Tracing the Development of
Transportation Service in Head Start

The Head Start program was launched in 1965 during the heyday of the Great Society. Ever since its inception most Head Start agencies have routinely provided transportation service, but transportation was not a formal requirement of the program until 2001. This article seeks to answer why it took so long, and identify some of the important developments along the road. It also identifies the compromise that ultimately resolved what had become an intractable impasse.

The origin of transportation within Head Start can be traced back more than a quarter of a century. Probably the most important developments were enactment of Public Law 93-492, the Motor Vehicle and School Bus Safety Amendments of 1974 and, three years, later a series of regulations known as the federal school bus safety and construction standards. As a highway safety program, these regulations were placed under the jurisdication of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). NHTSA soon concluded the Head Start program fell under its regulatory powers.

NHTSA Interpretation Letters
A pivotal development occured in late 1977. In an Interpretation Letter issued that year to Thomas Built Buses, NHTSA wrote that it considered Head Start facilities to be "preprimary schools and that buses transporting children to and from those schools are defined as school buses under Federal law and accordingly are subject to the Federal school bus safety standards."

The basis for this position was NHTSA's interpretation of two words. It interpreted the word school, found in the definition of schoolbus as appearing in 49 U.S.C. 30125(a)(1), to include Head Start. The second was the word bus. In NHTSA's view, a bus was any vehicle transporting 10 or more passengers. Since many Head Start facilities used small passenger vans to provide transportation, that brought Head Start into NHTSA's orb.

Moreover, NHTSA interpreted the term school broadly because it believed that was Congressional intent in the Motor Vehicle and School Bus Safety Amendments which directed the creation of the federal school bus safety standards.

The December 29 interpretation letter to Thomas Built Buses set the agency's tone toward Head Start until the late 1990's. Indeed, nearly 25 years passed before NHTSA revised its interpretation.

Meanwhile, in seeming unrelated developments, NHTSA issued two other opinions, one dealing with nursery schools and the second with daycare facilities. These two letters helped define what was to become NHTSA's revised interpretation in the distant future.

In a May 12, 1981 Interpretation Letter, NHTSA explained that it considered nursery schools preprimary schools. "A nursery school is considered a preprimary school and thus falls within the ambit of that law. We cannot alter the requirements of the law."

A year later, on May 10, 1982, another NHTSA Interpretation Letter distinguished between day care centers and preprimary schools. "This distinction is based upon the function of the facility," NHTSA explained. "Facilities that are primarily educational in nature are considered schools, while those that are primarily custodial in nature are not considered schools. Hence, day care facilities, being custodial in nature, are not schools, while nursery schools and Head Start programs, which are educational in nature, are considered schools."

In 1995, in the preamble to the new Final Rule on transportation, the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) described Head Start as "a national program providing comprehensive child development services primarily to low-income children, predominantly age three to the age of compulsory school attendance, and their families. To help enrolled children achieve their full potential, Head Start programs provide comprehensive health, nutritional, educational, social and other services."

What about transportation service? Where, in the ACF's view, did the transportation component fit into the overall Head Start scheme?

The answer is that transportation didn't, at least not as a formal part of the Head Start program for many years.In fact, it wasn't until the Head Start Improvement Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 9835) that the Head Start Bureau was even required to begin developing regulations for the safe transportation of Head Start children. Section 640 of the law states, "The Secretary shall issue regulations establishing requirements for the safety features, and the safe operation, of vehicles used by Head Start agencies to transport children participating in Head Start programs." In addition, the Final Report of an Advisory Committee on Head Start Quality and Expansion recommended the development of regulations to assure that safe and effective transportation services are available.

Information Memorandums
Starting in 1982, the National Head Start Bureau began taking an active role in the transportation arena by issuing the first of three transportation-related Information Memorandums. These Memorandums were only advisory and not legally binding.

They were also instrumental in setting the stage for the development of the notice of proposal rulemaking for Head Start Transportation Safety thirteen years later.

The first Information Memorandum dealt with seating capacity. Issued on January 19, 1982, ACYF-IM-82-01, ``Bus Safety'' addressed the applicability of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (45 CFR Part 571) to school buses with a seating capacity of ten or more. "While the NHTSA regulations do not apply directly to the owners and operators of school buses, they may have indirect application," said Michael W. Ambrose, director of program management and operations, Head Start Bureau. "Prior to purchasing or leasing a school bus, you are advised to check with your State authorities as well as your insurance agent to determine whether State law or insurance company policy requires that the buses you own or operate meet NHTSA standards. In the interest of safety, ACYF suggests that all buses purchased or leased to transport Head Start children meet NHTSA standards."

The second Information Memorandum resulted from an accident in Hermanville, Mississippi. On December 17, 1981 a 16-passenger van in Head Start service ran off a road killing five of the 32 occupants of the vehicle. The accident drew the interest of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB).

Ten months later, when it published its investigative Highway Accident Report, the NTSB attributed the cause of the accident "possibly" to the "lack of precise Head Start occupant capacity guideline which permitted an excessive number of passengers in the van, a lack of driver emergency training, and the limited availability of exits."

Moreover, it formally recommended to the Administration for Children, Youth and Families that the Head Start program "adopt and emphasize the need for adherence to the policies and guidelines provided by the Pupil Transportation Safety Standard, Highway Safety Program Standard Number 17." It also urged Head Start to establish "additional crash performance standards for van escape areas, especially those used for public transportation."

Alarmed by the tragedy in Mississippi, HHS officials were eager to comply. On March 24, 1983 the bureau issued "ACYF-IM-83-06, ``Transportation Safety.'' In this Information Memorandum ACF formally notified Head Start programs about the accident per NTSB's request, and informed them of the NTSB recommendations. A copy of Standard 17 was included and programs were ``urged'' to use the Standard to assess the adequacy of their transportation systems.

Another decade passed in relative quiet until, on March 18, 1993, "ACYF-IM-93-10. ``Transportation'' appeared. This Information Memorandum replaced ACYF-IM-82-01 and ACYF-IM-83-06. It was published because both the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Pupil Transportation Safety Standards had been revised. The Information Memorandum provided Head Start programs with a copy of the revised Guideline 17 and again encouraged programs to purchase only vehicles that meet the FMVSS for school buses. It also provided Head Start programs with new information about the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act and Commercial Driver's License (CDL) program.

All these efforts culminated in June 1995 when the Head Start Bureau of the Administration for Children and Families published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Head Start Transportation Safety in the Federal Register. The authority for NPRM stemmed from Section 640(i) of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9801 et seq.) which directed the Secretary of Transportation to "issue regulations establishing requirements for the safety features and the safe operation of vehicles used to transport children participating in Head Start programs."

Head Start Publishes an NPRM Requiring Transportation
In the Background section of the notice of proposed rulemaking, the Bureau explained its rationale for proposing the new regulation. That explanation is presented here in its entirety.

"In preparing for this NPRM, a survey was conducted of the States to determine whether and the extent to which, the requirements in the State's pupil transportation safety plan applied to Head Start programs. Of the 48 States that responded to the survey, 14 of them stated that their Head Start programs are covered by the regulations governing pupil transportation, 22 States responded that their Head Start programs are not covered, 10 States gave a conditional response and 1 State did not know. The survey also indicated significant variation among the States themselves in the amount of training required for school bus drivers. Of the 45 States that responded to this question, 39 have some mandated training requirements for school bus drivers, 3 States reported that driver training was handled at the local level, and 3 States reported no mandated training requirements for school bus drivers. More significantly perhaps, only 13 States reported mandated driver training for Head Start bus drivers.

"This variation, both in the way Head Start programs are viewed by the States as well as the differing requirements among the States, precluded reliance on the States as the sole source for transportation safety standards for Head Start programs and was one of the primary determinants in our decision to develop minimum standards which would apply to all Head Start programs, regardless of the State in which they operate.

"In the development of this proposed rule, we have with only minor variations, adopted the recommendations contained in Guideline 17. As such, this proposed rule was developed through ongoing consultation with the Federal Highway Administration, specifically with NHTSA's Safety Counter Measures Division, on the application of the FMVSS and Guideline 17 to Head Start programs. It should be noted that we do not wish to place Head Start programs in conflict with State requirements. On the contrary, it is our intention to continue to work with the States beyond the implementation of the rule to enhance the relationship between Head Start programs and the State agencies responsible for pupil transportation safety. Toward that end, we have consulted with the National Association of State Directors of Pupil Transportation throughout the development of this proposed rule and we welcome the identification of any actual or potential problems that may be identified during the review of this NPRM.

"Where Guideline 17 lacked specificity or was silent on some aspect that was considered important, we have relied on other resources, such as the National Standards for School Bus Operations, in determining, for example, the minimum hours of pre-service and in-service training for drivers, the content requirements for driver training and the rules for trip routing. The NTSB's Special Report 222 provided valuable information regarding the use of seat belts on school buses, other special equipment, such as crossing control arms, the need for strict rules for trip routing, and the need to train children in safe riding practices both on and off the bus.

"The NTSB's examination of the use of seat belts on school buses in Special Report 222, along with NHTSA's recommendation in Guideline 17 that passengers in vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of under 10,000 pounds (which is the class of vehicle most in use by Head Start programs) use occupant restraints, raises an issue of special importance to the safe transportation of Head Start children. The use of standard Type I and Type II seat belts is inappropriate for children who weigh 50 pounds or less, because of the potential for injury from the seat belt itself. Children weighing 50 pounds or less should be seated in child restraint systems designed in accordance with FMVSS No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems." Since almost all Head Start children fall into this lower weight category, we have included such a requirement in the proposed rule. Our decision to include this requirement is based on consultation with such organizations as the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Children's National Medical Center in Washington, DC and the Riley Hospital for Children, Automotive Safety for Children Program in Indianapolis, Indiana. We are particularly interested in comments addressing age mixes of children with respect to child restraints (infants and toddlers)."

It would be six-and-a-half years before the Clinton Administration approved the proposed rule.

The National Transportation Safety Board
In the interim, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) conducted a special investigation of four accidents in which children being transported in non-conforming vans were killed. Since one of the accidents it studied involved a Head Start child, the NTSB issued another safety recommendation to the Department of Health and Human Services.

In the recommendation, the NTSB wrote, `When states allow children to be transported in vehicles not meeting Federal school bus construction standards, NHTSA's intent of protecting school children is undermined * * *. The Safety Board is firmly convinced that the best way to maximize pupil transportation safety is to require the use of school buses or buses built to equivalent occupant crash protection standards.''

The NTSB added that the release of the then-pending Head Start Transportation rulemaking "should be expedited to prevent future injuries and fatalities to children enrolled in Head Start programs''.

Further, it urged that "`Head Start children be transported in vehicles built to Federal school bus structural standards or the equivalent'' and that NHTSA's new Guideline for the Safe Transportation of Preschool Age Children in School Buses be mandated in the rule. The guidelines are related to child passenger restraint systems. The development of performance standards for Head Start transportation supported the goal of ensuring that children and families receive high quality Head Start services.

NHTSA Revises its Interpretation of "School"
Congress redefined the Head Start program in the Coats Human Service Reauthorization Act of 1988. The statute amended Section 636 of 42 U.S.C. 9831 to "promote school readiness by enhancing the social and cognitive development of low-income children through the provision, to low-income children and their families, of health, educational, nutritional, social, and other services that are determined, based on family needs assessments to be necessary."

In view of the rewording of the statute, NHTSA agreed that it was no longer appropriate to consider the Head Start program to be a school program.

NHTSA outlined its revised position in a formal Interpretation Letter to Helen H. Taylor, associate commissioner of the Head Start Bureau."In light of the 1998 amendment to section 636 of the Head Start Act," wrote Frank Seales, Jr. NHTSA Chief Counsel, "we have concluded that the linkage we have made in the case of Head Start between education services and schools is no longer valid. We believe that it is clear from the language of that section that Congress has made a distinction between Head Start programs and school programs."

Seales continued, "Accordingly, we are revising our interpretation of 'schoo' to exclude Head Start. Consistent with the evident intent of section 636, we conclude that a Head Start agency is not operating a 'schoo' for the purposes of the Vehicle Safety Act. This means that buses sold to transport children to and from a Head Start site will no longer be required under the Vehicle Safety Act to meet the Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to school buses," Seales said.

NHTSA's new interpretation resulted several months later in the definition of a new class of vehicle. The new definition first appeared in the Head Start Transportation Final Rule.

Labeled the Allowable Alternate Vehicle, it is "a vehicle which complies with the FMVSS applicable to school buses related to crash survivability and mirrors, but does not meet the other FMVSS which apply to crash prevention, such as the requirements for flashing school bus lights and stop arms, or the provisions in Guideline 17 relating to the color of the vehicle and the use of lights and stop arms." Moreover, it is "designed for carrying eleven or more people, including the driver." In other words, an Allowable Alternate Vehicle has to be built to FMVSS school bus crashworthiness standards but does not have to meet FMVSS crash avoidance standards.

The Allowable Alternate Vehicle is the compromise adopted by the departments of Transportation and Health and Human Services, to solve the decade-long impasse related to improving the safety of Head Start transportation service. Head Start programs can now legally purchase and operate Allowable Alternate Vehicles, and they can continue to purchase traditional school buses as well.

The new transportation regulation was issued on January 18, 2001, two days before the Clinton Administration left office. Head Start agencies are given five years to come into compliance with more than 40 requirements, with full compliance not required until January 18, 2006. They can continue to operate their existing fleet of vehicles, but any future purchase of a vehicle must be either an allowable alternative vehicle or traditional school bus!