comment: Many commenters expressed concerns about the NPRM 
proposals in the Standards of Conduct, such as language related to 
negative impacts on mental health and emotional harm. Specifically, 
commenters were concerned that overly broad language could lead to 
overreporting and misinterpretation of staff actions that were intended 
to protect children or manage classroom behavior. Some commenters 
shared concerns about how the language could disproportionately impact 
staff of color. Commenters suggest that ACF should focus on serious 
incidents that truly impact child safety and allow programs to handle 
less severe matters internally.
    Response: We revise the requirements for Standards of Conduct in 
the final rule. ACF agrees that overly broad language could have 
unintended consequences and revises the final rule with more targeted 
language which we believe will better prioritize child safety. ACF 
agrees that over-reporting could have the unintended consequence of 
jeopardizing child safety if Federal staff and programs are focused on 
reporting every incident instead of focusing on serious incidents that 
involve child endangerment, abuse, or

[[Page 67757]]

neglect. ACF removes the language proposed in the NPRM that included 
what many commenters perceived to be an overly broad range of 
behaviors, and retains the previous requirement that staff, 
consultants, contractors, and volunteers do not maltreat or endanger 
the health or safety of children. In the final rule, ACF also modifies 
the NPRM definition of emotionally harmful or abusive behavior. The 
language proposed in the NPRM could be interpreted too broadly as 
capturing any staff conduct that is not considered best practice but 
would not be classified as maltreatment, as noted by commenters. The 
proposed language in the NPRM was also redundant with other subparts of 
the Standards of Conduct that require implementation of positive 
strategies to support children's well-being in Sec.  1302.90(c)(1)(i). 
The final rule language that defines emotional abuse as behaviors that 
harm a child's self-worth or emotional well-being captures staff 
conduct that is clearly not permissible because it has the potential to 
maltreat or endanger children.
    Comment: Many commenters raised concern about the non-exhaustive 
list of examples or about specific examples of staff conduct, such as 
``forcibly moving'' and ``restraining.'' Other commenters were 
supportive of examples such as ``restrain'' and suggested examples to 
add, such as ``seclusion.''
    Response: As was proposed in the NPRM and retained in the final 
rule, ACF includes examples of each category of child maltreatment and 
retains ``restraint'' as an example. We revise language from the NPRM 
to include ``seclusion'' and replace ``forcibly moving'' as examples.
    ACF acknowledges that it is not possible to create an exhaustive 
list of examples. However, we believe it is important to provide 
concrete examples of behaviors that could maltreat or endanger a child, 
particularly for categories that can be more difficult to identify, 
such as emotional abuse and neglect.\52\ Highlighting examples also 
facilitates equitable communication with programs and staff regarding 
ACF's position on specific behaviors such as the use of restraint in 
Head Start settings, which is discussed further below. ACF offers 
existing TTA on ECLKC to facilitate further understanding. Additional 
examples of child maltreatment can be found in guidance from CDC 
resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ de Braal B. (2010). Understanding emotional abuse. The 
journal of family health care, 20(3), 82-84.; Hildyard, K.L., & 
Wolfe, D.A. (2002). Child neglect: developmental issues and 
outcomes. Child abuse & neglect, 26(6-7), 679-695.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some commenters suggested that restraint should be permissible 
staff conduct under specific circumstances. While this rule does not 
address use in other settings, ACF opposes the use of restraint in Head 
Start settings. Retaining ``restraint'' as an example in the final rule 
communicates this position. The broader literature is clear on the 
risks of performing restraints.\53\ Restraints are also used 
disproportionately on children with disabilities. Therefore, ACF is not 
making any changes to the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ LeBel, J., Nunno, M.A., Mohr, W.K., & O'Halloran, R. 
(2012). Restraint and seclusion use in US School settings: 
Recommendations from allied treatment disciplines. American journal 
of orthopsychiatry, 82(1), 75.; Dunlap, G., Ostryn, C., & Fox, L. 
(2011). Preventing the Use of Restraint and Seclusion with Young 
Children. Technical Assistance Center on Social Emotional 
Intervention for Young Children.; Office for Civil Rights, U.S. 
Department of Education. (2016). Fact Sheet: Restraint and Seclusion 
of Children with Disabilities. Available at https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/dcl-factsheet-201612-504-restraint-seclusion-ps.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ACF agrees with suggestions to include the example of ``seclusion'' 
due to its disproportionate use on children with disabilities. 
Seclusion also has many similar adverse impacts as described above for 
restraint.\54\ The final rule replaces isolation with seclusion as an 
example of emotional abuse.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ACF agrees with comments that ``forcibly moving'' may be an overly 
broad example. The final rule replaces this example with ``pushing.''
Section 1302.92 Training and Professional Development
    Section 1302.92 establishes requirements for staff training and 
professional development. Specifically, Sec.  1302.92(b) requires 
programs to establish and implement systematic approaches to training 
and professional development designed to assist staff in acquiring or 
increasing the knowledge and skills needed to provide high-quality, 
comprehensive services within the scope of their job responsibilities.
    The final rule adds a new requirement for annual training in 
positive strategies to support social and emotional development. ACF 
believes that enhancing the use of positive strategies amongst staff, 
as appropriate based on the scope of their job responsibilities, will 
support staff in preventing and responding to child behavior that 
challenges adults and increase opportunities for peer support as 
appropriate.
    The final rule modifies the requirement related to mandated 
reporting of child abuse and neglect to specify that this training 
should occur on an annual basis. This requirement is intended to 
support staff in recognizing potential child abuse and neglect and 
understanding their legal responsibility as a mandated reporter.
    Comment: Many commenters recognize the importance of staff training 
broadly and express a need for additional training and supports. 
Commenters suggest a variety of potential trainings that would benefit 
Head Start staff, such as training on trauma-informed care, implicit 
bias in interpreting behaviors, child development, or specific 
disabilities.
    Response: ACF revises requirements for training in social and 
emotional development to be more inclusive of the diverse training 
needs commenters suggested. The final rule provides flexibility for 
programs to determine specific topics related to managing children's 
behavior that meet their staff's needs. ACF considers the impact of 
trauma on children's social and emotional development, implicit bias in 
interpreting behaviors, understanding basics of child social and 
emotional development, individualizing supports for social and 
emotional development of children with disabilities, or other related 
topics to be appropriate training topics to satisfy this requirement.
    Comment: Of those who commented on the proposed changes to training 
and professional development, several commenters expressed support and 
a few share that they already implement similar practices. Some 
commenters raised concerns about associated administrative burdens of 
fulfilling this requirement, such as time and costs to track, provide, 
and enforce trainings and the availability of supports in rural 
communities. For example, a few commenters noted that an ACF 
requirement for annual mandated reporter training would exceed their 
State's requirement, which impacts their ability to access state 
training on a more frequent basis.
    Response: We retain the proposed language from the NPRM on mandated 
reporting training in the final rule as it is critical for staff to 
understand information related to mandated reporting of child abuse and 
neglect. This is particularly important for Head Start programs, as the 
risk of experiencing maltreatment is higher for children under the age 
of four and children who have a diagnosed disability.\55\ Furthermore, 
as Head Start programs primarily serve children from low-income 
families, it is critical that staff know how to differentiate between

[[Page 67758]]

child neglect and a family experiencing poverty.\56\ ACF has and can 
continue to support programs in meeting this requirement through TTA, 
including virtual TTA options to support rural and remote programs in 
meeting this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/childabuseandneglect/riskprotectivefactors.html.
    \56\ Child Welfare Information Gateway (2023). Poverty and 
Neglect. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 
Administration for Children and Families, Children's Bureau. 
Available at https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/safety-and-risk/poverty-and-neglect/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Commenters appreciated the strengths-based approach taken 
in mental health and noted other regulations that may benefit from 
this.
    Response: ACF revises the requirement to use strengths-based 
language, replacing ``challenging behaviors'' with ``children's 
behavior'' in this requirement.
Section 1302.101 Management System
    Section 1302.101 outlines management responsibilities governed by a 
system that enables the delivery of the high-quality services. 
Paragraph (a) of Sec.  1302.101 establishes requirements for 
implementing a management system. The final rule adds a new requirement 
to implement a management system that ensures that all staff are 
trained to implement reporting procedures in Sec.  1302.102(d)(1)(ii). 
This requirement is intended to promote consistent implementation and 
greater understanding of expectations and procedures related to 
incident reporting.
    Comment: We received few comments on this section. Of those who 
commented on this section, commenters were generally neutral or 
supportive of the general approach to providing programs with an 
overarching standard as well as autonomy to develop and implement 
individual strategies and practices.
    Response: ACF retains this requirement in the final rule.
Section 1302.102 Achieving Program Goals
    Section 1302.102 outlines requirements that programs establish 
goals and a process for monitoring program performance, including how 
they use data and report out to the governing body and policy council. 
Paragraph (d) of Sec.  1302.102 establishes required reports that 
programs must submit for monitoring and oversight purposes, and Sec.  
1302.102(d)(1)(ii) specifically addresses required incident reports. 
The final rule makes several changes to this section that are intended 
to build upon recent subregulatory guidance on incident reporting 
expectations and clarify language where necessary to reduce potential 
over-reporting, which may keep Federal and program staff from focusing 
on serious incidents.
    First, the final rule codifies the requirement to report incidents 
to ACF immediately but no later than seven calendar days following the 
incident. Second, the final rule requires programs to report 
significant incidents affecting the health or safety of a child when 
such an incident occurs in a Head Start setting and involves (1) staff, 
contractors, or volunteers who participate in a setting that receives 
Head Start funds, regardless of the child's Head Start funding; or (2) 
a child who participates in a setting that receives Head Start funds. 
Third, the final rule clarifies the requirement related to reporting 
classroom or center closures, and we clarify that ACF's definition of 
closures does not include scheduled holidays, scheduled breaks, or 
short-term closures for inclement weather. Finally, the final rule 
codifies several expectations for other significant health and safety 
incidents that must be reported to ACF at a minimum. These include 
incidents involving any suspected or known maltreatment or endangerment 
of a child by staff, consultants, contractors, and volunteers under 
paragraph Sec.  1302.90(c)(1)(ii); incidents involving serious harm or 
injury of a child resulting from preventative maintenance; incidents 
involving serious harm, injury, or endangerment of a child resulting 
from lack of supervision; and incidents involving any unauthorized 
release of a child.
    Overall, many commenters who addressed this topic expressed a 
recognition of the importance of safeguarding children, but also a 
concern about the potential for over-reporting. Commenters shared a 
range of unintended and counterproductive consequences of over-
reporting, such as negative impacts on workforce retention and 
unnecessary administrative burden on program staff and ACF. Below we 
address specific comments and requests for clarification.
    Comment: Many commenters expressed concern about the short 
timeframe for reporting proposed in the NPRM. The proposed three-day 
deadline for reporting incidents was seen as unrealistic and 
potentially counterproductive. Commenters believed it would not allow 
sufficient time for a thorough internal investigation and could lead to 
incomplete or inaccurate reporting. A few commenters gave examples of 
how organizational structures and partnerships would prevent reporting 
in this time in some cases. Many commenters suggested extending the 
reporting period to ensure more accurate and comprehensive reports.
    Response: ACF revises the requirement from the NPRM for reporting 
incidents. ACF agrees with commenters that in some cases, the upper 
limit of three days may be too restrictive. An upper limit of three 
days may not allow programs to gather accurate information to 
distinguish serious health and safety incidents from more minor 
concerns. ACF also recognizes that grant recipients may be immediately 
focused on complying with child welfare and law enforcement to 
facilitate investigative processes and ensure immediate safety needs 
are met. The final rule requires a reporting timeline of immediately 
but no later than seven calendar days following the incident. To ensure 
consistency in operationalizing this requirement, ACF recognizes the 
day a program learns of an incident as ``Day 0''. If a program reports 
an incident to ACF on or after ``Day 8'', the program will not be in 
compliance with this requirement. The requirement provides an upper 
limit of seven calendar days.
    Comment: Several commenters expressed concern about incident 
reports involving non-Head Start-funded children, citing concerns about 
being asked to reveal personal identifiable information, protected 
health information, or issues related to family's consent.
    Response: ACF retains the requirement that programs submit a report 
for a significant incident affecting the health and safety of a child, 
when such an incident occurs in a Head Start setting and involves 
staff, contractors, or volunteers who participate in a setting that 
receives Head Start funds, regardless of the child's Head Start 
funding. ACF requires these reports because such incidents can have 
broader implications for children served in the program, including 
those funded by Head Start dollars. ACF disagrees with the argument 
that these reports entail privacy concerns. ACF does not request 
personal identifiable information or protected health information in 
incident reports. Programs should not submit personal identifiers that 
could tie any health information back to a child.
    Comment: A few commenters requested clarification on whether 
mandated reports of child abuse and neglect involving parents would be 
a required incident report under this section.
    Response: ACF revises the requirement to clarify its intent that

[[Page 67759]]

programs are not required to submit reports to ACF related to mandated 
reporting of child abuse and neglect involving parents. However, if a 
parent is involved in a reportable incident while participating in a 
Head Start setting as a volunteer or employee, the program must submit 
an incident report. ACF identified that the NPRM proposal language 
requiring programs to submit reports of significant incidents affecting 
child health and safety in Head Start settings involving ``other 
adults'' could be misinterpreted to include parents. We remove this 
reference to ``other adults'' in the final rule to clarify ACF's 
intent.
    Comment: Many commenters request greater clarification on the types 
of incidents that must be reported, such as classroom closures and 
significant child health & safety incidents. Many commenters shared 
questions about whether a situation would be a reportable incident, 
such as a child crying in a classroom, snow days, or a child tripping 
accidentally.
    Response: ACF revises requirements in this final rule for the types 
of incidents that must be reported at minimum to provide greater 
clarity as appropriate. ACF agrees that broad language can increase the 
risk of over-reporting which may distract Federal staff and program 
staff from addressing serious incidents. Several questions or concerns 
from commenters reflected over-interpretations of ACF's intent, and ACF 
revises language in those requirements. We discuss these revisions in 
more detail below.
    First, ACF revises the NPRM proposal describing significant 
incidents such that the final rule removes the term ``mental health'' 
from the description of incidents. The final rule aligns with the 
previous requirement describing significant incidents affecting the 
health or safety of children. ACF requires programs to report instances 
of potential emotional abuse and neglect. However, the reference to 
mental health caused confusion and over-interpretation in comments. ACF 
believes the revised requirements to the Standards of Conduct are best 
designed to keep children safe.
    Second, we revise the requirement in the final rule such that 
programs must report incidents that require classrooms or centers to be 
closed. ACF's definition of closures does not include scheduled 
holidays, scheduled breaks, or short-term closures for inclement 
weather. The final rule removes the NPRM proposal to include specific 
exemptions to prevent misinterpretation that any other closures are 
reportable. As proposed in the NPRM and retained in the final rule, 
this requirement no longer includes the phrase ``for any reason'' to 
clarify ACF's intent.
    Third, ACF revises the requirement in the final rule to clarify 
which incidents related to significant health and safety incidents are 
reportable. The final rule separates the NPRM proposal into two 
distinct requirements for clarity. Each requirement in the final rule 
identifies what is considered ``significant'' in the regulation for 
clarity and accessibility of information. The final rule requires 
programs to submit reports related to incidents involving (1) serious 
harm or injury of a child resulting from lack of preventative 
maintenance, and (2) serious harm, injury, or endangerment of a child 
resulting from lack of supervision. ACF believes these clarifications 
in the final rule will reduce the risk for over-reporting incidents 
related to lack of preventative maintenance and lack of supervision. 
ACF includes leaving a child unattended on a bus as an example of 
neglect in Sec.  1302.90(c). This is a concrete example of an incident 
involving endangerment of a child resulting from lack of supervision 
and as such is required to be reported. ACF believes this approach is 
responsive to general comments expressing concerns about overly broad 
requirements for ACF reporting, as it narrows the scope of reportable 
incidents to those ACF believes are most indicative of substantial or 
systemic concern.
    Comment: Many commenters expressed concern about expanding the 
reporting requirement to include violations of the Standards of 
Conduct. Commenters express that this requirement in particular could 
undermine program autonomy to manage minor incidents and negatively 
impact staff morale. Commenters note how the proposed changes in the 
NPRM to the Standards of Conduct may lead to confusion and overly 
punitive approaches (see the discussion in the Standards of Conduct 
section). Commenters suggest that ACF should focus on serious incidents 
that truly impact child safety and allow programs to handle less severe 
matters internally. Commenters suggest a range of approaches to 
accomplish this, such as aligning reporting requirements with CAPTA, 
deferring to state licensing and welfare system results unless are 
extenuating circumstances, and creating a tiered system that 
differentiates serious violations requiring immediate reporting to ACF.
    Response: Head Start programs are required to report incidents of 
abuse and neglect under current policy, and the final rule clarifies 
that this continues to be the case. ACF makes modifications to this 
standard and believes that the final rule language more accurately 
represents conduct that clearly requires a report to ACF under new 
requirements in Sec.  1302.102(d) and allows programs autonomy in 
managing staff conduct that does not rise to this severity.
    ACF previously released the Information Memorandum, ACF-IM-HS-22-
07, Reporting Child Health and Safety Incidents,\57\ which clarified 
that OHS considers violations of the Standards of Conduct to be a 
significant incident affecting the health and safety of children. Based 
on the comments, ACF agrees that some of the proposed changes in the 
NPRM to the Standards of Conduct could lead to confusion and overly 
punitive approaches. The modified requirements in the final rule 
described in Sec.  1302.90(c) are intended to address these concerns. 
Specifically, the final rule retains the previous requirement that 
staff do not maltreat or endanger children and uses uniform categories 
and definitions of child maltreatment. With these changes, ACF believes 
that the final rule is clearer and focuses incident reporting on 
serious incidents. Several commenters misinterpreted incident reporting 
requirements to include all sections of the Standards of Conduct. The 
final rule clarifies that only those standards pertaining to the 
maltreatment or endangerment of children by staff, consultants, 
contractors, and volunteers requires an incident report. Programs have 
discretion over other staff conduct issues. ACF believes this approach 
addresses most commenter's concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/policy/im/acf-im-hs-22-07.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ACF believes that the final rule creates a system that better 
differentiates violations that warrant incident reports. ACF's role in 
incident reporting is distinct from the child welfare system. ACF 
determines whether the program is in compliance with ACF regulations 
pertaining to the incident, while the child welfare system determines 
if a report is substantiated based on evidence of child maltreatment. 
Furthermore, states' definitions of child abuse and neglect vary, and 
they require different levels of evidence to substantiate reports.\58\ 
Basing ACF

[[Page 67760]]

policies on variable State approaches could result in inequitable 
monitoring of programs depending on the state in which the program is 
located. If permitted and as appropriate, programs may update ACF with 
relevant information about licensing and child welfare findings. 
Programs are encouraged to update ACF if a program has already taken 
action to correct an identified issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ Lee, J. & Weigensberg, E. (2022). ``How Do Definitions of 
Child Abuse and Neglect Vary Across States?'' OPRE Report #2022-164. 
Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, 
Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health 
and Human Services.; Lee, J. & Weigensberg, E. (2022). ``How Do Laws 
and Policies for Investigating Reports of Child Maltreatment Vary 
Across States?'' OPRE Report #2022-167. Washington, DC: Office of 
Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Administration for Children and 
Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Many commenters requested that ACF provide clearer 
guidance on reporting procedures, such as the type of information 
required, reporting process, and expected response time from ACF.
    Response: ACF acknowledges commenters' request for clearer guidance 
on incident reporting procedures. However, ACF does not believe this is 
appropriate to include in regulatory requirements for programs. ACF 
will consider other ways to provide this type of guidance as 
appropriate.

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

    This final rule adds or updates five standards to improve the 
family experience, both initially during program recruitment, 
application, and enrollment, and in ongoing communications once the 
child is in the program. The final rule makes adjustments from the NRPM 
to account for different community preferences and the fact that not 
all families will want to use modern technology. The changes are 
responsive to commenters that identified diverse preferences and 
culturally relevant communication styles in their communities.
    First, this final rule adds a new paragraph (b)(1)(v) under Sec.  
1302.11 that requires programs to identify the communication methods 
and modalities available to the program to best engage with prospective 
and enrolled families in accessible ways. This ensures programs use the 
community needs assessment to identify the preferred communication 
modalities among its families, whether they be social media platforms, 
text messaging, enhanced websites, automated or personal phone calls, 
or dedicated phone lines for program updates. It also ensures programs 
are meeting the needs of all prospective and enrolled families, 
including those with various disabilities, schedules, levels of 
language access, family structures or generational differences, 
literacy levels, and cultural backgrounds.
    Second, Sec.  1302.13 outlines the requirements for recruiting 
children to a Head Start program. This final rule adds clarifying 
language to the standard that a program must include modern technology 
options in two areas: (1) to encourage and assist families in applying 
for admission to the program, and (2) to reduce the family's 
administrative and paperwork burden in the application and enrollment 
process.
    Third, this final rule adds a new paragraph (g) to Sec.  1302.15, 
focused on requiring a user-friendly process for enrolling new families 
into the Head Start program. Paragraph (g) states a program must 
regularly examine their enrollment processes and implement any 
identified improvements to streamline the enrollment experience for 
families. This new provision requires programs to establish new 
procedures or update current procedures that are both streamlined and 
user centric. ACF expects programs to regularly update these procedures 
to reflect changes in community needs or best practices.
    Fourth, this final rule adds a new paragraph (b)(9) to Sec.  
1302.34 that requires programs to use accessible communication methods 
and modalities that meet the needs of the community when engaging with 
prospective and enrolled families. ACF expects programs to consider 
both currently enrolled families as well as prospective families. This 
provision will ensure programs consult and engage with parents and 
families, incorporating their input into the creation of processes and 
communication channels.
    Lastly, this final rule modifies the purpose statement in Sec.  
1302.50(a) by requiring programs address the individual needs of 
families in how they develop their communications. This change reflects 
Head Start's multi-generational approach and is intended to convey that 
programs should accommodate the needs of all family members.
    Comment: Most of the public comments that addressed modernizing 
engagement with families were supportive of the new requirements. 
Commenters highlighted the importance of effective communication with 
families and the value of adopting modern technology to facilitate 
this. Even while supporting the sentiment of these changes, some 
commenters expressed concerns that the term ``must use'' in Sec.  
1302.13 is overly prescriptive. Some commenters shared that in-person 
interactions and traditional methods of communication may better meet 
the needs of children and families who most need Head Start programs. 
Others said modern methods may not meet the needs of Tribal and rural 
communities with limited access to technology and reliable 
infrastructure. Overall, the comments reflected a desire for a better 
balance between modernizing communication and engagement methods and 
ensuring accessibility and adaptability.
    Response: ACF recognizes commenters' concerns that programs need 
flexibility to use communication strategies that meet community needs. 
As such, while maintaining the overall sentiment of the changes, ACF 
adjusts language in the final rule to emphasize the importance of 
implementing enhancements that align with community needs and enhance 
the efficiency of service delivery. In Sec.  1302.13, ACF changes the 
language proposed in the NPRM to require that programs give families 
the option of using modern technology, rather than requiring the use of 
modern technology in the application and enrollment process. In Sec.  
1302.34, ACF changes the language proposed in the NPRM from requiring 
the best available communication methods to ensuring the communication 
methods are accessible to all community members and meet the needs of 
the community. Finally, in Sec.  1302.50, ACF alters the proposed 
language from the NPRM from requiring programs to use the most 
accessible communication methods, to using methods that meet the needs 
of each individual family. ACF believes these modifications in the 
final rule language better clarify a family-centered approach to 
recruitment, enrollment, and communication that meets evolving 
community expectations around the use of technology, while also being 
attuned to digital development in rural and remote communities and 
deploying more traditional methods as appropriate. ACF acknowledges the 
benefits of in-person enrollment and recruitment efforts to better 
access and benefit some families, especially in rural and Tribal areas, 
and does not intend to discourage those practices. These changes 
present an opportunity for programs to seek input on the communication 
methods they currently use and improve their family engagement 
strategies and procedures.
    ACF expects these requirements may look different in practice in 
each program based on the unique needs of their families and community. 
For many families, their expectations regarding interactions with 
service providers have changed due to the availability of modern 
technology. Programs may find

[[Page 67761]]

an online, mobile-friendly application portal provides an efficient way 
both for families to apply and for the program to review applications. 
Programs may integrate their application process with those of other 
state or local benefits applications. For some families, in-person 
application support may be more appropriate. There are many reasons we 
agree with an approach to family engagement that flexibly includes both 
technological and in-person options. A family-centered, accessible 
approach acknowledges parent and family diversity related to language 
access, literacy levels, and disabilities. Programs may partner with 
local or online translation agencies to offer translation services for 
families who speak languages other than English. This can include 
translating enrollment forms and other documents and materials into 
languages commonly spoken by the community or providing translation 
services for meetings and in-person events. Programs can utilize 
communication applications that support multiple languages and offer 
features such as real-time translation, text messaging, and video 
calling. Closed captioning, subtitles, and speech-to-text tools may 
also be beneficial. Materials in accessible formats such as braille, 
large print, or accessible electronic documents should be available as 
needed for individuals who are blind or have low vision. Programs may 
also consider offering Telecommunication Relay Services (TRS) to 
facilitate telephone communication with individuals who are deaf, hard 
of hearing, or who have speech or language disorders.
    Comment: A few commenters expressed concerns about a potential 
added financial and human resource burden to operationalize these 
changes. A few commenters also noted a potential conflict between the 
intended purpose of the revision to Sec.  1302.13, which is focused on 
reducing family burden during the application and enrollment process, 
and the new provision in Sec.  1302.12(i) allowing programs to adjust a 
family's income to account for excessive housing costs when determining 
eligibility.
    Response: ACF disagrees that there will be a significant financial 
or human resource burden associated with these changes. ACF believes 
the cost to programs to make these determinations and implement new 
technologies will be nominal. Additionally, while ACF acknowledges that 
there may be some initial burden associated with implementing these 
changes, we see significant benefits and efficiencies for programs and 
families over time. Streamlining the enrollment experience for families 
will result in more user-friendly and efficient processes, ultimately 
reducing burden and fostering greater trust with families. This in turn 
supports Head Start programs in delivering services more equitably and 
effectively. ACF also acknowledges the potential additional burden 
associated with the changes to the eligibility determination process in 
Sec.  1302.12(i). However, we deem this burden reasonable considering 
the importance of providing additional flexibility for families who are 
making above or near poverty wages, but face high housing costs, and 
would be eligible for Head Start programs if those disproportionally 
high housing costs were taken into account when determining 
eligibility. The changes to eligibility determination are also optional 
for programs.

Community Assessment (Sec.  1302.11)

    Section 1302.11(b) requires Head Start programs to conduct a 
community assessment to design a program that meets community needs and 
builds on community strengths and resources. The HSPPS describe a broad 
and comprehensive assessment of community needs, strengths, and 
resources and specify the minimum data Head Start programs must use in 
this process. Programs must complete a comprehensive community 
assessment at least once during a five-year grant period with an annual 
review and update of significant changes. The revisions to this section 
in the final rule emphasize the importance of this tool, the 
Communitywide Strategic Planning and Needs Assessment, as an 
intentional process for Head Start programs to understand the community 
they serve, plan accordingly, and strategically review and update. This 
section makes some changes from the NPRM, including adding language 
emphasizing the importance of collecting information on families 
experiencing homelessness in response to comments that proposed changes 
in the NPRM could have the unintended consequence of collecting less 
information on these families. The final rule also clarifies that 
programs must annually review and--as needed--update their community 
needs assessment, but they are not required to complete a comprehensive 
assessment every year. Finally, this section provides more information 
on the type of information that can inform the community needs 
assessment in response to requests by commenters for additional clarity 
from the NPRM.
    We recognize that many Head Start programs utilize the community 
assessment effectively to inform the design of their program. However, 
some Head Start programs and others in the Head Start community have 
raised concerns about the requirements as previously written. Concerns 
included lack of clarity on purpose, especially on the purpose and 
scope of the annual review and update. Some programs may collect 
unnecessarily complicated data rather than utilizing information they 
know or have available to them that is relevant to their community. 
Related concerns include the cost and staff resources needed for 
complex data collection and analysis. Together these challenges can 
create costly barriers to some programs using their community 
assessment to effectively guide programmatic decisions as intended, 
especially with staff who are newer to the Head Start program and rely 
on policy to guide their implementation of the community assessment.
    The final rule updates this section to promote clarity around the 
intent of the community assessment, align with best practices, and 
support the use of the community assessment to inform key aspects of 
the Head Start program. At the beginning of this section, we have added 
a description of the purpose, goals, and intended outcomes of the 
community assessment to strengthen programs' use of this tool. Next, we 
have added language encouraging programs to be strategic and 
intentional in what data they collect and use to achieve intended 
outcomes. We have also included language to encourage programs to 
access readily available data on their community and to challenge 
programs to consider data beyond counts of eligible populations and 
resources in the community. Specifically, we strongly encourage 
programs to collect information directly from impacted families when 
possible, including enrolled and prospective families, as their 
perspectives on their needs and strengths are critical to program 
design. ACF will provide TA and information on best practices to 
support programs in gathering lived experiences. Additionally, ACF has 
added language in the final rule to ensure transportation needs and 
resources are part of the data that informs a program's design and 
service delivery.
    ACF has also revised the paragraph on the annual review to the 
community assessment to better describe the purpose and goals of this 
endeavor. As clearly described in the purpose paragraph, a 
comprehensive community assessment is only required once in the

[[Page 67762]]

five-year grant period and an annual review allows programs to 
determine if changes in the community may impact how the program serves 
families and therefore warrant an update to the assessment. In the 
final rule, we have clarified that the annual review and update is not 
a comprehensive community assessment but should be approached 
strategically to guide a program's modification of services. We have 
also described how the annual review can support and be supported by 
other required processes, including the annual self-assessment (part 
1302, subpart J) and the annual funding application.
    In this final rule, we emphasize that the community assessment is 
not an isolated requirement to be conducted; rather, it is the basis of 
program design and service delivery. ACF has retained the requirement 
that programs conduct a comprehensive community assessment once during 
their five-year grant cycle and annually review the assessment. This 
annual review is still required as community factors can change 
rapidly. For example, a large employer could move in or out of the 
service area, or there could be a rapid increase in the number of 
families experiencing homelessness. It is essential that programs are 
aware of significant community changes and incorporate this knowledge 
into program design and service delivery.
    Comment: Commenters generally agree that the community assessment 
process should be streamlined, with many supporting the idea of not 
requiring annual updates unless significant community changes occur. A 
few comments suggested this revision reduces burden only slightly as 
programs must still collect data for their annual funding application, 
and therefore asked ACF to clarify how these processes work together. 
Others stated that revisions did not go far enough to reduce burden 
and, in fact, were more prescriptive than current standards. A few 
commenters suggested ACF provide more guidance on how to determine what 
updates are required annually. Other commenters misunderstood the 
revisions and thought that the NPRM removed the requirement for the 
annual review and update of the community assessment entirely.
    Response: ACF believes that the main burden reduction comes from a 
new emphasis on strategic data collection and use and the emphasis on 
the purpose of the community assessment. We do not view the revisions 
as adding burden or as overly prescriptive, as we do not add 
requirements but rather descriptions of how programs can strategically 
determine what information is needed. This requires programs to make 
strategic decisions on what relevant demographic data to collect and 
how to utilize it to improve program quality.
    ACF understands that the language used in the NPRM regarding the 
annual review and update caused confusion and concern for some 
commenters. This final rule reiterates the requirement for an annual 
review but clarifies programs do not need to complete a comprehensive 
assessment every year. Programs must review their community assessment 
every year. The results of this annual review will dictate whether 
service delivery changes are needed. We further understand that 
streamlining the annual review language inadvertently caused concern 
regarding families experiencing homelessness. ACF does not intend to 
minimize our focus on homelessness, and we have restored language in 
this final rule requiring programs to look specifically each year at 
changes to families experiencing homelessness in their communities. We 
acknowledge the suggestions from commenters on how best to collect data 
regarding families experiencing homelessness, and we will continue to 
provide TTA to programs in this area.
    Comment: A variety of concerns about data were expressed through 
public comments. Several commenters suggested that using publicly 
available data as a proxy could reduce the burden of data collection 
and costs. Some commenters suggested that additional guidance was 
needed from OHS to help programs understand which data sources could be 
used as proxies. Others suggested that proxies may not truly capture 
community characteristics. Specifically, some commenters expressed 
concern about the impact the proposed changes would have on programs' 
ability to recruit and serve children and families experiencing 
homelessness. Many cited the lack of existing data sources to identify 
children and families experiencing homelessness, such that accurate 
proxy data would not be available. Commenters also recommended OHS 
ensure best practices for data collection and use, particularly 
regarding the promotion of equity, accessibility, and cultural 
sensitivity. Commenters' recommendations included adding requirements 
to collect data on families' technology needs, local teacher salary and 
benefit information, and other information to inform program goals and 
design.
    Response: ACF revises the NPRM language to describe expectations 
around data collection and use in the community assessment process more 
completely. In lieu of the term ``proxy,'' which we recognize created 
some confusion for commenters, we clarify that programs should utilize 
their own knowledge and existing data relevant to their community, and 
should rely on community partners to fully understand the community 
they serve. Programs should be strategic and intentional in collecting 
information relevant to their program and the populations they serve, 
rather than collecting information about the entire community. We 
acknowledge the suggestions made by commenters on data practices and 
will provide TTA to programs as requested to promote best practices for 
ensuring culturally appropriate data collection.
    Comment: Nearly half of the comments on this section highlighted 
the importance of transportation resources in community assessments, 
noting that lack of transportation is a significant barrier for many 
families. While supportive of this addition to the NPRM, several 
commenters expressed concern that requiring an assessment of 
transportation resources and needs may lead to a requirement to provide 
transportation, which is untenable for many programs.
    Response: Since transportation can be a common barrier for families 
in poverty attaining needed services, ACF considers it important to 
include an assessment of available transportation resources in the 
community. The goal of adding this to the community assessment is to 
ensure that programs are aware of resources available to support 
families and develop partnerships. ACF recognizes the often-high cost 
of transportation due to cost of buses as well as a lack of available 
drivers and monitors. As such, ACF is not requiring the provision of 
transportation by Head Start programs but expects programs to 
prioritize identifying available community partners and resources to 
mitigate this ongoing challenge.
    Comment: Commenters provided suggestions on how to strengthen the 
focus on equity, diversity, and cultural sensitivity in collecting 
community assessment information. Some also suggested an increased 
focus on using community assessments to design programs to meet needs 
of diverse communities. Other commenters recommended revisions to the 
NPRM language to enhance a strength-based approach to understanding and 
incorporating the unique needs of all community members.
    Response: ACF agrees with these comments, and we specifically focus 
on the inclusion of diversity, equity,

[[Page 67763]]

inclusion, and accessibility in the final rule. As one example, we 
modify the enumerated list of demographic data that programs need to 
collect as part of the community assessment to highlight race and 
ethnicity as well as children living in poverty.

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

    Section 1302.12 describes the requirements Head Start programs must 
follow to determine, verify, and document eligibility of prospective 
families. In this final rule, we added new paragraphs (i)(1)(i) and 
(ii) to Sec.  1302.12 to allow a program to adjust a family's income to 
account for excessive housing costs when determining eligibility. The 
final rule largely retains the proposed requirements in the NPRM with 
additional information on implementation process.
    Many programs have expressed concern that Head Start eligibility 
criteria do not account for the high cost of living in some areas 
across the country. High housing cost burdens have increased for low- 
and moderate-income renting households since the 1960s. A growing 
number of families earn just above poverty wages but spend more than 30 
percent of their total gross income on housing costs, a threshold that 
has long been used to define housing affordability and is used by the 
Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) as a rent 
limit for the HOME Investment Partnerships Program for low-income 
rental units. Adjusting income for housing expenses is an effective way 
to provide additional flexibility for families who are making above or 
near poverty wages, but face high housing costs, and would be eligible 
for Head Start if those housing costs were taken into account when 
determining eligibility.
    In this final rule, Sec.  1302.12(i)(1)(ii) introduces the 
adjustment for housing expenses and states that a program may make an 
adjustment to a family's gross income calculation for the purposes of 
determining eligibility in order to account for excessive housing 
costs. In addition, a new term for ``housing costs'' is defined in 
Sec.  1305.2 as the total annual expenses on housing, which may include 
rent or mortgage payments, homeowner's or renter's insurance, 
utilities, interest, and taxes on the home. Utilities may include 
electricity, gas, water, sewer, and trash. Programs can use bills and 
expenses from one month to calculate the average expenses that a family 
has throughout the year.
    ACF recognizes that programs do not need to calculate housing 
expenses for all families since many will still qualify for Head Start 
services based on income alone, or due to some other qualifying factor, 
such as participation in SNAP or Temporary Assistance for Needy 
Families (TANF). Therefore, the regulatory language in paragraph 
(i)(1)(ii) indicates that a program ``may'' use available documents to 
calculate housing costs. Programs should continue using their current 
methods of verifying eligibility based on tax forms, pay stubs, or 
other proof of income. These regulatory changes allow programs to also 
use bills, lease agreements, mortgage statements, and other 
documentation that shows housing and utility expenses. By including 
this income deduction calculation in eligibility determination for Head 
Start, ACF expects many programs to utilize this deduction calculation 
for families seeking eligibility. However, programs must adhere to 
their recruitment and selection criteria to ensure they prioritize the 
enrollment of families most in need of services as required in Sec.  
1302.13.
    Comment: Comments on the housing adjustment provision revealed 
overwhelming support for the intent behind these changes, with many 
commenters agreeing that this approach would better reflect the reality 
of many families who, despite earning above the poverty line, are 
burdened by housing costs and could benefit from Head Start services. 
However, some comments expressed concerns about the administrative 
burden this change could impose on both families and program staff. 
Commenters worried that the requirement for additional documentation to 
prove housing expenses could be burdensome, potentially leading to 
errors and inconsistencies in eligibility determination. Additionally, 
there were concerns that the process could become too complicated and 
time-consuming, which might deter families from applying and slow down 
the enrollment process. A few commenters noted that the additional 
documentation burden is at odds with the final rule changes in 
Sec. Sec.  1302.13 and 1302.15 to reduce families' burden and 
streamline their experience in the application and enrollment process.
    Response: We retain the provision allowing programs to adjust a 
family's income to account for excessive housing costs when determining 
eligibility. We recognize that collecting and reviewing families' 
housing documentation may add some burden. The use of the housing 
adjustment is optional, and it is not necessary to apply this 
adjustment to families who are already income-eligible or are eligible 
through other eligibility categories. Additionally, in this final rule, 
we revise language from the NPRM to provide further clarity and 
instruction on what documentation is required and how to calculate the 
adjustment. ACF believes this provision affords programs the 
flexibility to incorporate families' excessive housing costs into their 
existing eligibility determination processes while managing 
administrative burden. Furthermore, ACF will provide TTA as needed to 
grant recipients on how to calculate the housing adjustment in order to 
help minimize administrative burden and facilitate consistent 
application of the policy.
    Comment: Several commenters suggested that instead of requiring 
programs to document individualized housing expenses, OHS should 
consider using a standardized measure such as HUD's Fair Market Rent 
data as a proxy for housing costs to simplify the process and reduce 
the potential for error and administrative burden. If the use of a 
proxy is not allowed, several comments requested clear guidance on what 
types of documentation would be acceptable and how to calculate the 
deductions for housing expenses. Commenters expressed a desire for the 
documentation review process to be as easy as possible for families and 
programs, with a few suggesting the use of signed family declarations 
when documentation is not available or allowing families who receive 
housing assistance to be categorically eligible for the program.
    Response: We acknowledge commenters' suggestions to consider HUD's 
Fair Market Rent (FMR) data as an alternative to reviewing individual 
families' housing documentation, but do not incorporate that approach 
into this final rule. ACF will provide forthcoming guidance on how a 
housing adjustment tool can be used to help determine income 
eligibility. We also acknowledge the suggestion to allow for 
categorical eligibility for families in receipt of housing assistance; 
however, as eligibility categories are largely determined by Head Start 
statute, we do not incorporate this suggestion in the final rule.

Tribal Eligibility and Selection Process (Sec. Sec.  1302.12, 1302.14)

    This final rule revises eligibility requirements for Tribal 
programs to conform with congressional action in March 2024. The Head 
Start Act previously allowed up to 49 percent of

[[Page 67764]]

AIAN program enrollment to be comprised of enrollees who did not meet 
income eligibility criteria if certain conditions were met, while the 
remaining 51 percent of the AIAN program participants had to meet an 
income eligibility criterion specified at Sec.  1302.12(c)(1) (e.g., 
family income at or below the poverty line, eligible for public 
assistance, experiencing homelessness or in foster care). With the 
passage of the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024 (Pub. L. 
118-47), Tribal programs now have the discretion to consider 
eligibility regardless of income. In this final rule, we revise the 
requirement at Sec.  1302.12(e)(1) to reflect that change in statutory 
language. Public Law 118-47 also emphasizes that Tribal programs may, 
at their discretion, use their selection criteria to prioritize 
children in families in which a child, family member, or member of the 
household is a member of an Indian Tribe. We revise the requirement in 
the final rule accordingly in Sec.  1302.14, which is a separate 
section of the HSPPS where selection criteria requirements are 
outlined.
    Comment: As noted in section V, General Comments and Cross-Cutting 
Issues, many NPRM commenters from Tribal communities requested 
categorical eligibility for AIAN children. These commenters emphasized 
the importance of ensuring AIAN children in their communities receive 
comprehensive and culturally relevant services though Tribal Head Start 
programs. They requested revisions to the standards to allow them to 
reach more children in their communities and remain sustainable 
programs into the future.
    Response: We agree with commenters and understand from our 
engagement with Tribal leaders that categorical eligibility for AIAN 
children has been a priority for Tribal programs. This change in 
eligibility requirements was included in President Biden's FY 25 Budget 
Request to Congress, and it has now been enacted into law through the 
passage of Public Law 118-47. We believe this change in eligibility 
better positions Tribes to determine which children would most benefit 
from Head Start services in their communities. In this final rule, ACF 
revises the eligibility requirements for Tribal programs to be in 
alignment with congressional action. Publishing the final rule with 
requirements in the previous HSPPS that have already been superseded by 
Public Law 118-47 would be confusing for Tribal programs at a time when 
they are implementing this new law and are looking for clear guidance 
from ACF. ACF engaged and consulted with Tribes on the eligibility 
changes in a variety of ways prior to the release of this final rule, 
including at the in-person ACF Early Childhood Tribal Consultation in 
July of 2024, providing multiple opportunities to provide feedback on 
important implementation considerations.

Migrant and Seasonal Eligibility and Selection Process (Sec. Sec.  
1302.12, 1302.14)

Sections 1302.12(f) Eligibility and 1302.14(a) Selection Process
    This final rule revises eligibility requirements for Migrant or 
Seasonal Head Start (MSHS) programs to conform with congressional 
action in March 2024. Under the previous program standards, to be 
eligible for MSHS, a family was required to demonstrate that their 
income came primarily from agricultural labor, which was interpreted 
and implemented to mean a family's income must have been more than 50 
percent from agricultural work. As changes in agricultural work have 
made it increasingly less common for the primary source of a family's 
income to be from agricultural work, many migrant or seasonal 
farmworker families have not met the criteria to enroll in MSHS. To 
remove this barrier to enrollment, ACF proposed in the NPRM to revise 
language in Sec.  1302.12(f) regarding income eligibility for MSHS.
    In March 2024, after the November 2023 publication of the NPRM, 
Congress enacted changes to eligibility requirements for MSHS in the 
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024 (Pub. L. 118-47). In the final 
rule, we revise Sec.  1302.12(f) to ensure alignment to the change in 
eligibility in Public Law 118-47. We revise Sec.  1302.12(f) to allow 
MSHS programs to serve any child who has one family member whose income 
comes primarily from agricultural employment as defined in section 3 of 
the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (29 U.S.C. 
1802), even if they do not meet other income eligibility requirements. 
The summary of comments focuses on the public's response to the NPRM 
proposal, even though Public Law 118-47 also removed the requirement 
that MSHS families meet other income eligibility requirements. 
Additionally, Public Law 118-47 reinforces an existing requirement that 
MSHS programs use their selection criteria to give priority to children 
of migrant farmworker families. We revise the requirement in the final 
rule accordingly in Sec.  1302.14, which is a separate section of the 
HSPPS where selection criteria requirements are outlined.
    Comment: Most commenters who discussed these changes supported the 
revision to consider income of one family member being primarily from 
agricultural work rather than the entire family's income being 
primarily from agricultural work. They appreciated ACF's efforts to 
address financial and operational challenges faced by migrant and 
seasonal farmworkers. Specifically, commenters applauded that the 
provision maintains the requirement for agricultural work while also 
recognizing challenges such as income from agriculture not always being 
the primary source due to its instability, and the need to find work in 
other industries as a result. Further, commenters stated that the 
revised eligibility requirements will offer more flexibility to 
families to pursue additional economic opportunities without fear of 
losing MSHS eligibility due to not meeting the family income threshold 
of at least 51% coming from agricultural work. Some commenters stated 
that if adopted, the provision would balance the requirement to work in 
agriculture to qualify for MSHS with the need for Migrant Seasonal Head 
Start services due to the unique demands and seasonality of 
agricultural work. Several comments highlighted the importance of this 
revision to allow access to families who would benefit from the 
critical early learning opportunities MSHS provides, especially in 
rural and farming communities.
    Response: ACF agrees with commenters who expressed that this 
revision to current standards would better reflect the nature of 
agricultural work and allow those in the agricultural industry to 
benefit from MSHS programs. The language on income from agricultural 
work for MSHS eligibility remains the same as it was in the NPRM and, 
as described above, we further revise Sec.  1302.12(f) to conform to 
Public Law 118-47 that removed the requirement that MSHS families meet 
other income eligibility requirements.
    Comment: While supporting the change in the threshold of 
agricultural employment required, several commenters offered 
suggestions to amend this provision. One commenter suggested that OHS 
provide MSHS programs additional flexibility (such as a lower threshold 
than 51%) on agricultural work since the Head Start Act requires a 
family to be ``primarily engaged in agricultural work,'' without 
specifying a threshold. Another comment suggested adding a requirement 
that MSHS program selection criteria prioritize families with

[[Page 67765]]

two parents working in agriculture for enrollment over families with 
only one family member working in agriculture. An edit was recommended 
by one commenter to change Migrant or Seasonal to Migrant and Seasonal 
and to specify that MSHS programs decide whether a family meets the 
agricultural work threshold. One commenter expressed concern that the 
revision did not reduce eligibility paperwork, stating it was still 
complicated to document income and other eligibility criteria such as 
age. A few commenters asked for clarification on operationalizing this 
change and how the definition of family relates to this provision.
    Response: ACF acknowledges suggestions made by commenters to amend 
the provision; however, we maintain this language in this final rule 
and further revise this requirement to align with Public Law 118-47. We 
believe the revisions to the income threshold provide increased access 
to families who would benefit from MSHS. The changes to this 
requirement also address concerns about the burden to the extent that 
families no longer need to meet other income eligibility requirements, 
aside from one member of the family's income coming primarily from 
agricultural work. Further, Migrant or Seasonal is the title of the 
program, and the final rule does not change that, and programs are 
responsible for determining whether a family meets the agricultural 
work threshold in accordance with regulations on documenting 
eligibility. Programs set their own selection criteria, which is not 
part of this section, but is in section Sec.  1302.14.
Section 1302.12(j) Eligibility Duration
    ACF also adds a new provision to clarify the duration of 
eligibility for infants and toddlers served in MSHS programs. 
Specifically, Sec.  1302.12(j) outlines the requirements related to the 
period of time a child remains eligible for Head Start and when program 
staff must verify the family's eligibility again before continuing 
services. Current standards do not specify how long eligibility lasts 
for the youngest children in MSHS, even though nearly half of 
enrollment in MSHS programs is comprised of children under the age of 
three. ACF adds a new paragraph (j)(5) which states that MSHS programs 
can serve infants and toddlers until the age of three without re-
verifying eligibility, consistent with the requirement in Sec.  
1302.12(j)(2) that children participating in EHS are eligible for the 
duration of the program. We believe this new language will provide 
equity among programs while promoting continuity of care for infants 
and toddlers in MSHS programs. The language in the final rule is the 
same as the language proposed in the NPRM.
    Comment: There was consensus among commenters who spoke on this 
topic, with strong support for the revisions that align MSHS 
eligibility redetermination requirements with those of EHS to ensure 
continuity of care. Most of these commenters supported the new 
provision at Sec.  1302.12(j)(5) which aligns duration of MSHS 
eligibility with the existing duration for children in EHS at Sec.  
1302.12(j)(2). No opposition to this new provision nor concerns about 
this provision were expressed in public comments. One comment 
celebrated this revision as ``a very welcome and overdue adjustment to 
the standards.''
    Response: We agree with commenters and maintain the language on 
MSHS eligibility duration proposed in the NPRM.

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

    Section 1302.14 outlines the requirements for programs when 
establishing their selection process. Specifically, it requires 
programs to establish section criteria that prioritizes participants 
based on community need and other factors, such as family income, 
whether a child is homeless or in foster care, among others. The final 
rule includes a requirement in Sec.  1302.14(d), Understanding barriers 
to enrollment, that programs use their community assessment to identify 
the population of eligible children and families and potential barriers 
to enrollment and attendance, including access to transportation for 
the highest need families. Programs must also use this data to inform 
ongoing program improvement efforts as described in Sec.  1302.102(c) 
to promote enrolling the children most in need of program services.
    Section 1302.16 specifies program requirements related to 
attendance, specifically in the areas of promoting regular attendance, 
managing systematic program attendance issues, and supporting 
attendance for children who are homeless. The final rule includes the 
requirement that programs examine barriers to regular attendance, such 
as access to reliable transportation, and where possible, provide or 
facilitates transportation if needed.
    Below we discuss the public comments we received and our responses 
on Sec. Sec.  1302.14(d) and 1302.16(a)(2)(v).
    Comment: Some respondents strongly expressed that the NPRM 
requirement in Sec.  1302.14(d) to survey and analyze data for families 
who were selected but did not enroll was a significant administrative 
burden.
    Response: ACF agrees and changes this requirement in the final rule 
to state that programs must, as part of the existing community 
assessment process, identify the population of age- and income-eligible 
children and identify whether lack of safe and reliable transportation, 
especially for the highest need children and families, poses a barrier 
to enrollment and attendance. We revise the final rule to eliminate the 
requirement for additional information collection from families who 
were selected but who did not enroll or attend. ACF retains the NPRM-
proposed change in Sec.  1302.16(a)(2)(v), which requires that programs 
examine barriers to regular attendance, such as access to reliable 
transportation, and where possible, provide or facilitates 
transportation if needed.
    Comment: Some commenters interpreted this section to mean that 
programs must provide transportation services if transportation is a 
barrier to attendance.
    Response: Neither the NPRM nor the final rule requires that 
programs provide direct Head Start transportation services. In the 
final rule, we maintain the NPRM proposal to require that programs 
identify whether lack of transportation is a barrier to attendance and, 
if it is, make every effort to provide or facilitate transportation. 
When Head Start is paying for transportation services, such services 
must meet Head Start requirements. This can be challenging but programs 
are encouraged to work with community partners, such as school 
districts, school transportation contractors, and transit providers to 
identify solutions. When lack of safe and reliable transportation is a 
barrier to Head Start program attendance, programs may need to consider 
changes in program design to ensure that children and families high on 
the eligibility list can access the program.
    Comment: The majority of comments, including both from programs 
that currently provide transportation and those that do not, indicated 
that providing transportation services is expensive.
    Response: ACF understands both that transportation is expensive to 
operate and that many of the children and families with the most 
significant needs lack access to safe and reliable transportation. As 
noted, the final rule does not require that Head Start

[[Page 67766]]

programs necessarily provide direct transportation services. Rather, 
the rule requires that programs analyze whether the lack of 
transportation is keeping children otherwise high on the selection 
criteria list from access the program. If the program finds that lack 
of safe and reliable transportation is a barrier, it must develop and 
implement plans that address program needs that may include such 
actions as budgeting to provide transportation services directly or 
through contractual arrangement or partnering with school districts to 
expand services to include Head Start transportation services for 
children and families high on the eligibility list who cannot otherwise 
enroll.
    Comment: Many commenters stated that there is a shortage of drivers 
with the required Commercial Drivers License (CDL). Some also stated 
that CDL drivers are able to earn higher salaries in other industries. 
One commenter asked that ACF approve a different type of vehicle that 
would not require a CDL to operate.
    Response: While ACF agrees that CDL drivers have continued to be in 
demand and that this contributes to the overall cost of transportation 
services, we do not change this requirement in the final rule. A CDL is 
required by most states for drivers providing student transportation. 
In some areas, programs recruit parents and community members as bus 
monitors or in other positions and help them acquire the knowledge, 
training, and experience needed to acquire a CDL. Such programs assist 
people by providing employment while ensuring a pool of drivers for the 
Head Start program. Other programs have recruited retired truck drivers 
who can get a passenger endorsement on their CDL and for whom Head 
Start employment benefits may be a draw.
    Comment: Several commenters indicated that lack of transportation 
does not pose a barrier because they only enroll children whose 
families can provide transportation.
    Response: The Act and the HSPPS require programs to develop 
selection criteria based on community need and offer enrollment to 
children from families with the highest level of need. While ACF 
acknowledges that Head Start transportation services are expensive, ACF 
is concerned that only enrolling children whose families can provide 
transportation is not a correct use of selection criteria. Programs 
must work to ensure lack of transportation is not a barrier to 
participating in the program. This may require long term planning and 
difficult program decisions.
    Comment: A number of commenters, including both programs that 
currently provide transportation services and several organizations, 
applauded this provision of the NPRM. These comments emphasized that 
Head Start transportation services allow many children and families to 
enroll and attend who would otherwise be unable to access the program. 
Head Start program respondents stated that they would not be able to 
provide the services they do absent program-provided transportation.
    Response: ACF agrees that Head Start transportation services are 
critical for many children and families, while also understanding the 
financial impact. This rule requires that programs assess their local 
needs and develop quality improvement plans that will improve access 
for the children and families who most need Head Start program 
services.

Serving Children With Disabilities (Sec.  1302.14)

    Section 1302.14 outlines the requirements for selecting eligible 
children for participation in the Head Start program. Paragraph (b) of 
the section requires a program to ensure at least 10 percent of its 
total funded enrollment is filled by children eligible for services 
under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) unless the 
responsible HHS official grants a waiver.
    Though the previous standard Sec.  1302.14(b) read ``funded 
enrollment,'' section 640(d)(1) in the Act states the percentage of 
children with disabilities (eligible under IDEA) is based on ``the 
number of children actually enrolled,'' rather than the funded 
enrollment. ACF has received feedback from various interested groups 
that this error has caused confusion among programs because the Act and 
the previous HSPPS stated different requirements. To address this 
inconsistency, the final rule changes ``funded'' to ``actual'' in Sec.  
1304.14(b)(1) so the HSPPS are consistent with the Act. This change 
clarifies the requirement and addresses the confusion caused by the 
discrepancy.
    Comment: Most commenters expressed support for the proposed 
language change.
    Response: As was proposed in the NPRM, we replace ``funded'' with 
``actual'' in Sec.  1304.14(b)(1) so the HSPPS are consistent with the 
Act.
    Comment: A few commenters opposed the change and encouraged OHS to 
retain the previous HSPPS language to count ``funded enrollment'' 
rather than ``actual enrollment'' to ensure that children with 
disabilities have equal access to learning opportunities.
    Response: We encourage all Head Start programs to recruit and 
enroll as many children who are eligible for IDEA services as possible. 
The 10 percent requirement is meant to be a floor rather than a ceiling 
for serving children who would benefit from the program. ACF strongly 
encourages Head Start programs to maximize services to children with 
disabilities who will benefit from the program's strong focus on 
inclusive early childhood settings.

Suspension and Expulsion (Sec. Sec.  1302.17; 1305.2)

    Section 1302.17 describes ACF's policies that severely limit 
suspension and prohibit expulsion due to a child's behavior. This final 
rule clarifies which disciplinary practices are captured under 
suspension by adding a definition for suspension in Sec.  1305.2. It 
also describes that the intended purpose of a temporary suspension is 
when a serious safety threat has not been reduced or eliminated by 
providing interventions and supports recommended by the mental health 
consultant, and the program needs more time to put additional 
appropriate services in place. The changes further clarify and 
strengthen previous standards regarding what a program must do to bring 
the child back to the program as expediently as possible. The intent of 
these changes is to provide sufficient clarity on the purpose of a 
temporary suspension and how to return a child quickly and safely to 
program services with the correct supports in place.
    Comment: Many commenters generally support OHS's efforts to limit 
suspensions and prohibit expulsions, recognizing the negative long-term 
impacts of such disciplinary actions, especially on populations such as 
children of color and those with disabilities. However, the comments 
reflect a concern that current resources and staff training are 
insufficient to manage the severity and frequency of unsafe behaviors, 
leading to staff burnout, turnover, and a compromised learning 
environment and safety concerns for other children and staff.
    Response: We acknowledge commenters' recognition of the importance 
of ensuring that the use of disciplinary practices does not perpetuate 
disproportionalities across different groups of children, including 
young boys of color, children with disabilities, and children who are 
dual language learners. ACF also agrees that these policies must be 
accompanied by adult capacity-building to equip staff to

[[Page 67767]]

understand and respond to behaviors associated with suspension/
expulsion early and effectively. The final rule revises the definition 
of suspension in Sec.  1305.2 to clarify what ACF considers a 
suspension. Momentarily removing a child from the learning setting due 
to an immediate threat to child or adult safety, or due to established 
plans in a child's individualized family service plan (IFSP) or 
individualized education program (IEP), is not included in this 
definition of suspension. The final rule includes other requirements 
intended to support staff to manage and prevent unsafe behaviors, 
including training and professional development to use positive 
strategies to support social and emotional development in Sec.  1302.92 
as well as effective implementation of mental health consultation and a 
multidisciplinary approach to mental health, as outlined in Sec.  
1302.45.
    Comment: Some commenters ask for more flexibility in handling 
suspensions, with some suggesting that ``temporary suspensions'' should 
be an option when staff and children's safety is at risk. Some 
commenters suggest changing the term ``temporary suspension'' to 
another name as the intent of this process is to provide better 
supports for the child, not temporarily remove them from the program 
without any supports or services.
    Response: Section 1302.17(a) outlines the limitations on suspension 
and the steps that must be followed if a program proceeds with a 
temporary suspension, including providing continued support to 
facilitate the child's reentry into the program. As specified in Sec.  
1302.17(a)(2), a temporary suspension must be used only as a last 
resort in extraordinary circumstances when there is a serious safety 
threat. The language does not specify who is impacted by the serious 
safety threat, in acknowledgment that it could be either staff or 
children. The previous performance standards specified that temporary 
suspension could occur if the safety threat ``cannot be reduced or 
eliminated,'' and the final rule maintains the NPRM proposal to change 
the language to be ``has not been reduced or eliminated'' to emphasize 
that the program should take active steps to attempt to reduce or 
eliminate the concern and demonstrate that the steps have not worked.
    Although we retain the language of ``temporary suspension,'' the 
requirement is clear that temporary suspension does not mean removing a 
child from a program without any supports or services. On the contrary, 
programs are required to continue engaging with the parents, mental 
health consultant, and other appropriate staff, and continue to use 
appropriate community resources; to provide additional program supports 
and services, including home visits; and to determine whether a 
referral to a local agency responsible for implementing IDEA is 
appropriate, or if the child has an IFSP or IEP, to consult with the 
responsible agency to ensure the child receives the needed support 
services.
    Comment: Several comments request clarifying the role of the 
multidisciplinary team and mental health consultant, including in 
determining if a temporary suspension is needed.
    Response: We remove the requirement that programs have a 
multidisciplinary team. Rather, programs must use a multidisciplinary 
approach to integrate mental health throughout Head Start program 
services. Given the removal of the requirement to have a 
multidisciplinary team from this final rule, the specific role of that 
team in temporary suspensions is no longer relevant. The mental health 
consultant is an important partner in these decisions, as noted in the 
list of responsibilities of the mental health consultant in Sec.  
1302.45(b), and, specifically, in the implementation of the policies 
related to suspension and expulsion. Ultimately, the program is 
responsible for determining whether a suspension is necessary and for 
supporting children prior to, during, and after a suspension.
    Comment: The comments also address the challenges of implementing 
some of the proposed changes to expulsion in Sec.  1302.17(b) of the 
NPRM, such as the requirement for immediate placement in alternative 
programs. Many commenters note the scarcity of alternative placements 
with immediate availability or any alternative placements within the 
community, which could make compliance with these requirements 
difficult. A few comments request clarity about expectations for Head 
Start programs before a child is transitioned to an alternative 
placement, such as interim modified services.
    Response: ACF does not believe further regulation is necessary on 
this issue at this time. ACF does not retain in this final rule the 
NPRM language stating that the placement can immediately enroll and 
provide services to the child. However, the existing program standards, 
which remain in effect at Sec.  1302.17(b), already prohibit expulsion 
due to child behavior and outline expectations for when children 
exhibit persistent and serious challenging behaviors. This includes the 
requirement that a program work with appropriate entities to directly 
facilitate the transition of a child to a more appropriate placement in 
Sec.  1302.17(b)(3). Directly facilitating a child to a more 
appropriate placement is intended to convey that a child's services 
should not lapse, and that the child should not be unenrolled from Head 
Start program services until the new receiving placement enrolls the 
family and is ready to begin services. HHS, in collaboration with the 
U.S. Department of Education, previously released a policy statement 
that elaborates on ACF's position and expectations related to 
expulsion.\59\ This includes the expectation that as part of direct 
facilitation, the program collaborates with the family, teacher, 
service providers, and receiving placement to develop and implement a 
seamless transition plan. In identifying a receiving placement, the 
program additionally ensures the new placement is inclusive and offers 
the child opportunities to optimize learning and develop skills 
alongside their peers. ACF is interested in understanding the extent to 
which programs are using the steps outlined in Sec.  1302.17(b)(3) to 
determine a more appropriate placement and will consider regulating at 
some point in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/publication/policy-statement-expulsion-suspension-policies-early-childhood-settings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Several commenters express frustration with the lack of 
support from parents when trying to address challenging behaviors. Some 
comments suggest empowering families by providing a description of 
suspension and expulsion policies to families upon enrollment so they 
know their rights and so they understand their role in collaborating 
with programs to address child behavior and mental health.
    Response: Section 1302.41 of the previous program standards 
requires Head Start programs to collaborate closely with parents as 
partners in their children's health, well-being, and overall 
development. ACF adds ``mental health'' throughout this paragraph in 
the final rule to clarify that mental health is an integral part of 
health that should be incorporated into conversations with parents 
early and often. ACF has and will continue to provide training and 
technical assistance on creating authentic partnerships with families, 
including strategies on ways to collaborate with families that foster 
children's healthy development. ACF encourages programs to leverage 
resources to meet their needs, including providing descriptions of 
policies to families upon enrollment.

[[Page 67768]]

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

    Section 1302.21(b) sets requirements for ratios and group size 
within the center-based option. According to Sec.  1302.21(b)(2), a 
class that serves children under 36 months old must have two teachers 
with no more than eight children, or three teachers with no more than 
nine children. Each teacher must be assigned consistent, primary 
responsibility for no more than four children to promote continuity of 
care for individual children. The NPRM proposed revising Sec.  
1302.21(b)(2) to encourage programs to use a lower teacher-child ratio 
of no more than three children to every teacher for their youngest 
children (infants under 12 months old), provided it does not interfere 
with continuity of care.
    Comment: Overall, commenters supported the concept of smaller group 
sizes and lower staff-to-child ratios to promote individualized 
attention, especially for children with severe behavioral issues or 
identified special needs. A couple of commenters suggested that ACF 
require, rather than encourage, lower group size and ratios. However, 
many commenters noted challenges in implementing the proposed 
provision, including the difficulty of finding and hiring qualified 
infant/toddler teachers. Without additional funding, programs expressed 
that they cannot hire or effectively train more staff, and that they 
cannot provide additional physical space for smaller group sizes while 
still serving all their funded slots.
    Response: ACF does not retain in this final rule the NPRM provision 
that encourages programs to use a 1:3 ratio for children under the age 
of 12 months. Section 1302.21(b)(2) remains as it was written in the 
previous standard. ACF reminds programs that they have the flexibility 
to implement policies that are more stringent than the requirements 
within the HSPPS. This flexibility allows programs to adapt their 
services based on the immediate needs of children and families. This 
includes reducing group sizes and ratios in infant, toddler, and 
preschool classrooms.
    Comment: Many commenters wanted flexibility to lower group sizes 
and ratios in preschool classrooms.
    Response: We do not revise the standard to address these comments, 
as current standards already address flexibilities for programs to 
reduce group sizes and ratios in all age groups. Section 1302.21(b)(1) 
requires programs to determine teacher-child ratios and group sizes 
within infant, toddler, and preschool center-based settings based on 
the ages and needs of the children present. This allows programs to 
lower group sizes and ratios in infant, toddler, and preschool 
classrooms to best meet the immediate needs of enrolled children and 
families. Additionally, programs that need to reduce their overall 
enrollment levels in order to accommodate lower ratios may submit a 
change in scope application, and ACF will consider these applications.
    Comment: Commenters recommended that ACF include specific 
strategies in regulation to support continuity of care (e.g., keeping 
children with a familiar adult as children move through classrooms/ages 
and mixed age group settings).
    Response: We do not revise the standard to include specific 
strategies related to continuity of care. ACF encourages programs to 
access TTA resources provided by OHS to enhance their strategies to 
effectively support continuity of care.
    Comment: Commenters asked ACF to specify how the age of a child 
should be determined for ratio purposes as well as to clarify the 
recommended ratio of typically developing children to children with 
disabilities in Early Head Start classrooms.
    Response: We do not revise the standard to address these comments. 
Section 1302.21(b)(1) requires that programs determine the age of the 
majority of children in a class for ratio purposes at the start of the 
year, and they may adjust this determination during the program year, 
if necessary. Additionally, programs should follow local and State 
requirements to help them determine children's ages for ratio purposes. 
Programs can also access TTA resources provided by OHS to enhance their 
practices to effectively support the learning of children who are 
typically developing, children with identified disabilities, and 
children with suspected delays.
    Comment: Many commenters noted the desire to temporarily reduce 
enrollment and lower ratios in classrooms with significant needs 
without worrying about the impact on their grant funding and inclusion 
in the Full Enrollment Initiative (FEI). A commenter also suggested 
that there should be waivers from the FEI so programs can meet the 
needs of enrolled children without penalties.
    Response: We do not revise the standard to address these comments. 
ACF reminds programs that they must provide services to the number of 
children and pregnant women noted within their funding award. If 
programs need to adjust their number of funded slots, they should 
contact their regional office to submit a change request.

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

    Section 1302.21(c)(1) outlines requirements for service duration in 
Early Head Start center-based programs. This final rule removes 
outdated language from Sec.  1302.21(c)(1)(i) but otherwise maintains 
the requirement that EHS center-based programs must provide 1,380 
annual hours of planned class operations for all enrolled children.
    Comment: Of those who commented on this issue, many were not 
supportive of requiring a 46-week minimum for EHS center-based 
services. Commenters suggested that 46 weeks is excessive, could lead 
to burnout for staff, and may negatively impact the mental health of 
staff and children. Some commenters expressed concern that the proposed 
changes would limit opportunities for professional development and 
staff wellness activities, emphasizing the need for breaks, planning, 
and time off for staff. Commenters also indicated that a 46-week 
minimum would reduce the time available for staff planning, trainings, 
and breaks.
    Response: In response to the public comments on this issue, we do 
not maintain in the final rule the proposed change to require EHS 
center-based services occur across at least 46 weeks per year. While it 
has been and continues to be a long-standing expectation of ACF that 
EHS programs provide continuous, year-round services for enrolled 
children, ACF is committed to prioritizing the flexibility of local 
programs to determine the program schedule that best meets their 
community needs, while still achieving the required 1,380 annual hours 
of services for children.
    Comment: Many commenters expressed concern that the 46-week minimum 
would increase the difficulty in recruiting and retaining qualified 
staff. Some commenters raised concerns that requiring teachers to work 
across 46 weeks and give up their summer breaks could drive current 
employees to seek positions with more favorable work-life balance and 
result in increased turnover. Several commenters caution that the 46-
week minimum would further the gap in days per year between and Head 
Start and Early Head Start programs, potentially impacting staff 
morale. Others noted the increased cost associated with a 46-week 
requirement.
    Response: Our intent in this final rule is to support the Head 
Start workforce and promote consistent quality programming. We 
understand programs

[[Page 67769]]

continue to experience staffing challenges and know that programs must 
be able to recruit and retain qualified staff to provide high-quality 
services to children. While our expectation remains that EHS programs 
provide continuous services, the proposed 46-week minimum is not 
adopted in the final rule.
    Comment: Several commenters suggested that the proposed changes 
could lead to a decrease in program quality, and several argued that 
not all children benefit from longer hours in a classroom setting.
    Response: We disagree with the idea that a 46-week minimum would 
lead to a decrease in program quality. Research on full-day and full-
year programs suggests children in poverty benefit from longer exposure 
to high-quality early learning programs than what is provided by part-
day and/or part-year programs.
    Comment: Some commenters advocated for special provisions to adjust 
EHS service duration to align with local school district schedules. 
Others recommended adopting a structure like Head Start Preschool (HSP) 
service duration, aligning with the HSP center-based service duration 
requirement (1,020 hours across 8 months), or requiring 1,380 hours 
over 10-11 months or 34-46 weeks.
    Response: While we remove the proposed 46-week minimum, the final 
rule maintains the current requirement that EHS center-based programs 
provide 1,380 annual hours of planned class operations for all enrolled 
children. Research suggests that continuity of care for infant and 
toddlers is key to healthy growth, development, and learning outcomes. 
Although we expect programs to provide continuous services, this final 
rule affords programs the flexibility to develop their program 
schedules in a manner that best meets community needs.
    Comment: Some commenters stressed the importance of local autonomy 
and being able to tailor programs to meet community needs, with 
commenters requesting that ACF allow for waivers and exemptions under 
certain conditions. Several commenters cautioned that adding additional 
weeks to programs that are already at or above 1,380 hours would 
substantially increase total service hours or force programs to shorten 
days to extend the year which would negatively impact parent's ability 
to work. Some commenters noted that some parents do not want their 
child attending EHS for long hours or 5 days per week. Some noted that 
a 46-week requirement would interfere with cultural activities in the 
summer, such as those observed by Tribes.
    Response: We retain flexibility for programs to decide which 
program schedules best meet the diverse needs of families and 
communities. Therefore, the proposed 46-week minimum is not adopted in 
the final rule.
    Comment: A few commenters supported the proposed change, 
appreciating the clarification provided by the 46-week minimum and 
reiterating the importance of providing year-round, continuous services 
to infants and toddlers. However, a few in support of the changes 
cautioned that this would come at an increased cost to programs.
    Response: We agree with the commenters about the importance of 
providing year-round, continuous services to infants and toddlers and 
recognize that many programs are already providing these services 
across 46 weeks or more. However, given the number of possible 
unintended consequences raised, we remove the proposed 46-week minimum 
in the final rule.

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

    Section 1302.21(c)(2) outlines requirements for service duration 
for Head Start preschool center-based programs. This final rule does 
not change the service duration policies for these programs, but 
rather, makes six technical corrections to remove outdated regulatory 
text and improve readability of these standards, including the removal 
of outdated standards related to Secretarial determinations to lower 
preschool service duration requirements that previously appeared at 
Sec.  1302.21(c)(3) and (4). Relatedly, the standards previously at 
Sec.  1302.21(c)(5) and (6) have been renumbered and are now Sec.  
1302.21(c)(3) and (4) in the final rule.
    Comment: We did not receive any public comments relevant to the 
proposed technical changes to the standards for Head Start Preschool 
duration. The only comments we received on this topic were not germane 
to this final rule. For instance, a few commenters recommended a 
reduction in Head Start Preschool service duration; a few advocated for 
a four-day service week to allow staff time for planning and paperwork; 
and a few advocated for flexibility for AIAN programs to better align 
with the traditions, culture, and values of their communities.
    Response: We do not make any changes in the final rule in response 
to these comments, as they are not germane to the rule.

Ratios in Family Child Care Settings (Sec.  1302.23)

    Section 1302.23 of this final rule adds clarifying language to the 
previous standard on child ratio and group size requirements for 
programs that operate a family child care option with enrolled Head 
Start children. These language changes do not alter the substance of 
the previous regulation but provide much needed clarity to Head Start 
programs with a family child care option while acknowledging the 
importance of maintaining ratios and group sizes that facilitate high-
quality interactions and support children's safety and development.
    Section 1302.23(b)(2) clarifies maximum group size requirements for 
family child care programs with one provider based on the ages of the 
children in the group. To add clarity to this section, the final rule 
adds two headers, ``Mixed Age with Preschoolers'' and ``Infants and 
Toddlers Only.'' Under the header ``Mixed Age with Preschoolers'' the 
final rule clarifies that when a mixed age group with one provider 
includes preschoolers (e.g., children over the age of 36 months), the 
maximum group sizer is six children. In addition, no more than two of 
these six children can be under 24 months of age. Under the heading, 
``Infants and Toddlers Only'' the final rule clarifies that when there 
is a mixed-age group where all the children are under 36 months of age 
and there is one family child care provider, the maximum group size is 
four children.
    In making these clarifying revisions, we note that the previous 
standard in Sec.  1302.23(b)(2) allowed for an increased group size 
when both a family child care provider and an assistant provider were 
present. However, the role of ``family child care assistant provider'' 
was not defined and was not addressed in the staff qualifications and 
competency requirements outlined in Sec.  1302.91(e)(5) for child and 
family services staff. To address this, the final rule now refers to 
two providers and removes a reference to ``assistant provider'' from 
the final sentence of Sec.  1302.23(b)(4). In making these changes, the 
final rule clarifies the expectation that all staff who may have 
primary responsibility for children have the necessary training and 
experience to ensure quality services are not interrupted.
    Comment: Many commenters suggested that the second provider in a 
family child care setting should be

[[Page 67770]]

allowed to be in the process of obtaining their CDA credential, rather 
than having it from the start. They cited increased costs and potential 
difficulty recruiting qualified providers as the primary reason for 
this suggestion.
    Response: We agree with the commenters and note that programs 
already have this flexibility under Sec.  1302.91(e)(4)(i), which 
allows them to hire family child care providers who are in the process 
of achieving a Family Child Care CDA or state equivalent and plan to 
earn one of these credentials. Once hired and providing services, these 
family child care providers have 18 months (after they begin to provide 
services) to earn the credential.
    Comment: Some commenters expressed a concern that the proposed 
changes will negatively impact partnerships with family child care 
providers, particularly in rural areas, and could lead to a reduction 
in the number of children and families served by Head Start programs.
    Response: As previously noted, the final rule removes all previous 
references to ``assistant providers'' in the standards, thereby 
emphasizing that programs operating a family child care option must 
ensure all staff who may have primary responsibility for children have 
the necessary training and experience to ensure quality services. ACF 
believes the HSPPS provide ample hiring flexibility for Head Start 
programs with a family child care option so as to minimize recruitment 
and/or retention issues that could impact partnerships with community 
programs. Specifically, under Sec.  1302.91(e)(4)(i), programs may hire 
family child care providers who are enrolled in a Family Child Care CDA 
program or state equivalent prior to beginning service provision, and 
who acquire the credential within eighteen months of beginning to 
provide services.
    While some commenters noted that they do not directly employ family 
child care providers and therefore lack the authority to require such 
changes in their community partners, we believe that partnerships offer 
the opportunity to support programs to meet this standard without 
causing undue burden. For example, programs operating the family child 
care option through partnerships can use Head Start professional 
development funds to support their community partners to hire and 
retain individuals who are on a path to attaining the required 
qualification. This access to professional and career development 
opportunities, provided through the Head Start program, can act as an 
additional incentive for family child care programs to enter into and 
sustain partnerships. Ultimately, providing support to family child 
care partners to help them meet the required qualifications has the 
added benefit of increasing the supply of high-quality family child 
care programs and providers in the community.

Preventing and Addressing Lead Exposure (Sec.  1302.47)

    The prior HSPPS include a requirement at Sec.  1302.47(b)(1)(iii) 
for all facilities where Head Start children are served to be free from 
pollutants, hazards, and toxins that are accessible to children. The 
final rule includes a requirement that Head Start programs take steps 
to protect children from lead exposure and address any lead detected, 
but leaves the specific approach to program discretion rather than the 
more prescribed approach that was proposed in the NPRM.
    The NPRM included a new section, Sec.  1302.48, with several 
specific proposed requirements for programs to prevent and address lead 
exposure in the water and paint of facilities that serve Head Start 
children. In the requirements for water, ACF proposed that programs 
must sample fixtures used for human consumption for lead hazards on an 
annual basis, and take remediation actions to reduce lead in water to 
below 5 parts per billion (ppb). In the requirements for paint, ACF 
proposed that programs inspect for and address lead-based paint hazards 
with a certified risk assessor and take steps to restrict access to 
hazards and conduct abatement actions with a certified contractor.
    While commenters agreed that children should not be exposed to lead 
in water or paint, they also emphasized that the proposed regulations 
were too prescriptive, costly, and would result in administrative 
burden. ACF also recognizes that there is not uniformity in lead action 
levels for water, and that related state and Federal requirements for 
these prescribed levels may change over time. Therefore, in this final 
rule, ACF does not retain the proposed Sec.  1302.48. Instead, ACF 
includes a new simpler, more streamlined standard at Sec.  
1302.47(b)(10) that addresses the critical need to keep young children 
safe from exposure to lead, while being responsive to commenters' 
concerns about the potential cost, burden, and prescriptiveness of the 
proposed rule.
    The final rule requires Head Start programs to develop a plan to 
prevent children from being exposed to lead in the water or paint of 
Head Start facilities. In Head Start facilities where lead may exist, 
programs must implement ongoing practices to protect children from lead 
exposure including testing and inspection at least every two years, 
with support from trained professionals. HHS is not requiring that the 
testing and inspection regarding lead in paint include a lead risk 
assessment for all programs. If a risk assessment is done of a pre-1978 
child-occupied facility, the person must be a certified risk assessor 
and the firm for which the risk assessor works must be a certified risk 
assessment firm.\60\ This revision ensures that programs establish an 
appropriate schedule for testing for lead in water and paint based on 
the age and other physical characteristics of the facility, since for 
example, older facilities may have lead service lines, plumbing, 
fixtures, or lead-based paint. This revised requirement also recognizes 
that, for instance, in some newer facilities or in facilities where 
water pipes have been fully replaced and a program can document the 
water is free of lead contaminants, regular testing of water may not be 
required at the same frequency as for an older facility. If lead 
hazards are identified in either water or paint, programs must 
implement appropriate remediation or abatement actions. ACF believes 
the changes in this final rule balance the need to protect children 
from exposure to lead while maintaining program flexibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ Independent of this rulemaking, HUD's regulations require 
re-evaluations for HUD-assisted properties to be performed by a 
certified risk assessor (24 CFR 35.1355(3)) and EPA's regulations 
require certification of individuals and firms conducting lead-based 
paint activities in pre-1978 child-occupied facilities (40 CFR part 
745, especially subpart L (Lead-Based Paint Activities)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Commenters were supportive of the intent of the proposed 
requirements to address lead in water and paint. However, the majority 
of commenters emphasized that the proposed requirements would be costly 
to implement without financial support, were too prescriptive, and 
would create significant administrative burden for programs. Commenters 
noted that implementation would be more expensive in rural and remote 
communities, with higher costs due to travel for certified testers, and 
further noted confusion due to the different action level requirements 
across states and the Federal Government. A few commenters also asked 
for a longer implementation window so they could budget for testing and 
remediation costs.
    Response: In response to the significant concerns raised regarding 
cost, burden, and different thresholds at the state and Federal level, 
ACF does not include the proposed Sec.  1302.48 in

[[Page 67771]]

the final rule. Given that the lead level in water requiring 
remediation action varies across states, ACF is mindful of not creating 
a specific requirement in this space that may conflict with state or 
Federal requirements. Instead, in this final rule, we add paragraph 
(b)(10) to Sec.  1302.47, Safety practices, which outlines more 
streamlined requirements for lead in water and paint prevention 
practices. The final rule provides more flexibility for programs to 
budget and to establish a plan and practices tailored to the age and 
condition of their facilities to prevent children from being exposed to 
lead in water and paint of Head Start facilities. The final rule also 
provides facilities that can demonstrate children will not be exposed 
to lead hazards, such as those that have replaced or were constructed 
without lead-based plumbing or paint, or those using alternative water 
sources, such as water bottles or coolers, the ability to tailor their 
testing approaches and schedule appropriately, thereby mitigating costs 
for testing, inspection, and remediation or abatement to prevent lead 
exposure.
    Comment: Commenters expressed mixed reactions regarding the 
frequency of testing for lead proposed in the NPRM. Several commenters 
supported and welcomed the flexibility proposed in the NPRM to test a 
rotating proportion of water fixtures annually such that all fixtures 
are tested at least once every five years. However, some noted that 
some states have their own standards for testing for lead in water and 
paint in child care facilities and schools. Other commenters emphasized 
that requiring annual testing for lead in water as well as reassessment 
every two years for lead-based paint hazards would be labor intensive 
and create administrative burden for programs. Still other commenters 
suggested that the testing frequency proposed for lead in paint was too 
lenient.
    Response: As noted previously, ACF does not include the proposed 
Sec.  1302.48 in this final rule, and instead we add a new paragraph 
(b)(10) to Sec.  1302.47. In facilities where lead may exist, this new 
standard requires testing and inspection of lead in water and paint at 
least every two years.
    If a lead hazard is identified, remediation or abatement must be 
conducted. For lead in water, programs are only required to test water 
fixtures that are accessible or used by children enrolled in Head 
Start, thus, providing allowances for programs to minimize their 
testing frequency on a subset of fixtures at least every two years. 
This standard provides flexibility for programs to develop a plan to 
prevent children's exposure to lead in water or paint that better 
aligns with the possible risks for lead exposure in their facilities. 
The revised rule also provides allowances for programs that have 
confirmed they do not have existing lead hazards in their facilities--
or that are taking alternative actions, such as the use of alternative 
water sources--to minimize continued testing, inspection, remediation, 
and abatement activities. This two year interval is aligned with the 
two year re-evaluation interval for HUD-assisted properties, such as 
child care facilities in common areas of multi-family housing, in the 
Lead Safe Housing Rule at 24 CFR 35.1355(b)(4).
    Comment: Several commenters noted that there are currently 
considerable differences between state and Federal requirements for 
identifying and taking action on lead in water, particularly that the 
proposed requirements in the NPRM to take remediation action if lead 
levels in water were above 5 ppb differed from the Environmental 
Protection Agency's (EPA) lead action level of 15 ppb, and that it 
could be difficult to conduct remediation efforts for water fixtures to 
achieve a lead level below 5 ppb, as water from faucets generally meet 
the EPA's standard of 15 ppb. It was also noted that the proposed 
requirements lacked specificity on the application of Dust-Lead hazard 
Standards (DLHS) and Dust Lead Clearance Levels (DLCL) for lead in 
paint.
    Response: As described previously, ACF modifies the requirement in 
the final rule to be less prescriptive including the removal of the 5 
ppb lead action level in water, understanding that there are currently 
differences in state and Federal requirements. Programs should 
determine lead action levels in water for their facilities informed by 
Federal and state requirements, guidance from state or local health 
departments or community water systems, and TTA or guidance from ACF. 
The final rule requires programs to work with trained professionals to 
abate lead-based paint hazards as needed. These professionals are 
equipped to enact EPA standards for DLHS and DLCL and subject to 
applicable EPA and HUD requirements and regulations.
    Comment: Several commenters recommended TTA for addressing and 
preventing lead in water and paint. Specifically, commenters requested 
assistance in creating partnerships for remediation efforts and 
developing lead paint management plans. Commenters also noted there 
should be training for staff to become certified testers. It was also 
recommended that supports for finding certified testers and abatement 
contractors especially in rural or more remote communities are 
necessary.
    Response: ACF will provide TTA and sub-regulatory guidance related 
to implementation of the new standard following the publication of the 
final rule. ACF will support programs as they develop a plan and, as 
needed, implement practices to address identified lead in paint and 
water of Head Start facilities.
    Comment: A few commenters expressed concerns with continuing 
program operations if lead in water or paint hazards are identified in 
their facilities. Commenters identified that supports are needed for 
minimizing interruptions of service if remediation or abatement is 
required, and to define what restricting access entails.
    Response: ACF will provide TTA and sub-regulatory guidance for 
programs to minimize disruptions in program operations or interruptions 
of service if a lead in water or paint hazard is identified in Head 
Start facilities that requires remediation or abatement.
    Comment: A few commenters expressed concerns that implementing the 
proposed requirements for center-based programs located in schools will 
be difficult to enforce due to specific school system policies, 
variations in school facility size, and because some programs rent 
their classroom space from the schools.
    Response: ACF revises the final rule so that programs must develop 
a plan to prevent children's exposure to lead in water and paint, 
implement appropriate testing and inspection protocols, and, as needed, 
remediate or abate identified hazards if they are accessible to Head 
Start children. Programs are only required to test fixtures that are 
used by the Head Start program. For example, if a Head Start program 
operates in a school, the program must test fixtures in Head Start 
classrooms as well as common areas used for the Head Start program. 
However, the program is not required to test those classrooms that 
serve older school-age children who are not enrolled in Head Start.
    Comment: Some commenters asked for the use of bottled water as an 
option for remediation and expressed that programs should be required 
to test children following the identification of exposure to lead in 
water or paint.
    Response: The requirements in the final rule allow programs the 
flexibility to develop a plan for preventing exposure to lead hazards 
in water and paint, including any necessary remediation or abatement 
efforts. A program could choose to permanently restrict access to 
fixtures impacted by lead and implement the use of an alternative water 
source, such as bottled water, if that is determined by the

[[Page 67772]]

program to best meet program needs. We do not include a new specific 
requirement for programs to test children following exposure to lead in 
water or paint. However, the existing standard at Sec.  1302.42(d) 
already requires programs to facilitate testing, evaluation, treatment, 
and follow-up as appropriate for children that may have a health 
problem, including higher lead levels.
    Section 1302.47(b)(10) is added to the final rule, requiring 
programs to develop a plan to prevent children from being exposed to 
lead in the water or paint of Head Start facilities. If lead may exist, 
it also requires that programs implement ongoing practices of testing 
and inspection, at least every two years with support from trained 
professionals and, as needed, implement remediation or abatement to 
prevent lead exposure.

Family Partnership Family Assignments (Sec.  1302.52)

    Section 1302.52 outlines the requirements for family partnership 
services, the foundational and central process by which Head Start 
staff engage with each family of enrolled children. In this final rule, 
we include new standards in Sec.  1302.52(d) for assigning staff to 
work with families. This change is consistent with section 648A(c)(2) 
of the Act, which explicitly provides ACF with the authority to review 
and if necessary, revise, requirements related to family assignments, 
and as suggested by research and best practice, will improve the 
quality and effectiveness of staff providing services to families. 
Based on the research on human services case management, PIR data, 
feedback we received from programs, as well as support from public 
comments on this proposed change in the NPRM, ACF believes there is a 
strong need for clearer standards for management of family assignments.
    This final rule retains the proposed requirement in the NPRM and 
includes a maximum family assignment ratio of 40:1, with some 
exceptions, to address the long-standing problem of excessive family 
assignments for many staff who work with families. Family wellbeing is 
the greatest predictor of school readiness, yet Head Start has been 
without workload standards that promote quality services for parents 
and families. This new rule establishes more manageable workloads and 
sets staff up to better address family wellbeing, which includes family 
health and mental health, finances, educational advancement, 
employment, housing and food assistance, and other support services.
    Specifically, we have retained the exception proposed in the NPRM, 
with some modifications, to allow programs to demonstrate that they 
have an alternative approach that affords high-quality with reasonable 
workloads that exceed 40:1; and made that exception and the process for 
getting that exception clearer by clarifying it is a waiver for 
programs that can demonstrate they are meeting staff competency and 
program outcomes requirements with a higher but reasonable staff 
workload. We also added an exception in the final rule that allows a 
program to temporarily exceed the 40:1 ratio to address operational 
needs during periods of staff absence and attrition, changes in daily 
operations related to start up or transitional activities, and 
circumstances of emergency response and recovery. We are establishing 
this new requirement to ensure more consistent, reasonable family 
assignments for staff who work directly with families and believe this 
change will improve staff wellness and the quality of services families 
receive, while also allowing flexibility for programs to implement 
assignments in ways that can work best for their families and program 
design.
    Comment: The majority of commenters who submitted comments on this 
topic supported the idea of reducing family assignments to ensure high-
quality services and to allow for more focused and individualized 
attention with families. Many agreed that a maximum family assignment 
ratio of 40 families per staff is a positive step towards managing 
healthy and realistic workloads, which are better for staff and can 
lead to better outcomes for families and children. A few commenters 
suggested that 40 is too high while others suggest that their programs 
are already at or below the proposed limit of 40.
    Response: We agree that lower family assignment ratios are ideal 
for quality services and best for children, families, and staff. As was 
proposed in the NPRM, we maintain the maximum family assignment number 
at 40. We know from PIR data that more than half of Head Start programs 
nationally are already at or below a family assignment ratio of 40 
families per staff person. Comments were consistent with this data.
    This final rule provides exceptions to meeting the 40:1 ratio, and 
we made modifications to the NPRM language on these exceptions to 
improve clarity and enhance program flexibility. First, we added a 
waiver for programs that can demonstrate they are meeting staff 
competency and program outcomes requirements with a higher but 
reasonable staff workload. We also added a provision that allows 
programs to temporarily exceed the 40:1 ratio to address certain 
operational changes caused by, for example, emergencies and staffing 
changes.
    Comment: Some commenters sought clarification about how to 
interpret and implement the family assignment ratio. A few comments 
sought additional clarification on how it applies to part-time staff. 
Some comments pointed to the need for a clearer definition of family 
services staff and responsibilities in the proposal. For example, some 
commenters reported that they use different terminology for staff roles 
or define staff responsibilities differently, and as a result, they 
were unsure about the meaning of ``family services'' in the NPRM. A few 
comments raised questions about how OHS would monitor both the family 
assignment maximum and the exception clause for programs that could 
demonstrate how they meet quality and staff wellness requirements using 
a different approach. A few comments suggested that the regulation 
should instead establish a desired outcome and let the program 
determine the approach.
    Response: To alleviate confusion about to whom the 40:1 standard 
applies, we remove the term ``family services'' from the NPRM and refer 
more generally to ``family partnership services'' in the final rule. We 
also clarify that this requirement refers to family, health, and 
community engagement staff who work on family goal setting, adding 
health staff since many staff who conduct the family partnership 
process support health services as well. We recognize the challenges 
caused by the pandemic, the operational challenges of running Head 
Start programs, and the variation of program staffing structures, but 
believe the goal of the multi-generation Head Start model requires 
reasonable assignments for family partnership services staff to be able 
to focus on family support services.
    Some commenters asked how programs would demonstrate that they have 
an alternative approach that affords high-quality while maintaining 
reasonable workloads. We are including a waiver option to ensure 
programs can work toward outcomes using innovative and alternative 
approaches that work best for their staff, families, and communities.
    ACF will issue additional guidance to grant recipients on the 
waiver process. In addition, to ensure programs understand what we mean 
by high

[[Page 67773]]

quality family and community engagement services in the NPRM, the final 
rule includes references to two existing performance standards that 
contribute to quality and that programs can use to demonstrate the 
effectiveness of their alternative approaches. The requirement for 
systemic staff training and professional development for child and 
family services staff, when fully implemented, builds staff 
competencies to improve child and family outcomes (Sec.  
1302.92(b)(4)). Additionally, programs demonstrate quality when they 
use the Parent, Family and Community Engagement Framework outcomes to 
assess and provide services related to family strengths, interests, and 
needs (Sec.  1302.52).
    Comment: Commenters raised the most concerns about the financial 
implications of implementing a lower family assignment ratio which, 
they report, would necessitate additional staff and supervisory hires. 
Some of these comments suggested that without additional funding, 
programs may have to reduce the number of slots available to children 
and families, and this is an unfavorable option.
    Response: We acknowledge cost implication concerns from those 
programs who have family assignment ratios above 40:1. We maintain the 
long view that we need to move toward more consistent service quality 
for families across all Head Start programs. However, as noted, in the 
final rule we add a waiver for programs that can demonstrate manageable 
workloads for staff along with staff competence and quality service 
provision. We also add an exception whereby a program can temporarily 
exceed the 40:1 ratio to address operational needs during periods of 
staff absence and attrition, changes in daily operations related to 
start up or transitional activities, and circumstances of emergency 
response and recovery. In addition, we maintain, with modifications, 
the NPRM-proposed flexibility through which programs can demonstrate 
alternative approaches to quality. Further, we retain the three-year 
time frame from the publish date of the final rule to give programs 
time for planning and implementation.
    Comment: A majority of comments highlighted a need for more 
flexibility in determining and implementing family assignment ratios 
for reasons that relate to program design, daily operations, staff 
attrition, geography, and family and community needs. A few commenters 
suggested that there are variations in responsibilities of staff beyond 
case management and that some staff duties also include recruitment, 
eligibility, enrollment, health-related tracking, classroom breaks for 
teacher classroom substitutions, supervision of children, and 
behavioral support in the classroom.
    Response: We understand commenters' concerns and questions about 
implementing this regulation and agree that programs need flexibility 
in implementing and maintaining their family assignment processes and 
procedures. As noted previously, we add a temporary exception in the 
final rule to address operational needs during periods of staff absence 
and attrition, changes in daily operations related to start up or 
transitional activities, and circumstances of emergency response and 
recovery. We also add the option of a waiver in the final rule, 
maintaining that it allows flexibility for programs with other than a 
40:1 approach to continue to be responsive to staff wellness and family 
strengths and needs.
    Comment: Some commenters identified a preference for a family 
assignment range, with recommendations averaging somewhere between 40-
60. Some comments suggested that this would help with staff attrition 
and hiring, workload considerations related to home visit travel time, 
and models that include smaller caseloads for some staff assigned to do 
more intensive work.
    Response: We disagree with a 40-60 family assignment range and 
believe that a maximum of 60 families for any one staff member does not 
meet the goal of supporting staff wellness and high-quality family 
engagement and family support services. Instead, we maintain the 40:1 
family assignment ratio and both add and clarify exceptions that 
support program flexibility in implementing this regulation. We believe 
that these exceptions may address concerns related to attrition, family 
assignment triage models, and workload factors, including those related 
to rural and remote programming.

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

    This final rule clarifies language on Head Start program 
participation in State quality rating and improvement systems (QRIS). 
Section 1302.53 establishes the conditions under which Head Start 
programs should participate in State quality rating and improvement 
systems. In the previous standard, with the exception of American 
Indian and Alaska Native programs, each Head Start program must 
participate in its State QRIS if three conditions are met: (1) its 
State or local QRIS accepts Head Start monitoring data to document 
quality indicators included in the State's tiered system; (2) 
participation would not impact a program's ability to comply with the 
HSPPS; and (3) the program has not provided ACF with a compelling 
reason not to comply with this requirement.
    This final rule reinforces the importance of quality improvements 
and encourages Head Start programs to continue their participation 
efforts, while clarifying that Head Start programs should participate 
in QRIS to the extent practicable if the State system has strategies in 
place to support their participation. The change also removes the three 
qualifying conditions for non-participation in the State QRIS described 
in the above paragraph, eliminating the documentation burden on 
programs that cannot reasonably participate in the QRIS. By eliminating 
these specific conditions and substituting language that emphasizes the 
State strategies for Head Start participation in general, we believe 
Head Start grant recipients, along with Head Start Collaboration 
Offices and OHS regional staff, can collectively encourage the 
evolution of State systems like QRIS to better receive Head Start 
programs. These changes are intended to reduce duplication of effort 
and reduce burden on programs and allow Head Start programs to focus 
their resources on activities that are most likely to support quality 
services for children and families.
    Comment: The public comments on the proposed change to QRIS 
participation requirements indicate consensus that the proposed changes 
are positive and alleviate unnecessary burden on Head Start programs. 
Commenters appreciate the shift from mandatory to recommended 
participation in QRIS, noting that the HSPPS often exceed State QRIS 
requirements and that in some instances, efforts to participate in QRIS 
can be duplicative and burdensome. They argued that the previous 
requirement to participate in QRIS was redundant, sometimes stressful, 
and created extra work for staff, without significantly benefiting Head 
Start programs.
    Response: As was proposed in the NPRM and retained in the final 
rule in paragraph (b)(2), we remove the requirement that programs 
participate in their State or local QRIS and instead clarify that they 
should to the extent practicable. We eliminate the three conditions for 
participation in the State QRIS as written in the current standards at 
Sec.  1302.53(b)(2)(i) through (iii), and add ``to the extent 
practicable, if a State or local QRIS has a strategy to support

[[Page 67774]]

Head Start participation without requiring programs to duplicate 
existing documentation from Office of Head Start oversight.''
    Comment: Some commenters noted participation in QRIS can better 
integrate Head Start programs into the State's overall early care and 
education system. They suggest the Head Start program, as a national 
model for high-quality early learning, could leverage participation in 
QRIS, along with other state systems collaboration efforts, to 
influence state QRIS indicators to better address the needs of all 
children, especially historically marginalized children and families. 
Overall, the comments support the proposed changes to QRIS 
participation, advocating for programs to participate in QRIS when 
appropriate and with greater flexibility and reduced burden.
    Response: We agree with commenters who support the changes, which 
still encourage participation but allow for a more flexible approach 
that recognizes the high standards of Head Start programs and reduces 
the duplication of efforts.
    Comment: Some commenters questioned the value of State QRIS in 
general, arguing they include lower quality standards than Head Start 
and that they are inconsistent across states. A few commenters also 
noted that QRIS perpetuate racial inequities. Some of these commenters 
also noted that Head Start programs may be in a position to positively 
influence the State QRIS systems through their participation.
    Response: OHS believes that where practicable, it benefits Head 
Start Programs to participate in QRIS in order to more fully 
participate in State early care and education systems and, in some 
instances, to participate in larger state-led quality improvement 
efforts.

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

Section 1302.80 Enrolled Pregnant Women
    This section specifies standards for services to enrolled pregnant 
women and other pregnant people. We revise this section in the final 
rule to clarify what topics program staff must discuss with parents at 
the two-week newborn visit, to reinforce accountability in documenting 
and tracking services enrolled pregnant women and other pregnant people 
receive, and to require data be used to design services that are 
culturally responsive and intended to prevent pregnancy-related deaths 
and address disparities across racial and ethnic groups. Early Head 
Start programs are critical in mitigating maternal-health related 
challenges as they are positioned to provide postpartum support by 
ensuring the required newborn visit provides intentional opportunities 
for collaboration, intervention, and support.
    Comment: Several commenters expressed concern about the feasibility 
of conducting newborn visits within two weeks of birth and requested 
flexibility in scheduling and conducting those visits. Commenters 
suggested allowing either a medical visit by a physician, a telephone 
call, or a virtual visit within the first two weeks after birth to be 
counted as a two-week newborn visit if parents are not yet ready to 
receive staff for visits.
    Response: To clarify, the requirement in paragraph (d) is that a 
program schedule the newborn visit within two weeks after the infant's 
birth; the standard proposed in the NPRM and retained in the final rule 
does not require the program to conduct that visit within the first two 
weeks. We do not propose any changes to this requirement. While we 
understand the recommendation to allow a medical visit by a physician 
to count as this newborn visit, we maintain the NPRM proposal to 
require Head Start programs to conduct the visit and to cover specific 
topics during this visit; allowing a different provider to conduct the 
visit would mean a Head Start program has no control over the content 
of that visit, and would not position the Head Start program to provide 
follow-up supports.
    Comment: Some commenters suggested we add ``safe sleep'' to the 
list of topics we proposed to add to paragraph (d) to clarify what 
program staff are required to discuss with parents at the two-week 
newborn visit.
    Response: We agree with commenters' suggestion. We add ``safe 
sleep'' to the list of topics staff should discuss, at a minimum, 
during the newborn visit.
    Comment: Many commenters agreed with requirements to enhance 
pregnancy services and to reduce the impact systemic racism has on 
maternal health outcomes for the Black and AIAN women and other 
individuals and families that Head Start programs serve. A few 
commenters were concerned about costs associated with requiring 
programs to collect data on enrolled pregnant women and other pregnant 
people. A few commenters asked for more clarity on how to collect and 
use data to inform services and address disparities across racial and 
ethnic groups.
    Response: We agree with commenters regarding the importance of 
reducing the impacts of systemic racism on outcomes for Black, AIAN, 
and other pregnant women and other pregnant people programs serve. We 
maintain this requirement in the final rule and require programs to do 
their part to reduce disparities in maternal outcomes across racial and 
ethnic groups.
    We encourage programs to refer to Information Memorandum ACF-IM-HS-
22-02, ``Documenting Services to Enrolled Pregnant Women'', where we 
clarify how programs can improve their data collection efforts and use 
the data they collect on enrolled pregnant women and other pregnant 
people to inform services, leveraging existing resources to limit 
additional administrative costs. We also encourage programs to continue 
to work with their regional offices if they require additional support 
in meeting this standard.
Section 1302.82 Family Partnership Services for Enrolled Pregnant Women
    This section requires programs to engage in the family partnership 
services process described in Sec.  1302.52 for enrolled pregnant women 
and other pregnant people with a specific focus on their prenatal and 
postpartum needs. In the previous program standards, programs were not 
required to use any specific curriculum when engaging with pregnant 
women and other pregnant people in the family partnership services, nor 
were there requirements for the type of curriculum if one was used. We 
revise paragraph (a) in this section by adding language to clarify that 
if a program chooses to use a curriculum with pregnant women and other 
pregnant people, they should select a curriculum that focuses on 
maternal and child health.
    Comment: Some commenters recommended that programs serving pregnant 
women and other pregnant people use evidence-informed curricula, with a 
focus on maternal and infant health. A few other commenters suggested 
curricula that consider the unique cultural needs of diverse ethnic and 
racial groups.
    Response: We acknowledge commenters' suggestions, however, in the 
final rule, we maintain the changes to paragraph (a) as proposed in the 
NPRM and decline to make further changes to this paragraph. We believe 
the revisions to paragraph (a) as proposed in the NPRM (described 
above) allow programs that use a curriculum in the provision of 
services to pregnant women the autonomy to decide which maternal health 
curriculum is right for the families they serve. We encourage programs 
that provide services to pregnant women and other pregnant people to 
use a maternal

[[Page 67775]]

health curriculum that is culturally relevant and based on the best 
available research to help guide maternity care decisions.
    Comment: Several commenters expressed concerns about the costs 
associated with developing curricula.
    Response: ACF reminds programs that using a curriculum with 
pregnant women and other pregnant people is optional. The intent of the 
revision to this standard is to clarify that if a program does choose 
to use a curriculum, that it should be one that is appropriate for this 
service population. The Early Childhood Learning and Knowledge Center 
(ECLKC) provides some information on curricula, including some that are 
appropriate for use during the prenatal period. Following publication 
of the final rule, ACF will provide TA as needed to programs on the 
selection of appropriate curricula for this population.

Facilities (Sec. Sec.  1303.42; 1303.43; 1303.44; 1303.45)

    Part 1303, subpart E (Facilities), implements the statutory 
requirements related to facilities in section 644(c), (f), and (g) of 
the Act. It organizes requirements for grant recipients when they apply 
to use Head Start funds to purchase, construct or make major 
renovations to facilities, as well as outlines all relevant information 
and requirements for protecting the Federal interest under a broad 
variety of circumstances and aligns all provisions with the Uniform 
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements 
for Federal Awards. In the final rule, ACF makes clarifying changes to 
several requirements related to facilities, including to the 
definitions of major renovation, Federal interest, and purchase, which 
are discussed in a later section. Additionally, in response to comments 
that the part 1303 process is burdensome for grant recipients, ACF 
makes other clarifying changes to facility regulation and processes in 
addition to what was proposed in the NPRM to be responsive to those 
comments and to reduce burden.
    In general, most commenters agreed with the facilities proposals 
included in the NPRM, noting that they help to improve understanding of 
confusing areas. Overall, while there was support for the 
clarifications and revisions to the definition of the terms major 
renovation, Federal interest, and purchase, and to facilities 
valuation, under Sec.  1303.44(a)(7), there was a desire for further 
guidance to ensure that Head Start programs can continue to provide 
safe and supportive environments for children without undue financial 
or administrative burdens. We discuss comments and our responses to 
changes to subpart E in more detail below.
    Comment: One commenter asked ACF to consider the different types of 
facility-use agreements programs may be using--whether the recipient 
owns their facility, rents their facility, shares their space with 
another program, or receives in-kind space within a school building, 
among others--and how this might impact the application of the major 
renovation definition.
    Response: ACF acknowledges this request for clarification and would 
like to point to existing relevant regulations on how to navigate 
variations in facility-use agreements. Per Sec.  1303.44(a)(2), 
recipients are required to provide the deed or other document showing 
legal ownership of real property, a legal description of facility site, 
and an explanation of why the location is appropriate for the service 
area. And per Sec.  1303.45(a)(2)(i) through (iv), recipients are 
required to identify who owns the property, develop a cost comparison 
relevant to the particular facility-use agreement to list all costs, 
identify costs over the structure's useful life, and demonstrate how 
the proposed purchase is consistent with goals, community needs, 
enrollment, and program options, and how it will support quality 
services to children and families. For leased properties, recipients 
are required to provide a copy of existing or proposed lease agreement, 
and the landlord or lessor's consent (Sec.  1303.44(b)(1)). For a 
modular unit to be sited on leased property or on property not owned by 
a recipient, recipients are required to provide a copy of the proposed 
lease or other occupancy agreement giving grantee access to modular 
unit for at least 15 years (Sec.  1303.44(b)(2)).
    Comment: Some commenters raised concerns and requested 
clarification with respect to the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts (DBRA) 
and its application to Head Start facility projects. Specifically, 
commenters are concerned that the provisions in the DBRA are a barrier 
for programs when it pertains to (1) locating qualified vendors to 
perform repairs and routine maintenance, due to the high labor cost 
that may be associated with DBRA compliance, and (2) the reporting and 
paperwork requirements imposed by the DBRA, which are seen as 
deterrents to timely and cost-effective repairs, especially in rural 
and suburban areas. These commenters argue that an exemption from the 
DBRA would provide recipients with large cost savings which could be 
used to support their staff. Some commenters request that OHS align its 
guidance with the Head Start Act and exempt DBRA compliance for minor 
renovations and repairs necessitated by normal wear and tear. They 
argue that the DBRA should only apply to construction and major 
renovations, which they believe is consistent with other funding 
sources, such as the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). 
A few comments specifically request that OHS address potential 
conflicting guidance on the application of the DBRA including in the 
Facilities Guidance Attachment A to ACF-IM-HS-17-01.
    Response: ACF understands the concerns and clarification requested 
with respect to the DBRA. The application of the DBRA on Head Start 
facilities is statutory and ACF cannot make exemptions from its 
coverage through the rulemaking process. In addition, routine 
maintenance is generally not subject to DBRA requirements. See, e.g., 
29 CFR 5.2 (``The term ``building or work'' generally includes 
construction activities of all types, as distinguished from 
manufacturing, furnishing of materials, or servicing and maintenance 
work.'').
    Comment: A few commenters shared concerns that the part 1303 
facility grant process is slow and burdensome, with calls for 
streamlining approval processes and increasing flexibility. These 
comments share frustration in a long application and approval process 
that can cost programs time, effort, stress, and large expense. In sum, 
these commenters feel the proposed changes, or lack thereof, to the 
part 1303 application process, fall short in addressing the market 
realities and barriers facing recipients pursuing facility 
applications.
    Response: ACF agrees with commenters' concerns regarding a part 
1303 facility application process. As such, ACF makes changes 
throughout subpart E in this final rule to improve the facility 
application development and approval process:
     In Sec.  1303.42, ACF strikes Sec.  1303.42(b) so that 
recipients are no longer required to have a written statement from an 
independent real estate professional to satisfy the requirement under 
Sec.  1303.42(a)(1)(iii). This will give recipients the flexibility to 
demonstrate the lack of suitable facilities in the grantee's service 
area in a way that is less time-intensive and/or resource-intensive.
     In Sec.  1303.43, we clarify the requirement related to 
the use of grant funds to pay fees for the application to determine 
preliminary eligibility. In the prior performance standards, grant 
recipients could submit a written request to the responsible HHS 
official

[[Page 67776]]

for reasonable fees and costs to determine preliminary eligibility, and 
if that request was approved, the grant recipient could use Federal 
funds to pay those fees and costs. However, there was a lack of clarity 
about whether the funds used for the application to determine 
preliminary eligibility could be disallowed if the application was 
ultimately disapproved. The final rule makes clear that if recipients 
seek to use Federal funds for reasonable fees and costs associated with 
preliminary eligibility and the application to purchase, construct, and 
renovate a facility, they must receive approval from the HHS official. 
Once approval is granted to use Federal funds for these purposes, the 
funds are allowable regardless of the outcome of the application under 
Sec.  1303.42 or Sec.  1303.44.
     In Sec.  1303.44(a)(3), we clarify that when referencing 
parking in the plans and specifications for the facility, it is whether 
there is space available for parking, if applicable, understanding that 
parking may not be relevant in all cases.
     In Sec.  1303.44, we remove in paragraph (a)(7) the phrase 
``cost'' as a description of ``value'' (``cost value''). In the 
previous performance standards, a licensed independent certified 
appraiser must estimate the facility's ``fair market value'' when the 
purchase and associated repairs, construction, and renovation is 
completed. In the NPRM, we proposed to remove ``fair market.'' In this 
final rule, we remove ``cost'' and ``fair market'' in recognition that 
there are multiple types of values and using ``cost'' could still lead 
to confusion. We also clarify in paragraph (a)(7) that the estimate 
from the appraiser can be done either on-site or virtually. ACF 
understands from recipients that finding an appraiser to come in-person 
can be challenging, particularly in rural areas. This clarification 
helps to ensure that all recipients know they have the flexibility to 
identify an appraiser and provide any necessary plans, specifications, 
or proposals via email.
     In Sec.  1303.44(a)(14), we revise the requirement to 
establish clearer parameters around the additional information the 
responsible HHS official could request as part of the part 1303 
process. The previous program standards state that it could be anything 
the HHS official may require; the final rule stipulates that it must be 
what the official ``needs to determine compliance with regulations.''
     In Sec.  1303.45(a)(2)(iii), we strike ``balloon'' in 
reference to mortgage payments because this is outdated language. ACF 
no longer considers balloon mortgages given the level of risk 
associated with them.
    Comment: A few commenters raised that investing in facilities is 
needed to ensure safe and supportive environments for children to 
thrive and learn. These commenters express that some facilities are 
inadequate and emphasize the need for additional funding to modernize 
and safely maintain Head Start buildings, classrooms, and outdoor 
spaces. These commenters request OHS to provide extra financial support 
for facility projects.
    Response: ACF agrees with commenters that investing in facilities 
is critically important to ensure high-quality environments for 
children, families, and staff. ACF reminds commenters that the Head 
Start program does not receive a separate appropriation for facilities 
and increasing funding for facilities is not within our authority. ACF 
reminds recipients that they can request one-time funding to address 
facility needs.
    Comment: A few commenters express the importance of the physical 
learning environment and the role it plays in the development and 
health of children and the mental health of staff. In sum, these 
commenters made recommendations for additional facility requirements, 
such as ones to address the adverse impact of indoor pollutants, 
providing ample natural light and maximizing air flow, to enhance 
accessibility for all children, families, and staff, and ensure that 
every Head Start child will learn and thrive in a safe and 
developmentally appropriate learning environment.
    Response: ACF acknowledges these recommendations but is not adding 
these requirements at this time.

Definition of Income (Sec.  1305.2)

    The definition for ``income'' in the prior HSPPS listed several 
types of income sources that could be included in the calculation of 
gross income and referenced additional possible sources in a lengthy 
document from the Census Bureau published in 1992. This definition has 
caused confusion regarding what should be included in income 
calculations for Head Start eligibility determination purposes. In this 
final rule, we update the definition of income and make it clearer and 
less burdensome to implement. We maintain the changes for this 
definition as proposed in the NPRM, with additional changes for further 
clarity. These changes are intended to ensure programs can more easily 
identify and calculate an applicant's income.
    To that end, in this final rule, we revise the definition of income 
as gross income that only includes wages, business income, unemployment 
compensation, pension or annuity payments, gifts that exceed the 
threshold for taxable income, and military income (excluding special 
pay for a member subject to hostile fire or imminent danger under 37 
U.S.C. 310 or any basic allowance for housing under 37 U.S.C. 403 
including housing acquired under the alternative authority under 10 
U.S.C. 169 or any related provision of law). This revised definition 
includes the following changes from the prior standards' definition of 
income: removes ``cash'' from ``gross cash income''; replaces ``earned 
income'' with the more specific terms ``wages'' and ``business 
income''; adds ``gifts that exceed the threshold for taxable income'' 
as a possible source of income; and clarifies that income does not 
include refundable tax credits or any forms of public assistance.
    As a further change from the NPRM proposal, the definition of gross 
income in the final rule no longer includes Social Security benefits, 
veterans' benefits, or alimony. The rationale for these additional 
changes is described further below.
    Comment: The comments we received on the revised definition of 
income were generally supportive, but there were requests for changes 
and clarification. Several commenters appreciated the clearer 
definition of income, including the provision of a finite list of 
sources of income for income verification purposes, the exclusion of 
public assistance and tax credits as a source of income, and the 
removal of the citation to the external document which has caused 
confusion.
    Response: We agree with commenters that this streamlined definition 
of income provides more clarity for programs. We therefore maintain 
this definition in the final rule with a few additional changes, as 
previously summarized.
    Comment: Several commenters requested that specific forms of 
income, specifically alimony, veterans' benefits, and Social Security 
benefits, be excluded from the definition of income. These commenters 
also expressed concern that many low-income parents do not receive 
their alimony payments; veterans are already facing other adverse 
challenges, including disabilities; and inclusion of Social Security 
would negatively impact grandparents who are raising grandchildren.
    Response: ACF acknowledges and agrees with the concerns shared by 
commenters on the inclusion of these specific sources in the 
calculation of gross income. More specifically, ACF

[[Page 67777]]

recognizes that alimony payments may be inconsistent among low-income 
families, and therefore not a reliable source of income. ACF also 
recognizes that veterans' benefits typically refer to disability 
payments for veterans who are unable to work. Finally, ACF agrees that 
consideration of Social Security benefits as part of income for Head 
Start eligibility determinations could adversely impact the eligibility 
of grandchildren being raised by their grandparents, and who otherwise 
are living just above poverty. Therefore, in this final rule, the 
definition of gross income is revised so that Social Security benefits, 
veteran's benefits, and alimony are no longer part of this definition 
for eligibility determination purposes.
    Comment: A few commenters made suggestions or requests for clarity 
on the inclusion of other sources of income such as child support 
payments, stipends, and tuition reimbursement.
    Response: ACF acknowledges the request for clarity on the inclusion 
of other sources of income such as child support payments, stipends, 
and tuition reimbursement. Child support payments are not included in 
the revised definition of income in this final rule. Further, payments 
made to directly cover tuition or related school fees are not 
considered income because the student does not receive the payment. 
However, stipends would be considered earned income.
    Comment: Although not related to the proposed policy on income 
definition, several commenters requested categorical eligibility for 
certain groups, including AIAN families and those receiving the Special 
Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) 
and Medicaid.
    Response: Regarding categorical eligibility for AIAN children and 
families, ACF revises language in the final rule to conform to language 
in the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024 (Pub. L. 118-47), 
which includes a provision that allows Tribes to consider all children 
in a Tribal Head Start program's service area to be eligible for 
services regardless of income. The provision emphasizes that Tribes 
have the discretion to determine and use selection criteria to enroll 
those children who would benefit from the program, including children 
and families for which a child, a family member, or a member of the 
same household, is a member of an Indian Tribe. We acknowledge 
commenters' requests for categorical eligibility for other groups; 
however, as eligibility categories are largely determined by Head Start 
statute, we do not incorporate these additional suggestions in the 
final rule.

Definitions of Major Renovation, Federal Interest, and Purchase (Sec.  
1305.2)

Major Renovation
    The final rule makes changes to the definition of major renovation 
from the previous performance standards. In addition to correcting a 
typo, the definition in the final rule clarifies aspects of the 
definition that have led to confusion and inconsistencies since the 
2016 revision of the HSPPS. We maintain aspects of the NPRM proposal 
regarding this definition as well as make further modifications. We 
discuss these changes in more detail, as well as the comments and our 
responses below.
    Comment: The majority of comments on the proposed changes regarding 
the definition of major renovation conveyed support for the revisions 
and clarifications provided. Commenters appreciated the efforts to 
improve understanding of what constitutes a major renovation and the 
technical fixes that align with existing practices. Many commenters 
believed the changes directly address confusion regarding the 
definitions of minor renovations and repairs by clearly excluding such 
activities from the definition, except when the activities are included 
in a purchase application. Commenters also shared that the changes add 
the level of detail needed to assure that facility projects are not 
broken up into arbitrary components to avoid a part 1303 application, 
while also clarifying that unrelated minor repairs, that exceed the 
major renovations cost threshold, can be submitted into the same 
application, and will not trigger the need for a part 1303 application.
    Response: We acknowledge commenters' reactions that the changes to 
the definition of major renovation address confusion and provide the 
necessary detail to support the part 1303 process. In the final rule, 
we maintain key aspects of the definition proposed in the NPRM as well 
as make modifications designed to further clarify. In addition to 
correcting a typo, these changes clarify what a ``collective group of 
renovations'' means, increases the threshold for a major renovation 
from $250,000 to $350,000, and allows Tribes that jointly apply to use 
both Tribal Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) and Head Start funds 
toward major renovations to comply with the CCDF threshold for major 
renovation if it is higher.
    Comment: Some commenters highlighted ambiguity around the term 
``consecutively,'' with respect to ``collective renovation 
activities,'' and requested that OHS define a clear timeframe in 
between renovation activities that would trigger a major renovation 
definition. These commenters raised the fact that some Head Start 
programs are in old buildings in need of many repairs that may require 
multiple renovation projects over time due to the extent of need, cost 
limitations, and the administrative burden facility projects can 
impose.
    Response: While ACF recognizes that the updated definition of major 
renovations does not define an explicit time frame for ``collective 
renovation activities,'' ACF is opting not to prescribe a timeframe 
with respect to this type of major renovation. ACF clarifies for 
commenters that for collective renovation activities to equate to a 
major renovation, the project activities must be intended to occur 
concurrently or consecutively, or altogether address a specific part or 
feature of a facility, at the onset of the application development.
    Comment: A few commenters suggested raising the threshold for what 
constitutes a major renovation to reflect the true costs and to 
facilitate timely and efficient facility repairs.
    Response: As noted, ACF agrees with commenters and raises the 
threshold to $350,000 to better reflect considerations for increased 
costs of major renovation facility projects. Additionally, to maintain 
alignment with the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the major 
renovation threshold will increase if there are increases made to the 
simplified acquisition threshold beyond $350,000. In other words, if 
the NDAA increases the simplified acquisition threshold above $350,000 
in a given year, the threshold for a major renovation will increase to 
remain aligned with that increase to the simplified acquisition 
threshold. Lastly, for Tribes applying jointly to use both CCDF funds 
and Head Start funds toward a major renovation, they can comply with 
the CCDF threshold for major renovation if it is higher.
Federal Interest
    The final rule retains the definition of Federal interest, as 
proposed in the NPRM. The revised definition provides technical fixes 
to address confusion with respect to the type of facility activities 
that result in Federal interest and what satisfies the non-Federal 
matching requirement. Specifically, the proposed additional language, 
in tandem with the proposed definition for major renovation, clarifies 
the distinction between repairs and minor renovations versus purchase,

[[Page 67778]]

construction and major renovations under part 1303, the latter of which 
do result in a Federal interest. This proposed definition also 
clarifies that the non-Federal match, which is separate from the base 
grant non-Federal match, is only intended to include the non-Federal 
match associated with the facility activity funded under subpart E. In 
sum, these changes are not substantive changes to the definition itself 
but rather provide clarification on how Federal interest works.
    The majority of public comments supported the proposed changes to 
the definition of Federal interest, and believed they promote 
consistent interpretations and clarify that the Federal share, and 
resulting Federal interest, relate only to the percentage of OHS's 
participation in the cost of a facility. We retain the NPRM proposal 
but address some comments related to this topic below.
    Comment: A few comments call for more clarity on the expiration of 
the Federal interest.
    Response: ACF clarifies for commenters that Federal interest does 
not expire, rather, Federal interest can only be released by the 
Federal Awarding Agency and in written permission by the responsible 
Federal official (in this case, HHS). Federal interest cannot be 
subordinated, diminished, or nullified through the encumbrance of the 
property, transfer of the property to another party, or any other such 
action taken by the recipient. A Federal interest cannot be defeated by 
a recipient's failure to file a required notice of Federal interest 
(Sec.  1303.46(a)) and 45 CFR 75.318(c).
    Comment: One commenter believed the definition of Federal interest 
exceeds statutory authority and is inconsistent with the Uniform 
Guidance. This comment also raised concern that this change could 
potentially result in improper augmentation of ACF's appropriation, and 
ultimately, recommended deleting the definition of Federal interest in 
the HSPPS and deferring to the definition in the Uniform Guidance.
    Response: ACF disagrees with the commenter. While the definition of 
Federal interest differs from the Uniform Guidance, that difference is 
related to the non-Federal match, which Congress requires of grant 
recipients in the Act. The definition of Federal interest is not adding 
anything new to the regulations since Sec.  1303.44(c) states that 
``any non-federal match associated with facilities activities becomes 
part of the federal share of the facility.'' Lastly, we do not think 
the non-Federal match is an improper augmentation of appropriations 
since Congress required it.
    Comment: Additionally, one commenter suggested striking the section 
of the definition regarding a match requirement, citing concerns that 
if an agency is successful in raising private funding for building or 
renovating a facility, and then wishes to utilize a significant private 
investment for a matching requirement, it seems unreasonable and unwise 
to require Federal interest in the building, as it may become a 
disincentive for partnership and investment.
    Response: Protection of Federal interest is required by 45 CFR 
75.323. The Federal interest includes total project costs paid with 
Federal funds, those amounts awarded directly from the OHS grant, and 
amounts claimed by the recipient as cost sharing or matching for the 
project. ACF does not have the authority to strike this requirement.
Purchase
    In this final rule, ACF retains the technical fix to the definition 
of purchase, as proposed in the NPRM. A ``capital lease agreement'' is 
updated to a ``finance lease agreement,'' in alignment with the 
Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), Accounting Standards 
Update No. 2016-2, Lease topic 842. The term is updated so that the 
definition aligns with the standard accounting standard. ACF did not 
receive any comments on this proposal.

Definition of the Poverty Line (Sec.  1305.2)

    This final rule establishes a definition for the term poverty line 
in regulation, which codifies the working definition for poverty line 
in alignment with the Head Start Act and reflective of the way it has 
been used by the Office of Head Start. This final rule does not change 
the definition of poverty line as it applies to Head Start eligibility.
    Comment: Many of the public comments we received on the definition 
of the poverty line were in relation to the concern that the current 
Federal poverty guidelines are too low, making it difficult for 
families to qualify for the program. Commenters suggested that the 
guidelines have not kept pace with the cost of living, particularly in 
states with higher minimum wages or high costs of living, such as 
California and Colorado. This discrepancy is seen as a barrier to 
enrollment and a hindrance to the program's ability to serve children 
and families in need.
    Many commenters advocated for increasing the poverty guidelines, 
such as to 130 or 200% of the Federal poverty level to align with other 
social service programs and to reflect the true cost of living. They 
argued that this would simplify the eligibility determination process, 
reduce administrative burdens, and allow more families to access Head 
Start services. A few commenters suggested that the program should 
consider using a percentage of the local median household income 
instead of the Federal poverty level to determine eligibility.
    Response: The inclusion of a definition for poverty line in this 
final rule is only intended to codify the working definition for 
poverty line used by the Office of Head Start, including the existing 
practice that the HHS poverty guidelines set for the contiguous-states-
and-DC also apply to Puerto Rico and U.S. Territories. The HHS poverty 
guidelines are used to determine Head Start income eligibility and 
align with requirements and existing definition of the poverty line in 
the Head Start Act set by Congress. Changes to the poverty line as 
requested cannot be considered and, therefore, no changes are made in 
response to these public comments.

Removal of Outdated Sections

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

Compliance With Section 641A(a)(2) of the Act

    We sought extensive input in the process of developing this final 
rule. We collaborated and consulted with many policy and programmatic 
expert staff in OHS, ACF's Office of Child Care, and ACF's Office of 
Early Childhood Development. Several staff, particularly in OHS, are 
former Head Start program directors, family service workers, teachers, 
home visitors, etc. and have extensive on-the-ground knowledge of Head 
Start program operations. We also consulted extensively with OHS 
regional staff who directly oversee and support Head Start grants and 
program operations as their primary job responsibility. We held 
multiple listening and input sessions with these regional office staff 
to identify the most

[[Page 67779]]

challenging aspects of Head Start policy and programmatic requirements 
for grant recipients. We also sought their feedback on policies we were 
considering both for the development of the NPRM and the final rule. We 
intentionally consulted with OHS staff who oversee MSHS and AIAN Head 
Start programs, to learn about specific challenges and considerations 
for these programs. Similarly, we met with members of the OHS 
Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility Commission to discuss 
possible equity implications of the proposed changes.
    In addition, in consultation with our OHS TTA experts, we 
considered the types of technical assistance requested by and provided 
to Head Start agencies and programs. We also reviewed findings from 
monitoring reports to glean more insights into where grant recipients 
struggle the most with implementing Head Start requirements. We 
consulted with experts in early childhood development including staff 
in ACF's Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation. These staff hold 
research expertise in a wide range of early childhood issues relevant 
to Head Start. Additionally, we reviewed many research reports on a 
variety of topics, including National Academy of Science reports on the 
workforce. Taken together, our consultation with all these groups and 
sources provided us with relevant data points and advice on how to 
promote quality across all Head Start settings.
    Furthermore, since the last revision of the HSPPS in 2016, OHS has 
held many webinars for grant recipients on a variety of policy and 
programmatic topics, including the workforce, eligibility, mental 
health, child health and safety, and more. OHS has also given multiple 
presentations on key policy and program issues at Head Start-relevant 
conferences, including those organized by the National Head Start 
Association. During these webinars and conference presentations, grant 
recipient participants often ask questions and provide input regarding 
challenges with implementing various aspects of program requirements, 
including for different types of child and family populations and in 
different types of geographic settings. We also regularly hear from 
Tribal leaders at OHS's annual Tribal consultations. These touchpoints 
allow OHS the opportunity to gain critical on-the-ground understanding 
of areas where the standards are confusing and could be made clearer. 
We also fielded a survey of grant recipients in November 2022 which 
provided real time information on workforce challenges programs were 
experiencing.
    Lastly, ACF asserts that the revisions to the HSPPS promulgated 
through this final rule will not result in the elimination of or any 
reduction in quality, scope, or types of health, educational, parental 
involvement, nutritional, social, or other services required to be 
provided under the standards that were in effect when the Head Start 
Act was last reauthorized in 2007.

VII. Regulatory Process Matters

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

Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act of 1996 (also known as the Congressional Review Act), OIRA 
in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this 
action meets the criteria set forth in 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) requires us to 
analyze regulatory options that would minimize any significant impact 
of a rule on small entities. Because the final rule will result in 
increased expenditures by Head Start programs that exceed HHS's default 
threshold, we have determined that the final rule will have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
We have aimed to minimize this impact to some small entities by 
providing additional flexibility for the new wages and benefits 
policies for Head Start agencies with 200 or fewer funded slots. 
Specifically, small agencies with 200 or fewer funded slots must have a 
wage or salary scale and must demonstrate measurable progress over time 
in improving wages, but they are not required to meet other wage and 
benefit requirements that apply to larger programs.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, section 
202(a)) requires us to prepare a written statement, which includes 
estimates of anticipated impacts, before proposing ``any rule that 
includes any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by 
State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the 
private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for 
inflation) in any one year.'' The current threshold after adjustment 
for inflation is $183 million, using the most current (2023) Implicit 
Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic Product. This final rule will not 
likely result in unfunded mandates that meet or exceed this amount. 
Head Start grant recipients receive over $12 billion annually in 
Federal funding to implement the requirements of the program, including 
policy changes as a result of this final rule.

Federalism Assessment Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132 requires Federal agencies to consult with 
State and local government officials if they develop regulatory 
policies with federalism implications. Federalism is rooted in the 
belief that issues that are not national in scope or significance are 
most appropriately addressed by the level of government close to the 
people. This final rule will not have substantial

[[Page 67780]]

direct impact on the states, on the relationship between the Federal 
Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in 
accordance with section 6 of Executive Order 13132, it is determined 
that this action does not have sufficient federalism implications to 
warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.

Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 1999

    Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act of 1999 requires Federal agencies to determine whether a policy or 
regulation may negatively affect family well-being. If the agency 
determines a policy or regulation negatively affects family well-being, 
then the agency must prepare an impact assessment addressing seven 
criteria specified in the law. ACF believes it is not necessary to 
prepare a family policymaking assessment, see Public Law 105-277, 
because the action it takes in this final rule will not have any impact 
on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., 
minimizes government-imposed burden on the public. In keeping with the 
notion that government information is a valuable asset, it also is 
intended to improve the practical utility, quality, and clarity of 
information collected, maintained, and disclosed.
    The PRA requires that agencies obtain OMB approval, which includes 
issuing an OMB number and expiration date, before requesting most types 
of information from the public. Regulations at 5 CFR part 1320 
implemented the provisions of the PRA and Sec.  1320.3 defines a 
``collection of information,'' ``information,'' and ``burden.'' PRA 
defines ``information'' as any statement or estimate of fact or 
opinion, regardless of form or format, whether numerical, graphic, or 
narrative form, and whether oral or maintained on paper, electronic, or 
other media (5 CFR 1320.3(h)). This includes requests for information 
to be sent to the Government, such as forms, written reports and 
surveys, recordkeeping requirements, and third-party or public 
disclosures (5 CFR 1320.3(c)). ``Burden'' means the total time, effort, 
or financial resources expended by persons to collect, maintain, or 
disclose information.
    This final rule establishes new recordkeeping requirements under 
the PRA. Under this final rule, Head Start grant recipients will be 
required to keep and maintain records related to salary wage scales and 
staff benefits, improvements to community assessment, documentation 
related to lead exposure, among several other requirements. In 
addition, changes to policies included in the final rule may result in 
changes to existing information collections approved under the PRA, 
including the information collection for the existing Head Start 
Program Performance Standards (HSPPS), the Program Information Report 
(PIR), applicable collections in the Head Start Enterprise Systems 
(HSES), and other information collections.
    The HSPPS are covered already by an existing OMB control number 
0970-0148. This OMB control number already covers burden associated 
with updating personnel policies and documenting eligibility. The below 
table outlines the burden of complying with the standards in this final 
rule. These estimated burden hours represent the additional burden to 
be added to this existing information collection. We estimate the 
burden at the appropriate level depending on the given information 
collection, specified in the table below (grant, program, family, or 
enrollee level). In 2023, there were about 1,900 grants providing Head 
Start services across 2,900 Head Start, Early Head Start, AIAN, and 
MSHS programs.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21AU24.000


[[Page 67781]]



VIII. Regulatory Impact Analysis

Comment and Response

    Here we summarize and respond to comments we received on the 
Regulatory Impact Analysis in the NPRM. Subsequent sections provide a 
revised Regulatory Impact Analysis for this final rule.
    Comment: Comments indicated that the Regulatory Impact Analysis of 
the NPRM underestimated the fiscal implications, economic realities, 
and staff shortages faced by programs and communities.
    Response: The Regulatory Impact Analysis in the NPRM used the most 
recent internal and public data, including the PIR, funded and actual 
Head Start enrollment, Head Start program budgets, the Consumer Price 
Index, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics to provide the best estimates 
for existing Head Start wages and benefits, wage targets, inflation, 
and projected costs and appropriations. We acknowledge the uncertainty 
in future costs and economic situations and the assumptions made, 
including the rate of inflation and increases in appropriations, all of 
which are necessary to project future impacts. We recognize that our 
estimates represent national level estimations, while some programs or 
some communities may be more or less affected by the implementation of 
the policies in the final rule based on numerous factors including 
population, the labor market, the availability of early care and 
education programs, and other considerations. We use the same approach 
in the final rule's Regulatory Impact Analysis as we did in the NPRM, 
with updated figures to reflect the most recent information and new 
timeline.
    Comment: Commenters noted that ACF assumed a 2.3% annual increase 
to Head Start appropriations over time in the Regulatory Impact 
Analysis, yet inflation has been much higher in recent years.
    Response: For purposes of this Regulatory Impact Analysis, and as 
used in the preliminary analysis performed for the proposed rule, ACF 
adopts 2.3% for the annual rate of inflation for each year in the time 
horizon, matching an economic assumption in the President's Budget for 
Fiscal Year 2024. We also assume an annual increase to Head Start 
appropriations to fully keep pace with inflation, which is therefore 
assumed to be 2.3% in our estimates. However, this should not be 
understood to suggest that the actual increase in annual appropriations 
will be 2.3%. The actual COLA needed to keep pace with inflation (and 
thus to yield the results in the Regulatory Impact Analysis for this 
final rule) will depend on actual rates of inflation in a given year. 
In response to public comments, the Regulatory Impact Analysis uses a 
higher appropriations growth rate for Fiscal Years 2024 and 2025 than 
in later years in the time horizon. For FY 2025, we have used the 
economic assumptions used in the FY2025 President's Budget to estimate 
inflation, as well as assumed increase in appropriations to keep pace 
with inflation. We continue to use the standard economic assumption of 
2.3% for inflation and the assumed increase in annual appropriations, 
for all fiscal years beyond 2025.
    Comment: Commenters highlighted a discrepancy within the NPRM as to 
whether or not the proposed rule would mandate aggregate expenditures 
of more than $177 million by State, local, and Tribal governments.
    Response: This was a typographic error in the NPRM. The final rule 
clarifies that the revised policies do not mandate aggregate 
expenditures of more than $177 million by State, local, and Tribal 
governments. The expenditures required under the rule are a condition 
of accepting Federal funds and do not constitute a mandated expenditure 
for State, local, and Tribal governments.
    Comment: Commenters indicated that our NPRM cost estimates 
underestimated true costs because we included projected slot 
enrollments and did not account for any population growth adjustment to 
the number of program slots and staff needed to maintain the relative 
status quo, and that we assumed the number of funded slots would remain 
the same through 2030.
    Response: Congressional investment designated for expansion would 
be required for additional Head Start slots to be made available in 
order to maintain the relative status quo in cases of population growth 
as described by commentors. For the purposes of this Regulatory Impact 
Analysis, we do not assume any additional congressional appropriations 
beyond those to keep pace with inflation in our estimates. ACF notes in 
the Discussion of Uncertainty section of the Regulatory Impact Analysis 
that the cost estimates presented in this final rule would be 
underestimated if Congress were to appropriate additional funds for 
expansion.

Introduction and Summary

A. Introduction
    This analysis identifies economic impacts that exceed the threshold 
for significance under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866, as 
amended by Executive Order 14094.We conducted an initial Regulatory 
Impact Analysis in the NPRM to estimate and describe the expected 
costs, transfers, and benefits resulting from the proposed rule. This 
included evaluating polices in the major areas of policy change: staff 
wages and benefits; staff breaks; family partnership family 
assignments; mental health benefits; and lead testing. Based on 
feedback received during the public comment period, and resulting 
changes to the policies in this final rule, we have further refined 
these estimates for the final rule.
B. Summary of Benefits, Costs, and Transfers
    The most likely impacts of these provisions depend, in large part, 
on funds available to Head Start programs; for example, the standards 
to increase remuneration per teacher will have bigger aggregate effects 
to the extent that Head Start entities employ more teachers. 
Historically, Congress has funded Head Start at levels that exceed 
inflation. During the ten-year period between 2010 and 2020, Head Start 
appropriations grew by 25 percent, after accounting for inflation.\61\ 
Some of the past increase in appropriations were in response to new 
initiatives in Head Start, such as the creation of Early Head Start-
Child Care Partnerships and other quality initiatives. It is possible 
that this trend continues and Head Start appropriations will increase 
in response to the quality improvements under the final rule. In such a 
case, the regulation's effects manifest themselves as expenditures by 
taxpayers.\62\ By contrast, if a comparison of the hypothetical futures 
with and without the rule is not characterized by a difference in Head 
Start appropriations or by such a difference that is not prompted by 
this rule, then rule-induced spending will instead be shifted within 
Head Start.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ If future Head Start appropriations designated for 
expansion grow at similar rates--for reasons that are independent of 
this rule--then estimates reflecting growth at or below the rate of 
inflation (such as what appears in this regulatory impact analysis) 
would have a tendency toward understating effects.
    \62\ Some of the expenditures would, from a society-wide 
perspective, be categorized as costs and others would be transfers 
to Head Start entities and participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One form that such shifting could take relates to enrollment, so it 
is important to distinguish between the various benchmarks for 
enrollment that were used for this analysis. Head Start programs 
receive funding for a specific number of slots (i.e., funded

[[Page 67782]]

enrollment). Historically there has been little difference between 
funded enrollment and actual enrollment,\63\ which represents the 
number of children who are actually enrolled in Head Start programs. 
However, in recent years, Head Start programs have experienced 
significant and persistent under-enrollment where the number of 
children actually served is far less than the number of funded slots, 
due in large part to widespread staffing shortages. As Head Start 
programs work to improve their actual enrollment levels, many are also 
requesting reductions in their funded enrollment. Head Start programs 
are trying to right-size their funded enrollment to match their 
community needs, staffing realities, and fiscal constraints. It is 
difficult, if not impossible, to predict the net impacts of these 
ongoing efforts in years to come.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ Here we use the term actual enrollment to represent the 
average number of children enrolled in Head Start programs while 
programs were in session throughout the year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As such, assessing whether the rule's effects will manifest 
themselves as enrollment reductions is especially challenging. 
Historically, Congress has invested in Head Start, especially to 
improve access to quality program services and the final rule includes 
a seven-year phase in period for wage increases to allow for increases 
in appropriations. In theory Head Start programs could attempt to 
stretch their existing budgets to provide the same number of funded 
enrollment slots while also complying with the new requirements by 
choosing to not spend funding on optional activities. However, ACF 
believes, and research supports,\64\ that programs have long stretched 
their funding as far as is possible and are unlikely to have many 
optional activities available to drop.\65\ Moreover, the difference 
between funded and actual enrollment also generates uncertainty 
regarding the magnitude of regulatory effects; for example, if Head 
Start entities reallocate funding for teacher bonuses, the estimates, 
below, of rule-induced effects on teacher remuneration would have some 
tendency toward overstatement (even as the form of the remuneration is 
changing from bonuses to rule-required salaries or fringe benefits, or 
changes in working conditions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ Workman (2018). Where does your child care dollar go? 
Center for American Progress. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/child-care-dollar-go/ Neelan, T.S., and Caronongan, P. 
(2022). Measuring costs to support quality in early care and 
education centers. OPRE Early Childhood Research Brief 2022-20. 
ichq-measuring-costs-jan-2022.pdf (hhs.gov).
    \65\ Even if this were the case, ACF asserts that this is 
unlikely to meaningfully impact the quality of services provided to 
children, as the necessary components of high-quality services are 
required under the HSPPS, and could not be dropped from program 
offerings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similar to the approach taken in the NPRM but updated to reflect 
newly available data, ACF estimates all effects based on the projected 
FY2024 funded enrollment of 750,000, which is the estimated highest 
enrollment level, funded or actual, possible absent additional 
appropriations specifically designated for expansion. This is slightly 
less than the projected funded enrollment for FY2023 used in the NPRM 
of 755,074, which reflects programs' changes in scope and slot 
reductions over the prior year.
    Using the current funded enrollment as a starting point, this 
analysis shows that the expenditures associated with the final rule, 
when fully phased in after 7 years, can be mostly paid for by aligning 
funded enrollment levels to the FY2024 actual enrollment, leading to a 
funded enrollment level decline from 750,000 to approximately 645,500. 
Importantly, approximately 650,000 of the 750,000 slots are occupied by 
enrolled children at this time.
    As compared to the current enrollment level of about 650,000, the 
enrollment level of approximately 645,500 represents about a 1 percent 
reduction from the current number of children served. In other words, 
implementation of these regulatory changes will be a de minimis impact 
on actual enrollment. With additional appropriations--in excess of COLA 
to keep pace with inflation--Head Start could avoid reducing funded 
enrollment below current actual enrollment. This analysis includes 
estimates of the necessary appropriations needed under the policy to 
serve 650,000 children, which reflects the estimated FY2024 actual 
enrollment. Sometimes the narrative description of this (same) analysis 
is framed as estimating the increases in expenditures that enable full 
implementation of this rule without reducing funded enrollment below 
projected FY2024 funded enrollment levels.
    The largest elements of the final rule relate to staff wages and 
benefits for the Head Start workforce. To fully implement the staff 
wage provisions, including the wage-parity targets, minimum pay 
requirement, and impacts associated with wage compression, for all 
agencies to which all wage and benefits requirements apply (with more 
than 200 slots), expenditures on wages \66\ will need to increase by 
about $1.2 billion (reported in nominal dollars) in 2031 and then be 
maintained annually through a COLA. In that same year, the expenditures 
on staff benefits, which include the policy to increase fringe 
benefits, will require about an additional $877 million. We identify 
the annual expenditures to fully implement the following provisions: 
staff breaks about $75 million; family partnership family assignments, 
$147 million; and mental health supports, $75 million. We also quantify 
expenditures associated with preventing and addressing lead exposure 
and expenditures associated with program administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ The additional benefits expenditures associated with 
increased wages under the wage policy at the baseline fringe rate of 
24% are included in the estimated benefits expenditures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate that in 2031 (when all policies are in effect) and if 
we maintain a funded enrollment of 750,000, this final rule will 
require an increase in expenditures of about $2.3 billion. These 
expenditures include full implementation of all the policies described 
in this final rule, including the wage and benefit policies, mental 
health supports, and other quality improvements. This expenditure level 
assumes no reductions in the projected funded enrollment level of 
750,000.
    Over a 10-year time horizon, which covers the timeline that the 
policies will take effect, we estimate annualized expenditures of about 
$1.4 billion under a 2% discount rate. In addition to calculating the 
expenditures necessary to fully implement the rule, this analysis also 
considers a scenario of no additional funding above baseline funding 
levels (i.e., funding increasing over time, to account for inflation 
but not in response to this regulation). Under this scenario, we 
estimate that Head Start programs will need to reduce the total number 
of funded slots available by about 13% compared to projected FY2024 
funded enrollment, or 1% from estimated FY2024 actual enrollment in 
2031, to fully implement the final rule. Table 1 reports the summary of 
expenditures of the final rule, reported in constant 2024 dollars and 
nominal dollars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ The transfers illustrated in this table represent transfers 
from some combination of the Federal Government and would-be Head 
Start participants to Head Start program staff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

BILLING CODE 4184-87-P

[[Page 67783]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21AU24.001

BILLING CODE 4184-87-C
    These estimates are somewhat lower than those in the NPRM. This is 
because of policy changes such as exempting small agencies (defined as 
those with 200 or fewer funded slots) from most of the wage and 
benefits requirements, removing paid family leave as a required 
employer-provided benefit, and increasing flexibility in how programs 
provide mental health supports and how programs prevent and address 
lead exposure. These new cost estimates reflect updated information 
regarding Head Start funded and actual enrollment and appropriations, 
as described below.

Final Economic Analysis of Impacts

A. Analytic Approach
    In conducting this analysis, we adopted much of the same approach 
used in the NPRM. We began by identifying the most consequential 
impacts that will likely occur under the final rule. We identify 
expenditures associated with increases in staff wages and staff 
benefits for the Head Start workforce as the largest potential impact 
and devote significant attention to those effects. We also identify and 
monetize expenditures associated with staff breaks, expenditures 
associated with hiring additional staff to provide family partnership 
services, expenditures associated with the increased workload required 
to provide mental health supports, expenditures associated with 
preventing and addressing lead exposure, and expenditures associated 
with administrative implementation costs. We qualitatively discuss 
other impacts of the final rule.
    For the purposes of this analysis, we assume that the final rule 
will begin to take effect before the 2024-2025 program year. To 
simplify the narrative, we describe effects occurring in that program 
year as occurring in ``2025.'' We shift the ten-year time horizon in 
the NPRM by one year, now covering the period 2025 through 2034.

[[Page 67784]]

    This analysis adopts a baseline forecast that assumes Federal 
appropriations grow at a constant rate of inflation in fiscal years 
2026 through 2033, with greater growth during fiscal years 2024 and 
2025 as projected by the September month year-over-year estimates by 
the Presidential Budget Economic Assumptions based on the Consumer 
Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) issued by the Bureau of 
Labor Statistics (BLS).\68\ These are only projections and are subject 
to change with updated CPI-U estimates from the BLS. We note that 
because we assume Federal appropriations will grow at least at the pace 
of inflation annually, we do not provide quantitative estimates that 
account for the Secretary's waiver authority or any other possible 
funding level.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/ap_2_assumptions_fy2025.pdf.
    \69\ For a discussion of the estimated impact of the Secretary's 
waiver authority, see section K. (Importantly, the funding level 
required for the Secretary's waiver or a similarly low level of 
appropriations would have substantial, negative effects on Head 
Start's ability to enroll and provide high-quality services to 
families.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All analyses provided here were completed using national level 
estimations. National estimates are used in lieu of providing estimates 
that account for individual program variation due to the fluid nature 
of Head Start enrollment figures that vary throughout the year as well 
as substantial variation in the behavior of programs, grants, and 
agencies. Head Start grants are awarded to a variety of entities that 
vary in size, scope, and available resources. A model that accounts for 
every characteristic that may predict variation in slot loss would 
require HHS to make significant assumptions for which we lack a strong 
empirical or data driven foundation.
    Head Start enrollment fluctuates regularly. For instance, 
enrollment is usually lower in the first month or two of the program 
year and grows over the course of the year. In the last year, an 
unprecedented number of Change in Scope applications, which allow 
programs to reduce their funded enrollment and reallocate their budget 
to meet other needs, such as wages or shifting slots from Head Start to 
Early Head Start, or to be more responsive to changing community needs 
by adjusting the operating schedule. Enrollment also fluctuates when 
new grants are awarded as a result of the Designation Renewal System, 
grant relinquishments, or other grant transitions. At the end of 2023, 
approximately 18% of all Head Start agencies (which represents 10.7% of 
all Head Start slots) had more than 200 funded slots--and would 
therefore not be considered for the small program exemption--and were 
considered fully enrolled at 97% or greater. ACF anticipates that these 
grant recipients will benefit from additional support to use the period 
between the final rule going into effect and wage requirements to 
explore additional resources (i.e., Head Start funds made available 
through increases in appropriations or recaptured funds, state, local, 
or private funding) or program restructuring. We reiterate that 
enrollment fluctuates due to a variety of factors and the estimates 
used in this analysis should not be assumed to be static over time.
    In our main analysis, we estimate the increases in Federal 
appropriations needed to fulfill the goals of the rule while also 
maintaining the size of the Head Start workforce consistent with the 
projected FY2024 funded enrollment level of 750,000 slots. We also 
present a sensitivity analysis that explores how the rule's effects are 
expected to manifest themselves if there are no increases in Federal 
appropriations above baseline (or such increases occur but not in 
response to this regulation and/or the increased appropriations could 
not be used to support the policies in the final rule). For this 
scenario, we report the likely reductions in funded enrollment, and 
associated reductions in the size of the Head Start workforce, under 
the final rule. We also report the likely reductions in funded 
enrollment in the absence of additional appropriations compared to the 
estimated FY2024 actual enrollment under the final rule.
    In general, we have rounded total cost estimates but have not 
rounded itemized cost estimates for transparency and reproducibility of 
the estimation process. These unrounded itemized cost estimates should 
not be interpreted as representing a particular degree of precision.
B. Baseline: Budget, Staffing, and Slots
Baseline Budget Scenario
    We measure the impacts of the rule against a common budget baseline 
forecast that assumes Federal appropriations grow at a constant rate of 
inflation in fiscal years 2026 through 2034. We adopt 2.3% for the rate 
of inflation for each year in the time horizon after 2025, matching an 
economic assumption in the President's Budget for Fiscal Year 2025.\70\ 
Across all years, we assume that the COLA for Head Start staff will 
match the rate of inflation. Based on 2023 PIR data, we assume 8.6% of 
Head Start staff work at agencies with 200 or fewer slots.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ Office of Management and Budget. ``Analytical Perspectives, 
Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2025.'' Economic 
Assumptions. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/spec_fy2024.pdf President's Budget [verbar] OMB [verbar] The White 
House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In FY2024, Head Start appropriations totaled $12,271,820,000.\71\ 
About 97% of these appropriations, $11.9 billion, is awarded to grant 
recipients for base program operations; and from these amounts, about 
76% \72\ go towards personnel costs, or about $9.1 billion. Compared to 
FY2024, we assume that FY2025 appropriations will increase with a cost-
of-living adjustment amount to fully account for inflation. Thus, we 
anticipate that total appropriations will increase by 2.61% in FY2025, 
and 2.3% in all future years. Table B1 reports the appropriations and 
funding breakdowns in nominal dollars over the time horizon of our 
analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/2882?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%22Consolidated+Appropriations+Act%2C+2024%22%7D&r=2&s=1.
    \72\ Budget data submitted to the Office of Head Start for 
FY2022 showed that about 74% of operations awards were allocated to 
personnel costs. In this analysis, we assume a majority share of the 
savings from the projected reduction in funded enrollment from 
FY2023 to FY2024 go towards personnel costs, and will therefore 
increase the overall share of operations awards allocated to 
personnel costs to about 76%.

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

[[Page 67785]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21AU24.002

Baseline Scenario for Staffing, Wages, and Enrollment
    This analysis adopts one scenario covering projections of staffing, 
wages, and enrollment at Head Start programs. This baseline scenario 
assumes long-run staffing, wages, and enrollment that are consistent 
with those projected for FY 2024, based on patterns observed in FY2023.
    This analysis assumes that all programs are fully enrolled, and 
that actual enrollment is consistent with funded enrollment. Therefore, 
the analysis does not distinguish between funded slots that are 
actually filled with enrolled families and funded slots that are 
vacant. These assumptions introduce uncertainty into the analysis, 
creating some tendency toward overestimation of effects (a tendency 
that would partially be mitigated by a number of decisions, for example 
if Head Start entities use current funds, in the baseline, for teacher 
bonuses).\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ For completeness, we also note that Head Start funding 
increases at greater than the rate of inflation (for reasons 
independent of this regulation) would lead to effects being 
underestimated in this analysis, if that funding is designated for 
expansion. For exploration not of overall magnitude of effects but 
instead related to the form they take, please see the sensitivity 
analysis below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We again note that this estimation does not account for the under-
enrollment that Head Start programs are currently facing. In 2024, Head 
Start programs are projected to be funded to serve 750,000 children; 
however, ACF estimates only about 650,000 children and families are 
actually being served. Many Head Start programs are requesting 
reductions to their funded enrollment, even while they continue to work 
to improve their enrollment. As this situation is unprecedented, it is 
nearly impossible to accurately predict both funded and actual 
enrollment levels in future years.
    As such, ACF first estimates costs by using the FY2024 funded 
enrollment of 750,000 which represents the funding needed to implement 
the final rule and maintain current funded enrollment, or the maximum 
appropriations needed to fully implement the final rule. Using the cost 
per slot determined by this estimate, we also describe the necessary 
appropriations needed to maintain funded slots to serve 650,000 
children, which reflects the FY2024 actual enrollment estimate. 
Relatedly, we also provide estimates of the reduction in the total 
number of funded slots in a scenario where no additional funding is 
provided (or funding increases occur but not in response to this rule), 
compared to both projected FY2024 funded enrollment and to estimated 
FY2024 actual enrollment.
    Our baseline scenario is informed by staffing levels, credentials, 
wage rates, and enrollment figures from PIR data covering 2023,\74\ 
with a few adjustments. The PIR contains program-level counts of 
teachers, assistant teachers, home visitors, and family child care 
providers, each disaggregated by type of credential. For teachers and 
assistant teachers, we observe the following credential categories: 
advanced degree, bachelor's degree (BA), associate degree (AA), Child 
Development Associate (CDA) credential, and no credential. For home 
visitors and family child care providers, we observe whether staff 
holds a credential, but not the type of credential. We make the 
following adjustments to the raw 2023 PIR data:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/data-ongoing-monitoring/article/program-information-report-pir.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) We adjust the counts of each role-credential combination to 
account for a small share of staff without any credential information, 
which is less than 0.2% of total staff. For simplicity, we assume that 
the credentials of staff without this information are distributed in 
proportion with the observed credentials of other staff in the same 
role.
    (2) We augment the 2023 PIR data with 2019 PIR data, which 
contained information on the specific credential type for home visitors 
and family child care providers. We assume that, conditional on 
reporting any credential in 2023, the credentials of staff with each 
credential type are distributed in proportion with observed credentials 
of other credentialed staff in the same role in 2019.
    With these adjustments, we report 34,904 Head Start teachers, 
32,770 Early Head Start teachers, 36,946 Head Start assistant teachers, 
6,245 home visitors, and 2,129 family child care providers. Table B2 
reports these counts by credential type.

[[Page 67786]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21AU24.003

    In 2023, Head Start programs were funded to serve 778,420 slots 
\75\ and reported 112,994 education staff. At the time this analysis 
was prepared, ACF did not have comparable information from the PIR for 
2024, which is ongoing; however, we anticipate significant changes to 
staffing levels, wage rates, and slots compared to those observed in 
2023 for reasons described above, largely driven by Head Start programs 
requesting to reduce their funding enrollment levels to increase wages. 
Our funded enrollment data, as described above, are based on the end of 
the FY 2023 which ended in October 2023, and our Head Start salary 
figures are from the 2023 PIR data and are reported about the 2022-2023 
program year that ended in May 2023 for most programs. This gap in data 
leaves a period from May to October 2023 during which many programs 
continued to pursue reductions to their funded enrollment and likely 
also took other efforts to improve staff compensation that is not 
reflected in the 2023 PIR salary data, as many programs were likely to 
make salary adjustments at the start of the 2023-2024 program year. As 
such, using the raw compensation data from the 2023 PIR likely 
underestimates Head Start salaries for FY 2024 which would in turn 
overestimate the impacts of this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ This represents funded enrollment at the end of FY 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To account for this, we draw from data showing that Head Start 
salaries grew 7% from program year 2021-2022 to 2022-2023. We estimate 
a slightly higher growth rate from program year 2022-2023 to 2023-2024 
because of substantial COLA and an increased rate of change in scope 
request that both occurred in the latter part of FY2023. We estimate 
that one third, 2.5%, of this projected annual growth rate for program 
year 2023-2024 took place in the four months between May to October 
2023. Therefore, we have adjusted for this misalignment in reporting 
timeframes by adjusting for the projected annual growth that took place 
between May to October 2023 in our baseline wage estimates by 
increasing them by 2.5%.
    We also anticipate additional enrollment reductions, primarily 
through requests from programs proposing to reduce their funded 
enrollment to maintain quality of program services.\76\ We currently 
project 750,000 funded slots, or a 3.7% reduction in funded enrollment 
in 2024 compared to 2023, and adopt a corresponding reduction in 
education staff by the same percentage. This is less than the 9% 
reduction in enrollment observed from 2022 to 2023. Compared to a 
scenario of no reduction in slots or education staff, we anticipate 
that this will lead to increases in total compensation for education 
staff. Again, this does not reflect the difference between funded 
enrollment and actual enrollment of families in the program. ACF 
anticipates that funded enrollment will continue to decline; however, 
for the reasons described above, we model projections based on funded 
enrollment in 2024 at 750,000 for the purposes of this analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/policy/im/acf-im-hs-22-09.

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

[[Page 67787]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21AU24.004

Connecting Baseline Uncertainty With Differing Estimates of Regulatory 
Effects
    Head Start programs must be in a position to serve their full 
funded enrollment at all times, regardless of their actual enrollment 
levels. When programs are under-enrolled, they must continue their 
operations in a way that is sufficient to serve their funded 
enrollment. As Head Start funds are allocated to a variety of fixed 
cost categories (e.g., facilities, certain personnel, supplies, and 
transportation), only some of these costs are saved when a funded slot 
is empty. If a slot is empty, a program must still pay for a facility 
with classrooms, along with utilities and maintenance. Programs must 
also attempt to hire (or, spend the associated funds recruiting) staff 
and routinely train and onboard staff when there is turnover. Where 
there is a difference between actual and funded enrollment, much of the 
difference in allocated funding is used in this manner, thus doing 
little to improve the Head Start experience for remaining students.
    Therefore, to the extent that under-enrolled Head Start programs 
will, over the analytic time horizon of this regulatory impact 
assessment, be approved to reduce their funded enrollment without those 
slots being shifted to other Head Start entities, the estimates that 
use actual enrollment as a key input or comparison--for example, the 
rightmost columns of Table J1--are informative and meaningful. By 
contrast, if reductions of funded enrollment at entities that are 
under-enrolled in the baseline were accompanied (also in the baseline) 
by shifting of those slots to other Head Start entities, the estimates 
that use funded enrollment as a key comparison are more informative. 
Similarly, if under-enrollment were to ease in the future (perhaps to 
due further stabilization in the labor market as the biggest 
disruptions of the COVID-19 pandemic recede into the past), the latter 
set of estimates should receive the analytic focus.
C. Workforce Supports: Staff Wages and Staff Benefits
    The final rule outlines four areas of requirements for wages for 
Head Start staff: (1) that education staff working directly with 
children as part of their daily job responsibilities must receive a 
salary comparable to preschool teachers (or 90% of kindergarten 
teachers) in public school settings in the program's local school 
district, adjusted for qualifications, experience, job 
responsibilities, and schedule or hours worked; (2) to establish or 
enhance a salary scale, wage ladder, or other pay structure that 
applies to all staff in the program and takes into account job 
responsibilities, schedule or hours worked, and qualifications and 
experience relevant to the position; (3) that all staff must receive a 
salary that is sufficient to cover basic costs of living in their 
geographic area, including those at the lowest end of the pay 
structure; and (4) to affirm and emphasize that the requirements for 
pay parity should also promote comparability of wages across Head Start 
Preschool and Early Head Start staff positions.
    The final rule also outlines requirements for grant recipients to 
provide benefits to staff, discussing health care coverage, paid leave, 
access to short-term free or low-cost mental health services, and other 
considerations. As described above, these benefits-related requirements 
have been modified to be more flexible and less prescriptive in 
response to comments on the NPRM. In this section, we describe baseline 
wages for Head Start education staff and their corresponding wage-
parity targets. We also describe baseline staff benefits and the 
enhanced-benefit policy.
Wage-Parity Targets
    The final rule will result in Head Start staff receiving an annual 
salary commensurate with preschool teachers (or 90% of kindergarten 
teachers) in local public school settings, adjusted for qualifications, 
experience, job responsibilities, and schedule or hours worked. The 
target comparison of preschool teachers in public school settings is 
intended to represent substantial progress towards parity with 
kindergarten to third grade elementary teachers. We intend the 
benchmark of preschool teacher annual salaries in public school 
settings to represent about 90% of kindergarten teacher annual 
salaries, for those with comparable qualifications, and provide 
programs the option to use either benchmark.\77\ While

[[Page 67788]]

wage rates would be determined locally, we present estimates of the 
likely impact measured at the national level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ This analysis uses BLS average annual salaries from May 
2023, inflation adjusted to February 2024 dollars, as wage targets. 
However, since the BLS national average for kindergarten teacher 
salaries ($67,790 in May 2023) includes all kindergarten teachers, 
of which approximately half have a master's degree or higher, adjust 
this annual salary to reflect the target salary for a teacher with a 
bachelor's degree ($61,011) guided by salary differences observed in 
National Center for Education Statistics data (https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/ntps/). The BLS reported annual salary for preschool teacher 
in school settings ($56,060) is therefore approximately 90% of the 
annual salary for kindergarten teachers with a bachelor's degree 
($61,011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the purposes of this analysis, we adopt an estimate of the 
target salary in 2023 of $56,060, which corresponds to the most recent 
annual wage for preschool teachers in elementary and school-based 
settings as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for occupation 
code 25-2011, Preschool Teachers, Except Special Education for May 
2023.\78\ This estimate is intended to be consistent with the 
requirement that annual salaries be comparable to that of preschool 
teachers in public school settings or to 90% of kindergarten teacher 
salaries in public school settings. We assume that a typical preschool 
teacher works 1,680 hours per year, so this annual salary corresponded 
to a $33.37 hourly wage in 2023, or a $34.05 hourly wage in 2024 under 
an assumption that preschool and kindergarten teacher salaries will 
grow approximately in relation to inflation.\79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Occupational Employment 
and Wages. May 2023. 25-2011 Preschool Teachers, Except Special 
Education. https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes252011.htm.
    \79\ Multiplied by a ratio of February 2024 (310.326) to May 
2023 (304.127) CPI. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. CPI for all 
Urban Consumers (CPI-U), Not Seasonally Adjusted, https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CUUR0000SA0. Accessed April 9, 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We adopt this estimate as the hourly wage target for teachers, home 
visitors, and family child care providers with a bachelor's degree, 
which serves as the base wage rate for other credentials. Following the 
methodology used in the NPRM, for staff in these roles with an advanced 
degree (i.e., master's degree or higher), we adopt an hourly wage 
target 10% above the base wage rate; for AA degrees, 20% below the base 
wage rate; for CDA, 30% below the base wage rate; and for no 
credential, 40% below the base wage rate. For assistant teachers, who 
often have fewer responsibilities than lead teachers, we adopt hourly 
wage targets that are about 17% less than other roles. For example, the 
wage rate target for assistant teachers with a bachelor's degree is 
$28.26 per hour. Table C1 reports the hourly wage targets for each 
staff role by credential under the final rule and the baseline 
scenario.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21AU24.005

    To estimate the likely impact of the wage-parity policy on 
expenditures, we calculate the expenditures under the baseline 
scenario, then calculate the expenditures needed to fund the wage 
increases. Table C2 reports these impacts under the baseline scenario. 
Note that these are reported in constant 2024 dollars. We take into 
account the exemption of small agencies from the wage policies with 
associated costs by reducing costs by 8.6% to take into account that 
8.6% of Head Start staff work at agencies with 200 or fewer slots, 
according to 2023 PIR data. Data from December 2023 show that about 120 
agencies (i.e., 7% of all agencies) are funded between 200-250 slots 
and a subset of these programs may reduce their slots below the 200 
slot threshold as a result of an approved Change in Scope application, 
which allows Head Start agencies to reduce the funded enrollment level 
or convert slots from Head Start Preschool to Early Head Start based on 
community needs. These agencies are not included in the 8.6% adjustment 
to our analyses since we do not know how many of these agencies will 
reduce their funded slots below the 200 slot threshold. Expenditure 
estimates in this analysis may be overestimated if many or all of those 
programs are eligible for and take advantage of the small agency 
exemption.

[[Page 67789]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21AU24.006

Disaggregation of Wage-Parity Policy Implementation Costs
    While estimates in this analysis are performed at the national 
level, the cost of implementing the wage policies will likely not be 
borne equally by each program. Programmatic data suggests Head Start 
programs vary in their current compensation practices and therefore 
will likely have varying costs associated with implementing the wage 
parity policy. Head Start data shows that wages and enrollment are not 
distributed evenly across various program types. Furthermore, some 
programs across the country are experiencing a workforce shortage and 
are in varying stages of implementing changes to address issues related 
to lack of qualified and available staff to fill classrooms and 
associated under-enrollment.
    Data from the 2019 PIR shows that programs located in school 
systems pay classroom teachers at the highest rate, on average. Grant 
recipients in school districts also have more programs that are fully 
enrolled compared to other agencies. Meanwhile, grant recipients that 
are Community Action Agencies are, on average, the lowest paying agency 
type and pay more than $10,000 less annually to classroom teachers, on 
average, compared to school systems.
    Finally, ACF published sub-regulatory guidance to encourage Head 
Start programs to increase staff and teacher wages. Some Head Start 
programs have responded to this guidance by requesting to reduce their 
funded enrollment in order to increase staff wages, but those programs 
are in varying stages of implementing these changes.
    Given this information, we expect that the cost of implementing 
these policies will vary depending on a variety of factors, such as 
agency type. For instance, programs in school systems that already 
compensate at a higher level will likely incur lower costs when 
implementing the wage policies in this rule compared to programs in 
Community Action Agencies that, on average, tend to provide lower 
compensation. The costs of implementing these policies will likely 
further vary based on the local wage targets used for each program, the 
distribution of qualifications for existing staff, and the degree to 
which each program has already made efforts to improve compensation. 
ACF responds to this concern by providing small agencies (defined as 
those with 200 or fewer funded slots) an exemption from implementing 
most of the wage and benefits requirements in this final rule. However, 
small Head Start agencies are still required develop or update a pay 
scale and make improvements in wages and benefits for staff over time 
to reduce disparities between wages and benefits in Head Start and 
preschool teachers in public schools.
    The national estimates provided in this analysis cannot necessarily 
be applied at the individual program level. For instance, the hourly 
wage targets described in the previous section (Table C2) represent 
national averages and targets for individual programs will vary based 
on salaries for preschool teachers in their community. Program-level 
wage targets will vary based on factors such as local compensation 
rates and cost of living. Depending on the existing compensation 
structure in each program, some programs will have to increase their 
hourly wages substantially, and others may only need to make small 
increases. Program-level costs for implementing this policy are 
expected to be impacted by a variety of factors such as local pay 
compensation rates, education/credential levels of program staff, and 
the degree to which programs have already attempted to increase wages.

[[Page 67790]]

    ACF acknowledges that a limitation of using national level 
estimates is that these program-level nuances are not specifically 
illustrated in the analysis. However, in lieu of determining individual 
program-level variation in the cost of this rule, we use national 
averages to estimate costs at the national level.
Impact of the Minimum Pay Requirement
    This final rule requires that all staff receive, at minimum, a 
salary that is sufficient to cover basic costs of living in their 
geographic area, including those at the lowest end of the pay 
structure. We anticipate that Head Start programs in low-income areas 
would spend additional resources to fulfill the basic cost-of-living 
requirement. We assume that the incremental impact of this provision is 
approximately $62 million per year, which accounts for $48 million 
through hourly wage increases, and $13 million in corresponding 
increases in non-wage benefits. This estimate is consistent with about 
15% of all Head Start staff, about 35,000 staff members in the 
baseline, each working an average of 30 hours per week for 42 weeks, 
receiving an additional $2.00 \80\ per hour in wages to meet the goal 
of establishing a minimum hourly wage of $15.00, or a total average 
increase in hourly compensation of $1.40. While the regulation does not 
establish a dollar amount associated with establishing a minimum hourly 
wage, as this level will vary geographically, we use $15.00 for 
estimation purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ In the absence of data from Head Start programs that 
reports the wages paid to the lowest paid staff, this estimate 
assumes that all of the 35,000 staff earned minimum wage in their 
State in 2023, which is consistent with an average hourly wage of 
$11.33. The estimate of average minimum wage was calculated using 
the minimum wage for each State (https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/mw-consolidatedState Minimum Wages (ncsl.org)) and which states 
would have minimum wages at or above $15 per hour by 2031 based on 
enacted (but, in some cases, not presently effective) minimum wages, 
and the number of Head Start staff in each State according to 
administrative data from the Office of Head Start in 2023. For those 
staff where minimum wage data were not available due to lack of data 
for the U.S. Territory or data entry error, the Federal minimum wage 
of $7.25 was used. In the baseline analysis, we assume that all 
staff receive a pay increase, to $13.00 per hour, due to the 
projected reductions in funded enrollment from FY2023 to FY2024, and 
the associated reduction in staff and increased share of personnel 
funds. These staff would therefore need an additional $2.00 per hour 
to meet the $15 per hour minimum pay policy goal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Impact on Expenditures Through Wage Compression
    In addition to the direct impacts on teachers, assistant teachers, 
home visitors, and family child care providers, we anticipate that the 
final rule will result in increased compensation for staff providing 
family partnership services as well as other non-education staff 
positions to address wage compression and wage equity issues that would 
arise. For example, the required wage increases for lead teachers may 
exceed what a similarly credentialed family service staff makes in a 
program and those programs would need to plan for compensation 
increases for such staff to avoid a significant wage gap between those 
positions. As another example, with rising wages for education staff, 
other staff in supervisory or mid-management roles would likely receive 
wage increases as well (e.g., coaches, education managers, etc.). To 
account for this impact, we assume that the total impacts on 
expenditures associated with wages would be 10% higher than the sum of 
the impacts associated with wage targets and the minimum pay 
requirement.
Overall Impacts of Wage Parity on Expenditures, Holding Benefits 
Constant
    Next, we report the total expenditures, including the impacts of 
the wage targets, minimum pay requirement, and impacts associated with 
wage compression. Table C3 reports the net impacts on expenditures, 
holding benefits constant. The ``wage targets'' row is equal to the 
totals of the ``expenditure increase'' rows contained in Tables C1 and 
C2. When pay parity is fully implemented, the wages policies would 
result in about $571 million in additional annual expenditures on 
wages.\81\ Note that these estimates are reported in constant 2024 
dollars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ The additional annual expenditures on fringe associated 
with the wage policies (i.e., the fringe associated with the 
increased wages in the wage policies at the baseline fringe rate of 
24%), are included in the estimates reported in Table C6 in the 
benefits section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21AU24.007


[[Page 67791]]


    The estimates in Table C3 reflect the expenditures (in constant 
2024 dollars) needed to fully implement pay parity, which would occur 
in 2031 under the final rule. Table C4 reports the expenditures by year 
under the implementation schedule, reported in constant 2024 dollars 
and also nominal dollars.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21AU24.008

Expenditures Associated With Fringe Benefits
    As discussed above, based on an analysis of current Head Start 
programs, about 24% of total personnel costs go towards fringe 
benefits, rather than wage compensation. Table B1 reports personnel 
costs of about $9.1 billion in 2024. Of this figure, 76% goes to wage 
compensation, or about $6.9 billion, and 24% goes to fringe benefits, 
or about $2.2 billion. We assume that this ratio will remain constant 
over time, absent the staff benefits provisions of the final rule.
    This final rule outlines requirements for grant recipients to 
provide benefits to staff, discussing health care coverage, paid leave, 
short-term mental health services, and other considerations. For the 
purposes of this analysis, we assume that these enhancements would 
increase the share of total personnel costs that go towards fringe 
benefits from 24% to 27.2%, holding wages compensation constant. Absent 
all other provisions in this final rule, adopting the benefits policy 
at baseline wages would increase fringe benefits in constant 2024 
dollars from $2.2 billion to about $2.57 billion, and total 
compensation from about $9.0 billion to $9.48 billion, for an increase 
of about $397 million.
    Table C5 reports the impacts of the benefits policies over time, 
accounting for the yearly impact of the wage policies reported in Table 
C4, reported in constant and nominal dollars. These tables report the 
changes to benefits, some of which--as presented in more detail in 
Table C6--are driven by wage increases of the wage policies.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21AU24.009


[[Page 67792]]


Disaggregation of Fringe Benefit Estimates
    We use the same approach as in the NPRM to estimate the cost 
associated with each category of benefits in the final rule. We refer 
to the distribution of benefits provided to teachers,\82\ who have an 
overall fringe rate of 32.5% according to data on employer costs for 
employee compensation released by BLS in December 2022.\83\ There are 
more categories of benefits provided to teachers described by the BLS 
than will be required under the final rule, specifically retirement 
benefits are provided to teachers in the BLS data. In order to estimate 
the expenditures on the major benefits categories that will be required 
under the final rule, we first estimate the cost of Head Start teachers 
receiving the same fringe rate and major benefits categories (32.5%: 
health insurance, retirement, and paid leave). We then calculate the 
associated reduction in fringe associated with removing the retirement 
benefit in order to estimate the cost of the benefits policies under 
the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ This occupational group was chosen because the total fringe 
rate aligns with internal estimates of the total fringe rate that 
would be associated with the benefit policies. The occupational 
group includes postsecondary teachers; primary, secondary, and 
special education teachers; and other teachers and instructors.
    \83\ https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_03172023.pdf. As reported in March 2024, the fringe rate in 
December 2023 was 32.1% for teachers overall and 34.2% for primary, 
secondary, and special education school teachers. We retain our 
target fringe of 32.5%, which is between these numbers. ecec.pdf 
(bls.gov).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We tentatively apply the same distribution of fringe associated 
with each fringe category to the estimated expenditure on benefits for 
Head Start using the same overall fringe rate of 32.5%, which 
represents an increase of 8.5% from the current fringe rate. We then 
calculate the increased expenditure needed for each of the major 
benefits categories compared to existing expenditures in each category 
for Head Start programs.\84\ This approach estimates the total 
projected cost associated with increasing the fringe rate from 24.0% to 
27.2% to account for requirements in the final rule for health care 
coverage and paid time off. This is less than the target fringe rate of 
27.8% used in NPRM to account for the removal of the requirement to 
provide paid family leave proposed in the NPRM.\85\ Under the final 
rule, increased spending on health care coverage will account for 42% 
of the total cost of the benefits policy, and increased spending on 
paid time off will account for the remaining 58% of the total cost of 
the benefits policy. Under the policies proposed in the NPRM, the 
benefits requirements were required after two years; the final rule 
extends the implementation timeline for benefits by two years to year 
four.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ Estimates based on average fringe for each category of 
benefits calculated from a sample of Head Start program budgets.
    \85\ The reduction in the fringe rate of 0.6% is made to account 
for the removal of the requirement for paid family and medical 
leave. This estimate is based on the 2017 report estimating that, as 
a share of national payroll, total benefits estimated to be paid out 
for a national paid family and medical leave policy range from 0.45 
percent to 0.63 percent of payroll depending on the generosity of 
the model simulated. IMPAQ-Family-Leave-Insurance.pdf (dol.gov).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table C6 reports an expenditure breakdown for each major category 
of benefits that would be impacted by the final rule.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21AU24.010

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

[[Page 67793]]

components such as Social Security taxes are not necessarily comparable 
between the reference group of teachers included in the BLS data and 
Head Start staff. Most, but not all, State and local employees are not 
covered by Social Security because they are covered by State or local 
pension plans; as a result, legally required fringe may be lower for 
some teachers and retirement fringe higher for many teachers relative 
to a comparable benefits package for Head Start staff.
Discussion of Uncertainty
    We have attempted to provide our best estimates of the potential 
effects of the staff wages and staff benefit provisions. We acknowledge 
several significant and unresolved sources of uncertainty. First, we 
note that these estimates use a single baseline, which is a limitation 
of this analysis. We have provided estimates using a single baseline 
that assumes a stable funded enrollment level consistent with projected 
FY2024 funded enrollment of 750,000, very similar to the funded 
enrollment levels we projected in the NPRM for FY2023. If funded 
enrollment were to increase, which would require congressional 
investment designated for expansion (and such increase occurs for 
reasons separate from this regulation), the impacts of this final rule 
would be underestimated. If funded enrollment were to decrease, 
particularly if it were to decrease below the level of our current 
actual enrollment of 650,000, then the impacts of this rule would be 
overestimated. Furthermore, if other baseline assumptions were to vary, 
such as the child-to-staff ratio or the share of appropriations 
allocated to personnel costs, that would also impact the estimated 
effects. However, absent guiding data for the timing and magnitude of 
these possible variations, ACF presents estimates using the single, 
data-informed baseline.
    Second, we followed a partial equilibrium modeling approach, 
focusing the primary scope of our analysis on the impacts to Head 
Start. General equilibrium or multi-market partial equilibrium modeling 
could potentially explore the impacts of the final rule on wages beyond 
Head Start staff. These effects could be informative for the estimates 
on expenditures, since wage increases experienced by Head Start staff 
could result in wage increases to other occupations that draw from a 
similar supply of workers, such as Kindergarten teachers. It is 
possible to anticipate a gradual feedback effect between Head Start 
staff and occupations that provide reference wages under the wage-
parity policy. If this is the case, this would tend to indicate that 
our expenditure estimates are underestimated.
    Third, the analysis assumes that average compensation for Head 
Start staff (in the baseline scenario) and preschool teachers in public 
school settings (in the baseline scenario and under the final rule) 
increases with inflation, or equivalently, that their average 
compensation remains constant in real terms, over the time horizon of 
this analysis. If compensation for preschool teachers in public school 
settings grows more slowly over time than compensation for Head Start 
staff, this would tend to indicate that our expenditure estimates are 
overestimated. Alternatively, if compensation for preschool teachers in 
public school settings grows faster than compensation for Head Start 
staff, this would tend to indicate that our expenditure estimates are 
underestimated.
    In regard to the inherent uncertainty over the availability of 
funding to fully implement this final rule, section J presents a 
sensitivity analysis on that significant source of uncertainty.
D. Workforce Supports: Staff Wellness--Staff Breaks
    The final rule outlines requirements for programs to provide break 
times during work shifts. Specifically, for each staff member, a 
program must provide regular breaks of adequate length based on hours 
worked.
    This increased flexibility does not change our approach to 
estimating the costs of the staff breaks requirements (in other words, 
we expect that programs will adopt similar breaks policies and 
frequencies). The scope of this element of the final rule covers 
approximately 108,869 education staff, the estimate of education staff 
that is proportionally decreased to reflect the reduced enrollment in 
2024 compared to 2023. Across all staff, the final rule requires an 
average break time of about 28 minutes per shift.\86\ We assume 180 
average shifts per year for each education staff, for a total of 5,049 
minutes of break time per year per staff.\87\ For 108,869 total 
education staff, the final rule requires a minimum of about 9.2 million 
hours of break time per year.\88\ We do not have detailed information 
from Head Start programs on their current policies for staff breaks. 
For the purposes of this analysis, we adopt the following assumptions:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ 13% * 15 + 87% * 30 = 28.05.
    \87\ 2,805 * 180 = 5,049.
    \88\ 5,049 * 108,869/60 = 9,161,293.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) Under the baseline scenario of no regulatory action, 20% of 
Head Start programs offer break time for education staff.
    (2) Under the final rule, 50% of Head Start programs will shift the 
workloads of existing Head Start staff to provide coverage during the 
additional breaks.
    (3) Under the final rule, Head Start programs who do not already 
provide breaks and cannot shift workloads of existing staff would 
provide coverage during the additional breaks by hiring `floaters.'
    (4) On average, Head Start programs will pay the `floaters' hourly 
wages in line with assistant teachers with no credential.
    In line with assumptions 1 and 2, we adjust the 9.2 million hours 
estimate downwards by 70% and estimate that the final rule would result 
in about 2.7 million hours of additional breaks for educational staff. 
Using the wage target for assistant teachers of $16.96 per hour under 
the wage-parity target and accounting for the benefits policy, the 
breaks policy would result in additional expenditures of about $64 
million per year (in constant 2024 dollars). This policy would take 
effect in 2027, and the total expenditures would increase in line with 
the wages under the wage-parity policy. Table D1 reports the 
expenditures needed to fund this policy, in constant and nominal 
dollars. Table D2 reports the additional value-of-time costs by year 
for those programs who provide breaks by shifting existing workloads, 
in constant and nominal dollars. Tables D1 and D2 reflect the policy 
cost using the benefits fringe rate in the final rule benefits policy.

[[Page 67794]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21AU24.011

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21AU24.012

E. Family Partnership Family Assignments
    This final rule ensures that the planned number of families 
assigned to work with individual family services staff is no greater 
than 40, unless a program can demonstrate higher family assignments 
provide high quality family and community engagement services and 
maintain reasonable staff workload. 2023 PIR data reveals that 
approximately 44 percent of grants have staff family assignments that 
are 40 families or less. Across all grants with ratios of families per 
family services staff that exceed 40, we estimate that Head Start 
programs would need to hire an additional 2,282 staff to provide family 
partnership services to meet this new caseload requirement. The policy 
allows programs to request a waiver to go above the caseload of 40 
families, if they can demonstrate appropriate staff competencies, 
program outcomes, and reasonable staff workload. This estimate includes 
an assumption that 10% of programs will apply for and receive this 
waiver to exceed a caseload of 40.\89\ This estimate also assumes that 
grants will only provide family partnership services to 85% of families 
they serve at any given time, due to average family turnover.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \89\ For the purposes of this estimation, we assume that all of 
the programs that exceed the threshold have an average caseload of 
60.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We adopt an estimate of $40,000 in wage compensation per year per 
family service staff, which results in a $52,631 total compensation in 
the baseline scenario or $54,945 total compensation under the benefit 
policy. For 2,282 workers, this would result in additional expenditures 
across Head Start programs of $125 million. This policy would begin to 
take effect in 2028. Table E1 reports the expenditures needed to fund 
this policy, in constant and nominal dollars.

[[Page 67795]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21AU24.013

F. Mental Health Services
    The final rule enhances requirements for mental health supports to 
integrate mental health more fully into every aspect of program 
services as well as elevate the role of mental health consultation to 
support the wellbeing of children, families, and staff. In response to 
comments, we incorporated flexibility into the requirements for mental 
health supports, including by centering a multidisciplinary approach 
instead of a specific team, and by revising the requirement related to 
mental health consultation to allow programs to meet the monthly 
frequency requirement, in part, with behavioral health specialists. 
Given this additional flexibility, we adjust our NPRM estimates to 
anticipate that this element of the rule so that half of agencies will 
hire roughly equivalent to one additional full-time employee (FTE) per 
Head Start agency to support the requirements for mental health 
supports in the final rule. We estimate 775 agencies will need an 
additional FTE to comply with the policy.
    As we did in the NPRM, we adopt an estimate of $60,000 in wage 
compensation per year per FTE which represents an average of the 
various salaries of the staff members who we assume will complete the 
additional work. In addition to wage compensation, we assume that 
fringe benefits will be associated with the additional FTE, or about 
$18,947 under the baseline assumptions for benefits, or $22,418 under 
the benefit policy. In total, under the final rule, we estimate that 
each additional FTE would require $78,947 in total compensation in 
years prior to the effective date of the benefits policy, and $82,418 
in total compensation in all future years. For 775 FTEs, this would 
result in additional expenditures across Head Start programs of $64 
million. We assume that these impacts would begin immediately. Table F1 
reports the expenditures needed to fund this policy, in constant and 
nominal dollars.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21AU24.014

G. Preventing and Addressing Lead Exposure
    The final rule includes new requirements to prevent and address 
lead exposure through water and lead-based paint in Head Start 
facilities. This analysis presents estimates of the costs associated 
with testing, inspection, and, as needed, remediation or abatement 
actions, in Head Start facilities where lead hazards may still exist. 
For purposes of this analysis, the cost estimates are split between 
preventing exposure to lead in water and preventing exposure to lead in 
paint.
Preventing Exposure to Lead in Water
    To assess the likely magnitude of the costs associated with 
preventing exposure to the lead in water requirement, we assume the 
majority of

[[Page 67796]]

plans and ongoing practices by programs will align with approaches 
states have developed to address exposure to lead in water in school 
systems. We estimate a total of 18,500 service locations, with an 
average of 7.5 water fixtures per service location, for 138,750 total 
fixtures. States use varying approaches on the frequency of testing, 
precent of fixtures tested in a facility, and remediation. For 
frequency of testing, we assume some portion of all fixtures each year 
at a rate of 25% of all fixtures would be tested in the first year, or 
34,688 water fixtures, and following the first year, about 4% of all 
water fixtures would be tested every year, about 4% would be tested 
every 3 years, and 16% of will be tested every 5 years. We adopt an 
estimate of $100 per fixture tested. For remediation costs, we assume 
12 percent of all water fixtures sampled will have a lead concentration 
at or above the state's action level, or about 4,163 water fixtures. We 
assume for the cost of remediation that about 95% of water fixtures 
will be using point-of-use devices, while 5% will be addressed through 
lead service line replacements, although we recognize that there may be 
other approaches to remediation including restricting access to the 
water fixture and using an alternative water source. For point-of-use 
devices, we adopt an estimate of $30 per filter, with filters replaced 
quarterly, or a cost per fixture of $120 per year. For lead service 
line replacement, we assume $6,500 per lead service line replaced. To 
estimate the cost of remediation for the 4,163 water fixtures with a 
lead concentration at or above the state's action level, we calculate 
an annual cost of $890,882 for remediation. Although replacement of 
lead service lines would reduce ongoing costs of remediation, we 
maintain this cost consistent each year assuming new lead hazards in 
water fixtures would emerge over time. Some of this cost can be covered 
by Federal funding under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (as enacted 
by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act); many states are already 
using this funding.
Preventing Exposure to Lead in Paint
    To assess the likely magnitude of the costs associated with the 
preventing exposure to lead in paint requirement, we first adopt 
estimates of 18,500 service locations with about 1,762 average square 
feet per service location based on required usable indoor space of 35 
square feet for each child served increased by 25% for other general 
common areas where children may be served. We assume a prevalence of 
lead-based paint in about 28% Head Start facilities. Thus, about 5,180 
service locations would be inspected for an estimate $1,000 per service 
location. Across all service locations requiring evaluation, we 
estimate an initial total cost associated with evaluations of about 
$5.18 million that would be split evenly among the first two years for 
a total of $2.59 million in the first year.
    Of rooms undergoing an evaluation, we assume that 14% of rooms 
would be identified as having a significant lead-based paint hazard 
needing abatement.\90\ Thus, after the first round of assessments 
covering 5,180 service locations, we estimate that 2,590 service 
locations would have a significant lead-based paint hazard needing 
abatement split across the first two years, or 1,259 service locations 
in the first year. We assume $2,750 cost for remediation or abatement 
of lead in paint hazards per service location which includes costs 
associated with interior paint repair ($710); friction/impact work 
($430); area cleanup ($110), and unit cleanup ($640). These cost 
estimates reflect the costs for a single family unit at 1,775 square 
feet but are then increased to account for additional administrative 
costs for these type of activities in a Head Start facility setting. 
Across all 1,259 service locations requiring abatement following the 
first round of assessments, this would be about $3.56 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\ https://downloads.regulations.gov/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0063-0197/content.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To model reassessments and remediation or abatement in future 
years, we assume reinspection for all facilities with lead-based paint 
in years 3 and 4, followed by half of those programs continuing to be 
reinspected in years 5 and onward. Since lead-based paint abatement 
reflects measures that are expected to eliminate or reduce exposures to 
lead hazards for at least 20 years under normal conditions and other 
remediation or interim controls can also be effective for many years 
with proper maintenance, we assume a significant decrease in continuing 
costs associated with remediation or abatement of exposure to lead in 
paint.
BILLING CODE 4184-87-P

[[Page 67797]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21AU24.015

    Table G2 reports the yearly costs associated with the lead in water 
policy.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21AU24.016


[[Page 67798]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21AU24.017

BILLING CODE 4184-87-C
H. Administrative Costs
    Several of the provisions of the final rule will likely entail 
additional administrative costs beyond those that we have otherwise 
quantified in this analysis. For example, we anticipate that programs 
would expend resources to develop program-specific policies while 
preparing to implement the workforce wage and benefits provisions. To 
account for these impacts, we use the same approach as we did in the 
NPRM. We adopt an assumption that each Head Start program would spend a 
total of 600 hours per program, spread across directors, education 
managers, disability managers, health managers, and other management 
staff to develop program-specific policies. To value the time spent on 
these activities, we adopt a fully loaded hourly wage of $60 per hour, 
reflecting a mix of wages across several roles. We assume that this 
impact will primarily occur in the first year of the time horizon of 
our analysis, before most of the impacts associated with wage and 
benefits policies take effect, and thus we do not adjust these upwards 
to account for other provisions of the final rule. For each program, we 
value this impact at $36,000.\91\ Across nearly 3,000 Head Start 
programs, we estimate the total impact as $108 million, all occurring 
in 2025.\92\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \91\ $36,000 = 600 hours * $60/hour.
    \92\ $108,000,000 = $36,000/program * 3,000 programs. Head Start 
funding is only used for a portion of the salaries of these 
management positions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Timing of Impacts
    The final rule includes an implementation timeline for several of 
the provisions, described above. Table I1 summarizes the impacts on 
expenditures assuming a funded enrollment level consistent with the 
projected FY2024 funded enrollment, consistent with this implementation 
timeline, reporting yearly estimates, and present value and annualized 
values corresponding to a 2% discount rate, with all monetary estimates 
reported in millions of constant 2024 dollars. Tables I2 reports the 
same impacts except in nominal dollars.
BILLING CODE 4184-87-P

[[Page 67799]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21AU24.018

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21AU24.019

BILLING CODE 4184-87-C
    All estimates reported above are impacts compared to our baseline 
budget scenario described in Table B1. Further, we calculate the cost 
per child, in 2031, when the rule is fully implemented, using 2024 
funded enrollment levels to be $22,357 (nominal dollars). As discussed 
previously, we recognize that projected FY2024 funded enrollment 
exceeds estimated FY2024 actual enrollment. Based on national 
estimates, if programs fully implement these policies and maintain 
funded enrollment at least consistent with FY2024 actual enrollment 
(i.e., 650,000), they will not need additional appropriations beyond 
the baseline budget scenario until 2031, when they would need an 
additional $100 million. In 2032, programs will need an additional $104 
million, $109 million in 2033, and additional $114 million in 2034 
above the baseline budget scenario funding levels to fully implement 
the policies and maintain a funded enrollment level consistent with 
estimated FY2024 actual enrollment. However, as previously discussed, 
individual programs may need additional resources depending on their 
current policies, local wages, and cost of living in their area.
J. Sensitivity Analysis--Potential Enrollment Reductions
    In the previous analysis, we framed results as the Federal 
appropriations increase needed to fully fund these requirements and 
maintain current funded enrollment of 750,000.
    As we did in the NPRM, in the interest of transparency, we perform 
a sensitivity analysis to evaluate the impacts of the final rule under 
a scenario of no additional funding above the baseline budget scenario 
in Table B1 (or increased appropriations that cannot be used to support 
this regulation and/or are not increased in response to it). Under this 
scenario, Head Start

[[Page 67800]]

programs will likely comply with the final rule by reducing the size of 
their funded enrollment, which would also result in a reduced workforce 
at Head Start programs.
    To calculate the number of slots at Head Start programs under this 
last scenario, we multiply the total number of slots under the full-
funding scenario by the share of funding available compared to full 
funding. For example, we estimate that $15.7 billion in total Head 
Start funding will be necessary to fully implement the final rule in 
2034 and maintain funded enrollment consistent with the estimated 
FY2024 actual enrollment of 650,000. Under our baseline budget 
scenario, $15.5 billion will be available, which is about 99% of the 
funding needed. Thus, we estimate approximately 645,500 slots will be 
available, which is 99% of enrollment at the estimated FY2024 actual 
enrollment level, or a % change in slots of -1%.
    Table J1 reports the change in total slots \93\ over time that we 
estimate may be necessary to implement the final rule compared to both 
projected FY2024 funded enrollment and estimated FY2024 actual 
enrollment, absent an increase in Federal appropriations. Based on 
national estimates, we estimate that programs can approach full 
implementation of the policies in the final rule without additional 
appropriations by aligning their funded enrollment levels with their 
actual enrollment. As in the NPRM, we estimate that only a small 
reduction in slots from estimated FY2024 actual enrollment, 1%, will be 
needed to reach full implementation of the policies in the final rule. 
Specifically, programs may need to reduce funded enrollment from the 
projected FY2024 funded enrollment of 750,000 by 14%, to a funded 
enrollment of approximately 645,500 in 2031, which reflects a 1% 
reduction from estimated FY2024 actual enrollment of 650,000.\94\ All 
monetary estimates are reported in nominal dollars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \93\ For this analysis, we assume that staffing reductions occur 
at the same rate as slot reductions.
    \94\ We note that reductions in funded enrollment in response to 
the final rule will require some shifting of funds from existing 
expenditures, such as those to support funded slots that are 
currently empty or spending to recruit and train staff in a high 
turnover environment. Please see the discussion under the heading 
``Connecting Baseline Uncertainty with Differing Estimates of 
Regulatory Effects.''
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21AU24.020

K. Non-Quantified Impacts of Certain Elements of the Final Rule
    In addition to the effects that are quantified elsewhere in this 
analysis, we have identified a select number of provisions that are 
expected to have impacts that are not quantified or monetized.
Estimated Impact of Relevant Provisions on Slot Loss
    Sections C through G of this Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) 
monetize the provisions of this final rule that we anticipate will have 
the largest potential impact. Some of the provisions described in this 
section may also result in costs that have not been monetized. As 
quantified above, one potential impact of enacting these standards at 
current funding levels is a reduction in Head Start slots in some 
programs. A reduction in Head Start slots would reduce access to high-
quality early childhood education for some children ages birth to 5 
from low-income families. However, this impact is difficult to quantify 
because a substantial number of current Head Start slots remain 
unfilled currently, due to staffing shortage and other constraining 
factors. A loss of funded slots that are unfilled would not impact 
children who are currently enrolled.
    The children who may be impacted by this loss of access will not 
receive high-quality services from Head Start and would not experience 
the positive outcomes for children and families who participate in the 
Head Start program. Some children who lose access to Head Start may 
receive early childhood education through State or local preschool 
programs, which are offered in many areas of the country. Another 
potential impact is that some children who would otherwise have been 
served by Head Start may receive early care

[[Page 67801]]

and education in programs or settings that lack the quality to 
adequately support their learning and development, though we note that, 
absent the quality improvements under this final rule, Head Start 
quality is likely to deteriorate over time. Loss of access to Head 
Start may also reduce opportunity for parents and caregivers to 
participate in the workforce.
Expected Impact of Preventing and Addressing Lead Exposure (Sec.  
1302.48)
    This final rule has new requirements for programs to have a plan to 
prevent children from being exposed to lead in the water or paint of 
Head Start facilities. Below we summarize findings from a few select 
research studies. Decades of research have shown that high lead levels 
are harmful for children's development.\95\ Research also shows, 
however, that lead remediation has long-term benefits to children's 
health and economic benefits to society as they mature into adolescence 
and beyond. For instance, a 2002 CDC study found that reduced lead 
exposure in the United States since 1976 has resulted in a $110 billion 
to $319 billion economic benefit due to higher IQs and worker 
productivity.\96\ Furthermore, a research study that conducted a cost-
benefit analysis on every dollar invested in lead paint control has 
been estimated to be a $17 to $221 return.\97\ This research suggests 
there may be a societal benefit that lead remediation regulations can 
make.\98\ Additionally, there is research showing that having 
classmates who were exposed to lead has implications for everyone in 
the classroom.\99\ While we cannot estimate the quantitative cost 
savings that this provision will have, we note that testing on its own 
does not make anyone healthier; the cause-and-effect chain between 
testing and health outcomes includes activities that have costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \95\ Finkelstein, Y., Markowitz, M.E., & Rosen, J.F. (1998). 
Low-level lead-induced neurotoxicity in children: an update on 
central nervous system effects. Brain research reviews, 27, 168-176.
    \96\ Grosse, S.D., Matte, T.D., Schwartz, J., & Jackson, R.J. 
(2002). Economic gains resulting from the reduction in children's 
exposure to lead in the United States. Environmental health 
perspectives, 110(6), 563-569. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.02110563.
    \97\ Gould, E. (2009). Childhood Lead Poisoning: Conservative 
Estimates of the Social and Economic Benefits of Lead Hazard 
Control. Environmental Health Perspectives, 117(7). https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.0800408.
    \98\ Gazze, Ludovica, Persico, Claudia and Spirovska, Sandra 
(2022). ``The Spillover Effects of Pollution: How Exposure to Lead 
Affects Everyone in the Classroom.'' (forthcoming) Journal of Labor 
Economics. The Long-Run Spillover Effects of Pollution: How Exposure 
to Lead Affects Everyone in the Classroom [bond] NBER.
    \99\ Gazze, Ludovica, Persico, Claudia and Spirovska, Sandra 
(2022). ``The Spillover Effects of Pollution: How Exposure to Lead 
Affects Everyone in the Classroom.'' Journal of Labor Economics. The 
Long-Run Spillover Effects of Pollution: How Exposure to Lead 
Affects Everyone in the Classroom [bond] NBER.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additional Impact of Workforce Supports: Staff Wages and Benefits 
(Sec.  1302.90)
    In addition to the effects (costs) quantified in this RIA, these 
provisions may also result in potential cost savings to governments at 
various jurisdictional levels (which are mostly transfers, when 
categorized from a society-wide perspective) due to benefit reductions 
for ECE workers. Specifically, an increase in wages and benefits for 
Head Start workers may result in a reduction in the number of 
households receiving a range of safety net benefits, including Low 
Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), housing assistance, 
Medicaid/Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), Marketplace 
premium tax credits, SNAP, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), TANF, 
and WIC. Additionally, increases in staff wages will likely have an 
outsized impact on improving the educational quality of Head Start 
programming. While descriptive and non-causal, research illustrates 
that low wages are a primary driver of high turnover in early childhood 
educator positions.\100\ When early childhood teachers achieve pay 
parity with teachers in public schools their stress likely decreases, 
and research finds evidence that increased wages reduces turnover and 
improves worker focus and attention to children's needs.\101\ This will 
improve the quality of services delivered in programs. Research has 
also demonstrated that improved wages are correlated with higher 
quality programs.\102\ The majority of research in this area is not 
causal and, to the best of our knowledge, no cost-benefit analysis has 
been conducted related to the impact of increased wages in the early 
childhood sector. Therefore, our conclusions here are tentative but 
rooted in strong developmental science on the importance of continuity 
of care and adult-child interaction as a predictor of program quality 
in early education settings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \100\ Caven, M., Khanani, N., Zhang, X., & Parker, C.E. (2021). 
Center-and program-level factors associated with turnover in the 
early childhood education workforce (REL 2021-069). U.S. Department 
of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for 
Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational 
Laboratory Northeast & Islands.; Whitebook, M., Howes, C., & 
Phillips, D. (2014). Worthy Work, STILL Unlivable Wages: The Early 
Childhood Workforce 25 Years after the National Child Care Staffing 
Study. Center for the Study of Child Care Employment. https://cscce.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/publications/ReportFINAL.pdf. 
Morrissey, T.W., & Bowman, K. (2024). Early care and education 
workforce compensation, program quality, and child outcomes: A 
review of the research. Early Education & Development. Early Care 
and Education Workforce Compensation, Program Quality, and Child 
Outcomes: A Review of the Research: Early Education and Development: 
Vol 0, No 0--Get Access (tandfonline.com).
    \101\ Doromal et al. (2024). Wage supplements strengthen the 
child care workforce. The Urban Institute. Wage Supplements 
Strengthen the Child Care Workforce [bond] Urban Institute. Bassok 
et al. (2021). The effects of financial incentives on teacher 
turnover in early childhood settings: Experimental evidence from 
Virginia. The University of Virginia. 6de6fd54-e921-4c88-a452-
ad7cabccc362.pdf (elfsightcdn.com).
    \102\ Isaccs, J., Adelstein, S., Kuehn, D. (2018). Early 
Childhood Educator Compensation in the Washington Region. Urban 
Institute. https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/97676/early_childhood_educator_compensation_final_2.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By improving wages, teachers may choose to stay in the profession 
longer and may spend more time building the skills necessary to support 
high-quality early childhood programming and high-quality teacher-child 
interactions. Furthermore, improvements in staff retention overall due 
to improved wages and benefits likely promotes more stable staffing 
across the program and provides continuity of services for enrolled 
children and may also reduce stress and workload for other staff in the 
program due to fewer staff vacancies. Further, a strong and stable 
early childhood workforce can lead to improved child behavior and 
stronger social competence.\103\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \103\ Choi, Y., Horm, D., Jeon, S. & Ryu, D. (2019). Do 
Stability of Care and Teacher-Child Interaction Quality Predict 
Child Outcomes in Early Head Start?, Early Education and 
Development, 30:3, 337-356.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is also likely that there will be potential cost savings from 
the effects of this final rule mitigating the high expenses associated 
with high turnover. When Head Start programs experience staffing 
shortages, they often ask existing staff to work additional hours to 
compensate for the lack of adequate coverage. In some cases, substitute 
or temporary staff will be hired and sometimes this comes at an 
increased cost. Presumably, after the implementation of this policy, 
these excess costs (experienced as remunerations increases for the 
aggregate collection of Head Start teachers) will be reduced because 
the workforce will be more stable and programs will experience improved 
retention.
Estimated Impact of Secretary's Waiver Authority for Wage Policies 
(Sec.  1302.90)
    This RIA assumes annual increases in appropriations that are 
sufficient to keep pace with inflation. The

[[Page 67802]]

Secretary's waiver authority described in Sec.  1302.90(e)(7) through 
(10) protects against unintended consequences if annual appropriations 
are far below what is sufficient to keep pace with inflation (i.e., 
less than 1.3%) for programs that meet certain criteria. This funding 
scenario would be an historic anomaly and ACF would expect significant 
impacts on programs as a result of unprecedented low funding levels. 
While this scenario is unlikely, ACF is providing information on how 
costs and slots could be impacted should appropriations be much lower 
than anticipated.
    In order to qualify for the waiver, should the authority be 
exercised, programs must meet several criteria. ACF assumes that most 
programs will meet several of the criteria to be eligible for a waiver 
by 2028. First, programs must demonstrate they would need to cut 
enrolled slots in order to comply with the wage policies. By 2028, when 
the Secretary's authority could be exercised, we expect that nearly all 
programs will have reached full enrollment, either through enrolling 
more children or through reducing their funded service level and would 
thus meet this criterion. Programs must also demonstrate that they are 
making progress toward pay parity, which ACF expects all programs will 
do as a requirement of the final rule.
    However, ACF believes some programs will not be eligible because 
they do not meet health, safety, and quality criteria. ACF anticipates 
that the majority of programs that are disqualified for a waiver due to 
this criterion will be ineligible because they were required to compete 
as part of the DRS. Over the last 10 years (from 2013-2023), an average 
of 21% of Head Start grants that were monitored in a given year were 
designated to compete for continued funding and thus would not be 
eligible for a waiver. Should this waiver authority be exercised, we 
estimate that approximately 80% of programs would be eligible under the 
Secretary's waiver authority.
    Combined with the exemption for small programs, we estimate that 
the vast majority of programs could be exempt from many of the wage 
policies if the Secretary's waiver authority is exercised. Further, we 
expect that the costs (experienced by workers as increased 
remuneration) associated with the wage requirements of this rule would 
decrease significantly as a result of this Secretarial authority, which 
would likely lead to slower loss of funded slots attributable to the 
rule implementation. However, we would also expect that the overall 
expenditures on wages would continue to increase, albeit at a slower 
rate, as programs with an exemption or waiver would be required to 
continue to make progress on wages.
Estimated Impact of Mental Health Services (Part 1302, Subparts D, H, 
and I)
    In addition to the effects (costs) quantified in section E of this 
RIA, there are numerous additional benefits to enhancing provisions 
related to mental health supports. Advancing science in child 
development demonstrates that birth to age five is an important period 
for brain development and is a critical foundation on which all later 
development builds. Mental health and social-emotional well-being 
during this period are foundational for family well-being, children's 
healthy development, and early learning and are associated with 
positive long-term outcomes. Early childhood experiences, like trusting 
relationships with caregivers in a stable, nurturing environment, aid 
in the development of skills that build resilience. The enhancements to 
the requirements for mental health supports are expected to promote 
higher-quality services for children in Head Start programs across the 
country and support child, family, and staff well-being.
    Specifically, revisions to part 1302, subpart D, enhances health 
program services to explicitly include mental health. These regulatory 
changes also reflect a preventative approach to mental health across 
comprehensive service areas, such as health and family engagement. The 
addition of mental health screening will support programs in having 
conversations about mental health early and often. Screening will 
facilitate the identification of children, families, and staff with 
specific needs and allow for intervention before more time and resource 
intensive care becomes necessary. Mental health screening may result in 
nominal costs to programs that elect to purchase specific screening 
tools. This rule also adds a requirement that a program take a 
multidisciplinary approach to mental health. We expect that this work 
would be carried out by existing staff and may have an associated 
opportunity cost not reflected in budgets.
Expected Benefits of Child Health and Safety (Sec. Sec.  1302.47; 
1302.90; 1302.92; 1302.101; 1302.102)
    The rule includes several provisions to ensure basic health and 
safety measures are taken to protect all children. These provisions 
include a revision of previous requirements to ensure we are as clear 
as possible and that our requirements reflect current best practices 
and more precise terminology around standards of conduct. These changes 
will result in aligned definitions with other Federal resources and 
clarifications to existing requirements. Non-quantifiable benefits of 
these enhancements include critical supports to child safety by 
supporting staff in recognizing potential child abuse and neglect and 
understanding their legal responsibility as mandated reporters, which 
will improve child safety and program response to violations of 
standards of conduct.
    These provisions also enhance requirements for incorporating child 
health and safety training into existing annual staff training and 
professional development. We assume there will be nominal costs 
(included in the estimates below) associated with improved training on 
child health and safety because programs will replace other on-the-job 
activities. Non-quantifiable benefits of an increased frequency of 
training include allowing programs to offer staff advanced training 
opportunities on areas of local importance or greater complexity, such 
as culturally responsive practices in reporting, issues related to 
disproportionate reporting, and information about at-risk populations. 
This policy change also creates more equitable opportunities for staff 
to understand and discuss their ethical and legal responsibilities. 
Annual training on positive strategies to understand and support 
children's social and emotional development also enhances the use of 
positive strategies and have the added benefit of increasing 
opportunities for peer support as appropriate. Together, these changes 
will have the benefit of ensuring the safety and wellbeing of all who 
participate in Head Start programs.
    The cost estimates for the additional annual training content are 
provided below and represent value-of-time costs by year for all staff 
in Head Start programs who will be required to take this annual 
training. We predict this cost will be borne out by shifting existing 
content of existing staff trainings to accommodate this new 
requirement. Table K1 reflects this value-of-time cost using the 
average target wage for all position types and the benefits fringe rate 
in the final rule benefits policy. These costs were estimated using an 
hourly wage of $24.36 which represents the midpoint between the 
baseline and target wage averages, which is $33.46 per hour when final 
rule benefits policy are included. We assume 0.5 hours of

[[Page 67803]]

training annually for 178,690 staff (which represents all education 
staff and half of other types of staff who will expect will receive the 
training).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21AU24.021

Estimated Impact of Modernizing Engagement With Families (Sec. Sec.  
1302.11; 1302.13; 1302.15; 1302.34; 1302.50)
    These provisions enhance existing requirements that programs must 
follow when completing their community needs assessments. Programs will 
be required to identify communication methods to best engage with 
prospective and enrolled families, and to use modern technologies to 
streamline information gathering and improve communications. There is 
significant benefit to families in giving them a voice in the way that 
programs choose to communicate. Using communication modalities and 
methods that are easiest to families would enhance engagement with Head 
Start and increase program accessibility. Programs will also be 
required to implement improvements to streamline the enrollment 
experience for families. There may be nominal costs for programs to 
make these determinations and implement new technologies. Streamlining 
the enrollment experience for families will create more user-friendly 
and efficient processes, reduce burden and build trust with families, 
and support Head Start in more equitably and effectively delivering 
services.
Estimated Impact of Community Assessment (Sec.  1302.11)
    The changes to these provisions address concerns that Head Start 
programs and others in the field have raised about the burdens of the 
community needs assessment. These provisions promote clarity on the 
intent of the community assessment, align with best practices, and 
increase the effectiveness in how the community assessment is used to 
inform key aspects of program design and approach. Requiring a 
strategic approach to determine what data to collect prior to 
conducting the community needs assessment and how to use the needs 
assessment to achieve intended outcomes will promote overall 
effectiveness of the community assessment to drive programmatic 
decision making. These changes may also facilitate reductions in cost 
of time-consuming or complex assessment and analytical techniques and 
reduce barriers to programs being able to use their community 
assessment data to effectively guide programmatic decisions. Programs 
will also be allowed to use readily available data on their community, 
which will reduce duplication of efforts and further lessen burden, and 
may facilitate coordination with other community programs.
    Other new requirements related to the collection of specific 
elements in the community needs assessment, such as geographic 
location, race, ethnicity, and languages, facilitate Head Start's 
ability to understand the diversity of populations most in need of 
services, which in turn will help promote equity, inclusion, and 
accessibility in service delivery. Factors related to transportation 
needs and resources in communities reflects that transportation remains 
a significant barrier for many of the hardest to serve families and 
impedes Head Start's mission. Ensuring transportation needs and 
resources are part of the data that informs a program's design and 
service delivery will enable Head Start to more effectively meet the 
needs of families and improve access to Head Start services.
Estimated Impact of Adjustment for Excessive Housing Costs for 
Eligibility Determination (Sec.  1302.12)
    This provision allows a program to adjust a family's income to 
account for excessive housing costs. This provision reflects a transfer 
of benefits from one potentially eligible family to another, however, 
consistent with Sec. Sec.  1302.14 and 1302.13 in the HSPPS which are 
unchanged in this rule, programs will continue to establish selection 
criteria that prioritize selection of participants based on need. There 
may be nominal implementation costs as Head Start programs implement 
these new income calculations. Children whose families have few 
resources because they earn near-poverty level wages and live in areas 
with a high-cost of living may be newly eligible for Head Start. This 
enables Head Start to continue to

[[Page 67804]]

prioritize the enrollment of families most in need of services. This 
provision also increases alignment with other means-tested Federal 
programs that use an income adjustment to account for excessive housing 
costs.
Estimated Impact of Tribal Eligibility (Sec.  1302.12)
    The modifications to eligibility requirements for Tribal programs 
in this provision benefits Tribal programs by reducing barriers to 
families in need of program services. The rule allows Tribal programs 
the flexibility to consider eligibility regardless of income. Tribal 
programs can use their selection criteria to enroll pregnant women and 
age-eligible children who would benefit from Head Start services but do 
not meet income eligibility requirements. This selection criteria may 
include prioritizing children in families in which a child, family 
member, or member of the household is a member of an Indian Tribe. 
There may be nominal costs for Tribal programs to establish or revise 
their selection criteria and administrative procedures for enrollment.
Estimated Impact of Migrant and Seasonal Head Start Eligibility (Sec.  
1302.12)
    The modifications to eligibility requirements for MSHS programs in 
this provision benefits MSHS programs and families by reducing barriers 
to enrolling farmworker families in need of program services. First, 
MSHS programs may now serve any pregnant woman or age-eligible child 
who has one family member whose income comes primarily from 
agricultural employment as defined in section 3 of the Migrant and 
Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (29 U.S.C. 1802), even if 
they do not meet other income eligibility requirements. This change 
will allow for the families of migrant and seasonal farmworkers to 
benefit from Head Start without losing their eligibility if they pursue 
additional economic opportunities in other sectors. Second, the 
provisions related to eligibility duration address an existing inequity 
between infants and toddlers served in Early Head Start programs and 
those served in MSHS programs. The existing requirement creates an 
inequity because infants and toddlers served in Early Head Start 
programs can receive services for the duration of the program, meaning 
until they turn three and age out of the program, whereas the MSHS 
family is no longer considered eligible for the program after two 
years. Therefore, the young children of agricultural workers are not 
provided the same potential duration of services as infants and 
toddlers served by Early Head Start. This change also promotes 
continuity for families served by MSHS and reduces paperwork for 
families and programs.
Estimated Impact of Serving Children With Disabilities (Sec.  1302.14)
    These provisions clarify language to address an inconsistency 
between the HSPPS and the Act. This provision reflects a transfer of 
benefits from one potentially eligible family to another. A non-
quantifiable benefit of this provision is to address confusion caused 
by the discrepancy. Further clarification that the requirement to fill 
ten percent of slots with children with disabilities under IDEA is a 
floor and not a ceiling supports Head Start in maximizing services to 
children with disabilities who benefit from the program's strong focus 
on inclusive early childhood settings.
Expected Benefits of Family Partnership Family Assignments (Sec.  
1302.52)
    This provision seeks to ensure that an individual family services 
staff is assigned to work with no greater than 40 families. Based on 
internal data, 44 percent of programs have caseloads that exceed 40 
families. We estimate that a total of 2,282 new family services staff 
will need to be hired to meet this new requirement at a total cost of 
$125 million. There are numerous non-quantifiable benefits to lower 
family assignments. This provision will address staff well-being, 
reduce burnout, and reduce job frustration and dissatisfaction. For 
staff well-being, large caseloads are associated with staff burnout and 
turnover, feeling overwhelmed, and expression of job frustration and 
dissatisfaction. This provision will improve the quality of family 
services and improve staff well-being and reflects best practice in the 
field.
Expected Benefits of Participation in Quality Rating and Improvement 
Systems (Sec.  1302.53)
    This provision encourages Head Start programs to participate in 
State QRIS to the extent practicable if the State system has strategies 
in place to support their participation. We assume that programs newly 
participating in QRIS will incur additional costs and burden from 
substantive changes in the form of revised processes and potentially 
additional or different documentation, as well as possible duplication 
of monitoring and assessment processes. However, the rule allows for 
program to choose not to participate in QRIS if it presents an undue 
burden. Non-quantifiable benefits of participation in QRIS include 
continued quality improvement efforts, providing a common metric 
through which families can understand and make decisions about program 
options, and aligning standards across a statewide early care and 
education system.
Expected Benefits of Services To Enrolled Pregnant People (Sec. Sec.  
1302.80; 1302.82)
    This provision enhances services to enrolled pregnant people by 
requiring the newborn visit to include a discussion of maternal mental 
and physical health, infant health, and support for basic needs; and 
requiring programs to track and record information on service delivery 
for enrolled pregnant women. We assume programs may incur nominal costs 
associated with enhancements to recordkeeping. Non-quantifiable 
benefits of these provisions include assessing the child care, health, 
and mental health needs of mothers in the critical period after child 
birth, which will enable Head Start to provide support to mothers and 
identify opportunities for collaboration and intervention. Improved 
tracking and recording of services to enrolled pregnant women also 
supports ACF in understanding the services provided and identifying how 
to best be responsive to the needs of enrolled pregnant people. These 
records will also be used to validate the use of Federal funds to serve 
pregnant people and to inform ongoing conversations program staff have 
with the pregnant person about their needs before and after the baby is 
born.
Expected Benefits of Definition of Income (Sec.  1305.2)
    This provision revises the definition of income by providing a 
clear and finite list of what is considered income and what is not 
considered income. Non-quantifiable benefits of this provision include 
making the policy less burdensome and complicated for programs to 
implement, ensuring programs can more easily identify an applicants' 
income, and promoting consistent interpretation on what to include in 
calculating income across programs.
Final Small Entity Analysis
    The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires agencies to analyze 
regulatory options that would minimize any significant impact of a rule 
on small entities. This analysis, as well as other sections in this 
document and the

[[Page 67805]]

Preamble of this final rule, serves as the Final Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis, as required under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

A. Description and Number of Affected Small Entities

    The SBA maintains a Table of Small Business Size Standards Matched 
to North American Industry Classification System Codes (NAICS).\104\ We 
replicate the SBA's description of this table:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \104\ U.S. Small Business Administration (2023). ``Table of Size 
Standards.'' March 17, 2023, https://www.sba.gov/document/support-table-size-standards.

    This table lists small business size standards matched to 
industries described in the North American Industry Classification 
System (NAICS), as modified by the Office of Management and Budget, 
effective January 1, 2022.
    The size standards are for the most part expressed in either 
millions of dollars (those preceded by ``$'') or number of employees 
(those without the ``$''). A size standard is the largest that a 
concern can be and still qualify as a small business for Federal 
Government programs. For the most part, size standards are the 
average annual receipts or the average employment of a firm. How to 
calculate average annual receipts and average employment of a firm 
can be found in 13 CFR 121.104 and 13 CFR 121.106, respectively.

    This final rule will impact small entities in NAICS category 
624410, Child Care Services, which has a size standard of $9.5 million 
dollars. We assume that most Head Start programs, if not all, are below 
this threshold and are considered small entities.

B. Description of the Potential Impacts of the Rule on Small Entities

    In the main analysis, we estimate that about $2.51 billion (nominal 
dollars) in additional funding will be necessary to fully implement the 
final rule in 2034, which is about a 17% increase above baseline 
funding levels. Most of the funding needed is proportional to the size 
of the Head Start program or agency, so we do not separately assess the 
potential impacts of the rule on small entities of different sizes. The 
Department considers a rule to have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities if it has at least a 3% impact on 
revenue on at least 5% of small entities. Since the final rule will 
likely result in increased expenditures of about 17%, we find that the 
final rule will likely have a significant impact on a substantial 
number of small entities.
    In response to comments and concerns regarding the sustainability 
of small programs in implementing these policies, ACF is exempting 
agencies with 200 or fewer funded slots from most of the staff wage and 
benefit requirements in the final rule. However, small Head Start 
agencies are still required to make improvements in wages and benefits 
for staff over time to reduce disparities between wages and benefits in 
Head Start and preschool teachers in public schools. While small 
agencies have flexibility to phase in wage increases according to their 
budgets, ACF strongly encourages these programs to invest in higher 
wages by restructuring their budgets, targeting annual COLA increases 
to wages, and seeking other available funding sources that can be used 
to enhance wages.
C. Alternatives To Minimize the Burden on Small Entities
    ACF considered many policy alternatives to the final rule, some of 
which are quantified in this analysis. Tables I1 and I2 summarize the 
impacts on expenditures under the wage-parity policy, reporting yearly 
estimates, and present value and annualized values corresponding to a 
2% discount rate. These tables present separate analyses of the 
following policies: staff wages, staff benefits, staff breaks, family 
service worker family assignments, mental health supports, and 
preventing and addressing lead exposure. This document also considers 
the impacts of expenditures associated with the minimum pay 
requirement, and itemized impacts of the lead in water and lead-based 
paint policies. These analyses demonstrate the impact of exempting Head 
Start agencies with 200 or fewer funded slots from the wages and 
benefits requirements, estimated to be among the most expensive 
requirements of the final rule, and minimizes burden on small entities. 
The estimates in this final rule are lower than those estimated in the 
NPRM because of policy changes, such as removing the requirement for 
paid family leave, and the exemption of Head Start agencies with 200 or 
fewer slots from the wage and benefits requirements, which was added in 
response to comments and the particular challenges that small Head 
Start agencies may face in implementing these policies. In the NPRM, we 
also modeled an alternative policy that included retirement benefits, 
which the final does not include. In section J of this Regulatory 
Impact Analysis, we describe a sensitivity analysis that explores how 
the rule's effects are expected to manifest themselves if there are no 
increases in Federal appropriations above baseline (or such increases 
occur but not in response to this regulation and/or the increased 
appropriations could not be used to support the policies in the final 
rule). In addition, we report the likely reductions in funded 
enrollment under the final rule, which are also lower than estimated 
for the provisions in the NPRM. These tables and additional analyses in 
the narrative of this document enabled ACF to appropriately consider a 
range of feasible policy alternatives.

List of Subjects

45 CFR Part 1301

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

45 CFR Part 1302

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

45 CFR Part 1303

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

45 CFR Part 1304

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

45 CFR Part 1305

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

    Dated: August 1, 2024.
Xavier Becerra,
Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.

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

PART 1301--PROGRAM GOVERNANCE

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

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


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


Sec.  1301.1  Purpose.

    An agency, as defined in part 1305 of this chapter, must establish 
and maintain a formal structure for program governance that includes a 
governing body, a policy council at the agency level and policy 
committee at the delegate level, and a parent committee. Governing 
bodies have a legal and fiscal responsibility to administer and oversee 
the agency's Head Start programs. Policy councils are responsible for 
the direction of the agency's Head Start programs.

0
3. Amend Sec.  1301.3 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a); and

[[Page 67806]]

0
b. In paragraph (b)(2), removing the word ``grantees'' and adding in 
its place the words ``grant recipients''.
    The revision reads as follows:


Sec.  1301.3  Policy council and policy committee.

    (a) Establishing policy councils and policy committees. Each agency 
must establish and maintain a policy council responsible for the 
direction of the Head Start program at the agency level, and a policy 
committee at the delegate level. If an agency delegates operational 
responsibility for the entire Head Start program to one delegate 
agency, the policy council and policy committee may be the same body.
* * * * *

0
4. Amend Sec.  1301.4 by revising paragraph (b)(3) to read as follows:


Sec.  1301.4  Parent committees.

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

PART 1302--PROGRAM OPERATIONS

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

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


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


Sec.  1302.1  Overview.

    This part implements the statutory requirements in sections 641A, 
645, 645A, and 648A of the Act by describing all of the program 
performance standards that are required to operate Head Start 
Preschool, Early Head Start, American Indian and Alaska Native and 
Migrant or Seasonal Head Start programs. This part covers the full 
range of operations from enrolling eligible children and providing 
program services to those children and their families, to managing 
programs to ensure staff are qualified and supported to effectively 
provide services. This part also focuses on using data through ongoing 
program improvement to ensure high-quality service. As required in the 
Act, the provisions in this part do not narrow the scope or quality of 
services covered in previous regulations. Instead, the regulations in 
this part raise the quality standard to reflect science and best 
practices, and streamline and simplify requirements so programs can 
better understand what is required for quality services.

Subpart A--Eligibility, Recruitment, Selection, Enrollment, and 
Attendance


Sec.  1302.10  [Amended]

0
7. Amend Sec.  1302.10 in the first sentence by removing the word 
``grantees'' and adding in its place the words ``grant recipients''.

0
8. Amend Sec.  1302.11 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    (b) Community wide strategic planning and needs assessment 
(community assessment). (1) A program must conduct a comprehensive 
community assessment at least once over the five-year grant period and 
annually review and update if any significant changes are needed as 
described in paragraph (b)(5) of this section to:
    (i) Identify populations most in need of services including 
prevalent social or economic factors, challenges, and barriers 
experienced by families and children;
    (ii) Inform the program's design and to ensure equitable, 
inclusive, and accessible service delivery that reflect needs and 
diversity of the community;
    (iii) Inform the enrollment, recruitment, and selection process to 
prioritize the enrollment of those populations with relevant 
circumstances identified under paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section;
    (iv) Identify strengths and resources in the community that can be 
leveraged for service delivery, coordination, and partnership efforts 
for education, health, nutrition, and referrals to social services to 
eligible children and families; and,
    (v) Identify the communication methods and modalities available to 
the program that best engage with prospective and enrolled families in 
accessible ways.
    (2) In conducting the community assessment, a program must collect 
and utilize data that describes community strengths, needs, and 
resources and include, at a minimum:
    (i) Relevant demographic data about eligible children and expectant 
mothers, including:
    (A) Race and ethnicity;
    (B) Children living in poverty;
    (C) Children experiencing homelessness in collaboration with, to 
the extent possible, McKinney-Vento Local Education Agency Liaisons (42 
U.S.C. 11432 (6)(A));
    (D) Children in foster care;
    (E) Children with disabilities, including types of disabilities and 
relevant services and resources provided to these children by community 
agencies; and
    (F) Geographic location and languages they speak;
    (ii) The education, health, nutrition and social service needs of 
eligible children and their families, including prevalent social or 
economic factors, challenges, and barriers to program participation 
such as transportation needs;
    (iii) Typical work, school, and training schedules of parents with 
eligible children;
    (iv) Other child development, child care centers, and family child 
care programs that serve eligible children, including home visiting, 
publicly funded State and local preschools, and the approximate number 
of eligible children served and their ages;
    (v) Resources that are available in the community to address the 
needs of eligible children and their families, especially 
transportation resources, and culturally appropriate and responsive 
supports;
    (vi) Strengths of the community; and,
    (vii) Gaps in community resources in areas relevant to addressing 
the needs of eligible children and their families such as gaps in 
health and human services, housing assistance, food assistance, 
employment assistance, early childhood development, and social 
services.
    (3) Programs should have a strategic approach:
    (i) To determine what data to acquire to reach goals in paragraph 
(b)(1) of this section prior to conducting the community assessment; 
and
    (ii) For how to use the data acquired to reach goals in paragraph 
(b)(1) of this section after conducting the community assessment.
    (4) When determining what data to acquire under paragraph (b)(2) of 
this section programs should consider what information is most relevant 
to inform services for families most in need. Data gathering should be 
informed by the program's understanding of the community and be 
intentionally designed to help the program identify community 
strengths, needs and resources, and plan the program accordingly. 
Programs are not required to collect all information themselves; rather 
programs should utilize community partners and utilize existing 
available data sources relevant to the local community.
    (5) A program must annually review and, where needed, update the 
community assessment to identify any significant shifts in community 
demographics, needs, and resources that may impact program design and 
service delivery. As described in paragraph

[[Page 67807]]

(b)(4) of this section, programs should consider results from their 
self-assessment as required in subpart J of this part (Sec. Sec.  
1302.101 through 1302.103) and their annual funding application to 
inform this process. The annual update review must consider at a 
minimum: changes related to children and families experiencing 
homelessness; how the program addresses equity, accessibility, and 
inclusiveness in its provision of services; and changes to the 
availability of publicly funded pre-kindergarten and whether it meets 
needs of families. Programs must consider how the annual review and 
update can inform and support management approaches for continuous 
quality improvement, program goals, and ongoing oversight.
    (6) A program must consider whether the characteristics of the 
community allow it to include children from diverse economic 
backgrounds that would be supported by other funding sources, including 
private pay, in addition to the program's eligible funded enrollment. A 
program must not enroll children from diverse economic backgrounds if 
it would result in a program serving less than its eligible funded 
enrollment.

0
9. Amend Sec.  1302.12 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2) introductory text, (b)(2)(i), 
(e), and (f);
0
b. Redesignating paragraphs (i)(1)(i) through (iii) as paragraphs 
(i)(1)(iii) through (v);
0
c. Adding new paragraphs (i)(1)(i) and (ii);
0
d. Revising paragraphs (j)(3) and (4);
0
e. Adding paragraph (j)(5); and
0
f. Revising paragraph (l).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  1302.12  Determining, verifying, and documenting eligibility.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) For Early Head Start, except when the child is transitioning to 
Head Start Preschool, a child must be an infant or a toddler younger 
than three years old.
    (2) For Head Start Preschool, a child must:
    (i) Be at least three years old or, turn three years old by the 
date used to determine eligibility for public school in the community 
in which the Head Start Preschool program is located; and,
* * * * *
    (e) Additional allowances for Indian tribes. (1) Notwithstanding 
paragraph (c) of this section, a Tribal program may determine any 
pregnant women or children in the approved service area to be eligible 
for services regardless of income, if they meet the requirements of 
paragraph (b) of this section.
    (2) An Indian Tribe or Tribes that operates both an Early Head 
Start program and a Head Start Preschool program may, at its 
discretion, at any time during the grant period involved, reallocate 
funds between the Early Head Start program and the Head Start Preschool 
program in order to address fluctuations in client populations, 
including pregnant women and children from birth to compulsory school 
age. The reallocation of such funds between programs by an Indian Tribe 
or Tribes during a year may not serve as a basis for any reduction of 
the base grant for either program in succeeding years.
    (f) Migrant or Seasonal eligibility requirements. Notwithstanding 
paragraph (c) of this section, pregnant women and children are eligible 
for Migrant or Seasonal Head Start if they have at least one family 
member whose income comes primarily from agricultural employment as 
defined in section 3 of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker 
Protection Act (29 U.S.C. 1802), and if they meet the requirements of 
paragraph (b) of this section.
* * * * *
    (i) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) The program must calculate total gross income using applicable 
sources of income.
    (ii) A program may make an adjustment to a family's gross income 
calculation for the purposes of determining eligibility to account for 
excessive housing costs. A program may use available bills, bank 
statements, and other relevant documentation provided by the family to 
calculate total annual housing costs with appropriate multipliers to:
    (A) Determine if a family spends more than 30 percent of their 
total gross income on housing costs, as defined in part 1305 of this 
chapter; and
    (B) If applicable, reduce the total gross income by the amount 
spent on housing costs that exceed more than 30 percent.
* * * * *
    (j) * * *
    (3) If a child moves from an Early Head Start program to a Head 
Start Preschool program, program staff must verify the family's 
eligibility again.
    (4) If a program operates both an Early Head Start and a Head Start 
Preschool program, and the parents wish to enroll their child who has 
been enrolled in the program's Early Head Start, the program must 
ensure, whenever possible, the child receives Head Start Preschool 
services until enrolled in school, provided the child is eligible.
    (5) If a program operates a Migrant and Seasonal Head Start 
program, children younger than age three participating in the program 
remain eligible until they turn three years old consistent with 
paragraph (j)(2) of this section.
* * * * *
    (l) Program policies and procedures on violating eligibility 
determination regulations. A program must establish written policies 
and procedures that describe all actions taken against staff who 
intentionally violate Federal and program eligibility determination 
regulations and who enroll pregnant women and children that are not 
eligible to receive Head Start services.
* * * * *

0
10. Revise Sec.  1302.13 to read as follows:


Sec.  1302.13  Recruitment of children.

    In order to reach those most in need of services, a program must 
develop and implement a recruitment process designed to actively inform 
all families with eligible children within the recruitment area of the 
availability of program services. A program must include modern 
technologies to encourage and assist families in applying for admission 
to the program, and to reduce the family's administrative and paperwork 
burden in the application and enrollment process. A program must 
include specific efforts to actively locate and recruit children with 
disabilities and other children in need, including children 
experiencing homelessness and children in foster care.

0
11. Amend Sec.  1302.14 by:
0
a. Revising and republishing paragraph (a);
0
b. Revising paragraph (b)(1); and
0
c. Adding paragraph (d).
    The revisions, republication, and additions read as follows:


Sec.  1302.14  Selection process.

    (a) Selection criteria. (1) A program must annually establish 
selection criteria that weigh the prioritization of selection of 
participants, based on community needs identified in the community 
needs assessment as described in Sec.  1302.11(b), and including family 
income, whether the child is homeless, whether the child is in foster 
care, the child's age, whether the child is eligible for special 
education and related services, or early intervention services, as 
appropriate, as determined under the Individuals with Disabilities 
Education Act (IDEA) (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.) and, other relevant 
family or child risk factors.
    (2) An Indian Tribe that operates a Head Start program must 
annually

[[Page 67808]]

establish selection criteria that weigh the prioritization of selection 
of participants, based on community needs identified in the community 
needs assessment as described in Sec.  1302.11(b), and may, at its 
discretion, give priority to children in families for which a child, a 
family member, or a member of the same household, is a member of an 
Indian Tribe, and would benefit from the Head Start program.
    (3) If a program serves migrant or seasonal families, it must 
annually establish selection criteria that weigh the prioritization of 
selection of participants, based on community needs identified in the 
community needs assessment as described in Sec.  1302.11(b), and give 
priority to children whose families can demonstrate they have relocated 
frequently within the past two-years to pursue agricultural work.
    (4) If a program operates in a service area where Head Start 
Preschool eligible children can enroll in high-quality publicly funded 
pre-kindergarten for a full school day, the program must prioritize 
younger children as part of the selection criteria in paragraph (a)(1) 
of this section. If this priority would disrupt partnerships with local 
education agencies, then it is not required. An American Indian and 
Alaska Native or Migrant or Seasonal Head Start program must consider 
whether such prioritization is appropriate in their community.
    (5) A program must not deny enrollment based on a disability or 
chronic health condition or its severity.
    (6) A program may consider the enrollment of children of staff 
members as part of the selection criteria in paragraph (a)(1) of this 
section.
    (b) * * *
    (1) A program must ensure at least 10 percent of its total actual 
enrollment is filled by children eligible for services under IDEA, 
unless the responsible HHS official grants a waiver.
* * * * *
    (d) Understanding barriers to enrollment. A program is required to 
use data from the community assessment to identify the population of 
eligible children and families and potential barriers to enrollment and 
attendance, including using data to understand access to transportation 
for the highest need families. A program must use this data to inform 
ongoing program improvement efforts as described in Sec.  1302.102(c) 
to promote enrolling the children most in need of program services.

0
12. Amend Sec.  1302.15 by revising paragraph (b)(2) and adding 
paragraph (g) to read as follows:


Sec.  1302.15  Enrollment.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) Under exceptional circumstances, a program may maintain a 
child's enrollment in Head Start Preschool for a third year, provided 
that family income is verified again. A program may maintain a child's 
enrollment in Early Head Start as described in Sec.  1302.12(j)(2).
* * * * *
    (g) User-friendly enrollment process. A program must regularly 
examine their enrollment processes and implement any identified 
improvements to streamline the enrollment experience for families.

0
13. Amend Sec.  1302.16 by:
0
a. Removing ``and,'' at the end of paragraph (a)(2)(iii);
0
b. Removing the period at the end of paragraph (a)(2)(iv) and adding 
``; and'' in its place; and
0
c. Adding paragraph (a)(2)(v).
    The addition reads as follows:


Sec.  1302.16  Attendance.

    (a) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (v) Examine barriers to regular attendance, such as access to safe 
and reliable transportation, and where possible, provide or facilitate 
transportation for the child if needed.
* * * * *

0
14. Amend Sec.  1302.17 by revising paragraphs (a)(2) and (4) and 
(b)(2) introductory text to read as follows:


Sec.  1302.17  Suspension and expulsion.

    (a) * * *
    (2) A temporary suspension must be used only as a last resort in 
extraordinary circumstances where there is a serious safety threat that 
has not been reduced or eliminated by the provision of interventions 
and supports recommended by the mental health consultant and the 
program needs time to put additional appropriate services in place.
* * * * *
    (4) If a temporary suspension is deemed necessary, a program must 
help the child return to full participation in all program activities 
as quickly as possible while ensuring child safety. A program must 
explore all possible steps and document all steps taken to address the 
behavior(s) and supports needed to facilitate the child's safe reentry 
and continued participation in the program. Such steps must include, at 
a minimum:
    (i) Continuing to engage with the parents, mental health 
consultant, and other appropriate staff, and continuing to utilize 
appropriate community resources;
    (ii) Providing additional program supports and services, including 
home visits; and,
    (iii) Determining whether a referral to a local agency responsible 
for implementing IDEA is appropriate, or if the child has an 
individualized family service plan (IFSP) or individualized education 
program (IEP), consulting with the responsible agency to ensure the 
child receives the needed support services.
    (b) * * *
    (2) When a child exhibits persistent and serious behavioral 
concerns, a program must explore all possible steps and document all 
steps taken to address such problems, and facilitate the child's safe 
participation in the program. Such steps must include, at a minimum, 
engaging a mental health consultant, considering the appropriateness of 
providing appropriate services and supports under section 504 of the 
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 to ensure that the child who satisfies the 
definition of disability in 29 U.S.C. 705(9)(b) of the Rehabilitation 
Act is not excluded from the program on the basis of disability, and 
consulting with the parents and the child's teacher, and:
* * * * *

Subpart B--Program Structure

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


Sec.  1302.20  Determining program structure.

    (a) Choose a program option. (1) A program must choose to operate 
one or more of the following program options: center- based, home-
based, family child care, or an approved locally designed variation as 
described in Sec.  1302.24. The program option(s) chosen must meet the 
needs of children and families based on the community assessment 
described in Sec.  1302.11(b). A Head Start Preschool program may not 
provide only the option described in Sec.  1302.22(a) and (c)(2).
    (2) To choose a program option and develop a program calendar, a 
program must consider in conjunction with the annual review of the 
community assessment described in Sec.  1302.11(b)(2), whether it would 
better meet child and family needs through conversion of existing slots 
to full school day or full

[[Page 67809]]

working day slots, extending the program year, conversion of existing 
Head Start Preschool slots to Early Head Start slots as described in 
paragraph (c) of this section, and ways to promote continuity of care 
and services. A program must work to identify alternate sources to 
support full working day services. If no additional funding is 
available, program resources may be used.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) Consistent with section 645(a)(5) of the Head Start Act, grant 
recipients may request to convert Head Start Preschool slots to Early 
Head Start slots through the refunding application process or as a 
separate grant amendment.
    (2) Any grant recipient proposing a conversion of Head Start 
Preschool services to Early Head Start services must obtain policy 
council and governing body approval and submit the request to their 
regional office.
    (3) * * *
    (i) A grant application budget and a budget narrative that clearly 
identifies the funding amount for the Head Start Preschool and Early 
Head Start programs before and after the proposed conversion;
* * * * *
    (iii) A revised program schedule that describes the program 
option(s) and the number of funded enrollment slots for Head Start 
Preschool and Early Head Start programs before and after the proposed 
conversion;
* * * * *
    (4) Consistent with section 645(d)(3) of the Act, any American 
Indian and Alaska Native grant recipient that operates both an Early 
Head Start program and a Head Start Preschool program may reallocate 
funds between the programs at its discretion and at any time during the 
grant period involved, in order to address fluctuations in client 
populations. An American Indian and Alaska Native program that 
exercises this discretion must notify the regional office.
    (d) Source of funding. A program may consider hours of service that 
meet the Head Start Program Performance Standards, regardless of the 
source of funding, as hours of planned class operations for the 
purposes of meeting the Head Start Preschool and Early Head Start 
service duration requirements in this subpart.

0
16. Amend Sec.  1302.21 by revising and republishing paragraph (c) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  1302.21  Center-based option.

* * * * *
    (c) Service duration--(1) Early Head Start. (i) A program must 
provide 1,380 annual hours of planned class operations for all enrolled 
children.
    (ii) A program that is designed to meet the needs of young parents 
enrolled in school settings may meet the service duration requirements 
in paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section if it operates a center-based 
program schedule during the school year aligned with its local 
education agency requirements and provides regular home-based services 
during the summer break.
    (2) Head Start Preschool--(i) Service duration for at least 45 
percent. A program must provide 1,020 annual hours of planned class 
operation over the course of at least eight months per year for at 
least 45 percent of its Head Start Preschool center-based funded 
enrollment.
    (ii) Service duration for remaining slots. A program must provide, 
at a minimum, at least 160 days per year of planned class operations if 
it operates for five days per week, or at least 128 days per year if it 
operates four days per week. Classes must operate for a minimum of 3.5 
hours per day.
    (iii) Double session. Double session variation must provide classes 
for four days per week for a minimum of 128 days per year and 3.5 hours 
per day. Each double session class staff member must be provided 
adequate break time during the course of the day. In addition, 
teachers, assistants, and volunteers must have appropriate time to 
prepare for each session together, to set up the classroom environment, 
and to give individual attention to children entering and leaving the 
center.
    (iv) Special provision for alignment with local education agency. A 
Head Start Preschool program providing fewer than 1,020 annual hours of 
planned class operations or fewer than eight months of service is 
considered to meet the requirements described in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of 
this section if its program schedule aligns with the annual hours 
required by its local education agency for grade one and such alignment 
is necessary to support partnerships for service delivery.
    (3) Exemption for Migrant or Seasonal Head Start programs. A 
Migrant or Seasonal program is not subject to the requirements 
described in paragraph (c)(1) or (2) of this section, but must make 
every effort to provide as many days and hours of service as possible 
to each child and family.
    (4) Calendar planning. A program must:
    (i) Plan its year using a reasonable estimate of the number of days 
during a year that classes may be closed due to problems such as 
inclement weather; and,
    (ii) Make every effort to schedule makeup days using existing 
resources if hours of planned class operations fall below the number 
required per year.
* * * * *

0
17. Amend Sec.  1302.22 by revising paragraphs (a) and (c)(2) paragraph 
heading and introductory text to read as follows:


Sec.  1302.22  Home-based option.

    (a) Setting. The home-based option delivers the full range of 
services, consistent with Sec.  1302.20(b), through visits with the 
child's parents, primarily in the child's home and through group 
socialization opportunities in a Head Start classroom, community 
facility, home, or on field trips. For Early Head Start programs, the 
home-based option may be used to deliver services to some or all of a 
program's enrolled children. For Head Start Preschool programs, the 
home-based option may only be used to deliver services to a portion of 
a program's enrolled children.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) Head Start Preschool. A Head Start Preschool home-based program 
must:
* * * * *

0
18. Amend Sec.  1302.23 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:


Sec.  1302.23  Family child care option.

* * * * *
    (b) Ratios and group size--(1) Group size. A program that operates 
the family child care option where Head Start children are enrolled 
must ensure group size does not exceed the limits specified in this 
section. If the family child care provider's own children under the age 
of six are present, they must be included in the group size.
    (2) Mixed age with preschoolers. When there is one family child 
care provider, with a mixed-age group of children that includes 
children over 36 months of age, the maximum group size is six children 
and no more than two of the six may be under 24 months of age. When 
there are two providers, the maximum group size is twelve children with 
no more than four of the twelve children under 24 months of age.
    (3) Infants and toddlers only. When there is one family child care 
provider with a group of children that are all under 36 months of age, 
the maximum group size is four children, and no more than two of the 
four children may be under 18 months of age.

[[Page 67810]]

    (4) Maintaining ratios. A program must maintain appropriate ratios 
during all hours of program operation. A program must ensure providers 
have systems to ensure the safety of any child not within view for any 
period. A program must make substitute staff available with the 
necessary training and experience to ensure quality services to 
children are not interrupted.
* * * * *

0
19. Amend Sec.  1302.24 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (c)(1), (3), and (5); and
0
b. Removing paragraph (d).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  1302.24  Locally-designed program option variations.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) The responsible HHS official may waive one or more of the 
requirements contained in Sec. Sec.  1302.21(b), (c)(1)(i), and 
(c)(2)(i); 1302.22(a) through (c); and 1302.23(b) and (c) but may not 
waive ratios or group size for children under 24 months. Center-based 
locally designed options must meet the minimums described in section 
640(k)(1) of the Act for center-based programs.
* * * * *
    (3) If the responsible HHS official approves a waiver to allow a 
program to operate below the minimums described in Sec.  
1302.21(c)(2)(i), a program must meet the requirements described in 
Sec.  1302.21(c)(2)(ii), or in the case of a double session variation, 
a program must meet the requirements described in Sec.  
1302.21(c)(2)(iii).
* * * * *
    (5) In order to receive a waiver of service duration, a program 
must meet the requirement in paragraph (c)(4) of this section, provide 
supporting evidence that it better meets the needs of parents than the 
applicable service duration minimums described in Sec.  1302.21(c)(1) 
and (c)(2)(i), Sec.  1302.22(c), or Sec.  1302.23(c), and assess the 
effectiveness of the variation in supporting appropriate development 
and progress in children's early learning outcomes.

Subpart C--Education and Child Development Program Services

0
20. Amend Sec.  1302.34 by:
0
a. Removing ``and,'' at the end of paragraph (b)(7);
0
b. Removing the period at the end of paragraph (b)(8) and adding ``; 
and'' in its place; and
0
c. Adding paragraph (b)(9).
    The addition reads as follows:


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

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (9) The program utilizes accessible communication methods and 
modalities that meet the needs of the community when engaging with 
prospective and enrolled families.

Subpart D--Health and Mental Health Program Services

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

0
22. Amend Sec.  1302.40 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:


Sec.  1302.40  Purpose.

* * * * *
    (b) A program must establish and maintain a Health and Mental 
Health Services Advisory Committee that includes Head Start parents, 
professionals, and other volunteers from the community.

0
23. Revise Sec.  1302.41 to read as follows:


Sec.  1302.41  Collaboration and communication with parents.

    (a) For all activities described in this part, programs must 
collaborate with parents as partners in the health, mental health, and 
well-being of their children in a linguistically and culturally 
appropriate manner and communicate with parents about their child's 
health and mental health needs and development concerns in a timely and 
effective manner.
    (b) At a minimum, a program must:
    (1) Obtain advance authorization from the parent or other person 
with legal authority for all health, mental health, and developmental 
procedures administered through the program or by contract or 
agreement, and, maintain written documentation if they refuse to give 
authorization for health and mental health services; and,
    (2) Share with parents the policies for health or mental health 
emergencies that require rapid response on the part of staff or 
immediate medical attention.

0
24. Amend Sec.  1302.42 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (b)(1)(i) and (b)(4); and
0
b. Removing the word ``grantee'' and adding in its place the words 
``grant recipient'' in paragraph (e)(2).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  1302.42  Child health status and care.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) Obtain determinations from health care and oral health care 
professionals as to whether or not the child is up-to-date on a 
schedule of age appropriate preventive and primary medical, mental 
health, and oral health care, based on: the well-child visits and 
dental periodicity schedules as prescribed by the Early and Periodic 
Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment (EPSDT) program of the Medicaid 
agency of the State in which they operate, immunization recommendations 
issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and any 
additional recommendations from the local Health and Mental Health 
Services Advisory Committee that are based on prevalent community 
health problems; and
* * * * *
    (4) A program must identify each child's nutritional health needs, 
taking into account available health information, including the child's 
health records, relevant developmental or mental health concerns, and 
family and staff concerns, including special dietary requirements, food 
allergies, and community nutrition issues as identified through the 
community assessment or by the Health and Mental Health Services 
Advisory Committee.
* * * * *

0
25. Amend Sec.  1302.44 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:


Sec.  1302.44  Child nutrition.

* * * * *
    (b) Payment sources. A program must use funds from USDA Food, 
Nutrition, and Consumer Services Child Nutrition programs as the 
primary source of payment for meal services. Head Start funds may be 
used to cover those allowable costs not covered by the USDA.

0
26. Revise Sec.  1302.45 to read as follows:


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

    (a) Program-wide wellness supports. To support a program-wide 
culture that promotes mental health, social and emotional well-being, 
and overall health and safety, a program must use a multidisciplinary 
approach that:
    (1) Coordinates supports for adult mental health and well-being, 
including engaging in nurturing and responsive relationships with 
families, engaging families in home visiting services, and promoting 
staff health and wellness, as described in Sec.  1302.93.
    (2) Coordinates supports for positive learning environments for all 
children; supportive teacher practices; and strategies for supporting 
children with social, emotional, behavioral, or mental health concerns.

[[Page 67811]]

    (3) Secures ongoing mental health consultation services and 
examines the approach to mental health consultation on an annual basis 
to determine if it meets the needs of the program.
    (4) Ensures mental health consultation services are available at a 
frequency of at least once a month.
    (i) If a mental health consultant is not available to provide 
services at least once a month, programs must use other licensed mental 
health professionals or behavioral health support specialists certified 
and trained in their profession or recognized by their Tribal 
governments, such as peer specialists, community health workers, 
promotores, traditional practitioners, or behavioral health aides, to 
ensure mental health supports are available on at least a monthly 
basis.
    (ii) If the program uses other licensed mental health professionals 
or behavioral health support specialists, the program must ensure their 
regular coordination and consultation with mental health consultants.
    (5) Ensures that all children receive adequate screening and 
appropriate follow up and the parent receives referrals about how to 
access services for potential social, emotional, behavioral, or other 
mental health concerns, as described in Sec.  1302.33.
    (6) Facilitates multidisciplinary coordination and collaboration 
between mental health and other relevant program services, including 
education, disability, family engagement, and health services.
    (7) Builds community partnerships to facilitate access to 
additional mental health resources and services, as needed, including 
through the Health and Mental Health Services Advisory Committee in 
Sec.  1302.40.
    (b) Mental health consultants. A program must ensure that mental 
health consultants provide consultation services that build the 
capacity of adults in an infant or young child's life to strengthen and 
support the mental health and social and emotional development of 
children, including consultation with any of the following:
    (1) The program to implement strategies that promote a program-wide 
culture of mental health, prevent mental health challenges from 
developing, and identify and support children with mental health and 
social and emotional concerns;
    (2) Child and family services staff to implement strategies that 
build nurturing and responsive relationships and create positive 
learning environments that promote the mental health and social and 
emotional development of all children;
    (3) Staff who have contact with children to understand and 
appropriately respond to prevalent child mental health concerns, 
including internalizing problems such as appearing withdrawn; 
externalizing problems such as behavioral concerns; and how exposure to 
trauma and substance use can influence risk;
    (4) Families and staff to understand mental health and access 
mental health interventions or supports, if needed, including in the 
event of a natural disaster or crisis;
    (5) The program to implement policies to limit suspension and 
prohibit expulsion as described in Sec.  1302.17; and
    (6) The program to support the well-being of children and families 
involved in any significant child health, mental health, or safety 
incident described in Sec.  1302.102(d)(1)(ii).

0
27. Amend Sec.  1302.46 by revising paragraphs (b)(1)(iii) and (iv), 
and revising and republishing paragraph (b)(2) to read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iii) Learn about healthy pregnancy and postpartum care, as 
appropriate, including breastfeeding support and treatment options for 
parental mental health, including depression, anxiety, and substance 
use concerns;
    (iv) Discuss information related to their child's mental health 
with staff, including typical and atypical behavior and development, 
and how to appropriately respond to their child and promote their 
child's social and emotional development; and,
* * * * *
    (2) A program must provide ongoing support to assist parents' 
navigation through health and mental health systems to meet the general 
health and specifically identified needs of their children and must 
assist parents:
    (i) In understanding how to access health insurance for themselves 
and their families, including information about private and public 
health insurance and designated enrollment periods;
    (ii) In understanding the results of diagnostic and treatment 
procedures as well as plans for ongoing care;
    (iii) In familiarizing their children with services they will 
receive while enrolled in the program and to enroll and participate in 
a system of ongoing family health care; and
    (iv) In providing information about how to access mental health 
services for young children and their families, including referrals if 
appropriate.

0
28. Amend Sec.  1302.47 by revising paragraphs (b)(5) introductory text 
and (b)(5)(i), (iii), and (v) and adding paragraph (b)(10) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  1302.47  Safety practices.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (5) Safety practices. All staff, consultants, contractors, and 
volunteers follow appropriate practices to keep children safe during 
all activities, including, at a minimum:
    (i) Reporting of suspected or known child abuse and neglect, as 
defined by the Federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) 
(42 U.S.C. 5101 note), including that staff comply with applicable 
Federal, State, local, and Tribal laws;
* * * * *
    (iii) Appropriate supervision of children at all times;
* * * * *
    (v) All standards of conduct described in Sec.  1302.90(c)(1)(ii).
* * * * *
    (10) Exposure to lead in water and paint prevention practices. A 
program must develop a plan to prevent children from being exposed to 
lead in water and paint in Head Start facilities. In facilities where 
lead may exist, a program must implement ongoing practices, including 
testing and inspection at least every two years, with support from 
trained professionals. As needed, a program must pursue remediation or 
abatement to prevent lead exposure.
* * * * *

Subpart E--Family and Community Engagement Program Services

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


Sec.  1302.50  Family engagement.

    (a) Purpose. A program must integrate parent and family engagement 
strategies into all systems and program services to support family 
well-being and promote children's learning and development. Programs 
are encouraged to develop innovative multi-generation approaches that 
address prevalent needs of families across their program that may 
leverage community partnerships or other funding sources. This includes 
communicating with families in a format that meets the needs of each 
individual family.
* * * * *

0
30. Amend Sec.  1302.52 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (c)(2) and (3);
0
b. Removing paragraph (c)(4);

[[Page 67812]]

0
c. Redesignating paragraph (d) as paragraph (e); and
0
d. Adding a new paragraph (d).
    The revisions and addition read as follows:


Sec.  1302.52  Family partnership services.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) Help families achieve identified individualized family 
engagement outcomes; and
    (3) Establish and implement a family partnership agreement process 
that is jointly developed and shared with parents in which staff and 
families review individual progress, revise goals, evaluate and track 
whether identified needs and goals are met, and adjust strategies on an 
ongoing basis, as necessary.
    (d) Approaches to family partnership services. A program must:
    (1) Ensure the family assignment process takes into account the 
varied interests, urgency, and intensity of identified family needs and 
goals.
    (2) Ensure the planned number of families assigned to work with 
staff that conduct the family partnership process and work on family, 
health and community engagement services is no greater than 40:1. A 
program must maintain this ratio, except:
    (i) When the responsible HHS official grants a waiver if the 
program can demonstrate staff competencies at Sec.  1302.92(b)(4); 
program outcomes at paragraph (b) of this section; and reasonable staff 
workload as described in paragraph (d)(3) of this section.
    (ii) During temporary periods of staff absence or attrition; 
changes in daily operations related to start-up or transitional 
activities; or extenuating circumstances related to emergency response 
and recovery.
    (3) Ensure meaningful employee engagement practices address family 
services workload experiences, in accordance with Sec.  1302.101(a)(2).
* * * * *

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


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

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) Memorandum of understanding. To support coordination between 
Head Start Preschool and publicly funded preschool programs, a program 
must enter into a memorandum of understanding with the appropriate 
local entity responsible for managing publicly funded preschool 
programs in the service area of the program, as described in section 
642(e)(5) of the Act.
    (2) Quality Rating and Improvement Systems. A program, with the 
exception of American Indian and Alaska Native programs, should 
participate in its State or local Quality Rating and Improvement System 
(QRIS), to the extent practicable, if a State or local QRIS has a 
strategy to support Head Start participation without requiring programs 
to duplicate existing documentation from Office of Head Start 
oversight.
* * * * *

Subpart F--Additional Services for Children With Disabilities

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


Sec.  1302.61  Additional services for children.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (v) Services are provided in a child's regular Head Start classroom 
or family child care home to the greatest extent possible.
    (2) * * *
    (ii) For children with an IEP who are transitioning out of Head 
Start Preschool to kindergarten, collaborate with the parents, and the 
local agency responsible for implementing IDEA, to ensure steps are 
undertaken in a timely and appropriate manner to support the child and 
family as they transition to a new setting.

Subpart G--Transition Services

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


Sec.  1302.70  Transitions from Early Head Start.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) Takes into account the child's developmental level and health 
and disability status, progress made by the child and family while in 
Early Head Start, current and changing family circumstances and, the 
availability of Head Start Preschool, other public pre-kindergarten, 
and other early education and child development services in the 
community that will meet the needs of the child and family; and
    (2) Transitions the child into Head Start Preschool or another 
program as soon as possible after the child's third birthday but 
permits the child to remain in Early Head Start for a limited number of 
additional months following the child's third birthday if necessary for 
an appropriate transition.
* * * * *
    (d) Early Head Start and Head Start Preschool collaboration. Early 
Head Start and Head Start Preschool programs must work together to 
maximize enrollment transitions from Early Head Start to Head Start 
Preschool, consistent with the eligibility provisions in subpart A of 
this part, and promote successful transitions through collaboration and 
communication.
* * * * *

0
34. Amend Sec.  1302.71 by revising the section heading to read as 
follows:


Sec.  1302.71  Transitions from Head Start Preschool to kindergarten.

* * * * *

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


Sec.  1302.72  Transitions between programs.

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

Subpart H--Services to Enrolled Pregnant Women

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


Sec.  1302.80  Enrolled pregnant women.

* * * * *
    (d) A program must provide a newborn visit with each mother and 
baby to offer support and identify family needs. A program must 
schedule the newborn visit within two weeks after the infant's birth. 
At a minimum, the visit must include a discussion of the following: 
maternal mental and physical health, safe sleep, infant health, and 
support for basic needs.
    (e) A program must track and record services an enrolled pregnant 
woman receives both from the program and through referrals, to help 
identify

[[Page 67813]]

specific prenatal care services and resources the enrolled pregnant 
woman needs to support a healthy pregnancy.
    (f) The program must provide services that help reduce barriers to 
healthy maternal and birthing outcomes for each family, including 
services that address disparities across racial and ethnic groups, and 
use data on enrolled pregnant women to inform program services.

0
37. Revise Sec.  1302.81 to read as follows:


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

    (a) A program must provide enrolled pregnant women, mothers, 
fathers, and partners or other family members the prenatal and 
postpartum information, education and services that address, as 
appropriate, fetal development, the importance of nutrition in the 
prenatal and postpartum stage including breastfeeding, the risks of 
alcohol, drugs, and smoking and the benefits of substance use 
treatment, labor and delivery, postpartum recovery, and infant care and 
safe sleep practices.
    (b) A program must support pregnant women, mothers, fathers, 
partners, or other family members to access mental health services, 
including referrals, as appropriate, to address concerns including 
prenatal and postpartum mental health concerns including but not 
limited to anxiety, depression, grief or loss, birth trauma, and 
substance use.
    (c) A program must also address pregnant women's needs for 
appropriate supports for social and emotional well-being, nurturing and 
responsive caregiving, and father, partner, or other family member 
engagement during pregnancy and early childhood.

0
38. Amend Sec.  1302.82 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:


Sec.  1302.82  Family partnership services for enrolled pregnant women.

    (a) A program must engage enrolled pregnant women and other 
relevant family members, such as fathers, in the family partnership 
services as described in Sec.  1302.52 and include a specific focus on 
factors that influence prenatal and postpartum maternal and infant 
health. If a program uses a curriculum in the provision of services to 
pregnant women, this should be a maternal health curriculum, to support 
prenatal and postpartum education needs.
* * * * *

Subpart I--Human Resources Management

0
39. Amend Sec.  1302.90 by revising and republishing paragraph (c)(1) 
and adding paragraphs (e) and (f) to read as follows:


Sec.  1302.90  Personnel policies.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) A program must ensure all staff, consultants, contractors, and 
volunteers abide by the program's standards of conduct that:
    (i) Ensure staff, consultants, contractors, and volunteers 
implement positive strategies to support children's well-being and 
prevent and address challenging behavior;
    (ii) Ensure staff, consultants, contractors, and volunteers do not 
engage in behaviors that maltreat or endanger the health or safety of 
children, including at a minimum:
    (A) Corporal punishment or physically abusive behavior, defined as 
intentional use of physical force that results in, or has the potential 
to result in, physical injury. Examples include, but are not limited 
to, hitting, kicking, shaking, biting, pushing, restraining, force 
feeding, or dragging;
    (B) Sexually abusive behavior, defined as any completed or 
attempted sexual act, sexual contact, or exploitation. Examples 
include, but are not limited to, behaviors such as inappropriate 
touching, inappropriate filming, or exposing a child to other sexual 
activities;
    (C) Emotionally harmful or abusive behavior, defined as behaviors 
that harm a child's self worth or emotional well-being. Examples 
include, but are not limited to, using seclusion, using or exposing a 
child to public or private humiliation, or name calling, shaming, 
intimidating, or threatening a child; and
    (D) Neglectful behavior, defined as the failure to meet a child's 
basic physical and emotional needs including access to food, education, 
medical care, appropriate supervision by an adequate caregiver, and 
safe physical and emotional environments. Examples include, but are not 
limited to, leaving a child unattended on a bus, withholding food as 
punishment or refusing to change soiled diapers as punishment;
    (iii) Ensure staff, consultants, contractors, and volunteers report 
reasonably suspected or known incidents of child abuse and neglect, as 
defined by the Federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) 
(42 U.S.C. 5101 note) and in compliance with Federal, State, local, and 
Tribal laws;
    (iv) Ensure staff, consultants, contractors, and volunteers respect 
and promote the unique identity of each individual and do not 
stereotype on any basis, including gender, race, ethnicity, culture, 
religion, disability, sexual orientation, or family composition; and
    (v) Require staff, consultants, contractors, and volunteers to 
comply with program confidentiality policies concerning personally 
identifiable information about children, families, and other staff 
members in accordance with subpart C of part 1303 of this chapter and 
applicable Federal, State, local, and Tribal laws; and,
    (vi) Ensure no child is left alone or unsupervised.
* * * * *
    (e) Wages--(1) Pay scale. (i) By August 1, 2031, a program must 
implement a salary scale, salary schedule, wage ladder, or other 
similar pay structure for program staff salaries that incorporates the 
requirements in paragraphs (e)(2) through (4) of this section; reflects 
salaries or wages for all other staff in the program; promotes salaries 
that are comparable to similar services in relevant industries in their 
geographic area; and considers, at a minimum, responsibilities, 
qualifications, experience relevant to the position, and schedule or 
hours worked.
    (ii) After August 1, 2031, a program must review its pay structure 
at least once every 5 years to assess whether it continues to meet the 
expectations described in paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this section.
    (iii) A program must ensure that staff salaries are not in excess 
of level II of the Executive Schedule, as required in 42 U.S.C. 
9848(b)(1).
    (2) Progress to pay parity for education staff with elementary 
school staff. (i) By August 1, 2031, a program must demonstrate it has 
made progress to parity with kindergarten through third grade teachers 
by ensuring that each Head Start teacher receives an annual salary that 
is at least comparable to the annual salary paid to preschool teachers 
in public school settings in the program's local school district, 
adjusted for responsibilities, qualifications, experience, and schedule 
or hours worked. A program may provide annual salaries comparable to a 
neighboring school district if the salaries are higher than a program's 
local school district.
    (ii) A program must make measurable progress towards pay parity for 
all other Head Start education staff who work directly with children as 
part of their daily job responsibilities. By August 1, 2031, a program 
must demonstrate it has made progress to parity by ensuring that each 
staff member described in this provision receives an annual salary that 
is at least comparable to the salaries

[[Page 67814]]

described in paragraph (e)(2)(i) of this section, adjusted for role, 
responsibilities, qualifications, experience, and schedule or hours 
worked.
    (iii) For Head Start teachers and education staff described in 
paragraphs (e)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section, progress to parity must 
be demonstrated for those staff who are employees as well as those 
whose salary is funded by Head Start through a contract.
    (iv) A program may use an alternative method to determine 
appropriate comparison salaries in order to implement the requirements 
in paragraphs (e)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section The alternative method 
must use a comparison salary that is equivalent to at least 90 percent 
of the annual salary paid to kindergarten teachers in public school 
settings in the program's local school district, adjusted for role, 
responsibilities, qualifications, experience, and schedule or hours 
worked.
    (v) To demonstrate measurable progress towards pay parity as 
described in paragraph (e)(2)(i) of this section, a program must 
regularly track data on how wages paid to their education staff compare 
to wages paid to preschool through third grade teachers in their local 
or neighboring school district.
    (3) Salary floor. By August 1, 2031, a program must ensure, at a 
minimum, the wage or salary structure established or updated under 
paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this section provides all staff with a wage or 
salary that is generally sufficient to cover basic needs such as food, 
housing, utilities, medical costs, transportation, and taxes, or would 
be sufficient if the worker's hourly rate were paid according to a 
full-time, full-year schedule (or over 2,080 hours per year).
    (4) Wage comparability for all ages served. A program must ensure 
the wage or salary structure established or updated under paragraph 
(e)(1)(i) of this section does not differ by age of children served for 
similar program staff positions with similar qualifications and 
experience.
    (5) Small agency exemption. An agency with 200 or fewer funded 
slots is exempt from the requirements described in this paragraph (e), 
except that such an agency must still establish or update a pay scale 
or structure that promotes competitive wages for all staff. The agency 
must also make measurable improvements in wages for Head Start staff 
over time and demonstrate progress towards meeting the requirements of 
paragraphs (e)(2) through (4) of this section.
    (6) Interim service providers. The exemption described in paragraph 
(e)(5) of this section also applies to an interim service provider that 
is temporarily providing Head Start services in place of a Head Start 
agency that would otherwise qualify for the small agency exemption.
    (7) Secretarial determination of waiver authority. Between January 
1, 2028, and December 31, 2028, the Secretary may establish a waiver 
process for the requirements described in paragraphs (e)(2) through (4) 
of this section for eligible Head Start programs, if over the preceding 
four fiscal years, the average annual increase in Federal 
appropriations for the Head Start program was less than 1.3 percent.
    (8) Waiver conditions. If the Secretary establishes the waiver 
process described in paragraph (e)(7) of this section, the responsible 
HHS official designated by the Secretary may grant a waiver if the 
program requests a waiver and meets the following conditions:
    (i) The program can demonstrate that it would need to reduce 
enrolled Head Start slots in order to implement the requirements 
described in paragraphs (e)(2) through (4) of this section;
    (ii) The program is meeting quality benchmarks including:
    (A) Demonstrated improvements in staff wages during the preceding 
four years, to the greatest extent practicable;
    (B) Has not been designated to compete under the Designation 
Renewal System after August 21, 2024; and
    (C) The responsible HHS official determines the program does not 
have significant child health, safety, or quality concerns;
    (iii) The program held the Head Start grant for the service area 
prior to August 21, 2024; and
    (iv) The program continues to make improvements in wages for Head 
Start staff over time, to the greatest extent practicable.
    (9) Reassessing waiver eligibility. For any program granted a 
waiver under the process established in paragraph (e)(7) of this 
section, the responsible HHS official will reassess waiver eligibility 
for each successive grant period, in line with the process established 
and criteria described in paragraph (e)(8) of this section.
    (10) Ongoing waiver authority. Waivers granted under the process 
established in paragraph (e)(7) of this section may only be granted if 
over the preceding four fiscal years, the average annual increase in 
Federal appropriations for the Head Start program was less than 1.3 
percent.
    (f) Staff benefits. (1) For each full-time staff member, defined as 
those working 30 or more hours per week with the Head Start program 
during the program year, a program must:
    (i) Provide or facilitate access to high-quality affordable health 
care coverage;
    (ii) Offer paid leave; and,
    (iii) Offer access to short-term, free or minimal cost behavioral 
health services.
    (2) For each part-time staff member, a program must facilitate 
access to high-quality, affordable health care coverage.
    (3) For each staff member, a program must facilitate access to 
available resources and information on child care, including 
connections to child care resource and referral agencies or other child 
care consumer education organizations and, for staff who meet 
eligibility guidelines, facilitate access to the child care subsidy 
program.
    (4) For each staff member who may be eligible, a program must 
facilitate access to the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) 
program, or other applicable student loan debt relief programs, 
including timely certification of employment.
    (5) To the extent practicable, a program must assess and determine 
if their benefits package for full-time staff is at least comparable to 
those provided to elementary school staff in the program's local or 
neighboring school district at least once every 5 years. Programs may 
offer additional benefits to staff, including more enhanced health 
benefits, retirement benefits, flexible savings accounts, or life, 
disability, and long-term care insurance.
    (6) An agency with 200 or fewer funded slots is exempt from the 
requirements described in this paragraph (f). Such an agency must make 
measurable improvements in benefits for Head Start staff over time and 
demonstrate progress towards meeting the requirements of paragraphs 
(f)(1) through (5) of this section.
    (7) The exemption described in paragraph (f)(6) of this section 
also applies to an interim service provider that is temporarily 
providing Head Start services in place of a Head Start agency that 
would otherwise qualify for the small agency exemption.

0
40. Amend Sec.  1302.91 by revising paragraphs (b), (e)(2) and (3), and 
(e)(8)(ii) to read as follows:


Sec.  1302.91  Staff qualifications and competency requirements.

* * * * *
    (b) Head Start director. A program must ensure a Head Start 
director hired after November 7, 2016, has, at a minimum, a 
baccalaureate degree and experience in supervision of staff, fiscal 
management, and administration.
* * * * *

[[Page 67815]]

    (e) * * *
    (2) Head Start Preschool center-based teacher qualification 
requirements. (i) The Secretary must ensure no less than fifty percent 
of all Head Start Preschool teachers, nation- wide, have a 
baccalaureate degree in child development, early childhood education, 
or equivalent coursework.
    (ii) As prescribed in section 648A(a)(3)(B) of the Act, a program 
must ensure all center-based teachers have at least an associate's or 
bachelor's degree in child development or early childhood education, 
equivalent coursework, or otherwise meet the requirements of section 
648A(a)(3)(B) of the Act.
    (3) Head Start Preschool assistant teacher qualification 
requirements. As prescribed in section 648A(a)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act, a 
program must ensure Head Start Preschool assistant teachers, at a 
minimum, have a CDA credential or a State-awarded certificate that 
meets or exceeds the requirements for a CDA credential, are enrolled in 
a program that will lead to an associate or baccalaureate degree or, 
are enrolled in a CDA credential program to be completed within two 
years of the time of hire.
* * * * *
    (8) * * *
    (ii) A program must ensure all mental health consultants are 
licensed or under the supervision of a licensed mental health 
professional. A program must use mental health consultants with 
knowledge of and experience in serving young children and their 
families.
* * * * *

0
41. Amend Sec.  1302.92 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:


Sec.  1302.92  Training and professional development.

* * * * *
    (b) A program must establish and implement a systematic approach to 
staff training and professional development designed to assist staff in 
acquiring or increasing the knowledge and skills needed to provide 
high-quality, comprehensive services within the scope of their job 
responsibilities, and attached to academic credit as appropriate, and 
integrated with employee engagement practices in accordance with Sec.  
1302.101(a)(2). At a minimum, the system must include:
    (1) Staff completing a minimum of 15 clock hours of professional 
development per year. For teaching staff, such professional development 
must meet the requirements described in section 648A(a)(5) of the Act, 
and includes creating individual professional development plans as 
described in section 648A(f) of the Act;
    (2) Annual training on mandatory reporting of suspected or known 
child abuse and neglect, that complies with applicable Federal, State, 
local, and Tribal laws;
    (3) Annual training on positive strategies to understand and 
support children's social and emotional development, such as tools for 
managing children's behavior;
    (4) Training for child and family services staff on best practices 
for implementing family engagement strategies in a systemic way, as 
described throughout this part;
    (5) Training for child and family services staff, including staff 
that work on family services, health, and disabilities, that builds 
their knowledge, experience, and competencies to improve child and 
family outcomes; and,
    (6) Research-based approaches to professional development for 
education staff, that are focused on effective curricula 
implementation, knowledge of the content in Head Start Early Learning 
Outcomes Framework: Ages Birth to Five, partnering with families, 
supporting children with disabilities and their families, providing 
effective and nurturing adult-child interactions, supporting dual 
language learners as appropriate, addressing challenging behaviors, 
preparing children and families for transitions (as described in 
subpart G of this part), and use of data to individualize learning 
experiences to improve outcomes for all children.
* * * * *

0
42. Amend Sec.  1302.93 by adding paragraphs (c) and (d) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  1302.93  Staff health and wellness.

* * * * *
    (c)(1) A program must provide, for each staff member, regular 
breaks of adequate length and frequency based on hours worked, 
including, but not limited to, time for meal breaks as appropriate.
    (2) If applicable Federal, State, or local laws or regulations have 
more stringent requirements for breaks, a program should comply with 
the more stringent requirements.
    (3) During break times for classroom staff described in paragraph 
(c)(1) of this section, one teaching staff member may be replaced by 
one staff member who does not meet the teaching qualifications required 
for the age, provided that this staff member has the necessary training 
and experience to ensure safety of children and minimal disruption to 
the quality of services. If providing a break during nap time, a 
program may comply with Sec.  1302.21(b)(1)(ii).
    (d) A program should cultivate a program-wide culture of wellness 
that empowers staff as professionals and supports staff to effectively 
accomplish their job responsibilities in a high-quality manner, in line 
with the requirement at Sec.  1302.101(a)(2).

0
43. Amend Sec.  1302.94 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:


Sec.  1302.94  Volunteers.

    (a) A program must ensure volunteers have been screened for 
appropriate communicable diseases in accordance with State, Tribal, or 
local laws. In the absence of State, Tribal, or local law, the Health 
and Mental Health Services Advisory Committee must be consulted 
regarding the need for such screenings.
* * * * *

Subpart J--Program Management and Quality Improvement

0
44. Amend Sec.  1302.101 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a)(2);
0
b. Removing ``and,'' at the end of paragraph (a)(3);
0
c. Removing the period at the end of paragraph (a)(4) and adding ``; 
and'' in its place; and
0
d. Adding paragraph (a)(5).
    The revision and addition read as follows:


Sec.  1302.101  Management system.

    (a) * * *
    (2) Promotes clear and reasonable roles and responsibilities for 
all staff and provides regular and ongoing staff supervision with 
meaningful and effective employee engagement practices;
* * * * *
    (5) Ensures that all staff are trained to implement reporting 
procedures in Sec.  1302.102(d)(1)(ii).
* * * * *

0
45. Amend Sec.  1302.102 by revising the section heading and paragraph 
(d)(1)(ii) and adding paragraph (d)(1)(iii) to read as follows:


Sec.  1302.102  Program goals, continuous improvement, and reporting.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) Reports, as appropriate, to the responsible HHS official 
immediately but no later than 7 calendar days following the incident, 
related to:
    (A) Any significant incident that affects the health or safety of a 
child that occurs in a setting where Head Start services are provided 
and that involves:
    (1) A staff member, contractor, or volunteer that participates in 
either a Head Start program or a classroom at

[[Page 67816]]

least partially funded by Head Start, regardless of whether the child 
receives Head Start services; or
    (2) A child that receives services fully or partially funded by 
Head Start or a child that participates in a classroom at least 
partially funded by Head Start; or
    (B) Circumstances affecting the financial viability of the program; 
breaches of personally identifiable information, or program involvement 
in legal proceedings; any matter for which notification or a report to 
State, Tribal, or local authorities is required by applicable law; and
    (iii) Reportable incidents under paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this 
section include at a minimum:
    (A) Any mandated reports regarding agency staff or volunteer 
compliance with Federal, State, Tribal, or local laws addressing child 
abuse and neglect or laws governing sex offenders;
    (B) Incidents that require classrooms or centers to be closed;
    (C) Legal proceedings by any party that are directly related to 
program operations;
    (D) All conditions required to be reported under Sec.  1304.12 of 
this chapter, including disqualification from the Child and Adult Care 
Food Program (CACFP) and license revocation;
    (E) Any suspected or known maltreatment or endangerment of a child 
by staff, consultants, contractors, and volunteers under Sec.  
1302.90(c)(1)(ii);
    (F) Serious harm or injury of a child resulting from lack of 
preventative maintenance;
    (G) Serious harm, injury, or endangerment of a child resulting from 
lack of supervision; and,
    (H) Any unauthorized release of a child.
* * * * *


Sec.  1302.103  [Removed]

0
46. Remove Sec.  1302.103.

PART 1303--FINANCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS

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

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

PART 1303 [Amended]

0
48. Amend part 1303 by:
0
a. Removing the word ``grantee'' and adding the words ``grant 
recipient'' in its place wherever it appears; and
0
b. Removing the word ``grantee's'' and adding the words ``grant 
recipient's'' in its place wherever it appears.

Subpart D--Delegation of Program Operations

0
49. Amend Sec.  1303.30 by revising the section heading to read as 
follows:


Sec.  1303.30  Grant recipient responsibility and accountability.

* * * * *

Subpart E--Facilities

0
50. Revise Sec.  1303.42 to as follows:


Sec.  1303.42  Eligibility to purchase, construct, and renovate 
facilities.

    Before a grant recipient can apply for funds to purchase, 
construct, or renovate a facility under Sec.  1303.44, it must 
establish that:
    (a) The facility will be available to Indian Tribes, or rural or 
other low-income communities;
    (b) The proposed purchase, construction, or major renovation is 
within the grant recipient's designated service area;
    (c) The proposed purchase, construction, or major renovation is 
necessary because the lack of suitable facilities in the grant 
recipient's service area will inhibit the operation of the program; and
    (d) The proposed construction of a facility is more cost-effective 
than the purchase of available facilities or renovation.

0
51. Revise Sec.  1303.43 to read as follows:


Sec.  1303.43  Use of grant funds to pay fees.

    If a recipient seeks to use Federal funds for reasonable fees and 
costs necessary to submit an application under Sec. Sec.  1303.42 and 
1303.44, they must be granted approval from the responsible HHS 
official. Once approval is granted to use Federal funds to submit an 
application, the funds are allowable regardless of the outcome of the 
preliminary eligibility under Sec.  1303.42 and the application under 
Sec.  1303.44.

0
52. Amend Sec.  1303.44 by revising paragraphs (a)(3), (7), and (14) to 
read as follows:


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

    (a) * * *
    (3) Plans and specifications for the facility, including square 
footage, structure type, the number of rooms the facility will have or 
has, how the rooms will be used, where the structure will be positioned 
or located on the building site, whether there is space available for 
outdoor play, and whether there is space available for parking, if 
applicable;
* * * * *
    (7) An estimate by a licensed independent certified appraiser of 
the facility's value after proposed purchase and associated repairs and 
renovations, construction, or major renovation is completed, either on-
site or virtually, is required for all facilities activities except for 
major renovations to leased property;
* * * * *
    (14) Any additional information the responsible HHS official needs 
to determine compliance with the regulations in this part.
* * * * *

0
53. Amend Sec.  1303.45 by revising paragraph (a)(2)(iii) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  1303.45  Cost-comparison to purchase, construct, and renovate 
facilities.

    (a) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iii) Identify costs over the structure's useful life, which is at 
least 20 years for a facility that the grant recipient purchased or 
constructed and at least 15 years for a modular unit the grant 
recipient renovated, and deferred costs, including mortgage payments, 
as costs with associated due dates; and,
* * * * *

0
54. Amend Sec.  1303.48 by revising the section heading to read as 
follows:


Sec.  1303.48  Grant recipient limitations on Federal interest.

* * * * *

Subpart F--Transportation

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


Sec.  1303.70  Purpose.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) A program that provides transportation services must comply 
with all provisions in this subpart. A Head Start Preschool program may 
request to waive a specific requirement in this part, in writing, to 
the responsible HHS official, as part of an agency's annual application 
for financial assistance or amendment and must submit any required 
documentation the responsible HHS official deems necessary to support 
the waiver. The responsible HHS official is not authorized to waive any 
requirements with regard to children enrolled in an Early Head Start 
program. A program may request a waiver when:
* * * * *

[[Page 67817]]


0
56. Amend Sec.  1303.75 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:


Sec.  1303.75  Children with disabilities.

    (a) A program must ensure there are school buses or allowable 
alternate vehicles adapted or designed for transportation of children 
with disabilities available as necessary to transport such children 
enrolled in the program. This requirement does not apply to the 
transportation of children receiving home-based services unless school 
buses or allowable alternate vehicles are used to transport the other 
children served under the home-based option by the grant recipient. 
Whenever possible, children with disabilities must be transported in 
the same vehicles used to transport other children enrolled in the Head 
Start program.
* * * * *

PART 1304--FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

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

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

PART 1304 [Amended]

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

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


Sec.  1304.5  [Amended]

0
59. Amend Sec.  1304.5 by removing the word ``Grantee's'' and adding in 
its place the words ``Grant recipient's'' in paragraph (c) heading.

Subpart B--Designation Renewal

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


Sec.  1304.10  Purpose and scope.

    The purpose of this subpart is to set forth policies and procedures 
for the designation renewal of Head Start programs. It is intended that 
these programs be administered effectively and responsibly; that 
applicants to administer programs receive fair and equitable 
consideration; and that the legal rights of current Head Start grant 
recipients be fully protected. The Designation Renewal System is 
established in this part to determine whether Head Start agencies 
deliver high-quality services to meet the educational, health, 
nutritional, and social needs of the children and families they serve; 
meet the program and financial requirements and standards described in 
section 641A(a)(1) of the Head Start Act; and qualify to be designated 
for funding for five years without competing for such funding as 
required under section 641(c) or 645A(b)(12) and (d) of the Head Start 
Act. A competition to select a new Head Start agency to replace a Head 
Start agency that has been terminated voluntarily or involuntarily is 
not part of the Designation Renewal System established in this part, 
and is subject instead to the requirements of Sec.  1304.20.

0
61. Amend Sec.  1304.11 by:
0
a. Revising the introductory text;
0
b. Removing ``grantees' '' in paragraph (b)(2)(i) and adding ``grant 
recipients''' in its place; and
0
c. Revising paragraphs (d) and (e).
    The revisions read as follows:


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

    A Head Start agency will be required to compete for its next five 
years of funding whenever the responsible HHS official determines that 
one or more of the following seven conditions existed during the 
relevant time period under Sec.  1304.15:
* * * * *
    (d) An agency has had a revocation of its license to operate a Head 
Start center or program by a State or local licensing agency during the 
relevant time period under Sec.  1304.15, and the revocation has not 
been overturned or withdrawn before a competition for funding for the 
next five-year period is announced. A pending challenge to the license 
revocation or restoration of the license after correction of the 
violation will not affect application of this requirement after the 
competition for funding for the next five-year period has been 
announced.
    (e) An agency has been suspended from the Head Start program by ACF 
during the relevant time period covered by the responsible HHS 
official's review under Sec.  1304.15 and the suspension has not been 
overturned or withdrawn. If the agency did not have an opportunity to 
show cause as to why the suspension should not have been imposed or why 
the suspension should have been lifted if it had already been imposed 
under this part, the agency will not be required to compete based on 
this condition. If an agency has received an opportunity to show cause 
and the suspension remains in place, the condition will be implemented.
* * * * *

0
62. Amend Sec.  1304.12 by revising the section heading to read as 
follows:


Sec.  1304.12  Grant recipient reporting requirements concerning 
certain conditions.

* * * * *

0
63. Revise Sec.  1304.13 to read as follows:


Sec.  1304.13  Requirements to be considered for designation for a 
five-year period when the existing grant recipient in a community is 
not determined to be delivering a high-quality and comprehensive Head 
Start program and is not automatically renewed.

    In order to compete for the opportunity to be awarded a five-year 
grant, an agency must submit an application to the responsible HHS 
official that demonstrates that it is the most qualified entity to 
deliver a high-quality and comprehensive Head Start program. The 
application must address the criteria for selection listed at section 
641(d)(2) of the Head Start Act. Any agency that has had its Head Start 
grant terminated for cause in the preceding five years is excluded from 
competing in such competition for the next five years. A Head Start 
agency that has had a denial of refunding, as defined in 45 CFR part 
1305, in the preceding five years is also excluded from competing.

0
64. Revise and republish Sec.  1304.14 to read as follows:


Sec.  1304.14  Tribal government consultation under the Designation 
Renewal System for when an Indian Head Start grant is being considered 
for competition.

    (a) In the case of an Indian Head Start agency determined not to be 
delivering a high-quality and comprehensive Head Start program, the 
responsible HHS official will engage in government-to-government 
consultation with the appropriate Tribal government or governments for 
the purpose of establishing a plan to improve the quality of the Head 
Start program operated by the Indian Head Start agency.
    (1) The plan will be established and implemented within six months 
after the responsible HHS official's determination.
    (2) Not more than six months after the implementation of that plan, 
the responsible HHS official will reevaluate the performance of the 
Indian Head Start agency.
    (3) If the Indian Head Start agency is still not delivering a high-
quality and comprehensive Head Start program, the

[[Page 67818]]

responsible HHS official will conduct an open competition to select a 
grant recipient to provide services for the community currently being 
served by the Indian Head Start agency.
    (b) A non-Indian Head Start agency will not be eligible to receive 
a grant to carry out an Indian Head Start program, unless there is no 
Indian Head Start agency available for designation to carry out an 
Indian Head Start program.
    (c) A non-Indian Head Start agency may receive a grant to carry out 
an Indian Head Start program only until such time as an Indian Head 
Start agency in such community becomes available and is designated 
pursuant to this part.

0
65. Revise and republish Sec.  1304.15 to read as follows:


Sec.  1304.15  Designation request, review and notification process.

    (a) A grant recipient must apply to be considered for Designation 
Renewal. A Head Start agency wishing to be considered to have its 
designation as a Head Start agency renewed for another five-year period 
without competition must request that status from ACF at least 12 
months before the end of their five-year grant period or by such time 
as required by the Secretary.
    (b) ACF will review the relevant data to determine if one or more 
of the conditions under Sec.  1304.11 were met by the Head Start agency 
during the current project period.
    (c) ACF will give notice to grant recipients on Designation Renewal 
System status, except as provided in Sec.  1304.14, at least 12 months 
before the expiration date of a Head Start agency's current grant, 
stating:
    (1) The Head Start agency will be required to compete for funding 
for an additional five-year period because ACF finds that one or more 
conditions under Sec.  1304.11 were met by the agency's program during 
the relevant time period described in paragraph (b) of this section, 
identifying the conditions ACF found, and summarizing the basis for the 
finding; or
    (2) That such agency has been determined on a preliminary basis to 
be eligible for renewed funding for five years without competition 
because ACF finds that none of the conditions under Sec.  1304.11 have 
been met during the relevant time period described in paragraph (b) of 
this section. If prior to the award of that grant, ACF determines that 
the grantee has met one of the conditions under Sec.  1304.11 during 
the relevant time period described in paragraph (b) of this section, 
this determination will change and the grantee will receive notice 
under paragraph (c)(1) of this section that it will be required to 
compete for funding for an additional five-year period.

Subpart C--Selection of Grant Recipients Through Competition

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

0
67. Amend Sec.  1304.20 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:


Sec.  1304.20  Selection among applicants.

    (a) In selecting an agency to be designated to provide Head Start 
Preschool, Early Head Start, Migrant or Seasonal Head Start or Tribal 
Head Start Preschool or Early Head Start services, the responsible HHS 
official will consider the applicable criteria at section 641(d) of the 
Head Start Act and any other criteria outlined in the funding 
opportunity announcement.
* * * * *

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

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

PART 1305--DEFINITIONS

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

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


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


Sec.  1305.2  Terms.

* * * * *
    Continuity of care means Head Start services provided to children 
in a manner that promotes primary caregiving and minimizes the number 
of transitions in teachers and teacher assistants that children 
experience over the course of the day, week, program year, and to the 
extent possible, during the course of their participation from birth to 
age three in Early Head Start and in Head Start Preschool.
* * * * *
    Early Head Start means a program that serves pregnant women and 
children from birth to age three, pursuant to section 645A(e) of the 
Head Start Act. This includes Tribal and migrant or seasonal programs.
* * * * *
    Federal interest is a property right which secures the right of the 
Federal awarding agency to recover the current fair market value of its 
percentage of participation in the cost of the facility subject to part 
1303, subpart E, of this chapter funding in the event the facility is 
no longer used for Head Start purposes by the grant recipient or upon 
the disposition of the property. When a grant recipient uses Head Start 
funds to

[[Page 67819]]

purchase, construct or make major renovations to a facility, or make 
mortgage payments, it creates a Federal interest. The Federal interest 
includes any portion of the cost of purchase, construction, or major 
renovation contributed by or for the entity, or a related donor 
organization, to satisfy a matching requirement.
* * * * *
    Fixed route means the established routes to be traveled on a 
regular basis by vehicles that transport children to and from Head 
Start program activities, and which include specifically designated 
stops where children board or exit the vehicle.
* * * * *
    Full-working-day means not less than 10 hours of Head Start 
services per day.
* * * * *
    Grant recipient means the local public or private non-profit agency 
or for-profit agency which has been designated as a Head Start agency 
under 42 U.S.C. 9836 and which has been granted financial assistance by 
the responsible HHS official to operate a Head Start program.
    Head Start means any program authorized under the Head Start Act.
    Head Start agency means a local public or private non-profit or 
for-profit entity designated by ACF to operate a Head Start Preschool 
program, an Early Head Start program, or Migrant or Seasonal Head Start 
program pursuant to the Head Start Act.
* * * * *
    Head Start Preschool means a program that serves children aged 
three to compulsory school age, pursuant to section 641(b) and (d) of 
the Head Start Act. This includes Tribal and migrant or seasonal 
programs.
* * * * *
    Housing costs means the total annual applicable expenses on housing 
which may include rent or mortgage payments, homeowner's or renter's 
insurance, utilities, interest, and taxes on the home. Utilities 
include electricity, gas, water, sewer, and trash.
    Income means gross income and only includes wages, business income, 
unemployment compensation, pension or annuity payments, gifts that 
exceed the threshold for taxable income, and military income (excluding 
special pay for a member subject to hostile fire or imminent danger 
under 37 U.S.C. 310 or any basic allowance for housing under 37 U.S.C. 
403 including housing acquired under the alternative authority under 10 
U.S.C. 169 or any related provision of law). Gross income only includes 
sources of income provided in this definition; it does not include 
refundable tax credits nor any forms of public assistance.
* * * * *
    Major renovation means any individual or collective group of 
renovation activities related to the same facility that has a cost 
equal to or exceeding $350,000 in Head Start funds. Renovation 
activities that are intended to occur concurrently or consecutively, or 
altogether address a specific part or feature of a facility, are 
considered a collective group of renovation activities. Unless included 
in a purchase application, minor renovations and repairs are excluded 
from major renovations. To maintain alignment with the National Defense 
Authorization Act (NDAA), the major renovation threshold will increase 
to account for any increases made to the simplified acquisition 
threshold beyond $350,000. Tribes that jointly apply to use both Tribal 
Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) and Head Start funds toward 
major renovations may comply with the CCDF threshold for major 
renovation if it is higher.
    Migrant family means, for purposes of Head Start eligibility, a 
family with children under the age of compulsory school attendance who 
changed their residence by moving from one geographic location to 
another, either intrastate or interstate, within the preceding two 
years for the purpose of engaging in agricultural work.
* * * * *
    Participant means a pregnant woman or child who is enrolled in and 
receives services from a Head Start Preschool, an Early Head Start, a 
Migrant or Seasonal Head Start, or an American Indian and Alaska Native 
Head Start program.
* * * * *
    Poverty line is set by the poverty guidelines updated periodically 
in the Federal Register by the U.S. Department of Health and Human 
Services under the authority of 42 U.S.C. 9902(2). Poverty guidelines 
for the contiguous-states-and-DC apply to Puerto Rico and U.S. 
Territories.
    Program means any funded Head Start Preschool, Early Head Start, 
Migrant or Seasonal Head Start, Tribal, or other program authorized 
under the Act and carried out by an agency, or delegate agency, to 
provide ongoing comprehensive child development services.
* * * * *
    Purchase means to buy an existing facility, including outright 
purchase, down payment or through payments made in satisfaction of a 
mortgage or other loan agreement, whether principal, interest or an 
allocated portion principal and/or interest. The use of grant funds to 
make a payment under a finance lease agreement, as defined in the cost 
principles, is a purchase subject to these provisions. Purchase also 
refers to an approved use of Head Start funds to continue paying the 
cost of purchasing facilities or refinance an existing loan or mortgage 
beginning in 1987.
* * * * *
    Suspension means the temporary removal of a child from the learning 
setting due to a child's behavior including requiring the child to 
cease attendance for a specified period of time, reducing the number of 
days or amount of time that a child may attend, removing the child from 
the regular group setting for an extended period of time, or requiring 
the parent or the parent's designee to pick up a child for reasons 
other than illness or injury.
* * * * *
    Transportation services means the planned transporting of children 
to and from sites where an agency provides services funded under the 
Head Start Act. Transportation services can involve the pick-up and 
discharge of children at regularly scheduled times and pre-arranged 
sites, including trips between children's homes and program settings. 
The term includes services provided directly by the Head Start grant 
recipient or delegate agency and services which such agencies arrange 
to be provided by another organization or an individual. Incidental 
trips, such as transporting a sick child home before the end of the 
day, or such as might be required to transport small groups of children 
to and from necessary services, are not included under the term.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2024-18279 Filed 8-16-24; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4184-87-P