Restoring Flexibility to Support Head Start Program Access - RIN 0970-AD21

The MN Head Start Association opposes the proposed rule, arguing that removing federal requirements for wages and benefits will not increase program access but will instead leave programs to struggle with local labor market pressures and rising costs. They contend that the action fails to address the underlying fiscal challenges and that meaningful investment is needed to maintain a stable, qualified workforce and high-quality services.

The United Parent Leaders Action Network (UPLAN) opposes the proposed rule, arguing that removing wage and benefit requirements will destabilize the Head Start workforce and reduce the quality of services. They contend that competitive compensation is essential for recruiting and retaining qualified educators to ensure children and families have access to high-quality early education.

The Council for Professional Recognition supports the proposed rule to increase flexibility for Head Start programs but urges the Administration for Children and Families to ensure that these changes do not weaken the Child Development Associate (CDA) credential requirements. They argue that workforce stability and staff qualifications are essential to program access and recommend pairing the proposed flexibility with concrete workforce development and retention strategies centered on the CDA.

The Raising Illinois Prenatal-to-Three Coalition opposes the proposed removal of wage and benefit requirements, arguing that it shifts the burden to local grantees without providing the necessary funding to increase compensation. They contend that the action will further erode workforce stability and reduce access to Head Start services by making it harder to recruit and retain qualified educators.

Start Early, a non-profit public-private partnership, opposes the proposed removal of Head Start staff wage and benefit requirements. They argue that rescinding these standards will worsen workforce instability, decrease the quality of services, and make it harder for programs to recruit and retain qualified educators who deserve competitive compensation.

New America, a non-profit policy and research organization, opposes the proposed rule because it would roll back the 2024 requirements for Head Start educator wages and benefits. They argue that lower compensation will exacerbate staff turnover and recruitment challenges, ultimately reducing access to high-quality services for children and families.

The Bringing Up California coalition, representing various early childhood education organizations, strongly opposes the proposed rule to remove wage and benefit requirements for Head Start staff. They argue that these requirements are essential for recruiting and retaining a high-quality workforce, and that removing them will exacerbate staff turnover, reduce program quality, and limit access for children in need.

The National AgFamilies Head Start Association (NAFHSA) opposes the proposed rescission of wage and benefit standards for Head Start programs. They argue that these standards are essential for recruiting and retaining qualified educators, particularly for Migrant and Seasonal Head Start (MSHS) programs which face unique workforce challenges and high costs.

The Division for Early Childhood of the Council for Exceptional Children (DEC) opposes the proposed changes because they would reduce funding for staff wages and benefits. They argue that lower compensation will lead to a less qualified workforce, negatively impacting the quality of inclusive services for children with disabilities.

Children’s Aid, an organization serving children in New York, opposes the proposed rule because it removes the federal requirement to address workforce compensation without addressing the underlying funding constraints. They argue that eliminating these standards will not increase access to Head Start but will instead force providers to make difficult trade-offs between program quality, staff retention, and serving children in a competitive labor market.