(a) 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 provide that:
(1) It shall be in operation, through a system of local offices, on a statewide basis in accordance with equitable standards for assistance and administration that are mandatory throughout the State;
(2) If administered by political subdivisions of the State, the plan will be mandatory on such political subdivisions;
(3) The State agency will assure that the plan is continuously in operation in all local offices or agencies through:
(i) Methods for informing staff of State policies, standards, procedures and instructions; and
(ii) Regular planned examination and evaluation of operations in local offices by regularly assigned State staff, including regular visits by such staff; and through reports, controls, or other necessary methods.
(b) [Reserved]
[39 FR 16971, May 10, 1974, as amended at 44 FR 17942, Mar. 23, 1979; 45 FR 56686, Aug. 25, 1980]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
10
cases, 1971–1989 · leading case:
Alexander v. Hill, 549 F. Supp. 1355 (W.D.N.C. 1982).
Alexander v. Hill, 549 F. Supp. 1355 (W.D.N.C. 1982).
· cites it 3× “904 ; 45 C.F.R. §§ 205.120 and 206.10(a)(12). On August 8, 1975, the court ordered defendants to develop and implement a plan for the timely taking and processing of applications.”
Barnes v. Cohen, 749 F.2d 1009 (3rd Cir. 1984).
“Just as states may not deny benefits to individuals who meet federal requirements, so too the Social Security Act prohibits a state from refusing assistance to individuals who are eligible under state law.”
Guidice v. Jackson, 726 F. Supp. 632 (E.D. Va. 1989).
“45 C.F.R. § 205.120 (a)(1) provides: [A state plan for AFDC] shall be in operation .”
City of New York v. Richardson, 473 F.2d 923 (2d Cir. 1973).
“” 45 C.F.R. § 205.120 (a). State funds must be used for both assistance and administration and on no account may State participation total less than 40% of the non-federal share of the total expenditure, 45 C.”
Jordan v. Weaver, 472 F.2d 985 (7th Cir. 1973).
“Plaintiffs rely on certain general portions of the HEW’s regulations providing that “a state plan * * shall be in operation through a system of local offices on a statewide basis in accordance with equitable standards for assistance and administration * * *” ( 45 C.F.R. §…”
Alexander v. Hill, 707 F.2d 780 (4th Cir. 1983).
“904 ; 45 C.F.R. §§ 205.120 , 206.10(a)(12). . The defendants have not challenged any of the district court’s findings; nor have they moved for any amendment of the substantive findings.”
Cnty. of Marin v. Martin, 43 Cal. App. 3d 1 (Cal. Ct. App. 1974).
“10 (b)), to keep the county agencies informed “of the State policies, standards, procedures and instruction” ( 45 C.F.R. § 205.120 ), and to fix standards for the employment, training and conduct of the county agencies’ personnel ( 45 C.”
J. A. v. Riti, 377 F. Supp. 1046 (D.N.J. 1974).
· cites it 2× “§ 602 (a)(1) and 45 C.F.R. § 205.120 because it vests complete discretion in the local county welfare boards and does not *1051 contain mandatory and uniform standards that must be applied by them in determining who will be excluded from the AFDC program because of their…”
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.