Refugee Resettlement Program; Availability of Formula Allocation Funding for FY 1994 Targeted Assistance Grants for Services to Refugees in Local Areas of High Need

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Office of Refugee Resettlement

Refugee Resettlement Program; Availability of Formula Allocation

Funding for FY 1994 Targeted Assistance Grants for Services to

Refugees\1\ in Local Areas of High Need

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

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

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

eligibility for targeted assistance includes Cuban and Haitian

entrants, certain Amerasians from Vietnam who are admitted to the

U.S. as immigrants, and certain Amerasians from Vietnam who are U.S.

citizens. (See section II of this notice on ``Authorization.'') The

term ``refugee'', used in this notice for convenience, is intended

to encompass such additional persons who are eligible to participate

in refugee program services, including the targeted assistance

program.

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

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

be served under the targeted assistance 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.

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

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

ACTION: Final notice of availability of formula allocation funding for

FY 1994 targeted assistance grants to States for services to refugees

in local areas of high need.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of funds and award

procedures for FY 1994 targeted assistance grants for services to

refugees under the Refugee Resettlement Program (RRP). These grants are

for service provision in localities with large refugee populations,

high refugee concentrations, and high use of public assistance, and

where specific needs exist for supplementation of currently available

resources. In order to provide States increased flexibility, this

notice has eliminated the specific requirement that at least 85% of

targeted assistance funds must be used for services which directly

enhance refugee employment potential and has replaced this requirement

with a more general requirement that targeted assistance funds must be

used primarily for employment-related services. In addition, this

notice has eliminated the requirement that cash assistance recipients

must make up a percentage of the targeted assistance caseload which is

not less than the State's current welfare dependency rate among

refugees. This notice also eliminates welfare dependency as a factor in

the targeted assistance allocation formula in light of the

unavailability of up-to-date national welfare dependency data since FY

1989. In FY 1994, targeted assistance funds will be available only for

a one-year grant project period.

The formula has been updated to take into account FY 1993 arrivals.

In addition, the metropolitan area consisting of Dallas and Tarrant

counties, Texas, has been found to be eligible for targeted assistance

funds, based on documentation provided by the State, and thus has been

added to the list of qualified counties in Table 1. Adjustments in

targeted assistance allocations in all States have been made

accordingly.

A notice of proposed qualification of counties and allocation of

targeted assistance funds was published for public comment in the

Federal Register on March 18, 1994 (59 FR 12969).

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

APPLICATION DEADLINE: The deadline for applications from States for

grants under this notice is July 25, 1994.

Applications from States for grants under this notice must be

received on time. An application will be considered to be received on

time under either of the following two circumstances: The application

was sent via the U.S. Postal Service or by private commercial carrier

not later than the closing date specified in the final notice or the

application is hand-delivered on or before the closing date to the

Office of Refugee Resettlement, 370 L'Enfant Promenade SW., 6th Floor,

Washington, DC 20447. Hand-delivered applications will be accepted

during the normal working hours of 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday

through Friday (excluding Federal legal holidays) up to 4:30 p.m. of

the closing date.

To be considered complete an application package must include a

signed original and two copies of Standard Form 424, 424A, and 424B,

dated April 1988. (We will provide copies of these materials to all

targeted assistance States.) The application package should be

addressed to the Division of Operations, Office of Refugee

Resettlement, ACF, 6th Floor, 370 L'Enfant Promenade SW., Washington,

DC 20447.

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 93.584.

For further information on application procedures, states should

contact their state liaison in ORR.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Purpose and Scope

This notice announces the availability of funds for grants for

targeted assistance for services to refugees in counties where, because

of factors such as unusually large refugee populations, high refugee

concentrations, and high use of public assistance, there exists and can

be demonstrated a specific need for supplementation of resources for

services to this population.

The Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) has available $49,397,000

in FY 1994 funds for the targeted assistance program (TAP) as part of

the FY 1994 appropriation for the Department of Health and Human

Services (Pub. L. No. 103-112).

The House Appropriations Committee Report reads as follows with

respect to targeted assistance funds (H.R. Rept. No. 103-156, p. 93):

This program provides grants to States for counties which are

impacted by high concentrations of refugees and high dependency

rates. The Committee intends that $19,000,000 of the total be

provided to continue the current program of support to communities

affected as a result of the massive influx of Cuban and Haitian

entrants during the Mariel boatlift. The Committee also intends that

10 percent of the total appropriated for targeted assistance be used

for grants to localities most heavily impacted by the influx of

refugees such as Laotian Hmong, Cambodians, and Soviet Pentecostals,

including secondary migrants who entered the United States after

October 1, 1979. The Committee expects these grants to be awarded to

communities not presently receiving targeted assistance because of

previous concentration requirements and other factors in the grant

formulas, as well as those who do currently receive targeted

assistance grants. The Committee intends that the State of

California shall be held harmless in the formula allocation of

targeted assistance funds as a result of any reductions to the total

amount appropriated for the targeted assistance program.

California's total share of funding under the formula allocation in

fiscal year 1994 should be no less than the percentage share of

California's allotment under fiscal year 1993 appropriations. In

determining the hold harmless allocation to California, the total

amount appropriated for targeted assistance will be used.

The Senate Appropriations Committee Report (S. Rept. No. 103-143,

p. 162) is less specific than, but consistent with, the above-quoted

House Report.

The Director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) will use

the $49,397,000 appropriated for FY 1994 targeted assistance as

follows:

$25,457,300 will be allocated under the updated formula,

as set forth in this notice.

$19,000,000 will be awarded to Florida for the Dade County

public schools and Jackson Memorial Hospital, Miami.

$4,939,700 (10% of the total) will be awarded under a

discretionary grant announcement which has been issued separately

setting forth application requirements and evaluation criteria.

The purpose of targeted assistance grants is to provide, through a

process of local planning and implementation, direct services intended

to result in the economic self-sufficiency and reduced welfare

dependency of refugees through job placements.

The targeted assistance program reflects the requirements of

section 412(c)(2)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA),

which provides that targeted assistance grants shall be made available

``(i) primarily for the purpose of facilitating refugee employment and

achievement of self-sufficiency, (ii) in a manner that does not

supplant other refugee program funds and that assures that not less

than 95 percent of the amount of the grant award is made available to

the county or other local entity.''

II. Authorization

Targeted assistance projects are funded under the authority of

section 412(c)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as

amended by the Refugee Assistance Extension Act of 1986 (Pub. L. No.

99-605), 8 U.S.C. 1522(c); section 501(a) of the Refugee Education

Assistance Act of 1980 (Pub. L. No. 96-422), 8 U.S.C. 1522 note,

insofar as it incorporates by reference with respect to Cuban and

Haitian entrants the authorities pertaining to assistance for refugees

established by section 412(c)(2) of the INA, as cited above; section

584(c) of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related

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

Continuing Resolution (Pub. L. No. 100-202), insofar as it incorporates

by reference with respect to certain Amerasians from Vietnam the

authorities pertaining to assistance for refugees established by

section 412(c)(2) of the INA, as cited above, including certain

Amerasians from Vietnam who are U.S. citizens, as provided under title

II of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs

Appropriations Acts, 1989 (Pub. L. No. 100-461), 1990 (Pub. L. No. 101-

167), and 1991 (Pub. L. No. 101-513).

III. Client and Service Priorities

Targeted assistance funding should be used to assist refugee

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

States and counties 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. In local

jurisdictions that have both targeted assistance and refugee social

services programs, one plan of services may be developed for a family

that incorporates both targeted assistance and refugee social services.

Services funded under the targeted assistance allocations are

required to focus primarily on those refugees who, either because of

their protracted use of public assistance or difficulty in securing

employment, continue to need services beyond the initial years of

resettlement. The targeted assistance program, however, is not intended

to be limited to cash assistance recipients. TAP-funded services may

also be provided to other refugees in need of services, regardless of

whether the refugees are receiving cash assistance.

In addition to the statutory requirement that TAP funds be used

``primarily for the purpose of facilitating refugee employment''

(section 412(c)(2)(B)(i)), funds awarded under this program are

intended to help fulfill the Congressional intent that ``employable

refugees should be placed on jobs as soon as possible after their

arrival in the United States'' (section 412(a)(1)(B)(i) of the INA).

Therefore targeted assistance funds must be used primarily for services

which directly enhance refugee employment potential, have specific

employment objectives, and are designed to enable refugees to obtain

jobs with less than one year's participation in the targeted assistance

program. Examples of these activities are: Job development; job

placement; job-related and vocational English; short-term job training

specifically related to opportunities in the local economy; on-the-job

training; business and employer incentives (such as on-site employee

orientation, vocational English training, or bilingual supervisor

assistance); and business technical assistance. General or remedial

educational activities--such as adult basic education (ABE) or

preparation for a high school equivalency or general education diploma

(GED)--may be provided within the context of an individual

employability plan for a refugee which is intended to result in job

placement in less than one year. ORR 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. Targeted assistance funds

cannot be used for long-term training programs such as vocational

training that last for more than a year or educational programs that

are not intended to lead to employment within a year. If TAP 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.

A portion of a local area's allocation may be used for services

which are not directed toward the achievement of a specific employment

objective in less than one year but which are essential to the

adjustment of refugees in the community, provided such needs are

clearly demonstrated and such use is approved by the State.

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

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. States and counties

are expected to make every effort to assure 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 targeted assistance program. Refugees who are

participating in TAP-funded or social services-funded employment

services or have accepted employment are eligible for day care

services. For an employed refugee, TAP-funded day care must be limited

to one year after the refugee becomes employed. States and counties,

however, are expected to use day care funding from other publicly

funded mainstream programs as a prior resource and are encouraged to

work with service providers to assure maximum access to other publicly

funded resources for day care.

Targeted assistance 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, targeted assistance 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.

ORR strongly encourages States and counties when contracting for

targeted assistance 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. States may use a portion of their targeted assistance

funds, either through contracts or through the use of State/county

staff, to provide technical assistance and organizational training to

strengthen the capability of MAAs to provide employment services,

particularly in States where MAA capability is weak or undeveloped. If

a State chooses to use State employees to provide technical assistance

to MAAs, this would be an administrative cost which must be included

within the State administrative cost limit of 5% for the targeted

assistance program.

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.

Finally, in order to provide culturally and linguistically

compatible services in as cost-efficient a manner as possible in a time

of limited resources, ORR strongly encourages States and counties to

promote and give special consideration to the provision of 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.

The award of funds to States under this notice will be contingent

upon the completeness of a State's application as described in section

IX, below.

IV. Discussion of Comments Received

Eight letters of comment were received in response to the notice of

proposed availability of FY 1994 funds for targeted assistance. The

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

Department's response.

Comment: One commenter requested clarification on whether language

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

expected,'' and ``States should'' is advisory or is a mandatory

requirement.

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

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

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

mandatory requirement.

Comment: Three commenters expressed their views 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 recommended that ORR specify that one plan of services for

each eligible family should be developed for social services and

targeted assistance combined so that two plans are not developed for

the same family. Another commenter felt that a State cannot ensure that

a coherent plan of services is developed; a State can only ensure that

services are made available. The commenter recommended that the notice

be revised to emphasize the need for services to the entire family

rather than requiring States to ensure the provision of a coherent

plan. Another commenter questioned what is meant by ``a coherent plan

of services from time of arrival until attainment of economic

independence''.

Response: We agree that one plan of services should be developed

for each family instead of separate plans for the same family under

social services and targeted assistance. We have included language in

the final notice regarding this point. 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. ``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: One commenter felt that the word ``primarily,'' as in the

phrase ``targeted assistance funds must be used primarily for services

which directly enhance refugee employment potential,'' and the word

``portion,'' as in the phrase ``A portion of a local area's allocation

may be used for services which are not directed toward the achievement

of a specific employment objective,'' can be interpreted different

ways. The commenter recommended that ORR indicate what minimum

percentage is acceptable for employment services and non-employment-

related services.

Response: We eliminated the 85/15 percentages in order to give

States the flexibility to determine, based on local need, what would be

the best mix of services to bring about effective resettlement. We

believe States are in a position to best judge what proportion of

refugee funding should be devoted to employment services versus non-

employment-related services in their respective States. Having recently

removed the percentage requirements, we do not want to now impose

minimum percentages.

Comment: One commenter asked whether post-employment services may

be provided to refugees beyond one year, if the employment plan is met

within the one-year limitation. The commenter recommended that post-

employment services be allowed for one year after employment is

obtained.

Response: There is no restriction on how long post-employment

services may be provided after employment is obtained. The duration

should be determined according to the refugee's need.

Comment: In regard to 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: In regard to ORR's expectation that services should be

provided in a manner that is culturally and linguistically compatible,

one commenter asked for a clear definition of what ``culturally and

linguistically compatible'' means.

Response: We mean 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.

Comment: Two commenters had concerns regarding the obligation and

liquidation of targeted assistance funds. One commenter felt it was

unclear whether funds must be liquidated within 2 years from the date

of Federal obligation or from the date of State obligation. The

commenter recommended that clarification be provided on whether a State

would have one year to spend FY 1994 funds and one year to submit

claims for these funds. Another commenter recommended removal of the

obligation language and the provision of greater flexibility on time

allowances. The commenter also recommended that rollovers be allowed

regardless of time parameters.

Response: Targeted assistance funds must be obligated no later than

one year after the end of the Federal fiscal year in which the

Department awarded the grant. Funds must be liquidated within two years

after the end of the Federal fiscal year in which the Department

awarded the grant. A State's final financial report on expenditures

must be received no later than two years after the end of the Federal

fiscal year in which the Department awarded the grant. If final reports

are not received on time, the Department will deobligate any unexpended

funds, including any unliquidated obligations, on the basis of a

State's last filed report. These time frames are described in the final

notice. While we appreciate the States' need for flexible time frames,

since targeted assistance funds will now be awarded as a formula grant

to States, the time frames for obligation and liquidation will be the

same as those for the social services formula grants to States. This

means that for FY 1994 targeted assistance funds, States must obligate

funds no later than September 30, 1995, and must liquidate funds before

September 30, 1996, in order to submit a final financial expenditure

report in time for receipt by September 30, 1996.

Comment: Two commenters made comments regarding new reporting

requirements for the targeted assistance program. One commenter

recommended giving States at least 120 days to review new reporting

forms and requirements and recommended that ORR allow for a testing

period to evaluate the feasibility of the new reporting form. Two

commenters recommended State and local input in the development of new

reporting requirements. One commenter felt that States and counties

should be given adequate time to make changes in data collection

requirements at the State and local level.

Response: There will be an opportunity for review and input on new

reporting requirements. We plan to send to States for review a draft

quarterly performance report (QPR) form that is combined for both the

targeted assistance and social services programs. In setting a

timetable, we will take into consideration the need for States to have

adequate review time. We will also keep in mind that States and

counties will need adequate time to prepare for any new requirements.

Comment: One commenter recommended updating the county plan

guidelines contained in the FY 1986 targeted assistance notice to

reflect the new requirements that are contained in the FY 1994 notice.

Response: The county plan guidelines contained in the FY 1986

targeted assistance notice (51 FR 30546, 30551-52 (August 27, 1986))

will remain in effect this fiscal year with the exception of the

following, in accordance with the revised requirements in the FY 1994

notice: (1) Counties will no longer be required to provide assurance

that cash assistance recipients will make up a percent of the targeted

assistance clientele that is not less than the State's welfare

dependency rate (item ``d'' of the guidelines requirements); and (2)

the maximum limit of 15% of the allocation amount for non-employment-

related services is eliminated (item ``m'' of the guidelines). We will

review the application content requirements contained in the FY 1986

targeted assistance notice, including the county plan guidelines, to

determine what further changes will need to be made. Any changes will

be reflected in the FY 1995 notice of proposed targeted assistance

allocations.

Comment: One commenter noted that Table 3 in the notice incorrectly

included Marin and San Mateo counties in the definition of San

Francisco and incorrectly included a number of other counties in the

definition section.

Response: ORR has always included Marin and San Mateo counties in

the definition of the San Francisco area for purposes of targeted

assistance allocations. This definition was published in earlier

targeted assistance notices. The inclusion of San Joaquin, Santa Clara,

Stanilaus, and Tulare counties in the definition column, instead of the

targeted assistance area column, was a printing error.

Comment: One commenter indicated that although refugees admitted

under the private sector initiative are not eligible for targeted

assistance services, the State is prohibited from denying services to

these persons. The commenter recommended that States be federally

reimbursed for services to these private sector initiative clients.

Response: Refugees admitted under the private sector initiative

program are admitted with the understanding that private sector funding

will be provided to cover the cost of resettlement of these refugees.

Therefore, no Federal refugee program funding is provided on their

behalf.

Comment: One commenter requested clarification on what factor will

replace welfare dependency in the allocation formula, now that welfare

dependency has been eliminated as a factor in the formula.

Response: Refugee arrivals are the only factor used in the ``new

formula'' portion of the allocation formula.

Comment: One commenter, noting that targeted assistance funds

cannot be used for long-term programs such as vocational programs that

are not intended to lead to employment within a year, recommended that

greater flexibility be allowed in program duration. The commenter also

recommended that ORR give detailed criteria for services beyond the

one-year limit. Another commenter objected to the requirement that

funds must be used for services designed to enable refugees to obtain a

job in less than one year. This commenter felt that the one-year

requirement is not supported by the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Response: We recognize that long-term training and services may be

desirable for many refugees as they continue to build their lives in

this country; however, we believe that such long-term activities are

beyond the legislated intent, scope, and funding of the refugee

program, whose purpose is to help refugees achieve self-sufficiency

through employment as quickly as possible. We, therefore, have not

changed the one-year requirement in the notice.

The emphasis of the targeted assistance program is to provide

services targeted to employment with the intent of placing as many

refugees as possible in employment within a reasonable period of time.

We do not support the use of TAP funds for the provision of services

that are not intended or not designed to move a refugee into some level

of employment within a year's time. While it is true that a time limit

is not specified in the statute, we believe that the one-year policy

complies with Congressional intent. Section 412(a)(1)(B) of the Act

states that ``employable refugees should be placed on jobs as soon as

possible after their arrival in the United States.'' We believe that an

emphasis on providing services designed to help refugees become

employed within one year is a reasonable interpretation of this

provision.

Comment: Two commenters felt that the provision of services through

a refugee-specific system would not be financially practical. The

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

services into the existing mainstream system.

Response: 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 would 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: One commenter had concerns regarding ORR's encouragement

to States and counties to give special consideration to coalitions of

refugee service organizations. The commenter questioned how coalitions

would work administratively and organizationally and whether coalitions

would be more cost-effective. The commenter also wondered how ORR

envisions special consideration for coalitions in relation to the

competitive procurement process.

Response: We envision a group of organizations forming a coalition

with one agency serving as the lead agency and the other agencies

serving as subcontractors to that agency. 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 felt that clarification is needed as to how

States are to make sure that services use bilingual women on staff.

Response: One approach that a State could use is to include

language in its refugee service contracts that would require contract

agencies to include bilingual women on staff in a direct service

capacity.

Comment: One commenter requested clarification on whether ORR will

continue to allow States to use targeted assistance administrative

funds to provide technical assistance to MAAs as was allowed in last

year's notice.

Response: Yes, States may use targeted assistance administrative

funds for technical assistance to MAAs. The language that appeared in

the FY 1993 notice has been included in this final notice.

Comment: One commenter recommended that the notice clarify that

targeted assistance 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 targeted assistance 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 targeted assistance

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

states that ``TAP-funded services may also be provided to other

refugees in need of services, regardless of whether the refugees are

receiving cash assistance.'' However, as the wording indicates, this is

not a mandatory requirement. We have eliminated the requirement that

cash assistance recipients must make up a percentage of the targeted

assistance caseload that is not less than the State's welfare

dependency rate.

Comment: Three commenters raised questions about the amounts listed

in the notice of proposed allocations. One commenter felt that his

State should have received an increased allocation as a result of the

number of arrivals during the past 3 years. Another commenter believed

that the amounts published in the notice were based on different per

capita amounts for different counties. The third commenter noted that

the per capita amount for California targeted assistance counties

differed from the per capita amount for the counties in other States.

Response: The first commenter's targeted assistance counties

comprised 4.5 percent of 1983-1993 arrivals in all targeted assistance

counties, as compared with 4.4 percent of 1983-1992 arrivals. Although

this percentage increased, the effect was offset by the removal of

State dependency rates as a weighting factor in the FY 1994 formula.

The second commenter calculated the per capita rates incorrectly,

dividing the proposed total allocation by the figures for 1983-1993

arrivals. The 1983-1993 arrivals relate only to the portion of the

allocation under the new formula (column C of Table 1).

The difference in the per capita rates between the California

counties and the counties in other States, noted by the third

commenter, reflects the Congressional intent contained in the report

language quoted in the notice that California be held harmless in the

allocation of targeted assistance funds.

Comment: One commenter questioned the exclusion of secondary

migration in the determination of population numbers in the targeted

assistance formula. The commenter felt that a method needs to be

developed to include secondary migration numbers, similar to the method

used to account for secondary migration in the social services formula.

Response: As we have noted in previous years, secondary migration

data are not available at the county level. States report annually on

in-migration at the State level using the form ORR-11. This reporting

is based on the first three digits of a refugee's Social Security

number (SSN). These digits identify the State in which the SSN was

issued which, with a few exceptions, is the State of initial

resettlement. This information enables ORR both to credit the State of

in-migration and to debit the State of out-migration in developing

State population estimates. Intercounty migration data--which would

involve both interstate and intrastate movement--would appear to be

much more difficult for States to provide since it would be necessary

to determine both in-migration and out-migration for all targeted

assistance counties in order to arrive at adjusted population

estimates.

Comment: Two commenters recommended that targeted assistance 10%

discretionary funding be included in the targeted assistance formula

allocation to impacted States. The commenters felt that States and

local governments are in a better position to determine the impact of

certain groups of refugees on resources.

Response: The TAP 10% discretionary program reflects Congressional

intent as expressed in the House and Senate Appropriations Committee

Reports, which specify that 10 percent of the targeted assistance funds

be used for grants to localities most heavily impacted by the influx of

refugees such as Hmong, Cambodians, and Soviet Pentecostals. The

Committee Report language specifies that grants are to be awarded to

communities not currently receiving targeted assistance as well as

communities that receive targeted assistance funds.

Comment: One commenter objected to the 5% allowance for State

administrative costs, arguing that States have minimal responsibility

for the planning, implementation, monitoring, and administration of the

targeted assistance program. The commenter recommended that the State

allowance for administrative costs be reduced by half to 2.5% and the

county administrative cost allowance increased accordingly to 12.5%.

Response: The amount of responsibility that States exercise in

overseeing the targeted assistance program varies among States. Section

412(c)(2)(B)(ii) of the INA allows up to 5% of the TAP allocation to be

retained by the State. If a county wishes to take issue with the 5%

State administrative allowance, we would suggest that the county raise

this issue with its State.

Comment: One commenter objected to the allocation of $19 million in

targeted assistance funds to the State of Florida for Jackson Memorial

Hospital and Dade County Public Schools.

Response: The allocation of these funds reflects Congressional

intent expressed in the Appropriations Committee Reports.

Comment: One commenter indicated support for allowing States with

more than one eligible county to determine county allocations

differently from those specified in the targeted assistance notice,

while one commenter opposed giving States this flexibility.

Response: We believe that States with more than one eligible county

should be given the flexibility to determine county allocations

differently from those specified in the notice, based on more complete

and accurate data that a State may have on county population numbers

and welfare dependency rates than what is available at the Federal

level.

Comment: One commenter objected to the fact that targeted

assistance funds are not allocated to States until the end of the

fiscal year. The commenter felt that the funds should be provided to

States soon after the funds are appropriated each year.

Response: Now that targeted assistance funds will be awarded to

States as a formula grant instead of as a discretionary grant, we hope

to issue targeted assistance awards earlier in the fiscal year than has

been the case in previous years.

V. Eligible Grantees

The following requirements, which have previously applied to TAP,

will continue to apply with respect to FY 1994 awards:

Eligible grantees are those agencies of State governments which are

responsible for the refugee program under 45 CFR 400.5 in States

containing counties which qualify for FY 1994 targeted assistance

awards. The use of targeted assistance funds for services to Cuban and

Haitian entrants is limited to States which have an approved State plan

under the Cuban/Haitian Entrant Program (CHEP).

The State agency will submit a single application on behalf of all

county governments of the qualified counties in that State. Subsequent

to the approval of the State's application by ORR, local targeted

assistance plans will be developed by the county government or other

designated entity and submitted to the State.

A State with more than one qualified county is permitted, but not

required, to determine the allocation amount for each qualified county

within the State. However, if a State chooses to determine county

allocations differently from those set forth in this notice, the FY

1994 allocations proposed by the State must be included in the State's

application.

Applications submitted in response to this notice are not subject

to review by State and areawide clearinghouses under Executive Order

12372, ``Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.''

VI. Qualification and Allocation Formula

In determining whether additional counties would be eligible to

participate in this targeted assistance formula allocation, the

Director has applied the same four criteria used previously, including

the same cutoff points, to the updated information on refugee arrivals,

concentrations, dependency rates, and receipt of cash assistance. In

order to qualify for TAP funds, a county would have to meet three out

of the four criteria. In applying these criteria, ORR has found that

the metropolitan area consisting of Dallas and Tarrant counties, Texas,

qualifies for targeted assistance, based on a review of documentation

submitted by the county.

Since current welfare dependency data on refugees are not available

at the national level, the Director of ORR has eliminated welfare

dependency rates as a factor in calculating targeted assistance formula

allocations to States in FY 1994. In all other respects, the FY 1994

TAP formula allocations are based on the same formula as in FY 1993,

updated to reflect arrivals through September 30, 1993.

Under this formula, one portion of the allocation is based on

refugee and Cuban/Haitian entrant arrivals during FY 1980-1982; funds

for this portion of the formula are allocated on the same proportionate

basis among participating counties as in FY 1992. The second portion of

the allocation is based on refugee and entrant placements in these

counties during calendar year (CY) 1983--September 30, 1993.

For the participating counties, the $25,457,300 which is allocated

by formula is apportioned as follows:

a. $8,400,909 or 33%, is allocated on the basis of the formula

which has been used for all previous targeted assistance allocations

(``old formula'') and which is based on initial placements during FY

1980-1982 and other factors as described under ``Formula Used to Date''

in the FY 1989 TAP notice published in the Federal Register on July 3,

1989 (54 F.R. 27944).

b. $17,056,391 or 67%, is allocated on the basis of arrivals during

CY 1983--September 30, 1993 (``new formula'').

The above percentages are based on the proportion of initial

placements in these counties during the two periods: 338,247 refugee

arrivals, or 33% of the total number of placements, during the old-

formula period; and 683,065 or 67%, during the new-formula period.

The old-formula allocation of $8,655,482 follows the same

distribution among counties as in the past.

The new-formula allocation of $16,801,818 is based on the number of

initial placements in each county during CY 1983--September 30, 1993.

Welfare dependency rates were not used as a factor in this portion of

the formula.

VII. Allocations

Funding subsequent to the publication of this notice will be

contingent upon the submittal and approval of a State application in

accordance with the requirements described in Section IX of this

notice.

Table 1 lists the participating counties, the number of placements

in each county during FY 1983--September 30, 1993, the amount of each

county's allocation which is based on the old formula, the amount of

each county's allocation which is based on the new formula, and the

county's total allocation.

Although Table 1 shows an amount for each county, the Director has

decided, in the case of a State which contains more than one qualified

county, to continue to permit the State to determine (in accordance

with the requirements set forth in this notice) the appropriate

allocation of the State's targeted assistance award among the qualified

counties in the State. If a State chooses to make allocations which are

different from the notice, the State, as in the FY 1993 TAP, would be

responsible for determining an appropriate and equitable basis for

allocating the funds among the qualified counties in the State and for

including in its application a description of this allocation basis,

the data to be used, and the allocation proposed for each county.

Table 2 provides State totals for the county allocations set forth

in Table 1.

Table 3 indicates the areas that each participating county

represents.

Table 1.--Targeted Assistance Allocations by County: FY 1994

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

Portion of FY Portion of FY

Arrivals Jan. 1994 1994

County State 1983-Sep. allocation allocation Total FY 1994

1993(A) under old under new allocation\1\(D)

formula(B) formula(C)

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

Alameda............................. CA...... 14,333 $208,726 $566,130 $774,856

Contra Costa........................ CA...... 4,042 59,679 159,653 219,332

Fresno.............................. CA...... 12,854 115,258 507,712 622,970

Los Angeles......................... CA...... 90,912 1,054,036 3,590,878 4,644,914

Merced.............................. CA...... 4,118 140,682 162,654 303,336

Orange.............................. CA...... 39,745 469,012 1,569,864 2,038,876

Sacramento.......................... CA...... 15,339 178,649 605,866 784,515

San Diego........................... CA...... 22,382 349,569 884,053 1,233,622

San Francisco....................... CA...... 22,850 271,279 902,538 1,173,817

San Joaquin......................... CA...... 8,797 180,267 347,467 527,734

Santa Clara......................... CA...... 30,856 349,150 1,218,762 1,567,912

Stanislaus.......................... CA...... 3,210 32,616 126,790 159,406

Tulare.............................. CA...... 5,207 0 205,668 205,668

Denver.............................. CO...... 8,741 70,414 132,871 203,285

Broward............................. FL...... 2,709 116,637 41,179 157,816

Dade................................ FL...... 43,871 2,034,812 666,879 \2\21,701,691

Hillsboro........................... FL...... 3,009 36,654 45,740 82,394

Palm Beach.......................... FL...... 3,058 48,454 46,484 94,938

Honolulu............................ HI...... 3,134 77,537 47,640 125,177

Cook/Kane........................... IL...... 32,482 364,225 493,756 857,981

Sedgwick............................ KS...... 3,788 86,794 57,581 144,375

Orleans............................. LA...... 3,678 59,293 55,909 115,202

Montgomery/Prince Georges........... MD...... 8,100 72,132 123,127 195,259

Middlesex........................... MA...... 5,727 56,983 87,056 144,039

Suffolk............................. MA...... 14,877 130,779 226,144 356,923

Hennepin............................ MN...... 9,349 91,879 142,113 233,992

Ramsey.............................. MN...... 9,191 129,187 139,712 268,899

Jackson............................. MO...... 3,795 33,729 57,687 91,416

Essex............................... NJ...... 5,498 19,519 83,575 103,094

Hudson.............................. NJ...... 2,355 130,614 35,798 166,412

Union............................... NJ...... 1,586 26,220 24,109 50,329

New York............................ NY...... 117,363 291,423 1,784,025 2,075,448

Multnomah........................... OR...... 14,793 197,998 224,867 422,865

Philadelphia........................ PA...... 16,863 135,531 256,333 391,864

Providence.......................... RI...... 4,601 96,803 69,939 166,742

Dallas/Tarrant...................... TX...... 23,209 0 352,798 352,798

Harris.............................. TX...... 19,383 158,866 294,639 453,505

Salt Lake........................... UT...... 6,632 48,295 100,812 149,107

Arlington........................... VA...... 2,886 83,691 43,870 127,561

Fairfax............................. VA...... 7,908 100,916 120,209 221,125

King/Snohomish...................... WA...... 25,694 241,080 390,572 631,652

Pierce.............................. WA...... 4,140 51,521 62,932 114,453

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

Total........................... ........ 683,065 8,400,909 17,056,391 44,457,300

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

\1\Based on arrivals through September 30, 1993.

\2\The allocation for Dade County, Florida, includes $19,000,000 for Jackson Memorial Hospital (Miami) and the

Dade County (Miami) public schools. This is referred to in the House and Senate Reports on the appropriation

``to continue the current program of support to communities affected as a result of the massive influx of

Cuban and Haitian entrants during the Mariel boatlift.'' The amounts are $10,636,376 for Jackson Memorial and

$8,363,624 for the Dade County schools.

Table 2.--Targeted Assistance

Allocations by State: FY 1994

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

FY 1994

State Allocation\1\

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

California.............................................. $14,256,958

Colorado................................................ 203,285

Florida................................................. \2\22,036,839

Hawaii.................................................. 125,177

Illinois................................................ 857,981

Kansas.................................................. 144,375

Louisiana............................................... 115,202

Maryland................................................ 195,259

Massachusetts........................................... 500,962

Minnesota............................................... 502,891

Missouri................................................ 91,416

New Jersey.............................................. 319,835

New York................................................ 2,075,448

Oregon.................................................. 422,865

Pennsylvania............................................ 391,864

Rhode Island............................................ 166,742

Texas................................................... 806,303

Utah.................................................... 149,107

Virginia................................................ 348,686

Washington.............................................. 746,105

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

Total............................................... $44,457,300

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

\1\Based on arrivals through September 30, 1993.

\2\The allocation for Florida includes $19,000,000 for Jackson Memorial

Hospital (Miami) and the Dade County (Miami) public schools. See

footnote 2 to Table 1.

Table 3.--Targeted Assistance Areas

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

Targeted assistance area\1\ Definition

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

CA.................. Alameda

Contra Costa

Fresno

Los Angeles

Merced

Orange

Sacramento

San Diego

San Francisco............................ Marin, San Francisco, & San Mateo Counties.

San Joaquin

Santa Clara

Stanislaus

Tulare

CO.................. Denver................................... Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Denver, & Jefferson

Counties.

FL.................. Broward

Dade

Hillsboro

Palm Beach

HI.................. Honolulu

IL.................. Cook/Kane

KS.................. Sedgwick

LA.................. Orleans.................................. Jefferson & Orleans Parishes.

MD.................. Montgomery/Prince Georges

MA.................. Middlesex

Suffolk

MN.................. Hennepin

Ramsey

MO.................. Jackson.................................. Jackson County, MO, & Wyandotte County, KS.

NJ.................. Essex

Hudson

Union

NY.................. New York................................. Bronx, Kings, New York, Queens, & Richmond

Counties.

OR.................. Multnomah................................ Clackamas, Multnomah, & Washington Counties,

OR, & Clark County, WA.

PA.................. Philadelphia

RI.................. Providence

TX.................. Dallas/Tarrant

Harris

UT.................. Salt Lake................................ Davis, Salt Lake, & Utah Counties.

VA.................. Arlington

Fairfax.................................. Fairfax County & Independent Cities of

Alexandria, Fairfax, & Falls Church.

WA.................. King/Snohomish

Pierce

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

\1\Consists of named county/counties unless otherwise defined.

VIII. Application and Implementation Process

Under the FY 1994 targeted assistance program, States may apply for

and receive grant awards on behalf of qualified counties in the State.

A single allocation will be made to each State by ORR on the basis of

an approved State application. The State agency will, in turn, receive,

review, and determine the acceptability of individual county targeted

assistance plans.

Beginning in FY 1994, TAP funds will be awarded through a more

streamlined grant process similar to that used for the ORR social

services formula grant program. An application and assurances are still

required of the States eligible to receive TAP funding. FY 1994 funds

must be obligated by the State agency no later than one year after the

end of the Federal fiscal year in which the Department awarded the

grant. There will be no carryover of unobligated funds into the FY 1995

grant award. Funds must be liquidated within two years after the end of

the Federal fiscal year in which the Department awarded the grant. A

State's final financial report on targeted assistance expenditures must

be received no later than two years after the end of the Federal fiscal

year in which the Department awarded the grant. If final reports are

not received on time, the Department will deobligate any unexpended

funds, including any unliquidated obligations, on the basis of a

State's last filed report.

Although funding for educational services in Dade County, FL, and

for medical services at Jackson Memorial Hospital in Miami, FL, is part

of the appropriation amount for targeted assistance, the scope of

activities for these special projects will be administratively

determined. Applications for those funds are therefore not subject to

provisions contained in this notice but to other requirements which

have been conveyed separately. Similarly, the requirements regarding

the 10% portion of the targeted assistance appropriation that will be

awarded separately has been addressed in the grant announcement for

those funds.

IX. Application Requirements

The State application requirements for grants for the FY 1994

targeted assistance formula allocation are as follows:

States that are currently operating under approved management plans

for their FY 1993 targeted assistance program and wish to continue to

do so for their FY 1994 grants may provide the following in lieu of

resubmitting the full currently approved plan:

The State's application for FY 1994 funding shall provide:

A. Assurance that the State's current management plan for the

administration of the targeted assistance program, as approved by ORR,

will continue to be in full force and effect for the FY 1994 targeted

assistance program, subject to any additional assurances or revisions

required by this notice which are not reflected in the current plan.

Any proposed modifications to the approved plan will be identified in

the application and are subject to ORR review and approval. Any

proposed changes must address and reference all appropriate portions of

the FY 1993 application content requirements to ensure complete

incorporation in the State's management plan.

B. Assurance that, for each qualified local area, targeted

assistance funds will be used primarily for, but not limited to,

services to cash assistance recipients.

C. Assurance that targeted assistance funds will be used primarily

for the provision of services which directly enhance refugee employment

potential, have specific employment objectives, and are designed to

enable refugees to obtain jobs with less than one year's participation

in the targeted assistance program. States must indicate what

percentage of FY 1994 targeted assistance formula allocation funds that

are used for services will be allocated for employment services.

D. A line item budget and justification for State administrative

costs limited to a maximum of 5% of the total award to the State. Each

total budget period funding amount requested must be necessary,

reasonable, and allocable to the project.

States administering the program locally: States that have

administered the program locally or provide direct service to the

refugee population (with the concurrence of the county) must submit a

program summary to ORR for prior review and approval. The summary must

include a description of the proposed services; a justification for the

projected allocation for each component including relationship of funds

allocated to numbers of clients served, characteristics of clients,

duration of training and services, projected outcomes, and cost per

placement. In addition, the program component summary must describe any

ancillary services or subcomponents such as day care, transportation,

or language training.

States with two or more counties receiving targeted assistance

funds: As in FY 1993, a State with two or more local areas which

qualify for the program may choose to determine respective county

allocations. If the State chooses to determine county allocations

differently from those set forth in Table 1 of this notice, the State

must provide a description of the State's proposed allocation plan and

the basis for the proposed allocations. The application must contain a

description of the allocation approach, data used in its determination,

the calculated allocation amount for each county, and the rationale for

the proposed allocations. States are encouraged to revise allocation

formulas to assure appropriate funding among eligible counties for the

duration of the grant such that targeted assistance activities within

the State conclude simultaneously. Where the State chooses not to

determine county allocation amounts, the State must provide the

allocations which are specified in this notice.

X. Reporting Requirements

States will be required to submit quarterly reports on the outcomes

of the targeted assistance program, using the same form which States

use for reporting on refugee social services formula grants. This is

Schedule A and Schedule C of the ORR-6 Quarterly Performance Report

form. ORR is no longer using the ORR-12 form which was originally used

to report on the outcomes of the targeted assistance program. ORR is in

the process of consolidating its reporting requirements. The new

reporting form will consolidate social services and targeted assistance

performance reporting in one format in order to simplify and coordinate

reporting. ORR expects this new form to be available when reporting on

FY 1994 grants begins, which would be at the end of the first quarter

of FY 1995.

Dated: June 14, 1994.

Lavinia Limon,

Director, Office of Refugee Resettlement.

[FR Doc. 94-15193 Filed 6-22-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4184-01-P