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

ACF-2026-0364-0001Proposed Rule

Comments

277

Awaiting comments

Deadline

Closed on Jun 12, 2026

Closed Jun 12, 2026

Net supporti

-77%

-77% excluding campaigns

Document

Details

The document's own metadata, straight from the source system.

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

In this notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) proposes to remove requirements from the Head Start Program Performance Standards (Performance Standards) to restore local flexibility to Head Start programs and improve access to quality services. Specifically, this NPRM proposes to remove requirements related to wages and benefits that the Administration believes are not in line with the plain language of the Head Start Act and are costly and overly prescriptive for Head Start programs and staff. ACF estimates these proposed changes, if finalized, will result in over $2 billion in future cost savings for Head Start programs. The proposed rescissions in this NPRM, if finalized, would impact the costliest parts of the final rule published by the Office of Head Start (OHS) in 2024, Supporting the Head Start Workforce and Consistent Quality Programming.

Posted: May 12, 2026
Comment period: May 12, 2026 – Jun 12, 2026
Agency: Administration for Children and Families (ACF)
FR Doc: 2026-09383
Topics: Child & Family Services
Labor & Worker Rights

View on regulations.gov ↗

Analysis

Overview

What the public is saying — stance, who's commenting, and the issues they raise.

Include campaigns

Stance breakdown

-77%

Net support

Support23Oppose236Other18

Aggregates include form-letter campaigns. Excluding them, net support is -77% across organic comments.

Who commented

Breakdown by commenter type.

Union

Government

Individual

158

Trade association

Advocacy

Academic

Business

Other

Comments over time

Weekly arrivals, stacked by stance.

Posted May 12, 2026Deadline Jun 12, 2026

May 11May 18May 25Jun 1Jun 8

Support23Oppose236Other18

Support × commenter type

How each type splits across stance.

Support

Oppose

Other

Individual

82%

10%

Advocacy

10%

90%

Business

17%

75%

Government

14%

86%

Academic

100%

Trade association

80%

20%

Union

100%

Other

100%

Issues raised

The docket's canonical issues. Select one to browse its comments.

Workforce compensation and funding255

→

Workforce shortages and compensation229

→

Staff recruitment and retention216

→

Program access flexibility10

→

Early childhood education3

→

Staffing ratio alignment2

→

Lead testing requirements1

→

Position map

Who stands where on each issue?

Every non-silent position is backed by an excerpt from the comment.

Organization	Workforce compensation and funding	Workforce shortages and compensation	Staff recruitment and retention
APANO Communities United Fund, APANO Action Fund AdvocacyOppose APANO Communities United Fund and APANO Action Fund oppose the proposed rescission of wage and benefit requirements, arg
Black Child Development Institute of Ohio AdvocacyOppose The Black Child Development Institute of Ohio opposes the proposed rule, arguing that removing wage and benefit requirem
Bringing Up California AdvocacyOppose The Bringing Up California coalition, representing various early childhood education organizations, strongly opposes the
California Child Care Resource & Referral Network AdvocacyOppose The California Child Care Resource & Referral Network, a nonprofit membership organization, opposes the proposed rule be	·
Child Care Aware of America AdvocacyOppose Child Care Aware of America (CCAoA) opposes the proposed rule, arguing that removing requirements for fair wages and ben
Community Action Agency of Somerville, Inc. AdvocacyOppose The Community Action Agency of Somerville, Inc., a Head Start recipient, opposes the proposed rule because it removes fe			·
Division for Early Childhood of the Council for Exceptional Children (DEC). AdvocacyOppose The Division for Early Childhood of the Council for Exceptional Children (DEC) opposes the proposed changes because they
East Boston Social Centers AdvocacyOppose East Boston Social Centers, an early childhood education provider, opposes the proposed rescission of Head Start wage an
Educare Network AdvocacyOppose The Educare Network, an organization operating 25 schools across multiple states, opposes the proposed rule because it w
GEEARS: Georgia Early Education Alliance for Ready Students AdvocacyOppose GEEARS, a Georgia-based nonprofit organization, opposes the proposed rescission of wage and benefit requirements for Hea
Georgia Head Start Association AdvocacyOppose The Georgia Head Start Association argues that the proposed rule will not increase access to Head Start programs because
Massachusetts Head Start Association AdvocacyOppose The Massachusetts Head Start Association opposes the proposed rescission of wage and benefit requirements, arguing that			·
MomsRising, Inc. AdvocacyOppose MomsRising/MamásConPoder opposes the proposed rule, arguing that it rolls back important wage and benefit protections fo
National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) AdvocacyOppose The National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) opposes the proposed removal of wage and benefit re
New America AdvocacyOppose New America, a non-profit policy and research organization, opposes the proposed rule because it would roll back the 202		·	·
OHSAI AdvocacyOppose The Ohio Head Start Association, Inc.
Raising Illinois PN3 Coalition AdvocacyOppose The Raising Illinois Prenatal-to-Three Coalition opposes the proposed removal of wage and benefit requirements, arguing
Region II Head Start Association Trade associationOppose The New Jersey Head Start Association opposes the complete removal of requirements for wage structures and employee bene
Society for Research in Child Development (SRCD) AdvocacyOppose The Society for Research in Child Development (SRCD) opposes the proposed rescissions of workforce wages and benefits pr		·	·
Southern Education Foundation AdvocacyOppose The Southern Education Foundation (SEF) opposes the proposed rescission of workforce compensation and benefit requiremen	·	·
Start Early AdvocacyOppose Start Early, a non-profit public-private partnership, opposes the proposed removal of Head Start staff wage and benefit
Trust for Learning AdvocacyOppose The Trust for Learning, a philanthropic partnership, opposes the proposed rule because it would remove requirements for
United Parent Leaders Action Network (UPLAN) AdvocacyOppose The United Parent Leaders Action Network (UPLAN) opposes the proposed rule, arguing that removing wage and benefit requi
United Way of Salt Lake AdvocacyOppose United Way of Salt Lake opposes the proposed rule, arguing that removing wage and benefit requirements will undermine th
Utah Community Action AdvocacyOppose Utah Community Action opposes the proposed rulemaking because it threatens the ability of Head Start programs to offer c
Wisconsin Early Childhood Association AdvocacyOppose The Wisconsin Early Childhood Association (WECA) opposes the proposed rule, arguing that removing wage and benefit requi
YMCA of the USA AdvocacySupport The YMCA of the USA, a large nonprofit provider of child care, supports the proposed rescission of federal wage and bene

APANO Communities United Fund, APANO Action Fund

AdvocacyOppose

Workforce compensation and funding

Workforce shortages and compensation

Staff recruitment and retention

Black Child Development Institute of Ohio

AdvocacyOppose

Workforce compensation and funding

Workforce shortages and compensation

Staff recruitment and retention

Bringing Up California

AdvocacyOppose

Workforce compensation and funding

Workforce shortages and compensation

Staff recruitment and retention

California Child Care Resource & Referral Network

AdvocacyOppose

Workforce shortages and compensation

Staff recruitment and retention

Child Care Aware of America

AdvocacyOppose

Workforce compensation and funding

Workforce shortages and compensation

Staff recruitment and retention

Community Action Agency of Somerville, Inc.

AdvocacyOppose

Workforce compensation and funding

Workforce shortages and compensation

Division for Early Childhood of the Council for Exceptional Children (DEC).

AdvocacyOppose

Workforce compensation and funding

Workforce shortages and compensation

Staff recruitment and retention

East Boston Social Centers

AdvocacyOppose

Workforce compensation and funding

Workforce shortages and compensation

Staff recruitment and retention

Educare Network

AdvocacyOppose

Workforce compensation and funding

Workforce shortages and compensation

Staff recruitment and retention

GEEARS: Georgia Early Education Alliance for Ready Students

AdvocacyOppose

Workforce compensation and funding

Workforce shortages and compensation

Staff recruitment and retention

Georgia Head Start Association

AdvocacyOppose

Workforce compensation and funding

Workforce shortages and compensation

Staff recruitment and retention

Massachusetts Head Start Association

AdvocacyOppose

Workforce compensation and funding

Workforce shortages and compensation

MomsRising, Inc.

AdvocacyOppose

Workforce compensation and funding

Workforce shortages and compensation

Staff recruitment and retention

National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC)

AdvocacyOppose

Workforce compensation and funding

Workforce shortages and compensation

Staff recruitment and retention

New America

AdvocacyOppose

Workforce compensation and funding

OHSAI

AdvocacyOppose

Workforce compensation and funding

Workforce shortages and compensation

Staff recruitment and retention

Raising Illinois PN3 Coalition

AdvocacyOppose

Workforce compensation and funding

Workforce shortages and compensation

Staff recruitment and retention

Region II Head Start Association

Trade associationOppose

Workforce compensation and funding

Workforce shortages and compensation

Staff recruitment and retention

Society for Research in Child Development (SRCD)

AdvocacyOppose

Workforce compensation and funding

Southern Education Foundation

AdvocacyOppose

Staff recruitment and retention

Start Early

AdvocacyOppose

Workforce compensation and funding

Workforce shortages and compensation

Staff recruitment and retention

Trust for Learning

AdvocacyOppose

Workforce compensation and funding

Workforce shortages and compensation

Staff recruitment and retention

United Parent Leaders Action Network (UPLAN)

AdvocacyOppose

Workforce compensation and funding

Workforce shortages and compensation

Staff recruitment and retention

United Way of Salt Lake

AdvocacyOppose

Workforce compensation and funding

Workforce shortages and compensation

Staff recruitment and retention

Utah Community Action

AdvocacyOppose

Workforce compensation and funding

Workforce shortages and compensation

Staff recruitment and retention

Wisconsin Early Childhood Association

AdvocacyOppose

Workforce compensation and funding

Workforce shortages and compensation

Staff recruitment and retention

YMCA of the USA

AdvocacySupport

Workforce compensation and funding

Workforce shortages and compensation

Staff recruitment and retention

12 organization-typed comments could not be identified.

Comments

Explorer

Every mirrored comment — filter by stance, campaign, or issue.

Filter:

Gabe Johnson
May 20, 2026
OpposeIndividual
The commenter, representing a Head Start program, opposes the proposed rule because they believe it will make it harder to recruit and retain high-quality staff who are currently being lured away by better-compensated school districts. They also argue that the proposed lead testing requirements are overly burdensome and inconsistent with state regulations for school districts.
Read comment →