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

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A94-15193

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Uncategorized Document
- **Published:** June 23, 1994

## Text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A94-15193. Public record. Not legal advice.