42 U.S.C. § 9838

Submission of plans to chief executive officer

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 42 CasesGoogle Scholar

In carrying out the provisions of this subchapter, no contract, agreement, grant, or other assistance shall be made for the purpose of carrying out a Head Start program within a State unless a plan setting forth such proposed contract, agreement, grant, or other assistance has been submitted to the chief executive officer of the State, and such plan has not been disapproved by such officer within 45 days of such submission, or, if disapproved (for reasons other than failure of the program to comply with State health, safety, and child care laws, including regulations applicable to comparable child care programs in the State), has been reconsidered by the Secretary and found by the Secretary to be fully consistent with the provisions and in furtherance of the purposes of this subchapter, as evidenced by a written statement of the Secretary’s findings that is transmitted to such officer. Funds to cover the costs of the proposed contract, agreement, grant, or other assistance shall be obligated from the appropriation which is current at the time the plan is submitted to such officer. This section shall not, however, apply to contracts, agreements, grants, loans, or other assistance to any institution of higher education in existence on August 13, 1981. This section shall not apply to contracts, agreements, grants, loans, or other assistance for Indian Head Start programs or migrant or seasonal Head Start programs.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 1988–1995 · leading case: Quiles Ex Rel. Proj. Head Start v. Hernandez Colon, 682 F. Supp. 127 (D.P.R. 1988).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Quiles Ex Rel. Proj. Head Start v. Hernandez Colon, 682 F. Supp. 127 (D.P.R. 1988). · cites it 2× “42 U.S.C. § 9838 . Once gubernatorial approval is gained, the Secretary may designate the entity as a designated Head Start agency.”

Head Start Fam. Educ. Prog., Inc. v. Coop. Educ. Serv. Agency 11, 46 F.3d 629 (7th Cir. 1995). “See 42 U.S.C. § 9838 . HSFEP contends that CESA ll’s application was not approvable because it did not demonstrate “financial viability,” which is defined as “the capability of an applicant .”

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.