Refugee Resettlement Program: Allocations to States of FY 1994 Funds for Refugee Social Services and for Refugees Who Are Former Political Prisoners From Vietnam

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Office of Refugee Resettlement

Refugee Resettlement Program: Allocations to States of FY 1994

Funds for Refugee Social Services and for Refugees Who Are Former

Political Prisoners From Vietnam

AGENCY: Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), ACF, HHS.

ACTION: Final notice of allocations to States of FY 1994 funds for

refugee\1\ social services and for refugees who are former political

prisoners from Vietnam.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\In addition to persons who meet all requirements of 45 CFR

400.43, ``Requirements for documentation of refugee status,''

eligibility for refugee social services also includes: (1) Cuban and

Haitian entrants, under section 501 of the Refugee Education

Assistance Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-422); (2) certain Amerasians from

Vietnam who are admitted to the U.S. as immigrants under section 584

of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs

Appropriations Act, 1988, as included in the FY 1988 Continuing

Resolution (Pub. L. 100-202); and (3) certain Amerasians from

Vietnam, including U.S. citizens, under title II of the Foreign

Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations

Acts, 1989 (Pub. L. 100-461), 1990 (Pub. L. 101-167), and 1991 (Pub.

L. 101-513). For convenience, the term ``refugee'' is used in this

notice to encompass all such eligible persons unless the specific

context indicates otherwise.

Refugees admitted to the U.S. under admissions numbers set aside

for private-sector-initiative admissions are not eligible to be

served under the social service program (or under other programs

supported by Federal refugee funds) during their period of coverage

under their sponsoring agency's agreement with the Department of

State--usually two years from their date of arrival or until they

obtain permanent resident alien status, whichever comes first.

SUMMARY: This notice establishes the allocations to States of FY 1994

funds for social services under the Refugee Resettlement Program (RRP).

In order to help meet the special needs of former political prisoners

from Vietnam, the Director has added to the formula allocation

$2,000,000 in funds previously set aside for social services

discretionary projects. This notice eliminates the set-aside for mutual

assistance associations (MAAs) as a separate component of the social

service allocations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 17, 1994.

ADDRESSES: Office of Refugee Resettlement, Administration for Children

and Families, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., Washington, DC 20447.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Toyo Biddle (202) 401-9250.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of the proposed social service

allocations to States was published in the Federal Register on March

14, 1994 (59 FR 11794). The population estimates that were used in the

proposed notice have been adjusted as a result of additional population

information submitted by 7 States.

I. Allocation Amounts

The Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) has available $80,802,000

in FY 1994 refugee social service funds as part of the FY 1994

appropriation for the Department of Health and Human Services (Pub. L.

103-112).

Of the total of $80,802,000, the Director of ORR will make

available to States $68,681,700 (85%) under the allocation formula set

out in this notice. These funds would be made available for the purpose

of providing social services to refugees. In addition, the Director of

ORR is making available $2,000,000 from discretionary social service

funds to be allocated under the formula in this notice for additional

services to former political prisoners from Vietnam. ORR intends FY

1994 to be the last year in which a special set-aside will be allocated

for additional services for former political prisoners from Vietnam.

A. Discretionary Social Service Funds for Vietnamese Political

Prisoners

In recognition of the special vulnerability of refugees who are

former political prisoners from Vietnam, the Director of ORR has set

aside $2,000,000 from discretionary social service funds to be

allocated under the formula set forth in this announcement, based on

the number of actual political prisoner arrivals in FY 1993. This

formula allocation is shown separately in Table 1 (cols. 7 and 8).

States are required to use this allocation to provide additional

services, as described below, to recent arrivals from Vietnam who are

former political prisoners and members of their families.

Allowable services for the above-cited funds for political

prisoners include the following direct services: (1) Specialized

orientation and adjustment services, including peer support activities;

and (2) specialized employment-related services, as needed. Adjustment

services include any service listed under 45 CFR 400.155(c) of the ORR

regulations. Under no circumstances may these funds be used for direct

cash payments or stipends, or for the purchase of advertising space or

air time.

Allowable services under this allocation for Vietnamese political

prisoners are intended to supplement, not to supplant, those services

provided to refugees in general under the social service formula

allocation, discussed below.

ORR intends to provide technical assistance to States and

organizations that request it to assure effective program development

and implementation.

Because these funds are being provided specifically for services

for former political prisoners from Vietnam, States which allocate

social service funds to other local administrative jurisdictions, such

as counties, shall do so for these funds, using a formula which

reflects arrivals of this target population during FY 1993.

ORR strongly encourages States and other contracting jurisdictions,

in selecting service providers for the above, to award these funds, to

the extent possible, to qualified refugee mutual assistance

associations with experience serving the target population. All

contractors receiving these funds should have Vietnamese language

capacity and Vietnamese cultural understanding.

States are required to provide to ORR program performance

information on the Vietnamese political prisoner program that meets the

reporting requirements contained in 45 CFR 92.40, under the terms and

conditions of the social services grant awards to States. The

information to be contained in the narrative portion of State quarterly

performance reports must include: (1) Names of service contractors; (2)

categories of activities provided; (3) numbers of persons served; and

(4) outcomes, to the extent possible.

B. Refugee Social Service Funds

The population figures for the social service allocation include

refugees, Cuban/Haitian entrants, and Amerasians from Vietnam since

these populations may be served through funds addressed in this notice.

(A State must, however, have an approved State plan for the Cuban/

Haitian Entrant Program in order to use funds on behalf of entrants as

well as refugees.)

The Director will allocate $68,681,700 to States on the basis of

each State's proportion of the national population of refugees who had

been in the U.S. 3 years or less as of October 1, 1993 (including a

floor amount for States which have small refugee populations).

The use of the 3-year population base in the allocation formula is

required by section 412(c)(1)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act

(INA) which states that the ``funds available for a fiscal year for

grants and contracts [for social services] * * *. shall be allocated

among the States based on the total number of refugees (including

children and adults) who arrived in the United States not more than 36

months before the beginning of such fiscal year and who are actually

residing in each State (taking into account secondary migration) as of

the beginning of the fiscal year.''

As established in the FY 1991 social services notice published in

the Federal Register of August 29, 1991, section I, ``Allocation

Amounts'' (56 FR 42745), a variable floor amount for States which have

small refugee populations is calculated as follows: If the application

of the regular allocation formula yields less than $100,000, then--

(1) a base amount of $75,000 is provided for a State with a

population of 50 or fewer refugees who have been in the U.S. 3 years or

less; and

(2) For a State with more than 50 refugees who have been in the

U.S. 3 years or less: (a) A floor has been calculated consisting of

$50,000 plus the regular per capita allocation for refugees above 50 up

to a total of $100,000 (in other words, the maximum under the floor

formula is $100,000); (b) if this calculation has yielded less than

$75,000, a base amount of $75,000 is provided for the State.

ORR has consistently supported floors for small States in order to

provide sufficient funds to carry out a minimum service program. Given

the range in numbers of refugees in the small States, we have concluded

that a variable floor, as established in the FY 1991 notice, will be

more reflective of needs than previous across-the-board floors.

The $12,120,300 in remaining social service funds (15% of the total

funds available) will be used by ORR on a discretionary basis to

provide funds for individual projects intended to contribute to the

effectiveness and efficiency of the refugee resettlement program. Grant

announcements on discretionary initiatives will be issued separately.

Population To Be Served

Although the allocation formula is based on the 3-year refugee

population, in accordance with the requirements of 45 CFR Part 400

Subpart I--Refugee Social Services, States are not required to limit

social service programs to refugees who have been in the U.S. only 3

years. In keeping with 45 CFR 400.147(a), a State must allocate an

appropriate portion of its social service funds, based on population

and service needs, as determined by the State, for services to newly

arriving refugees who have been in the U.S. less than one year.

While 45 CFR 400.147(b) requires that in providing employability

services, a State must give priority to a refugee who is receiving cash

assistance, social service programs should not be limited exclusively

to refugees who are cash assistance recipients. If a State intends to

provide services to refugees who have been in the U.S. more than 3

years, 45 CFR 400.147(c) requires the State to specify and justify as

part of its Annual Services Plan those funds that it proposes to use to

provide services to those refugees.

ORR expects States to ensure that refugee social services are made

available to special populations such as Amerasians and former

political prisoners from Vietnam, in addition to special funding that

ORR may designate to address the special needs of these populations.

ORR funds may not be used to provide services to United States

citizens, since they are not covered under the authorizing legislation,

with the following exceptions: (1) Under current regulations at 45 CFR

400.208, services may be provided to a U.S.-born minor child in a

family in which both parents are refugees or, if only one parent is

present, in which that parent is a refugee; and (2) under the FY 1989

Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs

Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 100-461), services may be provided to an

Amerasian from Vietnam who is a U.S. citizen and who enters the U.S.

after October 1, 1988.

Service Priorities

Refugee social service funding should be used to assist refugee

families to achieve economic independence. To this end, ORR expects

States to ensure that a coherent plan of services is developed for each

eligible family that addresses the family's needs from time of arrival

until attainment of economic independence. Each service plan should

address a family's needs for both employment-related services and other

needed social services.

Reflecting section 412(a)(1)(A)(iv) of the INA, the Director

expects States to ``insure that women have the same opportunities as

men to participate in training and instruction.'' In addition, States

are expected to make sure that services are provided in a manner that

encourages the use of bilingual women on service agency staffs to

ensure adequate service access by refugee women. In order to facilitate

refugee self-support, the Director also expects States to implement

strategies which address simultaneously the employment potential of

both male and female wage earners in a family unit, particularly in the

case of large families. States are expected to make every effort to

assure the availability of day care services in order to allow women

with children the opportunity to participate in employment services or

to accept or retain employment. To accomplish this, day care may be

treated as a priority employment-related service under the refugee

social services program. Refugees who are participating in employment

services or have accepted employment are eligible for day care

services. For an employed refugee, day care funded by refugee social

service dollars must be limited to one year after the refugee becomes

employed. States are expected to use day care funding from other

publicly funded mainstream programs as a prior resource and are

expected to work with service providers to assure maximum access to

other publicly funded resources for day care.

In accordance with 45 CFR 400.146, if a State's cash assistance

dependency rate for refugees (as defined in Sec. 400.146(b)) is 55% or

more, funds awarded under this notice (with the exception of the

political prisoner set-aside) are subject to a requirement that at

least 85% of the State's award be used for employability services as

set forth in Sec. 400.154. ORR expects these funds to be used for

services which directly enhance refugee employment potential, have

specific employment objectives, and are designed to enable refugees to

obtain jobs in less than one year as part of a plan to achieve self-

sufficiency. This reflects the Congressional objective that

``employable refugees should be placed on jobs as soon as possible

after their arrival in the United States'' and that social service

funds be focused on ``employment-related services, English-as-a-second-

language training (in non-work hours where possible), and case-

management services'' (INA, Sec. 412(a)(1)(B)). If refugee social

service funds are used for the provision of English language training,

such training should be provided concurrently, rather than

sequentially, with employment or with other employment-related

services, to the maximum extent possible. ORR also encourages the

continued provision of services after a refugee has entered a job to

help the refugee retain employment or move to a better job.

Since current welfare dependency data are not available, those

States that historically have had dependency rates at 55% and above are

invited to submit a request for a waiver of the 85% requirement if they

can provide reliable documentation that demonstrates a lower dependency

rate.

ORR will consider granting a waiver of the 85% provision if a State

meets one of the following conditions:

1. The State demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Director of

ORR that the dependency rate of refugees who have been in the U.S. 24

months or less is below 55% in the State.

2. The State demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Director that

(a) less than 85% of the State's social service allocation is

sufficient to meet all employment-related needs of the State's refugees

and (b) there are non-employment-related service needs which are so

extreme as to justify an allowance above the basic 15%. Or

3. In accordance with section 412(c)(1)(C) of the INA, the State

submits to the Director a plan (established by or in consultation with

local governments) which the Director determines provides for the

maximum appropriate provision of employment-related services for, and

the maximum placement of, employable refugees consistent with

performance standards established under section 106 of the Job Training

Partnership Act.

Refugee social services should be provided in a manner that is

culturally and linguistically compatible with a refugee's language and

cultural background. In light of the increasingly diverse population of

refugees who are resettling in this country, refugee service agencies

will need to develop practical ways of providing culturally and

linguistically appropriate services to a changing ethnic population. To

the maximum extent possible, particularly during a refugee's initial

years of resettlement, refugee social services should be provided

through a refugee-specific service system rather than through a system

in which refugees are only one of many client groups being served. When

planning State refugee services, States are strongly encouraged to take

into account the reception and placement (R & P) services provided by

local resettlement agencies in order to utilize these resources in the

overall program design and to ensure the provision of seamless services

to refugees.

In order to provide culturally and linguistically compatible

services in as cost-efficient a manner as possible in a time of limited

resources, ORR encourages States and counties to promote and give

special consideration to the provision of refugee social services

through coalitions of refugee service organizations, such as coalitions

of MAAs, voluntary resettlement agencies, or a variety of service

providers. ORR believes it is essential for refugee-serving

organizations to form close partnerships in the provision of services

to refugees in order to be able to respond adequately to a changing

refugee picture. Coalition-building and consolidation of providers is

particularly important in communities with multiple service providers

in order to ensure better coordination of services and maximum use of

funding for services by minimizing the funds used for multiple

administrative overhead costs.

States should also expect to use funds available under this notice

to pay for social services which are provided to refugees who

participate in alternative projects. Section 412(e)(7)(A) of the INA

provides that:

The Secretary [of HHS] shall develop and implement alternative

projects for refugees who have been in the United States less than

thirty-six months, under which refugees are provided interim

support, medical services, support [social] services, and case

management, as needed, in a manner that encourages self-sufficiency,

reduces welfare dependency, and fosters greater coordination among

the resettlement agencies and service providers.

This provision is generally known as the Wilson/Fish Amendment. The

Department has already issued a separate notice in the Federal Register

with respect to applications for such projects (50 FR 24583, June 11,

1985). The notice on alternative projects does not contain provisions

for the allocation of additional social service funds beyond the

amounts established in this notice. Therefore a State which may wish to

consider carrying out such a project should take note of this in

planning its use of social service funds being allocated under the

present notice.

Funding to MAAs

ORR has eliminated the set-aside for refugee mutual assistance

associations as a separate component under the social service notice

and instead has folded these funds into the social service formula

allocation to States. Elimination of the MAA set-aside, however, is not

intended to represent any reduction in ORR's commitment to MAAs as

important participants in refugee resettlement. ORR believes that the

continued and/or increased utilization of qualified refugee mutual

assistance associations in the delivery of social services helps to

ensure the provision of culturally and linguistically appropriate

services as well as increasing the effectiveness of the overall service

system. Therefore, at a minimum, ORR expects States to continue to use

MAAs as service providers at a level comparable to previous years. ORR

strongly encourages States when contracting for services, including

employment services, to give consideration to the special strengths of

MAAs, whenever contract bidders are otherwise equally qualified,

provided that the MAA has the capability to deliver services in a

manner that is culturally and linguistically compatible with the

background of the target population to be served. ORR also expects

States to continue to assist MAAs in seeking other public and/or

private funds for the provision of services to refugee clients.

ORR defines MAAs as organizations with the following

qualifications:

a. The organization is legally incorporated as a nonprofit

organization; and

b. Not less than 51% of the composition of the Board of Directors

or governing board of the mutual assistance association is comprised of

refugees or former refugees, including both refugee men and women.

State Administration

States are reminded that under current regulations at 45 CFR

400.206 and 400.207, States have the flexibility to charge the

following types of administrative costs against their refugee program

social service grants, if they so choose: Direct and indirect

administrative costs incurred for the overall management and operation

of the State refugee program, including its coordination, planning,

policy and program development, oversight and monitoring, data

collection and reporting, and travel. See also State Transmittal No.

88-40.

II. Discussion of Comments Received

We received 17 letters of comment in response to the notice of

proposed FY 1994 allocations to States for refugee social services. The

comments are summarized below and are followed in each case by the

Department's response.

Comment: Fourteen commenters expressed their views regarding the

proposed elimination of the MAA set-aside. Eleven commenters expressed

concern over the proposed elimination of the MAA set-aside, while two

commenters supported the elimination. One commenter was concerned that

without the Federal requirement for a set-aside, the State would not be

able to continue a State MAA set-aside in order to adhere to its

general procurement requirements for contracting for social services.

One commenter felt that the MAA set-aside represents the only structure

through which ORR can recognize the role of MAAs in refugee

resettlement. Another commenter felt that elimination of the set-aside

reflected a distancing of ORR from the MAAs and did not create a level

playing field for MAAs. Five commenters felt that elimination of the

set-aside would represent a hardship on MAAs and would preclude MAAs

from receiving any State social service funding. One commenter felt

that there would be public pressure on States to award the exact amount

of previous set-asides to MAAs and would create the need for a new

tracking system to document the level of funding to MAAs to compare MAA

funding with previous set-asides. One commenter asked for clarification

on whether ORR will continue to require States to assist MAAs to seek

other public and/or private funds as it has in the past.

Response: The elimination of the MAA set-aside is not intended to

convey a diminution of ORR's commitment to MAAs. We continue to believe

in the importance of the role of MAAs in service provision and firmly

believe that the involvement of MAAs is essential to effective refugee

resettlement.

ORR first instituted a set-aside for MAAs over 10 years ago as an

incentive to States to work with and fund MAAs. At that time, MAAs were

emerging as important organizations in the refugee resettlement field.

We felt that States needed to be encouraged to begin funding these

organizations as service providers. Today, the situation is quite

different; we believe that MAAs are now in a position to compete

effectively for refugee social services funds. Many MAAs have succeeded

in becoming highly qualified and experienced service agencies and, in

many States, have been able to obtain a much higher level of refugee

social service funding than is available under the MAA set-aside. For

this reason, we believe the MAA set-aside has served its purpose and

should be discontinued at the Federal level. This in no way suggests

that States should lower their commitment to using MAAs to provide

services to refugees; to the contrary, we expect and encourage States

to continue to use MAAs as service providers at levels comparable to

previous years. In addition, MAAs may compete for funding under ORR's

discretionary programs which are open to nonprofit organizations.

We inadvertently deleted the language that has appeared in previous

notices requiring States to assist MAAs in seeking other public and/or

private funds for the provision of services to refugee clients. We have

included similar language in this notice which strongly encourages, but

does not require, States to assist MAAs in seeking other public and/or

private funds for the provision of services.

Comment: Two commenters requested clarification regarding ORR's

expectation that States should ensure that refugee social services are

provided to special populations such as Amerasians and former political

prisoners from Vietnam. One commenter made the point that all refugees

are special populations. Another commenter felt that while a State can

ensure that services are made available to special populations, a State

cannot ensure that services are provided, since it cannot ensure that

refugees will access the services offered. The commenter suggested that

the language in the notice be revised to acknowledge this distinction.

Response: The phrase ``such as'' is not intended to suggest an

inclusive list of special populations, but simply to provide examples

of such special populations. We agree that States can only ensure that

services are made available to refugees. The language in the notice has

been changed to reflect ORR's expectation that States should ensure

that refugee social services are made available to special populations.

Comment: Two commenters requested clarification regarding ORR's

expectation that States should ensure that a coherent plan of services

is developed for each eligible family that addresses the family's needs

from time of arrival until attainment of economic independence. One

commenter pointed out that a plan of services can only be developed for

individuals and families that access services and recommended that the

language in the notice be revised to clarify this point. The commenter

also questioned how the definition of an ``eligible family'' would

apply to recent arrivals who are single. Another commenter questioned

what is meant by ``a coherent plan of services from time of arrival

until attainment of economic independence''.

Response: Our intent regarding a coherent plan of services is for

such a plan to be developed for every family that applies for services

or receives cash assistance. We believe that a State can ensure that

this is carried out by requiring its providers to develop such plans.

Refugees who are single individuals, without family, should be

considered an eligible one-person family unit. ``A coherent plan of

services from time of arrival until attainment of economic

independence'' means the development of a comprehensive service plan

that includes the provision of employment-related and other services

needed to help a newly arrived family move to a point of economic self-

support.

Comment: Three commenters commented on ORR's expectation that

services should be provided in a manner that is culturally and

linguistically compatible. Two of the commenters indicated that this

expectation would require the provision of services through a refugee-

specific system which, they felt, would be financially impractical.

Both commenters felt that it would be more cost-effective to fold

refugee services into the existing mainstream system. Another commenter

expressed support for the provision of services through a refugee-

specific system. One commenter asked for a clear definition of what

``culturally and linguistically compatible'' means.

Response: What ORR means by the provision of services in a manner

that is culturally and linguistically compatible is that an agency

providing refugee social services must employ or contract with staff

who (1) speak the native language of and (2) are either from the same

ethnic background as, or are culturally knowledgeable of, the refugee

populations the agency serves, and must use these staff in the

provision of services to refugee clients.

Regarding the cost-effectiveness of a refugee-specific service

system, we believe that the investment of refugee program funds in a

refugee-specific service system, particularly in the initial years

after a refugee's arrival in the U.S., will prove to be more cost-

effective in the long run than serving refugees through a mainstream

system. The provision of services through a service provider system

whose only clientele is refugees is likely to result in more tailored

and comprehensive services to refugees, resulting, we believe, in

earlier employment and self-sufficiency than what would otherwise occur

when refugees are served through a mainstream system. Refugees often

tend to receive minimal services or are the last to be served in

mainstream systems where they are one of many client groups served. We

wish to emphasize, however, that there is nothing to preclude, and in

fact we encourage, the use of mainstream resources to augment the

services provided through a refugee-specific service system.

Comment: Two commenters had concerns regarding ORR's encouragement

to States and counties to give special consideration to coalitions of

refugee service organizations. One commenter expressed concern about

how coalitions would be more cost-effective. The commenter also

questioned how ORR envisions special consideration for coalitions in

relation to the competitive procurement process. Another commenter felt

that coordination should not be mandated as an end in itself. The

commenter felt that if early employment is the goal, local service

systems should be as uncomplicated as possible in order to get the job

done efficiently. The commenter was concerned that current providers

that are doing an effective job would be dismantled prematurely.

Response: We believe that the formation of coalitions among refugee

service agencies ought to lead to service delivery efficiencies and to

a rational downsizing of existing systems that will be necessary to

keep pace with the changing nature of the refugee population to be

served. We believe the formation of coalitions will enable the pooling

of varied talents and skills within the agencies to more efficiently

serve the changing population of refugee arrivals that will occur over

the next few years. We also believe that the formation of coalitions

should result in the reduction of administrative costs such as

accounting and reporting costs, making coalitions more competitive. In

addition, we believe the formation of coalitions will result in better

coordination of services to refugees.

Encouragement of or special consideration for coalitions should not

interfere with State procurement requirements. Coalitions will have to

compete along with other applicants. However, States in their Requests

for Proposals (RFPs) could choose to include language that encourages

the formation of coalitions or could include bonus points for

coalitions in the scoring criteria, as long as these actions do not

violate State procurement rules.

Comment: One commenter requested clarification on whether language

in the notice such as ``States are strongly encouraged'' and ``the

State should'' is advisory or is a mandatory requirement.

Response: When ORR uses phrases such as ``States are strongly

encouraged,'' ``States are expected to,'' or ``the State should,'' the

language is advisory in nature and should not be interpreted as a

mandatory requirement.

Comment: Six commenters made comments regarding requirements for

the use of discretionary funds for services to former political

prisoners (FPP) from Vietnam. One commenter requested that ORR specify

which family members are eligible for services under the FPP set-aside

or allow States and counties to make that determination. The commenter

also requested that ORR define what adjustment services may be provided

under the FPP program and recommended that ORR use the same definition

as used in 45 CFR 400.155(c) of the ORR regulations. One commenter,

noting ORR's prohibition against the purchase of advertising space and

air time with FPP funds, recommended that paid outreach announcements

through refugee community media and Vietnamese newspapers be allowed

under the FPP program.

One commenter noted that ORR requires States to allocate FPP funds

using a formula that reflects recent and anticipated arrivals of former

political prisoners. The commenter pointed out that there is no timely

or reliable source of anticipated arrivals by State and recommended

limiting the State allocation formula to recent arrivals and

recommended defining the term ``recent arrivals.'' One commenter

recommended that counties which administer FPP programs be granted 10%

for administrative costs and that States should be limited to no more

than 2% for administrative costs.

Two commenters recommended dropping outcomes as a performance

reporting requirement under the FPP program. One of the commenters

questioned the increased reporting requirements when the FPP program is

entering its last year of operation. Another commenter recommended

accepting available individual contract data on outcomes since it would

be difficult in some States with a wide range of FPP services to

provide a program-wide outcomes report. One commenter supported the

proposed FPP reporting requirements and did not feel the increased

reporting requirements would add significantly to existing workloads.

Another commenter recommended that FPP projects be supported that

demonstrate accountability for outcomes such as those that occurred in

the Amerasian projects. The commenter further suggested that ORR should

require coordination between the agencies that provide FPP services and

the voluntary agencies that resettle former political prisoners.

Response: Family members who are eligible for services under the

FPP set-aside include any relative of a former political prisoner who

lives in the same household with the FPP. Adjustment services are

defined as those services listed under 45 CFR 400.155(c) of the ORR

regulations. This definition is included in this notice. Regarding the

use of FPP funds for paid outreach announcements through the refugee

media, our position is unchanged on this issue; we do not feel that the

purchase of advertising space and air time constitutes an effective use

of FPP funds. FPP providers should work with the voluntary agencies

that resettled FPP refugees to contact these refugees within the

constraints of the Privacy Act.

We agree with the comment regarding the difficulty of basing a

State allocation formula on anticipated arrivals and have dropped this

factor from the formula. In the interest of consistency, we have

changed the notice to require States to allocate FPP funds using a

formula which reflects arrivals during FY 1993 to local jurisdictions,

the same formula used by ORR to allocate FPP funds to States. We have

no specific guidance regarding the distribution of administrative costs

between county and State; this is an issue that should be resolved

between the county and the State. All costs claimed against grants must

be in conformity with HHS grants regulations at 45 CFR part 92 and

other applicable Federal requirements.

In regard to performance requirements for the FPP program, we have

not added any new reporting requirements. As in FY 1993, States are

required to provide program performance information on the FPP program

consistent with the reporting requirements contained in 45 CFR 92.40,

under the terms and conditions of the social services grant awards to

States. In addition, we have simply clarified that the information to

be reported must include the four items listed in this notice.

Regarding program outcomes, States may provide available outcome data

from individual contracts. In regard to suggestions for additional

requirements for FPP projects, we have decided not to consider

additional requirements since this is the last year of the FPP set-

aside program.

Comment: Five commenters addressed the issue of ORR's use of 15% of

social service funds for ORR discretionary grants. Two commenters

indicated support for the 15% discretionary use, while two commenters

objected it. One commenter recommended that there should be equitable

distribution of discretionary funding with input and involvement of

States, an expansion of selection panels, more lead time to develop

proposals, and the development of meaningful evaluation criteria.

Another commenter felt that the notice should describe the focus of

discretionary funds for FY 1994, as has been done in previous years.

Response: We continue to believe that it is necessary to maintain a

portion of social service funds for discretionary use in order to carry

out national initiatives and special projects that respond to changing

needs and circumstances in the refugee program. Regarding the issue of

equitable distribution, discretionary funds are awarded on a

competitive basis, based on the quality of applications in relation to

the evaluation criteria, rather than on the basis of a population-based

allocation formula. Therefore, the geographic distribution of funds

awarded on the basis of merit may not be the same as a distribution by

formula. Regarding more State involvement in discretionary funding,

since States are frequently competitors for ORR discretionary funds,

along with other applicants, it is not possible to involve States in

funding decisions without creating a conflict of interest, a violation

of Federal grant rules. We do not believe our selection panels need to

be expanded; ORR selection panels have traditionally been broad-based,

involving a varied group of experts from the resettlement field and

other disciplines. We agree that sufficient lead time is necessary to

develop proposals; we are committed to allowing as much lead time as

the grant process timetable will bear. We also agree that the use of

meaningful evaluation criteria is essential in the review of grant

applications; such evaluation criteria are included in our grant

announcements. We have not included a description of our discretionary

focus for FY 1994 because we have been in the process of revamping our

discretionary program agenda this year. FY 1994 grant announcements

have recently been made available in the Federal Register.

Comment: Three commenters expressed support for the concurrent

provision of English language training with employment and employment-

related services. One commenter recommended that the provision of

English language training be tied to the provision of vocational

training and that the notice reflect this emphasis.

Response: We do not believe that English language training should

be tied exclusively to one type of employment-related service such as

vocational training. Our intent is to encourage the concurrent

provision of English language training in concert with other

employment-related services to speed the process of a refugee becoming

employed and self-sufficient. At the same time, we want to discourage

the provision of English language training in a sequential manner, as a

prerequisite to receiving other employment-related services.

Comment: One commenter requested clarification regarding the

meaning of ``appropriate coordination'' with reception and placement (R

& P) agencies to ensure the provision of seamless services to refugees.

Response: Appropriate coordination means working with R & P

agencies to ensure that there is a smooth transition between services

provided by the R & P agencies and services provided to refugees

through the State program. When planning services, a State should take

into account what services are provided by R & P agencies so that there

is a relationship and a continuum between R & P services and State-

funded services and an absence of service gaps or service duplication.

Comment: One commenter expressed concurrence with the need for

continued provision of services after employment to help a refugee

retain employment or move to a better job. The commenter recommended

that ORR review the list of services in 45 CFR 400.153 through 400.156

and if additional services are desired, specify them in the notice.

Response: We are reviewing the list of allowable services in 45 CFR

subpart I to determine if changes should be made. Such changes would

have to be made through a regulatory change, not through the notice.

Comment: Two commenters commended ORR for not restricting services

to a 36-month refugee population, while one commenter expressed

disappointment that ORR did not limit services to a 36-month

population.

Response: As a point of clarification, a restriction of services to

a time-limited population could only be effected through regulatory

action.

Comment: One commenter complained that the requirement that States

must specify and justify the use of funds for services to refugees who

have been in the U.S. more than 3 years is a reversal from previous

years when a justification was required to use social service funds for

newly-arrived refugees.

Response: ORR regulations under 45 CFR 400.147 require that both

the use of funds for services to newly arriving refugees

(Sec. 400.147(a)) and the use of funds for services to refugees who

have been in the U.S. more than 36 months (Sec. 400.147(c)) must be

specified and justified as part of a State's annual services plan. This

regulation has been in effect since July 1, 1989. The notice this year

simply emphasized Sec. 400.147(c) instead of Sec. 400.147(a).

Comment: One commenter objected to the requirement that funds

should be used for services designed to get refugees a job in less than

one year, while one commenter supported the one-year requirement.

Response: We have responded to this comment in previous notices.

Since our position remains unchanged, we refer the commenter to our

response in the FY 1993 final social service notice, published in the

Federal Register on July 28, 1993 (58 FR 40437).

Comment: One commenter recommended that the notice clarify that

social service funds may be used to serve unemployed refugees who are

not receiving cash assistance as long as cash assistance recipients

make up a percentage of the social services caseload which is at or

above the State's welfare dependency rate. The commenter indicated that

the State currently interprets the ORR notice to mean that only cash

assistance clients may receive services.

Response: We believe the notice is clear that social services funds

may be used to serve non-cash-assistance recipients. The notice, under

the section ``Population to be Served,'' states that ``social service

programs should not be limited exclusively to refugees who are cash

assistance recipients.'' However, as the wording indicates, this is not

a mandatory requirement. States are not required to ensure that cash

assistance recipients make up a percentage of the social services

caseload that is not less than the State's welfare dependency rate.

States, however, are required to give priority to a refugee who is

receiving cash assistance.

Comment: One commenter objected to the use of a floor amount for

small States.

Response: We have responded to this comment in previous notices.

Since our position has not changed on this issue, we refer the

commenter to our response in the FY 1993 final social service notice,

published in the Federal Register on July 28, 1993 (58 FR 40437).

Comment: Two commenters objected to unlimited State administrative

costs for social services. One commenter recommended capping

administrative costs at 5% for any State receiving more than $12

million in social service funds and recommended that counties be

allowed a maximum of 20% for administrative costs.

Response: Since the statute does not specify a limitation on the

amount of social service funds that can be used for administrative

costs, we have not imposed a limit on States, choosing instead to allow

States to make that determination. In regard to the percentage of funds

that counties may use for administrative costs, this is an issue that

needs to be resolved between county and State, not ORR. As noted

earlier, all costs must meet Federal grant requirements.

Comment: One commenter suggested that ORR consider safeguards to

ensure that primary emphasis is placed on serving new arrivals, with

services beyond the initial period being the exception and only

allowable if a State has been successful in meeting the needs of new

arrivals.

Response: Such a requirement could be put into effect only through

regulatory action. We are giving this issue consideration.

Comment: One commenter felt that it is unwise to rely heavily on

the presence of bilingual female staff as the key factor in improving

services to refugee women. The commenter felt that the relevance of

service matters much more.

Response: The issue is access to services, not just relevance of

service. We believe that access to services and communication between

client and provider improve significantly for refugee women when there

are bilingual women on staff to provide services to these clients.

III. Allocation Formula

Of the funds available for FY 1994 for social services, $68,681,700

is allocated to States in accordance with the formula specified below.

A State's allowable allocation is calculated as follows:

1. The total amount of funds determined by the Director to be

available for this purpose; divided by--

2. The total number of refugees and Cuban/Haitian entrants who

arrived in the United States not more than 3 years prior to the

beginning of the fiscal year for which the funds are appropriated and

the number of Amerasians from Vietnam eligible for refugee social

services, as shown by the ORR Refugee Data System. The resulting per

capita amount will be multiplied by--

3. The number of persons in item 2, above, in the State as of

October 1, 1993, adjusted for estimated secondary migration.

The calculation above yields the formula allocation for each State.

Minimum allocations for small States are taken into account.

Allocations for political prisoners are based on FY 1993 arrival

numbers for this group in each State from the Refugee Data Center and

are limited to States with 170 or more political prisoner arrivals. We

have limited the population base to FY 1993 political prisoner arrival

numbers because these funds are intended to serve recent arrivals. We

have not included States with fewer than 170 former political prisoners

in the political prisoner allocations formula because the resulting

level of funding would be insignificant. In these States, we believe

the small number of political prisoners could be adequately served

under the State's refugee social services program.

IV. Basis of Population Estimates

The population estimates for the allocation of funds in FY 1994 are

based on data on refugee arrivals from the ORR Refugee Data System,

adjusted as of October 1, 1993, for estimated secondary migration. The

data base includes refugees of all nationalities, Amerasians from

Vietnam, and Cuban and Haitian entrants.

For fiscal year 1994, ORR's formula allocations for the States for

social services are based on the numbers of refugees and Amerasians who

arrived, and on the numbers of entrants who arrived or were resettled,

during the preceding three fiscal years: 1991, 1992, and 1993, based on

final arrival data by State. Therefore, estimates have been developed

of the numbers of refugees and entrants with arrival or resettlement

dates between October 1, 1990, and September 30, 1993, who are thought

to be living in each State as of October 1, 1993. Refugees admitted

under the Federal Government's private-sector initiative are not

included, since their assistance and services are to be provided by the

private sponsoring organizations under an agreement with the Department

of State.

The estimates of secondary migration were based on data submitted

by all participating States on Form ORR-11. The total migration

reported by each State was summed, yielding in- and out-migration

figures and a net migration figure for each State. The net migration

figure was applied to the State's total arrival figure, resulting in a

revised population estimate. Because the reporting period covered on

Form ORR-11 was a maximum of only 8 months as of June 1993 for the

majority of States whose reporting base was their cash/medical

assistance caseload, extra weight was given to the secondary migration

reported by those States to arrive at estimates of secondary migration

over a 36-month period. In 1993, no count of recently-arrived refugee

children was available from the Department of Education for use as a

comparison.

Estimates were developed separately for refugees and entrants and

then combined into a total estimated 3-year refugee/entrant population

for each State. Eligible Amerasians are included in the refugee

figures.

Table 1, below, shows the estimated 3-year populations, as of

October 1, 1993, of refugees (col. 1), entrants (col. 2), and total

refugees and entrants (col. 3); the formula amounts which the

population estimates yield (col. 4); and the allocation amounts after

allowing for the minimum amounts (col. 5). Table 1 also shows the

number of former political prisoner arrivals in FY 1993 (col. 6); and

the allocation amounts for services to this population (col. 7).

V. Allocation Amounts

Funding subsequent to the publication of this notice will be

contingent upon the submittal and approval of a State annual services

plan, as required by 45 CFR 400.11(b)(2). The following amounts are

allocated for refugee social services in FY 1994:

Table 1.--Estimated 3-Year Refugee/Entrant Populations of States Participating in the Refugee Program and Social Service Formula Amounts and Allocations

for FY 1994; and Former Political Prisoner Arrivals and Allocations for FY 1994

Former

political Former

Total prisoner political

State Refugees Entrants population Formula amount Allocation arrivals from prisoner

Vietnam in FY allocation

1993

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alabama................................. 894 19 913 $163,826 $163,826 39 $0

Alaskaa................................. 134 0 134 24,045 75,000 14 0

Arizona................................. 4,023 40 4,063 729,053 729,053 183 16,029

Arkansas................................ 296 0 296 53,113 94,142 64 0

Californiab............................. 96,019 499 96,518 17,318,904 17,318,904 10,279 900,324

Colorado................................ 3,915 2 3,917 702,855 702,855 230 20,145

Connecticut............................. 3,401 75 3,476 623,723 623,723 130 0

Delaware................................ 112 12 124 22,250 75,000 6 0

District of Columbia.................... 2,760 18 2,778 498,476 498,476 181 15,854

Florida................................. 12,898 15,989 28,887 5,183,398 5,183,398 546 47,823

Georgia................................. 8,811 51 8,862 1,590,171 1,590,171 1,294 113,340

Hawaii.................................. 982 0 982 176,207 176,207 119 0

Idaho................................... 925 4 929 166,697 166,697 111 0

Illinois................................ 13,511 102 13,613 2,442,676 2,442,676 358 31,357

Indiana................................. 1,160 6 1,166 209,224 209,224 73 0

Iowa.................................... 3,139 2 3,141 563,612 563,612 250 21,897

Kansas.................................. 2,201 3 2,204 395,479 395,479 282 24,700

Kentucky................................ 1,911 16 1,927 345,775 345,775 159 0

Louisiana............................... 2,503 58 2,561 459,538 459,538 306 26,802

Maine................................... 627 0 627 112,507 112,507 4 0

Maryland................................ 7,501 174 7,675 1,377,179 1,377,179 342 29,955

Massachusetts........................... 10,973 294 11,267 2,021,717 2,021,717 601 52,641

Michigan................................ 7,212 38 7,250 1,300,919 1,300,919 241 21,109

Minnesota............................... 7,458 0 7,458 1,338,241 1,338,241 421 36,875

Mississippi............................. 176 0 176 31,581 75,000 19 0

Missouri................................ 5,052 26 5,078 911,181 911,181 330 28,904

Montana................................. 345 0 345 61,906 100,000 0 0

Nebraska................................ 2,242 0 2,242 402,298 402,298 215 18,832

Nevada.................................. 828 168 996 178,719 178,719 38 0

New Hampshire........................... 571 0 571 102,459 102,459 88 0

New Jersey.............................. 7,558 496 8,054 1,445,186 1,445,186 262 22,948

New Mexico.............................. 1,086 164 1,250 224,296 224,296 39 0

New York................................ 65,250 760 66,010 11,844,639 11,844,639 527 46,159

North Carolina.......................... 3,543 22 3,565 639,693 639,693 177 15,503

North Dakota............................ 1,024 0 1,024 183,744 183,744 48 0

Ohio.................................... 6,042 39 6,081 1,091,157 1,091,157 164 0

Oklahoma................................ 1,629 1 1,630 292,482 292,482 288 25,226

Oregon.................................. 5,913 58 5,971 1,071,419 1,071,419 373 32,671

Pennsylvania............................ 11,048 86 11,134 1,997,852 1,997,852 353 30,919

Rhode Island............................ 1,066 11 1,077 193,254 193,254 3 0

South Carolina.......................... 450 2 452 81,106 100,000 79 0

South Dakota............................ 1,223 0 1,223 219,451 219,451 0 0

Tennessee............................... 3,294 32 3,326 596,808 596,808 196 17,167

Texas................................... 16,672 178 16,850 3,023,514 3,023,514 2,272 199,001

Utah.................................... 1,758 0 1,758 315,450 315,450 135 0

Vermont................................. 714 0 714 128,118 128,118 16 0

Virginia................................ 6,195 22 6,217 1,115,560 1,115,560 805 70,509

Washington.............................. 19,170 1 19,171 3,439,987 3,439,987 1,522 133,310

West Virginia........................... 85 0 85 15,252 75,000 0 0

Wisconsin............................... 4,876 1 4,877 875,114 875,114 22 0

Wyoming................................. 0 0 0 0 75,000 0 0

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total............................. 361,176 19,469 380,645 68,301,811 68,681,700 24,204 2,000,000

aThe Alaska allocation has been awarded for a Wilson/Fish demonstration project.

bA portion of the California allocation is expected to be awarded to continue a Wilson/Fish project in San Diego.

VI. Paperwork Reduction Act

This notice does not create any reporting or recordkeeping

requirements requiring OMB clearance.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 93.566 Refugee

Assistance--State Administered Programs)

Dated: June 6, 1994.

Lavinia Limon,

Director, Office of Refugee Resettlement.

[FR Doc. 94-14758 Filed 6-16-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4184-01-P