45 C.F.R. § 233.31

Budgeting methods for AFDC

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

(a) Requirements for State plans. A State plan for AFDC shall specify that all factors of eligibility shall be determined prospectively and the amount of the assistance for any month for all assistance units required to file a monthly report for the month designated as the budget month under the State's retrospective budgeting procedures shall be determined using retrospective budgeting as provided in §§ 233.31-233.37 except as provided in § 233.34. The State plan shall specify whether the State uses prospective or retrospective budgeting to determine the amount of the assistance payments for recipients not required to report monthly. Budgeting methods for OAA, AB, APTD, and AABD are described in §§ 233.21-233.29.

(b) Definitions. The following definitions apply to §§ 233.31 through 233.37:

(1) Prospective budgeting means that the agency shall determine eligibility (and compute the amount of assistance for the first one or two months) based on its best estimate of income and circumstances which will exist in that month. This estimate shall be based on the agency's reasonable expectation and knowledge of current, past or future circumstances.

(2) Retrospective budgeting means that the agency shall compute the amount of assistance for a payment month based on actual income or circumstances which existed in a previous month, the “budget month.”

(3) Budget month means the fiscal or calendar month from which the agency shall use income or circumstances of the family to compute the amount of assistance.

(4) Payment month means the fiscal or calendar month for which an agency shall pay assistance. Payment is based upon income or circumstances in the budget month. In prospective budgeting, the budget month and the payment month are the same. In retrospective budgeting, the payment month follows the budget month.

(5) Recent work history means the individual received earned income in any one of the two months prior to the budget month.

[47 FR 5678, Feb. 5, 1982, as amended at 49 FR 35602, Sept. 10, 1984; 57 FR 30160, July 8, 1992]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases, 1984–1994 · leading case: Darlene Smith, on Behalf of Herself & All Others Similarly Situated v. C. Patrick Babcock, Dir. of the Michigan Dep't of Soc. Servs., 19 F.3d 257 (6th Cir. 1994).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Darlene Smith, on Behalf of Herself & All Others Similarly Situated v. C. Patrick Babcock, Dir. of the Michigan Dep't of Soc. Servs., 19 F.3d 257 (6th Cir. 1994). · cites it 4× “It would, however, defeat the intent to penalize to apply the penalty to the month after the job-quit month, when it is improbable that earned income would be present.”

Martinez v. Comm'r of Pub. Welfare, 397 Mass. 386 (Mass. 1986). · cites it 5× “§ 602 (a) (13) (1982); 45 C.F.R. § 233.31 (a) (1985). 5 In October, 1982, the department adopted regulations to implement the changes mandated by Congress.”

Vaessen v. Woods, 677 P.2d 1183 (Cal. 1984). · cites it 2× “§ 602 (a)(13); 45 C.F.R. § 233.31 et seq.) [3] Current federal law allows a family to retain resources with a combined equity value of less than $1,000, plus the home it owns and occupies, plus an automobile with equity value of less than $1,500, plus essential household and…”

Levesque v. Comm'r, Dep't of Human Servs., 508 A.2d 943 (Me. 1986). · cites it 3× “1985); 45 C.F.R. § 233.31 (1985). Under retrospective budgeting, the amount of a recipient's AFDC benefit is computed by comparing the income or circumstances of the family unit in the second month preceding the month in which the payment will be made, with the state standard of…”

Yelder v. Hornsby, 666 F. Supp. 1518 (M.D. Ala. 1987). “2 See 45 C.F.R. § 233.31 (b)(1). 3 The policy challenged here violates these requirements in a number of ways.”

Campbell v. Comm'r of Pub. Welfare, 491 N.E.2d 590 (Mass. 1986). · cites it 2× “” Pursuant to 45 C.F.R. § 233.31 (b)(1) (1985), “‘prospective budgeting’ means that the [State] shall determine eligibility (and compute the amount of assistance for the first one or two months) based on its best estimate of income and circumstances which will exist in [the…”

Zeien v. Palmer, 955 F.2d 506 (8th Cir. 1992). “” 45 C.F.R. § 233.31 (b)(1) (1990). Once an individual has been found eligible for AFDC benefits, the state agency must reconsider or redetermine eligibility promptly whenever “a report is obtained which indicates changes in the individual’s circumstances that may affect the…”

Rivera v. Comm'r of Pub. Welfare, 479 N.E.2d 639 (Mass. 1985). “Calculating the spend down amount over a six-month prospective period results in the use of a six-month budget period for a portion of the income eligibility determinations for MA benefits.”

— 45 C.F.R. § 233.31(b)(2) — 2 cases

Darlene Smith, on Behalf of Herself & All Others Similarly Situated v. C. Patrick Babcock, Dir. of the Michigan Dep't of Soc. Servs., 19 F.3d 257 (6th Cir. 1994). “It would, however, defeat the intent to penalize to apply the penalty to the month after the job-quit month, when it is improbable that earned income would be present.”

Campbell v. Comm'r of Pub. Welfare, 491 N.E.2d 590 (Mass. 1986). “” Pursuant to 45 C.F.R. § 233.31 (b)(1) (1985), “‘prospective budgeting’ means that the [State] shall determine eligibility (and compute the amount of assistance for the first one or two months) based on its best estimate of income and circumstances which will exist in [the…”

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.