(a)(1) State plan requirements. A State plan for financial assistance under title I, IV-A, X, XIV, or XVI (AABD) of the Social Security Act must:
(i) Provide for the establishment or designation of a single State agency with authority to administer or supervise the administration of the plan.
(ii) Include a certification by the attorney general of the State identifying the single State agency and citing the legal authority under which such agency administers, or supervises the administration of, the plan on a statewide basis including the authority to make rules and regulations governing the administration of the plan by such agency or rules and regulations that are binding on the political subdivisions, if the plan is administered by them.
(2) [Reserved]
(b) Conditions for implementing the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section. (1) The State agency will not delegate to other than its own officials its authority for exercising administrative discretion in the administration or supervision of the plan including the issuance of policies, rules, and regulations on program matters.
(2) In the event that any rules and regulations or decisions of the single State agency are subject to review, clearance, or other action by other offices or agencies of the State government, the requisite authority of the single State agency will not be impaired.
(3) In the event that any services are performed for the single State agency by other State or local agencies or offices, such agencies and offices must not have authority to review, change, or disapprove any administrative decision of the single State agency, or otherwise substitute their judgment for that of the agency as to the application of policies, rules, and regulations promulgated by the State agency.
[45 FR 56685, Aug. 25, 1980]
Notes of Decisions
Anderson v. Superior Court, 213 Cal. App. 3d 1321 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 4× “" ( 45 C.F.R. § 205.100 (b)(1).) Other state and local agencies are expressly prohibited from reviewing, changing or disapproving any administrative decision of the state agency designated to administer the AFDC program.”
Beaudoin v. Toia, 380 N.E.2d 246 (NY 1978).
· cites it 2× “45 CFR 205.100 [a] [1] [i].) The associated Federal regulations preserve to the single State agency the conclusiveness of its rule-making authority even where, as in New York State, the social services program is administered through a network of subdesignated local agencies:…”
Giles v. Horn, 2002 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6373 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002).
“” ( 45 C.F.R. § 205.100 (b) (2001).) It is undisputed that these functions have not been contracted out.”
Lamboy v. Gross, 129 Misc. 2d 564 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1985).
· cites it 2× “Petitioners have withdrawn those aspects of their petition which seek to declare that the failure of the city and State to provide emergency housing violates the US Constitution ( 42 USC § 602 [a] [1], [3]; § 1983; 45 CFR 205.100, 205.120, 206.10) and the NY Constitution (art I,…”
Folsom v. Blum, 87 F.R.D. 443 (S.D.N.Y. 1980).
“20 (a)(1)(h), (a)(3)(vi), (a)(3)(x), 45 C.F.R. §§ 205.100 (a)(1), 205.-120(a).”
Davidson v. Sherman, 848 P.2d 1341 (Wyo. 1993).
“§ 602 (a)(3), 45 C.F.R. §§ 205.100 , 205.101. Two basic factors enter into the determination of what AFDC benefits will be paid to a family.”
Sanchez v. Cnty. of San Diego, 464 F.3d 916 (9th Cir. 2006).
· cites it 2× “…(5) unlawful imposition of new eligibility criteria for welfare benefits ( 7 C.F.R. §§ 273.1 (f)(4)(i), (iii); 45 C.F.R. § 205.100 ; Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code §§ 10600 , 11207, 11209, 11250; California Health & Human Services Manual of Policies & Procedures (“MPP”) §§…”
Yaretsky v. Blum, 592 F.2d 65 (2d Cir. 1979).
· cites it 2× “45 C.F.R. § 205.100 (b)(1) permits delegation “by other State or local agencies” but in no case permits delegation to a private party such as a health care facility or its “Utilization Review Committee.”
Kessler v. Blum, 591 F. Supp. 1013 (S.D.N.Y. 1984).
“10 (a)(4), which required timely notice prior to determination of benefits, and, in Yaretsky , 45 C.F.R. § 205.100 (b)(1), which prohibited the state from delegating to private parties the responsibility of providing the notices required by § 205.”
Koster v. Perales, 903 F.2d 131 (2d Cir. 1990).
“Federal regulations provide that the State retain authority and discretion in the areas of policy and rule-making, conduct periodic evaluations, ensure continuous program operation and disseminate information to staff.”
Slade v. Koch, 135 Misc. 2d 283 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1987).
“; 45 CFR 205.100 [b] [3].) The only disputed issue is whether the city has failed to comply with State directives and regulations, prohibiting referral of homeless families with pregnant women and infants under six months of age to congregate style mass shelters.”
— 45 C.F.R. § 205.100(a)(l)(i) — 1 case
— 45 C.F.R. § 205.100(b)(1) — 1 case
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.