Rule2024-18279
Supporting the Head Start Workforce and Consistent Quality Programming
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
August 21, 2024
Effective
August 21, 2024
Issuing agencies
Health and Human Services Department
Abstract
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.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 162 (Wednesday, August 21, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[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 [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#541e3127273d37357a163d353831373f3d143537327a3c3c277a333b22"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ce84abbdbda7adafe08ca7afa2abada5a78eafada8e0a6a6bde0a9a1b8">[email protected]</span></a>.
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.
<a href="https://cscce.berkeley.edu/publications/report/worthy-work-still-unlivable-wages/">https://cscce.berkeley.edu/publications/report/worthy-work-still-unlivable-wages/</a>.; 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. <a href="https://cscce.berkeley.edu/publications/report/then-and-now-changes-in-child-care-staffing-1994-2000/">https://cscce.berkeley.edu/publications/report/then-and-now-changes-in-child-care-staffing-1994-2000/</a>.
\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:
<bullet> Section 1302.52(d)(2), Family Service Worker Ratios:
August 1, 2027, or approximately 3 years after publication of the final
rule;
<bullet> Section 1302.80(e), Enrolled pregnant women: December 19,
2024, or 120 days after publication of the final rule;
<bullet> Section 1302.80(f), Enrolled pregnant women: February 18,
2025, or 180 days after publication of final rule;
<bullet> Section 1302.90(e), Staff wages: August 1, 2031, or
approximately 7 years after publication of the final rule;
<bullet> Section 1302.90(f), Staff benefits: August 1, 2028, or
approximately 4 years after publication of the final rule; and
<bullet> 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 <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>), 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. <a href="http://www.earlychildhood">http://www.earlychildhood</a> <a href="http://finance.org/finance/cost-modeling">finance.org/finance/cost-modeling</a>; Stoney and
Blank, 2011. Delivering Quality: Strengthening the Business Side of
Early Care and Education. <a href="https://childcareta.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/delivering_quality_strengthening_the_business_side_of_ece.pdf">https://childcareta.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/delivering_quality_strengthening_the_business_side_of_ece.pdf</a>.
\15\ For example, see: <a href="https://glenpricegroup.com/sites/ehsccpresearch/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2014/06/Funding-Opportunity-Announcement-EHS-CCP-2014.pdf">https://glenpricegroup.com/sites/ehsccpresearch/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2014/06/Funding-Opportunity-Announcement-EHS-CCP-2014.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: <a href="https://childcareta.acf.hhs.gov/early-care-and-education-workforce-salary-scale-playbook-implementation-guide">https://childcareta.acf.hhs.gov/early-care-and-education-workforce-salary-scale-playbook-implementation-guide</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. <a href="https://cscce.berkeley.edu/racial-wage-gaps-in-early-education-employment/">https://cscce.berkeley.edu/racial-wage-gaps-in-early-education-employment/</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. <a href="http://livingwage.mit.edu">livingwage.mit.edu</a>.
\20\ The Center for Women's Welfare. The Self-Sufficiency
Standard. University of Washington. <a href="https://selfsufficiencystandard.org/">https://selfsufficiencystandard.org/</a>.
\21\ Economic Policy Institute. Family Budget Calculator.
<a href="https://www.epi.org/resources/budget/">https://www.epi.org/resources/budget/</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. <a href="http://www.earlychildhoodfinance.org/finance/cost-modeling">http://www.earlychildhoodfinance.org/finance/cost-modeling</a>; Stoney and
Blank, 2011. Delivering Quality: Strengthening the Business Side of
Early Care and Education. <a href="https://childcareta.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/delivering_quality_strengthening_the_business_side_of_ece.pdf">https://childcareta.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/delivering_quality_strengthening_the_business_side_of_ece.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 <a href="https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/contact-us">https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/contact-us</a> or by calling
866-763-6481. Reports may be made to OIG online at <a href="https://oig.hhs.gov/fraud/report-fraud/">https://oig.hhs.gov/fraud/report-fraud/</a> 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 (<a href="http://berkeley.edu">berkeley.edu</a>).
\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 (<a href="http://bls.gov">bls.gov</a>).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 <a href="http://Healthcare.gov">Healthcare.gov</a> 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
(<a href="http://dol.gov">dol.gov</a>).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.<SUP>28 29</SUP> 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 <a href="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">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</a>.
\30\ Council of Economic Advisors (2022, May). Reducing the
economic burden of unmet mental health needs. The White House.
<a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/written-materials/2022/05/31/reducing-the-economic-burden-of-unmet-mental-health-needs/">https://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/written-materials/2022/05/31/reducing-the-economic-burden-of-unmet-mental-health-needs/</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. <a href="https://www.americanprogress.org/article/still-underpaid-and-unequal/">https://www.americanprogress.org/article/still-underpaid-and-unequal/</a>; 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. <a href="https://www.registryalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/NWRA-2022-ECE-workforce-data-report-final.pdf">https://www.registryalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/NWRA-2022-ECE-workforce-data-report-final.pdf</a>; Smith, L., McHenry, K., Morris, &
Chong, H. (2021). Characteristics of the child care workforce.
Bipartisan Policy Center. <a href="https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/characteristics-of-the-child-care-workforce/">https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/characteristics-of-the-child-care-workforce/</a>.
\32\ Child Care Aware (2022). 2021 Child Care Affordability.
<a href="https://www.childcareaware.org/catalyzing-growth-using-data-to-change-child-care/#ChildCareAffordability">https://www.childcareaware.org/catalyzing-growth-using-data-to-change-child-care/#ChildCareAffordability</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[…truncated; see source link]Indexed from Federal Register on August 21, 2024.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.