C.F.R. » Title 45 » CHAPTER II—OFFICE OF FAMILY ASSISTANCE (ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS), ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES › PART 205—GENERAL ADMINISTRATION—PUBLIC ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS

45 C.F.R. § 205.130

State financial participation

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

State plan requirements:

(a) 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) State (as distinguished from local) funds will be used in both assistance and administration; and

(2) State and Federal funds will be apportioned among the political subdivisions of the State on a basis consistent with equitable treatment of individuals in similar circumstances throughout the State.

(b) A State plan under title I, IV-A, X, XIV, or XVI (AABD) of the Act must provide further that State funds will be used to pay a substantial part of the total costs of the assistance programs.

[45 FR 56686, Aug. 25, 1980]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1973–1990 · leading case: Bd. of Supervisors v. McMahon, 219 Cal. App. 3d 286 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bd. of Supervisors v. McMahon, 219 Cal. App. 3d 286 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 2× “" ( 45 C.F.R., § 205.130 (b).) [5] On appeal, we review the trial court's decision, not its reasoning.”
Lindsay v. Wyman, 372 F. Supp. 1360 (S.D.N.Y. 1974). · cites it 3× “It is true that the State mandates the level of payment under the State plan for welfare benefits, and that this creates an inflexible burden on the budget" of the City of New York.”
Leonard Andrews v. Edward W. Maher, Successor to Nicholas Norton, Individually & as Comm'r of Welfare, State of Connecticut, 525 F.2d 113 (2d Cir. 1975). “is interested in or concerned with the welfare of such child”); 45 C.F.R. § 205.120 (a) (“A State plan .”
Guidice v. Jackson, 726 F. Supp. 632 (E.D. Va. 1989). “45 C.F.R. § 205.130 (a)(2) provides: State and federal funds will be apportioned among the political subdivisions of the State on a basis consistent with equitable treatment of individuals in similar circumstances throughout the state.”
The City Of New York v. Richardson, 473 F.2d 923 (2d Cir. 1973). “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.F.R. 205.130(a) (1), (c). There is no requirement that local governments contribute to the cost…”
City of New York v. Richardson, 473 F.2d 923 (2d Cir. 1973). “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.F.R. 205.130(a)(1), (c). There is no requirement that local governments contribute to the cost of…”
Jordan v. Weaver, 472 F.2d 985 (7th Cir. 1973). “120 (a)); that “funds will be apportioned among the political subdivisions of the State on a basis consistent with equitable treatment of individuals in similar circumstances throughout the State” (45 C.F. R. § 205.130(2)); that “the eligibility conditions imposed * * * must not…”
Henry v. White, 359 F. Supp. 969 (D. Conn. 1973). · cites it 2× “130(b) for the proposition that local offices must be provided where needed “on a basis consistent with the equitable treatment of individuals in similar circumstances throughout the state.”
— 45 C.F.R. § 205.130(2) — 1 case
Jordan v. Weaver, 472 F.2d 985 (7th Cir. 1973). “120 (a)); that “funds will be apportioned among the political subdivisions of the State on a basis consistent with equitable treatment of individuals in similar circumstances throughout the State” (45 C.F. R. § 205.130(2)); that “the eligibility conditions imposed * * * must not…”
— 45 C.F.R. § 205.130(a) — 1 case
The City Of New York v. Richardson, 473 F.2d 923 (2d Cir. 1973). “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.F.R. 205.130(a) (1), (c). There is no requirement that local governments contribute to the cost…”
— 45 C.F.R. § 205.130(a)(1) — 2 cases
City of New York v. Richardson, 473 F.2d 923 (2d Cir. 1973). “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.F.R. 205.130(a)(1), (c). There is no requirement that local governments contribute to the cost of…”
Lindsay v. Wyman, 372 F. Supp. 1360 (S.D.N.Y. 1974). “It is true that the State mandates the level of payment under the State plan for welfare benefits, and that this creates an inflexible burden on the budget" of the City of New York.”
— 45 C.F.R. § 205.130(b) — 1 case
Henry v. White, 359 F. Supp. 969 (D. Conn. 1973). “130(b) for the proposition that local offices must be provided where needed “on a basis consistent with the equitable treatment of individuals in similar circumstances throughout the state.”
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.