Refugee Resettlement Program: Allocations to States of FY 1995 Funds for Refugee Social Services and for Refugees Who Are Former Political Prisoners From Vietnam

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Office of Refugee Resettlement

Refugee Resettlement Program: Allocations to States of FY 1995

Funds for Refugee Social Services and for Refugees Who Are Former

Political Prisoners From Vietnam

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

ACTION: Final notice of allocations to States of FY 1995 funds for

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

prisoners from Vietnam.

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

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

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

Haitian entrants, under section 501 of the Refugee Education

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

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

of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs

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

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

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

Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations

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

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

notice to encompass all such eligible persons unless the specific

context indicates otherwise.

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

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

served under the social service program (or under other programs

supported by Federal refugee funds) during their period of coverage

under their sponsoring agency's agreement with the Department of

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

obtain permanent resident alien status, whichever comes first.

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

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

SUMMARY: This notice establishes the allocations to States of FY 1995

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

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

from Vietnam, the Director has added to the formula allocation

$2,000,000 in funds

[[Page 36293]]

previously set aside for social services discretionary projects.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 14, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Office of Refugee Resettlement, Administration for Children

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

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of the proposed social service

allocations to States was published in the Federal Register on March 8,

1995 (60 FR 12775). The population estimates that were used in the

proposed notice have been adjusted as a result of additional population

information submitted by 10 States.

I. Amounts For Allocation

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

in FY 1995 refugee social service funds as part of the FY 1995

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

103-333).

Of the total of $80,802,000, the Director of ORR is making

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

out in this notice. These funds are available for the purpose of

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

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

to be allocated under the formula in this notice for additional

services to former political prisoners from Vietnam. Although we had

indicated in the FY 1994 social service allocations notice that FY 1994

would be the last year in which a special set-aside would be allocated

for additional services for former political prisoners from Vietnam, we

are continuing this special set-aside in FY 1995 due to continued

arrivals of this population in FY 1995.

A. Discretionary Social Service Funds for Vietnamese Political

Prisoners

In recognition of the special vulnerability of refugees who are

former political prisoners from Vietnam, the Director of ORR is setting

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

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

the number of actual political prisoner arrivals in FY 1994. This

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

States are required to use this allocation to provide additional

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

former political prisoners (FPPs) and members of their families.

Allowable services for the above-cited funds for political

prisoners include the following direct services: (1) Specialized

orientation and adjustment services, including peer support activities

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

also be used for the costs of leadership development training,

including the costs of travel to attend FPP conferences, for the

purpose of facilitating the ability of former political prisoners to

continue the FPP services that were begun under this program after the

set-aside program ends. Adjustment services include any service listed

under 45 CFR 400.155(c) of the ORR regulations. Under no circumstances

may these funds be used for direct cash payments or stipends (other

than for travel costs to conferences), for the purchase of advertising

space or air time, or for services covered under the Department of

State Reception and Placement Cooperative Agreements.

Allowable services under this allocation for Vietnamese political

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

provided to refugees in general under the social service formula

allocation, discussed below.

ORR intends to provide technical assistance to States and

organizations that request it to assure effective program development

and implementation.

Because these funds are to provide specifically for services for

former political prisoners from Vietnam, States which allocate social

service funds to other local administrative jurisdictions, such as

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

arrivals of this target population during FY 1994.

ORR strongly encourages States and other contracting jurisdictions,

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

the extent possible, to qualified refugee mutual assistance

associations (MAAs) with experience serving the target population. All

contractors receiving these funds should have Vietnamese language

capacity and Vietnamese cultural understanding.

States are required to provide to ORR program performance

information on the Vietnamese political prisoner program that meets the

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

conditions of the social services grant awards to States. The

information to be contained in the narrative portion of State quarterly

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

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

(4) outcomes, to the extent possible.

B. Refugee Social Service Funds

The population figures for the social service allocation include

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

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

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

Haitian Entrant Program or indicate in its refugee program State plan

that Cuban/Haitian entrants will be served in order to use funds on

behalf of entrants as well as refugees.)

The Director is allocating $68,681,700 to States on the basis of

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

been in the U.S. 3 years or less as of October 1, 1994 (including a

floor amount for States which have small refugee populations).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the beginning of the fiscal year.''

As established in the FY 1991 social services notice published in

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

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

small refugee populations is calculated as follows: If the application

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

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

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

less; and

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

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

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

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

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

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

ORR has consistently supported floors for small States in order to

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

the range in

[[Page 36294]]

numbers of refugees in the small States, we have concluded that a

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

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

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

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

to provide funds for individual projects intended to contribute to the

effectiveness and efficiency of the refugee resettlement program. Grant

announcements on discretionary initiatives will be issued separately.

Population to be Served

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

population, in accordance with the current requirements of 45 CFR part

400 subpart I--Refugee Social Services, States are not required to

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

only 3 years. In keeping with 45 CFR 400.147(a), a State must allocate

an appropriate portion of its social service funds, based on population

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

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

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

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

assistance, social service programs should not be limited exclusively

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

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

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

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

provide services to those refugees.

However, effective October 1, 1995, the current requirements under

Sec. 400.147 will no longer be in effect and will be replaced by new

provisions in accordance with the final rule published in the Federal

Register on June 28, 1995, (60 FR 33584). Under the new provisions,

States will be required to provide services to refugees in the

following order of priority, except in certain individual extreme

circumstances: (a) All newly arriving refugees during their first year

in the U.S., who apply for services; (b) refugees who are receiving

cash assistance; (c) unemployed refugees who are not receiving cash

assistance; and (d) employed refugees in need of services to retain

employment or to attain economic independence.

ORR expects States to ensure that refugee social services are made

available to special populations such as Amerasians and former

political prisoners from Vietnam, in addition to special funding that

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs

Appropriations Act (Pub. L. No. 100-461), services may be provided to

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

after October 1, 1988.

Service Priorities

Refugee social service funding should be used to assist refugee

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

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

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

until attainment of economic independence. Each service plan should

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

needed social services.

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

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

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

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

encourages the use of bilingual women on service agency staffs to

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

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

strategies which address simultaneously the employment potential of

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

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

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

with children the opportunity to participate in employment services or

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

treated as a priority employment-related service under the refugee

social services program. Refugees who are participating in employment

services or have accepted employment are eligible for day care

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

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

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

publicly funded mainstream programs as a prior resource and are

expected to work with service providers to assure maximum access to

other publicly funded resources for day care.

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

dependency rate for refugees (as defined in section 400.146(b)) is 55%

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

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

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

set forth in section 400.154. (Beginning October 1, 1995, States will

no longer have to adhere to this requirement since the final rule

eliminates this requirement.) ORR expects these funds to be used for

services which directly enhance refugee employment potential, have

specific employment objectives, and are designed to enable refugees to

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

sufficiency. This reflects the Congressional objective that

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

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

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

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

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

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

such training should be provided concurrently, rather than

sequentially, with employment or with other employment-related

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

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

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

Since current welfare dependency data are not available, those

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

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

can provide reliable documentation that demonstrates a lower dependency

rate.

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

meets one of the following conditions:

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

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

months or less is below 55% in the State.

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

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

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

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

[[Page 36295]]

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

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

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

local governments) which the Director determines provides for the

maximum appropriate provision of employment-related services for, and

the maximum placement of, employable refugees consistent with

performance standards established under section 106 of the Job Training

Partnership Act.

Refugee social services should be provided in a manner that is

culturally and linguistically compatible with a refugee's language and

cultural background. In light of the increasingly diverse population of

refugees who are resettling in this country, refugee service agencies

will need to develop practical ways of providing culturally and

linguistically appropriate services to a changing ethnic population.

Refugee-specific social services should be provided which are

specifically designed to meet refugee needs and are in keeping with the

rules and objectives of the refugee program, particularly during a

refugee's initial years of resettlement. When planning State refugee

services, States are strongly encouraged to take into account the

reception and placement (R & P) services provided by local resettlement

agencies in order to utilize these resources in the overall program

design and to ensure the provision of seamless services to refugees.

In order to provide culturally and linguistically compatible

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

resources, ORR encourages States and counties to promote and give

special consideration to the provision of refugee social services

through coalitions of refugee service organizations, such as coalitions

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

providers. ORR believes it is essential for refugee-serving

organizations to form close partnerships in the provision of services

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

refugee picture. Coalition-building and consolidation of providers is

particularly important in communities with multiple service providers

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

funding for services by minimizing the funds used for multiple

administrative overhead costs.

States should also expect to use funds available under this notice

to pay for social services which are provided to refugees who

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

provides that:

The Secretary [of HHS] shall develop and implement alternative

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

thirty-six months, under which refugees are provided interim

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

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

reduces welfare dependency, and fosters greater coordination among

the resettlement agencies and service providers.

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

Department has already issued a separate notice in the Federal Register

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

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

for the allocation of additional social service funds beyond the

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

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

planning its use of social service funds being allocated under the

present notice.

Funding to MAAs

ORR no longer provides set-aside funds to refugee mutual assistance

associations as a separate component under the social service notice;

instead we have folded these funds into the social service formula

allocation to States. Elimination of the MAA set-aside, however, does

not represent any reduction in ORR's commitment to MAAs as important

participants in refugee resettlement. ORR believes that the continued

and/or increased utilization of qualified refugee mutual assistance

associations in the delivery of social services helps to ensure the

provision of culturally and linguistically appropriate services as well

as increasing the effectiveness of the overall service system.

Therefore, ORR expects States to use MAAs as service providers to the

maximum extent possible. ORR strongly encourages States when

contracting for services, including employment services, to give

consideration to the special strengths of MAAs, whenever contract

bidders are otherwise equally qualified, provided that the MAA has the

capability to deliver services in a manner that is culturally and

linguistically compatible with the background of the target population

to be served. ORR also expects States to continue to assist MAAs in

seeking other public and/or private funds for the provision of services

to refugee clients.

ORR defines MAAs as organizations with the following

qualifications:

a. The organization is legally incorporated as a nonprofit

organization; and

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

or governing board of the mutual assistance association is comprised of

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

State Administration

States are reminded that under current regulations at 45 CFR

400.206 and 400.207, States have the flexibility to charge the

following types of administrative costs against their refugee program

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

administrative costs incurred for the overall management and operation

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

policy and program development, oversight and monitoring, data

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

88-40.

II. Discussion of Comments Received

We received 8 letters of comment in response to the notice of

proposed FY 1995 allocations to States for refugee social services. The

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

Department's response.

Comment: Six commenters made comments regarding requirements for

the set-aside of discretionary funds for services to former political

prisoners (FPP) from Vietnam. Four commenters suggested that funds from

the set-aside be made available to provide leadership development

training opportunities for former political prisoners (FPPs). One of

these commenters recommended that training be provided to former

political prisoners who arrived in the early 1990's to provide services

to newly arrived FPPs in order to expand current programs and to

prepare for the closing of funded services. Another commenter suggested

training be provided to volunteers such as detainees, lawyers, doctors,

and community leaders to form a detainee support group to help FPPs

move from dependency to self-sufficiency. Two commenters suggested that

funds be made available for the costs of travel to attend FPP

conferences and meetings.

A fifth commenter recommended that the notice include an

expectation by ORR that agencies receiving FPP awards should

participate in a planning process that ensures that other service

providers, such as voluntary agencies, have input in the design of

proposed services and in a coordinated referral system once an award is

made.

[[Page 36296]]

A sixth commenter recommended that counties which administer FPP

programs be allowed 15 percent for administrative costs and that States

be allowed no more than 5 percent for administrative costs.

Response: In consideration of the comments, we have included

leadership development training as an allowable activity under the FPP

set-aside, including the costs of travel and attendance of FPP

leadership at FPP conferences and meetings. Leadership training should

focus on enabling participants to continue the activities that were

begun under this program after ORR funding ends.

Although we encourage coordination and collaboration between

service providers with regard to both planning the design of services

and coordinating referrals, we do not believe that the last year of the

FPP set-aside is an appropriate time to introduce a new requirement.

Regarding the distribution of administrative costs between county

and State, we have no specific guidance regarding this issue and

believe this is an issue that needs to be resolved between the county

and the State.

Comment: One commenter suggested that the notice be clarified to

state that social service funds may be used to provide services to

unemployed refugees who are not receiving cash assistance as long as

refugees who are receiving cash assistance are given priority for

services. The commenter suggested that States should be required to

provide services to refugees not receiving cash assistance as a way to

keep these refugees from needing to access welfare.

Response: We believe that the notice is clear that social service

funds may be used to provide services to unemployed refugees who are

not receiving cash assistance. The notice, under the section

``Population to be Served,'' states that ``[w]hile 45 CFR 400.147(b)

requires that in providing employability services, a State must give

priority to a refugee who is receiving cash assistance, social service

programs should not be limited exclusively to refugees who are cash

assistance recipients.''

As the wording indicates, States may, and are encouraged to,

provide services to unemployed refugees who are not receiving cash

assistance. However, States are not required to provide services to

such refugees. States are required only to give priority in providing

services to refugees who are receiving cash assistance.

Effective October 1, 1995, however, in keeping with provisions in

the final rule, States will be required to provide services to refugees

according to a specific order of priority. Under the new rule,

unemployed refugees who are not receiving cash assistance will be the

third priority group after new arrivals and cash assistance recipients.

Comment: One commenter suggested that the notice include, in

addition to the provision for developing a service plan for refugees

accessing ORR-funded services, a requirement that States ensure a case

management system in which the service plan's objectives are closely

monitored and coordinated within the service delivery community.

Response: We agree that case management services are important to

coordinate and monitor the objectives of a client service plan.

Therefore, we strongly encourage States to provide such services.

However, we do not believe case management services should be imposed

on States as a mandatory requirement; we believe instead that States

should have the flexibility to make their own service choices, based on

local circumstances.

Comment: One commenter observed that the notice included the

requirement that States must have an approved State plan for the Cuban/

Haitian Entrant program in order to use ORR funds to provide services

to entrants. The commenter suggested that the distinction and the

additional plan are no longer appropriate. With larger numbers of

Cubans being admitted, the commenter indicated an expectation that

Cubans will be placed in more States than was previously the case; some

of these States will have little or no tradition of receiving this

population. The commenter suggested that access to services for Cubans

and Haitians should be facilitated regardless of whether the State in

which they are placed does or does not have an approved plan.

Response: In order to provide services to Cuban and Haitian

entrants, a State must either have a separate Cuban/Haitian entrant

program State plan or indicate in its refugee program State plan that

Cuban and Haitian entrants will be served. According to our records, 34

States now have approved State plans to provide services to Cuban and

Haitian entrants. An additional three States, which are not

participating in the refugee program, have privately administered

refugee program projects which can serve Cuban and Haitian entrants.

The requirement for a plan helps to ensure both that States are

prepared to provide appropriate services to entrants and that they are

prepared for increased numbers of entrants. We believe, therefore, that

the fact that larger numbers of Cubans are being admitted makes it more

important and appropriate, not less appropriate, that States have plans

for serving this population. Finally, because 34 States have already

met the requirement for having approved State plans, we do not believe

the requirement for a State plan impedes this population's access to

services. For these reasons, we do not intend to abolish the

requirement for an approved State plan for this population.

Comment: One commenter recommended that the formula for allocating

social service funds should be more flexible in order to accommodate

unanticipated arrivals that represent an impact on the current year's

funding allocation. The commenter suggested that there should be an

automatic, formulated adjustment made to States' allocations when

arrivals in the current year greatly exceed the pattern of the previous

three years.

Response: As the notice states, the allocation formula used for

social service funds is required by the Immigration and Nationality Act

(INA). Section 412(c)(1)(B) of the INA states that social service funds

``* * * shall be allocated among the States based on the total number

of refugees (including children and adults) who arrived in the United

States not more than 36 months before the beginning of such fiscal year

and who are actually residing in each State (taking into account

secondary migration) as of the beginning of the fiscal year.'' No

change, therefore, can be made to the formula for allocating social

service funds without a statutory change.

It should also be noted that, when arrivals in a State greatly

exceed the pattern of the previous three years, the higher number of

arrivals is incorporated in the next year's formula. A State with high

numbers of unanticipated arrivals receives an allocation in the next

year that is proportionately higher than it would otherwise have been.

The formula does, therefore, accommodate, as quickly as possible within

statutory limitations, the impact of unanticipated arrivals.

Furthermore, ORR makes available discretionary grants to States to

fund social services for large numbers of unanticipated arrivals for

whom the existing social service system cannot respond adequately

because available ORR funding is already committed. This program is

intended to provide a bridge between the increased need for services

that results from increases in arrivals and the time when a State will

have incorporated services for these new arrivals into their existing

social service funded network. This program, by

[[Page 36297]]

providing funding for the types of activities generally funded by

States under their social services formula allocation, mitigates

against any adverse effect on States that the statutorily mandated

social service allocation formula might otherwise have when States

experience unanticipated arrivals or increases in arrivals to

communities where adequate services may not exist.

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

percent of social service funds for discretionary grants. One commenter

expressed opposition to the use of 15% discretionary funds to non-

impacted counties and States and recommended that these funds be

distributed by formula to impacted areas. One commenter recommended

that States should have a role in the development and selection of

projects to be funded using discretionary funds. The commenter also

suggested that there should be greater lead time allowed for the

development of proposals, that the criteria by which proposals are

evaluated should be meaningful, and that the criteria should

incorporate input from the States involved.

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

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

out national initiatives and special projects that respond to changing

needs and circumstances in the refugee program. Regarding more State

involvement in discretionary funding, since States are frequently

competitors for ORR discretionary funds, along with other applicants,

it is not possible to involve States in funding decisions without

creating a conflict of interest, a violation of Federal grant rules. We

fully agree that sufficient lead time is necessary to allow refugee

community groups adequate time to develop proposals. We are committed

to improving the process each year to allow as much lead time as

possible for potential applicants. We also agree that the use of

meaningful evaluation criteria is essential for the review of grant

applications. While we believe such evaluation criteria are already

included in our grant announcements, we would welcome specific

suggestions for evaluation criteria that States and other interested

parties may have for use in the future.

Comment: One commenter suggested that ORR reiterate in the notice

its expectation that States consider the views of local providers,

including voluntary agencies, in formulating State social service

plans.

Response: We concur with the commenter that States should consider

the views of local providers, including voluntary agencies, in

formulating State social service plans. The final rule that was

published on June 28, 1995, contains a provision that would require

States to develop annual service plans on the basis of a local

consultative process, effective October 1, 1995.

Comment: Two commenters made comments regarding State

administrative costs. One commenter objected to unlimited State

administrative costs for social services. The commenter recommended

capping administrative costs at 5 percent for any State receiving more

than $12 million in social service funds and allowing counties a

maximum of 15 percent for administrative costs. Another commenter

recommended that ORR consider ways to eliminate unnecessary

administrative costs and suggested that one approach might be to limit

the amount a State can charge for the administration of the refugee

program.

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

amount of social service funds that can be used for administrative

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

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

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

needs to be resolved between county and State, not ORR. All costs must

meet Federal grant requirements. Regarding the suggestion that ORR

consider limiting the amount a State may charge for the administration

of the refugee program in general, States are reimbursed 100%, under

current regulations, for reasonable and necessary identifiable

administrative costs of providing assistance and services in the

refugee program. Under the final rule published on June 28, 1995, ORR

will review the issue of what constitutes reasonable and allowable

administrative costs in the refugee program and, if needed, develop

guidelines defining reasonable and allowable costs in consultation with

States. We do not intend, however, to impose a cap on what a State may

charge in administrative costs.

Comment: One commenter objected to the allotment of a floor amount

of social service funds to States with small refugee populations. In

particular, the commenter suggested that States with less than 1,000

refugees should not be included in the allocation.

Response: We do not concur with the commenter's suggestion that

States with less than 1,000 refugees should not receive a funding

allocation. If we implemented this suggestion, 15 States would not

receive social service funding. Such a policy would run counter to the

Federal commitment to provide a program of assistance and services to

refugees throughout the country.

Comment: One commenter requested that the population floor for

States receiving allocations from the discretionary funds set-aside for

services to former political prisoners be lowered from 320 FPP arrivals

to 300 FPP arrivals.

Response: In response to this comment, we have decided to lower the

population floor to 300 former political prisoners. In the notice of

proposed allocations we stated that we did not intend to make FPP

allocations to States with fewer than 320 FPPs because we believed the

resulting level of funding would be insignificant. In reducing the

floor in response to this comment, however, we have taken into

consideration that the only State requesting a change in the floor

received an allocation for an FPP program in previous years. We also

took into consideration that, in a small State receiving a relatively

small social service allocation, 300 or more FPPs might have a more

significant impact on services than would be the case in a larger State

with a larger social services allocation.

III. Allocation Formula

Of the funds available for FY 1995 for social services, $68,681,700

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

A State's allowable allocation is calculated as follows:

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

available for this purpose; divided by--

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

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

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

the number of Amerasians from Vietnam eligible for refugee social

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

capita amount will be multiplied by--

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

October 1, 1994, adjusted for estimated secondary migration.

The calculation above yields the formula allocation for each State.

Minimum allocations for small States are taken into account.

Allocations for political prisoners are based on FY 1994 arrival

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

are limited to States with 300 or more political prisoner arrivals. We

have limited the population base to FY 1994 political prisoner arrival

numbers because these

[[Page 36298]]

funds are intended to serve recent arrivals. We have not included

States with fewer than 300 former political prisoners in the political

prisoner allocations formula in order to ensure that the resulting

level of funding for each State receiving funds is sufficient to

provide effective employment-oriented programs to assist FPPs. In

States with fewer than 300 FPPs, we believe the small number of

political prisoners could be adequately served under the State's

refugee social services program.

IV. Basis of Population Estimates

The population estimates for the allocation of funds in FY 1995 are

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

adjusted as of October 1, 1994, for estimated secondary migration. The

data base includes refugees of all nationalities, Amerasians from

Vietnam, and Cuban and Haitian entrants.

For fiscal year 1995, ORR's formula allocations for the States for

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

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

during the preceding three fiscal years: 1992, 1993, and 1994, based on

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

of the numbers of refugees and entrants with arrival or resettlement

dates between October 1, 1991, and September 30, 1994, who are thought

to be living in each State as of October 1, 1994. Refugees admitted

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

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

private sponsoring organizations under an agreement with the Department

of State.

The estimates of secondary migration were based on data submitted

by all participating States on Form ORR-11 on secondary migrants who

have resided in the U.S. for 36 months or less, as of September 30,

1994. The total migration reported by each State was summed, yielding

in- and out-migration figures and a net migration figure for each

State. The net migration figure was applied to the State's total

arrival figure, resulting in a revised population estimate.

Estimates were developed separately for refugees and entrants and

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

for each State. Eligible Amerasians are included in the refugee

figures.

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

October 1, 1994, of refugees (col. 1), entrants (col. 2), and total

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

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

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

number of former political prisoner arrivals in FY 1994 (col. 6); and

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

V. Allocation Amounts

Funding subsequent to the publication of this notice will be

contingent upon the submittal and approval of a State annual services

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

allocated for refugee social services in FY 1995:

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

for FY 1995; and Former Political Prisoner Arrivals and Allocations for FY 1995.

Former

political Former

Total Formula prisoner political

State Refugees Entrants population amount Allocation arrivals prisoner

from Vietnam allocation

in FY 1994

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

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

Alabama............................................... 746 22 768 $133,380 $133,380 18 $0

Alaska a.............................................. 143 1 144 25,009 75,000 23 0

Arizona............................................... 3,692 158 3,850 668,638 668,638 292 0

Arkansas.............................................. 303 1 304 52,796 94,113 84 0

California b.......................................... 89,172 692 89,864 15,606,873 15,606,873 11,760 871,014

Colorado.............................................. 3,874 3 3,877 673,327 673,327 360 26,664

Connecticut........................................... 3,348 131 3,479 604,205 604,205 158 0

Delaware.............................................. 132 12 144 25,009 75,000 5 0

Dist. of Columbia..................................... 1,874 3 1,877 325,983 325,983 274 0

Florida............................................... 12,686 26,102 38,788 6,736,395 6,736,395 651 48,217

Georgia............................................... 9,366 85 9,451 1,641,375 1,641,375 1,768 130,948

Hawaii................................................ 956 0 956 166,031 166,031 175 0

Idaho................................................. 998 4 1,002 174,019 174,019 87 0

Illinois.............................................. 13,534 141 13,675 2,374,967 2,374,967 522 38,662

Indiana............................................... 1,137 12 1,149 199,549 199,549 55 0

Iowa.................................................. 3,120 2 3,122 542,204 542,204 315 23,331

Kansas................................................ 2,240 4 2,244 389,720 389,720 355 26,293

Kentucky c............................................ 1,890 28 1,918 333,103 333,103 202 0

Louisiana............................................. 2,276 110 2,386 414,382 414,382 451 33,404

Maine................................................. 574 0 574 99,688 100,000 0 0

Maryland.............................................. 7,988 81 8,069 1,401,361 1,401,361 347 25,701

Massachusetts......................................... 11,413 357 11,770 2,044,121 2,044,121 780 57,771

Michigan.............................................. 7,766 39 7,805 1,355,511 1,355,511 332 24,590

Minnesota............................................. 9,490 2 9,492 1,648,496 1,648,496 464 34,367

Mississippi........................................... 128 8 136 23,619 75,000 38 0

Missouri.............................................. 5,278 18 5,296 919,768 919,768 371 27,478

Montana............................................... 154 0 154 26,746 75,000 3 0

Nebraska.............................................. 1,880 0 1,880 326,504 326,504 354 26,219

Nevada c.............................................. 703 470 1,173 203,717 203,717 9 0

New Hampshire......................................... 579 0 579 100,556 100,556 197 0

New Jersey............................................ 7,357 761 8,118 1,409,870 1,409,870 266 0

[[Page 36299]]

New Mexico............................................ 1,143 604 1,747 303,405 303,405 95 0

New York.............................................. 70,088 1,010 71,098 12,347,742 12,347,742 534 39,551

North Carolina........................................ 3,051 23 3,074 533,868 533,868 314 23,257

North Dakota.......................................... 1,150 0 1,150 199,723 199,723 26 0

Ohio.................................................. 6,035 46 6,081 1,056,100 1,056,100 179 0

Oklahoma.............................................. 1,379 3 1,382 240,015 240,015 348 25,775

Oregon................................................ 5,831 91 5,922 1,028,486 1,028,486 783 57,994

Pennsylvania.......................................... 11,016 100 11,116 1,930,540 1,930,540 360 26,664

Rhode Island.......................................... 934 11 945 164,120 164,120 12 0

South Carolina........................................ 488 2 490 85,099 100,000 113 0

South Dakota.......................................... 765 0 765 132,859 132,859 8 0

Tennessee............................................. 3,395 32 3,427 595,174 595,174 262 0

Texas................................................. 17,519 523 18,042 3,133,393 3,133,393 3,248 240,566

Utah.................................................. 1,609 0 1,609 279,438 279,438 220 0

Vermont............................................... 733 0 733 127,302 127,302 73 0

Virginia.............................................. 6,056 32 6,088 1,057,316 1,057,316 676 50,068

Washington............................................ 19,424 1 19,425 3,373,581 3,373,581 1,910 141,466

West Virginia......................................... 63 0 63 10,941 75,000 0 0

Wisconsin............................................. 5,986 5 5,991 1,040,470 1,040,470 20 0

Wyoming............................................... 6 0 6 1,042 75,000 0 0

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

Total........................................... 361,468 31,730 393,198 $68,287,536 $68,681,700 29,897 $2,000,000

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

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

c The allocation for Kentucky and Nevada is expected to be awarded to continue a Wilson/Fish project.

VI. Paperwork Reduction Act

This notice does not create any reporting or recordkeeping

requirements requiring OMB clearance.

[Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 93.566 Refugee

Assistance--State Administered Programs]

Dated: July 5, 1995.

Lavinia Limon,

Director, Office of Refugee Resettlement.

[FR Doc. 95-17338 Filed 7-13-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4184-01-P