20 U.S.C. § 1232f

Records

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 20 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Records kept by recipient; full disclosure; maintenance period

Each recipient of Federal funds under any applicable program through any grant, subgrant, cooperative agreement, loan, or other arrangement shall keep records which fully disclose the amount and disposition by the recipient of those funds, the total cost of the activity for which the funds are used, the share of that cost provided from other sources, and such other records as will facilitate an effective financial or programmatic audit. The recipient shall maintain such records for three years after the completion of the activity for which the funds are used.

(b) Audit examination

The Secretary and the Comptroller General of the United States, or any of their duly authorized representatives, shall have access, for the purpose of audit examination, to any records maintained by a recipient that may be related, or pertinent to, grants, subgrants, cooperative agreements, loans, or other arrangements to which reference is made in subsection (a), or which may relate to the compliance of the recipient with any requirement of an applicable program.

(Pub. L. 90–247, title IV, § 443, formerly § 437, as added Pub. L. 95–561, title XII, § 1231(c), Nov. 1, 1978, 92 Stat. 2346; renumbered § 443 and amended Pub. L. 103–382, title II, §§ 212(b)(1), 248, Oct. 20, 1994, 108 Stat. 3913, 3924.)Editorial NotesPrior Provisions

A prior section 443 of Pub. L. 90–247 was classified to section 1233b of this title prior to repeal by Pub. L. 103–382.

Amendments

1994—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 103–382, § 248(1), substituted “grant, subgrant, cooperative agreement, loan, or other arrangement” for “grant, subgrant, contract, subcontract, loan, or other arrangement (other than procurement contracts awarded by an administrative head of an educational agency)”, inserted “financial or programmatic” before “audit.”, and substituted “three years” for “five years”.

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 103–382, § 248(2), substituted “to any records maintained by a recipient that may be related, or pertinent to, grants, subgrants, cooperative agreements, loans, or other arrangements” for “to any records of a recipient which may be related, or pertinent to, the grants, subgrants, contracts, subcontracts, loans, or other arrangements”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Section effective with respect to appropriations for fiscal year 1980 and subsequent fiscal years, see section 1261 of Pub. L. 95–561, set out as a note under section 1232c of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1981–2021 · leading case: Bell v. New Jersey, 461 U.S. 773 (1983).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Bell v. New Jersey, 461 U.S. 773 (1983). · cites it 2× “The statute clearly assigned to the agency the duty of auditing grant recipients, see GEPA, § 437, 20 U. S. C. § 1232f, and it is in the auditing process that the misuse of funds, and its magnitude, will surface.”

Dep't of Educ., State of Hawaii v. Terrel Bell, Sec'y of Educ., United States Dep't of Educ., 770 F.2d 1409 (9th Cir. 1985). “20 U.S.C. § 1232f (1982). The Audit Agency audited Hawaii’s expenditures with regard to the supplanting provision from 1973 through 1976.”

J.P. Ex Rel. Todd Popson v. West Clark Cmty. Schs., 230 F. Supp. 2d 910 (S.D. Ind. 2002). “The Popsons allege that Cochran’s “record destruction” is a violation of 20 U.S.C. § 1232f and 34 C.F.R. §§ 75.730 ^.”

New Jersey, Dep't of Educ. v. Hufstedler, 662 F.2d 208 (3rd Cir. 1981). “We find support for our conclusion in the 1978 Amendments to the Act which, although they augmented the Act with section 185 and its GEPA counterpart section 452, 19 both of which explicitly authorize the Secretary to demand and collect refunds of misspent monies, left in place…”

Smith v. Coyle Pub. Schs. (W.D. Okla. 2021). “; claims under The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1232f, et seq. (“FERPA”); and claims under state law for tortious conduct, breach of contract, wrongful termination, and violations of the Oklahoma Open Meetings Act, Okla.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.