42 C.F.R. § 59.7

What criteria will the Department of Health and Human Services use to decide which family planning services projects to fund and in what amount?

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Within the limits of funds available for these purposes, the Secretary may award grants for the establishment and operation of those projects which will in the Department's judgment best promote the purposes of section 1001 of the Act, taking into account:

(1) The number of clients, and, in particular, the number of low-income clients to be served;

(2) The extent to which family planning services are needed locally;

(3) The ability of the applicant to advance health equity;

(4) The relative need of the applicant;

(5) The capacity of the applicant to make rapid and effective use of the federal assistance;

(6) The adequacy of the applicant's facilities and staff;

(7) The relative availability of non-federal resources within the community to be served and the degree to which those resources are committed to the project; and

(8) The degree to which the project plan adequately provides for the requirements set forth in these regulations.

(b) The Secretary shall determine the amount of any award on the basis of an estimate of the sum necessary for the performance of the project. No grant may be made for less than 90 percent of the project's costs, as so estimated, unless the grant is to be made for a project which was supported, under section 1001, for less than 90 percent of its costs in fiscal year 1975. In that case, the grant shall not be for less than the percentage of costs covered by the grant in fiscal year 1975.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1988–2024 · leading case: Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin v. Alex Azar, II, 942 F.3d 512 (D.C. Cir. 2019).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin v. Alex Azar, II, 942 F.3d 512 (D.C. Cir. 2019). · cites it 6× “42 C.F.R. § 59.7 (2018); see Standards of Compliance for Abortion-Related Services in Family Planning Services Projects, 65 Fed.”

State of Ohio v. Xavier Becerra, 87 F.4th 759 (6th Cir. 2023). “2021 Rule, 42 C.F.R. § 59.7 (c) (“No grant may be made for an amount equal to 100 percent for the project’s estimated costs.”

Com. of Mass. v. Bowen, 679 F. Supp. 137 (D. Mass. 1988). · cites it 2× “42 C.F.R. § 59.7 (1988). If an organization conducts these activities in a separate program, the Title X project must be physically and financially separate from the prohibited activities.”

Planned Parenthood Fed'n of Am. v. Bowen, 680 F. Supp. 1465 (D. Colo. 1988). “2, 1988) (to be codified at 42 C.F.R. 59.7 (1988). § 59.8 Prohibition on counseling and referral for abortion services; limitation of program services to family planning.”

Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin, Inc. v. Azar (D.D.C. 2018). · cites it 11× “42 C.F.R. § 59.7 (2016). This regulation has remained substantially the same since the Title X program began.”

Planned Parenthood v. Sanchez, 403 F.3d 324 (5th Cir. 2005). “, 42 C.F.R. § 59.7 (b); 42 C.F.R. § 59.10 ; 42 C.”

State of Ohio v. Xavier Becerra (6th Cir. 2023). “2021 Rule, 42 C.F.R. § 59.7 (c) (“No grant may be made for an amount equal to 100 percent for the project’s estimated costs.”

State of Oklahoma v. HHS (10th Cir. 2024). “See 42 C.F.R. § 59.7 (a) (stating that “the Secretary may award grants” (emphasis added)).”

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.